Evaluate
or explain why the limit fails to exist.
Substitute before choosing a technique. The shape usually signals "rationalise the numerator", but that is only correct when the numerator actually vanishes. Check it:
and the denominator is . So the form is , not .
See why the usual conjugate trick fails here. Multiplying by gives numerator , so
At the new numerator is ; the factor is still alone in the denominator. Nothing cancels, which is exactly what a genuine looks like. (A common slip is to "factor" as — but , not .)
Take the two one-sided limits. Near the numerator is close to , so the sign of the quotient is the opposite of the sign of :
Confirm numerically. At the quotient is about ; at it is about . The two sides run off in opposite directions.
State the conclusion. Because the one-sided limits disagree (and are not even finite), the two-sided limit does not exist; the line is a vertical asymptote of this function. The general rule worth keeping: only is indeterminate — a nonzero number over zero is always an infinite or non-existent limit, never a finite value.
Need to solve a different problem like this? Open the solver →