Evaluate
or show that it does not exist.
Recall what the limit would have to mean. Saying requires that for every tolerance there is an beyond which for all . So a single misbehaving sequence of large values is enough to destroy the claim.
Note that boundedness is not enough. The function satisfies for every , so it never runs off to infinity. But being bounded does not imply convergence — a bounded function can oscillate forever, and that is exactly what happens here.
Exhibit two subsequences with different limits. Take
Both and as , yet the function values sit permanently at and at .
Conclude that no limit exists. If the limit were some number , then every sequence tending to infinity would have to give function values tending to . Here one gives and another gives , and , so no such exists:
Distinguish this from limits that "equal infinity". A limit can fail in two different ways: by growing without bound (as for ) or by oscillating (as here). Only the second applies to . Note also that a damped version does converge — by the squeeze theorem, since — so it is the unbounded oscillation of the argument, not the sine itself, that causes the failure.
Need to solve a different problem like this? Open the solver →