Nice explanation sir.Sir f(x) would have the same graph as g(x) except it wouldn't have the gap means f(x) is defined at the point but f(x) is also not defined at -1 Am I right?
The function g(x) wasn't defined when x approaches -1 but f(x) was. So for people to get understanding of what is happening with g(x), he conceived the idea of f(x) when x approaches -1.
Evaluating a limit at a particular value, requires that the function should be continuous at that value, because the limit at that value would be equal the value of the function for that x value. When the original function g(x) was rationalised, it wasn't equivalent to the original function until the constraint of x != 1 was explicitly stated. The thing is, normally, the function is continuous at the value of -1. So, to actively calculate the limit at -1, an *equivalent function f(x) had to be defined, with the constraint of g(x) removed. Because they are equivalent, the limit of f(x) = g(x).
Thank you so much, I have a test tomorrow and this helped me out with 3 problems on the study guide. Thanks again...
8:14 minus 1 thats 3 quick maths
Alex Lapsley lmfao
Omg this is super helpful!! Thank you so much!!
“So hopefully this graph helps you a little bit… err.. or if it confuses you, ignore it-“ *_ENDS VIDEO_*
Thank you! Explanation is just wow
Thanks a lot it was very helpful ❤️
Bro nailed it
this will definitely help me on Wednesday's test
Nice explanation sir.Sir f(x) would have the same graph as g(x) except it wouldn't have the gap means f(x) is defined at the point but f(x) is also not defined at -1 Am I right?
Ikr, what’s the whole point of a new function f(x) when u could just substitute -1 in g(x) directly and get the solution
Great job 👏
very informative
Woah that last part made it click! Thanks
Thank you so much
Isn't also x < -5 the value of the square root not defined? Or at least graph-able?
please try to not skip steps
At 3:46, why do you have to use +2 instead of using -2?
nice video
why do we only consider the principle root of 4 at 8:10 ?
cuz g(x) is function
and so that g(x) could only have 1 output at a given point.
by the definition of functions.
why do you say that you cant use g(x) to find x->-1 when it is the same function as f(x). The way you described that is a little confusing
The function g(x) wasn't defined when x approaches -1 but f(x) was. So for people to get understanding of what is happening with g(x), he conceived the idea of f(x) when x approaches -1.
Evaluating a limit at a particular value, requires that the function should be continuous at that value, because the limit at that value would be equal the value of the function for that x value.
When the original function g(x) was rationalised, it wasn't equivalent to the original function until the constraint of x != 1 was explicitly stated.
The thing is, normally, the function is continuous at the value of -1. So, to actively calculate the limit at -1, an *equivalent function f(x) had to be defined, with the constraint of g(x) removed.
Because they are equivalent, the limit of f(x) = g(x).
"if it confuses you ignore it", that was the plan lol
My spider senses say I don't understand it
Hella clever
Hi
even after studying I failed 💀, time to work ff 🍔
the answer in the end is completely wrong. because u plugged in positive 1 instead of -1 which wouldve resulted in a non real number.
??? no he didnt lil bro
I hate rationalizing man im not that good at math😢
But i want to be better