Clearly they are wrong. That happens.By my understanding this function very much has vertical asymptotes as ln can never equal zero.
So why does the solution manual say this function doesn't have vertical asymptote.
View attachment 34729
View attachment 34730
From my understanding, holes are the removable discontinuity of the function.By my understanding this function very much has vertical asymptotes as ln can never equal zero.
So why does the solution manual say this function doesn't have vertical asymptote.
View attachment 34729
View attachment 34730
If you think that those limits equal 0, then what is the problem? 0 is a well defined value. The graphs (based on you thinking that the limits are 0) should NOT have a hole in it. The y-value, when x= +/- 5, is 0.By my understanding this function very much has vertical asymptotes as ln can never equal zero.
So why does the solution manual say this function doesn't have vertical asymptote.
View attachment 34729
From what calculus textbook is that from?By my understanding this function very much has vertical asymptotes as ln can never equal zero.
So why does the solution manual say this function doesn't have vertical asymptote.
View attachment 34729
View attachment 34730
LarsonFrom what calculus textbook is that from?
Feels good to find errors. Like really good.Clearly they are wrong. That happens.
The two limits are [imath]-\infty[/imath], not 0. (And they are one-sided limits.)
I don't know what they were thinking; those certainly are not holes!
By my understanding this function very much has vertical asymptotes as ln can never equal zero.
So why does the solution manual say this function doesn't have vertical asymptote.