Talk:L'Hôpital's rule/Archive 2

l'Hospital's rule for multivariable functions
I have written a paper on l'Hopital's rule for multivariable functions. It can be found on the arXiv at [1209.0363] A L'hospital's rule for multivariable functions - arXiv 128.187.97.23 (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)Gary R. Lawlor, Brigham Young University

Adding the part about circular reasoning
The passage I just added under Complications used to be its own section called Logical circularity. If I read correctly, the reason for removal was that there was no fallacy in using l'H^opital's rule itself. The mistake occurs when one fails to remember how the derivative is defined. While this is true, the mistake is very common and the article on l'H^opital's rule is by far the most "on topic" place for it to be mentioned. Articles about completely sound theorems are still allowed to warn people about common pitfalls when applying those theorems. Connor Behan (talk) 06:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Alternative spelling
Our page Guillaume de l'Hôpital describes l'Hospital as an alternative spelling and explains why in footnote 1. Tkuvho (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Differing requirements
The initial statement of the conditions for application of the rule state that the limit of f must be equal to the limit of g, but the second statement requires only that they be equal in absolute value. This should be clarified. 131.216.144.167 (talk) 20:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

changes reverted in geometric interpretation section
My changes were reverted without explanation. The article has an error. It is talking about a curve parameterized as [f(t),g(t)], and the goal is to find the ratio of f(t)/g(t) at t=c where both f(c)=g(c)=0. Clearly the point of interest is [f(c),g(c)]=[0,0], not [c,0] as mentioned in the text. The point where f(t)=c has no meaning and may not even exist. I will fix the article, please explain here if you want to revert again. Achoo5000 (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, makes sense. This is an easy oversight to make. —Quondum 19:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right. My bad. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

1^&infin;
An editor keeps removing this example, claiming it is not an indeterminate form. This is clearly wrong. A very standard and important example is the limit $$e=\lim_{x\to 0} (1+x)^{1/x}$$.  S ławomir Biały  14:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sławomir, as I already tried to tell you by e-mail, you are confused, 1^&infin; is not an indeterminate form. See the main article on this subject. Try to suggest your change there and you will see how much pushback you generate... Please be reasonable and stop reverting my edits. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 15:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * See the cited source in the article, and the standard example I just gave. The article you referred to does contain this (and even had in in the lead until it was removed a few days ago.  I reverted that edit as well.) I reverted your bold edit.  Now you need to build consensus for it.  See WP:BRD.  S ławomir  Biały  15:24, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are correct, I take back what I said. J.P. Martin-Flatin (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Isn't L'hospital's Rule
I always thought this was L'Hopital's Rule. L'HoSpital's rule is "no visitors after 8pm"

No, actually it turns out that in the history of mathematics, anyone that argues against L'hospital's rule will be physically challenged to a fight and will always lose. Thus the challenge that if f(x) = 0 and g(x) = 0 and g'(x) exists, that lim f(x)/g(x) = lim f'(x)/g'(x) and if you disagree with me I'll put you in the hospital. All of the "proofs" you see are just post hoc rationalizations because nobody wants to get their butt kicked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.216.121.205 (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2016 (UTC) xgxf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.119.203.18 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)