Q.Evaluate the following limit:
[!FORMULA]
limx→∞(1+xk)m/x
Concept understanding — Standard Limits
A Toolkit of Named Limits
Some limits recur so often across problems that it is worth memorising their values outright, along with the one theorem that proves the trickiest of them: the Sandwich (Squeeze) Theorem.
The Sandwich Theorem
Theorem 9.5. If g(x)≤f(x)≤h(x) for all x near x0 (except possibly at x0 itself), and if
limx→x0g(x)=limx→x0h(x)=l,
then limx→x0f(x)=l too — f is "squeezed" between two functions that agree in the limit, so it has no room to do anything else.
Illustration: to show x→0limx2sinx21=0, note that sin(⋅) is always between −1 and 1, so −x2≤x2sinx21≤x2. Since both −x2 and x2 tend to 0 as x→0, the Sandwich Theorem forces the middle expression to 0 as well — even though limx→0sinx21 on its own does not exist (it oscillates wildly), so the product rule alone could never have been applied directly.
This is exactly why the Sandwich Theorem is indispensable rather than a curiosity: whenever one factor oscillates without a limit but is bounded, and the other factor is squeezed to zero, the ordinary product law (Concept 2) is not applicable — you need the sandwich.
The two flagship trigonometric limits
Result 9.1.
(a)limθ→0θsinθ=1(b)limθ→0θ1−cosθ=0
Part (a) is proved geometrically by sandwiching θsinθ between cosθ and 1 using the areas of a triangle, a sector, and a larger triangle built on the unit circle; since both bounding functions tend to 1 as θ→0, so must θsinθ. Part (b) follows algebraically from (a) by writing 1−cosθ=2sin22θ and splitting the quotient into a sin-over-argument piece (which uses part (a)) times a factor that vanishes.
A direct corollary worth keeping separate: x→0limsinx=0, obtained from the sandwich −∣x∣≤sinx≤∣x∣.
The full standard-limit toolkit (§9.2.10)
Alongside the trig pair above, these are worth having on instant recall — none require anything beyond algebra and substitution to use (their proofs, where given, lean on the exponential/log relationship or on the trig pair):
limx→0xex−1=1limx→0xax−1=loga (a>0)limx→0xlog(1+x)=1
limx→0xsin−1x=1limx→0xtan−1x=1
And the three equivalent forms of the number e as a limit:
limx→∞(1+x1)x=elimx→0(1+x)1/x=elimx→∞(1+xk)x=ek
e is a transcendental number — it never satisfies any polynomial equation with rational coefficients. That's part of why it shows up as a genuinely new limiting constant here rather than something expressible in simpler closed form.
The recognise-and-substitute pattern
Nearly every "hard-looking" limit in this section is really one of the above standard forms in disguise, reached via a clean substitution y=(some expression in x) chosen so that y→0 (or y→∞) exactly when x does. The book's worked examples all follow this shape:
- Spot the shell. Identify which standard form the expression resembles — a (1+□)1/□ shape signals e; a □sin(□) shape signals Result 9.1(a); a □a□−1 shape signals Result 9.3.
- Substitute y for the "□" so the expression matches the standard form exactly, tracking what y→ as x→x0.
- Apply the standard limit to the y-expression, then (if the exponent or coefficient outside doesn't vanish) combine using the power/product rules from Concept 2.
Fresh illustration: x→0lim(1+3x)2/x. Write (1+3x)2/x=[(1+3x)1/3x]6. As x→0, let y=3x→0, so the inner bracket →e by the standard form (1+y)1/y→e. Hence the whole limit is e6.
A second flavour — a compound quotient of trig limits: x→0limsinβxsinαx=x→0lim(αxsinαx⋅βα⋅sinβxβx)=1⋅βα⋅1=βα — each piece separately matched to Result 9.1(a) via its own substitution.
When a limit mixes several standard forms multiplicatively (e.g. a sin-quotient times an exponential-quotient), split it into a product of separate limits first (valid whenever each piece's limit exists, by the product law in Concept 2), match each piece to its own standard form independently, then multiply the results.
These standard limits are only valid in the exact →0 (or →∞) shell shown. θsinθ→1 is true only as θ→0 — plugging in a θ that merely looks small, or forgetting to substitute so that the "argument" and the "denominator" are identical, is the single most common error in applying this toolkit.
Topics like "standard limits formula list class 11" and "sandwich theorem important questions" are commonly searched by students covering the Limits and Derivatives chapter of the NCERT-aligned CBSE Class 11 Mathematics syllabus, since this toolkit of named limits is tested every year in board exams and forms the backbone of limit-evaluation questions in JEE Main and JEE Advanced. Memorising the trigonometric, exponential and e-related limits together, rather than in isolation, is what makes the "recognise-and-substitute" technique fast under exam time pressure.
As x→∞ the base 1+xk→1 and the exponent xm→0 (not ∞) — so this is a plain continuity limit, not the ek form.
1
Step 1. Check which limit form applies. The ek standard limit limx→∞(1+k/x)x=ek needs the exponent to diverge. Here the exponent is m/x, which →0 as x→∞ — so this is not that form, even though it looks similar.
Step 2. Evaluate directly. As x→∞: base 1+xk→1+0=1, and exponent xm→0. The function ts is continuous at (t,s)=(1,0) with value 10=1, so
limx→∞(1+xk)m/x=10=1.
Step 3. Conclusion. No standard 1∞ reduction is needed here — the limit is trivial by continuity.
x→∞lim(1+xk)m/x=1
Direct evaluation by continuity (NOT the ek formula), since the exponent m/x→0 rather than ∞
- Misapplying lim(1+k/x)mx→ekm to this different exponent m/x
- Assuming every (1+small)(⋅) expression is automatically an ek form
🎓Unlock everything free for 14 days
- ✓Full step-by-step solutions
- ✓Concept-first explanations
- ✓Methods, shortcuts & mistakes
- ✓PYQ mapping + timed mock tests
Full access for 14 days. No credit card required.