Calculus BC for Dummies

Joonho Ko
October 1, 2015

Contents
1 Introduction

2 Limits
2.1 Informal definition . . . . .
2.2 Epsilon-delta definition . . .
2.3 Continuity . . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Limits with infinity . . . . .
2.5 Intermediate Value Theorem

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

2
2
4
5
8
10

3 Derivatives
10
3.1 The difference quotient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Introduction

This mini-book is a conversion of the Calculus BC for Dummies book that

I created on a Pages document for the 2014-2015 year in Colapintos BC
class. Although Im not fluent in LATEX whatsoever, I believe that this second
edition is necessary for several reasons. Firstly, there are many essential
topics that were not required for the project that I feel obligated to discuss
here. Second, LATEX allows me to format the actual mathematics in a more
compact, modern fashion. (For the original project I literally entered LATEX
code into a box and copy-pasted every single picture that was generated onto
the word document. It was pretty painful.) The only downside to this edition
is that there will be close to zero actual graphs or illustrations; such is the
downfall of such a programming language. I can make tables when needed,
but for some topics, especially limits and curve sketching, the best I can do
is give an analytic idea of what Im trying to talk about. The visual intuition
is best found elsewhere; the Internet has many resources available to you.
Im not very good with introductions either; Id rather get right into the
math. I hope you find this helpful and as enjoyable as it was for me to write
it.

2
2.1

Limits
Informal definition

Given a function f (x), the limit of that function as x approaches some

constant c is informally the height of the function at x = c.
Intuitively, you could look at a graph of a function, say, f (x) = x2 and
say that the limit of f (x) as x approaches 2 is 4, because the height of the
graph y = x2 when x equals 2 is obviously 4. Similarly, for the polynomial
function
f (x) = 3x2 4x + 7,
the limit as x approaches 1 would be equivalent to finding the height of
the function at 1, which is simply f (1):
f (1) = 3(1)2 4(1) + 7
= 3 + 4 + 7
= 8.
The limit L of a function f (x) as x approaches c can be expressed mathematically as
lim f (x) = L.
xc

It turns out that if f (x) is any polynomial,

lim f (x) = f (c).

xc

Example. Find the limit

lim x3 x.

x3

Since f (x) = x3 x is clearly a polynomial, we can evaluate this limit through

direct substitution. Evaluating f (3) gives
f (3) = (3)3 (3)
= 27 3
= 24.
But what if the function is not a polynomial? What if direct substitution
leads to an answer that is not defined? Consider the limit for the rational
function
x2 x 2
lim f (x) =
.
x2
x2
Direct substitution of x = 2 results in
(2)2 (2) 2
(2) 2
0
=
.
0

f (2) =

The fraction 0/0 is what we call an indeterminate form. Other examples

of indeterminate forms include / and 0, but 0/0 is the most common.
In the case where substitution does not work, our next line of attack is to
attempt factoring either the numerator, the denominator, or both to see if
there are terms that can be canceled out. Fortunately, we can:
(x 2)(x + 1)
x2 x 2
= lim
x2
x2
x2
(x 2)
(x + 1)
= lim
.
x2
1
lim

Now that the rational function has been reduced to a polynomial equation,
we can now directly substitute x = 2:
lim x + 1 = (2) + 1 = 3.

x2

Normally, I would visually show here the significance of the 0/0 indeterminate
form as a hole in the function f (x) = x + 1 at the point (2, 3), but I dont
know enough LATEX for that yet.
3

However, recall from precalculus that if a rational function has the same
value xo for a root as well as a vertical asymptote, there is a hole in that
function at the point (xo , f (xo )). The same logic is used here, and only drives
home the point further that the limit can be informally thought of as the
height of the function, even at holes.

2.2

Epsilon-delta definition

There is another way to evaluate limits, which will become our preferred way
of thinking about them. But first, we should go over the most epsilon-delta
definition of a limit, the most formal definition that is perhaps not essential
for the BC course but good to know.
Definition 2.1 (Epsilon-delta definition of a limit). If f : D R is a
function defined on a subset D R, c is in D, and L is a real number, then
the limit L as x approaches c of f is defined to mean for all  > 0, there exists
a > 0 such that for all x in D that satisfy 0 < |x c| < , the inequality
|f (x) L| <  holds.
This very formal definition will not be used for the rest of the chapter, but
Id like to do one example using  and so you have a sense for how you
would use the definition to prove limits.
Example 2.1. Prove the statement that
lim 2x + 2 = 12.

x5

Mathematically, we want to show that

0 < |x 5| < |(2x + 2) 12| < ,
taken straight from the definition. We can simplify |(2x +2) 12| to |2x 10|
and now divide this result by 2: |x5| < /2. Conveniently, if we let = /2,
we get |x 5| < , which is the left hand side of our implication. (We can
make this substitution because ,  > 0.) Thus the limit is proved.
The informal (and more easily stomached) version of the epsilon-delta
definition is that a limit is the value of f (x) as x gets infinitely close to c,
but does not actually equal c. For example, we could express the limit as x
approaches 2 in our previous example where
x2 x 2
f (x) =
x2
by evaluating f (1.9), f (1.99), and f (1.999) from the left hand side and f (2.1), f (2.01),
and f (2.001) from the right hand side.
4

x
1.9 1.99 1.999 2
f (x) 2.9 2.99 2.999 UD

2.001 2.01 2.1

3.001 3.01 3.1

Its clear that f (x) is approaching 3 as we get infinitely close to x = 3 on

both sides. Even though in actuality f (3) does not exist, the limit at 3 does
exist because everything in the neighborhood of x = 3 implies that f (3) will
equal 3 had there been no hole.
It is also essential to realize that in order for a limit to exist, the function
must approach the same value from the left of c and the right of c. We denote
the limit of f (x) as x approaches c from the negative and positive side as
lim f (x) and lim+ f (x),

xc

xc

respectively. It follows now that for an entire limit to exist,

lim f (x) = lim+ f (x).

xc

2.3

xc

Continuity

There are three conditions that must be met for a function f (x) to be continuous.
1. The limit of f (x) at c must exist.
2. f (c) must exist.
3. The limit of f (x) at c must equal f (c).
If these conditions are met for all real numbers (for all x R), then we
say that the entire function is continuous. If these conditions are met for all
c [a, b], then we say that the function is continuous over the interval [a, b].
Informally, a function is continuous if you can draw the function on a piece
of paper without picking up your pen or pencil. This effectively disqualifies
functions with holes, jumps, and asymptotes as continuous. However, functions containing sharp points or cusps are considered continuous.
When the AP exam asks you to prove whether or not a function is continuous, you simply go down the list of requirements. First check if f (c) exists
as its the easiest thing to check. If any of the requirements for continuity
are not met, you have effectively proved that the function is not continuous
and can stop there. However, to prove that a function is continuous, you
must prove that all three requirements are met.

Example 2.2. Is the function

x2 x 2
f (x) =
x2
continuous over R? Justify your answer.
It turns out that our function is continuous for all x R except when x = 2
because as weve already learned, there is a hole at (2, 3). To prove this fact,
we only need to show that f (2) does not exist (which was done in Section
2.1).
Example 2.3. Find the value of k that makes the following piecewise function continuous.
(
sin(x), x 2;
f (x) =
2 + k, x > 2.
Its not hard to see that the functions f (x) = sin x and f (x) = 2 + k will be
continuous on their own, so the point of interest here is when x = 2. First
check to see if f (2) exists. Clearly, f (2) = sin 2 = 0. Since f (x) = sin x
and f (x) = 2 + k are continuous functions, it follows that
lim sin x = 0 and lim 2 + k = 2 + k

x2

x2

through direct substitution. Now for the limit of f (x) to exist,

lim f (x) = lim+ f (x),

x2

x2

so
0 = 2 + k
k = 2
k = 2.
Note that we did not need to use the third requirement for continuity to find
k.
Unfortunately, I will have to defer you to other sources online regarding
graphical evaluation of limits. Typing in a similar phrase will probably give
you the information you need for a test. That being said, the analytic and
algebraic treatment covered here translates well enough with the informal
definitions of limits and continuity such that you will probably get graphical
questions correct through intuition anyway.
Here are several limit problems, ranging from piece of cake to hellish
difficulty. Trigonometric limits will be covered with lHopitals Rule.
6

Example 2.4. Evaluate the limit

x+1
.
x1 x2 + 3x + 2
lim

Its clear that evaluating f (1) here will lead to an indeterminate form.
However, there is potential in the denominator, which looks like it can be
factored into
x+1
.
lim
x1 (x + 1)(x + 2)
Now we can cancel the (x + 1) terms and use direct substitution:
1
1
=
x1 x + 2
(1) + 2
= 1.
lim

Example 2.5. Evaluate the limit

x2
.
lim
x+73

x2

Unfortunately, direct substitution fails here and theres nothing to factor. In

this case we should multiply both the numerator and the denominator by the
conjugate:

(x 2)( x + 7 + 3)

lim
x2 ( x + 7 3)( x + 7 + 3)

(x 2)( x + 7 + 3)
lim
x2
x+79

(x 2)( x + 7 + 3)
lim
x2
x2

lim x + 7 + 3
x2

(2) + 7 + 3 = 6.

Example 2.6. Evaluate the limit

lim

x2

1
x+3

51
.
x2

In this case where there is not even a conjugate to work with, sometimes
multiplying both the numerator and denominator by a least common multiple

can simplify the complex fraction into a function where we can use direct
substitution. Multiplying by the LCM 5(x + 3) gives us
5
x+3
5(x+3)
5(x+3)
.
5(x2)(x+3)
x2
5(x+3)

lim

We can now eliminate all the second-tier denominators from the function,
which gives us
5 (x + 3)
lim
x2 5(x 2)(x + 3)
(2 x)
x2 5(x + 3)(x 2)
lim

1
.
x2 5(x + 3)
lim

We have finally reduced our function to a form where we can use direct
substitution. Our final answer is
1
1
= .
5((2) + 3)
25
In summary, the method of algebraically evaluating limits can be broken
down as follows:
1. Try direct substitution.
2. Factor.
3. Multiply both halves of the fraction by a conjugate.
4. Multiply both halves of the fraction by a least common multiple such
that the numerator and the denominator share a second-tier common
denominator.
5. If all else fails and you have a graphing calculator, enter f (x) in Y1
and evaluate values of f (x) very close to c on both sides. (VARS
Y-VARS Function... Y1 (x))

2.4

Limits with infinity

What if were asked to evaluate a limit as x approaches positive or negative

infinity? There are several guidelines you should follow. Note that these
guidelines should be applied to rational functions onlyit is expected that
8

you can use common sense to evaluate infinity limits for other functions such
as polynomials or exponentials. It is also expected that you can differentiate
between positive and negative infinity when working out actual problems
when I write infinity I mean either positive or negative infinity. Determining
the sign is up to you.
1. If the highest power in the numerator is greater than the highest power
in the denominator, the limit tends to infinity.
2. If the highest power in the numerator is less than the highest power in
the denominator, the limit is zero.
3. If the highest power in the numerator is equal to the highest power in
the denominator, the limit is the ratio of the coefficients between the
numerator and the denominators highest power term.
Why are these guidelines true? Infinity is less of a number than an awesome
concept. Think of the biggest number you can think of; infinity represents a
value far greater than that. Thus, when evaluating rational functions when
x goes to infinity, the terms with smaller powers become irrelevant because
those terms contribute to the value of the function far lesser than the largest
power term as x gets larger. In fact, at infinity, the contribution of the
smaller power terms are exactly zero! Thus they must go away.
Example 2.7. Evaluate the limit
100x2 + 999
.
x+
x3
No matter how impressive the numerator looks, the highest power in the
numerator is only 2, which is less than the power of 3 in the denominator.
Since the denominator grows much faster than the numerator as x gets larger,
the limit tends to 0 at infinity. Note: If instead x approached , the
answer would still be 0, as it is signless. However, you should always be
careful with signs, as negative numbers subjected to even powers become
positive and negative numbers subjected to odd powers stay negative.
lim

Example 2.8. Evaluate the limit

lim

x+

7x4 + 3x3
.
2x2 9

Dont
power in the numerator
be fooled! The answer is not ! The
highest
2
4
is 7x , which is another way of saying 7x . Now we see that the powers
in the numerator and denominator
are equal! Thus the limit is simply the

ratio of their coefficients, or 7/2.

9

2.5

Intermediate Value Theorem

The Intermediate Value Theorem uses the prerequisite of a continuous

function to guarantee the existence of points x = c such that f (c) lies within
a given interval.
Theorem 2.1 (Intermediate Value Theorem). Consider an interval [a, b]
and a function f : [a, b] R. If there exists some k such that f (a) < k <
f (b), then there exists some c [a, b] such that f (c) = k.
Corollary 2.1.1 (Bolzanos Theorem). If a continuous function has values
of opposite signs inside an interval, then a root of that function exists in that
interval (let k = 0).
Typically in academic math papers or textbooks, theorems must always
come with proofs. However, for the welfare of my sanity and yours, and since
this isnt meant to be a serious work, I will almost never include the proofs
(though they are easily accessible online).
Example 2.9. Show that f (x) = 2x3 5x2 10x + 5 has a root somewhere
in the interval [1, 2].
To prove that there is a point x = c such that f (c) = 0 within [1, 2], we
must first evaluate f (1) and f (2). Doing so, we get f (1) = 2(1)3
5(1)2 10(1) + 5 = 8 and f (2) = 2(2)3 5(2)2 10(2) + 5 = 19. Since
f (x) is continuous over R and 8 > 0 > 19, we can conclude that by the
IVT, there is a c such that f (c) = 0 and therefore a root for f (x).

3
3.1

Derivatives
The difference quotient

Now that we have a firm grasp of limits, we can define one of two major
operations in single-variable calculus: the derivative. The derivative is
essentially the instantaneous rate of change. It can be defined as a function
f 0 (x) or the slope f 0 (a) of a tangent line to a point on the function f (x).
Slopes of straight lines are relatively simple to compute. But how can we
find the slopes of curves? The answer originates from the traditional notion
of slope (with a twist). Recall the classic formula for slope:
m=

y2 y1
y
.
=
x
x2 x1

10

Now consider any function f (x), preferably a polynomial so you can visualize
it better. We define the point (x1 , y1 ) as the point (xo , f (xo )), where xo is an
arbitrary point x = xo .
Now consider the point (x2 , y2 ) defined (xo + h, f (xo + h)), where h is the
horizontal distance between the points xo and xo + h on the x-axis. We now
have two arbitrary but distinct, well-defined points on f (x) and can calculate
the slope between these two points:
y2 y1
x2 x1
f (xo + h) f (xo )
=
xo + h xo
f (xo + h) f (xo )
=
.
h

m =

This formula for the slope of the secant line, also known as the difference
quotient, is another way of saying average rate of change. In a pinch,
it is a good approximation of the derivative, but it is far from exact (unless,
of course, our function happens to be a straight line). The reality is that
most functions are curved, and we prefer the slope of the tangent line at
(xo , f (xo )) instead. Do you see how this can be done?
If you said that we could take the limit as h approaches zero of the
difference quotient, you would be exactly right! As we decrease the value
of h, its clear that our two arbitrary points are moving closer and closer
together, resulting in better approximations of the actual slope at (xo , f (xo )).
If h is zero, the distance between the two points are zero; in other words, they
are the same point. Since actually treating the two points as the same point
does not help (because of the zero that appears in the denominator), we take
the limit instead. If we want to find the derivative of an entire function, we
should consider all x R, so we can change the xo to just x and get
f (x + h) f (x)
h0
h
lim

as our formal definition of the derivative, or instantaneous rate of change.

Now is an appropriate time to give the various valid notations for a derivative. The simplest notation comes from Lagrange; given a function f (x), the
derivative of f (x) can be expressed as f 0 (x). This notation is beneficial because expressing the derivative evaluated at a point a is simply f 0 (a). It is
also easy to denote higher-order derivatives; for example, the second derivative is simply f 00 (x) and the n-th derivative is f (n) (x).

11

Another widely used notation is Leibnizs notation; here the derivative of

f (x) is denoted
d
dy
f (x) or
,
dx
dx
d
where dx
is considered as a derivative operator. The advantage to Leibnizs
notation is that future concepts such as the chain rule or differentials make
d
as a separable fraction.
more intuitive sense, since we can often treat dx
However, the only downside is that notations for higher-order derivatives
can get somewhat messy. For example, the second-order derivative and n-th
order derivative are denoted
d2 y
dn y
and n ,
dx2
dx
respectively.
Lets go back to our formula for the derivative derived from the difference
quotient. The process of finding a derivative for a function is called differentiation. This process can be done the long way using the difference
quotient and finding the limit; the more common way is to generalize results
found from the difference quotient into rules that speed up the process of
differentiation immensely. If that confused you, here are a few examples of
doing it the long way.

12