My head hurts LOL

I never meant for "x" to be a variable, and I said it in my original post answering his fake proof. I thought I made it clear that "x" was a constant. Sorry for the confusion, but I definitely do know what I'm talking about, as it seems you do. We're just on two different subjects.

The whole problem with his fake proof was that "x" was being treated as a variable, which it shouldn't be. You see that, right?

Also you didn't answer his fake proof, I did. You're whole ordeal about it being undefined was incorrect because "x" was never a variable, it had a set definition as = 1.

Once again, the problem with his fake proof (and the one I linked you to) is that they treat "x" as a variable, which it isn't. You then started going off on a tangent acting like "x" was meant as a variable, which it wasn't.

Anyways I think that clears things up. =P

Ok, haha it got on my nerves, I thought you couldn't understand what I was trying to say.

Hahaha sorry about it, lol now I know you did understand. :D

Hahahaha, sorry Trestres!

Here's a fun one for anyone to try out, besides trestres because I know he's taken calculus. =P

What is the limit of this function: (3x^3 - 41x + 65)/(2x^4 + 85x^3 - 100) as X approaches infinity?

Yeah it's simple, but I think it's cool how it works out with these functions. =P

EDIT: HappySquirrel, you deleted your post?

Ok I won't but here's a hint:

Try factoring like this

x(3x^2 - 41 + 65/x^2) / x^3(2x + 85 - 100/x^3)

It will be easier. I think, it's been a long time since I've done calculus I. Going with N dimensional functions was a headache when you tried to find limits, but there's a lot of tricks ;)

(Look closely the lower term approaches infinity faster than the upper one)

Glad to see you guys are having FUN

Lulz, old memories :)