Graphs of Rational Functions
Learning goals
- Exclude the zeros of the original denominator
- Define an asymptote as a line the curve stays near
- Tell a hole from a vertical asymptote by whether the factor survives
- Compare degrees for the horizontal asymptote
- Divide to find an oblique asymptote when the degree exceeds by one
- Cross a horizontal asymptote freely, but never a vertical one
The simplest rational function, and what its graph does
A rational function is one polynomial divided by another,
where and are polynomials and is not the zero polynomial. Because division by zero has no value, the domain of is every real number except the zeros of .
Start with the smallest example there is, , whose only excluded input is . A short table shows what happens as creeps toward the forbidden value from the right:
The output has no ceiling. Name any height you like, say a million, and already beats it. Travel the other way instead, out toward large , and the outputs shrink toward zero without ever reaching it: , and . Negative inputs behave the same way with the signs flipped.
Both dashed lines in that picture are asymptotes. Here is the honest definition, and it is the one we will use all lesson:
A line is an asymptote of a curve when the distance from the curve to that line becomes and stays smaller than any distance you care to name. That happens once you travel far enough out along the curve.
“Smaller than any distance you care to name” is doing real work in that definition. That phrase is exactly the one a first course in calculus makes precise, with limits. We are not going to fake that machinery here. We do not need it: everything below is ordinary algebra, and it produces the right lines and the right picture. Naming the edge of your tools is not an apology, it is how you know what you have proved.
The definition covers all three kinds at once. The -axis is an asymptote of because the points of the curve sit at horizontal distance from the line . That horizontal distance can be made as small as you please while the curve runs off the top of the page. The -axis is an asymptote because the vertical distance can be made as small as you please by taking far enough out.
Holes and vertical asymptotes
Every excluded input comes from a zero of the original denominator, and there are exactly two things a graph can do at one. Compare these two functions, which are undefined at the same place, :
For , factor and cancel. Since ,
That cancellation is the move from the simplifying lesson, and its warning applies here in full. Cancelling preserves the value at every input where the original was defined, but it does not restore the input that was thrown away. So agrees with the line everywhere except at , where has no value at all. Its graph is that line with one point removed: a hole.
For nothing cancels, and the outputs behave like the table from . As approaches the denominator becomes tiny while the numerator stays , so the values blow up. The graph tears apart along the line , which is a vertical asymptote.
So the same excluded input can produce a missing dot or a cliff, and the deciding question is whether the offending factor cancels. Here is why, and the argument is worth reading closely because it also tells you exactly how much cancelling is enough.
Why a factor that cancels leaves a hole, and one that survives forces a vertical asymptote#
Let and let be a zero of . Pull out the largest power of that divides each polynomial, writing
where because is a zero of , where , and where and . Those last two facts are exactly what “largest power” buys us. If were zero then the factor theorem would hand us another copy of inside , and we would not have pulled out the largest power after all.
For every other than we may cancel, and there are two outcomes.
Suppose first that , so the numerator carries at least as many copies of as the denominator. Cancelling all of the denominator’s copies leaves
and the exponent is now zero or positive. The right-hand side is a perfectly ordinary expression at as well, because its denominator is not zero, and it takes a finite value there. That value is when , since the factor is then absent altogether, and it is when , since the factor is present and vanishes at . So agrees, at every input where is defined, with a function whose graph sails straight through at an ordinary height. The original is still undefined at , since the original denominator vanishes there, so the graph of is that unremarkable curve with the single point above removed. That is a hole.
Suppose instead that , so the denominator keeps at least one copy of after cancelling. Write ; then
Look at the two pieces separately. The ratio is built from polynomials, whose graphs are unbroken curves, so a small change in only makes a small change in and in . Since is a nonzero number, that steadiness lets us pick a small interval around on which stays above some fixed positive number . The other piece, , we control completely: it is as small as we like once is close enough to . Putting the pieces together, on that interval
Now name any height , however large. The quantity is a product of copies of a number we can shrink at will. So we can bring close enough to to force below , and the inequality above then gives . The curve therefore leaves every horizontal band you draw, no matter how tall. Yet the curve’s points sit at horizontal distance from the line , a distance we just made as small as we pleased. The line is a vertical asymptote.
Read the two cases again and notice what the dividing line actually is. It is not “does appear in the numerator”, it is does the numerator carry at least as many copies of as the denominator. The factor must cancel completely. A single upstairs against downstairs cancels one copy and leaves one behind, and one copy left in a denominator is all it takes.
Worked example 1 Find the domain, holes, and vertical asymptotes of
Factor the top and the bottom completely:
The domain comes from the original denominator, whose zeros are and , so the domain is every real number except and .
Now ask which of those two factors cancels. The factor appears once on top and once on the bottom, so it cancels completely:
Nothing is left of in the denominator, so gives a hole. Its height is the value of the simplified expression there:
so the hole sits at . The factor never cancelled, so is a vertical asymptote.
Worked example 2 Classify the excluded inputs of
The numerator factors as , so
The original denominator is zero at and , so those two inputs are out of the domain. The factor does appear in the numerator, which is precisely the trap. Count copies: one on top, two on the bottom. Cancelling one from each leaves a copy behind,
and a surviving in the denominator means the values still blow up near . So is a vertical asymptote, not a hole, and so is . This function has no holes at all. Appearing in the numerator is not enough; the factor has to cancel completely.
Check your understanding
The function is undefined at and at . What does its graph do at each?
Count copies of each denominator factor. The factor appears once on top and once on the bottom, so it cancels completely and leaves nothing in the denominator.
So is a hole, at height . The factor never cancels, so is a vertical asymptote. The input is a zero of the numerator, which makes it an -intercept, not a hole.
End behavior: what the graph does far out
Vertical asymptotes tell you what happens near the bad points. End behavior is the other question: what does the curve do as you travel far to the right or far to the left? There is a three-case rule for this, and it is worth deriving rather than memorizing, because the derivation is one line and the rule falls out of it.
Take
and divide the numerator and the denominator by , the highest power of in the denominator. For this changes nothing about the value of the fraction:
Now every term that is not a leading coefficient has an underneath it, and those terms are exactly the ones that die away when is huge. At the numerator is and the denominator is , so , already within three thousandths of . Push further out and the little terms shrink further. The curve has the horizontal asymptote , and notice where that number came from: the ratio of the leading coefficients, , and nothing else.
The same division works in general. Given with and , divide top and bottom by . The denominator turns into its leading coefficient plus a pile of terms with powers of underneath them. For large the denominator is as close to that leading coefficient as you like. Everything then depends on what the numerator turned into, and there are three possibilities.
The bottom outgrows the top (). Dividing by leaves every numerator term with a power of underneath it, so the whole numerator dies away while the denominator settles on a nonzero number. For example
whose numerator shrinks to nothing and whose denominator heads for . The horizontal asymptote is , the -axis.
The degrees tie (). This is the case we just did. Both leading terms survive the division and everything else dies away, so the horizontal asymptote is , where and are the leading coefficients of and .
The top outgrows the bottom (). Dividing by leaves the numerator with a positive power of still in it, so the numerator grows without bound while the denominator settles down. For example
which behaves like itself for large . There is no horizontal asymptote: no horizontal line can hold a curve that climbs forever. When the top outgrows the bottom by exactly one degree, as it does here, the curve is chased by a slanted line instead, with one exception. The next section pins that exception down. When it outgrows the bottom by two degrees or more, there is no straight-line asymptote at all; the curve grows like a polynomial of degree .
One small bonus, and it saves work later. Cancelling a common factor from the top and the bottom lowers both degrees by the same amount and divides both leading coefficients by the same number. So the cancelling changes neither the comparison against nor the ratio . You may read the end behavior off the original form or off the simplified form, and you will get the same answer.
Check your understanding
What is the horizontal asymptote of ?
Compare the degrees before doing anything else. The numerator has degree and the denominator has degree , so the top outgrows the bottom.
Dividing through by leaves an upstairs, so the values grow without bound and no horizontal line can catch them. The ratio would be the answer only if the degrees tied.
Oblique asymptotes, and why long division finds them
When the numerator’s degree is exactly one more than the denominator’s, the curve runs away from every horizontal line, and yet it is not wild. Far out, the curve hugs a slanted line. (Almost always. There is one exception, and we will corner it at the end of this section.) Finding that line needs no new tool. You already own it, from the polynomial division chapter.
Divide the polynomials. For
long division gives a quotient of and a remainder of : the first step takes and leaves , and the second takes and leaves . Check it by multiplying back, which is the habit worth keeping: , the numerator we started with. (The remainder theorem agrees, since the numerator at is .) Written the way division always lets you write it,
Read that as a sentence. The function is a line, , plus a correction term . The correction is a proper fraction, because the remainder of a division always has smaller degree than the divisor. And a proper fraction is exactly the kind of thing that dies away far out. At it is ; at it is . So for large the curve sits a whisker above the line and settles onto it. That line is an oblique asymptote (also called a slant asymptote). The vertical distance from the curve to the line is precisely the correction term, so we can make that distance as small as we like by going far enough out. That is the definition, satisfied on the nose.
This is the chapter’s best payoff. Polynomial long division was introduced two chapters ago as a way to factor and to hunt for roots. It turns out to be the tool that reads the shape of a graph off its formula. The reason is that it splits a rational function into the part that matters far out (the quotient) and the part that vanishes far out (the remainder over the denominator).
And once you see it that way, the horizontal case is the same theorem. Divide and you get a quotient of with a remainder of :
A constant quotient is a horizontal asymptote, . A linear quotient is an oblique asymptote. Same division, same reasoning, and the degree comparison from the last section is just a shortcut for predicting which one you are about to get.
One condition is doing quiet work in all of this, and it is worth dragging into the light: the remainder has to be nonzero. The whole argument runs on the correction term being small but present. If the division comes out exact, so that is zero, then is the quotient wherever it is defined, and there is nothing left for the curve to approach. Watch it happen:
The numerator’s degree is one more than the denominator’s, exactly the case that is supposed to produce an oblique asymptote, and yet this graph has none. It does not approach the line ; it is that line, with a hole punched at . So state the rule with its hypothesis attached. When the numerator’s degree is one more than the denominator’s and the division leaves a nonzero remainder, the quotient is an oblique asymptote. When the remainder is zero, factor and enjoy your line. This is the same exception you will meet again in a moment when we ask whether a graph can cross a horizontal asymptote.
Worked example 3 Find the asymptotes of
First check for a hole, because you always check for a hole. The numerator factors as , which carries no factor of , so nothing cancels and is a vertical asymptote.
The numerator has degree and the denominator degree , one more on top, so expect an oblique asymptote and go find it by long division. Dividing by gives the quotient with remainder , which checks out because . Therefore
The oblique asymptote is . To see that the leftover term really is negligible far out, put : the correction is , so while the line gives . The curve is riding just above its asymptote, and the gap keeps closing.
Can a graph cross an asymptote?
Students routinely picture an asymptote as a fence the curve is forbidden to touch. That belief is half right, and the half that is wrong causes real errors.
A graph can never cross a vertical asymptote. This one needs no argument beyond the domain. If is a vertical asymptote then is not in the domain, so the graph has no point whose first coordinate is . There is nothing there to cross with.
A graph absolutely can cross a horizontal or an oblique asymptote, and often does. Look again at what the definition demands: the curve must approach the line far out. It says nothing whatever about the middle of the picture. A curve is free to cut straight through its horizontal asymptote near the origin and then come back and settle onto it.
Here is one doing exactly that. Take
The degrees tie, so the horizontal asymptote is . To find where the curve meets that line, set the function equal to and solve, which is a rational equation of the kind you solved last lesson:
Check it: . The curve crosses its horizontal asymptote at the point , and then goes on approaching it from above for the rest of the journey.
Why does one crossing not spoil the asymptote? Because solving turns into the polynomial equation , and there are only two ways that can go. Either is the zero polynomial, in which case equals at every input where it is defined. Then the graph does not approach that line, it lies on it (this is exactly what does, a horizontal line with a hole). Or is a genuine nonzero polynomial, and then it has only finitely many roots, so the curve gets only finitely many chances to meet the line. Go far enough out and it has used them all up, after which it can only approach.
The same goes for oblique asymptotes, with one honest caveat. Since equals the remainder over the denominator, the curve meets its oblique asymptote exactly where the remainder is zero. When the denominator is linear the remainder is a constant, and a nonzero constant is never zero, so those curves never touch their slanted line. That is why the graph of stays strictly above on the right. But with a bigger denominator the remainder is free to have a root. Dividing by gives
whose remainder vanishes at , so that curve crosses its oblique asymptote at the point . Never say never.
Worked example 4 Does the graph of cross its horizontal asymptote?
Factor the denominator first, to be sure nothing cancels: , and the numerator is , which shares neither factor. So there are no holes, and the vertical asymptotes are and .
The degrees tie at , so the horizontal asymptote is the ratio of the leading coefficients, . To find any crossing, set the function equal to that value and clear the fraction:
Expand both sides and watch the quadratic terms destroy each other, which is exactly what always happens in this calculation when the degrees tie:
That value is in the domain (it is neither nor ), so the crossing is real. The graph meets its horizontal asymptote at , roughly , and approaches it from the other side afterwards.
Check your understanding
Which statement is true of the graph of a rational function?
A horizontal asymptote is a claim about what happens far out. So nothing stops the curve from cutting through the line near the middle of the picture and settling onto it later. You find any crossing by solving .
A vertical asymptote is different in kind. If is one, then is not in the domain, so the graph has no point at all above and there is nothing to cross with. And if the factor did cancel, the graph would have a hole there rather than a vertical asymptote.
Putting it all together
Every tool is now on the table, so here is the whole sketch as one routine. Nothing in it is new.
- Factor the numerator and the denominator completely.
- Domain. Exclude every zero of the original denominator. Do this before you cancel anything.
- Holes and vertical asymptotes. Cancel the common factors. An excluded input whose factor cancelled completely is a hole; anything still left in the denominator is a vertical asymptote.
- Hole heights. Evaluate the simplified expression at each hole’s .
- Intercepts. The -intercepts are the zeros of the simplified numerator that survive in the domain; the -intercept is , if is in the domain.
- End behavior. Compare the degrees for a horizontal asymptote, or divide for an oblique one.
- Crossings. Solve (or ) to see whether the curve meets that asymptote.
- Sign chart. Mark the -intercepts and the vertical asymptotes on a number line and test one point in each interval. The sign can only change at those places, so one test point settles a whole interval, and the signs tell you which way each branch runs.
Worked example 5 Sketch completely
Factor.
Domain. The original denominator is zero at and , so both are excluded.
Holes and vertical asymptotes. The factor appears once top and once bottom, so it cancels completely and is a hole. The factor survives, so is a vertical asymptote. After cancelling,
Hole height. Put into the simplified expression:
so the hole is at .
Intercepts. The simplified numerator is zero at , which is in the domain, so the -intercept is . For the -intercept, , giving .
End behavior. The degrees tie ( and ) and both leading coefficients are , so the horizontal asymptote is . Long division says the same thing in more detail:
which even tells you which side the curve approaches from. For large positive the correction is a small negative number, so the curve lies just below on the right. For large negative the correction is a small positive number, so the curve lies just above on the left.
Crossings. Setting gives , that is , which is false. This graph never meets its horizontal asymptote. (The decomposition above already told us so: the correction is never zero.)
Sign chart. The sign can change only at the zero and at the vertical asymptote . The hole at changes nothing, since the factor that made it cancelled out of the formula. Test one point in each interval:
| Interval | test value | at that value | the branch is |
|---|---|---|---|
| above the -axis | |||
| below the -axis | |||
| above the -axis |
Now assemble. On the left the curve comes in just above and passes through the hole’s neighbourhood, punching out the single point . The curve then climbs through and, staying positive, rockets up the left side of . On the right of it starts far down (negative, per the sign chart), climbs through the intercept , and creeps back up toward from below.
Look at what that picture is. Every feature on it is an algebraic fact you established without plotting a single extra point: the hole is the cancelled factor, and the vertical asymptote is the surviving one. The horizontal asymptote is the tie in degrees, and the sign chart chose the direction of each branch. The domain, tracked as a side condition since the first lesson of this chapter, is now the most visible thing on the page.