Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

...then does it follow that $f$ is differentiable at 0?

My motivation for asking this is as follows: in Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, in theorem 2.9, he uses this with the additional condition that each $f^i$ is continuously differentiable in a nbh of 0, to conclude that $f$ is differentiable and I don't think is necessary.

Namely, if each $f^i$ has derivative $Df^i$, I claim the matrix with $i^{th}$ row $Df^i$ will serve as $Df$. Indeed, let $v_j$ be a sequence tending to 0 in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we have (by the triangle inequality, if you wish)$$\frac{| f(v_j) - f(0) - \sum_i Df^i(v) |}{|v_j|} \leqslant \frac{\sum_i |f^i(v_j) - f^i(0) - Df^i(v_j)|}{|v_j|}$$Taking the limit as $j \rightarrow \infty$, each summand goes to 0 by the differentiability of $Df^i$ (and there's only $m$ of them), hence the limit is 0.

Is this wrong? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: btw, conditional on the above proof being right and/or the claim being right, does anyone know maybe what Spivak was going for?

share|improve this question
    
Er wait I'm not asking that why if the partials exist, the derivative exists...or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment? –  uncookedfalcon Sep 6 '12 at 1:49
    
Lol k no worries –  uncookedfalcon Sep 6 '12 at 1:50
1  
I think someone else has made the same mistake as I. At any rate, looking at the proof I think he's just stating something that is locally superfluous. Theorem 2–3 clearly confirms that differentiability can be checked for each component separately. –  Dylan Moreland Sep 6 '12 at 1:54
    
I think so as well :p. It's a super reasonable mistake to make. –  uncookedfalcon Sep 6 '12 at 1:56
1  
Dear uncooked falcon, the idea of your calculation seems correct but your notation is not. You must write $Df^i(0)(v_j)$ on the right hand side . Similarly the sum $\sum_i Df^i(v) $ does not make sense: you want to replace it with a suitable vector in $\mathbb R^m$. –  Georges Elencwajg Sep 6 '12 at 7:15

2 Answers 2

up vote 2 down vote accepted

In case this is useful to anyone else, let me record the comments of Georges Elencwajg and Dylan Moreland-the answer is yes it's true, and the condition in Spivak is superfluous.

The proof is the one liner I wrote above, albeit with better notation: If $\lambda^i$ are the derivatives of the $f^i$ at 0, I claim the matrix with $i^{th}$ row $\lambda^i$ will serve as $Df(0)$. Indeed we have $$\frac{|f(v) - f(0) - \lambda^i(v)e_i|}{|v|} \leqslant \sum_i \frac{|f^i(v) - f^i(0) - \lambda^i(v)|}{|v|}$$Taking any $v_i \rightarrow 0$, applying the above inequality, and using the differentiability of each $f^i$ at 0 gives the result.

Thanks all for the assistance!

share|improve this answer

The "continuously differentiable" condition for the partial derivatives is essential to showing that $f$ is differentiable $0$. This is the canonical counterexample $$f(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} \frac{x^2y}{x^2+y^2} & \text{if } (x,y) \neq (0,0) \\ 0 & \text{if } x = (0,0) \end{array} \right.$$

share|improve this answer
1  
Hey Shankara, thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure your answering my question. I think you answered: if all the partials exist, then is $f$ differentiable? –  uncookedfalcon Sep 6 '12 at 1:57
    
The answer is no. –  Integral Sep 6 '12 at 2:04
1  
lmao yeah I agree, but again: not my question :p –  uncookedfalcon Sep 6 '12 at 2:07
1  
This is indeed not an answer to the question. –  Georges Elencwajg Sep 6 '12 at 6:19
    
-1: This is the answer to another question. –  Giuseppe Negro Sep 6 '12 at 22:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.