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.

This is a follow-up to Continuous partials at a point but not differentiable there?, but I'll make this question self-contained. Throughout, $f$ will denote a function $\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$. An answer to Equivalent condition for differentiability on partial derivatives cites a theorem implying "If $f_x$ and $f_y$ exist at $P$ and $f_x$ is defined throughout a neighborhood of $P$ and $f_x$ is continuous at $P$, then $f$ is differentiable at $P$.", which is stronger than what you find in many calculus texts.

First note that this can't possibly be weakened to something like "exists in almost all of a neighborhood and is continuous along paths within that neighborhood of all but one limiting direction". One counterexample would be $f(x,y)=\sqrt[3]{xy}$, which has partials that both exist at the origin and only blow up along some axis (with the origin deleted) so that limits of a partial along paths whose limiting direction is not the direction of the problem-axis all exist and agree. But $f$ is not differentiable at the origin.

I wonder "is the fact that the partials blow up the problem?" Or is mere non-existence of the partials arbitrarily close to the point enough to give the function a chance to be non-differentiable? More formally...

My question: Is there a function $f:\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$ such that

  1. $f_x$ and $f_y$ exist at $P$.
  2. $f_x$ is defined in a neighborhood of $P$ minus an open ray (or a line with $P$ deleted, if it makes things easier).
  3. $f_x$ is continuous at $P$ in the sense that for all $Q$ in the domain of $f_x$ and for all $\varepsilon>0$ there exists $\delta>0$ so that $\Vert P-Q\Vert<\delta\Rightarrow\Vert f_x(Q)-f_x(P)\Vert<\varepsilon$.
  4. $f$ is not differentiable at $P$.

It may be the case that the answer is "no, because no function satisfies 1. through 3. without $f_x$ being defined in a neighborhood of $P$ so that 4. is impossible by the theorem in Apostol's book", but even if that's the case, I'd like to know. The reason I worry about that possibility is that I know that in the 1-d case a derivative can't have jump discontinuities, and this seems like a similar issue (something reminiscent of branch cuts). Additionally, naive functions built out of $x^2\sin\left(\frac{1}{x}\right)$ tend to be differentiable.

share|improve this question
    
Thanks for the bounty, @postnobills! –  Mark S. Dec 27 '13 at 3:53
    
Post no bills, but do post rewards :) –  Mark Fantini Dec 27 '13 at 5:22

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted
+100

If I understood correctly, an example would be the following. Define $f\colon \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$ as $$f(x,y) = \begin{cases}y, & \text{if }y \ge 0 \text{ or }x \le 0,\\-y,&\text{otherwise}\end{cases}$$ and take $P = (0,0)$. Then $f_x = 0$ outside $\{{0\}} \times (-\infty,0)$, $f_y(0,0) = 1$, but $f$ is not differentiable at $(0,0)$.

share|improve this answer
    
That...wow. That looks very simple, but it certainly is an example of the type I asked for. I guess I should have asked for continuity... –  Mark S. Dec 31 '13 at 2:24

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.