1
$\begingroup$

I must be doing something wrong here.

Let $f: \mathbb R^2 \to \mathbb R$ be defined as

$$f(x,y)= \begin{cases} 3x+4y, &\text{if } xy \neq 0 \\ 0, &\text{if } xy =0 \end{cases}$$

i.e. $f$ is $0$ on the $x-$axis and on the $y-$axis whereas $f(x,y)=3x+4y$ everywhere else.

I want the check the differentiability at $(0,0)$.

$\bullet$ Clearly, $\ f$ is continuous.

$\bullet$ Also, I think that $f_x=0=f_y$, the partial derivatives are just the function restricted to $x-$axis and $y-$axis. I found the picture below on the web, it gives a geometric interpretation of partial derivatives.

$\bullet$ So, the partial derivatives exist and continuous. Then, $f$ is differentiable at $(0,0)$.

$\bullet$ However, I think that $f$ is not differentiable at the origin, because... Umm... The directional derivative is not continuous. A little direction change may yield a huge change in directional derivative.

Is $f$ differentiable at the origin? What is wrong about my reasoning?

$$$$ $$$$

partial derivatives

Edit: So, isn't $f_x$ defined as the slope of the tangent line to the curve that is given by the intersection of the graph of $f$ and the $xz-$plane? (that is the red line in the above picture)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You have computed the partials incorrectly. When $xy\neq0$, you have $f_x(x,y)=3$ and $f_y(x,y)=4$, right? Now what if $xy=0$? $\endgroup$ – MPW Feb 22 '17 at 17:57
  • $\begingroup$ Well, for some points, $f_x=3$ ... $\endgroup$ – Michael Hoppe Feb 22 '17 at 17:58
2
$\begingroup$

The lemma you want to disprove is:

If

  1. partial derivitaves exist in a neighborhood of a point $a$
  2. these partial derivatives are continous at the point $a$

Then $f$ is differentiable at the point $a$.

But the partial derivatives you calculated are only valid at the point $(0,0)$, not a neighborhood of $(0,0)$.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, there's no requirement for continuity in a neighborhood. The result works point wise. $\endgroup$ – zhw. Feb 22 '17 at 18:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You are right. Continouity in the point is enough, but existance is neccessary in a neighborhood. I clarified my answer. Without a neighborhood, the continouity of the partial derivative would not make sense. $\endgroup$ – Simon Feb 22 '17 at 18:11

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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