2
$\begingroup$

I learned about the Cauchy-Riemann equations today, and my instructor used the following example to show that differentiability is not guaranteed if the partial derivatives are not continuous.

Let $$ f(z)=f(x+iy)= \begin{cases} \frac{xy(x+iy)}{x^2+y^2},&\quad\mbox{$z\neq 0$}\\ 0+0i,&\quad\mbox{$z=0$}. \end{cases} $$ Similar to the example here, writing $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, we can show that $u_x(0,0)=0$ and $v_y(0,0)=0$ since the partial derivatives are $0$ on the axes, but $f$ is not continuous and thus not differentiable at $(0,0)$ since the limits are different if we approach $(0,0)$ along the imaginary axis or along $x=y$.

My instructor mentioned that reason why in the above example, differentiability fails even though the partial derivatives exist and satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations, is that the partial derivatives are not continuous at $(0,0)$ (there is a similar comment in this document). I wrote out the partial derivatives \begin{align*} u_x &= \left(\frac{x^2y}{x^2+y^2}\right)'=\frac{2xy(x^2+y^2)-x^2y(2x)}{(x^2+y^2)^2}=\frac{2xy^3}{(x^2+y^2)^2}\\ v_y &= \left(\frac{xy^2}{x^2+y^2}\right)'=\frac{2yx^3}{(x^2+y^2)^2}. \end{align*} E.g., consider $u_x$ - if I approach $(0,0)$ from the real axis, the limit of $u_x$ is $0$; if I approach $(0,0)$ from the line $x=y$, the limit of $u_x$ would be $1/2$. I thought this is why $u_x$ is not continuous at $(0,0)$. But looking at the formulas alone, it seems that the partial derivatives are simply not defined at $(0,0)$ because the denominators would be $0$ (if so, then this would already imply the partial derivatives are not continuous at $(0,0)$ and we wouldn't even need the argument using unequal limits). But we have just shown before that the partial derivatives exist at $(0,0)$. I must be missing something. According to a post here, it may have something to do with the definition of $f$ at $(0,0)$.

Any help is much appreciated!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You're right -- it does have to do with the definition of $f$ at $(0,0)$.

By the definition of partial derivative,

$$ \begin{align} u_x(0,0) &= \lim_{h\to0}\dfrac{u(h,0)-u(0,0)}h \\ &= \lim_{h\to0} \dfrac{\frac{h^20}{h^2+0^2}-0}h \\ &= \lim_{h\to0}\dfrac0h \\ &= 0 \end{align} $$

Notice how we had to use the definition $u(x,y) = \frac{x^2y}{x^2+y^2}$ for $(x,y)=(h,0)$ but the definition $u(x,y) = 0$ for $(x,y) = (0,0)$ because of the piecewise definition of $u(x,y)$. Thus your formula for $u_x$, which (implicitly) used the definition $u(x,y) = \frac{x^2y}{x^2+y^2}$ in both places (that's how the quotient rule is derived from the definition of partial derivative), isn't valid for computing $u_x(0,0)$.

However, your formula is valid for computing $u_x(x,y)$ as long as $(x,y) \neq (0,0)$, since away from $(0,0)$ the function $u$ has a consistent definition. Thus you can use your formula to compute the limits approaching $(0,0)$ (which don't depend on the value at $(0,0)$), as you did. So your proof of discontinuity of $u_x$ is correct.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Got it. Thank you very much! $\endgroup$
    – largecats
    Feb 3 '18 at 9:47

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.