4
$\begingroup$

Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$. Let $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$. Assume $n-1$ partials exist in some open ball containing $x_0$ and are continuous at $x_0$, and the remaining $1$ partial is assumed only to exist at $x_0$. A well known result states that this implies $f$ is differentiable at $x_0$.

My question is whether or not this can be strengthened. Can we replace "$n-1"$ in the above theorem with some function $g(n)$ "smaller" than $n-1$, and replace "remaining $1$ partial" with "remaining $n-g(n)$ partials"?

Feel free to play with assumptions slightly. For instance, you can replace "continuous at $x_0$" with "continuous at $x_0$ and in some open ball containing $x_0$".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ By looking at the proof of the theorem, I guess there are counterexamples showing that dropping the continuity of more than one partial in a neighborhood might lead to non-differentiability. $\endgroup$ – amsmath Aug 30 '18 at 22:59
6
$\begingroup$

For $n = 2$ it is not sufficient to assume that the 2 partial derivatives merely exist.

This generalizes to abitrary $n$. Assume we could take $g(n) = n-2$. Consider any function $f : \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}$ and define $F : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}, F(x_1,\ldots,x_n) = f(x_1,x_2)$. We have $\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i}(\xi^0) = 0$ for $i= 3,\ldots,n$ and could therefore conclude that $F$ is differentiable at $\xi^0$ if the first two partials exist at $\xi^0$. But this would imply that $f$ is differentiable at $(\xi_1^0,\xi_2^0)$ which is not true in general.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

It's been said that (i) in $\Bbb R^2$ the mere existence of both partials is not enough, (ii) it follows that continuity of $n-2$ partials in $\Bbb R^n$ is not enough.

This is about (i); for the benefit of any readers to whom it's not obvious, it really is obvious.

The point being that by definition the existence and value of $f_x(0,0)$ depends only on $f(h,0)$, and similarly $f_y(0,0)$ depends only on $f(0,h)$, so the existence of $f_x(0,0)$ and $f_y(0,0)$ cannot possibly say anything about $f(x,y)$ when neither $x$ nor $y$ vanishes. To be explicit, let $$f(x,y)=\begin{cases}1,&(xy=0),\\0,&(xy\ne0).\end{cases}$$Then $f_x(0,0)=f_y(0,0)=0$ but $f$ is not continuous at the origin.

Hint for readers puzzled by some of the assertions above: I suspect you're taking "differentiate with respect to $x$, pretending $y$ is a constant" as the definition of $f_x$. That's a little fuzzy to use in proofs - a less fuzzy version of the definition is $$f_x(x_0,y_0)=\lim_{h\to0}\frac{f(x_0+h,y_0)-f(x_0,y_0)}h.$$

$\endgroup$

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.