infinitely small said:
I do not understand what is the general case for this special case. If i had another example different from this, what should i do? What do you mean by path? Thank you.
The general technique is that if you suspect ##lim_{(x,y) \rightarrow (a,b) } f(x,y) ## does not exist then try to find continuous functions ##p_1(x)## and ##p_2(x)## such that ##lim_{x \rightarrow a} p_1(x) = b = lim_{x \rightarrow a} p_2(x) ## but ##lim_{x\rightarrow a} f(x,p_1(x)) != lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x,p_2(x))##.
In practical terms, look at the expression for ##f(x,y)## and see if you can make it take different values by enforcing different relations between the ##x## and ##y## variables. For example, suppose ##f(x,y) = \frac {x + y}{x}##. Substituting ##y = x## gives a different result that substituting ##y = 2x##. Both substitutions agree that ##y = 0## when ##x = 0##.
You can consider the graphs ##(x,p_1(x))## and ##(x, p_2(x))## to be paths. This approach reduces the problem to working with limits involving only 1 variable. (Of course, sometimes you have to reverse the roles of ##x## and ##y##)
The principle behind the general technique is the theorem that if ##f(x,y)## is continuous at ##(a,b)## as a function of 2 variables and ##p(x)## is any continuous function at ##x = a## such that ##p(a) = b## then ##lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x,p(x)) = f(a,b)##.
The contrapositive of this theorem says that if two functions such as the above ##p_1## and ##p_2## exist then ##f(x,y)## is
not continuous at ##(a,b)##.
It's an interesting question whether the converse of the above theorem holds. In other words, suppse we prove that there exists a number ##L## such that for any continuous path ##(x,p(x)## with ##p(a) = b## that ##lim_{x \rightarrow a} f(x,p(x)) = L##. Can we then conclude that ##lim_{(x,y) \rightarrow (a,b)} f(x,y) = L##?