Differentiability of a function

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiability of the function h(x,y) = f(x,y)g(x,y) at the point (0,0), given that f(x,y) is differentiable and continuous at (0,0), and g(x,y) is continuous at (0,0). Participants are exploring the theoretical aspects of differentiability in the context of multivariable calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the conditions under which h(x,y) is differentiable, referencing linear maps and limits. There are attempts to express f(x,y) in terms of its derivatives and remainder terms, and to relate these to the continuity of g(x,y). Some participants express uncertainty about their approaches and seek clarification on the definitions and criteria for differentiability.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing hints and exploring various interpretations of differentiability criteria. Some participants have expressed appreciation for the guidance received, while others continue to seek clarity on specific points related to their understanding of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of the original poster's familiarity with differentiability criteria, as well as references to specific theorems and definitions from textbooks. Participants are also discussing the implications of continuity and the behavior of functions as they approach (0,0).

estro
Messages
239
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I'm having problems figuring out theoretical problem on "differentiability of a function". [I hope that I spelled it right...]

Suppose that:
1. Functions f(x,y) and g(x,y) are well defined in some little domain around (0,0). (*1)
2. g(x,y) is continuous at (0,0). (*2)
3. f(x,y) is differentiable and continuous at (0,0) and f(0,0)=0. (*2)

Prove that h(x,y)=f(x,y)g(x,y) is differentiable at (0,0).

What I tried:
Let ε>0
From (*1) and (*2) I know that for every ||(x,y)||<δ_1 |g(x,y)-g(0,0)|<ε/2. (*4)
From (*1) and (*3) I know that there are a,b and u(x,y), v(x,y) so that:
f(x,y)=f(0,0)+ax+by+xu(x,u)+yv(x,u) ; u(x,y) and v(x,y) approaches 0 when (x,y) approaches (0,0). (*5)

So from (*4) and (*5) and a little of algebra I get that:
[tex] x[g(0,0)-\epsilon/2]+y[g(0,0)-\epsilon/2]+xg(x,y)v(x,y)+yg(x,y)v(x,y) \leq h(x,y) \leq x[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+y[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+xg(x,y)v(x,y)+yg(x,y)v(x,y) [/tex]

And at this point I have no idea what to do and I fear my approach to this problem is wrong...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If f(x, y) is differentiable at (0, 0), there exists a linear map [itex]df_{(0, 0)}(u, v)[/itex] such that [tex]\lim_{(u, v) \rightarrow (0, 0)} \frac {f(u, v) - df_{(0, 0)}(u, v) - f(0, 0)} {||(u, v)||} = \lim_{(u, v) \rightarrow (0, 0)} \frac {f(u, v) - df_{(0, 0)}(u, v)} {||(u, v)||} = 0[/tex] Now check whether [itex]g(0, 0) \cdot df_{(0, 0)}(u, v)[/itex] is such a linear map for h(x, y) at (0, 0).
 
I'm sorry but I'm still not getting it, ofcourse I tried to find a, b so that:

[tex]\lim_{(x,y)\rightarrow(0,0)} \frac {h(x,y)-h(0,0)-ax-by}{||(x,y)||}=0[/tex]
but wasnt able to find appropriate a,b...
 
Last edited:
[itex]g(0, 0) \cdot df_{(0, 0)}(x, y) = ax + by[/itex] is what you are looking for. You need to show that.
 
I appreciate your help, however your hints are points that I already know. [I think you get the wrong impression that I'm not familiar with the basic staff, indeed a lot of time passed since I took that course however I do remember the basics (I'm retaking the exam to improve my GPA)]

I am familiar with the different criterias for differentiability and I know that if I can show that:
[tex]\lim_{(x,y)\rightarrow (0,0)} \frac{f(x,y)g(x,y)-xf_x(0,0)g(0,0)-yf_y(0,0)g(0,0)}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}}=0[/tex] then I will solve the problem but the problem is that I COULDN"T show that. [this was the first thing I tried]

There is also another criteria [which I remember I was using with great success] for differentiability: there are scalars a,b [in my case a=f_x, b=f_y] and functions u(x,y),v(x,y) [both functions approaches to 0 when (x,y) goes to (0,0)] so that:
[tex]f(x,y)=f(0,0)+xf_x(0,0)+yf_y(0,0)+xu(x,y)+yv(x,y)[/tex]
Now if I multiply [and remember f(0,0)=0] both sides by g(x,y) I get:
[tex]f(x,y)g(x,y)=xf_x(0,0)g(x,y)+yf_y(0,0)g(x,y)+xu(x,y)g(x,y)+yv(x,y)g(x,y)[/tex] and this is also very close to what I need:
[tex]f(x,y)g(x,y)=x[f_x(0,0)g(0,0)]+y[f_y(0,0)g(0,0)]+x[u(x,y)g(x,y)]+y[v(x,y)g(x,y)][/tex]
where "the new a" is f_x(0,0)g(0,0) "the new b" is [f_y(0,0)g(0,0)] "the new u(x,y)" is [u(x,y)g(x,y)] and so on, I'm close to this but I'm not there...

What I tried to do in my first post is:
I arrived to:
[tex]f(x,y)g(x,y)=xf_x(0,0)g(x,y)+yf_y(0,0)g(x,y)+xu(x,y)g(x,y)+yv(x,y)g(x,y)[/tex]
So due to continuity of g I can conclude:
[tex]xf_x(0,0)[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+yf_y(0,0)[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+xu(x,y)g(x,y)+yv(x,y)g(x,y) \leq h(x,y) \leq xf_x(0,0)[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+yf_y(0,0)[g(0,0)+\epsilon/2]+xu(x,y)g(x,y)+yv(x,y)g(x,y)[/tex]
and it is very tempting to say the following [which is most likely not "legal"]: because this inequality is true for every epsilon that I can "swap" it to:
h(x,y) = xf_x(0,0)[g(0,0)]+yf_y(0,0)[g(0,0)]+xu(x,y)g(x,y)+yv(x,y)g(x,y)[/tex]

Sorry if this post is disorganized, I tried to think out loud...
 
Last edited:
estro said:
There is also another criteria [which I remember I was using with great success] for differentiability: there are scalars a,b [in my case a=f_x, b=f_y] and functions u(x,y),v(x,y) [both functions approaches to 0 when (x,y) goes to (0,0)] so that:
[tex]f(x,y)=f(0,0)+xf_x(0,0)+yf_y(0,0)+xu(x,y)+yv(x,y)[/tex]

This is not correct. It should be [tex]f(x,y)=f(0,0)+xf_x(0,0)+yf_y(0,0)+R(x,y)[/tex] where [tex]\lim_{(x, y) \rightarrow (0, 0)} \frac {R(x, y)} {||(x, y)||} = 0[/tex] That is, R need not be linear but it must go to zero faster than the norm of the point.

Then [tex]f(x,y)g(x, y) = f(0,0)g(x, y) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(x, y) + g(x, y)R(x,y)[/tex][tex]= f(0,0)g(x, y) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(0, 0) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(x, y) - [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(0, 0) + g(x, y)R(x,y)[/tex][tex]= f(0,0)g(x, y) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(0, 0) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)] \cdot [g(x, y) - g(0, 0)] + g(x, y)R(x,y)[/tex][tex]= f(0,0)g(x, y) + [xf_x(0,0) + yf_y(0,0)]g(0, 0) + R'(x, y)[/tex] Prove [tex]\lim_{(x, y) \rightarrow (0, 0)} \frac {R'(x, y)} {||(x, y)||} = 0[/tex]
 
voko said:
This is not correct. It should be [tex]f(x,y)=f(0,0)+xf_x(0,0)+yf_y(0,0)+R(x,y)[/tex] where [tex]\lim_{(x, y) \rightarrow (0, 0)} \frac {R(x, y)} {||(x, y)||} = 0[/tex] That is, R need not be linear but it must go to zero faster than the norm of the point.
...

Are you sure about that?
I have a theorem in my book that proves that the following 2 are "equivalent".
1. [itex]f(x,y)=o(||(x,y)||)[/itex] when [itex](x,y) \rightarrow (0,0)[/itex]
2. there are functions u(x,y) and v(x,y) defined around (0,0) so that in some domain around this point the following holds:
[itex]f(x,y)=xu(x,y)+yv(x,y)[/itex] when u,v goes to 0 around (0,0).

And I think these 2 are the same [equivalent] to what you have written.

In this same theorem the book proves some different criteria for differentiability. [unfortunately it somewhat long to copy to the forum and written in Hebrew]

And btw your last hint, was very helpful I guess I can prove what is needed now, however I hope you can help me clear the above point.
Again thank you very much.
 
Last edited:
estro said:
And I think these 2 are the same [equivalent] to what you have written.

What I wrote is the definition of differentiability. This is all you really need here.

What you wrote is a more complex expression having the same effect (which seems true), but it just makes things seem, well, more complex.
 
voko said:
What I wrote is the definition of differentiability. This is all you really need here.

What you wrote is a more complex expression having the same effect (which seems true), but it just makes things seem, well, more complex.

I see.
A million thanks for your help. [This trick with adding something and then subtracting it, I always forget about it...]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K