How Can Different Paths Show No Limit Exists as (x,y) Approaches (0,0)?

  • Thread starter Thread starter reddawg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approach Limits
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
5 replies · 3K views
reddawg
Messages
46
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


By considering different paths, show that the given function has no limit
as (x,y) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] (0,0).

f(x,y) = x4/(x4 + y4)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


My instructor taught me this process a while back and am unsure if it fits for this problem:

let y=mx2

limit as (x, mx2) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] (0,0) of
x4/(x4 + mx4)

I tried this method seeing as letting x=0 yields limit = 0 and letting y = 0 yields limit = 1 ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
reddawg said:

Homework Statement


By considering different paths, show that the given function has no limit
as (x,y) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] (0,0).

f(x,y) = x4/(x4 + y4)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


My instructor taught me this process a while back and am unsure if it fits for this problem:

let y=mx2

limit as (x, mx2) [itex]\rightarrow[/itex] (0,0) of
x4/(x4 + mx4)

I tried this method seeing as letting x=0 yields limit = 0 and letting y = 0 yields limit = 1 ?
Your substitution is incorrect. If y = mx2, then y4 ≠ mx4.
 
Oh right, it would become m2x4

Therefore it's x4/(x4 + m2x4)

Factoring out x4 yields 1/(1+m2)

In similar problems this method proved that the limit depended on the value of m, therefore it did not exist. Is this the case here? I would think so.
 
Yes, different values of that limit for different values of "m" mean that the limit depends upon the path. Recall that if a function has a limit then the value of f must be close to that limit. But this shows the value of f close to (0,0) on the line y=2x is different from the value on the line y= 3x.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
reddawg said:
Oh right, it would become m2x4
No, that's wrong as well.
If y = mx2 (as you have in the OP), then y4 = (mx2)4, right?
reddawg said:
Therefore it's x4/(x4 + m2x4)

Factoring out x4 yields 1/(1+m2)

In similar problems this method proved that the limit depended on the value of m, therefore it did not exist. Is this the case here? I would think so.
 
Mark44 said:
No, that's wrong as well.
If y = mx2 (as you have in the OP), then y4 = (mx2)4, right?


Actually, that was a typo on my part while identifying the problem statement. It is supposed to be
y2 not y4.

Thank you for taking the time to catch that mistake though.