How to Prove the Limit of (x^4+y^4)/(x^2+y^2) is 0 at (0,0)?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Paradox
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limits
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The limit of (x^4 + y^4)/(x^2 + y^2) as (x,y) approaches (0,0) is definitively 0. To prove this, one can apply the epsilon-delta definition of a limit and convert to polar coordinates, where x = r cos(θ) and y = r sin(θ). This transformation simplifies the expression to r^4(cos^4(θ) + sin^4(θ))/r^2, which approaches 0 as r approaches 0. Alternative methods, such as L'Hospital's rule, can also be explored, though they require careful application to functions of multiple variables.

PREREQUISITES
  • Epsilon-delta definition of limits
  • Polar coordinates transformation
  • Partial derivatives and L'Hospital's rule
  • Understanding of limits in multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the epsilon-delta definition of limits in detail
  • Learn how to convert Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates
  • Explore the application of L'Hospital's rule in multivariable contexts
  • Investigate other methods for evaluating limits in multiple dimensions
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in calculus, particularly those focusing on multivariable limits, as well as mathematicians seeking to deepen their understanding of limit proofs and techniques.

Paradox
How can one prove that:

lim (x,y)->(0,0)

(x^4+y^4)
---------
(x^2+y^2)

= 0

I keep getting 0/0 no matter what I do to the equation. Anyone have any pointers?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Apply the epsilon-delta definition of a limit, or try a clever substitution.

Hurkyl
 
Thank you for the quick response. I'll go and try it out now.
 
One of the difficulties with limits in more than one variable is that there are an infinite number of different ways to "approach" the target point. In order for the limit to exist, the result must be the same along any path.


Since the "epsilon-delta" definition Hurkyl mentioned used the distance from the target point the best way to use it is to change to polar coordinates so that r measures the distance from from (0,0).

Note that x= r cos([theta]) and y= r sin([theta]) so that
x<sup>2</sup>+ y<sup>2</sup>= r<sup>2</sup> and
x<sup>4</sup>+ y<sup>4</sup>= r<sup>4</sup>(cos<sup>4</sup>([theta])+sin<sup>4</sup>([theta]).

That should make it easy.
 
Oops, wrong forum, wrong symbols. Well, the math is still correct.
 
Would using L'Hospital's rule (successive differentiations of numerator and denominator) be cheating?
 
Since this is a function of two variables, HOW, exactly, would you apply L'Hospital's rule?
 
Thanks HallsOfIvy. That was much easier to work with
 
HallsofIvy
Since this is a function of two variables, HOW, exactly, would you apply L'Hospital's rule?
(d2N/dxNdyN)((x^4+y^4)/(x^2+y^2)),

where the derivatives are partial.
 
  • #10
the proof is as follows.

lim(x,y)->(0,0)

x^4 + y^4
---------
x^2 + y^2

=

(x^2 + i*y^2)*(x^2 - i*y^2)
---------------------------
x^2 + y^2

=

x^2 - i*y^2

as x and y go to zero this value approches 0.

Not that when they are zero the value of the function is NOT zero.
 
  • #11
ObsessiveMathsFreak
Not that when they are zero the value of the function is NOT zero.
Is that value then undefined?
 
  • #12
Why

(x^2 + i*y^2)*(x^2 - i*y^2)
---------------------------
x^2 + y^2

=

x^2 - i*y^2

?

x^2 + i*y^2<>x^2 + y^2

Try this way :

(x^4+y^4)/(x^2+y^2)=((x^2+y^2)^2-2*x^2*y^2)/(x^2+y^2)=
=1-2*x^2*y^2/(x^2+y^2);
Now lim (x^2+y^2)-2*x^2*y^2/(x^2+y^2) = lim (x^2+y^2) -
lim 2*x^2*y^2/(x^2+y^2)= 0 -1 / lim (x^2+y^2)/2*x^2*y^2=
=-1 / lim (1/(2*x^2)+1/(2*y^2))=-1/infinity = 0;

I hope this is correct...

By the way...HallsofIvy...
I don't think your "notation" is correct...
Because if you say x=r*cost and y=r*sint you practically say
x=k*y, which is not correct...x could be equal to y^2...
(because x->0 and y->0 means that r->0, because cost and sint
can't -> 0 in the same time)
See ya...
 
Last edited:
  • #13
By the way...HallsofIvy...
I don't think your "notation" is correct...
Because if you say x=r*cost and y=r*sint you practically say
x=k*y, which is not correct...x could be equal to y^2...
(because x->0 and y->0 means that r->0, because cost and sint
can't -> 0 in the same time)

I SAID that was converting to polar coordinates. The point with coordinates r and theta in polar coordinates has x= r cos(t) and
y= r sin(t) in cartesian coordinates. Believe it or not I am completely aware that as (x,y)-> (0,0), r-> 0! That was the whole point! Since r measures the distance from (0,0) to the point, the two variables x and y going to 0 reduces to the single variable r going to 0.
 
  • #14
(x,y) is a point ?
Not a pair of variables ?
My mistake then...
Sorry...
But there's no real need to consider them coord of a point...
 
  • #15
If you are willing to ASSUME that you can you can
treat 1/(1/x^2+ 1/y^2) as x and y going to 0 as
"1/(infinity+infinity)" and declare that "1/infinity" is 0, then there is no real need to be precise at all. Yes, your method does work (and is very clever) in this example but I suspect that most mathematics professors would want you to show a little more understanding of what you are doing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
914
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K