Is This Proof Valid for Continuous Partial Derivatives?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the validity of the expression for a function u : R^2 → R with continuous partial derivatives at a point (x_0, y_0). The proof utilizes the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) and the definition of the derivative, leading to the conclusion that u(x_0 + Δx, y_0 + Δy) can be expressed in terms of its partial derivatives and small error terms ε_1 and ε_2. A critical point raised is the need for continuity of the partial derivatives to ensure the validity of the proof, particularly regarding the behavior of ε_1 and ε_2 as Δx and Δy approach zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of continuous partial derivatives in multivariable calculus.
  • Familiarity with the Mean Value Theorem (MVT) and its application.
  • Knowledge of the definition of differentiability for functions of multiple variables.
  • Concept of limits and behavior of functions as variables approach specific values.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of the continuity of partial derivatives on differentiability in multivariable calculus.
  • Explore the Mean Value Theorem and its applications in proving properties of functions.
  • Learn about error terms in Taylor expansions for multivariable functions.
  • Investigate the conditions under which a function is differentiable in terms of its partial derivatives.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of calculus, and anyone studying multivariable functions and their properties, particularly in the context of differentiability and continuity of partial derivatives.

Mandark
Messages
42
Reaction score
0
If [tex]u : R^2 \to R[/tex] has continuous partial derivatives at a point [tex](x_0,y_0)[/tex] show that:

[tex]u(x_0+\Delta x, y_0+\Delta y) = u_x(x_0,y_0) + u_y(x_0,y_0) + \epsilon_1 \Delta x + \epsilon_2 \Delta y[/tex], with [tex]\epsilon_1,\, \epsilon_2 \to 0[/tex] as [tex]\Delta x,\, \Delta y \to 0[/tex]

I know this can be proved using MVT, but I tried to prove this another way only my proof doesn't use the continuity of both partial derivatives so I thought there'd be an error but I couldn't spot it, so I was hoping somebody else could. Here is my proof:

I will use the result that for a differentiable function f,

[tex]f(x+h) = f(x) + f'(x) h + \epsilon h[/tex] where [tex]\epsilon[/tex] is a function of h and goes to 0 as h goes to zero. (Follows from the definition of the derivative.)

[tex]u(x_0+\Delta x,y_0+\Delta y) - u(x_0,y_0)[/tex]

[tex]= u(x_0,y_0+\Delta y) + u_x(x_0,y_0+\Delta y) \Delta x + \epsilon_1 \Delta x - u(x_0,y_0)[/tex]

[tex]= (u(x_0,y_0) + u_y(x_0,y_0) \Delta y + \epsilon_2\Delta y) + u_x(x_0,y_0+\Delta y) \Delta x + \epsilon_1\Delta x - u(x_0,y_0)[/tex]

[tex]= u_y(x_0,y_0) \Delta y + u_x(x_0,y_0+\Delta y) \Delta x + \epsilon_1 \Delta x + \epsilon_2 \Delta y[/tex]

Here [tex]\epsilon_1,\, \epsilon_2 \to 0[/tex] as [tex]\Delta x,\, \Delta y \to 0[/tex].

I will be done if I can prove [tex]u_x(x_0, y_0 + \Delta y) \Delta x = u_x(x_0, y_0)\Delta x + \epsilon_3 \Delta x[/tex] with [tex]\epsilon_3 \to 0[/tex] as [tex]\Delta x,\, \Delta y \to 0[/tex], but this follows from the continuity of u_x at the point [tex](x_0, y_0)[/tex].

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure if this is the cause of your problem, but you seem to be disregarding the fact that [itex]\epsilon_1 \equiv \epsilon_1(y_0 + \Delta y), \epsilon_2 \equiv \epsilon_2(x_0 + \Delta x)[/itex]. It doesn't follow from the fact that for every Delta y, epsilon 1 goes to zero if Delta x goes to zero that epsilon 1 goes to zero if we approach the point from any direction.
 
hi! could you please clear this doubt...
there is a theorem stating that if the first partial derivatives are continuous, then the function in 2 variables is differentiable. Is it enough to prove this in case of a split function?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K