Partial derivative exists at origin but not continuous there

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the function f(x,y) = {xy/(x²+y²) if (x,y) ≠ (0,0) and 0 if (x,y) = (0,0), which has partial derivatives at the origin but is not continuous there. The confusion arises from the misconception that the existence of partial derivatives implies continuity, which is not true. It is clarified that while differentiability at a point guarantees continuity, the existence of partial derivatives alone does not ensure the function is continuous at that point. The conversation also touches on the nature of directional derivatives and how they relate to differentiability in higher dimensions, emphasizing that the existence of directional derivatives does not imply differentiability. Understanding these concepts is crucial for grasping the nuances of multivariable calculus.
mathFun
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I always see the example


f(x,y)={xy/(x2+y2) if (x,y) =/= (0,0) and 0 if (x,y)=(0,0)}


given as the example of a function where the partial derivatives exist at the origin but are not continuous there. I have a difficult time wrapping my head around this and was hoping someone could check my logic.



Now let's consider the partial derivatives fx and fy


fx = [3x2y + y3]/(x2+y2)2 if (x,y)=/=(0,0) and 0 if (x,y) = (0,0)


Defining it piecewise like this means fx is defined at the origin, but its not continuous at the origin because of the same problem: it isn't continuous because say we approach the origin from the x axis, then this is 0, but if we approach it from the y axis, then the limit doesn't exist because you get lim x-->(0,0) 1/y = ∞. So its not continuous here because the limits don't match.


One problem is I have a difficult time understanding why the partials exist though. Because the original function f(x,y) isn't continuous at the origin. For example, if you approach the origin from the parabola y=x2, you get lim (x,y)--> (0,0) [x3/(x2+x4)] (we end up using L'Hopitals Rule since this is 0/0 indeterminate, and eventually end up with the limit going to infinity because the largest power is in the denominator). So it doesn't seem like the limit of the original function exists at the origin, which would mean its not continuous at the origin, which would mean the derivatives don't exist at the origin right? Because being continuous is essential to being differentiable? Is being continuous essential to being partial differentiable?


I'm so confused!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You seem to think that if the partial derivatives exist at a point, that the function must be continuous there. This is not true. And your example is a counterexample for that.

We do have the following results:
  • If a function is differentiable at a point, then it is continuous.
  • If the partial derivatives exists at a point and are continuous there, then the function is differentiable at that point and the function is continuous there.

With differentiable, I mean that the Frechet derivative exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fréchet_derivative (although multivariable calculus courses use the term Frechet derivatives, but will simply speak of differentiable functions).
 
I think I am finally seeing why I was so confused before. I kept thinking "partial derivative exists at c" and that sounded so strong to me, as though the function were differentiable at c. But the analogue to 2D of a partial derivative existing is more like saying the one sided limit exists, since a partial derivative is just a directional derivative. It doesn't give the whole picture of what's going on.So just like in 2D, in order for a function to be differentiable at a point c, both sides of the limit of the difference equation have to exist and be equal. Similarly, I am assuming in 3D, every direction derivative (including f_x and f_y then) would have to exist and be equal. Is that more along the lines?
 
dumbQuestion said:
I think I am finally seeing why I was so confused before. I kept thinking "partial derivative exists at c" and that sounded so strong to me, as though the function were differentiable at c. But the analogue to 2D of a partial derivative existing is more like saying the one sided limit exists, since a partial derivative is just a directional derivative. It doesn't give the whole picture of what's going on.


So just like in 2D, in order for a function to be differentiable at a point c, both sides of the limit of the difference equation have to exist and be equal. Similarly, I am assuming in 3D, every direction derivative (including f_x and f_y then) would have to exist and be equal. Is that more along the lines?

I'm afraid not, things in 3D get very weird. The following link contains an example of a discontinuous functions whose directional derivatives exists and are equal.

http://calculus.subwiki.org/wiki/Ex...in_every_direction_not_implies_differentiable
 
hmm... I guess I got to just keep thinking about this and eventually it will make sense. :/
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K