Prove that the functin is differentiable at (0, ,0).

  • Thread starter Thread starter michonamona
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiable
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 3K views
michonamona
Messages
120
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Let r>0, and let f be a function from [tex]B_{r}(\textbf{0}) \rightarrow \textbf{R}[/tex], and suppose that there exists an [tex]\alpha > 1[/tex] such that [tex]|f(\textbf{x})| \leq ||\textbf{x}||^{\alpha}[/tex] for all [tex]\textbf{x} \in B_{r}(\textbf{0})[/tex]. Prove that f is differentiable at 0.

What happens to this result when [tex]\alpha = 1[/tex]?

Homework Equations


Note:

The characters in bold are vectors.

[tex]B_{r}(\textbf{0})[/tex] is an open ball in [tex]R^{n}[/tex] about 0

The symbol ||.|| represents the norm of the vector.

Some definitions of differentiability of a function

A function f from [tex]R \rightarrow R^{n}[/tex] is differentiable if

[tex]lim_{\textbf{h} \rightarrow \textbf{0}} \frac{f(\textbf{0} + \textbf{h}) - f(\textbf{0}) - Df(\textbf{a})(\textbf{h})}{||\textbf{h}||} = \textbf{0}[/tex].

Where [tex]Df(\textbf{a})[/tex] is the matrix of first order partials. In our case, since the function is from R to R^n, this would be the gradient of f.

The Attempt at a Solution



The started this problem by computing that the first order partials exists. But that by itself is not sufficient to concluded that f is differentiable at 0. The next step would be to show that the first-order partials of f are continuous at 0. This is where I got stuck.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can you explain what you are thinking about this problem?
 
LeonhardEuler said:
Can you explain what you are thinking about this problem?

Hi Euler,

Thank you for your reply.

There's a theorem in my textbook that says that if the first-order partial derivatives of a vector-valued function f exists at a, and if these first-order partial derivatives are continuous at a, then f is differentiable at a.

I know how to show the existence of the first-order partial derivatives of f at 0, but I'm having trouble proving that they are continuous at 0. Any insights?
 
I see how you are stuck. Have you thought about avoiding this theorem, and working directly from the definition of the derivative?
 
LeonhardEuler said:
I see how you are stuck. Have you thought about avoiding this theorem, and working directly from the definition of the derivative?

You mean using:

[tex]lim_{\textbf{h} \rightarrow \textbf{0}} \frac{f(\textbf{0} + \textbf{h}) - f(\textbf{0}) - Df(\textbf{a})(\textbf{h})}{||\textbf{h}||} = \textbf{0}[/tex].

directly?
 
yes.