Proving continuity of two-variable function

twoflower
Messages
363
Reaction score
0
Hello to everybody.

Yesterday we wrote a fake test, in which I encountered problem I haven't benn able to solve so far.

The problem is given this way:

Let

<br /> f(x,y) := \left\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{xy^3}{x^2+y^4} - 2x + 3y,&amp;[x,y] \neq [0,0]\\0, &amp;[x,y] = [0,0]\end{array}\right.<br />

Find out, whether the function f[/tex] in point [0,0] is continuous<br /> <br /> Well, to be continuous in origin, it has to have zero limit as [x,y] approaches [0,0].<br /> <br /> I get<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; \lim_{[x,y] \rightarrow [0,0]} \frac{xy^3}{x^2+y^4} - 2x + 3y&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> after converting to polar coordinates (which proved to be very useful when limiting two-variable functions) I have<br /> <br /> &lt;br /&gt; \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{r^4\cos \varphi \sin^3 \varphi}{r^2\cos^2 \varphi\ +\ r^4\sin^4 \varphi}\ -\ 2\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} r\cos \varphi\ +\ 3\lim_{r \rightarrow 0} r\sin \varphi = \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} r\cos\varphi \sin^3 \varphi\ \frac{r}{\cos^2 \varphi\ +\ r^2 \sin^4 \varphi}&lt;br /&gt;<br /> <br /> The first part goes to zero so it would be sufficient to show that the second part is bounded. And that&#039;s where I got stuck. <br /> <br /> Horse sense tells me this: if \varphi is such that \varphi is non-zero, the whole limit is zero. If \cos \varphi is zero, then the limit is still zero...but I&#039;m not sure of this and definitely it&#039;s not an acceptable mathematical solution. But I&#039;m unable to prove this elegantly at this point...<br /> <br /> Thank you very much for pointing me to the right direction.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
after you convert to polar and simplify all you have to do is find the limit as r goes to zero, phi can do anything. when r goes to zero your limit is zero.
 
math-chick_41 said:
after you convert to polar and simplify all you have to do is find the limit as r goes to zero, phi can do anything. when r goes to zero your limit is zero.

Are you sure? Can it be so easily seen? I still have some doubts...

And one more question, can you see some further simplification there?
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top