Proving Twice Differentiability at a Point for a Function of Two Variables

nuuskur
Science Advisor
Messages
920
Reaction score
1,221

Homework Statement


Given f(x,y) = x\cdot 3^{x+y^2}. Prove that f is differentiable twice at the point P(1,0).

Homework Equations


D\subset\mathbb{R}^2, f\colon D\to\mathbb{R}, P\in \mathring{D}(interior point) - then f is differentiable n+1 times at P\Leftrightarrow \exists\varepsilon > 0\colon in the sphere B(P,\varepsilon) there are defined n-th degree partial derivatives.

The Attempt at a Solution


I want to use the definition of a partial derivative f_x := \lim_{t\to 0}\frac{f(P_x + t, P_y) - f(P_x,P_y)}{t} if the limit exists (either in R or +/- infinity).
How can I check if the limit exists for any and all points inside a sphere? I want to give an epsilon and show that every point in the sphere with radius epsilon has a final limit for both fx and fy.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Have you tried actually writing out the difference quotient for that particular f? Using the fact that xe^{x+ y^2}= xe^xe^{y^2} that should be easy.
 
f_x = 3^{y^2} \lim_{t\to 0} \frac{(x+t)3^x3^t - x3^x}{t}. This is all kid's play, but how does this help me in determining whether fx is defined for every point in the epsilon-sphere?

If the limit exists for any x (that is to say, that any fx is defined in its domain), would it be enough to show that all of the (x,y) in my epsilon sphere (a circle actually) belong to the domain of the function?

Since f is an elementary function that is defined in all of \mathbb{R}^2. Therefore any point in the epsilon circle (I keep calling it sphere :/ ) would fit the bill no problem. Would this explanation be sufficient?
 
Last edited:
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