Stuck on proof regarding partial derivatives

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a function f: R^2 → R, which has first-order partial derivatives that are both zero, must be constant across its domain. The original poster presents a specific problem statement and hints at using properties of partial derivatives and the Mean Value Theorem to approach the proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the partial derivatives being zero and explore the use of integrals and the Mean Value Theorem. There is a focus on the continuity of the function and whether assumptions about continuity are necessary for the proof.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, questioning the assumptions about continuity and exploring the implications of differentiability. Some suggest using specific lines parallel to the axes to demonstrate continuity and constancy, while others express skepticism about the truth of the statement being proved.

Contextual Notes

There is a noted tension regarding the continuity of functions with first-order partial derivatives, as some examples provided in the discussion indicate that such functions need not be continuous. This raises questions about the validity of the proof approach being discussed.

Yami
Messages
20
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose the function f:R^2→R has 1st order partial derivatives and that
δf(x,y)/δx = δf(x,y)/δy = 0 for all (x,y) in R^2.
Prove that f is constant; there exists c such that f(x,y) = c for all (x,y) in R.

There's a hint as well:
First show that the restriction of f:R^2→R to a line parallel to one of the coordinate axes is constant.

Homework Equations


The chapter defines partial derivatives in general:
Let O be open in R^n and i be an index with 1≤i≤n. A function f:O→R has a partial derivative with respect to its ith component at the point x in O provided that
lim_(t→0)(f(x + t*e_i) - f(x))/t exists.


The Attempt at a Solution


The chapter has no mention of integrals but I tried using integrals anyway since I have no idea what to do with the given hint.

0 =
y
∫δf(x,t)/δy dt +
0
x
∫δf(t,0)/δy dt
0
= f(x,y) - f(x,0) + f(x,0) - f(0,0)
= f(x,y) - f(0,0)

implying f(x,y) = f(0,0) for all (x,y).
But then I realized that the partial derivatives being 0 means their antiderivatives are constant, so that won't work out.
Now I'm looking at the hint again but, I'm really stumped on how to use it. The chapter mentions the Mean Value Theorem. I thought of trying that somehow, but it's not given that the function is continuous. Can anyone point me in the right direction?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Set y = c, constant, and consider h(x) = f(x,c). Can you apply the MVT to that?
 
Well, another reason I'm having trouble with this problem is I'm having trouble believing it's true.
What if f(x,y) =
{2 if (x,y) = (0,0),
{3 if (x,y) ≠ (0,0).

Wouldn't the partial derivatives be 0 still? Again it's not given that the function is continuous. Do I have to assume it's continuous?
 
Yami said:
Well, another reason I'm having trouble with this problem is I'm having trouble believing it's true.
What if f(x,y) =
{2 if (x,y) = (0,0),
{3 if (x,y) ≠ (0,0).

Wouldn't the partial derivatives be 0 still? Again it's not given that the function is continuous. Do I have to assume it's continuous?

If the partial derivative with respect to x exists at (x,c) then the function of x given by f(x,c) must be continuous. Same for f(c,y). Assuming the derivative exists implies continuity.
 
Ah, yes. But this section in the book specifically states that
"For n > 1, a function f: R^n→R that has first order partial derivatives need not be continuous," and even provides an example:
f(x,y) =
{xy/(x^2+y^2) if (x,y) ≠ (0,0)
{0 if (x,y) = (0,0)

The partials at (0,0) are 0.

Okay, I'm going try this:
Suppose f is not continuous. Then f is not constant, since f being constant implies it's continuous. Then we are done?

Then with that assertion that f should be continuous I can use MVT. Yes?
 
LCKurtz said:
If the partial derivative with respect to x exists at (x,c) then the function of x given by f(x,c) must be continuous. Same for f(c,y). Assuming the derivative exists implies continuity.

Yami said:
Ah, yes. But this section in the book specifically states that
"For n > 1, a function f: R^n→R that has first order partial derivatives need not be continuous," and even provides an example:
f(x,y) =
{xy/(x^2+y^2) if (x,y) ≠ (0,0)
{0 if (x,y) = (0,0)

The partials at (0,0) are 0.

Okay, I'm going try this:
Suppose f is not continuous. Then f is not constant, since f being constant implies it's continuous. Then we are done?

Then with that assertion that f should be continuous I can use MVT. Yes?

But I didn't say the function f(x,y) was continuous as a function of two variables. What you do have is that as a function of one variable with the other held constant it is continuous. And its derivative is given to exist and is 0.
 
Oh, I think I see now. For a function of one variable, differentiability implies continuity. So that's where the hint fits in? Use the line parallel to an axis to equate it to a function with an interval domain to imply continuity?

So I can do something like this:
I = {(x,c) | c = some constant}, the line.
g:I→R ; g(x) = f(x,c). Since g is differentiable on I it is continuous?
 
Yami said:
Oh, I think I see now. For a function of one variable, differentiability implies continuity. So that's where the hint fits in? Use the line parallel to an axis to equate it to a function with an interval domain to imply continuity?

So I can do something like this:
I = {(x,c) | c = some constant}, the line.
g:I→R ; g(x) = f(x,c). Since g is differentiable on I it is continuous?

You have a function of one variable whose derivative is 0 and you are trying to show it is a constant. Perhaps if you show it is constant along the line where y = c that would get you started. Look in your calculus book to see how f'(x) identically 0 implies f(x) is a constant. I bet you will see a reference to the MVT.
 
And I might add that once you have f(x,y) is constant along lines (x,c) and (a,y) you need to show that f is the same constant everywhere.
 
  • #10
I think I've written out a satisfying proof. Thanks for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K