Let
Is differentiable at the origin?
Why this is asked: Partials existing ⇏ continuous ⇏ differentiable. The safe implication is: continuous partials ⇒ differentiable. Know xy/(x²+y²) and the equality-of-mixed-partials failure.
In one variable there is one notion of derivative; in two there are four, they are not equivalent, and the exam is built almost entirely on the gaps between them.
Because "differentiable" is the word candidates carry over from one variable unexamined. In one variable, the derivative existing is the whole story — it forces continuity and everything else follows. In two, partial derivatives can exist at a point where the function is not even continuous, and that single sentence generates more wrong options in this topic than any other fact. The paper knows it, and sets it every year.
Write for a real-valued function of near a point .
Partial derivatives are one-variable derivatives along the two axes. freezes and differentiates in . That is two directions out of infinitely many, which is the source of all the trouble.
Directional derivative in the direction : the ordinary derivative at of . The partials are the special cases and .
Differentiable at means something stronger than any collection of directional statements. It asks for a linear map with
The error must be small compared with however approaches zero — not along each line separately, but uniformly in direction. When such an exists it is unique, it is given by the partials, , and is continuous at .
The ladder is the topic. Read down and every arrow is a theorem; read up and every arrow is a counterexample, and each has a standard witness.
Along the axes is identically , so : both partials exist and are as well-behaved as they could be. But along the diagonal ,
for every . So takes the value arbitrarily close to the origin where it is : not continuous, let alone differentiable.
The partials looked at two directions. The function misbehaves in a third.
The natural repair is to demand all directions, not just two. It is not enough.
Along the line ,
and along the -axis is outright. So every directional derivative at the origin exists and equals — the function looks, from every straight line, exactly like the zero function.
Now approach along the parabola :
Constantly one half, all the way in. The limit does not exist, so is not continuous at the origin, and certainly not differentiable there.
This is the example to remember, because it closes the obvious escape route. Straight lines are a one-parameter family of paths; the plane has more paths than that.
The usable sufficient condition:
If and exist in a neighbourhood of and are continuous at , then is differentiable at .
This is the workhorse. In practice every function the paper hands you built from polynomials, exponentials, sines and logarithms is away from its obvious bad points, so it is differentiable there and the only question is what happens at the bad point.
Note that continuity of the partials is sufficient and not necessary. A function can be differentiable at a point where its partials are discontinuous — the one-variable dressed up in two variables does it. So is a strictly smaller class than differentiable, and an option asserting the reverse is wrong.
Schwarz/Clairaut: if and exist near and are continuous at , they are equal there. The continuity hypothesis is real, and dropping it is a standard question.
Working from first principles along the axes gives and . Differentiating those,
Both mixed partials exist at the origin and they are different. Nothing is wrong with Schwarz — its hypothesis simply is not met, because is not continuous at the origin.
For differentiable at and a curve differentiable at with ,
The hypothesis that matters is differentiability of , not existence of its partials. With partials alone the formula is false, and is again the witness: its partials at the origin are , the formula would predict derivative along , and in fact is a constant that does not even agree with .
"Both partials exist at , so is continuous at ." . Tempting because in one variable differentiability does force continuity, and the partials look like the same statement. They are not: each partial sees a single line, and two lines do not control a neighbourhood. This is the topic's central hypothesis dropped.
"All directional derivatives exist, so is differentiable." . This is the more sophisticated version of the same error, and it is the one that catches candidates who have already learned the first. Differentiability is not a statement about each direction separately; it is a statement about all directions at once, with a single linear approximation and a uniform error bound.
" is differentiable, so and are continuous." A converse assumed: continuity of the partials is sufficient for differentiability, not necessary. differentiable, in that direction.
" always." gives and at the origin. Symmetry of second derivatives is a theorem with a continuity hypothesis, not an identity.
" is continuous and the partials exist, so is differentiable." Still false, and worth separating because it feels like it has patched the hole. Take with . It is continuous at the origin (the quotient is bounded by ), both partials exist there, and it is not differentiable: the candidate linear map would be , and is not along .
" restricted to every line through is continuous, so is continuous at ." The same again. Restriction to lines is a strictly weaker condition than continuity, in every one of these examples.
See it move
The trap here
“If all partial derivatives exist at a point then f is continuous there” — false
f(x,y) = xy
Both partials are 0 at the origin, but f = ½ along y = x, so f is not continuous.
Check yourself — select all that apply
For real numbers a, b, c, d, e, f, consider the function given by F(x, y) = (ax + by + c, dx + ey + f). Which of the following statements are true?
Next: Inverse and implicit function theorems, extrema
Create a free account to keep your place and have this feed your study plan.
Open this in the full syllabus view · Unit 1