5
$\begingroup$

...then does it follow that $f$ is differentiable at 0?

My motivation for asking this is as follows: in Spivak's Calculus on Manifolds, in theorem 2.9, he uses this with the additional condition that each $f^i$ is continuously differentiable in a nbh of 0, to conclude that $f$ is differentiable and I don't think is necessary.

Namely, if each $f^i$ has derivative $Df^i$, I claim the matrix with $i^{th}$ row $Df^i$ will serve as $Df$. Indeed, let $v_j$ be a sequence tending to 0 in $\mathbb{R}^n$, we have (by the triangle inequality, if you wish)$$\frac{| f(v_j) - f(0) - \sum_i Df^i(v) |}{|v_j|} \leqslant \frac{\sum_i |f^i(v_j) - f^i(0) - Df^i(v_j)|}{|v_j|}$$Taking the limit as $j \rightarrow \infty$, each summand goes to 0 by the differentiability of $Df^i$ (and there's only $m$ of them), hence the limit is 0.

Is this wrong? Thanks in advance!

EDIT: btw, conditional on the above proof being right and/or the claim being right, does anyone know maybe what Spivak was going for?

  • 0
    Er wait I'm not asking that why if the partials exist, the derivative exists...or maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment?2012-09-06
  • 0
    Lol k no worries2012-09-06
  • 1
    I think someone else has made the same mistake as I. At any rate, looking at the proof I think he's just stating something that is locally superfluous. Theorem 2–3 clearly confirms that differentiability can be checked for each component separately.2012-09-06
  • 0
    I think so as well :p. It's a super reasonable mistake to make.2012-09-06
  • 0
    I remember thinking that this section was strangely written, and perhaps this is why. It is not apparent how the $g_i$ being continuously differentiable is being used, if it is being used at all. He only seems to want to apply the chain rule, which doesn't need continuous partials.2012-09-06
  • 0
    Yeah man I totally agree, hence my question :p. My 1-liner is actually a proof yeah?2012-09-06
  • 0
    Yes, if each $f^i$ is differentiable at $0$, then $Df(0)$ exists and is the matrix with $Df^i(0)$ as its lines . Continuity of the differential is irrelevant and actually **does not even make sense** because there is no reason that $Df^i(x)$ should be defined at points $x \neq0$.2012-09-06
  • 1
    Dear uncooked falcon, the idea of your calculation seems correct but your notation is not. You must write $Df^i(0)(v_j)$ on the right hand side . Similarly the sum $\sum_i Df^i(v) $ does not make sense: you want to replace it with a suitable vector in $\mathbb R^m$.2012-09-06
  • 1
    Dear uncookedfalcon, I have checked Spivak's booklet and I think there is a misunderstanding on your part.The theorem you are asking about is Theorem 2-3 (3) on page 20. It is proved (without any continuity assumption) on the next page and the proof is essentially your one-liner, with the *caveat* I mentioned in my preceding comment. So Spivak is 100% correct, and optimal as to the hypotheses. His Theorem 2.9 that you mention is about the differentiability of the composition of maps and is an entirely different problem.2012-09-06
  • 0
    Dear Georges thank you for the comments. You're absolutely right that I was careless with my notation, by $Df^i$ I mean what you call $Df^i(0)$, and by $\sum_i Df^i(v)$ I mean $\sum_i Df^i(v) e^i$, where $e^i$ are the standard basis for $\mathbb{R}^m$.2012-09-06
  • 0
    (argh I mean $\sum_i Df^i(0)(v)e^i$) Also, as you say, Theorem 2-3(3) is exactly what I wanted, and answers my question. In theorem 2.9, he writes, ``since $g_i$ is continuously differentiable at $a$, it follows from Theorem 2.8 that $g$ is differentiable at $a$". This was the motivation for my question, and I guess the continuous condition is superfluous. If you care to write anything in the answers section I'd be more than happy to accept it.2012-09-06
  • 0
    Dear uncookedfalcon, thank you for this kind offer but since I just gave a reference, I don't think it is appropriate to upgrade it to an answer. Anyway, I am happy that all is now perfectly clear to you: only *that* really matters. And good luck with the rest of the book!2012-09-06
  • 0
    Aww thanks man :D !2012-09-06

2 Answers 2

2

In case this is useful to anyone else, let me record the comments of Georges Elencwajg and Dylan Moreland-the answer is yes it's true, and the condition in Spivak is superfluous.

The proof is the one liner I wrote above, albeit with better notation: If $\lambda^i$ are the derivatives of the $f^i$ at 0, I claim the matrix with $i^{th}$ row $\lambda^i$ will serve as $Df(0)$. Indeed we have $$\frac{|f(v) - f(0) - \lambda^i(v)e_i|}{|v|} \leqslant \sum_i \frac{|f^i(v) - f^i(0) - \lambda^i(v)|}{|v|}$$Taking any $v_i \rightarrow 0$, applying the above inequality, and using the differentiability of each $f^i$ at 0 gives the result.

Thanks all for the assistance!

-1

The "continuously differentiable" condition for the partial derivatives is essential to showing that $f$ is differentiable $0$. This is the canonical counterexample $$f(x,y) = \left\{ \begin{array}{lr} \frac{x^2y}{x^2+y^2} & \text{if } (x,y) \neq (0,0) \\ 0 & \text{if } x = (0,0) \end{array} \right.$$

  • 1
    Hey Shankara, thanks for the answer, but I'm not sure your answering my question. I think you answered: if all the partials exist, then is $f$ differentiable?2012-09-06
  • 0
    The answer is no.2012-09-06
  • 1
    lmao yeah I agree, but again: not my question :p2012-09-06
  • 1
    This is indeed not an answer to the question.2012-09-06
  • 0
    -1: This is the answer to another question.2012-09-06
  • 0
    Sorry for the confusion. I misread the question as asking why the continuously differentiable condition was necessary. I am new here. If your answer is downvoted, is it better to delete the answer?2012-09-07