Fake proof of differentiability












3












$begingroup$


It's a theorem that if $fcolon UsubsetBbb R^nto Bbb R^m$ has the property that each of the partial derivatives $partial_if_j$ exist and are continuous $pin U$, then $f$ is differentiable at $p$. When I was trying to prove this, I came up with the following "proof" which doesn't use the continuity hypothesis. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this proof?



Since $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$, we can write
$$
f_j(p+v) = f_j(p) + sum_i partial_if_j(p)v_i + R_j(v),
$$

where $|R_j(v)|/|v| to 0$ as $vto 0$. Hence, we can write
begin{align*}
f(p+v) &= f(p) + big(sum_i partial_if_1(p)v_i + R_1(v),dots,sum_i partial_if_m(p)v_i + R_m(v)big) \
&= f(p) + sum_jbig(sum_ipartial_if_j(p)v_ibig)e_j + R_j(v)e_j \
&= f(p) + [Df_p][v] + (R_1,dots,R_m)(v),
end{align*}

where $[Df_p] = [partial_if_j(p)]$ is the usual Jacobian matrix, and $[v]$ is the column vector $[v_1 dotsb v_n]^T$. Now,
$$
frac{|(R_1,dots,R_m)(v)|^2}{|v|^2} = frac{R_1(v)^2 + dots + R_m(v)^2}{|v|^2} to 0,
$$

where the last expression goes to $0$ as $vto 0$ since it is a sum of finitely many terms, each of which goes to $0$. Hence we have written $f(p+v)$ as a sum of a constant term, a linear part, and a sublinear piece, so $f$ is differentiable at $p$. At no point did I explicitly use the continuity hypothesis, so what exactly is wrong with this proof? Best.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    3












    $begingroup$


    It's a theorem that if $fcolon UsubsetBbb R^nto Bbb R^m$ has the property that each of the partial derivatives $partial_if_j$ exist and are continuous $pin U$, then $f$ is differentiable at $p$. When I was trying to prove this, I came up with the following "proof" which doesn't use the continuity hypothesis. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this proof?



    Since $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$, we can write
    $$
    f_j(p+v) = f_j(p) + sum_i partial_if_j(p)v_i + R_j(v),
    $$

    where $|R_j(v)|/|v| to 0$ as $vto 0$. Hence, we can write
    begin{align*}
    f(p+v) &= f(p) + big(sum_i partial_if_1(p)v_i + R_1(v),dots,sum_i partial_if_m(p)v_i + R_m(v)big) \
    &= f(p) + sum_jbig(sum_ipartial_if_j(p)v_ibig)e_j + R_j(v)e_j \
    &= f(p) + [Df_p][v] + (R_1,dots,R_m)(v),
    end{align*}

    where $[Df_p] = [partial_if_j(p)]$ is the usual Jacobian matrix, and $[v]$ is the column vector $[v_1 dotsb v_n]^T$. Now,
    $$
    frac{|(R_1,dots,R_m)(v)|^2}{|v|^2} = frac{R_1(v)^2 + dots + R_m(v)^2}{|v|^2} to 0,
    $$

    where the last expression goes to $0$ as $vto 0$ since it is a sum of finitely many terms, each of which goes to $0$. Hence we have written $f(p+v)$ as a sum of a constant term, a linear part, and a sublinear piece, so $f$ is differentiable at $p$. At no point did I explicitly use the continuity hypothesis, so what exactly is wrong with this proof? Best.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      3












      3








      3





      $begingroup$


      It's a theorem that if $fcolon UsubsetBbb R^nto Bbb R^m$ has the property that each of the partial derivatives $partial_if_j$ exist and are continuous $pin U$, then $f$ is differentiable at $p$. When I was trying to prove this, I came up with the following "proof" which doesn't use the continuity hypothesis. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this proof?



      Since $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$, we can write
      $$
      f_j(p+v) = f_j(p) + sum_i partial_if_j(p)v_i + R_j(v),
      $$

      where $|R_j(v)|/|v| to 0$ as $vto 0$. Hence, we can write
      begin{align*}
      f(p+v) &= f(p) + big(sum_i partial_if_1(p)v_i + R_1(v),dots,sum_i partial_if_m(p)v_i + R_m(v)big) \
      &= f(p) + sum_jbig(sum_ipartial_if_j(p)v_ibig)e_j + R_j(v)e_j \
      &= f(p) + [Df_p][v] + (R_1,dots,R_m)(v),
      end{align*}

      where $[Df_p] = [partial_if_j(p)]$ is the usual Jacobian matrix, and $[v]$ is the column vector $[v_1 dotsb v_n]^T$. Now,
      $$
      frac{|(R_1,dots,R_m)(v)|^2}{|v|^2} = frac{R_1(v)^2 + dots + R_m(v)^2}{|v|^2} to 0,
      $$

      where the last expression goes to $0$ as $vto 0$ since it is a sum of finitely many terms, each of which goes to $0$. Hence we have written $f(p+v)$ as a sum of a constant term, a linear part, and a sublinear piece, so $f$ is differentiable at $p$. At no point did I explicitly use the continuity hypothesis, so what exactly is wrong with this proof? Best.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      It's a theorem that if $fcolon UsubsetBbb R^nto Bbb R^m$ has the property that each of the partial derivatives $partial_if_j$ exist and are continuous $pin U$, then $f$ is differentiable at $p$. When I was trying to prove this, I came up with the following "proof" which doesn't use the continuity hypothesis. Can someone tell me what's wrong with this proof?



      Since $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$, we can write
      $$
      f_j(p+v) = f_j(p) + sum_i partial_if_j(p)v_i + R_j(v),
      $$

      where $|R_j(v)|/|v| to 0$ as $vto 0$. Hence, we can write
      begin{align*}
      f(p+v) &= f(p) + big(sum_i partial_if_1(p)v_i + R_1(v),dots,sum_i partial_if_m(p)v_i + R_m(v)big) \
      &= f(p) + sum_jbig(sum_ipartial_if_j(p)v_ibig)e_j + R_j(v)e_j \
      &= f(p) + [Df_p][v] + (R_1,dots,R_m)(v),
      end{align*}

      where $[Df_p] = [partial_if_j(p)]$ is the usual Jacobian matrix, and $[v]$ is the column vector $[v_1 dotsb v_n]^T$. Now,
      $$
      frac{|(R_1,dots,R_m)(v)|^2}{|v|^2} = frac{R_1(v)^2 + dots + R_m(v)^2}{|v|^2} to 0,
      $$

      where the last expression goes to $0$ as $vto 0$ since it is a sum of finitely many terms, each of which goes to $0$. Hence we have written $f(p+v)$ as a sum of a constant term, a linear part, and a sublinear piece, so $f$ is differentiable at $p$. At no point did I explicitly use the continuity hypothesis, so what exactly is wrong with this proof? Best.







      real-analysis multivariable-calculus derivatives proof-verification






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 26 '18 at 23:03









      AOrtizAOrtiz

      10.5k21441




      10.5k21441






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          In short, if you don't assume that the $partial_i f_j$ are continuous then you can't assume that $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$.



          You only know that all partial derivatives of $f_j$ exist, but you need continuity to guarantee that $f_j$ is actually differentiable (that's the $m=1$ case of the theorem you talk about).






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            9












            $begingroup$

            The very first step is wrong. You are only given that partial derivatives exist and are continuous, not that $f_j$ is a differentiable function on $mathbb R^{n}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













              Your Answer





              StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
              return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
              StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
              StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
              });
              });
              }, "mathjax-editing");

              StackExchange.ready(function() {
              var channelOptions = {
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              };
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
              createEditor();
              });
              }
              else {
              createEditor();
              }
              });

              function createEditor() {
              StackExchange.prepareEditor({
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader: {
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              },
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              });


              }
              });














              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function () {
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053412%2ffake-proof-of-differentiability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
              }
              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              4












              $begingroup$

              In short, if you don't assume that the $partial_i f_j$ are continuous then you can't assume that $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$.



              You only know that all partial derivatives of $f_j$ exist, but you need continuity to guarantee that $f_j$ is actually differentiable (that's the $m=1$ case of the theorem you talk about).






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$


















                4












                $begingroup$

                In short, if you don't assume that the $partial_i f_j$ are continuous then you can't assume that $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$.



                You only know that all partial derivatives of $f_j$ exist, but you need continuity to guarantee that $f_j$ is actually differentiable (that's the $m=1$ case of the theorem you talk about).






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$
















                  4












                  4








                  4





                  $begingroup$

                  In short, if you don't assume that the $partial_i f_j$ are continuous then you can't assume that $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$.



                  You only know that all partial derivatives of $f_j$ exist, but you need continuity to guarantee that $f_j$ is actually differentiable (that's the $m=1$ case of the theorem you talk about).






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  In short, if you don't assume that the $partial_i f_j$ are continuous then you can't assume that $f_j$ is differentiable at $p$.



                  You only know that all partial derivatives of $f_j$ exist, but you need continuity to guarantee that $f_j$ is actually differentiable (that's the $m=1$ case of the theorem you talk about).







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:12









                  0x5390x539

                  1,286418




                  1,286418























                      9












                      $begingroup$

                      The very first step is wrong. You are only given that partial derivatives exist and are continuous, not that $f_j$ is a differentiable function on $mathbb R^{n}$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$


















                        9












                        $begingroup$

                        The very first step is wrong. You are only given that partial derivatives exist and are continuous, not that $f_j$ is a differentiable function on $mathbb R^{n}$.






                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$
















                          9












                          9








                          9





                          $begingroup$

                          The very first step is wrong. You are only given that partial derivatives exist and are continuous, not that $f_j$ is a differentiable function on $mathbb R^{n}$.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          The very first step is wrong. You are only given that partial derivatives exist and are continuous, not that $f_j$ is a differentiable function on $mathbb R^{n}$.







                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:14









                          Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy

                          55.7k42158




                          55.7k42158






























                              draft saved

                              draft discarded




















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid



                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function () {
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053412%2ffake-proof-of-differentiability%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                              }
                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Plaza Victoria

                              Puebla de Zaragoza

                              Musa