Limit $frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$ is found using polar coordinates but it is not supposed to exist.












47












$begingroup$


Consider the following 2-variable function:




$$f(x,y) = frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$$




I would like to find the limit of this function as $(x,y) rightarrow (0,0)$.



I used polar coordinates instead of solving explicitly in $mathbb R^2 $, and it went as the following:



$$ x = r cos theta, qquad y = rsintheta $$



Hence,



$$lim_{(x,y) to (0,0)} frac{x^2y}{x^4 + y^2} = lim_{r to 0}frac{r^2cos^2theta(rsintheta)}{r^4cos^4theta + r^2sin^2theta}$$



This simplifies to,



$$ lim_{r to 0} frac{r^3 cos^2thetasintheta}{r^2(r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta)}$$



Simplifying $r^3/r^2$, we finally get;



$$lim_{r to 0} frac{r (cos^2thetasintheta)}{r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta}$$



Now from the above, we find that as $r to 0$ the limit is $0$.



I wanted to verify this answer so I checked on Wolfram Alpha. Explicitly without changing to polar coordinates, it said that the limit does not exist at $(0,0)$ and rightly so. Then how is it that with polar coordinates, the limit exists and is $0$? Am I doing something wrong in this method?



Also, what should I do in this situation, and when should I NOT use polar coordinates to find limits of multi-variable functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Aza
    Apr 15 '14 at 7:46










  • $begingroup$
    I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 15 '14 at 8:10










  • $begingroup$
    @MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:14










  • $begingroup$
    @JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosrati
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:27
















47












$begingroup$


Consider the following 2-variable function:




$$f(x,y) = frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$$




I would like to find the limit of this function as $(x,y) rightarrow (0,0)$.



I used polar coordinates instead of solving explicitly in $mathbb R^2 $, and it went as the following:



$$ x = r cos theta, qquad y = rsintheta $$



Hence,



$$lim_{(x,y) to (0,0)} frac{x^2y}{x^4 + y^2} = lim_{r to 0}frac{r^2cos^2theta(rsintheta)}{r^4cos^4theta + r^2sin^2theta}$$



This simplifies to,



$$ lim_{r to 0} frac{r^3 cos^2thetasintheta}{r^2(r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta)}$$



Simplifying $r^3/r^2$, we finally get;



$$lim_{r to 0} frac{r (cos^2thetasintheta)}{r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta}$$



Now from the above, we find that as $r to 0$ the limit is $0$.



I wanted to verify this answer so I checked on Wolfram Alpha. Explicitly without changing to polar coordinates, it said that the limit does not exist at $(0,0)$ and rightly so. Then how is it that with polar coordinates, the limit exists and is $0$? Am I doing something wrong in this method?



Also, what should I do in this situation, and when should I NOT use polar coordinates to find limits of multi-variable functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Aza
    Apr 15 '14 at 7:46










  • $begingroup$
    I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 15 '14 at 8:10










  • $begingroup$
    @MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:14










  • $begingroup$
    @JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosrati
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:27














47












47








47


34



$begingroup$


Consider the following 2-variable function:




$$f(x,y) = frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$$




I would like to find the limit of this function as $(x,y) rightarrow (0,0)$.



I used polar coordinates instead of solving explicitly in $mathbb R^2 $, and it went as the following:



$$ x = r cos theta, qquad y = rsintheta $$



Hence,



$$lim_{(x,y) to (0,0)} frac{x^2y}{x^4 + y^2} = lim_{r to 0}frac{r^2cos^2theta(rsintheta)}{r^4cos^4theta + r^2sin^2theta}$$



This simplifies to,



$$ lim_{r to 0} frac{r^3 cos^2thetasintheta}{r^2(r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta)}$$



Simplifying $r^3/r^2$, we finally get;



$$lim_{r to 0} frac{r (cos^2thetasintheta)}{r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta}$$



Now from the above, we find that as $r to 0$ the limit is $0$.



I wanted to verify this answer so I checked on Wolfram Alpha. Explicitly without changing to polar coordinates, it said that the limit does not exist at $(0,0)$ and rightly so. Then how is it that with polar coordinates, the limit exists and is $0$? Am I doing something wrong in this method?



Also, what should I do in this situation, and when should I NOT use polar coordinates to find limits of multi-variable functions?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Consider the following 2-variable function:




$$f(x,y) = frac{x^2y}{x^4+y^2}$$




I would like to find the limit of this function as $(x,y) rightarrow (0,0)$.



I used polar coordinates instead of solving explicitly in $mathbb R^2 $, and it went as the following:



$$ x = r cos theta, qquad y = rsintheta $$



Hence,



$$lim_{(x,y) to (0,0)} frac{x^2y}{x^4 + y^2} = lim_{r to 0}frac{r^2cos^2theta(rsintheta)}{r^4cos^4theta + r^2sin^2theta}$$



This simplifies to,



$$ lim_{r to 0} frac{r^3 cos^2thetasintheta}{r^2(r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta)}$$



Simplifying $r^3/r^2$, we finally get;



$$lim_{r to 0} frac{r (cos^2thetasintheta)}{r^2cos^4theta + sin^2theta}$$



Now from the above, we find that as $r to 0$ the limit is $0$.



I wanted to verify this answer so I checked on Wolfram Alpha. Explicitly without changing to polar coordinates, it said that the limit does not exist at $(0,0)$ and rightly so. Then how is it that with polar coordinates, the limit exists and is $0$? Am I doing something wrong in this method?



Also, what should I do in this situation, and when should I NOT use polar coordinates to find limits of multi-variable functions?







calculus limits multivariable-calculus polar-coordinates






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Apr 14 '17 at 10:05









Nosrati

26.6k62354




26.6k62354










asked Apr 14 '14 at 14:31









edgaralienfoeedgaralienfoe

5651718




5651718








  • 9




    $begingroup$
    It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Aza
    Apr 15 '14 at 7:46










  • $begingroup$
    I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 15 '14 at 8:10










  • $begingroup$
    @MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:14










  • $begingroup$
    @JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosrati
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:27














  • 9




    $begingroup$
    It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
    $endgroup$
    – Aza
    Apr 15 '14 at 7:46










  • $begingroup$
    I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 15 '14 at 8:10










  • $begingroup$
    @MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
    $endgroup$
    – Jyrki Lahtonen
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:14










  • $begingroup$
    @JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
    $endgroup$
    – Nosrati
    Apr 14 '17 at 10:27








9




9




$begingroup$
It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
$endgroup$
– Aza
Apr 15 '14 at 7:46




$begingroup$
It's odd - this conflicts with what I was taught last semester, that converting to polar is a foolproof way of proving a limit exists.
$endgroup$
– Aza
Apr 15 '14 at 7:46












$begingroup$
I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
$endgroup$
– edgaralienfoe
Apr 15 '14 at 8:10




$begingroup$
I think @heropup's answer is more than convincing :)
$endgroup$
– edgaralienfoe
Apr 15 '14 at 8:10












$begingroup$
@MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Apr 14 '17 at 10:14




$begingroup$
@MyGlasses Did you know that the SE search engine can't read TeX? Consequently TeXifying the title doesn't help that much.
$endgroup$
– Jyrki Lahtonen
Apr 14 '17 at 10:14












$begingroup$
@JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
$endgroup$
– Nosrati
Apr 14 '17 at 10:27




$begingroup$
@JyrkiLahtonen I think these edits I have done so far, help us to find related and also duplicate in right panel (related panel). But if my work about these edits is un-useful, I will stop it. tell me please.
$endgroup$
– Nosrati
Apr 14 '17 at 10:27










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















64












$begingroup$

The limit is not defined because in order for the limit to exist, the value of the function for every possible path to $(0,0)$ must tend to the same finite value. When $y = x^2$, you have not necessarily shown that the limit is in fact $0$. When you transformed to polar coordinates and then took the limit as $r to 0$, you are assuming that $theta$ is a fixed constant. Therefore, you are looking only at paths that follow a straight line to the origin.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Mathematica code:



F[x_, y_] := x^2 y/(x^4 + y^2)
op = ParametricPlot3D[{r Cos[t], r Sin[t], F[r Cos[t], r Sin[t]]},
{r, 0, Sqrt[2.1]}, {t, -Pi, Pi}, PlotPoints -> 40, MaxRecursion -> 8,
Mesh -> {10, 48}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1/2, 1/2}},
SphericalRegion -> True, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False];
an = Show[op, ViewPoint -> {{Cos[2 Pi #], Sin[2 Pi #], 0}, {-Sin[2 Pi #],
Cos[2 Pi #], 0}, {0, 0, 1}}.{1.3, -2.4, 2}] & /@ (Range[40]/40);





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 14 '14 at 14:46






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:06






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
    $endgroup$
    – user98602
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:53






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Dufour
    Apr 14 '14 at 17:56






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The images were created in Mathematica 9.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 15 '14 at 0:55



















20












$begingroup$

You haven't taken into account what happens if $theta$ is variable as a function of $r$ when $r$ goes to $0$. Choose $theta$ so that $sin theta = r$, i.e. $theta$ is approximately $r$ and you will get $cos theta$ is about 1 for small $r$, and then the limit will not be zero, so the limit doesn't exist.



If you want to use polar coordinates to show that a limit exists, particularly in the case where you want to show the limit is $0$ as $r to 0$, then if you factor out a positive power of $r$ then you need to bound the remaining factor by either a constant or a multiple of a negative power of $r$ that is lower than the positive power you factored out. In your case you can't do this because when $sin theta = r$ you can't produce such a bound for the expression after you factor out $r$. If you had something like $r/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ then you could bound $1/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ by a constant for all $theta$ and so you would then get that the limit is indeed $0$ as $r to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
    $endgroup$
    – godonichia
    Nov 7 '14 at 19:10



















17












$begingroup$

Let $alpha >0$, and consider the path $gamma_alpha(t) = (t,alpha t^2)$. Then we have
$f circ gamma_alpha (t) = {alpha t^4 over t^4+ alpha^2 t^4 }$, and the limit as $t to 0$ is ${alpha over 1+alpha^2}$ (in fact, it is constant along this path).



The limit exists along all of these paths, but is different. If the limit exists, its value must be independent of how $(x,y) to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 24 at 21:57





















11












$begingroup$

The OP asks:




  1. What am I doing wrong with this method?


  2. When should I not use polar coordinates to find limits of multivariable functions?



The answer to the second question is somewhat unsatisfactory: If you find a limit, then you can. If you don't find a limit, then you can't.





So now, let's just leave that behind us and focus on the first question: "What am I doing wrong with this method?"



For this I will just consider the case where we have cartesian coordinates. The analogy with polar coordinates should be evident.



The mistake you made actually has nothing to do with "polar coordinates" per se, but with "limits". To this end, I'll first repeat the definition of the limit of a two-variable function here:




Suppose we have a function
begin{align}f:mathbb Rtimes mathbb Rsupset U&to mathbb R\
(x,y)&mapsto f(x,y)end{align}
For a point $(a,b)inmathbb R$ we say that $limlimits_{(x,y)to (a,b)}f(x,y)=L$, if and only if,
$$forall varepsilon>0,exists delta >0: big(Vert (x,y)-(a,b)Vert<delta implies vert f(x,y)-Lvert<epsilonbig).tag{*}$$
In words $(*)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the point $(a,b)$.




Now comes your mistake: We have not defined what $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$ should mean. To say something about the limt of $f(x,y)$ we need to manipulate points in $mathbb R^2$. But $xto a$ means we are considering points in $mathbb R$ which lie close to $a$ (which is definitely not a point in $mathbb R^2$).



So this is a problem. If we would want to evaluate $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$, we would first have to define what this means. So let's do that:




Define $ell_asubset mathbb R^2$ as the line $x=a$, i.e. $ell_a =left{(x,y)inmathbb R^2mid x=aright}$. Also introduce the notation: $dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)=text{distance between $(x,y)$ and $ell_a$}$.



Now we say that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$, if and only if,
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0: Big(dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)tag{**}<delta impliesvert f(x,y)-L(y)vert<varepsilonBig).$$
In words $(**)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the line $x=a$.




Notice the difference of the definitions in $(*)$ and $(**)$. The first tells us what happens if we are close to some point, the second tells us what happens if we are close to some line. Also, $(**)$ only says that we can get close to $L(y)$, which is some funtion of $y$. In general, proving that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$ is not at all easy and quite often not usesful.





To sum up: The problem is that $limlimits_{rto 0}frac{rcos^2thetasintheta}{r^2cos^4theta+sin^2theta}$ is actually a rather stange and unuseful thing. If ever, it needs to be used with caution. This in particular means that it cannot be evaluated by simply substituting $r$ by $0$.



As an extra I would like to leave you with a funtion $f(r,theta)$ for which $limlimits_{rto 0}f(r,theta)$ is of more use:
$$lim_{rto 0}frac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}=0text{, because}$$



$$0<r<deltaimplies leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}rightvert<leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{1}rightvert=rleftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert<deltaunderbrace{leftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert}_{text{bounded}}.\text{The singular cases where $cos^2theta sintheta=0$ are easily seen to be compatible.}$$



This rimes with its graph:



Graph of the aforementioned function






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 4 '16 at 17:49













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%2f753381%2flimit-fracx2yx4y2-is-found-using-polar-coordinates-but-it-is-not-supp%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes








4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









64












$begingroup$

The limit is not defined because in order for the limit to exist, the value of the function for every possible path to $(0,0)$ must tend to the same finite value. When $y = x^2$, you have not necessarily shown that the limit is in fact $0$. When you transformed to polar coordinates and then took the limit as $r to 0$, you are assuming that $theta$ is a fixed constant. Therefore, you are looking only at paths that follow a straight line to the origin.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Mathematica code:



F[x_, y_] := x^2 y/(x^4 + y^2)
op = ParametricPlot3D[{r Cos[t], r Sin[t], F[r Cos[t], r Sin[t]]},
{r, 0, Sqrt[2.1]}, {t, -Pi, Pi}, PlotPoints -> 40, MaxRecursion -> 8,
Mesh -> {10, 48}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1/2, 1/2}},
SphericalRegion -> True, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False];
an = Show[op, ViewPoint -> {{Cos[2 Pi #], Sin[2 Pi #], 0}, {-Sin[2 Pi #],
Cos[2 Pi #], 0}, {0, 0, 1}}.{1.3, -2.4, 2}] & /@ (Range[40]/40);





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 14 '14 at 14:46






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:06






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
    $endgroup$
    – user98602
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:53






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Dufour
    Apr 14 '14 at 17:56






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The images were created in Mathematica 9.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 15 '14 at 0:55
















64












$begingroup$

The limit is not defined because in order for the limit to exist, the value of the function for every possible path to $(0,0)$ must tend to the same finite value. When $y = x^2$, you have not necessarily shown that the limit is in fact $0$. When you transformed to polar coordinates and then took the limit as $r to 0$, you are assuming that $theta$ is a fixed constant. Therefore, you are looking only at paths that follow a straight line to the origin.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Mathematica code:



F[x_, y_] := x^2 y/(x^4 + y^2)
op = ParametricPlot3D[{r Cos[t], r Sin[t], F[r Cos[t], r Sin[t]]},
{r, 0, Sqrt[2.1]}, {t, -Pi, Pi}, PlotPoints -> 40, MaxRecursion -> 8,
Mesh -> {10, 48}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1/2, 1/2}},
SphericalRegion -> True, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False];
an = Show[op, ViewPoint -> {{Cos[2 Pi #], Sin[2 Pi #], 0}, {-Sin[2 Pi #],
Cos[2 Pi #], 0}, {0, 0, 1}}.{1.3, -2.4, 2}] & /@ (Range[40]/40);





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 14 '14 at 14:46






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:06






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
    $endgroup$
    – user98602
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:53






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Dufour
    Apr 14 '14 at 17:56






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The images were created in Mathematica 9.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 15 '14 at 0:55














64












64








64





$begingroup$

The limit is not defined because in order for the limit to exist, the value of the function for every possible path to $(0,0)$ must tend to the same finite value. When $y = x^2$, you have not necessarily shown that the limit is in fact $0$. When you transformed to polar coordinates and then took the limit as $r to 0$, you are assuming that $theta$ is a fixed constant. Therefore, you are looking only at paths that follow a straight line to the origin.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Mathematica code:



F[x_, y_] := x^2 y/(x^4 + y^2)
op = ParametricPlot3D[{r Cos[t], r Sin[t], F[r Cos[t], r Sin[t]]},
{r, 0, Sqrt[2.1]}, {t, -Pi, Pi}, PlotPoints -> 40, MaxRecursion -> 8,
Mesh -> {10, 48}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1/2, 1/2}},
SphericalRegion -> True, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False];
an = Show[op, ViewPoint -> {{Cos[2 Pi #], Sin[2 Pi #], 0}, {-Sin[2 Pi #],
Cos[2 Pi #], 0}, {0, 0, 1}}.{1.3, -2.4, 2}] & /@ (Range[40]/40);





share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The limit is not defined because in order for the limit to exist, the value of the function for every possible path to $(0,0)$ must tend to the same finite value. When $y = x^2$, you have not necessarily shown that the limit is in fact $0$. When you transformed to polar coordinates and then took the limit as $r to 0$, you are assuming that $theta$ is a fixed constant. Therefore, you are looking only at paths that follow a straight line to the origin.



enter image description hereenter image description here



Mathematica code:



F[x_, y_] := x^2 y/(x^4 + y^2)
op = ParametricPlot3D[{r Cos[t], r Sin[t], F[r Cos[t], r Sin[t]]},
{r, 0, Sqrt[2.1]}, {t, -Pi, Pi}, PlotPoints -> 40, MaxRecursion -> 8,
Mesh -> {10, 48}, PlotRange -> {{-1, 1}, {-1, 1}, {-1/2, 1/2}},
SphericalRegion -> True, Axes -> False, Boxed -> False];
an = Show[op, ViewPoint -> {{Cos[2 Pi #], Sin[2 Pi #], 0}, {-Sin[2 Pi #],
Cos[2 Pi #], 0}, {0, 0, 1}}.{1.3, -2.4, 2}] & /@ (Range[40]/40);






share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 15 '14 at 12:13

























answered Apr 14 '14 at 14:35









heropupheropup

64.2k762102




64.2k762102








  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 14 '14 at 14:46






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:06






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
    $endgroup$
    – user98602
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:53






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Dufour
    Apr 14 '14 at 17:56






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The images were created in Mathematica 9.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 15 '14 at 0:55














  • 8




    $begingroup$
    $r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 14 '14 at 14:46






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
    $endgroup$
    – edgaralienfoe
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:06






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
    $endgroup$
    – user98602
    Apr 14 '14 at 15:53






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    @James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
    $endgroup$
    – Aaron Dufour
    Apr 14 '14 at 17:56






  • 4




    $begingroup$
    The images were created in Mathematica 9.
    $endgroup$
    – heropup
    Apr 15 '14 at 0:55








8




8




$begingroup$
$r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
$endgroup$
– heropup
Apr 14 '14 at 14:46




$begingroup$
$r$ might not depend on $theta$, but $theta$ is most certainly allowed to depend on $r$. For if not, then the only paths that can be considered as $r to 0$ would be those paths that move in a straight line to $(0,0)$, and as the choice of $y = x^2$ shows, such straight-line paths do not suffice. If $theta$ varies with $r$, the calculation of the limit is no longer necessarily $0$.
$endgroup$
– heropup
Apr 14 '14 at 14:46




2




2




$begingroup$
My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
$endgroup$
– edgaralienfoe
Apr 14 '14 at 15:06




$begingroup$
My initial reasoning was that any value of theta will not matter since we have r multiplied with an expression containing all the theta values, and r is tending to zero. I thought that whatever there is in that expression will not matter since it will be zero regardless, because it is multiplied with r.
$endgroup$
– edgaralienfoe
Apr 14 '14 at 15:06




3




3




$begingroup$
@James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
$endgroup$
– user98602
Apr 14 '14 at 15:53




$begingroup$
@James If you fix $theta$, the path you're taking to the origin is a straight line. There are many more paths than straight lines! (Great pictures, by the way!)
$endgroup$
– user98602
Apr 14 '14 at 15:53




2




2




$begingroup$
@James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Dufour
Apr 14 '14 at 17:56




$begingroup$
@James If you allow θ->0 as r->0, you see that the "expression containing all the theta values"->0/0. This presents a problem and you would need to resolve it to show that f->0.
$endgroup$
– Aaron Dufour
Apr 14 '14 at 17:56




4




4




$begingroup$
The images were created in Mathematica 9.
$endgroup$
– heropup
Apr 15 '14 at 0:55




$begingroup$
The images were created in Mathematica 9.
$endgroup$
– heropup
Apr 15 '14 at 0:55











20












$begingroup$

You haven't taken into account what happens if $theta$ is variable as a function of $r$ when $r$ goes to $0$. Choose $theta$ so that $sin theta = r$, i.e. $theta$ is approximately $r$ and you will get $cos theta$ is about 1 for small $r$, and then the limit will not be zero, so the limit doesn't exist.



If you want to use polar coordinates to show that a limit exists, particularly in the case where you want to show the limit is $0$ as $r to 0$, then if you factor out a positive power of $r$ then you need to bound the remaining factor by either a constant or a multiple of a negative power of $r$ that is lower than the positive power you factored out. In your case you can't do this because when $sin theta = r$ you can't produce such a bound for the expression after you factor out $r$. If you had something like $r/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ then you could bound $1/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ by a constant for all $theta$ and so you would then get that the limit is indeed $0$ as $r to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
    $endgroup$
    – godonichia
    Nov 7 '14 at 19:10
















20












$begingroup$

You haven't taken into account what happens if $theta$ is variable as a function of $r$ when $r$ goes to $0$. Choose $theta$ so that $sin theta = r$, i.e. $theta$ is approximately $r$ and you will get $cos theta$ is about 1 for small $r$, and then the limit will not be zero, so the limit doesn't exist.



If you want to use polar coordinates to show that a limit exists, particularly in the case where you want to show the limit is $0$ as $r to 0$, then if you factor out a positive power of $r$ then you need to bound the remaining factor by either a constant or a multiple of a negative power of $r$ that is lower than the positive power you factored out. In your case you can't do this because when $sin theta = r$ you can't produce such a bound for the expression after you factor out $r$. If you had something like $r/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ then you could bound $1/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ by a constant for all $theta$ and so you would then get that the limit is indeed $0$ as $r to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 4




    $begingroup$
    can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
    $endgroup$
    – godonichia
    Nov 7 '14 at 19:10














20












20








20





$begingroup$

You haven't taken into account what happens if $theta$ is variable as a function of $r$ when $r$ goes to $0$. Choose $theta$ so that $sin theta = r$, i.e. $theta$ is approximately $r$ and you will get $cos theta$ is about 1 for small $r$, and then the limit will not be zero, so the limit doesn't exist.



If you want to use polar coordinates to show that a limit exists, particularly in the case where you want to show the limit is $0$ as $r to 0$, then if you factor out a positive power of $r$ then you need to bound the remaining factor by either a constant or a multiple of a negative power of $r$ that is lower than the positive power you factored out. In your case you can't do this because when $sin theta = r$ you can't produce such a bound for the expression after you factor out $r$. If you had something like $r/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ then you could bound $1/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ by a constant for all $theta$ and so you would then get that the limit is indeed $0$ as $r to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



You haven't taken into account what happens if $theta$ is variable as a function of $r$ when $r$ goes to $0$. Choose $theta$ so that $sin theta = r$, i.e. $theta$ is approximately $r$ and you will get $cos theta$ is about 1 for small $r$, and then the limit will not be zero, so the limit doesn't exist.



If you want to use polar coordinates to show that a limit exists, particularly in the case where you want to show the limit is $0$ as $r to 0$, then if you factor out a positive power of $r$ then you need to bound the remaining factor by either a constant or a multiple of a negative power of $r$ that is lower than the positive power you factored out. In your case you can't do this because when $sin theta = r$ you can't produce such a bound for the expression after you factor out $r$. If you had something like $r/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ then you could bound $1/(cos^4 theta + sin^4 theta)$ by a constant for all $theta$ and so you would then get that the limit is indeed $0$ as $r to 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Apr 15 '14 at 18:19

























answered Apr 14 '14 at 14:38









user2566092user2566092

21.5k1947




21.5k1947








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
    $endgroup$
    – godonichia
    Nov 7 '14 at 19:10














  • 4




    $begingroup$
    can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
    $endgroup$
    – godonichia
    Nov 7 '14 at 19:10








4




4




$begingroup$
can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
$endgroup$
– godonichia
Nov 7 '14 at 19:10




$begingroup$
can u pls give an example as to what u r trying to say
$endgroup$
– godonichia
Nov 7 '14 at 19:10











17












$begingroup$

Let $alpha >0$, and consider the path $gamma_alpha(t) = (t,alpha t^2)$. Then we have
$f circ gamma_alpha (t) = {alpha t^4 over t^4+ alpha^2 t^4 }$, and the limit as $t to 0$ is ${alpha over 1+alpha^2}$ (in fact, it is constant along this path).



The limit exists along all of these paths, but is different. If the limit exists, its value must be independent of how $(x,y) to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 24 at 21:57


















17












$begingroup$

Let $alpha >0$, and consider the path $gamma_alpha(t) = (t,alpha t^2)$. Then we have
$f circ gamma_alpha (t) = {alpha t^4 over t^4+ alpha^2 t^4 }$, and the limit as $t to 0$ is ${alpha over 1+alpha^2}$ (in fact, it is constant along this path).



The limit exists along all of these paths, but is different. If the limit exists, its value must be independent of how $(x,y) to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    @StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 24 at 21:57
















17












17








17





$begingroup$

Let $alpha >0$, and consider the path $gamma_alpha(t) = (t,alpha t^2)$. Then we have
$f circ gamma_alpha (t) = {alpha t^4 over t^4+ alpha^2 t^4 }$, and the limit as $t to 0$ is ${alpha over 1+alpha^2}$ (in fact, it is constant along this path).



The limit exists along all of these paths, but is different. If the limit exists, its value must be independent of how $(x,y) to 0$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Let $alpha >0$, and consider the path $gamma_alpha(t) = (t,alpha t^2)$. Then we have
$f circ gamma_alpha (t) = {alpha t^4 over t^4+ alpha^2 t^4 }$, and the limit as $t to 0$ is ${alpha over 1+alpha^2}$ (in fact, it is constant along this path).



The limit exists along all of these paths, but is different. If the limit exists, its value must be independent of how $(x,y) to 0$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Jan 24 at 21:58

























answered Apr 14 '14 at 14:41









copper.hatcopper.hat

127k559160




127k559160












  • $begingroup$
    @StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 24 at 21:57




















  • $begingroup$
    @StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
    $endgroup$
    – copper.hat
    Jan 24 at 21:57


















$begingroup$
@StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
Jan 24 at 21:57






$begingroup$
@StubbornAtom: I made a mistake, thanks for catching it.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
Jan 24 at 21:57













11












$begingroup$

The OP asks:




  1. What am I doing wrong with this method?


  2. When should I not use polar coordinates to find limits of multivariable functions?



The answer to the second question is somewhat unsatisfactory: If you find a limit, then you can. If you don't find a limit, then you can't.





So now, let's just leave that behind us and focus on the first question: "What am I doing wrong with this method?"



For this I will just consider the case where we have cartesian coordinates. The analogy with polar coordinates should be evident.



The mistake you made actually has nothing to do with "polar coordinates" per se, but with "limits". To this end, I'll first repeat the definition of the limit of a two-variable function here:




Suppose we have a function
begin{align}f:mathbb Rtimes mathbb Rsupset U&to mathbb R\
(x,y)&mapsto f(x,y)end{align}
For a point $(a,b)inmathbb R$ we say that $limlimits_{(x,y)to (a,b)}f(x,y)=L$, if and only if,
$$forall varepsilon>0,exists delta >0: big(Vert (x,y)-(a,b)Vert<delta implies vert f(x,y)-Lvert<epsilonbig).tag{*}$$
In words $(*)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the point $(a,b)$.




Now comes your mistake: We have not defined what $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$ should mean. To say something about the limt of $f(x,y)$ we need to manipulate points in $mathbb R^2$. But $xto a$ means we are considering points in $mathbb R$ which lie close to $a$ (which is definitely not a point in $mathbb R^2$).



So this is a problem. If we would want to evaluate $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$, we would first have to define what this means. So let's do that:




Define $ell_asubset mathbb R^2$ as the line $x=a$, i.e. $ell_a =left{(x,y)inmathbb R^2mid x=aright}$. Also introduce the notation: $dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)=text{distance between $(x,y)$ and $ell_a$}$.



Now we say that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$, if and only if,
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0: Big(dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)tag{**}<delta impliesvert f(x,y)-L(y)vert<varepsilonBig).$$
In words $(**)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the line $x=a$.




Notice the difference of the definitions in $(*)$ and $(**)$. The first tells us what happens if we are close to some point, the second tells us what happens if we are close to some line. Also, $(**)$ only says that we can get close to $L(y)$, which is some funtion of $y$. In general, proving that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$ is not at all easy and quite often not usesful.





To sum up: The problem is that $limlimits_{rto 0}frac{rcos^2thetasintheta}{r^2cos^4theta+sin^2theta}$ is actually a rather stange and unuseful thing. If ever, it needs to be used with caution. This in particular means that it cannot be evaluated by simply substituting $r$ by $0$.



As an extra I would like to leave you with a funtion $f(r,theta)$ for which $limlimits_{rto 0}f(r,theta)$ is of more use:
$$lim_{rto 0}frac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}=0text{, because}$$



$$0<r<deltaimplies leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}rightvert<leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{1}rightvert=rleftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert<deltaunderbrace{leftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert}_{text{bounded}}.\text{The singular cases where $cos^2theta sintheta=0$ are easily seen to be compatible.}$$



This rimes with its graph:



Graph of the aforementioned function






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 4 '16 at 17:49


















11












$begingroup$

The OP asks:




  1. What am I doing wrong with this method?


  2. When should I not use polar coordinates to find limits of multivariable functions?



The answer to the second question is somewhat unsatisfactory: If you find a limit, then you can. If you don't find a limit, then you can't.





So now, let's just leave that behind us and focus on the first question: "What am I doing wrong with this method?"



For this I will just consider the case where we have cartesian coordinates. The analogy with polar coordinates should be evident.



The mistake you made actually has nothing to do with "polar coordinates" per se, but with "limits". To this end, I'll first repeat the definition of the limit of a two-variable function here:




Suppose we have a function
begin{align}f:mathbb Rtimes mathbb Rsupset U&to mathbb R\
(x,y)&mapsto f(x,y)end{align}
For a point $(a,b)inmathbb R$ we say that $limlimits_{(x,y)to (a,b)}f(x,y)=L$, if and only if,
$$forall varepsilon>0,exists delta >0: big(Vert (x,y)-(a,b)Vert<delta implies vert f(x,y)-Lvert<epsilonbig).tag{*}$$
In words $(*)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the point $(a,b)$.




Now comes your mistake: We have not defined what $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$ should mean. To say something about the limt of $f(x,y)$ we need to manipulate points in $mathbb R^2$. But $xto a$ means we are considering points in $mathbb R$ which lie close to $a$ (which is definitely not a point in $mathbb R^2$).



So this is a problem. If we would want to evaluate $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$, we would first have to define what this means. So let's do that:




Define $ell_asubset mathbb R^2$ as the line $x=a$, i.e. $ell_a =left{(x,y)inmathbb R^2mid x=aright}$. Also introduce the notation: $dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)=text{distance between $(x,y)$ and $ell_a$}$.



Now we say that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$, if and only if,
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0: Big(dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)tag{**}<delta impliesvert f(x,y)-L(y)vert<varepsilonBig).$$
In words $(**)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the line $x=a$.




Notice the difference of the definitions in $(*)$ and $(**)$. The first tells us what happens if we are close to some point, the second tells us what happens if we are close to some line. Also, $(**)$ only says that we can get close to $L(y)$, which is some funtion of $y$. In general, proving that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$ is not at all easy and quite often not usesful.





To sum up: The problem is that $limlimits_{rto 0}frac{rcos^2thetasintheta}{r^2cos^4theta+sin^2theta}$ is actually a rather stange and unuseful thing. If ever, it needs to be used with caution. This in particular means that it cannot be evaluated by simply substituting $r$ by $0$.



As an extra I would like to leave you with a funtion $f(r,theta)$ for which $limlimits_{rto 0}f(r,theta)$ is of more use:
$$lim_{rto 0}frac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}=0text{, because}$$



$$0<r<deltaimplies leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}rightvert<leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{1}rightvert=rleftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert<deltaunderbrace{leftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert}_{text{bounded}}.\text{The singular cases where $cos^2theta sintheta=0$ are easily seen to be compatible.}$$



This rimes with its graph:



Graph of the aforementioned function






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$









  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 4 '16 at 17:49
















11












11








11





$begingroup$

The OP asks:




  1. What am I doing wrong with this method?


  2. When should I not use polar coordinates to find limits of multivariable functions?



The answer to the second question is somewhat unsatisfactory: If you find a limit, then you can. If you don't find a limit, then you can't.





So now, let's just leave that behind us and focus on the first question: "What am I doing wrong with this method?"



For this I will just consider the case where we have cartesian coordinates. The analogy with polar coordinates should be evident.



The mistake you made actually has nothing to do with "polar coordinates" per se, but with "limits". To this end, I'll first repeat the definition of the limit of a two-variable function here:




Suppose we have a function
begin{align}f:mathbb Rtimes mathbb Rsupset U&to mathbb R\
(x,y)&mapsto f(x,y)end{align}
For a point $(a,b)inmathbb R$ we say that $limlimits_{(x,y)to (a,b)}f(x,y)=L$, if and only if,
$$forall varepsilon>0,exists delta >0: big(Vert (x,y)-(a,b)Vert<delta implies vert f(x,y)-Lvert<epsilonbig).tag{*}$$
In words $(*)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the point $(a,b)$.




Now comes your mistake: We have not defined what $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$ should mean. To say something about the limt of $f(x,y)$ we need to manipulate points in $mathbb R^2$. But $xto a$ means we are considering points in $mathbb R$ which lie close to $a$ (which is definitely not a point in $mathbb R^2$).



So this is a problem. If we would want to evaluate $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$, we would first have to define what this means. So let's do that:




Define $ell_asubset mathbb R^2$ as the line $x=a$, i.e. $ell_a =left{(x,y)inmathbb R^2mid x=aright}$. Also introduce the notation: $dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)=text{distance between $(x,y)$ and $ell_a$}$.



Now we say that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$, if and only if,
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0: Big(dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)tag{**}<delta impliesvert f(x,y)-L(y)vert<varepsilonBig).$$
In words $(**)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the line $x=a$.




Notice the difference of the definitions in $(*)$ and $(**)$. The first tells us what happens if we are close to some point, the second tells us what happens if we are close to some line. Also, $(**)$ only says that we can get close to $L(y)$, which is some funtion of $y$. In general, proving that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$ is not at all easy and quite often not usesful.





To sum up: The problem is that $limlimits_{rto 0}frac{rcos^2thetasintheta}{r^2cos^4theta+sin^2theta}$ is actually a rather stange and unuseful thing. If ever, it needs to be used with caution. This in particular means that it cannot be evaluated by simply substituting $r$ by $0$.



As an extra I would like to leave you with a funtion $f(r,theta)$ for which $limlimits_{rto 0}f(r,theta)$ is of more use:
$$lim_{rto 0}frac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}=0text{, because}$$



$$0<r<deltaimplies leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}rightvert<leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{1}rightvert=rleftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert<deltaunderbrace{leftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert}_{text{bounded}}.\text{The singular cases where $cos^2theta sintheta=0$ are easily seen to be compatible.}$$



This rimes with its graph:



Graph of the aforementioned function






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



The OP asks:




  1. What am I doing wrong with this method?


  2. When should I not use polar coordinates to find limits of multivariable functions?



The answer to the second question is somewhat unsatisfactory: If you find a limit, then you can. If you don't find a limit, then you can't.





So now, let's just leave that behind us and focus on the first question: "What am I doing wrong with this method?"



For this I will just consider the case where we have cartesian coordinates. The analogy with polar coordinates should be evident.



The mistake you made actually has nothing to do with "polar coordinates" per se, but with "limits". To this end, I'll first repeat the definition of the limit of a two-variable function here:




Suppose we have a function
begin{align}f:mathbb Rtimes mathbb Rsupset U&to mathbb R\
(x,y)&mapsto f(x,y)end{align}
For a point $(a,b)inmathbb R$ we say that $limlimits_{(x,y)to (a,b)}f(x,y)=L$, if and only if,
$$forall varepsilon>0,exists delta >0: big(Vert (x,y)-(a,b)Vert<delta implies vert f(x,y)-Lvert<epsilonbig).tag{*}$$
In words $(*)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the point $(a,b)$.




Now comes your mistake: We have not defined what $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$ should mean. To say something about the limt of $f(x,y)$ we need to manipulate points in $mathbb R^2$. But $xto a$ means we are considering points in $mathbb R$ which lie close to $a$ (which is definitely not a point in $mathbb R^2$).



So this is a problem. If we would want to evaluate $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)$, we would first have to define what this means. So let's do that:




Define $ell_asubset mathbb R^2$ as the line $x=a$, i.e. $ell_a =left{(x,y)inmathbb R^2mid x=aright}$. Also introduce the notation: $dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)=text{distance between $(x,y)$ and $ell_a$}$.



Now we say that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$, if and only if,
$$forallvarepsilon>0,existsdelta>0: Big(dbig(ell_a,(x,y)big)tag{**}<delta impliesvert f(x,y)-L(y)vert<varepsilonBig).$$
In words $(**)$ says that $f(x,y)$ will be close to $L$, whenever the point $(x,y)$ is sufficiently close to the line $x=a$.




Notice the difference of the definitions in $(*)$ and $(**)$. The first tells us what happens if we are close to some point, the second tells us what happens if we are close to some line. Also, $(**)$ only says that we can get close to $L(y)$, which is some funtion of $y$. In general, proving that $limlimits_{xto a}f(x,y)=L(y)$ is not at all easy and quite often not usesful.





To sum up: The problem is that $limlimits_{rto 0}frac{rcos^2thetasintheta}{r^2cos^4theta+sin^2theta}$ is actually a rather stange and unuseful thing. If ever, it needs to be used with caution. This in particular means that it cannot be evaluated by simply substituting $r$ by $0$.



As an extra I would like to leave you with a funtion $f(r,theta)$ for which $limlimits_{rto 0}f(r,theta)$ is of more use:
$$lim_{rto 0}frac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}=0text{, because}$$



$$0<r<deltaimplies leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{r^2cos^4theta +1}rightvert<leftvertfrac {rcos^2theta sintheta}{1}rightvert=rleftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert<deltaunderbrace{leftvert cos^2thetasinthetarightvert}_{text{bounded}}.\text{The singular cases where $cos^2theta sintheta=0$ are easily seen to be compatible.}$$



This rimes with its graph:



Graph of the aforementioned function







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered May 2 '16 at 20:09









gebruikergebruiker

5,03351964




5,03351964








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 4 '16 at 17:49
















  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric
    Dec 4 '16 at 17:49










1




1




$begingroup$
Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
$endgroup$
– Eric
Dec 4 '16 at 17:49






$begingroup$
Great answer! Can you also help me this question? I still stuck in there.
$endgroup$
– Eric
Dec 4 '16 at 17:49




















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%2f753381%2flimit-fracx2yx4y2-is-found-using-polar-coordinates-but-it-is-not-supp%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

Mario Kart Wii

The Binding of Isaac: Rebirth/Afterbirth

Dobbiaco