Proving that a function derived from $arctan(x/y)$ is continuous on $yne0$












1














$Omega_1 = {y > 0} $



$Omega_2 = {y < 0} $



$Omega_3 = mathbb R^2 backslash {x leq 0 ; y = 0 } $



begin{equation}
f(x,y) = left {
begin{aligned}
&- arctan frac x y + pi, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_1 \
& frac {pi} 2, && text{if} y = 0 ; x > 0 \
&- arctan frac x y, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_2
end{aligned} right.
end{equation}




Prove that :$$ f in C^1( Omega_3) $$




So the obviously only problem is on the boundary of $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$. I don't know how to prove neither continuity nor differentiability. Can you help me ?










share|cite|improve this question





























    1














    $Omega_1 = {y > 0} $



    $Omega_2 = {y < 0} $



    $Omega_3 = mathbb R^2 backslash {x leq 0 ; y = 0 } $



    begin{equation}
    f(x,y) = left {
    begin{aligned}
    &- arctan frac x y + pi, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_1 \
    & frac {pi} 2, && text{if} y = 0 ; x > 0 \
    &- arctan frac x y, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_2
    end{aligned} right.
    end{equation}




    Prove that :$$ f in C^1( Omega_3) $$




    So the obviously only problem is on the boundary of $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$. I don't know how to prove neither continuity nor differentiability. Can you help me ?










    share|cite|improve this question



























      1












      1








      1







      $Omega_1 = {y > 0} $



      $Omega_2 = {y < 0} $



      $Omega_3 = mathbb R^2 backslash {x leq 0 ; y = 0 } $



      begin{equation}
      f(x,y) = left {
      begin{aligned}
      &- arctan frac x y + pi, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_1 \
      & frac {pi} 2, && text{if} y = 0 ; x > 0 \
      &- arctan frac x y, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_2
      end{aligned} right.
      end{equation}




      Prove that :$$ f in C^1( Omega_3) $$




      So the obviously only problem is on the boundary of $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$. I don't know how to prove neither continuity nor differentiability. Can you help me ?










      share|cite|improve this question















      $Omega_1 = {y > 0} $



      $Omega_2 = {y < 0} $



      $Omega_3 = mathbb R^2 backslash {x leq 0 ; y = 0 } $



      begin{equation}
      f(x,y) = left {
      begin{aligned}
      &- arctan frac x y + pi, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_1 \
      & frac {pi} 2, && text{if} y = 0 ; x > 0 \
      &- arctan frac x y, && text{if} (x,y) in Omega_2
      end{aligned} right.
      end{equation}




      Prove that :$$ f in C^1( Omega_3) $$




      So the obviously only problem is on the boundary of $Omega_1$ and $Omega_2$. I don't know how to prove neither continuity nor differentiability. Can you help me ?







      multivariable-calculus






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited 2 days ago









      Did

      246k23221456




      246k23221456










      asked Jan 5 at 21:25









      Niels Niels

      236




      236






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Ok well, I have something of which I'm not completly sure. Do not hesitate to comment my proof.



          What I'm going to show is that the $f$ function is differentiable, meaning it has continuous partial derivatives. This will give continuity.



          First : (I note $f_x$ the partial derivative according to the first variable.)



          $$ g(x,y) := f_x(x,y) = frac {y}{x^2+y^2} $$
          $$ h(x,y) := f_y(x,y) = -frac {x}{x^2+y^2} $$



          So, let's take a look at those two functions.
          We fixe $A(x,y)$ ; $B( x, overline{y}) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



          enter image description here



          We want to prove that :



          $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } g(x,y) = g(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



          Nevertheless :



          $$|g(x,y) - g(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| + |g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
          and :
          $$|g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| = | frac {y}{x^2 + y^2}| →_{(x,y) → (x , overline{y})} 0$$
          $$|g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | = 0$$



          Then $g$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.



          We do the same thing for $h$ and this will conclude the proof.





          We fixe another 3 points : $A(x,y)$ ; $B( overline{x}, y) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



          We want to prove that :



          $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } h(x,y) = h(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



          Nevertheless :



          $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| + |h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
          and :
          $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| →_{(x,y) → (overline{x} , y)} 0$$
          $$|h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | →_{(overline{x} , y) → (overline{x} , overline{y})} 0$$



          Then $h$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            0














            To see what's going on, let's consider a circle centered at the origin, and trace what happens to $f$ as we go around. Parametrize the circle in the standard way as $(x,y)=(cos t,sin t)$ for $-pi < tle pi$ (That means it has radius $1$).



            For $t=0$, we get $x=1,y=0$. That's the middle case of the definition of $f$, so $f(x(0),y(0))=frac{pi}{2}$.

            For $0<t<pi$, we have $y=sin t>0$ and $f(x(t),y(t)) = pi -arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = pi - (frac{pi}{2}-t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. We used $cot t =tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$ there.

            For $-pi < t < 0$, we have $y=sin t < 0$ and $f(x(t),y(t))=-arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = -(-frac{pi}{2}-t)=frac{pi}{2}+t$. It's still true that $cot t=tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$, but since $arctan$ takes values in $(-frac{pi}{2},frac{pi}{2})$, we use a different branch instead.

            For $t=pi$, we get $x=-1,y=0$. We can't fill in the value in a continuous way - it would have to be both $frac{3pi}{2}$ approaching from positive $t$ and $-frac{pi}{2}$ approaching from negative $t$ - but since the point isn't in the domain of $f$, we don't need to.



            So then, on this nearly complete circle, $f(cos t,sin t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. That's continuous, differentiable, and more. How do we extend it to the whole domain? Polar form; we can write an arbitrary point in the domain as $(x(r,theta),y(r,theta))=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$ for $r>0$ and $-pi<theta<pi$. Then $f(x(r,theta),y(r,theta)) = frac{pi}{2}+theta$. Verify that the coordinate functions for the transformation to polar form and its inverse are smooth, and we have it.



            Added material:

            Moreover, we can find more formulas for $f$ on various other subsets of the region it's defined on. Any half-plane in the domain has a shifted version of the arctangent formula; the easiest to find is the one for the right half-plane $Omega_0={(x,y): x>0}$. We get
            $$f(x,y) = arctanfrac yx +frac{pi}{2}text{ if } x>0$$
            That formula agrees with the ones we already have. Every point in the domain of $f$ is in at least one of the open regions $Omega_0,Omega_1,Omega_2$, and $f$ is clearly smooth (infinitely differentiable) on each of those regions.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
              – Niels
              2 days ago










            • Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
              – Niels
              2 days ago










            • The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
              – jmerry
              2 days ago










            • yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
              – Niels
              2 days ago











            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%2f3063212%2fproving-that-a-function-derived-from-arctanx-y-is-continuous-on-y-ne0%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









            1














            Ok well, I have something of which I'm not completly sure. Do not hesitate to comment my proof.



            What I'm going to show is that the $f$ function is differentiable, meaning it has continuous partial derivatives. This will give continuity.



            First : (I note $f_x$ the partial derivative according to the first variable.)



            $$ g(x,y) := f_x(x,y) = frac {y}{x^2+y^2} $$
            $$ h(x,y) := f_y(x,y) = -frac {x}{x^2+y^2} $$



            So, let's take a look at those two functions.
            We fixe $A(x,y)$ ; $B( x, overline{y}) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



            enter image description here



            We want to prove that :



            $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } g(x,y) = g(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



            Nevertheless :



            $$|g(x,y) - g(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| + |g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
            and :
            $$|g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| = | frac {y}{x^2 + y^2}| →_{(x,y) → (x , overline{y})} 0$$
            $$|g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | = 0$$



            Then $g$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.



            We do the same thing for $h$ and this will conclude the proof.





            We fixe another 3 points : $A(x,y)$ ; $B( overline{x}, y) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



            We want to prove that :



            $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } h(x,y) = h(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



            Nevertheless :



            $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| + |h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
            and :
            $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| →_{(x,y) → (overline{x} , y)} 0$$
            $$|h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | →_{(overline{x} , y) → (overline{x} , overline{y})} 0$$



            Then $h$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              1














              Ok well, I have something of which I'm not completly sure. Do not hesitate to comment my proof.



              What I'm going to show is that the $f$ function is differentiable, meaning it has continuous partial derivatives. This will give continuity.



              First : (I note $f_x$ the partial derivative according to the first variable.)



              $$ g(x,y) := f_x(x,y) = frac {y}{x^2+y^2} $$
              $$ h(x,y) := f_y(x,y) = -frac {x}{x^2+y^2} $$



              So, let's take a look at those two functions.
              We fixe $A(x,y)$ ; $B( x, overline{y}) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



              enter image description here



              We want to prove that :



              $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } g(x,y) = g(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



              Nevertheless :



              $$|g(x,y) - g(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| + |g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
              and :
              $$|g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| = | frac {y}{x^2 + y^2}| →_{(x,y) → (x , overline{y})} 0$$
              $$|g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | = 0$$



              Then $g$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.



              We do the same thing for $h$ and this will conclude the proof.





              We fixe another 3 points : $A(x,y)$ ; $B( overline{x}, y) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



              We want to prove that :



              $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } h(x,y) = h(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



              Nevertheless :



              $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| + |h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
              and :
              $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| →_{(x,y) → (overline{x} , y)} 0$$
              $$|h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | →_{(overline{x} , y) → (overline{x} , overline{y})} 0$$



              Then $h$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                1












                1








                1






                Ok well, I have something of which I'm not completly sure. Do not hesitate to comment my proof.



                What I'm going to show is that the $f$ function is differentiable, meaning it has continuous partial derivatives. This will give continuity.



                First : (I note $f_x$ the partial derivative according to the first variable.)



                $$ g(x,y) := f_x(x,y) = frac {y}{x^2+y^2} $$
                $$ h(x,y) := f_y(x,y) = -frac {x}{x^2+y^2} $$



                So, let's take a look at those two functions.
                We fixe $A(x,y)$ ; $B( x, overline{y}) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



                enter image description here



                We want to prove that :



                $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } g(x,y) = g(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



                Nevertheless :



                $$|g(x,y) - g(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| + |g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
                and :
                $$|g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| = | frac {y}{x^2 + y^2}| →_{(x,y) → (x , overline{y})} 0$$
                $$|g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | = 0$$



                Then $g$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.



                We do the same thing for $h$ and this will conclude the proof.





                We fixe another 3 points : $A(x,y)$ ; $B( overline{x}, y) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



                We want to prove that :



                $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } h(x,y) = h(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



                Nevertheless :



                $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| + |h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
                and :
                $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| →_{(x,y) → (overline{x} , y)} 0$$
                $$|h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | →_{(overline{x} , y) → (overline{x} , overline{y})} 0$$



                Then $h$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                Ok well, I have something of which I'm not completly sure. Do not hesitate to comment my proof.



                What I'm going to show is that the $f$ function is differentiable, meaning it has continuous partial derivatives. This will give continuity.



                First : (I note $f_x$ the partial derivative according to the first variable.)



                $$ g(x,y) := f_x(x,y) = frac {y}{x^2+y^2} $$
                $$ h(x,y) := f_y(x,y) = -frac {x}{x^2+y^2} $$



                So, let's take a look at those two functions.
                We fixe $A(x,y)$ ; $B( x, overline{y}) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



                enter image description here



                We want to prove that :



                $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } g(x,y) = g(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



                Nevertheless :



                $$|g(x,y) - g(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| + |g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
                and :
                $$|g(x,y) - g(x , overline{y})| = | frac {y}{x^2 + y^2}| →_{(x,y) → (x , overline{y})} 0$$
                $$|g(x , overline{y}) -g(overline{x} , overline{y}) | = 0$$



                Then $g$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.



                We do the same thing for $h$ and this will conclude the proof.





                We fixe another 3 points : $A(x,y)$ ; $B( overline{x}, y) $ ; $ C( overline{x} , overline{y})$



                We want to prove that :



                $$lim_{ (x,y) → (overline{x} , overline{y}) } h(x,y) = h(overline{x} , overline{y}) $$



                Nevertheless :



                $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , overline{y})| leq |h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| + |h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | $$
                and :
                $$|h(x,y) - h(overline{x} , y)| →_{(x,y) → (overline{x} , y)} 0$$
                $$|h(overline{x} , y) -h(overline{x} , overline{y}) | →_{(overline{x} , y) → (overline{x} , overline{y})} 0$$



                Then $h$ is continuous on $Omega_3$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered 2 days ago









                Marine GalantinMarine Galantin

                795215




                795215























                    0














                    To see what's going on, let's consider a circle centered at the origin, and trace what happens to $f$ as we go around. Parametrize the circle in the standard way as $(x,y)=(cos t,sin t)$ for $-pi < tle pi$ (That means it has radius $1$).



                    For $t=0$, we get $x=1,y=0$. That's the middle case of the definition of $f$, so $f(x(0),y(0))=frac{pi}{2}$.

                    For $0<t<pi$, we have $y=sin t>0$ and $f(x(t),y(t)) = pi -arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = pi - (frac{pi}{2}-t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. We used $cot t =tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$ there.

                    For $-pi < t < 0$, we have $y=sin t < 0$ and $f(x(t),y(t))=-arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = -(-frac{pi}{2}-t)=frac{pi}{2}+t$. It's still true that $cot t=tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$, but since $arctan$ takes values in $(-frac{pi}{2},frac{pi}{2})$, we use a different branch instead.

                    For $t=pi$, we get $x=-1,y=0$. We can't fill in the value in a continuous way - it would have to be both $frac{3pi}{2}$ approaching from positive $t$ and $-frac{pi}{2}$ approaching from negative $t$ - but since the point isn't in the domain of $f$, we don't need to.



                    So then, on this nearly complete circle, $f(cos t,sin t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. That's continuous, differentiable, and more. How do we extend it to the whole domain? Polar form; we can write an arbitrary point in the domain as $(x(r,theta),y(r,theta))=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$ for $r>0$ and $-pi<theta<pi$. Then $f(x(r,theta),y(r,theta)) = frac{pi}{2}+theta$. Verify that the coordinate functions for the transformation to polar form and its inverse are smooth, and we have it.



                    Added material:

                    Moreover, we can find more formulas for $f$ on various other subsets of the region it's defined on. Any half-plane in the domain has a shifted version of the arctangent formula; the easiest to find is the one for the right half-plane $Omega_0={(x,y): x>0}$. We get
                    $$f(x,y) = arctanfrac yx +frac{pi}{2}text{ if } x>0$$
                    That formula agrees with the ones we already have. Every point in the domain of $f$ is in at least one of the open regions $Omega_0,Omega_1,Omega_2$, and $f$ is clearly smooth (infinitely differentiable) on each of those regions.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                      – jmerry
                      2 days ago










                    • yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago
















                    0














                    To see what's going on, let's consider a circle centered at the origin, and trace what happens to $f$ as we go around. Parametrize the circle in the standard way as $(x,y)=(cos t,sin t)$ for $-pi < tle pi$ (That means it has radius $1$).



                    For $t=0$, we get $x=1,y=0$. That's the middle case of the definition of $f$, so $f(x(0),y(0))=frac{pi}{2}$.

                    For $0<t<pi$, we have $y=sin t>0$ and $f(x(t),y(t)) = pi -arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = pi - (frac{pi}{2}-t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. We used $cot t =tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$ there.

                    For $-pi < t < 0$, we have $y=sin t < 0$ and $f(x(t),y(t))=-arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = -(-frac{pi}{2}-t)=frac{pi}{2}+t$. It's still true that $cot t=tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$, but since $arctan$ takes values in $(-frac{pi}{2},frac{pi}{2})$, we use a different branch instead.

                    For $t=pi$, we get $x=-1,y=0$. We can't fill in the value in a continuous way - it would have to be both $frac{3pi}{2}$ approaching from positive $t$ and $-frac{pi}{2}$ approaching from negative $t$ - but since the point isn't in the domain of $f$, we don't need to.



                    So then, on this nearly complete circle, $f(cos t,sin t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. That's continuous, differentiable, and more. How do we extend it to the whole domain? Polar form; we can write an arbitrary point in the domain as $(x(r,theta),y(r,theta))=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$ for $r>0$ and $-pi<theta<pi$. Then $f(x(r,theta),y(r,theta)) = frac{pi}{2}+theta$. Verify that the coordinate functions for the transformation to polar form and its inverse are smooth, and we have it.



                    Added material:

                    Moreover, we can find more formulas for $f$ on various other subsets of the region it's defined on. Any half-plane in the domain has a shifted version of the arctangent formula; the easiest to find is the one for the right half-plane $Omega_0={(x,y): x>0}$. We get
                    $$f(x,y) = arctanfrac yx +frac{pi}{2}text{ if } x>0$$
                    That formula agrees with the ones we already have. Every point in the domain of $f$ is in at least one of the open regions $Omega_0,Omega_1,Omega_2$, and $f$ is clearly smooth (infinitely differentiable) on each of those regions.






                    share|cite|improve this answer























                    • I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                      – jmerry
                      2 days ago










                    • yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago














                    0












                    0








                    0






                    To see what's going on, let's consider a circle centered at the origin, and trace what happens to $f$ as we go around. Parametrize the circle in the standard way as $(x,y)=(cos t,sin t)$ for $-pi < tle pi$ (That means it has radius $1$).



                    For $t=0$, we get $x=1,y=0$. That's the middle case of the definition of $f$, so $f(x(0),y(0))=frac{pi}{2}$.

                    For $0<t<pi$, we have $y=sin t>0$ and $f(x(t),y(t)) = pi -arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = pi - (frac{pi}{2}-t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. We used $cot t =tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$ there.

                    For $-pi < t < 0$, we have $y=sin t < 0$ and $f(x(t),y(t))=-arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = -(-frac{pi}{2}-t)=frac{pi}{2}+t$. It's still true that $cot t=tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$, but since $arctan$ takes values in $(-frac{pi}{2},frac{pi}{2})$, we use a different branch instead.

                    For $t=pi$, we get $x=-1,y=0$. We can't fill in the value in a continuous way - it would have to be both $frac{3pi}{2}$ approaching from positive $t$ and $-frac{pi}{2}$ approaching from negative $t$ - but since the point isn't in the domain of $f$, we don't need to.



                    So then, on this nearly complete circle, $f(cos t,sin t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. That's continuous, differentiable, and more. How do we extend it to the whole domain? Polar form; we can write an arbitrary point in the domain as $(x(r,theta),y(r,theta))=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$ for $r>0$ and $-pi<theta<pi$. Then $f(x(r,theta),y(r,theta)) = frac{pi}{2}+theta$. Verify that the coordinate functions for the transformation to polar form and its inverse are smooth, and we have it.



                    Added material:

                    Moreover, we can find more formulas for $f$ on various other subsets of the region it's defined on. Any half-plane in the domain has a shifted version of the arctangent formula; the easiest to find is the one for the right half-plane $Omega_0={(x,y): x>0}$. We get
                    $$f(x,y) = arctanfrac yx +frac{pi}{2}text{ if } x>0$$
                    That formula agrees with the ones we already have. Every point in the domain of $f$ is in at least one of the open regions $Omega_0,Omega_1,Omega_2$, and $f$ is clearly smooth (infinitely differentiable) on each of those regions.






                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    To see what's going on, let's consider a circle centered at the origin, and trace what happens to $f$ as we go around. Parametrize the circle in the standard way as $(x,y)=(cos t,sin t)$ for $-pi < tle pi$ (That means it has radius $1$).



                    For $t=0$, we get $x=1,y=0$. That's the middle case of the definition of $f$, so $f(x(0),y(0))=frac{pi}{2}$.

                    For $0<t<pi$, we have $y=sin t>0$ and $f(x(t),y(t)) = pi -arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = pi - (frac{pi}{2}-t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. We used $cot t =tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$ there.

                    For $-pi < t < 0$, we have $y=sin t < 0$ and $f(x(t),y(t))=-arctanfrac{cos t}{sin t} = -(-frac{pi}{2}-t)=frac{pi}{2}+t$. It's still true that $cot t=tan(frac{pi}{2}-t)$, but since $arctan$ takes values in $(-frac{pi}{2},frac{pi}{2})$, we use a different branch instead.

                    For $t=pi$, we get $x=-1,y=0$. We can't fill in the value in a continuous way - it would have to be both $frac{3pi}{2}$ approaching from positive $t$ and $-frac{pi}{2}$ approaching from negative $t$ - but since the point isn't in the domain of $f$, we don't need to.



                    So then, on this nearly complete circle, $f(cos t,sin t) = frac{pi}{2}+t$. That's continuous, differentiable, and more. How do we extend it to the whole domain? Polar form; we can write an arbitrary point in the domain as $(x(r,theta),y(r,theta))=(rcostheta,rsintheta)$ for $r>0$ and $-pi<theta<pi$. Then $f(x(r,theta),y(r,theta)) = frac{pi}{2}+theta$. Verify that the coordinate functions for the transformation to polar form and its inverse are smooth, and we have it.



                    Added material:

                    Moreover, we can find more formulas for $f$ on various other subsets of the region it's defined on. Any half-plane in the domain has a shifted version of the arctangent formula; the easiest to find is the one for the right half-plane $Omega_0={(x,y): x>0}$. We get
                    $$f(x,y) = arctanfrac yx +frac{pi}{2}text{ if } x>0$$
                    That formula agrees with the ones we already have. Every point in the domain of $f$ is in at least one of the open regions $Omega_0,Omega_1,Omega_2$, and $f$ is clearly smooth (infinitely differentiable) on each of those regions.







                    share|cite|improve this answer














                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer








                    edited 2 days ago

























                    answered 2 days ago









                    jmerryjmerry

                    2,521312




                    2,521312












                    • I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                      – jmerry
                      2 days ago










                    • yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago


















                    • I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago










                    • The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                      – jmerry
                      2 days ago










                    • yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                      – Niels
                      2 days ago
















                    I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago




                    I have a question, because you have check if it is C^1 on circles, but with this proof, did you check for every direction ? You know there are those classical counter example where the function is not C^1 but the partial derivatives exists.
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago












                    Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago




                    Moreover, I don't see the step where you show it is differentiable. You only wrote the continuity part, am I right?
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago












                    The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                    – jmerry
                    2 days ago




                    The circle stuff was exploratory work, not intended to be a complete proof - but once we see it, we know how it all fits together. What we have here is a shifted version of the function that finds the angle in the polar form of a point. Actually, I just had a thought...
                    – jmerry
                    2 days ago












                    yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago




                    yeah I mean it does look nice, but it's not sufficiently rigorous... I'm trying to understand how to write it down for an exam so I don't think it will be enough
                    – Niels
                    2 days ago


















                    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.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • 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.


                    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%2f3063212%2fproving-that-a-function-derived-from-arctanx-y-is-continuous-on-y-ne0%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

                    What does “Dominus providebit” mean?