Multivariable calculus
Limit of x^2y/(x^2+y^2) at the Origin
The limit of x^2 y / (x^2 + y^2) as (x, y) approaches the origin is 0. Paths into the origin all give 0, but agreement between paths is not a proof. In polar coordinates the function becomes r cos^2(theta) sin(theta), whose size is at most r, so it is squeezed to 0 as r goes to 0.
The limit exists
| Path | Limit along it |
|---|---|
| along y = 0 | 0 |
| along y = x | 0 |
| along the parabola y = x^2 | 0 |
Three paths, all giving 0
Testing a path means replacing and by functions of a single parameter and letting . Along the axis the numerator is dead on arrival, so the function is identically zero.
Along the diagonal the function is not identically zero, but it still collapses.
A curve does no better than a line here, not even one that comes in tangent to the axis.
Three agreements are evidence, not proof. Infinitely many curves reach the origin, and the limit exists only if every single one of them gives the same value. What the paths have bought you is a candidate: the number to try to prove.
Polar coordinates finish the job
Set and . Then is exactly with left completely free, so one calculation covers every possible approach at once.
Now bound the trigonometric part. Since for every angle, you get a bound with no left in it.
Both ends go to as , and they do so at the same rate regardless of direction. That uniformity in is the whole point: it is what upgrades a direction-by-direction check into a statement about a full disc. The limit is .
The mistake: stopping once the paths agree
The most common error is to compute three paths, see three times, and write down the answer as proved. Paths can only ever disprove. If two disagree you are finished and the limit does not exist. If they agree you have learned only which value to aim at.
The reason is that a limit in two variables is a claim about every point in a small disc, not about a list of curves. Checking curves is like checking a handful of entries in an infinite table.
Polar coordinates are not automatically a proof either. The step that matters is that the bound carries no . Had the dependence survived without a factor of in front, as happens for , the value would depend on direction and no limit would exist.
Frequently asked questions
Does the answer change along y = mx for different slopes m?
No. Along the function is , which tends to for every . All straight lines give , which is consistent with the limit being but still proves nothing by itself, since curved approaches are not covered.
Is the function continuous at the origin?
Not as written, since is undefined at . But the limit exists and equals , so defining patches the hole and produces a function continuous on the whole plane.