Why doesn't the limit in polar form imply the existence of the limit

129 Views Asked by At

First, I'll give my definition of polar coordinates.

Let $f:U\subseteq\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R}$. Changing to polar coordinates we get $g:V\subseteq\mathbb{R}^2\to\mathbb{R},g(r,\theta)=f(r\cos\theta,r\sin\theta)$, where $r>0$ and $\theta\in[0,2\pi)$.

Now my question is, why is this true:

$$\lim_{(x,y)\to(0,0)} f(x,y)=L \Rightarrow \lim_{r\to0^+} g(r,\theta)=L $$.

But this isn't:

$$\lim_{r\to0^+} g(r,\theta)=L\Rightarrow\lim_{(x,y)\to(0,0)} f(x,y)=L$$

I've seen various counterexamples of this last statement so I know it is false, however I can't really understand why it doesn't work, so any help will be appreciated. Thanks.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

Often polar coordinates are useful to handle limits in two variables and when the limit exists we have

$$\lim_{(x,y)\to(0,0)} f(x)=L \iff\lim_{(r\to 0^+)} g(r,\theta)=L$$

When limit doesn't exists we can obtain different limits for different paths but along a fixed path we obtain the same limit both in polar and cartesian coordinates.