This is for complex analysis, but I have a feeling this might be answered mostly Calculus III. Thm 2.13 is Cauchy-Riemann.
Re title: On $\mathbb R^2-$ vs $\mathbb C-$ differentiability of $f, \Re(f)$ and $\Im(f)$
- Is my understanding of the following solution right, and why/why not?
At a Winter 2017 course in Oregon State University, there's a solution given: It seems to be saying that $f$ is not continuous and therefore conditions of Cauchy-Riemann do not hold because of some relationship between the continuity of $f$ and then parts of $f_x$ and $f_y$ and somehow the assumptions of C-R are equivalent to continuous differentiability.
Note: I assume the 'Theorem 2.15(b)' refers to an old edition, w/c is not relevantly different from the current edition, in w/c Cauchy-Riemann is in Thm 2.13.
- Here is my solution. Where have I gone wrong, if anywhere, and why?
Rewrite $f(z) = f(x,y) = 1_{xy \ne 0}(x,y)$ s.t.
$$f_x(0,0) := \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{1_{00+\Delta x 0 \ne 0} - 1_{00 \ne 0}}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{0-0}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} 0 = 0$$
Similarly, $f_y(0,0) = 0$.
$$\therefore, f_x(0,0) = 0 = -i0 = -if_y(0,0)$$
Now $f_x(0,0)$ may be defined, but $f_x$ neither is continuous at $0$ nor exists on any disc centred at $0$ because $f_x$ does not exist along $x_0=0$:
$$f_x(0,y_0) = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{1_{0y_0+\Delta x y_0 \ne 0} - 1_{0y_0 \ne 0}}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{1_{\Delta x y_0 \ne 0}-0}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta x} \ \text{, w/c dne.}$$
Similar holds for $f_y$ along $y_0 =0$.
$\therefore,$ Cauchy-Riemann holds at $z=0$ but $f$ is not differentiable at $z=0$ because $f_x$ is not continuous at $z=0$ because $f_x$ does not exist along $x_0=0$.