Imagine drawing the graph of a function and putting your pen down at x=a. If the function is continuous there, you can draw straight through that point without lifting your pen — no jump, no hole, no break. That is the intuition; here is the precision.
The Three-Condition Test
For f(x) to be continuous at x=a, all three must hold. If even one fails, f is discontinuous there.
Important
Continuity at x=a requires:
f(a) is defined,
x→alimf(x) exists (left- and right-hand limits are equal),
x→alimf(x)=f(a).
Condition 1 says a is in the domain — the pen must have somewhere to land. Condition 2 says the curve approaches a single value from both sides — no jump. Condition 3 says that common approach value actually matches the function's value at a — no misplaced point.
Why All Three Are Needed
f(x)=x−1x2−1 has limx→1f(x)=2, yet f(1) is undefined (zero denominator). Condition 1 fails, leaving a hole at (1,2).
A piecewise function shows the opposite can be fine:
f(x)=⎩⎨⎧x+13x+1x<2x=2x>2
Here f(2)=3, both one-sided limits equal 3, and they match f(2) — so all three hold and fis continuous at x=2.
Common Pitfalls
Watch out
"Limit exists" does not mean "continuous." The hole example has a limit but no continuity — the limit must equal the function value.
Watch out
"Defined everywhere" does not mean "continuous." A piecewise function can have a value at every point and still jump. Always check the one-sided limits.
Concept: Continuity At A Point — a function is continuous at x=a if limx→af(x)=f(a). For a piecewise function, check the left-hand limit, right-hand limit, and the function value at the break point.
Each piece is a polynomial, so f is continuous everywhere except possibly at x=1. There the left limit is 0 but the right limit is 1, so f is discontinuous only at x=1.
The function is
f(x)={x10−1,x2,x≤1x>1.
1. Away from x=1. For x<1, f(x)=x10−1 is a polynomial and hence continuous. For x>1, f(x)=x2 is a polynomial and hence continuous. So f is continuous at every point except possibly x=1.
2. At x=1. From the definition (x≤1 branch), f(1)=110−1=0.
Method: Numerically Verifying Whether Two Polynomial Pieces Agree at Their Boundary
Even when both pieces of a function look like "nice," smooth polynomials, they can still disagree at the point where they meet — this method shows how to check that rigorously rather than by eye.
Steps
Step 1: Pin down f(a) using the correctly-matched piece
Match the boundary value a to whichever inequality includes equality, and substitute into that formula only.
Step 2: Substitute directly into each side's formula to get both one-sided limits
limx→a−f(x)=(left formula evaluated at a),limx→a+f(x)=(right formula evaluated at a)
Direct substitution is valid here because polynomials have no gaps or jumps on their own open interval.
Step 3: Compare the two numeric results, not the formulas themselves …
Mistake 1: Assuming two smooth polynomial pieces automatically meet at the same height at their boundary
Why it's wrong: both x10−1 and x2 are well-behaved polynomials, but being individually smooth says nothing about whether they agree at the shared point x=1 — here they genuinely give different values (0 versus 1). Correct approach: always substitute and compute the actual numbers on both sides rather than assuming agreement from how "nice" each piece looks. …