Interactive · 2 questions
If a function has a derivative at a specific point, then it must also be continuous at that point. Likewise, this can be extended to all points by saying that if a function is differentiable at all values in its domain, then it is also continuous for all values in its domain.
Does this make sense intuitively?
Now let's prove this rigorously. Suppose that a function is differentiable at . To show that it is continuous, we need to show that or equivalently,
This comes directly from the definition of continuity. Now, because a limit only considers values close to the approaching value but not at that value, , so we can multiply and divide by without having to worry about illegally dividing by .
We have .
We can evaluate this limit by considering the factors separately. The first factor is the derivative of at , which we are given to be defined. To see why this is equivalent to the derivative, let . Then the limit is as approaches , which is equivalent to approaching , and the expression becomes , which by definition is the derivative upon taking the limit. The second factor approaches as approaches . Hence our limit evaluates to , so or proving continuity, as desired.
Does the converse hold? That is, if a function is continuous at a point, must the derivative be defined at that point?
Great! See here for a more in depth explanation of why the converse is not necessarily true.
