[Math] Why “a function continuous at only one point” is not an oxymoron

continuityreal-analysis

I understand that there are functions that, by definition of continuity, can be continuous at only one point, such as

$$f(x)=\begin{cases}
x,&\text{if }x\in\Bbb Q\\
0,&\text{if }x\in\Bbb R\setminus\Bbb Q\;.
\end{cases}$$

which is continuous only at $x=0$.
But it is continuous because it satisfies the formal definition of continuity. Still,
continuity at only-one-point sounds like an oxymoron to my mind. I understand that mathematical concepts are different than the standard meanings of the words in natural languages, so my question is this:

Does the classical definition of continuity fail to capture the intended concept of continuity for this pathological case? Has anybody attempted to modify the definition of continuity to make this pathological cases fail? I call it pathological because I imagine that, historically, the original concept of continuity attempted to capture the idea of "connected" line. But I might be wrong.

Best Answer

Sometimes, intuition is wrong, and we should learn from the math, rather than try to make the math fit the intuition.

That said, I bet what you are probably intuiting is not something that should be called "continuous at the point $P$" at all -- it should be called "continuous in a neighborhood of the point $P$". e.g. "there exists $a < P < b$ such that $f$ is continuous on $(a,b)$". So the math already fits the intuition, once you correctly translate between them.

Related Question