Q:

Is it necessary that if a limit exists at a point it should be also defined at that point?

Say there exists a limit $\lim_{x \to x_0}f(x) = L$. Is it necessary that $f$ be defined at the point $x_0$ itself?
Well, what I think of it is that it's OK to be undefined at that point because I guess that won't cease the limit of that function to exist there would it?

A:

"No", in a particularly strong sense: The very reason limits came into mathematics was to extract numerical values from difference quotients
$$
\frac{f(x) - f(x_{0})}{x - x_{0}}
$$
(which are, of course, algebraically indeterminate at $x_{0}$), in the limit as $x \to x_{0}$.
The formal definition of $L = \lim(f, x_{0})$ ("For every $\varepsilon > 0$, there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that if $0 < |x - x_{0}| < \delta$, then $|f(x) - L| < \varepsilon$") explicitly avoids evaluation of $f$ at $x_{0}$, precisely because $f$ might be undefined at $x_{0}$.

A:

This is not at all necessary. For example: $$
\lim_{x\to 0} \frac {x^2}x =0, $$
but $\left.\dfrac{x^2}{x}\right\vert_{x=0}$ is undefined.
If we do have that $f$ is defined at $a$ and $\lim\limits_{x\to a}f(x)=f(a)$, then $f$ is called continuous at $x=a$.

