This is a question that came up as a true false question in my textbook, and I was wondering what you thought of my reasoning. I claim that even though a graph of such a function doesn't look continuous, that by the sequential definition of continuity, that the function is continuous.
According to the text book, a function $f:D \to R$ is said to be continuous at the point $x_0$ provided that whenever $\{x_n\}$ is a sequence in $D$ that converges to $x_0$, the image sequence $\{f(x_n)\}$ converges to $f(x_0)$. The function is said to be continuous if this holds for all $x \in D$.
It would seem that by this definition, a function $f:\mathbb N \to \mathbb R$ would be continuous. Loosely speaking, a sequence of natural numbers has to eventually be constant in order to be convergent (i.e. {1,2,3,4,5,5,5,5,5,...}), since the smallest difference between natural numbers is $1$, and we can pick $0 < \epsilon <1$.
Therefore, the image sequence will eventually be constant as well, so no matter what $\epsilon$ we choose, we can always find an index $N$ such that $f(x_n) - f(x_0) = 0 < \epsilon$ for all indices $n \geq N$. Therefore we can always meet the requirement for convergence of $f(x_n) \to f(x_0)$ and thus $f$ is continuous.
What do you all think?