When two functions are equal, but not. I haven't looked into it much, but this is something I've been aware of that I know I need to look into.
When I have a function $f(x)=\frac{x+1}{x+1}$, There is a discontinuity at $x=-1$, yet $\frac{x+1}{x+1}=1$ and has no discontinuity.  It's like they're equal but not.  
The qualities of the function are not preserved after the algebraic manipulation, so I can't strictly say that $\frac{x+1}{x+1}=1$.  
This is an issue for me when understanding integrals.  For instance, finding the definite integral of the quotient, if the discontinuity is within my limits, doesn't make sense.  But after changing the quotient to a constant, it's possible: but I've found the area under a curve that wasn't complete.  I've found a solution for an unanswerable, insensible question.  
I hope I've made this clear.  My question is, is this right?  How do I come to terms with this?
 A: If you look at functions from a set-theory point of view, they are nothing but triplets $f = (E,F,\Gamma)$, $E$ and $F$ being the domain and the codomain, $\Gamma$ being a subset of $E \times F$ — the graph — such that for all $x \in E$, there is an unique $y \in F$ such that $(x,y) \in \Gamma$. We then note $f(x) = y$.
We then say that two functions $(E,F,\Gamma)$ and $(E',F',\Gamma')$ are equals if $E=E'$, $F=F'$ and $\Gamma=\Gamma'$.
When one defines a function by a symbolic expression, such as $f(x) = \frac{x+1}{x+1}$, it is only a shorthand to define $f= (E,F,\Gamma)$, it is implied that


*

*$E$ is the biggest subset of $\mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x \in E$,  $\frac{x+1}{x+1}$ is defined

*$F$ is the smallest subset of $\mathbb{R}$ such that for all $x \in E$, $\frac{x+1}{x+1} \in F$

*$\Gamma = \{(x,y) \in E \times F ~|~ y = \frac{x+1}{x+1}\}$


Since $\frac{0}{0}$ is undefined, $f$ would not be defined in $0$, but since this aimed to be a shorthand, we usually extends the $E$ (and subsequently $F$ and $\Gamma$) to the points $x \in \bar{E}$ — the closure of $E$ — such that $f$ has a limit $y$ in $x$. We then note $f(x)=y$, so formally this defines an extension of $f$, that we also note $f$, which is not equals to the first $f$, since they have neither the same domain, nor the same graph.
Long story short, the function defined by $f(x) = \frac{x+1}{x+1}$ is equal to $1$ and defined in $\mathbb{R}\smallsetminus \{-1\}$ or in $\mathbb{R}$, depending on the context.
A: You should probably think of $\frac{x+1}{x+1}$ as having a singularity - or at least some kind of blip - at x = -1. This is the honest answer - we cannot get away from the fact that crudely plugging x = -1 into that expression gives 0/0. But sort of "morally" it's not too hard to skip over this singularity, for the obvious reasons: it is a very small singularity (a single point) and we can fill it in in a natural way that makes the function continuous there. A singularity of this form is called "removable", and we tend to identify the two functions even if this isn't strictly true. There are other types of singularities that are harder (or impossible) to remove: poles and essential singularities, for example. You might want to look these up - they will be mentioned in detail in a book on complex analysis.
A: Assume your $f(x)$ is discontinuous in $x_0$ but continuously extends to the whole real line; then let $\bar{f}(x)$ its unique extension.
The integral of $f(x)$ and of $\bar{f}(x)$ coincide whether the limits of integration are: in fact, let $a < x_0 < b$ (which is the only problematic case) and write:
$$\begin{split}\int_a^b f(x)\ \text{d} x &=\int_a^{x_0} f(x)\ \text{d} x +\int_{x_0}^b f(x)\ \text{d} x \\
&=\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0^+}\int_a^{x_0-\varepsilon} f(x)\ \text{d} x +\lim_{\delta \to 0^+}\int_{x_0+\delta}^b f(x)\ \text{d} x\\
&=\lim_{\varepsilon \to 0^+}\int_a^{x_0-\varepsilon} \bar{f}(x)\ \text{d} x +\lim_{\delta \to 0^+}\int_{x_0+\delta}^b \bar{f}(x)\ \text{d} x\\
&= \int_a^{x_0} \bar{f}(x)\ \text{d} x +\int_{x_0}^b \bar{f}(x)\ \text{d} x \\
&= \int_a^b \bar{f}(x)\ \text{d} x\; .\end{split}$$
Remark that you can replace $f(x)$ with $\bar{f} (x)$ into $\int_a^{x_0-\varepsilon}$ and $\int_{x_0+\delta}^b$ because your are performing integration far away from the discontinuity point $x_0$.
A: The function $f(x)=\frac{x+1}{x+1}$ is not well-defined at $x=-1$. If you define
$$
f(x)=
\begin{cases} \frac{x+1}{x+1},&\quad  x\neq -1 \\ 1,&\quad  x= -1
\end{cases}
$$
then $f$ is really equal to the constant function $1$.
A: $x=-1$ is what's called a removable singularity of your function $f$: if you redefine your function at that point it becomes continuous.  
As for integration, the definition of the Riemann integral does require the function to be defined everywhere in the interval in question.  However, for a function which is undefined at some point you could consider an improper integral,
which would converge to the correct value.  When you get to Lebesgue integration,
having the function undefined at some point is allowed, and won't make a difference. 
A: ${x+1\over x+1}=1$ only when $x\ne -1$. Your function $f$ is not defined at $x=-1$.
The graph of $f$ has a "hole" in it:

Things can be made nice, though:
You could redefine $f$ to take the value $1$ at $x=-1$.  This would give you a new function $\tilde f$ that differs from $f$ at only one point. 
 Also, $\tilde f$ is identically 1; and so, it can be integrated over any interval of finite length.   
Strictly speaking the definite integral of $f$ over $[-2,1]$ is undefined;
but, you should be able to convince your self that the  area  under the graph of $f$ over $[-2,1]$, say, is 3, since the area under the "hole" is 0.  Better yet, imagine a rectangle of height 1 and very small width centered at $x=-1$. The area of that rectangle is very small; so the area under the graph of $f$ over $[-2,1]$ is 3 (after taking appropriate limits). This is what Paccio is doing in his answer. 
A: A function is an object with three parts:  a set of inputs called its domain, a set of allowable outputs called its range, and a rule  tying each element of it domain to its range.  
If you fail to specify all three of these things, you give an incomplete specification of the function.  
So when you say 
$$f(x) = {x + 1\over x + 1},$$
you are omitting the intended domain.  The natural domain is the set of all real numbers save for $-1$.  This is the tacit domain often used in discussing real functions of a a real variable.  
The constant function $x\mapsto 1$ defined on the whole real line is an extension of $f$ to the entire line. This is a different function, since its domain is larger than that of $f$.
A: There is no discontinuity at x=−1, just take the right and left limits and you'll see that. Hence f = 1.
