In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 19 Nov., 01:14, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote: > > > > > I see no reason to suppose that the expression is well enough defined to > > have anything like a unique limit. > > If it is expressible as the limit of a sequence at all, then show us > > the terms of such a sequence.
> Here you are: > > > 01. > > > 0.1 > > > 010.1 > > > 01.01 > > > 0101.01 > > > 010.101 > > > 01010.101 > > > 0101.0101 > > > ... > Is this in fact more difficult to grasp than, say, the Conway > sequence? Should I be proud for that reason?
It is STILL not at all clear that the sequence you indicated has any limit according to any standard definition of limit of a sequence.
What definition (with a URL which will verify its authenticity) do you propose to use on your sequence