Date: Oct 5, 2017 12:15 PM
Author: Jim Burns
Subject: Re: It is a very bad idea and nothing less than stupid to define 1/3<br> = 0.333...
On 10/5/2017 9:59 AM, bursejan@gmail.com wrote:

> Doesn't make any sense, since it is a sequence

> and not a number. But obviously the decimal

> notation 0.999... refers to a number. So its

> simply lim n->oo (1-(1/10)^n), from the

>

> mathematical notational convention, that the

> ... in the above context includes the limit.

I am not familiar with a convention that includes the

limit as part of the sequence. That sounds like a bad idea

to me, not least because we can't assume that a particular

sequence has a limit.

In this discussion, no matter what you may be familiar with,

it's important to keep clear which we're talking about at

any point: the sequence or the limit of the sequence.

Anyway, what netzwelter wrote out is what I asked for,

that sequence defined without '...' My hope is that he

does not take your advice.

> Am Donnerstag, 5. Oktober 2017 15:50:38 UTC+2

> schrieb netzweltler:

>>> I mean a '...' at the end of the description.

>>> When one writes

>>> 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ...

>>> one puts '...' at the end of _that_ but what does it mean?

>>

>> (1-(1/10)^n)n?N