```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 thelimit as part of the sequence. That sounds like a bad ideato me, not least because we can't assume that a particularsequence 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 atany 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 hedoes 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
```