Date: Nov 19, 2012 4:40 PM
Author: Vurgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152
In article

<f2d00db5-e13a-47d9-a2f2-3c82ae5d54d1@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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