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