Talk:Interleave sequence

Difficulty w/ second case

Isn't there a difficulty with the second case? Where a decimal ends with recurring 9's, or 0's (i.e. certain rationals with non-unique decimal expansion), it is less than obvious that the interleaving with something else is well-defined? Charles Matthews 20:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One way of fixing this is to just make a once-and-for-all decision that (say) all expansions end in 0 recurring in preference to 9 recurring. Then you get a well-defined injection. This should probably be mentioned in the article somehow, but I can't think of a good way of putting it at present. Algebraist 14:47, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequences and real analysis

This article needs to be better connected to better-developed articles in real analysis, such as Sequence and Limit of a sequence. The first bullet point is a rather trivial consequence of the basic fact that all convergent subsequences of a convergent sequence have the same limit; and it would be best if readers who stumbled here first were able to discover the wider context.

A more aggressive reform would be fixing Subsequence and merging this article there. But I don't know how to start there. --Dnavarro (talk) 13:38, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I slapped a mergeto template onto this article. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]