@QED If you would like a small prelude... Remember that sequences have limits. Also functions have limits at a given point. Is there a reason to give the same name to both these things? Does this idea generalise beyond the two examples I mentioned?
What's the deal about limits misusing the equals sign? In my experience, one is not allowed to use the \lim notation at all unless one knows that limits are unique for the topological space in question.
BTW Henning I've recently found out that you're pretty active wikipedian. (I've noticed that you've edited one of the articles I have on my watchlist.)
I guess some of your edits are related to the things discussed here at MSE.
@MartinSleziak I used to be a fairly active wikipedian a handful of years ago, reloading watchlists several times a day and getting involved in editorial arguments, etc. Nowadays I just fix problems when I come across them for another reason.
@AsafKaragila The terminology was not Kelley's invention, though. Kelley had wanted to call such an object a way. However, nets have subnets, which Kelley would have dubbed subways. Norman Steenrod talked him out of it. After some prodding by Kelley, Steenrod suggested the term net as a substitute for way.
