I understand it, I was just saying what people do realistically, rather than theoretically, and I didn't explain it well.

Walking any distance, you walk an infinite amount of fractions of that distance theoretically, and if there is a definite planck length as some people are claiming, than in real life you'd cover a finite amount of fractions.

Uh, zeno's paradox isn't a paradox at all. You can solve it using calculus in like... 2 seconds.

The time it takes for me to get from whereever to halfway to the door is X seconds. As i continually repeat this, not only does distance go to a tiny amount, but SO DOES THE TIME IT TAKES ME. Thus the sum of all these distances dx over time dt is not = to retarded, its just = x, which is my original door to me distance.

Basically, you can use l'hopital's rule, and eliminate the factors which cause the infinity over infinity.

i just wrecked a hole in paradox.

Or to put it succinctly, Zenos paradox in essence states that if your chasing someone and are decelerating at the right rate you will never catch them but will always cover distance between you and him.

If states otherwise it seems to put our view of the world into question, but stated like that it seems simplistic and stupid. There are more interesting paradoxes.


• A = B
• A+A = A+B (adding A to both sides)
• 2A = A+B (simplifying)
• 2A-2B = A+B-2B (subtracting 2B from both sides)
• 2A-2B = A-B (simplifying)
• 2(A-B) = 1(A-B) (factoring)
• 2 = 1 (cancelling)
its interesting to see how long it takes people to find the flaw.

you're dividing by 0

Yes I am. And it took my accountant dad a good five minutes to see that. And there are some co workers who still believe all of mathematics is a lie.

Oh ya of course YOU were the first person to calculate it and all, and as soon as Zenos made this paradox no one moved ever again, till now.

The deal with this paradox is that its just showing that the whole idea of motion as a continuos process that could be divided up as much as you like was untenable.

Zenos didnt stop moving after he figured this out because he believed he couldnt. He wanted to prove infinity, he used it as a hypothetical situation.

And to whomever said this was the achilles tortoise theory, your wrong, their both theories of Zenos which are extremely similar but are worded differently.

but it can, even in the way you explain it. i even gave you the happy math to do it. in fact, calculus relies pretty much on dividing things up into infinity tiny pieces... so by using it and disproving the paradox, i've done what you said i can't. If you want, you can get a nice little equation, and for every slap happy x you put in (each sliver of time you want to check) there'll be an answer for you.

Thank you for the accolades, i'm sure the world can rest easy now that i've liberated them. Donations and support can be sent to my house.. PM me for an address.

On a more important note, apperantly there's a smallest possible length and a smallest possible unit of time, but since i'm lazy, i won't link any physics journals.

This pardox flaw is that it thinks you have to stop at that point before contiuning. Most us us would cross over it. Well I think.

In the proof showen with the equation where does he divide by zero?

For the love of Pete! I think I already said it was the Planck Length (Or Square in 2D, Cube in 3D). As for the exact number, 10^-33 centimeters if memory serves me. The shortest unit of time is, and how unoriginally, the Planck Time, the time it takes light to cross one Planck Length (something like 10^-43 seconds).

But really, those units are so utterly useless in this discussion. I mean, atomic nuclei are on the, what, 10^-15 scale?

Edit: Right, and uh...Lucas is right. Some quick magic with L'Hospital's Rule and the paradox is worked out mathematically. As per usual its tough to convert it into practical thinking...though, I do like the logic behind it.

*smacks self in the head* Forget the fancy math there is a very easy way around this. Simply put you cover a set amount of distance everytime you step. Your motion is infact discontinous. Meaning that you cover a set amount of distance stop and cover that, or nearly so, amount of distance again. So as time goes on and you travel greater and greater precentages of the remaining distance.

Actually the very heart of this paradox is the lack of the consideration of time. Since even today we don't have a very clear understanding of time it still seems to work logically. That is until you do the math and force time into consideration. About the only thing the paradox proves is the inability to consider motion without considering time for without time we wouldn't be moving. (At least not in the same sense of the word.)