English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

And can you solve it??

2006-09-16 18:17:24 · 6 answers · asked by ashcatash 5 in Science & Mathematics Mathematics

6 answers

He had four "Arguments" and as Aristotle recorded them:
1) Dichotomy: "the first one is the one on the non-existence of motion, on the ground that what moves must always attain the middle point sooner than the end point.
2) Achilles and the Tortoise: The second is the so-called Achilles. It consists in this, that the slower will never be overtaken in its course by the quicker, for the pursuer must always come first to the point from which the pursued has just departed, so the slower must necessarily be always more or less in advance.
3)The Arrow: If everything, when it is behaving in a uniform manner, is continually either moving or at rest, but what is moving is always in the now, then the moving arrow is motionless.
4) The Stadium: The fourth is that concerning two rows, each row being composed of an equal number of bodies of equal size, passing each other on a race course, as they proceed with equal velocity in opposite direction; the one row originally occupying the space between the god and the middle point of the course, and the other that between the middle point and the starting point. This, he thinks, involves the conclusion that half a given time is equal to double the time.

All of these try to show our perception of space, time, and motion. Some people believe that he was trying to refute motion, but it is also thought that he was trying to appeal to our better judgement and realize that there are certain contradictions within our perception of movement.

The main idea behind what he says is that in order for a movement to be completed, it will be broken down into an infinite amount of smaller, separate, required motions (first go halfway, then half of that, and so on). But we all know better. If you want to walk two miles at a rate of one mile per hour, to cover the first mile will take you one hour, the next half mile will take you half an hour, the following quarter mile will take you a quarter of an hour, and so on...or just realize that the second mile will also take you an hour. We don't take one problem and break it into an infinite amount of parts, we break things down into smaller, more tangible pieces (I can walk the first mile in 1hr. and the second mile in 1hr.)
One can't try to split time into the infinite and space into the finite, and vice-versa as Zeno does.
Zeno tries to say with his arrow example that when it is travelling through space, it exists at points along the way, so how can it be at one point and still be moving. (Think about taking a picture of a car driving along--just because your picture only shows one spot for the car cannot guarantee that it will not be in a different spot before or after the picture. Motion is relative and is not defined by one point.

2006-09-16 19:05:50 · answer #1 · answered by Keith H 3 · 1 0

Zeno's paradoxes are a set of paradoxes devised by Zeno of Elea to support Parmenides' doctrine that "all is one" and that contrary to the evidence of our senses, the belief in plurality and change is mistaken, and in particular that motion is nothing but an illusion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno_paradox

2006-09-16 18:27:38 · answer #2 · answered by Gane 2 · 1 0

Its rather basic, there seems to be a paradox via fact its lacking to make certain the undemanding rule. This undemanding rule would desire to be considered: All gadgets at 0 velocity occupy a undeniable distance. No gadgets can shuttle under the fee at which it already is. (Its staggering) Now in case you learn Achilles and Tortoise you will comprehend the fallacy. So the anomaly is absurd.

2016-12-18 11:39:51 · answer #3 · answered by howling 4 · 0 0

It was a paradox meant to prove that movement was impossible. If you wanted to move from point a to point b you would first have to go half way; then half way again...this process would go on endlessly and you would never actually reach your final destination: thus proving the impossibility of motion.

2006-09-16 18:30:45 · answer #4 · answered by bruinfan 7 · 1 0

It's a paradox.

He mocked mathematics by saying if an arrow is halfway to the target then ... it will go half way, and then half way and then half way and never reach the target.

The solution is that the arrow obviously reaches the target.

2006-09-16 18:25:33 · answer #5 · answered by wrathofkublakhan 6 · 1 0

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-paradox.htm
try this link i think this is wat your looking for

2006-09-16 18:26:30 · answer #6 · answered by fear_fox 3 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers