What is the difference between Zeno's paradox and the theory of limits?

In summary, the conversation discusses the difference between the numbers 0 and 1, and 3 and 4. While the absolute difference between them is the same, the relative difference can vary greatly. The concept of qualitative and quantitative changes is also brought up, along with Leibniz's argument against Cartesian model of qualitative variety. Finally, the misconception of 0 being "nothing" is addressed.
  • #1
mark_d
7
0
The difference between the number 0 and 1 is 1. So is the difference between 3 and 4.

Proposition:
The difference between 0 and 1 is much larger than the difference between 3 and 4.

That is because regardless of how many decimal places you go to in the calculations, there is a qualitative difference in the first statement. Nothing contrasted with something. In the second place there are two "somethings" being compared. A fundamental category shift from "nothingness" to "being" is huge.

Thoughts?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My thought: you should post subjective questions like this the Lounge section of the forum, not in the math sections.
 
  • #3
mark_d said:
The difference between the number 0 and 1 is 1. So is the difference between 3 and 4.

Proposition:
The difference between 0 and 1 is much larger than the difference between 3 and 4.

That is because regardless of how many decimal places you go to in the calculations, there is a qualitative difference in the first statement. Nothing contrasted with something. In the second place there are two "somethings" being compared. A fundamental category shift from "nothingness" to "being" is huge.

Thoughts?

Sure, you can look at it in percentages. When you age from 10 to 20, that's an additional 100% of your age. When you go from 80 to 90, it's only a 12.5% increase. So it's much less significant.

And there is a very great difference between 0 and 1. Because if you think of some event, it can happen zero times -- it never happens. Or it can happen once, or it can be very commonplace and happen a million times.

But the difference between 0 and 1 in this context is the difference between something that never happens, and something that happens. So it's a huge difference.
 
  • #4
mark_d said:
The difference between the number 0 and 1 is 1. So is the difference between 3 and 4.

Proposition:
The difference between 0 and 1 is much larger than the difference between 3 and 4.
No, it isn't. As you said above, the two differences are equal. 1 - 0 = 4 - 3 = 1.

Now, if you were talking about relative differences, that would be a different matter. The relative change from 0 to 1 is very much larger than that from 3 to 4, but if you're only talking subtraction (hence differences), then as I said, they're the same.


mark_d said:
That is because regardless of how many decimal places you go to in the calculations, there is a qualitative difference in the first statement.
Both subtractions can be done without resorting to decimal places.
mark_d said:
Nothing contrasted with something.
Zero is not "nothing". It is a number, just like any other real number.
mark_d said:
In the second place there are two "somethings" being compared. A fundamental category shift from "nothingness" to "being" is huge.

Thoughts?
 
  • #5
Mark44,

You are in good company! Qualitative and quantitative changes are a vast subject of debate among reductionists and scientists. Qualitative changes will lead you into a better understanding of geometry and the complex domain.

Just a little from Leibniz from here:
Leibniz's ingenious attack on this Cartesian model of qualitative variety proceeds in two steps. The first step charges that motion alone is unable to account for qualitative variety at an instant: since all qualitative variety in the Cartesian system depends on motion, and there is no motion in an instant, it follows that in a Cartesian world there could be no qualitative variety at an instant.[12] The second step of Leibniz's argument charges that if the world is qualitatively homogenous at every instant, then it must be qualitatively homogenous over time as well. For if the world is qualitatively undifferentiated at each instant, then every instant will be qualitatively identical, and so the world as a whole will not undergo any qualitative change as it passes from one instant to the next. To use an anachronistic analogy, the two steps taken together imply that a Cartesian world would be like a filmstrip whose every frame was blank, and thus whose projection would not only be homogenous at each instant, but through time as well.
 
  • #6
Thetes said:
Mark44,

You are in good company! Qualitative and quantitative changes are a vast subject of debate among reductionists and scientists. Qualitative changes will lead you into a better understanding of geometry and the complex domain.

Just a little from Leibniz from here:
Leibniz's ingenious attack on this Cartesian model of qualitative variety proceeds in two steps. The first step charges that motion alone is unable to account for qualitative variety at an instant: since all qualitative variety in the Cartesian system depends on motion, and there is no motion in an instant, it follows that in a Cartesian world there could be no qualitative variety at an instant.[12] The second step of Leibniz's argument charges that if the world is qualitatively homogenous at every instant, then it must be qualitatively homogenous over time as well. For if the world is qualitatively undifferentiated at each instant, then every instant will be qualitatively identical, and so the world as a whole will not undergo any qualitative change as it passes from one instant to the next. To use an anachronistic analogy, the two steps taken together imply that a Cartesian world would be like a filmstrip whose every frame was blank, and thus whose projection would not only be homogenous at each instant, but through time as well.

This makes me think of one of Zeno's paradoxes, in which the object under consideration is an arrow in flight. The argument goes like this: At each instant in time, the arrow is motionless at a precise point in space. The arrow is not moving toward that point, nor away from it, so the arrow must be motionless at all times.

This might pose a conundrum for philosophers, but mathematicians and physicists have this figured out.
 
  • #7
0 is not "nothing." This is where your problem arises.
0 is an integer. The magnitude of the difference between any two consecutive integers is 1.
Here you are looking at the difference between two "somethings." (integers)
 
  • #8
Mark44 said:
This makes me think of one of Zeno's paradoxes, in which the object under consideration is an arrow in flight. The argument goes like this: At each instant in time, the arrow is motionless at a precise point in space. The arrow is not moving toward that point, nor away from it, so the arrow must be motionless at all times.

This might pose a conundrum for philosophers, but mathematicians and physicists have this figured out.

I do not agree. Mathematicians have resolved the paradox with the theory of limits; a theory that is only possible to carry out in a continuum.

Physical space may or may not be a continuum. We have no evidence either way; and some theorists suggest space may consist of discrete particles or points.

The real numbers are a mathematical model. It is unknown and (IMO) doubtful that the actual, physical space is like the real numbers. And if it is -- then you have all the problems of set theory suddenly becoming problems for experimental physics. Is the Continuum Hypothesis true in physical space? This question must have a definitive answer in the physical universe; even though it's independent of the usual axioms of set theory.

So you see that imagining that the physical universe is a continuum is fraught with problems. But if the universe isn't a continuum, then the mathematical solution to Zeno's paradoxes does not apply.

Therefore Zeno's paradoxes of motion are not resolved in physics; only in mathematics. In my opinion anyway.
 
  • #9
Mark44 said:
This makes me think of one of Zeno's paradoxes, in which the object under consideration is an arrow in flight. The argument goes like this: At each instant in time, the arrow is motionless at a precise point in space. The arrow is not moving toward that point, nor away from it, so the arrow must be motionless at all times.

This might pose a conundrum for philosophers, but mathematicians and physicists have this figured out.

SteveL27 said:
I do not agree. Mathematicians have resolved the paradox with the theory of limits; a theory that is only possible to carry out in a continuum.
I lumped physicists in with mathematicians because physicists are generally aware of mathematics concepts. That's all I meant by my remark.
 

1. What is the difference between qualitative and quantitative research?

Qualitative research focuses on understanding and interpreting subjective data, such as feelings, opinions, and behaviors. It is exploratory in nature and typically involves smaller sample sizes. Quantitative research, on the other hand, focuses on collecting and analyzing numerical data to identify patterns and relationships. It is more structured and uses larger sample sizes.

2. Which type of research is more reliable?

Both qualitative and quantitative research have their own strengths and limitations, and neither is considered more reliable than the other. Qualitative research allows for a deeper understanding of complex phenomena, while quantitative research allows for statistical analysis and generalizability. The choice of research method depends on the research question and the goals of the study.

3. Can qualitative and quantitative research methods be used together?

Yes, it is possible to use both qualitative and quantitative research methods in the same study. This is known as mixed methods research, which combines the strengths of both approaches to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic. In mixed methods research, data from one method can be used to complement or validate the findings of the other method.

4. What are some examples of qualitative and quantitative research?

Qualitative research examples include in-depth interviews, focus groups, and observation studies. These methods are used to explore complex social and psychological phenomena. Quantitative research examples include surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis of data. These methods are used to quantify and measure relationships between variables.

5. How do I choose between qualitative and quantitative research?

The choice of research method depends on the research question, the availability of resources, and the goals of the study. If the research question aims to understand subjective experiences and perceptions, qualitative research would be more appropriate. If the research question aims to identify patterns and relationships between variables, quantitative research would be more suitable. It is also possible to use a mixed methods approach to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the research topic.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
27
Views
729
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
40
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
2
Replies
48
Views
3K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • Differential Equations
Replies
1
Views
624
  • General Math
Replies
11
Views
9K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
2K
  • General Math
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top