Question on The Dichotomy Paradox

  • Thread starter Thread starter LGram16
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Paradox
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on Zeno's paradox, which posits that to reach point B, one must first reach halfway, then halfway to halfway, and so on, suggesting movement is impossible. The original poster questions the validity of this reasoning, arguing that despite the infinite divisions, movement can still occur as one can start moving towards point B. Responses clarify that the paradox stems from a misunderstanding of mathematical concepts, particularly regarding limits and convergence. The conversation highlights the paradox's historical significance while emphasizing that it does not hold true in practical terms. Overall, the discussion seeks to reconcile the philosophical implications of the paradox with modern mathematical understanding.
LGram16
Messages
9
Reaction score
0
Okay, I didn't really know where to post this, but whenever I hear about this paradox it is in a conversation relating to physics. Anyway, for those that don't know the paradox, it states that to get to point 'B', one must get halfway there before they can be all the way there. And to get halfway there, they must get halfway to halfway there (1/4) and so on. In saying this, it is rendered impossible to get to your destination. I am asking why. The distance you are at acts much like an asymptote, getting closer and closer to 0, while never reaching it. If it never reaches 0, then shouldn't there always be a distance to travel, no matter how far you break down 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32, 1/64, 1/128 and so on? If there is always a distance to move, than it is possible to begin moving, correct? The paradox assumes that movement is impossible because the pattern continues infinitely, meaning there is no beginning distance for the smallest halfway point to begin, which is true, but the smallest is not needed because an object can simply begin moving, speedily making it's way to 1/4 the distance, and then to 1/2, and finally to point B from point A. Just a thought I had, and wanted to share it with others to see if I was right or wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gordianus said:
The paradox you're referring to is a very old one and is called Zeno's paradox. It's over two thousand years old.
Check the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

I know. I meant how is it true?
 
It isn't true. (assuming you mean how is it a real paradox) It's basically just a product of an underdeveloped understanding of math (at best!).
 
So I know that electrons are fundamental, there's no 'material' that makes them up, it's like talking about a colour itself rather than a car or a flower. Now protons and neutrons and quarks and whatever other stuff is there fundamentally, I want someone to kind of teach me these, I have a lot of questions that books might not give the answer in the way I understand. Thanks
I am attempting to use a Raman TruScan with a 785 nm laser to read a material for identification purposes. The material causes too much fluorescence and doesn’t not produce a good signal. However another lab is able to produce a good signal consistently using the same Raman model and sample material. What would be the reason for the different results between instruments?

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
14K
Back
Top