Talk:Zeno's paradoxes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	A-BB+ Class	High Priority	Field: Analysis (historical)
One of the 500 most frequently viewed mathematics articles.
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Geometry guy 23:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC) The math here is severely confused in how it is being treated outside of the context of the presentation of calculus. There seems to be significant confusion by most authors about the infinite - which does significant harm to the sequence analogy. Hence, there needs to be a transition from foundations (i.e. cardinality etc.) to dispel the confusion. Moreover, the assumptions presented in the paradox need to be enumerated to appropriately address to topic. Sirmacbain (talk) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This article incorporates material from Zeno's paradox on PlanetMath, which is licensed under the GFDL.

Zeno's paradoxes was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Delisted version: September 14, 2006

Contents 1 Someone with more time write more to the article about this 2 Starting clean 3 Question 4 For prior discussion see

[edit] Someone with more time write more to the article about this

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#Sta http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ArgDen http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ArgFinSiz http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/#ArgComDiv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Le Blue Dude (talk • contribs) 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Starting clean

I think it's worthy of a B+ Now.....64.6.88.31 (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's start the talk page clean, alright?Le Blue Dude (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be starting on it's way to being a good, simple, article again. Whoot! 21:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.6.88.31 (talk)

I agree. The biggest problem with the old version was that it argued fervently against the calculus solution (which led me to make all those long posts on the old discussion page). Now the article treats the "issues with the calculus solution" in a fully encyclopedic manner: it states that there are people who think that there are issues, and something about why they believe that, but it doesn't take a stance in the matter. Well done. Sthinks (talk) 23:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question

"Another proposed solution is to question the assumption inherent in Zeno's paradox, which is that between any two different points in space (or time), there is always another point. If this assumption is challenged, the infinite sequence of events is avoided, and the paradox resolved."

Can someone explain how matter has the special property of being able to translate itself to an adjacent point in space from rest? I think there's an assumption inherent somewhere here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.160.154 (talk) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you, and I think your question closely resembles Zeno's question as posed in the Arrow paradox. Indeed, Zeno raised some deep metaphysical questions in general about motion that don't seem to have been resolved. That is, as engineers we can talk about motion as simply being at different points in space at different points in time and, as such, we can make all kinds of predictions about when and where some object is going to be, often using calculus. However, what goes on metaphysically that makes this work is not clear at all. For one, there is the problem of the infinite sequence of points, and for another, is motion really a point-to-point kind of process? Indeed, is there even anything in reality corresponding to our notion of a 'point' in the first place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.66.230 (talk) 13:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] For prior discussion see

Talk:Zeno's paradoxes/Archive 1