my teacher of maths taught me that zeno talked of a turtle taking half step each time and never reaching destination, as well did my father a mathematician, this is the concept of limit

zeno never said this:

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

this paradox is a mixture of the turtle and achiles race and dichotomy

the race says that achiles gives 100 m advantage to a turtle that goes half his speed, when he reaches the point where the turtle was last it will have an adavantage of 50 m, when it reaches the next point it will be 25, always a half being achiles unable to pass the turtle

dichotomy says you cant even start since if you want to move a milimiter youll have to run first half then half of half and so on so you cant even run that milimiter

zeno wanted to prove witth this paradoxes that motion was an ilusion

so from paradoxes that want to prove reality is an illusion somebody decided to take zenos name and make the turtle that take half steps paradox that shows that the world is perfct, exactly the opposite to zenos intention

what id like to know is if you have been taught as me the paradox of the tortoise taking half steps each time?

I'm happy to say I've never heard any of that bullcrap before.

Hm.

I don't really know what your point is since your grammar and writing skills are so atrocious.

It seemed interesting but I still am lost.

Don't have a clue... Did that even make sense to lerts?

Yes i know of all those paradoxes, but your grammar and structure is so bad that i don't know what your point is.
I'm guessing that you want to know if other people believe it. well....simply put, i don't lol. It doesn't make sense and there is a simple explanation for it. Take the tortoise one for example. Get your friend, put him 100 feet in front of you, tell him to walk at slow speed while you run at a fast speed. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that you will eventually catch up to, and overtake your friend. (Applies to racing also =D)

Quote from Cr!t!calDrift :

Hm.

I don't really know what your point is since your grammar and writing skills are so atrocious.

It seemed interesting but I still am lost.

Your posting skills are atrocious.

Quote from The General Lee :

Your posting skills are atrocious.

+1

I'm glad you agree

A similar term is used in the decomposition of Radioactive waste and other such substances.

"Half-Life" (guns and aliens not included)

Quote from mcintyrej :

A similar term is used in the decomposition of Radioactive waste and other such substances.

"Half-Life" (guns and aliens not included)

You're right but that has nothing to do with the situations presented by Achilles etc. All a half life is, is the amount of time it takes for half of a substance to decay. Resulting in an infinitely small part of that substance.

Quote from The General Lee :

I'm glad you agree

Me too

Quote from ans7812 :

You're right but that has nothing to do with the situations presented by Achilles etc. All a half life is, is the amount of time it takes for half of a substance to decay. Resulting in an infinitely small part of that substance.

Odd thought...

Quote from ans7812 :

You're right but that has nothing to do with the situations presented by Achilles etc. All a half life is, is the amount of time it takes for half of a substance to decay. Resulting in an infinitely small part of that substance.

Is that not exactly the same principle of the one your speaking of though?

If you half something, then half it again..It can never totally be gone. It will just remain a very very very very tiny fraction.

Quote from Cr!t!calDrift :

Odd thought...

that's chemistry for you!

It is mathematically right, and it also applies to real life... :doh: All of you forget that the interval where you check the distance between the two also halves... So yes, the runner will never overtake the turtle if don't give him the time to do it...

Quote from bbman :

It is mathematically right, and it also applies to real life... :doh: All of you forget that the interval where you check the distance between the two also halves... So yes, the runner will never overtake the turtle if don't give him the time to do it...

you are exactly right. Although you have implied it, i think what you are trying to say is, time. That is what the achilles or w/e didn't factor in. If there was no time, then yes, his theories would be correct. Same goes for the arrow that does not move. Of course it movies because there are new moments. Like he said, if you took a picture of the arrow, you freeze that MOMENT and therefore the arrow is standing still.
So in conclusion, all of the presented theories are true if time is negligible.

Quote from mcintyrej :

Is that not exactly the same principle of the one your speaking of though?

If you half something, then half it again..It can never totally be gone. It will just remain a very very very very tiny fraction.

no, in my last post i explained that time is factor that archilles is forgetting. But you are right, the substance will never be gone, it will be infinitely small.

The paradox of which the learned Lerts speaks is a mere mathematical trick.
If you have a hare racing after a tortoise and you measure the time taken for the hare to get halfway to the tortoise, then measure again the hare covering half the distance again, meanwhile the tortoise takes another few steps, it may seem that the hare will never overtake. clearly this is nonsense as all you're doing is trying to tether time to the point where the hare draws level, as being the base point of reference, whereas in reality, time is the constant that will keep on rolling.

In fact this is an artificial imposition on the entire situation; the hare will race past at great speed until it comes across the Cadbury's Caramel bunny lolling under a tree, whereby it will be overcome by the feminine guiles of the sexy creature and the promise of sticky choccy and maybe some special pudding too if it plays its cards right. The tortoise will amble on unnoticed and eventually die of old age having forgotten where the finish line was.

At the end of the day I'd rather have rabbit pie than tortoise and furthermore does anyone know if Lerts has ever posted anything useful or indeed remotely related to LFS on this forum since joining?

I'd rather have chocolate bunny than rabbit pie, and in response to your query, Al, I do remember a few of the OP's posts that weren't here in the Off Topic section ...10 out of 43 to be exact ;]

Having said that, I can neither confirm nor deny their usefulness, nor can I tally the number that didn't include a Wiki link.

To address the topic du jour, however, we were taught Zeno's paradox in senior maths at high school, though only as an illustration of how thinking too much about a particular problem can lead to an answer or idea that's basically useless - which, paradoxically, Zeno's paradox demonstrates in spades

mi point for this post is to see if youve been lied as me being told zenos paradox of a turtle taking half steps and never reaching destination

zeno never said this and this is not paradoxical at all

dichotomy can be applied to time as well to go 2 seconds into the future you have to go 1 sec first the 0.5 then 0.25... so you can never reach 2 seconds from now

Quote from lerts :

so you can never reach 2 seconds from now

Yes, you can... Time only moves forward, you don't use it up...

If achillies were moving at a constant speed, you could put more points of reference. Instead of 50m, 25m, you can also say 50m, 49m, 48m, 47m, 46m, 45m, 44m, 43m, 42m, 41m, 40m, 39m, 38m, 37m, 36m, 35m, 34m, 33m, 32m, 31m, 30m, 29m, 28m, 27m, 26m, 25m!

And, half-life does not mean that there is always some left. There is a point where all of the substance will be gone. You can't have a fraction of an atom, now can you?

Quote from lerts :

mi point for this post is to see if youve been lied as me being told zenos paradox of a turtle taking half steps and never reaching destination

zeno never said this and this is not paradoxical at all

dichotomy can be applied to time as well to go 2 seconds into the future you have to go 1 sec first the 0.5 then 0.25... so you can never reach 2 seconds from now

Les try the medium of sound here cos he just ain't gettin it...

Quote from al heeley :

.

harhar.mp3...har de har harr

I opened this thread, read through most of it and got this far only to find out it was bloody lerts who started it. I thought he was on my ignore list, damn it.

But ROFL @ Al's comment. We should all take it easy

Quote from Dajmin :

But ROFL @ Al's comment. We should all take it easy

+1 harr harpirate:

First of all, you all just jumped on this thing because of the writer and his/hers past. If you don't like what he's writing, them ignore him/her.

Second, the theory he described is valid in a closed environment. You have to understand that time has been included in mathematics/physics for quite short period of time. Also this theory makes use of the concepts of finite and infinite. If the tortoise sets the frame of finite, then the rabbit can never pass it, or the arrow never hits the target.

Thirdly, why does every theory has to be so simple that "common people" could understand it, or more likely, to not to think it as bs. Be open-minded. Accept that there are shoit-loads of stuff you don't understand.

Fourthly, it saddens when teachers get the facts wrong. My experience is that teachers aren't usually any better than the average janes and joes.

Quote from Julppu :

First of all, you all just jumped on this thing because of the writer and his/hers past.

Not true, it was jumped on becuase of its stupid content.

Quote :

why does every theory has to be so simple that "common people" could understand it,

I guess thats cos a theory so complex that only the originator can understand it is not really much use to anyone else. It has to be transposed from a theory to a practical, understandable application for it to be anything other than mental/intellectual masturbation.

Quote :

.. saddens when teachers get the facts wrong. My experience is that teachers aren't usually any better than the average janes and joes.

True.