Teemno's argumentation
Ancient Greek Elia School's philosophers is a very interesting figure. He is known for the issue of "two points", "Aquaris can't catch the turtle". In these paradoxes, Zhi Nuo denied the presence of material movement. This is a ridiculous, but the reason why he puts forward is such a else, as if it is impeccable, so that no one can refute him before the 19th century.
The person who is walking is deploying from A, going to X. First, he must pass the B point marked with 1/2, this is just a center point of A - X. Then he has to pass the C point marked with 3/4, which is the center point of B - X. Then, from the C point, he still has a central point before the X, that is, the D point marked with 7/8. From D point, he still has to pass through the center of D - X e ..., so that it is pushed, no matter how close the distance from X, he has to pass through the central point by one. However, we know that these central points are endless, even if it is a minor distance, there is always a place to be the center of this distance. It is because the center point is incomplete, so the person walking is getting closer and closer, he can't reach the end.
Zhi Luo's argument is a typical paradox, can you analyze?
The dilemma of Zhino paradox
philosophically infinite dispute
a point of view, A limited segmentation of a limited space-time distance can be finalized, although there is no last mid point, but in general, it can be seen as this segmentation has been completed. This view is called the actual unlimited view in philosophy. Because infinite segmentation has been completed, it has gone through all midpoints and arrived at the end. Another point of view believes that because there is no last mid point, this unlimited segmentation cannot be finalized, it is a never-ending process. This point of view is so dive. Because there is no last mid point, the object cannot reach the end. Simply put, if there is unlimited can be unlimited, the material can reach the end point. If the infinity of the time and space is unlimited, the object cannot reach the end.
Mathematical explanation
This paradox looks in mathematics, the cause of the error is the minimum principle of misunderstanding because it put the minimum principle (Non-empty set has the smallest element) is imposed on the real collection, this principle is established for positive integer sets, but does not appear for real collections, for example, there is no minimum positive number. I didn't have the first thing that I arrived (because there is no minimum positive number), this seems to violate common sense, but "there is the most arrived at that" this common sense is wrong. In our reality, encountering is often integrated, the nature of this situation cannot be promoted to a positive situation.
The world is not a continuous
physical existence of infinite small concepts,
physics research is the objective world, the objective world does not exist "infinity" metrics, no matter It is time, space, quality, electricity, force, energy, and there is no "infinity" and only "smallest". In other words, the world is essentially discrete rather than continuous. Of course, this "minimum" is what extent, it may not be reached, some theoretical derivation may not be correct, but this "smallest" concept is affirmative, and those constuffed assumptions from infinitely, only It is an approximation.
In simple mathematics, it is a concept of "infinity", "continuity", which is also one of the most important foundations in mathematics. Math is self-entertainment from the objective world of these specific research objects, but when the mathematics principle of "infinity" "continuity", applied to physical problems, it must be considered: Application objects are in line with this One condition? What is the degree of compliance? Can the deviation ignore?
So, if you do not print, you will use the mathematical method of "infinity" concept to "objective physical events", sometimes you have to encounter trouble: such as ---- Chi The promise is to assume "infinity" or "continuity" assumption, and there is no "infinity", and the difference in the actual physical problems will be discontinuous. The essence of this paradox is wrong. Mathematics tools.