Tackling a paradox: Do we or don't we arrive at the destination?

Suppose Im to walk on a straight pathway from A to B: I wear a pedo clock time, (as swell as my sneakers) and set off. The distance (AB) is 100 meter. I let to a place where my pedometer shows 50. Half of the way, I conceive and aliveness going, preparely estimating the remained distance: Im going to walk half of the remained 50, accordingly half of the remained 25, thusce half of the remained 12.5, then half of the remained 6.25, then half of the remained 3.125, then... Will I in truth total at B? mathematically speaking, NO! I may squeeze off so so close to B, alone never sire at B itself. Then, why I really do obtain at B? Its perhaps not that clear to answer. However, I just try to afford most rough conjecture: Focusing on the different spirit of Bs (arriving arrests) may shed almost light upon the dilemma: realistically speaking, B is a place, not a ace backsheesh. Its a tree, or stone, or a cottage at the hold back of the road, where is 100 meter away from the setoff station, A. Why we arrive at B? Well, because we take B as some visible, concrete spatial thing. B occupies some space; it has a three-dimensional nature NOT similar to the mathematical B which is just a point, consisting of no dimension.

I can consume that I actually never arrive at point B (some invisible theoretical thing) at the end of my journey, but I do arrive at that B (a stone, or a tree, or even an extremely narrow safe beam) which is placed right 100 meter away from the starting point A. Before launching into either further inferences, lets cover the very nature of point itself: Mat hematically speaking, what is a point? Is it! some... If you want to get a dear essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay