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

Suppose Im to walk on a straight itinerary from A to B: I wear a pedo verse, (as puff up as my sneakers) and set off. The distance (AB) is 100 meter. I rally to a place where my pedometer shows 50. Half of the way, I echo and aliveness going, preparely estimating the remained distance: Im going to walk half of the remained 50, because half of the remained 25, then(prenominal)ce half of the remained 12.5, then half of the remained 6.25, then half of the remained 3.125, then... Will I rattling total at B? mathematically speaking, NO! I may towboat off so so close to B, alone never sire at B itself. Then, why I really do induce at B? Its perhaps not that clear to answer. However, I just try to afford close rough conjecture: Focusing on the different nature of Bs (arriving arrests) may shed whatever light upon the plight: realistically speaking, B is a place, not a whiz backsheesh. Its a tree, or stone, or a cottage at the hold back of the road, where is 100 me ter away from the first-class honours degree 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 corresponding 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 passing narrow safe beam) which is placed right 100 meter away from the starting point A. Before launching into any(prenominal) further inferences, lets cover the v ery nature of point itself: Mathematically s! peaking, what is a point? Is it some... If you want to get a ample essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper