/lit/ - Literature

>>19646773
both are allegories (no matter how much tolkien liked to deny it) for christian life. so let the athiest fattfucks stop reading now.
narnia is a childrens book, was very innovative and interesting in its time, and was very imaginative. most people think it being a childrens book is a bad thing, but the bible actually says unless you become like a child you will never get to heaven.
tolkien is objectively better, his world is more fleshed out, his writing is more detailed, its all just bigger and usually better. but they're both still some of the best christian writers of all time, and C.S lewis wrote things that changed my entire life (see Mere Christianity, and Screwtape Letters). So it just depends on what u want, tolkien is a better fantasy writer tho definitely.

>>19523740
> Do you know what limits mean?
Yes.
> It doesn't say anything about zero distance.
Never said it did. I brought up the definition of the limit because I was discussing the approaches used to talk about instances in the history of calculus, e.g. speaking of them as actualities as in infinitesimals or as potentialities as in limits. Please read my post again.
> The paradox hasn't even been addressed. All you've done is formalize the dead-obvious intuition that the arrow will reach the target.
Could you please address my, or better yet, Aristotle's argument?
>>19523790
> You think Zeno's paradox is an attempt to convince people that Achilles will never catch up to the tortoise.
Yes, that's exactly what it is
> Everyone knows Achilles will catch up to the tortoise.
Correct, and that's where the paradox arises from. That's where we start questioning if motion is just an illusion and stuff.
> So where is the flaw in Zeno's argument?
I've already discussed the flaw in Zeno's Argument, see the link to Aristotle's refutation.
>They just attempt to prove what people already know---that Achilles will catch the tortoise. No shit, Sherlock
Again, you are missing the point. The point isn't the conclusion but how we got there.
>>19523855
That's an awful example because the use of calculus formalizes the problem and shows how we got the answer whereas person A simply ignores the problem.
I don't understand why you are have such a problem with this basic demonstration; It's math, the fact that we got the conclusion we all expected proves that there could be no other logical solution to the problem and therefor that there is no paradox. If you like, you can say that the model being used is wrong but then you have to show WHY the model is wrong.