[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 165 KB, 247x248, 1278808103091.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2212124 No.2212124 [Reply] [Original]

An arrow is at rest if it is in a place equal to itself. At any given moment, even a very speedy arrow cannot be where it is not. Therefore, it must be where it is, and so in a place equal to itself. Henceforth, a flying arrow cannot move.

i feel bad coming to /sci for help with this, since it is a philosophy paper...

>> No.2212129

i've paraphrased Aristotles retort this argument as such:

The arrow can be analyzed into an unlimited amount of sub-flights. Whenever we divide its flight into “n” parts, we could have divided it into “n+1” parts. This goes to show that the flight of an arrow is not a collection of actual sub-flights. In other words, a “moment of time” is too ambiguous of a concept to hold any real weight, except in abstract theory, as Zeno admirably demonstrates in his paradoxes.

>my goal is to prove this wrong. possible? or no?
just tryin to talk shit out here..its due in 6 hours

>> No.2212135

Learn calculus, tell the question to fuck itself.

>> No.2212144

shameless self bump, i'm desperate

>> No.2212145

The way we define movement requires that time exists. You can't just stop at one moment and say that the arrow isn't moving.

>> No.2212450

>>2212145
What he said. Also, "An arrow is at rest if it is in a place equal to itself"? No, an arrow is always in a place equal to itself. An arrow is at rest when its speed is zero.

>> No.2212470

yep. d(x,x)=0
says jackshit about dx/dt.

>> No.2212476
File: 92 KB, 300x300, 1291847229923 - Copy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2212476

Reminds me of this:
http://tomahawk.ytmnd.com/

>> No.2212487

Position and velocity are not the same thing. Knowing the position of the arrow tells you nothing about its velocity.

>> No.2212493

>>2212476
hahahahahahahahaha.
I can't even respond that that. That's amazing.

>> No.2212502

"An arrow is at rest if it is in a place equal to itself."
This shit right here? This shit is false.

>> No.2212522

As has been said, Zeno's paradox is only a paradox without an understanding of calculus.

>> No.2212562
File: 46 KB, 400x448, Img214148317.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2212562

>>2212476

Hilarious to listen to, but it sounds like it makes perfect sense.

>> No.2212623

A "very speedy arrow" has no position. It has a velocity which implies more than an "instant" there is no speed in an instant. If the arrow is flying, it has a speed which equals its distance traveled divided by the amount of time it took to get there (let's say 100 km/h). If the arrow is merely "hovering" then it has a definite position and no speed (position would equal x,y,z in a mathematical arena).

The argument is flawed because a flying arrow is (emphasis on "is") already in motion. Flying means speed and speed means no definite position.