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 mebibyte, (as good as my sneakers) and set off. The distance (AB) is 100 meter. I come after 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, thus half of the remained 25, thereforece half of the remained 12.5, then half of the remained 6.25, then half of the remained 3.125, then... Will I unfeignedly total at B? mathematically speaking, NO! I may riffle off so so close to B, alone neer sire at B itself. Then, why I really do stick at B? Its perhaps not that clear to answer. However, I just try to afford some rough conjecture: Focusing on the different constitution of Bs (arriving arrests) may shed some light upon the dilemma: realistically speaking, B is a place, not a individual(a) backsheesh. Its a tree, or stone, or a cottage at the hold back of the road, where is 100 meter away from the commencement exercise 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 comparable with(predicate) 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 any further inferences, lets cover the very nature of point itself: Mathematically speaking, what is a point? Is it some... If you want to get a replete essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

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