The three arrows of Zeno. Cantorian and non-Cantorian concepts of the continuum and of motion (Q1293044): Difference between revisions

This paper discusses the paradoxes of Zeno, including modern variants of them, from three points of view: (a) that of standard classical analysis (which uses the standard real number system), (b) that of nonstandard analysis (stemming from the work of Abraham Robinson), and (c) that of synthetic differential geometry, here called nonclassical analysis (which uses intuitionistic logic lacking the law of excluded middle, and derives from the work of F. W. Lawvere, A. Kock, G. Reyes and others). It is argued that the discussion shows that the standard point of view is not the only way of understanding the real line, and that each of the alternatives is in some respects more natural. Disappointingly, there is no discussion of paraconsistent approaches to the paradoxes [see \textit{G. Priest}, ``Inconsistencies in motion'', Am. Philos. Q. 22, 339-346 (1985), and chap. 12 of his book: In contradiction, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht (1987; Zbl 0682.03002)].