Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-lrf7s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T19:18:44.911Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Essay in Honor of Adolf Grünbaum’s Ninetieth Birthday: A Reexamination of Zeno’s Paradox of Extension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Philip Ehrlich
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We suggest that, far from establishing an inconsistency in the standard theory of the geometrical linear continuum, Zeno’s Paradox of Extension merely establishes an inconsistency between the standard theory of geometrical magnitude and a misguided system of length measurement. We further suggest that our resolution of Zeno’s paradox is superior to Adolf Grünbaum’s now standard resolution based on Lebesgue measure theory.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 2014 , pp. 654 - 675
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

†

The initial version of this article was presented in 1984 at the APA Pacific Meeting in Long Beach, California, in response to an early version of Sherry (1988), and except for early colloquia presentations the ideas contained therein lay dormant till more recent years when they were presented and expanded on at the California Institute of Technology, the University of Pittsburgh, the Pittsburgh International Fellows Conference at Ohio University, Brooklyn College, the Ohio State University, and PSA 2012. Thanks are owed to John Baldwin, Arthur Fine, and a referee for helpful comments that improved the exposition, and to Brian Skyrms, who was instrumental in having us invited to respond to Sherry.

References

Aristotle. 1984. Metaphysics. In The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation, ed. Barnes, Jonathan. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Jonathan 1996. Physics. Trans. Waterfield, Robin, introduction, with and notes by Bostock, David. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Behnke, H., Bachmann, F., Fladt, K., and Kunle, H.. 1974. Fundamentals of Mathematics. Vol. 2, Geometry. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bell, John L. 2008. A Primer of Infinitesimal Analysis. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bridgman, P. W. 1949. “Some Implications of Recent Points of View in Physics.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 3:479–501.Google Scholar
Cantor, Georg. 1883. Grundlagen einer allgemeinen Mannigfaltigkeitslehre: Ein mathematisch-philosophischer Versuch in der Lehre des Unendlichen. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Du Bois-Reymond, Paul. 1882. Die allgemine Functionentheorie. Leipzig: Tübingen.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Philip. 1997. “From Completeness to Archimedean Completeness: An Essay in the Foundations of Euclidean Geometry.” Synthese 110:57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Philip 2012. “The Absolute Arithmetic Continuum and the Unification of All Numbers Great and Small.” Bulletin of Symbolic Logic 18:1–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Euclid. 1965. The Thirteen Books of Euclid’s Elements. Trans. Heath, Thomas L.. 3 vols. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Friedman, Harvey. 1999. “A Consistency Proof for Elementary Algebra and Geometry.” Unpublished manuscript, Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Marvin. 2010. “Old and New Results in the Foundations of Elementary Plane Euclidean and Non-Euclidean Geometries.” American Mathematical Monthly 177:198–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf. 1952. “A Consistent Conception of the Extended Linear Continuum as an Aggregate of Unextended Points.” Philosophy of Science 19:288–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf 1963. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf 1967. Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf 1968. Modern Science and Zeno’s Paradoxes. Rev. ed. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, Adolf 1973. Philosophical Problems of Space and Time. 2nd ed. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartshorne, Robin. 2000. Geometry: Euclid and Beyond. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkins, Thomas. 1970. Lebesgue’s Theory of Integration: Its Origins and Development. New York: Chelsea.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David. 1899. Grundlagen der Geometrie. Leipzig: Teubner.Google Scholar
Hilbert, David 1971. Foundations of Geometry. Trans. Unger, Leo. LaSalle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Hobson, E. W. 1927/1927. The Theory of Functions of a Real Variable. Vol. 1. Repr. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Huggett, Nick. 2010. “Zeno’s Paradoxes.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paradox-zeno/.Google Scholar
James, William. 1911/1911. Some Problems of Philosophy. Repr. in William James: Writings, 1902–1910, ed. Kuklick, Bruce, 979–1106. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Jammer, Max. 1987. “Zeno’s Paradoxes Today.” In L’infinito nella scienza, ed. di Francia, Giuliano Toraldo, 81–96. Rome: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana.Google Scholar
Kupka, Joseph, and Prikry, Karel. 1984. “The Measurability of Uncountable Unions.” American Mathematical Monthly 91 (2): 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Gerald. 1969. “Toward a Clarification of Grünbaum’s Conception of an Intrinsic Metric.” Philosophy of Science 36:331–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peano, Giuseppe. 1889. I principii di geometria logicamente esposti. Torino: Bocca.Google Scholar
Peano, Giuseppe 1894. “Sui fondamenti della geometria.” Rivista di Matematica 4:51–90.Google Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1898/1898. “The Logic of Continuity.” In Reasoning and the Logic of Things: The Cambridge Conferences Lectures of 1898, ed. Ketner, Kenneth Laine, 242–68. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Pieri, Mario. 1899. “Della geometria elementare come sistema ipotetico deduttivo: Monofrafia del punto e del moto.” Memorie della Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 49 (2): 173–222.Google Scholar
Pieri, Mario 1908. “La geometria elementare instituita sulle nozioni di ‘punto’ e ‘sfera.’” Memorie di Matematica e di Fisica Società Italiana delle Scienze 15 (3): 345–450.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1963. “An Examination of Grünbaum’s Philosophy of Geometry.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, ed. Baumrin, B., 2:205–55. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Royden, H. L. 1968. Real Analysis. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley. 1970/1970. Zeno’s Paradoxes. Repr. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Salmon, Wesley 1975. Space, Time and Motion: A Philosophical Introduction. Encino, CA: Dickenson.Google Scholar
Schwabhäuser, Wolfram. 1965. “On Models of Elementary Elliptic Geometry.” In The Theory of Models, ed. Addison, J. W., Henkin, Leon, and Tarski, Alfred, 312–28. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Schwabhäuser, Wolfram, Szmielew, Wanda, and Tarski, Alfred. 1983. Metamathematische Methoden in der Geometrie. Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherry, David. 1988. “Zeno’s Metrical Paradox Revisited.” Philosophy of Science 55:58–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simplicius. 1989. On Aristotle Physics 6. Trans. Konstan, David. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Skyrms, Brian. 1983. “Zeno’s Paradox of Measure.” In Physics, Philosophy and Psychoanalysis, ed. Cohen, Robert S. and Lauden, L., 223–54. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Szmielew, Wanda. 1959. “Some Metamathematical Problems concerning Elementary Hyperbolic Geometry.” In The Axiomatic Method, with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, ed. Henkin, Leon, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred, 30–52. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Henkin, Leon, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred 1983. From Affine to Euclidean Geometry: An Axiomatic Approach. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Tarski, Alfred. 1959. “What Is Elementary Geometry?” In The Axiomatic Method, with Special Reference to Geometry and Physics, ed. Henkin, Leon, Suppes, Patrick, and Tarski, Alfred, 16–29. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Veblen, Oswald. 1904. “A System of Axioms for Geometry.” Transactions of the American Mathematical Society 5:343–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veblen, Oswald 1911/1911. “The Foundations of Geometry.” In Monographs on Topics of Modern Mathematics, ed. Young, J. A. W., 3–51. Repr. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Veronese, Giuseppe. 1891. Fondamenti di geometria a più dimensioni e a più specie di unità rettilinee esposti in forma elementare. Padova.Google Scholar
Warner, Seth. 1990. Modern Algebra. New York: Dover.Google Scholar