Talk:Infinite divisibility

Quarks
Is there any reason quarks could not be divisible or any reason that whatever quarks can be divided into could not also be divisible?

The infinite divisibility notion in physics distinguishes btwn infinite cuttability (an atom is not cuttable into other units that take up space) and divisibility. Perhaps clairfying what divisibility means would help resolve my question above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.169.152 (talk • contribs)

Ref
Jeffrey Grupp reference needs to be removed. He has a bad habit of filling wikipedia with self-citations. He is also listed in nihilism entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.132.240.133 (talk • contribs)

Alternative views
Just to let you know I like your way of thinking! I tend toward an Alternative View of Relativity so I found insight among your thoughts or conceptions which focused my thinking along new lines. As I tend to make a distinction as a (elementary) particle is matter => has inertial mass & occupies space, so perhaps Fundamental Particle could be used as distinction between those particles w/o mass? On the other hand one could say that anything nuclear particles {impling they only exist within the bound of the nucleus}? Clay 10:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeno
Zeno's paradoxes are unrelated to infinite divisibility. The latter questions how an infinite many parts can total to a finite whole, whereas the former, flying arrow for instance, argues how can an infinite many tasks possibly be completed. How can an arrow move if at one moment it is here and motionless and at a later moment be somewhere else and motionless. The editors of Zeno's Paradoxes built upon Aristotle. Namely, "If everything when it occupies an equal space is at rest, and if that which is in locomotion is always occupying such a space at any moment, the flying arrow is therefore motionless. As such, Machine Elf ought to move his work to Zeno's Paradoxes and not here. Oilstone (talk) 15:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)