You always need to go half way before going all the way right? But here is the problem, wouldn't you have to always do the half of the half before, meaning that you could never get to your destination.
Example: I would like to move from point A to point B, which is at a distance of 20. Now I first have to go half of the full distance before doing all of it right? So I travel a distance of 10. Well now if have to travel half of my new distance before doing all of it, which would be 5, then 2.5, then 1.25, then 0.625 and so on, but I would never hit 0 (point B).
So theoretically you could never go anywhere but at half of it. Yet we do get to places in real life. Am I wrong somewhere? If not then how do we get to destinations if you always have to do the half of it?
It just sounds too arbitrary.. I mean, imagine that we consider a distance of ten meters. After walking half of the distance and again half of the distance before you, you walked 75% of the total distance. Now what you're saying is that if you go on like that, you will never get to 100%? Well, I say that I just redefined the 75% of the original as being 100% of the new distance. Peng, I walked all the way from the start to the end, independently of the exact absolute length of the old and the new distance. You see, it's a matter of definition.
This has no application though, because if it did we would never reach any definite point, i.e. if you wanted to go home, specifically right past your door, you would reach your door and simply stop moving, or rather just shuffle for eternity. On the other hand, if you imagine the world as a plane, we tend to travel more to areas, than we do specific points, one might be going home, but their house could occupy 30000 sq. ft. enabling them to reach the destination, without reaching a point.
However this is based upon the fact that when one names a destination they mean a specific set of coordinates, rather than a general destination, such as the store, the car, the house, etc.
