His whole argument as presented by the Colm Kelleher was absurdly absurd. It is obvious to me that..

His whole argument as presented by the Colm Kelleher was absurdly absurd. It is obvious to me that if you only continuously cut things in halves that you end up with an infinite series that does not lead to a finite answer. All you need to do is to add the last half you cut to end the series. There seemed to be a flaw in the explanation but maybe somebody can clarify what I missed. What I love is how you summed up this hypothesis into flaws in human thinking, which in my perspective, students love to find. Instead of always understanding proven hypotheses students can make judgments about the validity of mathematical thinking. Perhaps, we are still more concerned with right answers rather than proving or disproving an argument. Doesn’t math teach us to practice something over and over until we find out its truthfulness. Students might like trying to prove something isn’t true, more so than proving it is true. Do you agree?

References

Kelleher, C. (n.d.) What is Zeno’s dichotomy paradox? Retrieved from http://ed.ted.com/lessons/what-is-zeno-s-dichotomy-paradox-colm-kelleher