Zeno, according to Bertrand Russell, a renowned English philosopher, is infinitely subtle and profound.

Wherein,
one of the most famous paradoxes of Zeno is the paradox of the dichotomy.

Zeno’s dichotomy paradox is mind-boggling. It's very simple and we know it's should not be true but it is true and
that's why it is called a paradox. And I’m talking about Zeno’s paradox called Achilles and the tortoise and it is kind of
amazing. Imagine they are going to race with each other. You have Achilles, the greatest runner ever. So, Achilles is about to
race with a tortoise; and as we all know he is the greatest runner. And as we all know tortoise is a very slow animal. So, he is
given a head-start of a hundred meters. So, the question is, "Will Achilles ever be able to reach the tortoise?". And the
answer is: Yes, Achilles will reach the tortoise in no time because he is the fastest runner in the world. But here is the logical
problem that Zeno poses. So, according to Zeno, this task is " infinitely unlimited". What do I mean by that? Well, you can
divide the action of Achilles running from the starting point to the tortoise into an infinite number of steps. What does that
mean? The first step is: Achilles covers half the distance; then he covers half of the distance which is one by four; then he
covers half of the half, and he keeps on dividing the distance between Achilles and the tortoise infinite number of times. So,
you can divide this track - the distance between the tortoise and Achilles - into an infinite number of steps that Achilles has
to cover. And the question that Zeno poses is "How can you finish a task with infinite steps in a finite amount of time?" And
that is the paradox. Logically speaking, this makes sense because in real life we know that Achilles will eventually cross the
tortoise but how can we convince ourselves and others that it's also logically possible to finish a distance that is divisible
infinitely in a finite amount of time? And that's the challenge.

Through mathematical, the otaku, the nerdy way of solving it.

CAN and IS

Now, what's CAN and what's IS? So, if something CAN be divided into an infinite number of steps or parts, it doesn't
mean it IS divided. So, there is a very minute nuance between what CAN be done and what IS; and that's the difference. And
that's how Aristotle tries to reconcile the so-called paradox posed by Zeno. For example, if a pencil can be divided into finite
parts - you can cut it into half; and then cut half into half; and so on. Logically speaking, we CAN. But it IS not divided. It IS
finite. Similarly, Achilles' distance, it CAN be divided into smaller and smaller segments of space an infinite number of times
but in reality, it IS not divided. And that's the everyday language solution to this problem. And by the way, there is a limit
on how small can something be. There is a limit to how far we CAN go dividing the length into half and a half and half. And
that limit is called Planck's length. We are talking about the minimum, the smallest length that can exist in our universe. So,
physically there is a limit to how small you can divide something into two. Similarly, there is also a limit on the 'time'; so, the
time that you need to cover this distance is also the minimum time. So, you cannot keep on dividing time and distance
further and further in half. So, there IS a physical limit to that. Of course, Zeno in his time had no way of finding that. But the
further puts a limit on Zeno's paradox. In our universe, we have limits on everything. Logically, you have a limit. For
example, you can always increase the speed by one meter per second. But actually, there IS a limit; and the limit of speed in
our universe is the speed of light. Yes, we CAN imagine. Again, it's CAN vs. IS. we CAN imagine the speed of something going
faster than the speed of light but there IS nothing that can go. So, we CAN divide something into an infinite number of
smaller and smaller portions - in half and half but we DO NOT HAVE something divided this way. So, this is my opinion
regarding the paradox using non-mathematical language.