282 
ZENO OF ELEA 
initially in the position shown in Figure 1, suppose, e. g., that 
the B’s move to the right and the G’s to the left with equal 
Bo B, Bg B 5 84 83 B, B, 
^2 C.1 ^4 
Ca 
velocity until the rows are vertically under one another as in 
Figure 2. Then C\ has passed alongside all the eight B’s (and B x 
A ^2 
A4 
a 5 Ia 6 aJaJ 
b 8 |b y a fi 
B4 Ba B 2 B 1 
|Ci|c 2 
LalCjfA c s c rCj 
alongside all the eight (7s), while B x has passed alongside only 
half the A’s (and similarly for Of. But (Aristotle makes Zeno 
say) C\ is the same time in passing each of the B’s as it is in 
passing each of the is. It follows that the time occupied by C\ 
in passing all the A’s is the same as the time occupied by 
C'j in passing half the A’s, or a given time is equal to its half. 
Aristotle’s criticism on this is practically that Zeno did not 
understand the difference between absolute and relative motion. 
This is, however, incredible, and another explanation must be 
found. The real explanation seems to be .that given by 
Cg C-y CgJ 
B 8 
B5IB4IB; 
Brochard, Noel and Russell. Zeno’s object is to prove that 
time is not made up of indivisible elements or instants. 
Suppose the B’s have moved one place to the right and the (7s 
one place to the left, so that B x , which was under A 4 , is now 
under A 5 , and C x , which was under A 5 , is now under A 4 . We 
must suppose that B x and C\ are absolute indivisible elements 
of space, and that they move to their new positions in an