An

Interpretation

of Zeno's

Stadium

Paradox
JOHN IMMERWAHR

Two interpretations
have dominated discussion of Zeno's paradox of the
Moving Rows ("the Stadium"). According to one of these interpretations
the paradox concerns relative motion, and according to the other it concerns indivisible magnitudes. In what follows I will argue that there are
and I offer an alternative
good reasons for rejecting both interpretations,
which does not encounter the problems of either of the usual interpretations. According to this interpretation,
which is based on the work of
Professor D. J. Furley, the paradox of the Moving Rows turns on the
unusual properties of the number zero.
The paradox of the Moving Rows concerns three sets of rows, one
stationary and the other two moving past the first in opposite directions.
For simplicity I will discuss the paradox in terms of three single blocks (A,
B and C) of equal size. Block A is stationary, and blocks B and C move past
A in opposite directions at the same speed. According to Aristotle the
conclusion of the paradox is that "one half the time is equal to the
double."1

the paradox
the
has been interpreted
as concerning
Traditionally
relative motion of the three blocks. Since all three blocks are the same
length, let s be the length of any block. Suppose also that t is the time
required for the leading edge of B to pass block A. Since B moves past C at
twice the speed B moves past A, the leading edge of B will pass block C in
t/2. Thus the time that it takes B to travel distance s with respect to C is half
the time required for B to travel distance s with respect to A, or, in other
words "half the time is equal to the double."2
It is bad methodology to interpret a careful and serious philosopher in
22

such a way that he turns out to have held views which are obviously
implausible. The reading of the Moving Rows which has just been given
clearly violates this sensible rule. The paradox would only have force if one
refused to distinguish between absolute and relative motion, and it is hard
to see how someone as astute as Zeno could have made such a mistake.33
Dissatisfaction with this traditional interpretation
of the Moving Rows
has led modern critics to seek an interpretation
which does not involve
Zeno in such an obvious fallacy. Vlastos summarizes the modern interpretation as follows:
Blocks A, B, and C would stand for indivisibles and the reasoning
would prove that B, traversing an atomic quantum of length qs
relatively to A in an atomic quantum of time qt, would traverse qs in
4
qtl2 relatively to C, thereby dividing asupposed indivisible.4
Owen and others have argued that this interpretation makes the paradox fit
nicely into the general pattern of Zeno's paradoxes, and it also attributes to
Zeno a plausible argument against the theory of indivisible temporal and
5
spatial units.5
resuscitates Zeno, it does so only at the cost
Although this interpretation
of smearing Aristotle. The problem is that this interpretation
does not give
us a conclusion resembling the one Aristotle attributes to Zeno, that "half
the time is equal to the double." If one is trying to preserve the reputation
of famous philosophers,
which
not much is gained by an interpretation
makes Aristotle out to have been completely confused about the intended
conclusion of a paradox which he discusses at some length. Since the
traditional interpretation
attributes an unparadoxical
paradox to Zeno,
and the modern interpretation
has Aristotle confused about what he is
talking about, it seems reasonable to search for an alternative interpretation of the paradox.
A third interpretation
of the paradox is offered by D. J. Furley in his Two
Studies in the Greek Atomists. 6 Furley's goal is to present an interpretation
of the paradox which is plausible and which has the same conclusion as
that reported by Aristotle. Although Furley thinks that his interpretation of
the paradox is more plausible than the relative motion interpretation,
he
still feels that the Moving Rows "is not, of course, a cogent argument."7 I
will argue that if we make some alterations in Furley's interpretation,
we
come out with an interpretation
of the moving rows which is a cogent and
non-fallacious argument. Since our aim is to find an interpretation
of the
text which gives a plausible argument to Zeno while preserving the conclusion as reported by Aristotle, an interpretation
which gives us a nonfallacious argument for that conclusion is thus a desirable one.
3

is based on the thesis that the relevant passage

Furley's interpretation
from Aristotle is usually mistranslated.
As the paradox is usually translated, the problem involves the amount of time for the blocks to pass one
another. Furley argues that a close look at the text reveals that what Zeno is
really concerned about is the time that the blocks are opposite to one
another. According to Furley, "the whole point ... lies in the use of a static
Xa'TOv):the object 'is opposite to,' 'lies
vocabulary (an, yLyveo6aL
against,' the other - not 'passes' the other."8
If we take very seriously Furley's argument that the paradox concerns
the time when the blocks are opposite to one another, the following interpretation of the paradox suggests itself:
Let 'AoB' stand for the amount of time when the two blocks A and B are
exactly opposite to each other. By 'exactly opposite' is meant the amount of
time when the right edge of A is directly in line with the right edge of B. All
the blocks are of equal length and B and C are moving at the same speed
past A in opposite directions.
1. Let AoB = m.
In other words, m is the interval of time when A and B
are exactly opposite one another.
2. AoB = 2(BoC).
Since A is stationary, B passes A at half the speed B
passes C. It follows, then, that A is exactly opposite to
B for twice the time that B is exactly opposite to C.
3. AoB = AoC.
Since B and C move at the same speed in opposite
directions, B will be exactly opposite to A for the same
time that C is exactly opposite to A.
4. AoC = m.
From 1 and 3.
5. BoC = m.
Both B and C are exactly opposite to A for the time
interval m. During the time that B and C are exactly
opposite to A, they are also exactly opposite to each
other. Hence B and C are exactly opposite to each
other for the same time interval (m) that B is exactly
opposite to A.
6. AoB = 2m.
From 5 and 2.
7. m = 2m.
From 6 and 1. "Half the time is equal to the double."
The interpretation
given above thus results in the conclusion that "half
the time is equal to the double." Although the conclusion is true, the
is not a true paradox. The apparent
Moving Rows on this interpretation
is
created
the
numerical
value
of interval m. Since B and C are
paradox
by
in constant motion, they are exactly opposite to A for only an instant. An
instant, however, is a time of no duration, so the proper numerical value of
m is 0. Once we realize this, however, we see that there is no real paradox.
24

Since 2 X 0 = 0, the conclusion that m = 2m is not surprising when we realize

that m = 0. In other words if we pick the right value of m (m = 0), then "half
the time is equal to the double." The puzzle arises from our assumption that
m could have non-zero values.
Seen in this light the Moving Rows is not so much a paradox as it is a
demonstration
of the unusual numerical properties of the number zero. In
fact similar paradoxes are often used by modern algebra students. The idea
is to ask a fellow student to find the fallacy in the following set of
equations:

Here the paradox involves dividing by zero rather than multiplying by zero
as in the Moving Rows, but the general idea is the same.9 The point is that
although Zeno may have been the first thinker to invent apparent paradoxes which play on the unusual properties of zero, he was certainly not the
last.
Seen in this light the paradox of the Moving Rows is very similar to the
paradox of the Arrow. As Vlastos and others interpret the Arrow, it turns
on the difference between an interval and an instant. 10 From the fact that
an arrow does not move in an instant, we are expected to conclude that the
arrow is at rest (that is, that the arrow does not move during an interval of
time). The conclusion of the Moving Rows paradox trades on the same
ambiguity. If we treat m as a finite interval of time, rather than as an instant
of time, the conclusion that m = 2m is very paradoxical indeed. The difference between the Arrow and the Rows can be put as follows: The
conclusion of the Arrow (that the arrow does not move) is a paradox, but
the argument involves a fallacy. The argument of the Moving Rows contains no fallacy, but its conclusion (that "half the time is equal to the
double") is not a true paradox.
Although the paradox of the Moving Rows, as I have interpreted it, is not
a true paradox, it is not surprising that Zeno and his contemporaries would
have found it powerful and persuasive. The concept of zero and its unusual
Greek
mathematical
to
unknown
were
properties
completely
of Zeno's day. In fact the number zero was not really
mathematicians
understood
until the work of Hindu mathematicians
many centuries
25

later.ll To philosophers without a clear concept of zero and its properties,

the paradox of the stadium must have seemed very puzzling indeed.
Villanova University

26