It is part of math.  Zeno is a greek philosopher who created it. There are 4 paradoxes.
128815
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes
44404
That's untrue.  Quite in fact, the absence of the zero stifled the advancement of mathematics in the west for a long time.  Zero is a number of fundamental importance.\n\nI don't know where you're getting your info.  Perhaps someone got an award from some group of idiots that thought he was being clever, but zero is far, far, far, far, far from being nonsense.\n\nSomeone is jerking your chain, bro.  Give up onit already.  You need to recognize that you were duped and move on.
10238
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_principle
613555
mathematical dilemma. there is no answer to the question. Well at least none that are known. Just like the elements we know there out there but we have to figure them out first.  just like Einstein theory of fusion. its passable just not proved.
20069
where there exists intelligence, also exists an intellect. where there exists design, also exists a designer. this is the premise of cause and effect. that said, imagine for a moment all the planets in our solar system as they travel through space at varying speeds creating huge wide elliptical orbits around the sun covering hundreds of millions of miles . then to have them arrive at certain positions in space with such incredible consistency that we can set our clocks by the motion of these planets. accurate to within 2/10,000ths of a second. a truly amazing mathematical feat. where there exists mathematics, there also exists a mathematician. everything has an equation,it has  already been calculated and in place waiting for us to discover it. the math alone, is enough to justify a place in the school curriculum.
27697
None, Zero was invented by Indian Mathematician Aryabhata and later Brahmagupta developed its concept
385890
NO!\nThe cardinality of the integers the same as that for the rational numbers for instance.  Denoted aleph (א)-null, this "infinity" is "countable", i.e., it can be put in a 1-1 correspondence (bijection) with the natural numbers.\n\nThe cardinality of the real numbers is higher.( א-one *) the number of real numbers cannot be put into a 1-1 correspondence with the natural numbers.\n\nThe number of possible curves in a plane is even higher (א)-two\nETC.......(ad infinitum - no pun intended)\n\nWhat is strange here is that the number of odd natural numbers is the same as the number of all natural numbers, even though the former is a subset of the latter!  That is because a bijection exists between the two sets.\nFor example, let every natural number x be associated with the number 2x-1.   The pairings are:\n1 - 1\n2 - 3\n3 - 5\n4 - 7\n5 - 9\netc.\nEvery natural number is paired with every odd natural number.  Thus the sets have the same cardinality.\nNo bijection exists between these countable sets and say, the real numbers however.  In fact, if you pick ANY two numbers, no matter HOW CLOSE TOGETHER, there are still more real numbers between them than all rational numbers combined. The proof of this is rather cumbersome for here, I suggest you read up on Georg Cantor or infinite sets elsewhere\n\n*It is my "choice" to accept as convention (one side or another of) the continuum hypothesis - it doesnt really matter, but as one answerer pointed out the real numbers' cardinality usually represented as 'c' (Although I never liked that designation-too easily misinterpreted as something else.  I can try to sway supporters, cant I?)
60624
Zero (0) is a paradoxical number that has high philosophical and scientific importance. Context of zero in absolute & applied Mathematics is different. In applied mathematics we use it according to our convenience, for example 0 degree celsius, 0!(factorial), initial Velocity, initial position etc. And in Absolute Mathematics we think of it transcendently. Absolute zero is beyond our experience.Therefore we are using and thinking of zero in diffrent context. \nIn the fraction a/o, at present the numerator `a' is considered as something that is considerable. And the denominator `0' is not used in the absolute sense insted it  is taken in the concept of `infinitesimally small'.That is the symbol `0' here stands for `infinatesimally small'.For instance a `point' is considered as magnitude and dimensionless which is relatively true and wrong in the absolute sense.\nContext a/0=a is also correct iff same meanig is strected all through. ie. a/0 implies `a' is `undivided'.Then a*0 means a is not at all multiplied, hence a*0=a only in the absolute sense. Here `a' which is the quotient and  the product is same to both expressions implies that `a' is individual and Independent.This concept is non-pragmatic hence not in use.\nMathematically,a=(1+1+1...`a' times).\nGeneraly, if a/m =n, a=m*n = (m+m+m+...`n' times) \nAnd, if m is infinatesimally small,a=(m+m+m+... infinite  times).At present the parodoxical symbol `0' is used to denote the axiom `infintesimaly small'.consequently. it is written as a/0= `Infinity'\nNote that divisibility exists iff something exists in the denominator.And in the same way multiplicability exits iff something exits as multiplier.
120293
The real world contains minute details that can never be measured with total accuracy. But even though we can't do better than approximations, the unnatural precision in our made-up math enables us to at least better our understanding of things, as we better our approximations.\n\nI'm not sure what you mean by suggesting that math is "flawed". For one, math is not really all about numbers, it is about logic--the logic that first led us to reason that there existed transcendental numbers (also not sure what you mean by "unresolved"). I think part of the problem is that you've been led to a mistaken belief about what math purports to be. Math is not science--at least, it is certainly not a science of the natural world because a lot of real mathematics considers situations that are not considered to necessarily exist in reality. If anything, math is a science of ideas, and even that is waxing poetic a bit. As far as natural science is concerned, math is a conceptual tool--it can form the backbone of scientific theories but it is not science.\n\nExplaining the universe through math is "no more accurate than our explanations of god(s)"? How can you possibly hope to justify such a statement? Are you saying that theology, in the complete absence of math, could enable us to correctly land probes on distant planets, or design electronic computers, etc.?
401085
The Pythagoreans believed in absolute rationality and order in the universe.\nAmbiguity was scowled upon and even neglected and penalised.\n\nTheir mathematical achievements reflect much of this philosophy. For them it was all 'can do', and if they couldn't 'it's in plain sight but we haven't found it yet...Not that we're stupid, it's just the determinism set upon us by the governing divine order'
368667
Because it's incredibly difficult to "understand" things that are completely untrue. Go ahead, give it a try. Try to "understand" that 1+1=3. Not so easy, is it?
252571
it is a conception of Space, made not only of 3 dimension, but 4. The fourth is Time. The relativity equations are made in this 4 dimension Space-time "Space".\nThe idea was not from Einstein, but he was the one who hd spread it.
521422
So is this sequence based purely on a mathematical function?\n\nOkay, so there's a 52 in there, could this sequence somehow relate to the calendar?\n\nWhat sort of scientist? I'm a computer scientist and nothing's glaringly obvious about those numbers.\n\n** GOT IT *** 68! Er or Erbium, the sequence spells out Brainteaser based on the atomic weights of B, Ra, In, Te, As, and Er.
35375
This may be answerable through an appeal to philosophy.  Assume that all Matter is composed of intelligent organisms.  Each organism experiences inputs and makes decisions in the process of interacting with the Universe around it.  There are three "forces" behind this phenomena:\n\nThe latter force (meaning the second of two presentations):  Each organism must experience inputs one at a time; one of them must occurr after the other as the organism experiences a Choice.\n\nThe later force:  The organism may chose the first of the inputs it experiences; then the other input is delayed by the choice.  The organism may chose the last of the inputs it experiences; then the processing of the other input is delayed by the choice.\n\nThe ladder force:  This is the bit maker force: the organism must forever execute these choices one at a time as it experiences the Universe.\n\nIn physical formula, the process of choice is abstracted away and only timeless probabilities remain; so in a physical sense, time does not exist.  Time is a moral and ethical phenomena, not a physical phenomena.
24033
This has to do with the idea of mathematical neoplatonism.  This philosophy holds that their are 'universal truths', including mathematical concepts, waiting to be discovered.  If that is the case, then mathematics is not just an invention of humans, and would have also been discovered by any other race in the universe capable of space travel.
185125
The name for the theory that everything was created 'as is' is the Omphalos theory. I'm not sure about the other, but it sounds like a variant of the 'tired light' theory.
604774
The explanation is really simple, really!\n\nOkay, take a look at the mystic ball chart right now. Take a look at the numbers 0, 9, 18, 27, 36, 45, 54, 63, 72, and 81. They are all the same symbol, right? And they are all multiples of 9! Now, before doing anything, just click on the mystic ball. You'll notice that the symbol that pops up is the same symbol that the numbers mentioned above show. Click on the blue link to try it all again. You should get another sheet with different symbols. Now, look at the very same numbers that you looked at before. They all share the same symbol, but now it is a different one, right?\n\nThis is the trick. No matter what number you choose from 0 to 99, the final answer will always be a multiple of 9. Try it out yourself! Go through each number and figure out what the final number of each number would be. Figure out what the final symbol would be, too. You will see that no matter what number you choose, the same symbol will keep popping up.\n\nIf you want the equation, it would be 10a + b - (a+b). 'a' represents the first digit of the number you chose, and 'b' represents the second digit of the number you chose. '10a + b' represents the number as a whole (for example, let's choose the number 32. a = 3, b = 2. 10(3) + 2 = 32. Make sense?). the '- (a+b)' part represents the time when you add the digits together and subtract it from the original number to get your final answer. After reducing the equation, you get 9a, which is why the answers all come out to be a multiple of 9.\n\nHopefully this makes sense!