Your first 'Paradox' is not a paradox is an argument that from the beginning is biased against competitor A if you havent noticed.. i don't know why your calculations in distance decrease as you go.. as if you want to calculate the shortest distance between A and B.. (which is why i say its biased)
try counting A running 200m after the race starts and you'll see
Now for your second 'Paradox'
Originally posted by mahawarrior:
In another words, for us to move, we must have moved a shorter distance. Yet, moving even the shortest distance should be impossible without moving an even shorter distance. Hence, motion is impossible.
yes its true that we must move and even shorter distance before we cover a short distance and an even shorter distance to cover that previous even shorter distance ect. But what we'll get in the end is an infinite regress to find the shortest distance possible.. BUT it doesnt mean motion is impossible just because at the moment the shortest distance theoritically can be infinitely small..
besides... even if we can count the infinitely small distance possible, it already proves that something has already MOVED that infinitely small distance. therefore motion is possible
You've committed the fallacy of the stolen concept, eg. you are trying to prove there is no motion by using motion in your calculation lol