[44] Aristotle's words are: "The second is the so-called Achilles. It consists in this, that the slower will never be overtaken in its course by the quickest, for the pursuer must always come first to the point from which the pursued has just departed, so that the slower must necessarily be always still more or less in advance." _Phys._, vi. 9. 239B (R.P. 137). This argument is essentially the same as the previous one. It shows that, if Achilles ever overtakes the tortoise, it must be after an infinite number of instants have elapsed since he started. This is in fact true; but the view that an infinite number of instants make up an infinitely long time is not true, and therefore the conclusion that Achilles will never overtake the tortoise does not follow. The third argument,[45] that of the arrow, is very interesting. The text has been questioned. Burnet accepts the alterations of Zeller, and paraphrases thus: "The arrow in flight is at rest. For, if everything is at rest when it occupies a space equal to itself, and what is in flight at any given moment always occupies a space equal to itself, it cannot move." [45] _Phys._, vi. 9. 239B (R.P. 138). But according to Prantl, the literal translation of the unemended text of Aristotle's statement of the argument is as follows: "If everything, when it is behaving in a uniform manner, is continually either moving or at rest, but what is moving is always in the _now_, then the moving arrow is motionless." This form of the argument brings out its force more clearly than Burnet's paraphrase. Here, if not in the first two arguments, the view that a finite part of time consists of a finite series of successive instants seems to be assumed; at any rate the plausibility of the argument seems to depend upon supposing that there are consecutive instants. Throughout an instant, it is said, a moving body is where it is: it cannot move during the instant, for that would require that the instant should have parts. Thus, suppose we consider a period consisting of a thousand instants, and suppose the arrow is in flight throughout this period. At each of the thousand instants, the arrow is where it is, though at the next instant it is somewhere else. It is never moving, but in some miraculous way the change of position has to occur _between_ the instants, that is to say, not at any time whatever. This is what M. Bergson calls the cinematographic representation of reality. The more the difficulty is meditated, the more real it becomes. The solution lies in the theory of continuous series: we find it hard to avoid supposing that, when the arrow is in flight, there is a _next_ position occupied at the _next_ moment; but in fact there is no next position and no next moment, and when once this is imaginatively realised, the difficulty is seen to disappear. The fourth and last of Zeno's arguments is[46] the argument of the stadium. [46] _Phys._, vi. 9. 239B (R.P. 139).