Zeno's arrow paradox:
Zeno states that for motion to occur, an object must change the position which it occupies. He gives an example of an arrow in flight. He states that in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not. It cannot move to where it is not, because no time elapses for it to move there; it cannot move to where it is, because it is already there. In other words, at every instant of time there is no motion occurring. If everything is motionless at every instant, and time is entirely composed of instants, then motion is impossible.
The paradox says that "in any one (duration-less) instant of time, the arrow is neither moving to where it is, nor to where it is not". But it must be correct if passed time's length is 0 because, for example, if we take a bullet with constant velocity and take an instant time (dt~0) in its movement, obviously we will see that the ratio between the displacement with passed time will be equal to the velocity of the bullet. But if the passed time's length is 0, we no longer say we divide time into small part because it doesn't matter how much times you sum these instant times, you never reach the first time length that you divided.
But if my explanation was correct, it wouldn't be a paradox, so what is the problem with my explanation?