Just opened the computer onto my fathers post and got a bit sucked in.

I agree with you Dad, there seems little relationship between the original problem and Xeno's Paradox. If anything, it is closer to Shroedinger's Cat.

The point of the original problem is not to identify a faulty premise but rather expose the existiance of an anti-intuative conclusion on the grounds that the reasonijng is correct. Ie. the argument is valid (the premises do indeed lead to the conclusion)

My personal opinion is that the problem highlights either the limitations of human understanding or at least to draw people's attention to that fact that it is unwise to always rely on intuitive answers.

I would argue that these two things coincide. It is our inituive response to try to make sense of something that "seems wrong". However, it is also our inituitive response to try to catagorise everything into human teams (a la Kant).

In that way, we can perhaps relate it to Xeno since our attmepts to define infinitely are incomprehensiable to human mind since our understanding is inherently grounded in a spacial-temporal location that is unavoidably limited.

....don't know whether that means I agree with you any more Dad but that is normally what happens when I start a thought