Wait what? (1+2+3+4+...

[Bridge]

1 - lim(n->inf) 1/10^n = 1

I have not seen any convincing evidence to support the claim that 1/inf is 0. Yet this proof goes ahead and assumes that. It's infinitely small, so it gets smaller and smaller until the end of time. It doesn't just stop existing. How anybody can accept that is beyond me. I'm not arguing on the basis of mathematics here, so don't bother throwing proofs at me (I've seen most of them).

Say you are cutting a piece of paper, each time by exactly half (ignoring what it is made up of, assume that it is always possible to halve it). If you had a microscope that was capable of zooming in an infinite amount and access to tools that were infinitely small, would you ever reach a point where the paper disappears?