The inclusion of 'high-accuracy' was a reluctant compromise, following the suggestion by Paine for 'fair-accuracy'. My approach is to remove calculus entirely from mention, given that there is no supporting evidence that it does anything remotely close to solving the paradoxes  when considering the infinite orders of magnitudes below the Planck length, that calculus spans, but which cannot be proved via experimental evidence as being at all relevant.

So, what proof do you have that calculus actually tracks the movement of physical things? None, beyond some crude classical approximations. Perhaps then the article should reflect that fact. Please feel free to replace 'high-accuracy' with low, or rough, or crude, take your pick. 

From the Wikipedia: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.[1] All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." As for the sentence "while calculus can be used to calculate ..." please delete that sentence entirely, unless you can prove it is relevant to the movement of physical things, through all scales of increment. Close enough is not good enough for an encyclopaedia.