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 can not 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