White horses (Chinese: 白马) are horses that are white. Despite sounding natural, white horses are the topic of many logical and philosophical debates. Since ancient times, the Chinese have believed that white horses are not horses. However, some recent studies seem to contradict this. Still, some others agree with the ancient Chinese people. As more and more proofs contradict each other, the Uncyc government classifies the white horse problem into controversies.
To see if you are knowledgeable about this topic, just take a little quiz. Which one is correct, a white horse is a horse or white horses are horses?
It may be surprising that the answer is . . .
White horses are not horses at all. There are proofs below. But alternative answers are possible:
It may be even more surprising that the answer could also be . . .
Of course white horses are horses. There are also proofs below.
- 1 The old Chinese proof
- 2 Modern proofs that some white horses are horses
- 3 Modern proofs that white horses are not horses
- 4 A few more proofs that white horses are horses
- 5 A poll
- 6 Proposed solutions
- 7 Conclusion
- 8 See also
The old Chinese proof
You need to speak Chinese to understand this.
— Ancient Chinese philosophers
The literal translation is: "Pandas are not cats, octopuses are not fish, snails are not cows. Hence, white horses are not horses." That would not make any sense to those who don't understand the Chinese language, because it is the uniquely stupid Chinese illogic.
Modern proofs that some white horses are horses
First, define an adjective oavdycous: something oavdycous is a horse, a white horse, and existing. By definition, something oavdycous exists. That thing is both a white horse and a horse. Therefore, there exists a white horse that is a horse. Call it A. Then define cawkremerous: something cawkremerous is a horse, a white horse, not oavdycous, and existing. By definition, something cawkremerous exists. Call it B. Then B is both a white horse and a horse. And it is not oavdycous, so it is not the A. Now there are two white horses that are horses. QED.
Alternative proof (Proof by Obviousness)
A white horses is obviously a horse. QED.
Modern proofs that white horses are not horses
“By commutativity, stifle=itself.”
“Anything is equal to itself.”
So there is no reason that archaic Chinese illogic should never coincide with modern logic. Indeed, there are a few modern proofs that white horses are not horses.
Assume for contradiction that white horses are horses. Then horses can be categorized into white and non-white. Obviously non-white horses exist, so the set of horses has more elements than the set of white horses. Therefore, the set of white horses is not equal to the set of horses. In other words, white horses are not horses. QED.
|“||A white horse has eleven letters while a horse only has six. So they are not the same.||”|
— Anonymous genius
People suspect that the "anonymous genius" might be Captain Яidiculous.
Another alternative proof (Proof by Obviousness)
There are already 3 proofs above. So it must be right. QED.
A few more proofs that white horses are horses
Seems that there are quite a few proofs that white horses are not horses in the previous part of this article. Your mind needs balance. So this section shall show you a couple more proofs that white horses are horses.
|The sentence in this purple box is false.|
Assume for contradiction that white horses are not horses. Now we need to divide into two cases. In the first case, the sentence in the purple box is true. Then the sentence in the purple box is false. That's a contradiction. In the second case, the sentence in the purple box is false. Then the sentence in the purple box must be true. Contradiction again. Therefore, the initial assumption that white horses are horses is wrong. So white horses are horses. QED.
A white horse is an animal. A horse is an animal, so an animal is a horse. So a white horse is an animal which is a horse. QED.
An irrelevant joke
When I moved to Vermont with my white horse, I met a farmer whose name was Zab. One day, my white horse got sick. I asked Zab: "What did you do to your white horse when it got sick?" His answer: "I submerged it in dihydrogen monoxide." Then I did the same to my white horse. It died. I went to ask Zab again, and his reply was: "Mine has also died."
Now, after reading so many proofs, are you convinced by any of them? Or are you confused? Uncycloversity researchers will analyze the poll results and write more proofs for the side less agreed upon.
You are not entitled to view results of this poll before you have voted.
One of the solutions is turning "white horse(s)" into an idiom. In English, there are many idioms that don't make any sense at all. One of them is "a fat lot", which is neither fat nor a lot. Also, "dark horse" and "white elephant" already have meanings beyond what they literally mean. So some linguists considered to make "white horse" an idiom that is not really a horse. This solution seems to perfectly settle the dispute. But wait.
“Only idiots use idioms.”
If we use the idiom solution, then we will all turn into idiots, then this solution will be pointless for us because we will be too stupid to understand its point. And who wants to become an idiot?
Another proposed solution is to coin a word "whitehorse" meaning a horse that is white and using that word in conversations. But that wouldn't resolve the issue because debaters who want to cause trouble can still write "white horse" with a space between the e and the h.
We got different results using different proof methods. So there is something terribly wrong with our math and logic system. Aside from the white horse paradox described in this article, mathematical proofs have also told us that sin60° cannot be represented as a fraction. But now this is proven to be wrong. So, always remember that:
This rule will be of the greatest significance throughout your life. Honored Uncycloversity professors think that it, the universal principle, is more important than HTBFANJS which only applies to Uncyclopedia articles. But your teachers won't tell you that.
Just as the Uncycloversity professors (and most of their students) predicted, none of the proposed solutions actually work. So the problem remains. If dislogic (the subject of arguing against logic) keeps its slow pace of development, the problem will not be solved until 2140.