Pigs would fly: Difference between revisions

'''"Pigs would fly."''' is a phrase used as a conclusion to show that the corresponding assumption is impossible.  

In conditional sentences<ref>In this context, it is a statement with an assumption and a conclusion. </ref>, it is a kind of wordplay or rhetoric used in the concluding part to show that an assumption is improbable.

For example, considering the case that there is a given assumption "[[User:Notorious|Notorious]] is a genius" and a person says "If [[User:Notorious|Notorious]] were a genius, pigs would fly", we can see that the person thinks that "[[User:Notorious|Notorious]] can't be a genius.<ref>But why? He is a genius.</ref>

The problem if there is any consistency in concluding that "pigs fly" when the assumption is impossible (called "''Pigs! Would! Fly!''" Problem) has only recently begun to be pointed out, and since ancient times it has continued to trouble the minds of logicians, philosophers, physicists, mathematicians, or cultists <del>who like to fantasize about things that are totally useless in reality</del>. However, it is now known that this "Pigs! Would! Fly!" Problem can be proven by the contrapositive argument.

For the assumption "Pigs do not fly." of the proposition "If pigs do not fly, then not-Mn," it always stands; in this world, a pig would never fly. For the conclusion "Not-Mn," it is always true because Mn is known to be always false. Thus, it is true that, in this contrapostion, the conclusion is true when the assumption is true. Now we have proved this contraposition. Therefore, the proposition "If Mn, pigs would fly." is also true.