This sentence is not true. It is not true about what? It is not true about being not true. It is not true about being not true about what? It is not true about being not true about being not true. Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language ?- LP = not(true(LP)). LP = not(true(LP)). ?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))). False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the resolution of an expression remains stuck in infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
Formalized in Olcott’s Minimal Type Theory LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP) that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...)))))) Syntax of Olcott’s Minimal Type Theory
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox has merely been semantically unsound all these years.
Final Resolution of the Liar Paradox
This sentence is not true.
It is not true about what?
It is not true about being not true.
It is not true about being not true about what?
It is not true about being not true about being not true.
Oh I see you are stuck in a loop!
The simple English shows that the Liar Paradox never gets to the point.
This is formalized in the Prolog programming language
?- LP = not(true(LP)).
LP = not(true(LP)).
?- unify_with_occurs_check(LP, not(true(LP))).
False.
Failing an occurs check seems to mean that the
resolution of an expression remains stuck in
infinite recursion. This is more clearly seen below.
Formalized in Olcott’s Minimal Type Theory
LP := ~True(LP) // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)
that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))
Syntax of Olcott’s Minimal Type Theory
The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox
has merely been semantically unsound all these years.