Author: Jbakerthree

It is easy to imagine that a statement could be evaluated as true or false in formal symbolic logic. Therefore, the statement evaluated as true or false, in formal symbolic logic, could be itself. From there, it is easy to translate the whole formalism to formal symbolic logic – “both a statement that evaluates itself as false and a statement that evaluates iself as a statement that evaluates itself as false or false”.

Of course, this translation doesn’t rebut answers such as Tarski’s, that language can’t define its own truth predicate, for example. But, classical logic per se ineluctably incurs a paradox.

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 8 of 10

Both:

Subpoint A: that subpoint A is false

and

Subpoint B: that subpoint B is equal to subpoint A or false

Update 6/12/2026 – Explanation

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 7 of 10

I’m using the following phrasing for the natural language formalism:

Both this sentence is false and this sentence is false or is this sentence is false

Update 6/12/2026 – Explanation

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 6 of 10

A translation from the natural language formalism into a formal symbolic language is easily and readily imaginable, and can be asserted.

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 5 of 10

I am incapable of evaluating the Boolean algebra phrasing of the formalism for rectitude. In lieu, a natural language phrasing of the paradox would proceed as follows:

This sentence is false or is “this sentence is false”.

Update – I went back to my original phrasing, as of 6/11/2026

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 4 of 10

I just noticed that my formula is redundant. It should read:

Assume Boolean algebra:

x=((x=0) ∨ (x=(x=(x=0))))

It corresponds to the sentence “This sentence is false or ‘this sentence is false’ “

Update – I went back to my original phrasing, as of 6/11/2026

---

The Formalism, Restated – Part 3 of 10