Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?

[PeteOlcott]

Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?

LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP)
(1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true and the RHS would be false.
(2) If ¬LP was true then the LHS would be false and the RHS would be true.
Thus in neither case: LHS ↔ RHS, ∴ ¬∃LP.

[Eodnhoj7]

Is this simplest version of the Liar Paradox: ∃LP (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP) refutable?

LHS(LP) and RHS(⊢¬LP) of this expression: (LP ↔ ⊢¬LP)
(1) If LP was true then the LHS would be true and the RHS would be false.
(2) If ¬LP was true then the LHS would be false and the RHS would be true.
Thus in neither case: LHS ↔ RHS, ∴ ¬∃LP.

So timeseeker disappears, appears as logic in a new account...then logic dissapears and pete olcott floods the forum...food for thought.

[Arising_uk]

So timeseeker disappears, appears as logic in a new account...then logic dissapears and pete olcott floods the forum...food for thought.

Only for the hard of thought. Try Univalence.
p.s.
lmfao at you talking about others flooding a forum.

[Eodnhoj7]

So timeseeker disappears, appears as logic in a new account...then logic dissapears and pete olcott floods the forum...food for thought.

Only for the hard of thought. Try Univalence.
p.s.
lmfao at you talking about others flooding a forum.

What timeseeker, logic...blah, blah, blah does not seem to understand is that he actually just repeats a logical pattern...and barely is exercising any choice at all. He is borderline predictable at this point...even more so than me talking about points and circles.

1. His logical foundation is grounding in a process of divergence.
2. This divergence is about creating new terms and "identities".
3. I covered this process of divergence in the prime directives. It is fundamentally grounded in a linearistic type of thinking where one "truth" progresses to another causing multiple truths to exist. It is reminiscent, psychology, of a subconscious phallic work (reflective of the "line") where a continual projection of the self is manifested as a form of replication to secure a perceived "identity" due to an innate over stressed survival instinct that ironically observes an inherent lack of security in one's own identity and ability to survive. His identity is a repetition of his basic childhood experiences; hence choice theory is ironically a contradiction in terms.

And as to the liar's paradox...I covered in the prime directives awhile ago: All truth is simultaneously positive, negative and neutral (both) hence is triadic in nature. Most of his "discoveries" are only new relative to the context of translating them into a computer language but those translations do not take into account faults in the computer language itself as the computer language is subject to this same contradiction: it is truth/false/neutral. Hence while a computer language will always be "truth", this truth of the language is grounded in an axiomatic base that comes before/after the language itself.

And with that being said...you can go back to screwing yourself.

[Arising_uk]

...
And with that being said...you can go back to screwing yourself.

And once again your monomania gets the better of you.

[Eodnhoj7]

...
And with that being said...you can go back to screwing yourself.

And once again your monomania gets the better of you.

Monad as Triad...get it right.