2018-11-02 03:00:12 UTC
I keep thinking that my: Liar Paradox / Incompleteness / Undefinabilty
proof has been perfected and then make other improvements.
The current improvements deserve very significant credit to one USENET
sci.logic reviewer: exflaso.quodlibet **
Although I made the adaptations myself, this reviewer helped me correct
my syntax: My propositional variable was not bound to a quantifier.
They also suggested getting rid the reference to the language F, making
this syntax simpler, and suggested converting my Theorem() predicate to
⊢ making my notation much more concise and consistent with math conventions.
** A slight misspelling of the Latin: ex falso quodlibet
The principle of explosion (Latin: ex falso (sequitur) quodlibet (EFQ), "from falsehood, anything (follows)"
A copy of this page has been posted to the Facebook group:
Formal Analysis of the Liar Paradox