XPost: comp.theory, sci.math, comp.ai.philosophy   
   From: polcott333@gmail.com   
      
   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.   
      
   In Olcott's Minimal Type Theory   
   LP := ~True(LP)    // LP {is defined as} ~True(LP)   
   that expands to ~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(~True(...))))))   
   https://philarchive.org/archive/PETMTT-4v2   
      
   The above seems to prove that the Liar Paradox   
   has merely been semantically unsound all these years.   
      
   --   
   Copyright 2025 Olcott   
      
   My 28 year goal has been to make   
   "true on the basis of meaning" computable.   
      
   This required establishing a new foundation   
   for correct reasoning.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)