Does your Liar sentence have a name?

BTW: I nowhere deined that there might be sentences like
"Wash your hands" or "This sentence is false" and that
somebody might proclaim them as indeterminate.

For example some guy by the name Dan Christensen did that here:
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

So where would I deny that. Can you show me a post
where I denied that somebody might proclaim their indeterminacy.
The question is only, is it necessary.

If you would only use your brain a split second, you would
see that your theorem:

=> ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Can be strengthed. Does your Liar sentence have a name?
For example b0 ? Lets say b0 is the name of the Liar sentences.
Then the above theorem can be strengthed to:

=> ALL(b):[b e s' => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Where s' = s ∩ {b0}

Yes or no? What does this say about the relevance of sentences b=\=b0 ?
Namely sentences b different from the Liar Paradox b0 ? Are they
relevant, you can form a theorem using s' without them.

LMAO!

You had more luck in the Epimenides Paradox, using a name x for
the statement. Your Liar Paradox is a bad imitation. But here not only
didn't you give a name, we also don't know whether

its a sentence. If you further assume that Liar sentence b0 is element
of s, which you nowhere assume so far, then you can strengthen
the theorem to:

=> [[b0 e t <=> b0 e f] => b0 e m]]]]
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Meaning any sentences b different from the Liar sentence itself
b0, i.e. b =\= b0, fall out of the equation, are ultimately
completely irrelevant.

Proof:
Thats not so difficult to see. If s' = s ∩ {b0} and if
b0 ∈ s, then we know that s' = {b0}. But then the
theorem of the form:

=> ALL(b):[b e s' => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Is logically equivalent to the theorem:

=> [[b0 e t <=> b0 e f] => b0 e m]]]]
https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm

Because for s' = {b0}, we have that b e s' is logical
equivalent to b = b0, and then we can eliminate b.
Q.E.D.

Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 01:06:00 UTC+2:
> Does your Liar sentence have a name?
>
> BTW: I nowhere deined that there might be sentences like
> "Wash your hands" or "This sentence is false" and that
> somebody might proclaim them as indeterminate.
>
> For example some guy by the name Dan Christensen did that here:
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> So where would I deny that. Can you show me a post
> where I denied that somebody might proclaim their indeterminacy.
> The question is only, is it necessary.
>
> If you would only use your brain a split second, you would
> see that your theorem:
> => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> Can be strengthed. Does your Liar sentence have a name?
> For example b0 ? Lets say b0 is the name of the Liar sentences.
> Then the above theorem can be strengthed to:
>
> => ALL(b):[b e s' => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> Where s' = s ∩ {b0}
>
> Yes or no? What does this say about the relevance of sentences b=\=b0 ?
> Namely sentences b different from the Liar Paradox b0 ? Are they
> relevant, you can form a theorem using s' without them.
>
> LMAO!

On top of your bullshit, you even don't understand why LEM
is rejected. Despite the fact that this here is not provable:

EXIST(b):[b e s]

LoL

Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 01:15:21 UTC+2:
> You had more luck in the Epimenides Paradox, using a name x for
> the statement. Your Liar Paradox is a bad imitation. But here not only
> didn't you give a name, we also don't know whether
>
> its a sentence. If you further assume that Liar sentence b0 is element
> of s, which you nowhere assume so far, then you can strengthen
> the theorem to:
>
> => [[b0 e t <=> b0 e f] => b0 e m]]]]
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> Meaning any sentences b different from the Liar sentence itself
> b0, i.e. b =\= b0, fall out of the equation, are ultimately
> completely irrelevant.
>
> Proof:
> Thats not so difficult to see. If s' = s ∩ {b0} and if
> b0 ∈ s, then we know that s' = {b0}. But then the
> theorem of the form:
> => ALL(b):[b e s' => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> Is logically equivalent to the theorem:
>
> => [[b0 e t <=> b0 e f] => b0 e m]]]]
> https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
>
> Because for s' = {b0}, we have that b e s' is logical
> equivalent to b = b0, and then we can eliminate b.
> Q.E.D.
> Mild Shock schrieb am Montag, 4. September 2023 um 01:06:00 UTC+2:
> > Does your Liar sentence have a name?
> >
> > BTW: I nowhere deined that there might be sentences like
> > "Wash your hands" or "This sentence is false" and that
> > somebody might proclaim them as indeterminate.
> >
> > For example some guy by the name Dan Christensen did that here:
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> >
> > So where would I deny that. Can you show me a post
> > where I denied that somebody might proclaim their indeterminacy.
> > The question is only, is it necessary.
> >
> > If you would only use your brain a split second, you would
> > see that your theorem:
> > => ALL(b):[b e s => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> > Can be strengthed. Does your Liar sentence have a name?
> > For example b0 ? Lets say b0 is the name of the Liar sentences.
> > Then the above theorem can be strengthed to:
> >
> > => ALL(b):[b e s' => [[b e t <=> b e f] => b e m]]]]
> > https://dcproof.com/LiarParadox2.htm
> >
> > Where s' = s ∩ {b0}
> >
> > Yes or no? What does this say about the relevance of sentences b=\=b0 ?
> > Namely sentences b different from the Liar Paradox b0 ? Are they
> > relevant, you can form a theorem using s' without them.
> >
> > LMAO!