THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE

>RIGHT: A(X IS FALSE)

IF A IS TRUE THEN (THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE)

IF A IS FALSE THEN (THIS STATEMENT IS TRUE)

>WRONG(PARADOX): X(X IS FALSE)

X TRYING TO TRUTH EVALUATE ITSELF LEADS TO PARADOX

WHOLE MEANING OF DECLARATIVE SENTENCE'S TRUTH VALUE LAYS IN ITS DEPENDANT SENTENCE

THEREFORE (THIS/THAT STATEMENT IS FALSE) IS COMPLETELY MEANINGLESS

REGARDLESS WE CAN STILL AVOID PARADOX (SET CAN NOT BE PART OF ITSELF)

"THIS STATEMENT IS FALSE" is ungrounded and therefore does not get a truth value. Kripke solved the liar's paradox long ago. Try again with something a bit harder.

FUCK KRIPKE MAN
I FINALLY HAD PLANS TO DO SOMETHING UNTIL THIS FAG COMES ALONG AND STEAL MY SHIT

ATLEAST WE CAME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION

Does the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, in fact, contain itself?

Philosophy an Math major fag here.

The standard solution to the paradox is that of Bertrand Russell, who points out that natural languages (Spanish, English, etc.) include metalanguage in themselves and this generates the paradoxes of self-reference (self-referential sentences Themselves).

According to Russell's solution the answer to OP would be: "What you said is not in the language that we can judge as true or false, that is, you have not said anything." When you say something in the proper language I can give you some dank memes.

You are a pleasure and a treasure. Welcome to Humanity.

If we're following the rules of logic Op's statement is true.

a = ~a

is a true statement. Just logically incoherent. It doesn't matter that the word "false" is in it, as it's part of a premise, and isn't an operand in this case.

Also a premise without a conclusion is sorta meaningless.

In this case as the premise is logically incoherent. A fleshed out version of this argument is basically,

The moon is made of cheese, the moon is not made of cheese, therefore unicorns are real.

Logically true, but logically incoherent.
Why is this a paradox?

This statement is neither true nor false.

> Thus, for example, the statement "It is true that two plus two equals four" contains no more information than the statement "two plus two equals four", because the phrase "it is true that..." is always implicitly there

The statement is false.

This is the standard solution to the paradox.

Brainlet here

Explain more pls.

"This statement is false"

Bool statement()
{
If(statement() == false)
{
return true;
}
else if(statement() == true)
{
return false;
}
}

Bool cannot be set as it requires an instance of statement to be calculated before it can calculate itself, and the assumption that a book can be set to start it off is incorrect as it requires an assumption that the statement is true or false before the calculation is done.

"This statement is false"
"That statement is false as it requires infinate recursive calculations of itself to assess the statement and therefore the intrinsic logic cannot be calculated, and it would be wrong to incorporate this judgement of fallacy as this judgement is outside the scope of its intrinsic logic, to make this assumption would set about an infinite recursion between true and false"

>a = -a
>0 = -0

Literally true.