For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Liar=
 Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights prov=
ided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (197=
5), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics usi=
ng Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20

http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 2:06:02 PM UTC-5, peteolcott wrote:
> For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Li=
ar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights pr=
ovided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (1=
975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics u=
sing Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
>=20
> http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

http://liarparadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

http://philpapers.org/archive/OLCFST.pdf=20

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307442489_Formalizing_the_logical_=
self-reference_error_of_the_Liar_Paradox

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 12:06:02 PM UTC-7, peteolcott wrote:
> For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the Li=
ar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights pr=
ovided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth (1=
975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics u=
sing Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
>=20
> http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf

You fail again for the reason I have pointed out before.

When you assert the existence of what you call a Mathematical
Proposition you assert the existence of its semantic properties.
The Boolean.Value of the Proposition - qua property - has some
value which may or may not be the same as the truth value of
the assertion. The paradox is in determining what the truth
value is.

On Sunday, October 9, 2016 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-5, David Kleinecke wrote:
> On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 12:06:02 PM UTC-7, peteolcott wrote:
> > For the first time in human history the entire semantic meaning of the =
Liar Paradox is totally explained. Proceeding on the basis of key insights =
provided by Saul Kripke in his famous paper:  Outline of a Theory of Truth =
(1975), this paper formalizes every subtle nuance of Liar Paradox semantics=
 using Meaning Postulates (1952) provided by Rudolf Carnap.=20
> >=20
> > http://LiarParadox.org/Liar_Paradox_Research_Gate.pdf
>=20
> You fail again for the reason I have pointed out before.
>=20
> When you assert the existence of what you call a Mathematical
> Proposition you assert the existence of its semantic properties.
> The Boolean.Value of the Proposition - qua property - has some
> value which may or may not be the same as the truth value of
> the assertion. The paradox is in determining what the truth
> value is.

Previously the truth value of a proposition was implied rather than explici=
tly specified. Now that the truth value of a proposition is shown to be a B=
oolean property of this proposition the initalization of this property can =
be explicitly shown rather than implied. Because it can be explicitly shown=
, it can be shown to be logically incorrect.=20

When we translate the Declarative-Sentence [This sentence is false] into it=
s equivalent Mathematical Proposition we must do this as a sequence of step=
s in strict prerequisite order:=20

Proposition p:
1) Define the Proposition.Assertion
Declarative Sentence: 	The Boolean value of p equals False. =20
Formalized as: 		p.Assertion.haveEqualValues(p.Boolean.Value, False)	=09

2) Test the Proposition.Assertion
Interrogative Sentence:	Does the Boolean value of p equal False?=20
Formalized as:	TestResult =3D testEquality(p.Boolean.Value, False)

3) Initialize the Proposition.Boolean.Value on the basis of prior testing=
=20
Formalized as: 		p.Boolean.Value =3D TestResult

From the above formalized steps we can see that the Liar Paradox attempts t=
o initialize its Boolean value entirely on the basis of testing this same B=
oolean value before it comes into existence.=20

Comparing an undefined (semantically empty thus non-existent) Boolean value=
 to False is like measuring the length of your car when you have no car.=20

Because the comparison shown in step (2) above fails the assignment shown i=
n step (3) never occurs, thus the Liar Paradox is unequivocally shown to be=
 nothing more than a logical error, it is not a paradox at all.=20