If I said to you...

[touch]

I do not think the example given of the liar's paradox in the OP has been understood. What if it was presented in the form of:

"This sentence is false"

There is no sometimes, selectiveness, occasionally etc to be had in this instance.

That's essentially what the OP was before it was edited.

 

[TNGL]

But that's not referring to something real so isn't a paradox.

What?

That's essentially what the OP was before it was edited.

This example is more black and white in that it is clear you cannot have a solution that makes use of words such as occasionally or sometimes.

 

[muon]

What?



This example is more black and white in that it is clear you cannot have a solution that makes use of words such as occasionally or sometimes.

a = b and b > a.

Paradox! Except there is nothing intrinsic about what I've said so isn't a paradox.

 

[TNGL]

a = b and b > a.

Paradox! Except there is nothing intrinsic about what I've said so isn't a paradox.

I see what you're getting at but I wouldn't apply that same logic here.

You have two statements, a = b and b > a. I have merely stated (where B is 'this sentence'):

A = True (if B = False), however, if A = True then B ≠ False. This is where the contradiction comes into play. I have not proposed "This sentence is false" and "This sentence is true", I am only proposing "This sentence is false".

 

[FoxEye]

a = b and b > a.

Paradox!

A=0.999999 (recurring)
B=1

/trollface

 

[muon]

A=0.999999 (recurring)
B=1

/trollface

Lol.