The Liar Paradox: A Structural Dissolution Through Recursion, Interruption, and Completion

The Liar Paradox arises from a sentence that says of itself: “This sentence is false.” If true, it is false; if false, it is true. Standard solutions tend to modify logic, restrict self‑reference, or introduce new truth values. This paper suggests that the paradox may be better understood as a structural artifact of how we process recursive patterns. It proposes that the paradox emerges from three operations: recursion (the ongoing pattern generated by self‑reference), interruption (the truncation of that pattern at a chosen step), and completion (the inductive inference that the truncated part represents the whole). These operations appear in both the Liar and its stable counterpart, “This sentence is true.” The difference is not in the structure, but in the outcome of the induction. This points to a possible candidate for logic’s unexamined foundation: induction itself. The paradox may not be a problem to be solved—it may be a diagnostic of the frame that logic assumes.

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Published
2026-08-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22081522
Primary Topic
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
preprint

The Liar Paradox: A Structural Dissolution Through Recursion, Interruption, and Completion

P. Phi
Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
preprint

The Liar Paradox: A Structural Dissolution Through Recursion, Interruption, and Completion

P. Phi
preprint en

Abstract

The Liar Paradox arises from a sentence that says of itself: “This sentence is false.” If true, it is false; if false, it is true. Standard solutions tend to modify logic, restrict self‑reference, or introduce new truth values. This paper suggests that the paradox may be better understood as a structural artifact of how we process recursive patterns. It proposes that the paradox emerges from three operations: recursion (the ongoing pattern generated by self‑reference), interruption (the truncation of that pattern at a chosen step), and completion (the inductive inference that the truncated part represents the whole). These operations appear in both the Liar and its stable counterpart, “This sentence is true.” The difference is not in the structure, but in the outcome of the induction. This points to a possible candidate for logic’s unexamined foundation: induction itself. The paradox may not be a problem to be solved—it may be a diagnostic of the frame that logic assumes.

Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)
Philosophy and Theoretical Science
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.