For no x is it the case that x = “SALAMI”.
[so: x cannot = “SALAMI”]
x can = anything BUT “SALAMI”]
1) x = “SALAMI”
2) x is true if,and only if, “SALAMI” is true
3) x is true if,and only if, x is not true
#1 Wrecks it. x=”SALAMI” when it clearly says above, “x can’t = “SALAMI”.
#2 “SALAMI” can’t be true, so x can’t be true.
#3: x becomes true when x is not true.
So, if you follow it sequentially yet in a complete set, and allow the paradoxes within to remain in the code until the end, it *could be* argued perhaps that the last statement flips everything around in an XOR arrangement, flipping all the black Othello pieces to white, all FALSE becomes TRUE.
This would be true in programming, depending upon the compiler.
If x is allowed to have different values at different times, this would be acceptable logic. Procedural.
But: Isn’t logic done “at once”? In a formula?
I need coffee.
That’s what I’ve been doing.
Most stuff for me has the bit set to UNKNOWN. The TRUE and the FALSE bits are set minimaly and infrequently.