The same thing I said, previously, in different words.
The fallacy of the Negative Self Referential.(mine)
A statement cannot refer to itself as a negative without asserting it doesn't exist. This assertion is self contradictory, THEREFORE, invalid.
Kind of like standing in front of a mirror and stating "I do not exist.".
...therefore, both TRUE and FALSE at the same time? Like Tares just claimed can't exist? Such statements are the the form of valid predicates. Where do you get the nerve to swipe them off the table?
In point of fact, they aren't contradictory in the straghtforward sense Tares means, although I have accepted this previously, just to get on with the argument.
They just don't have a known binary truth value. You can't say "This sentence is FALSE" has a value, because none is ever returned when you try to evaluate it. You can therefore, also not say whether such statements are elements in A or NOT(A). So you can't process the law of identity on them.
Whatever "invalid" means, "this sentence is FALSE" does not poop out of existence because you uttered the word--it is member of the set of predicate statements--said which, we are not normally shy about including in valid domains of discourse about which one may meaningfully issue proclaimations about the Law of Identity.