resonse to "Additional notes: this isnt related wdym"

I LIKE TO THINK; suppose we wish to present the liar's paradox. the liar's paradox is perhaps the most famous in mathematics besides zeno's. so anyway, we walk to our chalkboard and write: the liar's paradox says that this is a lie. now the liar's paradox itself is written pthis is a lie.' the demonstrative pronoun 'this' refers there to the liar's paradox statement. however in our chalkboard presentation there is jo logical reason why dp-this [demonstrative pronoun 'this'] cannot refer to the presentation being made. so in other words our special chalkboard-liars-paradox seems to dispute the truth of the presentation. this conundrum with the modifiable x-liar's paradox is endemic. therefore in essence x can be all of mathematics. so {(this is a lie) = (all mathematics is a lie)} is reasonable interpretation. concluding bizarrely then if all maths is a lie then all paradoxes are necessarily false. so an ultra paradox exists: 'no paradox is true'. if 'no paradox is true' is true then then ultra paradox itself is false. so 'no paradox is then (ever) false.' the double negative is mischievously unprovable. therefore the ultra paradox as such is not provably true or false. since we now have {general case: (u-paradox is unprovable) = specific case: (maths is a lie is unprovable)}? Then mathematics cannot demonstrate its own truthiness. this sounds eerily like Godel's theorem. that's all i got. ALL IDEAS AND EQUATIONS EXCEPT WHERE INDICATED ARE OF ACCOUNT HOLDER