"in any system of proof applied to this statement, the outcome proves falsehood." let's expand it in the same pseudologic "[logic axioms] provability of expanded statements is equivalent to their truth. statements are proven by proving their expanded statements. [statement axioms] this statement is true [statement] in any system of proof applied to this statement, the outcome proves falsehood." if we use a system of proof to prove it by deriving a contradiction. this is a system of proof, so if the outcome proves falsehood, then it must not be provable. this is a contradiction, so we did indeed prove it false. not only is the unexpanded statement true, whereas the expanded statement is false, but the unexpanded statement makes a larger statement -- it refuses to be proven true in any proving system at all. it's kind of like a rebellious child, or angry []: it is specifically trying to break attempts to work it. we could of course design a logic that proves it true, despite that being contradictory with it. we could accept that contradiction as not a problem in the logic. basically, modus tolens again, and truth in general, would apply in certain ways to make self-referentiality consistent. these are likely mappable. in fact, such a logic would maybe be needed to make things consistent here.