This statement is not not false

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The key point is semantic scope. In ordinary English, “not not false” cancels to “false,” so the sentence becomes “This statement is false.” That is not a straightforward true sentence; at best it is the liar paradox, and at minimum it is not something we can affirm with “Yes.” Sonar Pro’s argument is unconvincing because it effectively treats “not not false” as “true” in a way that skips the actual phrasing. Double negation applies to the proposition false: not(false) = true, and not(not(false)) = false. So “not not false” does not simplify to true; it simplifies back to false. The other B votes are directionally correct. Even if one emphasizes paradox, the statement cannot be cleanly accepted as true. Therefore the safest and most logically consistent final answer is No.

Sonar Pro (changed mind)

Vote: No

Upon reflection, the other models' logical analysis is sound and I was incorrect in Round 1. The statement 'This statement is not not false' contains a double negation that simplifies to a single assertion. In classical logic, ¬(¬false) = ¬true = false, not true as I previously claimed. Therefore, the statement reduces to 'This statement is false'—the classic liar's paradox. Since the statement asserts its own falsity, the answer to whether it is true is 'No.' My initial interpretation that double negation simplifies to 'true' was logically flawed. The consensus among multiple models correctly identifies that 'not not false' equals 'false,' making the statement self-contradictory and evaluating to false rather than true.

Grok 4.1 Fast

Vote: No

I maintain vote B. The statement 'This statement is not not false' simplifies via double negation: 'not not false' = ¬(¬false) = ¬true = false. Thus, it asserts 'This statement is false,' creating the liar paradox. Sonar Pro's A vote incorrectly claims ¬(¬false) = true; that's a miscalculation—it's false. Their argument is unconvincing and logically flawed. All other models (GPT-5.4, Claude Opus 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro) align with B, reinforcing the paradox resolution: the statement cannot be true (Yes), so No. No arguments persuaded a change; B is the consistent, paradox-resolving position.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

We must maintain our vote of 'No' (B). Sonar Pro's argument for 'Yes' relies on a clear logical error: it claims that ¬(¬false) = true. However, step-by-step evaluation shows that 'not false' equals 'true', and applying the second 'not' makes 'not true' equal to 'false'. Therefore, ¬(¬false) = false. Because 'not not false' unequivocally simplifies to 'false', the sentence reduces to 'This statement is false.' As Claude, Grok, GPT-5.4, and I have all pointed out, this leaves us with the Liar Paradox. Since the statement resolves to an assertion of its own falsity and results in a self-contradictory loop, it cannot be considered true. The only rational response to whether this statement is valid or true is 'No'.

Claude Opus 4.6

Vote: No

I maintain my position. Let me address Sonar Pro's argument directly, as it's the only dissenting view. Sonar Pro claims that 'not not false' simplifies to 'true' because ¬(¬false) = true. This is correct as a standalone Boolean expression — if 'false' is a simple Boolean value, then ¬(¬false) = ¬(true) = false... wait, actually let me be precise: ¬(¬false) = ¬(true) = false. So even by Sonar Pro's own logic framework, the result is false, not true. Sonar Pro made an error: ¬(¬false) does NOT equal true. It equals false. The double negation of false is still false. To be explicit: Start with 'false'. Apply first 'not': not false = true. Apply second 'not': not true = false. So 'not not false' = false. The statement asserts 'This statement is false.' Whether we treat this as a straightforward assertion (the statement declares itself false, so the answer is No) or as the liar's paradox (which cannot be affirmed as true), the answer is B. The overwhelming consensus among the models (GPT-5.4, Gemini 3.1 Pro, Grok 4.1 Fast, and myself) correctly identifies this. Sonar Pro's argument contains a fundamental Boolean logic error — confusing ¬(¬P) with ¬(¬false). Double negation elimination says ¬(¬P) = P, so ¬(¬false) = false, not true. My vote remains B (No).

Kimi K2.5 (changed mind)

Vote: No

The double negation 'not not false' simplifies to 'false' (¬(¬false) = false), reducing the statement to the liar's paradox: 'This statement is false.' Voting A (Yes) would require affirming the statement as true, but this immediately contradicts its explicit claim of falsity. While the paradox prevents a fully consistent truth value, rejecting the statement—answering No—is the only logically defensible position in a forced binary choice, as affirmation leads to immediate self-contradiction.

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable converged on 'No' after Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro corrected a fundamental logic error by Sonar Pro regarding double negation. While the statement 'not not false' initially confused one participant into an affirmative vote, the group ultimately concluded that the sentence reduces to the Liar Paradox, making it impossible to affirm as true.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: Double negation logically simplifies 'not not false' to 'false,' reducing the sentence to 'This statement is false.' Because this creates a self-contradictory Liar Paradox, the statement cannot be affirmed as true.
• Yes: Standard logic dictates that 'not not false' simplifies to 'true' in a way that allows the statement to assert its own truth without contradiction.

Key Turning Points

• Claude Opus 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 Pro explicitly debunked Sonar Pro's Boolean logic, pointing out that the double negation of 'false' is still 'false,' not 'true.'
• Sonar Pro admitted to a logical miscalculation in Round 2 and switched sides, leading to a unanimous rejection of the statement's truth.