Title: Logical semantic and self-referential paradoxes: The Truthteller and the Liar (draft, informal)
(major) assumption: A statement is either true or not true (law of excluded middle, classical logic)
1."This statement is true" can be or at least seems to be either true or not true, and that consistently(Truth teller sentence)
It implicitly states 2."this statement is either true or not true"
which in turn can only be true, and is therefore necessarily true because if it is not true then it is true but not vice verca.
Therefore it implicitly states about itself that it can only be true or (1)
(1) and (2) their only claims are about their own truth values but not only that they make explicitly/implicitly exactly the same claims therefore they are equivalent.
3."This statement is not true" (3) is true if and only if it is not true (Strengthened Liar sentence)
It implicitly states 4."this statement is true if and only if it is not true "
(4) is obviously strictly not true and it also implicitly claims that of itself altough inconsistently because if (4) is true then it is both true and not true, but if (4) is not true then it is only not true. Therefore it makes contradictory claims about itself, namely on the one side of the inconsistency, the contradiction of being both true and not true(explicitly), and on the other side the coherency/truth of being only not true that is implicitly the same claim as (3)
Therefore (3) and (4) make both only claims about their truth values but not only that they make explicitly/implicitly the same claims about their truth values , therefore they are equivalent.
Conclusion: the Liar sentence makes inconsistent claims about it's truth value , and the truth teller makes consistent claims about it's truth value, hence why the former gives rises to the a contradictory situation and the latter doesn't.
This becomes clear when the implicit claims are made explicit, i.e. rendering the implicit claim in the Liar sentence (3) that led to a contradictory situation (true iff only not true) explicit which is done in (4, strictly and necessarily not true) This is also the innovative aspect of this approach that gives rise to the solution to the Liar "paradox" namely it is self-contradictory and therefore meaningless or not true, and a clarification on the Truth teller sentence (1) which seems not to have prima facie an a priori proof for either being strictly true or not true (it seems to be consistent with being either true or not true) , when we render the implicit claim explicit which is done in (2,strictly and necessarily true) this clarifies that the Truth tellers sentence both its explicit and implicit claims are coherent with eachother, that's the reason why it doesn't give rise to the contradictory/"paradoxical" situation.
What yet need to be done is rigorously demonstrating the necessary explicit/implicit claim connection an example of that type of connection in classical logic is i.e given the law of excluded middle , if one claims that it is not the case that it is not true that "p" (explicit claim) then one necessarily also claims that it is true that "p" (implicit claim) and vice versa therefore both claims are equivalent I did not do here to keep the draft short and also because it seems intuitively plausible.