Liar Paradox

Does "Liar Paradox" requires this crappy Axiom of Infinity, that "for all N there exit N+1 > N"?
Because if you don't believe Axiom of Infinity, then for some theory (or program) N, you can't construct it's Liar structure, as it would require more memory than you have physically.

Of course, jews would say, that without infinity there is no mathematics, but why do we need this jewish tendency toward abstraction and casuistry anyway? Can you show us practical usefulness of your deceptive regilious theories, jews?

>>55
Why do you keep going on and on about it? Infinity may not exist in our space, but it can exist in abstract systems just fine. Why do you have such a hard time dealing with it? Is it really that hard to understand for you? Are you having trouble understanding hypothethical? What about understanding why someone would invent negative numbers or complex numbers even if their meaning is not related to the real world, however they can be used as intermediaries in solving problems... Argh, why do I even bother responding to your posts. If you don't know math, you don't understand sciences either. If you actually tried to limit yourself to a very tight subset of math without using the rest of math to help you along (while still staying well within the confines of your system), you won't get very far.