As already, in mathmatics circle, Gödel's incompleteness theorems proved, one no contradictory theorem must be present, then about it, my subjective interpretation should be forgiven at providing here with my method.

No matter kind of theory here we are provided, suppositively, that must be nothing but one suggestion, and its content means indicative interpretation.

Suppositively given one theory must have been made at one indicating theory and the theory must have own (subujective) idea around definition, and that definition's application necessarily means that another it could be dinied, nor harshly criticized as the premise of one suppositive theory's submission.

Suppositively, if that action could be X, X must be composed through next process.

One definitive interpretation X was derived from X's theoretical context made in process of one theory composing.
That composing process could be X', X must be made at like next.

X's basic theoretical nature means negation to X's negation.

X's negation must be completed by generally, proving to 

⊥( ¬X)

However, originally, negation to X's formulation must mean like next, too.

⊥X = ¬X,

then,

⊥(⊥X) = ¬(¬X),

¬(⊥X) = ⊥(¬X)

And, necessarily, X’s formulation could be proved only through negation to negation of X's formulation

⊥[(¬ X)] = ω-consistent

Upper equation could be proved correct, X must be poved correct.

And, in context of reasoning only upper formulation as the correct, necessarily, denial to correct equation means incorrect.

Though, necessarily, affrimating to incorrect equation  must mean contradictory, though, necessarily, one correctly answering as one definition must mean negation to another idea as the incorrect.

(Irregularly to be continued)

May. 10th.   2022

Appendix; This time, very obviously correct idea's inductive equation was thought so far, but this equation's signified ideantity is not so easily interpreted.

Though, through carefully stepping in accumulation, we'd gradually approach to the certain truth in evidencing precess.

Simply, probably genuinely neural supposition could be impossible at least at taking one mentioning, only for evidencing it, we'd reach to this aimed formulation.
However, simultaneously, so stark, not that definition as another absolute affirmation to purely halfway, or neutral equation must be present, that proposition or hunch must drag me that series' interpreting process.