However, jettisoning the knowability thesis does not necessarily solve the paradox, since one can substitute a weaker version of the knowability thesis called (C'). (C') ∃x((x & ¬Kx) & LKx) & LK((x & ¬Kx) & LKx) – There is an unknown, but knowable truth, and it is knowable that it is an unknown, but knowable truth. The same argument shows that (C') results in contradiction, indicating that all knowable truths are known ; conversely, it states that if a truth is unknown, then it is unknowable  .
However, jettisoning the knowability thesis does not necessarily solve the paradox, since one can substitute a weaker version of the knowability thesis called (C'). (C') ∃x((x & ¬Kx) & LKx) & LK((x & ¬Kx) & LKx) – There is an unknown, but knowable truth, and it is knowable that it is an unknown, but knowable truth. The same argument shows that (C') results in contradiction, indicating that any knowable truth is either known, or it unknowable that it is an unknown yet knowable truth ; conversely, it states that if a truth is unknown, then it is unknowable , or it is unknowable that it is knowable yet unknown .
R
all knowable truths are known
any knowable truth is either known, or it unknowable that it is an unknown yet knowable truth
A
, or it is unknowable that it is knowable yet unknown