Set of values: {0, 1, 2}

Set of designated values = {1}

Set of primitive operators = {/\j, /\h, ~}, where only ~ is a unary operator.
Language =

Primitives j 0 1 2 h 0 1 2
0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1
1 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0
2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 2 2

Jekyl GC3
( A j B) iff A j B
( A j B) iff A j B
(A j B)j(B j A) iff (A <>j B)

J 0 1 2 J 0 1 2 J 0 1 2 <>J 0 1 2
0 0 0 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 2
1 0 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Hyde GC3
(A h A) iff @A
(@A h @B) iff A h B
( @A h @B) iff A h B
(AhA) iff A
(A h B)(B h A) ( (Ah B)) ( ( A h B)) iff AhB

@ 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0
2 1 2 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 2 0 0 1 2 1

Note that is the only candidate for equivalence in GC3, in particular

A <> A is not a tautology
A A is a tautology

Note that Modus Ponens and substitution are valid rules of inference in GC3.

Q axioms
(0 = x)
x = y x = y
(x = 0) y(x = y)
x+0=x
x + y = (x + y)
x0=0
x y = (x y) + x
plus identity axioms for first order classical logic
Diagonalization lemma:
Lets refer to the arithmetic substitution as:
1 Subs ( A(x)`, n) = A(n)`
And let S(x,y,z) be the formula that strongly represents it
Take now S(x,x,y)
Given any formula A(x) we can now construct y[A(y)& S(x,x,y)] lets abbreviate it as B(x)
Consider now B(B(x)`) and call it D then
2 D B(B(x)`) y[A(y)&S(B(x)`,B(x)`,y)]
Given that GC3 contains enough arithmetic the arithmetized substitution function result is provable to
be unique, then
3 GC3 y[S(B(x)`,B(x)`,y)<=>y=B(B(x)`)`]
Now given that D is defined as in 2 we can write
4 D y[A(y)& S(B(x)`,B(x)`,y)]
Note here that we couldnt write
4* D <> y[A(y)& S(B(x)`,B(x)`,y)]

This is so because A=B |=/= A<>B. Suppose A=B, where A, B are sentences. Let A=B=2. Then A<>B
doesnt hold. That is, A=B |=/= A<>B. Presumably then, A=B |-/- A<>B. Hence, we are not entitled
to infer A<>B from A=B, for any A, B sentences (this can be reduced to the fact that <> is not an
equivalence relation, not being reflexive). 1

Because how GC3 introduces definitions, indeed, given that were introducing Peano axioms in terms
of Jekyll we must use Jekylls operators inside the brackets but the equivalence outside the brackets
must be Hyde because any definiendum must have the same evaluation the definiens has .

By 4 and 3 we have

5 GC3D y[A(y)&y=B(B(x)`)`]
then
6 GC3D A(B(B(x)`)`)
7 GC3 D A(D)

1 I claim this to be a justification for why <> doesnt fit here.