---
title: Knowing Logic and Proof
status: supplemental-authored-source
author: Maclain Hunter
source: attached_assets/Pasted-Knowing-Logic-and-Proof-by-Maclain-Hunter-Premises-P-Lo_1789122659584.txt
---

# Knowing Logic and Proof

## Premises

**P:** Logic is lawfully defined by non-contradiction of Logic (universally), and all logical “rules” plural are forms and subsets of non-contradiction of the Logos (of Universal Logic), like the LEM is logical non-contradiction applied to binary Truth values.

**Q:** The semantics of P elaborate on logical rules and how they actually cohere under Logos as the Singular/Ultimate Law. This is a demonstration of knowledge of Logic that can be validly referred to (here in Q).

**R:** It is absurd that I would explain Logic (as in P) and to explicitly point of that I had (as in Q) while I don’t know Logic. This valid explanation and argument that I am giving this explanation is by definition “proof” or an argument pointing with Reason and reasoning to the Truth and Reality (see OED definition of proof, it is similar).

**S:** R suggests I know what proof is and how it is defined by the dictionary (in English) and Logic (logically). Logical proof fully coherent with Logic is logically equivalent to Logic and Coherence and cannot be “not Logic” or “not coherent” without contradiction. This proof stands as Logic sans demonstrated incoherence.

## Formal Argument

{P, P -> Q, Q -> R, R -> S} |= (P & Q) -> (R & S)

## Ergo

The proof above uses valid structure and self-referential semantics to show I know validly what proof and Logic (as defined by Coherence and Lawful Order as the Rule of Logic and the Rule logical rules must themselves align with) are.

To refute me you would have to find contradiction and apply the Lawful Order of Logical Non-Contradiction (or Logos) I am describing which would be mere elenctic support for my position that Logic is about non-contradiction of Lawful Order.

The formal entailment is truth-functionally valid; the semantic premises identify the performed reasoning as an instance of knowledge of Logic and proof. Thus the formal validity and the reflexive semantic content jointly constitute the claimed demonstration.

## Truth Table Analysis

```text
TTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT  TTT T TTT
TTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF  TTT F TFF
TTFT⎪T TTT TFF FTT  TTT F FFT
TTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF  TTT F FFF
TFTT⎪T TFF FTT TTT  TFF T TTT
TFTF⎪T TFF FTT TFF  TFF T TFF
TFFT⎪T TFF FTF FTT  TFF T FFT
TFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF  TFF T FFF
FTTT⎪F FTT TTT TTT  FFT T TTT
FTTF⎪F FTT TTT TFF  FFT T TFF
FTFT⎪F FTT TFF FTT  FFT T FFT
FTFF⎪F FTT TFF FTF  FFT T FFF
FFTT⎪F FTF FTT TTT  FFF T TTT
FFTF⎪F FTF FTT TFF  FFF T TFF
FFFT⎪F FTF FTF FTT  FFF T FFT
FFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF  FFF T FFF
```

(Valid)

QED