Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture
Written formal sequents verified
Axiom-free: true · 1 checked theorem statements.
Lean establishes the listed formal statements and dependencies. The exact authored source, Ground, known premise meanings, application validation and empirical evidence remain separately typed. No unencoded section is certified by a neighboring theorem.
Original source author: Maclain Hunter. Machine formalization: Replit Agent. No original wording was rewritten.
Source registered: 2026-10-02T17:13:02.889Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:40:59.512Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: caeb1858685cf29c9a5af2110bd481d5295f718627e8ccc3ec5de5f3156112bb
Lean source · Verification JSON · Exact archived source JSON · Compiler report · Current authored source page · Signed release and verification instructions
Lean (version 4.7.0, commit v4.7.0, Release) exitCode=0 'HunterAuthored.inference_1' does not depend on any axioms
{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
Exact source sequent under finite two-valued propositional semantics. Source proposition meanings and Logic/Logos/God Ground are preserved separately; this checks the inference, not unencoded prose.
Proof I Know Proof by Maclain Hunter:
Premises:
P: If you truly know proof you should be able to prove that with proof, otherwise a paradox and contradiction arises. Why can’t you (if not) - we would be reasonable to ask.
Q: Proof encompasses evidence and arguments (ie - logical proofs) that demonstrate Truth or facts within Reality. My ability to coherently explain what proof is, with a rational definition aligned with the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) definition of “proof” and the classical (philosophical) understanding of what “proof” is, within a formal argument and valid logical proof, demonstrates that I have a perfect understanding of what proof is and/or can be.
R: This proof and the coherent explanation given in premise Q satisfy the expectation of P that a logician like me should be able to prove we know what proof is with a formal argument and rigorous explanation, avoiding the paradox that could be seen as arising if I could not prove that I know what proof is - while being a purported expert on proof and a master of Logic whose forte is supposed to be proof writing and proof theory.
S: Assume ~(P, Q, R). This leads to logical contradiction as it would mean that experts on proof aren’t expected to prove that consistent with their field of expertise - which is logically inconsistent. It would also be inconsistent with my demonstration, which validly used dictionary definitions of proof and reductio ad absurdum to derive the proof. Accepting the premises is consistent with Logic, the nature of proof, and the dictionary (OED) definition of proof, and my ability to write a valid argument semantically within a syntactically sound structure. The structural validity can be and has been confirmed with a Logic calculator.
Logical Argument (Formal Proof):
{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
Conclusion: {P, Q, R, S}:
It is evident in this proof that I (Maclain Hunter - the logician) know what proof is. The hallmarks of proof including internal, logical, and universal consistency are satisfied.
It’s not fallaciously circular, it’s tautological, and/as premises are true and valid. Air’s not saying I know proof because I can prove I know proof but am not doing it. It is saying I know proof because I am writing this proof and proving it as I speak to you (here). It’s different from a statement that begs the question by starting and concluding with a premise that lacks rational support.
Here rational support is not external to Logic (but it need not logically be), it is derived from the Logos and Logical Structure. This is not a lack of rational support, and because the demonstration is formal and visible, possible to observe in physical Reality, it is empirically valid also. It would be a contradiction if this were not the case, as it would mean we cannot sense Logic (and Rational Sense) itself - which would be a senseless and untenable position.
Truth Table Analysis:
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQRS⎪P P↔Q Q↔R R↔S╞(P&Q)&(R&S)
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT T TTT
TTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF TTT F TFF
TTFT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT F FFT
TTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF TTT F FFF
TFTT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF F TTT
TFTF⎪T TFF FFT TFF TFF F TFF
TFFT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF F FFT
TFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF TFF F FFF
FTTT⎪F FFT TTT TTT FFT F TTT
FTTF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT F TFF
FTFT⎪F FFT TFF FFT FFT F FFT
FTFF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT F FFF
FFTT⎪F FTF FFT TTT FFF F TTT
FFTF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFF F TFF
FFFT⎪F FTF FTF FFT FFF F FFT
FFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFF F FFF
Q.E.D.