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: 2026-10-02T20:20:50.766Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:42:54.835Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 3efdd9303ca4ae0372c0d907e5876e161793db72fb1a693132695abc36bf17e2
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, R <-> P} |= (P & Q) & R
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.
You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter
Premises:
P: You would know the rules of Logic and how to formally apply them to prove you know Logic and how to apply logical rules if you were truly succeeding at learning Logic elsewhere and from someone besides/beyond me (Maclain Hunter)
Q: If you cannot formally prove you know Logic and how to apply logical rules and principles with Logic then that suggests you do not grasp Logic fully and formally and would be wise to learn from me - who can demonstrate and with this proof is demonstrating that I know how to wield formal logic and coherent semantics to generate things like (well-formed) formal logical proofs.
R: Assume the negation of the premises P and Q, or even {P, Q, R} (for further/valid self-reference). This leads to logical contradiction where someone who can’t prove they know what proof or Logic is, or how to formally apply logical rules (ie - Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle), like I am deliberately wielding in this proof and internal “proof of contradiction”, wouldn’t have anything to learn about Logic from someone like me who can meet my own proposed (and, by them, unmet) challenge. This proof shows that I have the skills and knowledge to write meta-logical proofs that prove things about logical proofs and Logic (and/or the application of Logic) - of the sort I am looking for from others when I test their qualifications.
Formal Reasoning:
{P, P -> Q, R <-> P} |= (P & Q) & R
Conclusion: {P, Q, R}:
If you understand Logic and how to apply it you should be able to demonstrate that formally - otherwise contradiction arises. The way I have used philosophical reasoning and meta-logical, self-referential argumentation and semantics to explain these things within a formal structure with propositional logic is an example of what the proof speaks of. An example that, through the validity of the structure and content of the proof, is tautological and sound.
Truth Table Analysis:
PQR⎪P P→Q R↔P╞(P&Q)&R
TTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TT
TTF⎪T TTT FFT TTT FF
TFT⎪T TFF TTT TFF FT
TFF⎪T TFF FFT TFF FF
FTT⎪F FTT TFF FFT FT
FTF⎪F FTT FTF FFT FF
FFT⎪F FTF TFF FFF FT
FFF⎪F FTF FTF FFF FF
(Valid)
Q.E.D.