{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter",
  "identifier": "hunter-youd-know-if-you-knew",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter\n\nPremises:\n\nP: 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)\n\nQ: 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.\n\nR: 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. \n\nFormal Reasoning: \n\n{P, P -> Q, R <-> P} |= (P & Q) & R\n\nConclusion: {P, Q, R}: \n\nIf 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. \n\nTruth Table Analysis: \n\nPQR⎪P P→Q R↔P╞(P&Q)&R\n\nTTT⎪T TTT TTT  TTT TT\nTTF⎪T TTT FFT  TTT FF\nTFT⎪T TFF TTT  TFF FT\nTFF⎪T TFF FFT  TFF FF\nFTT⎪F FTT TFF  FFT FT\nFTF⎪F FTT FTF  FFT FF\nFFT⎪F FTF TFF  FFF FT\nFFF⎪F FTF FTF  FFF FF\n\n(Valid)\n\nQ.E.D. ",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-02T20:20:50.766Z",
  "originalAuthoredAt": null,
  "propositionMeaningBoundary": "Atomic identifiers retain their meanings in the exact source. No arbitrary truth assignment establishes an ontological or empirical premise; the formal witness checks the written inference."
}