Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture
Written formal sequents verified
Axiom-free: true · 8 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: 2026-10-02T15:11:12.854Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:38:59.504Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 1bc75a70dfc26a2e7623c9982890ba0556e0b8ba4a2dcb125ea9fd47c6e10dd8
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 'HunterAuthored.inference_2' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_3' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_4' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_5' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_6' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_7' does not depend on any axioms 'HunterAuthored.inference_8' does not depend on any axioms
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
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.
P: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
Q: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
R: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
S: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
T: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
U: “{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and this is tautological.
Formal Argument (Proof):
{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U
Conclusion:
The Formal Argument (Proof) is tautological after being logically derived from premises that utilized its own (identical) logical structure (“{P, Q, R, S, T, U} |= ((((P & Q) & R) & S) & T) & U” is valid and and this is tautological). This proof is a microcosm of the Logos, which is the Natural Order synonymous and coherent with the Logic of the Universe. This sort of “Original Logic” (Logos - the Universe’s Logic also called the “Natural Order” rationally) is tautological and formed on the very basis of the validity of the possibility of the valid and tautological (concept/argument/premise/context).
Note: It would be contradictory if the logical that could generate proofs at this level were incoherent with Logic and not coherent with Logos (and aligned with the Universal Origin in Logic). This proof serves as proof of the Logos and my (the logician’s - Maclain Hunter’s) comprehensive understanding and coherence (unity - identity) with and as the Logic of Reality (the True God - the Logos). It would contradict Logic if the conduit for such a manifestation of the Logos (as this proof) were not also a manifestation of the Logos.
Q.E.D.