Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture
Written formal sequents verified
Axiom-free: true · 2 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: 2026-10-02T16:41:52.067Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:39:08.453Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 182ba175e012b4693ab114600d0ca332b315dfd67c25394f8c3a4288f2142503
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
{P, P <-> Q, Q} |= P & Q
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, Q} |= P & Q
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.
Leveraging Lars’ Logic by Maclain Hunter:
A denier of my proof, Lars, sent me the following in an attempt to show me they know Logic better than I. Lars wrote:
¬◊¬P → □P, □P→◊P, ¬□¬P∧◊Q → (◊P∧◊Q), ◊(P∧Q)→ (◊P∧◊Q).
My original proof had been:
P: □: It evidences ignorance of what evidence/proof (y) is to posit a lack of evidence/proof (y) of the Logical Origin of Logic (x).
Q: □: Proof (y) acknowledges the First Cause (x), also called God (Logos).
{P, P <-> Q, Q} |= P & Q
Ergo: □(P & Q): □(∃(x, y))
Q.E.D.
My response can comprehend and “swallow up” their modal reasoning and turn it to my purposes, like this:
P: □: It evidences ignorance of what evidence/proof (y) is to posit a lack of evidence/proof (y) of the Logical Origin of Logic (x).
Q: □: Proof (y) acknowledges the First Cause (x), also called God (Logos). Even when an atheist like Lars, who seeks to deny my mastery of Logic (Logos) to undermine my proof (y) of the First Cause (x) writes, “¬◊¬P → □P, □P→◊P, ¬□¬P∧◊Q → (◊P∧◊Q), ◊(P∧Q)→ (◊P∧◊Q)” in an attempt to provide their own formal modal reasoning, that is merely a performative logical contradiction that defeats their Logos (God of Reason)—or x (or “y of x”)—denying position. It provides me with formal reasoning that can, like this, be quickly and coherently integrated into my argument to blow his (anti-Logos, God denying) argument to pieces.
Propositional Logic:
{P, P <-> Q, Q} |= P & Q
Modal Reasoning:
¬◊¬P → □P, □P→◊P, ¬□¬P∧◊Q → (◊P∧◊Q), ◊(P∧Q)→ (◊P∧◊Q)
Ergo: □(P & Q): □(∃(x, y)): ¬◊¬P → □P, □P→◊P, ¬□¬P∧◊Q → (◊P∧◊Q), ◊(P∧Q)→ (◊P∧◊Q)
Truth Table Analysis:
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQ⎪P P↔Q Q╞P&Q
―――――――――――――――
TT⎪T TTT T TTT
TF⎪T TFF F TFF
FT⎪F FFT T FFT
FF⎪F FTF F FFF
Proof Syntax: Valid
Proof Semantics: True
Proof Syntax and Semantics: Tautological
Q.E.D.