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: 2026-10-02T17:44:39.845Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:39:15.086Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 83001098f9451632fff8f7c1dc4206dd69a39bdd8c1ce42103d385bb75a6ca84
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, Q, 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.
Logic Applied to Needs by Maclain Hunter:
P: My approach is what it is, and starts with simple logical identity. My solutions have to be what my solutions have to be. Instead of wondering what I need to do, I start by understanding I need to do what I need to do.
Q: Given P, I know that what I must do can’t then be contradicted by my actions or I will have a self-defeating solution. This applies and aligns with non-contradiction.
R: Given P and Q, I confirm that what I need to do is true and not false by Logos, and I stop/revise my course of action if not (and if false and out of harmony with the Natural Order). When true the need and solution are true and in harmony with the Logic of Reality (Logos - Pure Reason), I use that truthfulness of the need to determine the truth and morality of concepts within the context.
S: Given P, Q, and R, I navigate circumstances and needs, looking for specific solutions based on the process of elimination (of the things that break any or all of these rules). When this has been done the solution and need/question will be valid and validated—well reasoned—thereby also satisfying causal aspects of Logic and the PSR.
Logical Argument:
{P, Q, R, S} |= (P & Q) -> (R & S)
Conclusion: {P, Q, R, S}:
Logic, logical rules, and the PSR can be applied to know what valid needs and solutions are. If Logic could not be applied in this fashion and to these topics and concepts that would lead to logical contradiction and would render logical solutions to or fulfillment of needs an impossibility - which would have far reaching consequences for life and being, and all things that are contingent and in need.
While some strain themselves trying to think in less coherent ways, I am, through this proper approach, letting Logic be my mind. That (Logic) is the aspect of Reality and my mind that is omniscient/infallible and one with/as the Logos (the Logic of Reality that holds all knowledge and Existence). This makes knowing even “hard to figure out” things significantly easier.
Truth Table Analysis:
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQRS⎪P Q R S╞(P&Q)→(R&S)
―――――――――――――――――――――――――
TTTT⎪T T T T TTT T TTT
TTTF⎪T T T F TTT F TFF
TTFT⎪T T F T TTT F FFT
TTFF⎪T T F F TTT F FFF
TFTT⎪T F T T TFF T TTT
TFTF⎪T F T F TFF T TFF
TFFT⎪T F F T TFF T FFT
TFFF⎪T F F F TFF T FFF
FTTT⎪F T T T FFT T TTT
FTTF⎪F T T F FFT T TFF
FTFT⎪F T F T FFT T FFT
FTFF⎪F T F F FFT T FFF
FFTT⎪F F T T FFF T TTT
FFTF⎪F F T F FFF T TFF
FFFT⎪F F F T FFF T FFT
FFFF⎪F F F F FFF T FFF
Q.E.D.