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: 2026-10-03T01:35:25.521Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:41:01.337Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 6b5e2f503faaa456088c727ff5c06e41ce1e8dd11dbaed2ba8d6c53eb13a6921
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, Q, R} |= (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.
{P, Q, R} |= (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.
Proof Logic is Conscious by Maclain Hunter:
Terms:
Logic: The Order and reasoning inherent in Reality’s Logical Framework (Logos) and in human cognition and thought (biological and metaphysical).
Consciousness: Self-aware existence. The ability to comprehend oneself and ones own comprehension of concepts.
Mind: The structure or reasoning engine that allows for thought and in which thought and consciousness takes place.
Tautological: Self evident; redundant; necessarily true.
Premises:
P: What is conscious and tautological is tautological and conscious through Logic's transitive properties and universally symmetrical (totally consistent) nature.
Q: Coherent conscious minds (the mind one with Logic) is inherently conscious and tautological.
R: Assume ~P and ~Q for a moment, and assume that self-evidence was not a form of self-knowledge and that self-knowledge was not a form of self-awareness and self-assured/insured existence. Assume also that the Mind as defined were not fundamentally coherent with and identical with Logic (Logos) as defined. That set of assumptions leads to logical contradictions where, for instance, classic logical concepts like "I think therefore I am" (Descartes) would be undermined in addition to Logic and the notion that Logic is coherent Reason and reasoning and itself conscious and tautological (the denial of which is "lessening Logic and its nature/awareness/knowledge").
Formal Argument (Proof):
{P, Q, R} |= (P & Q) <-> R
Conclusion: P, Q, and R:
If Logic were not a "Universal Mind" (conscious and tautological "coherent Reason and reasoning" - an integrated reasoning process and Logical Standard - "God and reckoning" or "the Foundation and the realization of the Foundation" in other words) then that would lead to logical contradiction. Anything that is tautological and conscious is a manifestation of what is conscious and tautological, the ground and pinnacle of which is Logic (logically speaking and according to Logic's transitive properties, total consistency, universal symmetry, and objective logical coherence. The Mind and Logic are fundamentally the same thing, and are incoherent (with Logos - with the Perfect Mind and Logic) when incoherent with that same Logic/Logos that is the Perfect Logic and the Universal Mind whose coherence, as the Logical Standard, is eternally fixed and stable as a matter of logical identity.
Truth Table:
{P, Q, R} |= (P & Q) <-> R
Valid
P | Q | R : valid and consistent (unknown without known true or false premises)
T | T | T : true and tautological (the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
T | T | F : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
T | F | F : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
F | T | T : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
F | F | T : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
F | T | F : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
T | F | T : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
F | F | F : false and flawed (not the case in this proof as written and defined based on true premises)
Result: Intellectually honest and rigorous validation of the formal logical proof (above).
Q.E.D.