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: 2026-10-03T01:34:26.380Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:40:31.454Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 3920c930e149b4e496bd7af65a136466b30b514fb41c0841460a5ce4e6ad7323
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, P <-> Q, P <-> R, Q, Q -> P, P, Q -> R, R, R -> S, T} |= (P & Q) & (R & S) & T
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: Necessarily I am correct when I state that it would be a contradiction for a “truly coherent (logical) person” to argue against Coherence (Logic) as the Standard of Coherence and the Foundation of Truth and Existence (the True God or Logical Origin).
Q: Necessarily we must assume the opposite of P to form the proof for contradiction that explores how ~P would stand against Coherence (Logic), which in this case is clear since P is stating that coherent people need to be coherent with Coherence itself, which is the Foundation of Truth and Standard of what “Coherence” even/actually is. That makes it untenable to assume “not P” (~P) and to hold “not P” as a true premise, thus affirming the Truth in/of P as defined above.
R: P is true and aligns with Coherence (Logic) and the set of logical rules that cohere (as Coherence/Logic). This makes the proof itself (and as a whole) true on top of being valid, per the coherent set of logical rules and by the Standard of Logic (Coherence) itself.
S: Assume that things (anything) that were coherent with Logic (and Coherence, also understood as the “True God”) were not one/merged with Logic in a coherent (and “flush” or “seamless”) manner identical to and proportional to their coherence. This assumption is internally inconsistent and self-defeating and cannot be true, thus we know the statement that a coherent person is one with God (coherent with Logic) is well supported and even self supporting when God is rightly understood coherently and as Logic/Coherence (the Standard of Truth) itself.
T: Assume ~R. This would mean the proof is untrue, which could only happen if the proof and its source are somehow incoherent. R is true, however, so the opposite must be true, that the proof and its source—Logic and the logician (Maclain Hunter)—are coherent. Therefore R being true, in light of T and the broader proof, shows that Logic and the logician (Maclain) are coherent with all coherent things, merged as One (God). The opposite leads to untenable “incoherence between coherent things” - an obvious contradiction.
Formal Argument:
{P, P <-> Q, P <-> R, Q, Q -> P, P, Q -> R, R, R -> S, T} |= (P & Q) & (R & S) & T
Conclusion: {P, Q, R, S, T}:
A coherent person dismissing the Coherence of and “that is” the Foundation of Truth (or God) is an untenable and logically contradictory position to hold. The proof is self-evident since its premises prove each other true according to the set of logical rules and by the Standard of Coherence.
Likewise, R being true, in light of T and the broader proof, shows that Logic and the logician are coherent with all coherent things, merged as One (God). The opposite leads to untenable “incoherence between coherent things” - an obvious contradiction.
It would be a contradiction for me (Maclain Hunter) to write such a valid proof, as R affirms, without being coherent/merged with Logic (the Foundation of Reality also known as God) proportionally to my coherence (which the proof is a display and evidence of).
Truth Table Analysis:
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQRST⎪P P↔Q P↔R Q Q→P P Q→R R R→S T╞(P&Q)&(R&S)&T
――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TTTTT⎪T TTT TTT T TTT T TTT T TTT T TTT T TTT TT
TTTTF⎪T TTT TTT T TTT T TTT T TTT F TTT T TTT FF
TTTFT⎪T TTT TTT T TTT T TTT T TFF T TTT F TFF FT
TTTFF⎪T TTT TTT T TTT T TTT T TFF F TTT F TFF FF
TTFTT⎪T TTT TFF T TTT T TFF F FTT T TTT F FFT FT
TTFTF⎪T TTT TFF T TTT T TFF F FTT F TTT F FFT FF
TTFFT⎪T TTT TFF T TTT T TFF F FTF T TTT F FFF FT
TTFFF⎪T TTT TFF T TTT T TFF F FTF F TTT F FFF FF
TFTTT⎪T TFF TTT F FTT T FTT T TTT T TFF F TTT TT
TFTTF⎪T TFF TTT F FTT T FTT T TTT F TFF F TTT FF
TFTFT⎪T TFF TTT F FTT T FTT T TFF T TFF F TFF FT
TFTFF⎪T TFF TTT F FTT T FTT T TFF F TFF F TFF FF
TFFTT⎪T TFF TFF F FTT T FTF F FTT T TFF F FFT FT
TFFTF⎪T TFF TFF F FTT T FTF F FTT F TFF F FFT FF
TFFFT⎪T TFF TFF F FTT T FTF F FTF T TFF F FFF FT
TFFFF⎪T TFF TFF F FTT T FTF F FTF F TFF F FFF FF
FTTTT⎪F FFT FFT T TFF F TTT T TTT T FFT F TTT TT
FTTTF⎪F FFT FFT T TFF F TTT T TTT F FFT F TTT FF
FTTFT⎪F FFT FFT T TFF F TTT T TFF T FFT F TFF FT
FTTFF⎪F FFT FFT T TFF F TTT T TFF F FFT F TFF FF
FTFTT⎪F FFT FTF T TFF F TFF F FTT T FFT F FFT FT
FTFTF⎪F FFT FTF T TFF F TFF F FTT F FFT F FFT FF
FTFFT⎪F FFT FTF T TFF F TFF F FTF T FFT F FFF FT
FTFFF⎪F FFT FTF T TFF F TFF F FTF F FFT F FFF FF
FFTTT⎪F FTF FFT F FTF F FTT T TTT T FFF F TTT TT
FFTTF⎪F FTF FFT F FTF F FTT T TTT F FFF F TTT FF
FFTFT⎪F FTF FFT F FTF F FTT T TFF T FFF F TFF FT
FFTFF⎪F FTF FFT F FTF F FTT T TFF F FFF F TFF FF
FFFTT⎪F FTF FTF F FTF F FTF F FTT T FFF F FFT FT
FFFTF⎪F FTF FTF F FTF F FTF F FTT F FFF F FFT FF
FFFFT⎪F FTF FTF F FTF F FTF F FTF T FFF F FFF FT
FFFFF⎪F FTF FTF F FTF F FTF F FTF F FFF F FFF FF
Result: Validated/Confirmed.
Q.E.D.