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: 2026-10-03T01:33:18.115Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:40:33.433Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 89ae745bd8d488e6891f28f647d148db2e2c5e1be5a90be8e339d57add5278dd
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.source_identity_rule' does not depend on any axioms
{P, Q, R, S, T, U, V} |= ((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.
Logos is Logos
The explicitly named Identity rule, over every type and element. The remaining prose is not replaced by this witness.
P: Necessarily. Logic and the “Existence of Logic” are a prerequisite and a requirement of “Logical Existence”.
Q: Necessarily things that contradict Logic (the Logical Standard of Reality) canon be logical and (logically or actually) real/Reality.
R: Necessarily it contradicts Logic for there to be anything “logical” including any form of Logical Existence (Existence), including the existence of this modal proof, absent Logic itself.
S: Necessarily the existence of (all) Existence, and the existence of this modal proof, constitutes (undeniable/irrefutable) proof of the Logic (Logos) at the Foundation of Reality, the “Foundation of Reality” also being a valid and rational definition of the philosophical term “God”, and the “Existence of Logic” (the “Being” and “Reality” or realness and rationality of the God of Reason and Logic known philosophically and in classical theism as “the Logos” or “YHVH” or in Hindu Philosophy as “Rta”).
T: Necessarily even the existence of something like “personal denial of the Logos by atheists” or “ignorance of Logic by theists who don’t grasp that Logic is the same as the God they claim to worship” is proof, even if it amounts to “incoherence” (which couldn’t exist if Logic did not), that the God of Reason (Logic - Logos) exists at/as the Standard of Logic and the Foundation of Reality.
U: Necessarily it is so that statements affirming the existence of Existence and Logic (God) are/were wrong then there would be no Existence/Logic for them to be “wrong” in/by, thus concern about being wrong that there is Logic is absurd and illogical.
V: Necessarily, a well-formed formal logical argument being valid, like that these premises are used in, is itself PROOF POSITIVE of the existence of the Universal Logic (the Logos - the True God of Pure Reason) beyond and despite the validity or invalidity of any particular premises. The premises could all be wrong and the valid formal argument being valid would still be proof that Logos is Logos and that this Logical Origin of Logic (the God of Reason) exists as a logical necessity.
Formal Argument:
{P, Q, R, S, T, U, V} |= ((P & Q) & (R & S) & T) & U
Conclusion: Logic must exist as God (the Logical Origin) or it leads to logical contradiction and incoherence between notions of Logic and notions of the Universal Origin that are untenable. The logical necessity of Logic is evident as is the impossibility of there being any Existence (Logical Existence) absent Logic (God). All Existence is proof of the Logos and if I or anyone were wrong to assert the Logos exists (objectively) then the meaningfulness of that incorrectness would be utterly negated by the corresponding lack of any Logic or Existence.