Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture

Performed Reflexive Proof and Logical Expertise

Verified sequents with unresolved formal parts
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: 2026-10-03T01:37:20.101Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:40:52.983Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.

Authored source SHA-256: 60e7f4413d09ce5db349be21088ddc72bf0b71f359fa8e6f3a65c1649a057879

Lean source · Verification JSON · Exact archived source JSON · Compiler report · Current authored source page · Signed release and verification instructions

Kernel output

Lean (version 4.7.0, commit v4.7.0, Release)
exitCode=0
'HunterAuthored.inference_1' does not depend on any axioms

Source-bound formal statements

inference_1 · Kernel-verified · axiom-free

{Р} |= Р

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.

inference_2 · unsupported

{P} |= P disproves claims of my lack of expertise/coherence.

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.

Unsupported formal syntax near "/coherence."

Exact authored source in the timestamped release

{Р} |= Р

Premise P: If I (Maclain Hunter) had no expertise in Logic, I would not acknowledge Logic Logic’s First Cause (God), as I do, nor should I be able to form this tautological proof, as I have.

Conclusion: P

Producing this proof/structure {P} |= P disproves claims of my lack of expertise/coherence.