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: 2026-10-03T01:33:07.032Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:41:33.794Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 28c8195e881dd3b1e9aaaa6660c350b102da7c049151960c6faf600833e811ba
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, 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: It is valid to cite religious scripture or texts of any kind of those citations and references are then used in a logically coherent fashion.
Necessity: P must be true or citations would risk becoming logically unhinged and incoherent.
Q: Assume we allow citations of scripture or other texts to supersede or provide an alternative logical (or universal) Standard, besides Logic (Logos - the True Origin of Logical Frameworks and Existence), which contradicts Logic at its fundamental level (Logos - the Coherence of Reality being Reality).
Necessity: Q must be true or things, such as passages of texts, or arbitrary standards/goalposts, could supersede and undermine Logic (Logos - the Logical Standard of Logical Existence), which is untenable logically and objectively.
R: Even taking multiple passages from a single coherent text but using them to justify double standards in various contexts as some do with “proof-texting” can introduce deceptive (seemingly valid) “illogical standards” - meaning double standards and proposed standards besides Logic itself.
Necessity: R must be true as Logic must be the logical standard or it leads to logical contradiction in Reality and “Logical Systems” (which includes Reality and all logical systems within it). If R weren’t true then it could paradoxically be true by a newly valid “illogical standard” (or in other words if we can’t just say we’re right according to “whatever” then I declare I’m right according to such an illogical standard then too, as Logic says the logical is right/correct by the actual Logical Standard of Logic).
{P, P -> Q, Q -> R} |= (P & Q) & R
Conclusion: {P, Q, R}:
Logic is the Logical Standard universally and irrefutably (beyond feasible logical refutation as Logic is a self-reinforcing Standard and System not a self-defeating and self-undermining one as illogical systems are - by definition) and this is tautological - self evident in Logic and the very Nature of Logic. Letting other supposed “standards” (including laws and rules, but also personal and rational standards) supersede coherent Reason and Logic is inherently illogical.
Even things like the citation of holy scriptures or respected philosophical texts, or those texts themselves, cannot reasonably/logically (or actually) supersede logically consistent Logic (True Logic - the Logic rooted in Reality being Reality - the Logos also called God in classical theism and Greek philosophy).