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: 2026-10-03T01:36:26.513Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:42:41.598Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 4f4e9a0286746c9aaf341441e93263399cf6597edd727a5bf96db3b8d1e72b49
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} |= P <-> Q
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.
Law of Identity
The explicitly named Identity rule, over every type and element. The remaining prose is not replaced by this witness.
P: Law of Identity: [Truth is Truth tautologically and beyond my perception, my perception is clear when and because I see Truth as Truth in any context or weather.]
Q: Negation of the Contradiction of P: [Assume my Truth is “not Truth” (necessarily), then my Truth is not Truth and my not Truth is liable to be Truth.]
Formal Argument (Proof):
{P <-> Q} |= P <-> Q
Conclusion: P <-> Q:
The Law of Identity is what it is, as Logic is Logic and A is A objectively and universally beyond perceptions of individuals (subjective perspectives that are feasibly incoherent and view A as “not A” through irrational rationalizations), and any contradiction to it is an unlawful contradiction.
With the (dynamic) “specific premises” written above this means that Truth is Truth and never “not Truth”, and that if my perception ever perceived differently then IT would be off and I would be wrong, not Logic and Truth beyond my perception and as they truly and tautologically are.
Truth Table:
valid
↓ ↓
PQ⎪P↔Q╞P↔Q
―――――――――――
TT⎪TTT TTT
TF⎪TFF TFF
FT⎪FFT FFT
FF⎪FTF FTF