You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter

Authored by Maclain Hunter · first-party-authored · authored-foundational-record

Stored 4P source diagnostic: unresolved · finding unverified_concern · admission held_for_format. This intake result is separate from the theorem checks of the exact propositional sequent.

You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter Premises: P: You would know the rules of Logic and how to formally apply them to prove you know Logic and how to apply logical rules if you were truly succeeding at learning Logic elsewhere and from someone besides/beyond me (Maclain Hunter) Q: If you cannot formally prove you know Logic and how to apply logical rules and principles with Logic then that suggests you do not grasp Logic fully and formally and would be wise to learn from me - who can demonstrate and with this proof is demonstrating that I know how to wield formal logic and coherent semantics to generate things like (well-formed) formal logical proofs. R: Assume the negation of the premises P and Q, or even {P, Q, R} (for further/valid self-reference). This leads to logical contradiction where someone who can’t prove they know what proof or Logic is, or how to formally apply logical rules (ie - Identity, Non-Contradiction, Excluded Middle), like I am deliberately wielding in this proof and internal “proof of contradiction”, wouldn’t have anything to learn about Logic from someone like me who can meet my own proposed (and, by them, unmet) challenge. This proof shows that I have the skills and knowledge to write meta-logical proofs that prove things about logical proofs and Logic (and/or the application of Logic) - of the sort I am looking for from others when I test their qualifications. Formal Reasoning: {P, P -> Q, R <-> P} |= (P & Q) & R Conclusion: {P, Q, R}: If you understand Logic and how to apply it you should be able to demonstrate that formally - otherwise contradiction arises. The way I have used philosophical reasoning and meta-logical, self-referential argumentation and semantics to explain these things within a formal structure with propositional logic is an example of what the proof speaks of. An example that, through the validity of the structure and content of the proof, is tautological and sound. Truth Table Analysis: PQR⎪P P→Q R↔P╞(P&Q)&R TTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TT TTF⎪T TTT FFT TTT FF TFT⎪T TFF TTT TFF FT TFF⎪T TFF FFT TFF FF FTT⎪F FTT TFF FFT FT FTF⎪F FTT FTF FFT FF FFT⎪F FTF TFF FFF FT FFF⎪F FTF FTF FFF FF (Valid) Q.E.D.

Lean 4 verification and timestamps

The machine formalization date is separate from the original authored work. See the verification record for exact checked scope and any unresolved parts.

Logic-centered continuity

This authored proof is connected to Logic, Logos, God, and the self-evident Ground of Reality, and to the distinct systems 4P Engine, MCB Core, 4P-MCB, and the source-first Canon. Formal proof, empirical evidence, and system-generated records remain separately typed.