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: 2026-10-03T01:36:11.633Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:38:43.100Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: c923bd108d9d7c120c3b01176c42753b8aa79720a2d7d12fc11b6601c588de2b
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, R, R -> Q, Q} |= (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.
Alex Gopoian:
What do you think is more important?
Logical argumentation or effective good faith?
Maclain Hunter:
P: Logical arguments are necessary to know Objective Truth (Adonai).
Q: Good Faith (intellectual honesty) is necessary to know Objective Truth (Adonai).
R: Assume we can know Truth (God) by ~P & ~Q. This leads to contradiction.
{P, P <-> Q, R, R -> Q, Q} |= (P & Q) & R
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQR⎪P P↔Q R R→Q Q╞(P&Q)&R
――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TTT⎪T TTT T TTT T TTT TT
TTF⎪T TTT F FTT T TTT FF
TFT⎪T TFF T TFF F TFF FT
TFF⎪T TFF F FTF F TFF FF
FTT⎪F FFT T TTT T FFT FT
FTF⎪F FFT F FTT T FFT FF
FFT⎪F FTF T TFF F FFF FT
FFF⎪F FTF F FTF F FFF FF
Note based on the context the proof was written in:
Assume someone asked the question of what was more important between logical arguments and good faith (or acting in good faith or having any reasonable form of good faith).
That would be setting up a false dichotomy that would miss the point of the proof above which implies in its formal reasoning that the coherent answer is to transcend the false equivalence of such a question and see the coherent path and the ultimate form of both acting in good faith and making logical arguments to be “making good faith logical argument that are effective and of high fidelity” and that which is coherent with such a thing as an intellectually honest logical proof or good faith argument. Coherence and what is part of it (or coherent with it) is not something that can always be taken and understood piecemeal.
QED