Lean verification registry · Authored proofs · The Logos Architecture
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: 2026-10-02T16:20:10.983Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:38:51.050Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 66da156b9ffc1d8df6bdd62f42eb505647ea768dcf457b9fe3a43d44c9a0eb67
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_2' does not depend on any axioms
{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)]) as evidence of the existence of the logician and the logicians expertise demonstrate the highest degree of expertise - a level that is truly “infinitely beyond” (or “dynamically superior” according to Dynamic Logic itself) the normal “expert in Logic” who cannot or has not produced such a formal proof.
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 "]) as evidence of the existence of the logici"
{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
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.
I Know That I Know by Maclain Hunter:
Premises:
P: Alignment: Proof is an argument and/or evidence that reveals the Logical Truth of Reality (also understood as “the Logos that all logoi exist within”). This means that arguments are proof and that proof is evidence (applying De Morgan’s Law), by definition. They (proofs) do this, necessarily, through coherent alignment of logoi and finite logical constructions with the Logos as the Universe’s Logical Structure (the Absolute Construct).
Q: Reflexivity: My knowledge of proof, Logic, and tautological reasoning is self-evident as my self-evident reasoning is tautological proof of my knowledge of Logic - and that statement is itself a mode of tautology and demonstration of a high level of expertise in Logic (which is proportional to the Coherence and flawlessness of the proof).
R: Paradox: If I were not an expert in Logic I should/would not be writing any formal proof, even one with invalid premises (unlike this one) but valid formal logical structure (like this one), as that would be contradictory and inconsistent. Therefore my premises and this proof are valid demonstration that I should/do have expertise in Logic and Reason (encompassing Reality, the Natural Order, God in logical theological frameworks, and formal/informal logical reasoning).
S: Contradiction: Assume ~(P, Q, R, S). This leads to logical contraction and a scenario where somehow I am writing coherent arguments in the structure of a formal proof without being a logician or ostensibly any awareness of what I am doing, which is of course an absurdity since I can examine that now and tell you that I know exactly what I am doing - which is self-evident in my deliberate and introspective or self-referential in terms of the proof referencing not only Logic (or First Cause) and its own logical structure but the logician (me) also. Therefore, to avoid absurdity the premises must be true. These sorts of proofs that reference their own structure (ie - [{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)]) as evidence of the existence of the logician and the logicians expertise demonstrate the highest degree of expertise - a level that is truly “infinitely beyond” (or “dynamically superior” according to Dynamic Logic itself) the normal “expert in Logic” who cannot or has not produced such a formal proof.
Formal Argument (Proof):
{P, P <-> Q, Q <-> R, R <-> S} |= (P & Q) & (R & S)
Ergo: If I don’t know Logic (and proof) then this proof’s existence becomes a logical contradiction, which is a logically untenable paradox.
Therefore the coherent conclusion is that I indeed understand Logic and proof at an expert level as this proof formally demonstrates.
This kind of proof, that reflects upon its own existence as proof, Logic, and an extension of the intellect and being of the logician bears the hallmarks of the most advanced form of reasoning and Reason (the Highest Order of Logic).
This proof and reflexive style of proof shows the logician has reached the highest echelon of the practice and understanding of Logic. The expertise displayed is not of a lower order but of the Highest Order (of Logic).
Truth Table Analysis:
valid
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
PQRS⎪P P↔Q Q↔R R↔S╞(P&Q)&(R&S)
―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――
TTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT TTT T TTT
TTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF TTT F TFF
TTFT⎪T TTT TFF FFT TTT F FFT
TTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF TTT F FFF
TFTT⎪T TFF FFT TTT TFF F TTT
TFTF⎪T TFF FFT TFF TFF F TFF
TFFT⎪T TFF FTF FFT TFF F FFT
TFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF TFF F FFF
FTTT⎪F FFT TTT TTT FFT F TTT
FTTF⎪F FFT TTT TFF FFT F TFF
FTFT⎪F FFT TFF FFT FFT F FFT
FTFF⎪F FFT TFF FTF FFT F FFF
FFTT⎪F FTF FFT TTT FFF F TTT
FFTF⎪F FTF FFT TFF FFF F TFF
FFFT⎪F FTF FTF FFT FFF F FFT
FFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF FFF F FFF
Q.E.D.