{
  "author": "Maclain Hunter",
  "title": "Knowing Logic and Proof — Full Supplied Copy",
  "identifier": "hunter-knowing-logic-proof-received-copy",
  "sourceKind": "authored-foundational-record",
  "content": "Knowing Logic and Proof by Maclain Hunter\n\nPremises:\n\nP: Logic is lawfully defined by non-contradiction of Logic (universally), and all logical “rules” plural are forms and subsets of non-contradiction of the Logos (of Universal Logic), like the LEM is logical non-contradiction applied to binary Truth values.\n\nQ: The semantics of P elaborate on logical rules and how they actually cohere under Logos as the Singular/Ultimate Law. This is a demonstration of knowledge of Logic that can be validly referred to (here in Q).\n\nR: It is absurd that I would explain Logic (as in P) and to explicitly point of that I had (as in Q) while I don’t know Logic. This valid explanation and argument that I am giving this explanation is by definition “proof” or an argument pointing with Reason and reasoning to the Truth and Reality (see OED definition of proof, it is similar). \n\nS: R suggests I know what proof is and how it is defined by the dictionary (in English) and Logic (logically). Logical proof fully coherent with Logic is logically equivalent to Logic and Coherence and cannot be “not Logic” or “not coherent” without contradiction. This proof stands as Logic sans demonstrated incoherence.\n\nFormal Argument:\n\n{P, P -> Q, Q -> R, R -> S} |= (P & Q) -> (R & S) \n\nErgo: \n\nThe proof above uses valid structure and self-referential semantics to show I know validly what proof and Logic (as defined by Coherence and Lawful Order as the Rule of Logic and the Rule logical rules must themselves align with) are. \n\nTo refute me you would have to find contradiction and apply the Lawful Order of Logical Non-Contradiction (or Logos) I am describing which would be mere elenctic support for my position that Logic is about non-contradiction of Lawful Order.\n\nThe formal entailment is truth-functionally valid; the semantic premises identify the performed reasoning as an instance of knowledge of Logic and proof. Thus the formal validity and the reflexive semantic content jointly constitute the claimed demonstration.\n\nTruth Table Analysis: \n\nTTTT⎪T TTT TTT TTT  TTT T TTT \nTTTF⎪T TTT TTT TFF  TTT F TFF \nTTFT⎪T TTT TFF FTT  TTT F FFT \nTTFF⎪T TTT TFF FTF  TTT F FFF \nTFTT⎪T TFF FTT TTT  TFF T TTT \nTFTF⎪T TFF FTT TFF  TFF T TFF \nTFFT⎪T TFF FTF FTT  TFF T FFT \nTFFF⎪T TFF FTF FTF  TFF T FFF \nFTTT⎪F FTT TTT TTT  FFT T TTT \nFTTF⎪F FTT TTT TFF  FFT T TFF \nFTFT⎪F FTT TFF FTT  FFT T FFT \nFTFF⎪F FTT TFF FTF  FFT T FFF \nFFTT⎪F FTF FTT TTT  FFF T TTT \nFFTF⎪F FTF FTT TFF  FFF T TFF \nFFFT⎪F FTF FTF FTT  FFF T FFT \nFFFF⎪F FTF FTF FTF  FFF T FFF \n\n(Valid)\n\nQED",
  "formal": null,
  "structuredAuthoredProof": null,
  "authoredSteps": null,
  "recordedAt": "2026-10-03T01:30:02.013Z",
  "originalAuthoredAt": null,
  "propositionMeaningBoundary": "Atomic identifiers retain their meanings in the exact source. No arbitrary truth assignment establishes an ontological or empirical premise; the formal witness checks the written inference."
}