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: 2026-09-25T22:54:04.366Z (not original authorship).
Formalized: 2026-10-03T10:37:05.082Z.
Checked: 2026-10-03T10:39:48.183Z.
Independent timestamp: 2026-10-03T10:42:55.000Z.
Authored source SHA-256: 89e82012a2ffc2c76485ab30c962ea29705ac633c3fa20dda4e2711abc8253a9
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 <-> 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.
Logical Strategy by Maclain Hunter
Premises:
P: let P represent the concept of having a logical strategy in general, in a debate or otherwise; having a plan that will work if properly executed in a given context. All truly logical and coherent strategies, plans, designs, or structures must be coherent with Coherence (or Logic) itself.
Q: let Q represent one of my strategies in some debates and contexts. This strategy works by immediately claiming the Logical Ground (Logic and oneness with God) for myself, and first - then I am extremely coherent right away. This means in some way asserting and supporting or preparing to support my existence as the Logos - or God, or Logic. Especially in an adversarial debate, where I have to be more “on guard”, I then want to claim I’m God, or claim unity with the Rational Ground in other words, and have the opponent scoff at that. I even don’t mind if/that they think they’re winning - because it’s a seemingly ridiculous claim in their eyes. That means I’m seizing Coherence immediately while they must either admit I’m God to retain Coherence or they will (likely) try to deny it - thinking it ridiculous to a point that they become careless while I strategically move forward to expose how the fact they’re even thinking about it proves I (Logos) exist as God (Logos).
Formal Logic:
{P <-> Q} |= P <-> Q
Conclusion:
Coherence itself is one/unified with the most coherent strategy. One cannot claim this Coherence without claiming it, just as one cannot coherently execute a plan without to some degree adopting it.
Truth Table Analysis:
PQ⎪P↔Q╞P↔Q
TT⎪TTT TTT
TF⎪TFF TFF
FT⎪FFT FFT
FF⎪FTF FTF
(Valid)
Q.E.D.