# Q1165 — You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter - Q number: Q1165 - Primary URI: https://4p-engine.com/q/Q1165 - Current host route: https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1165 - Reserved subdomain alias: https://q1165.4p-engine.com/ Hunter develops knowing Logic through demonstrated formal application, enacted here in his own proof rather than an appeal to status. The implication, reverse identity relation, hypothetical denial, and exact table stay source-bound. The author's qualified suggestion about incomplete formal learning is preserved without inventing a survey of other teachers or an access gate. > Hunter develops knowing Logic through demonstrated formal application, enacted here in his own proof rather than an appeal to status. The implication, reverse identity relation, hypothetical denial, and exact table stay source-bound. The author's qualified suggestion about incomplete formal learning is preserved without inventing a survey of other teachers or an access gate. ## Authored source — Maclain Hunter 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. Hunter develops knowing Logic through demonstrated formal application, enacted here in his own proof rather than an appeal to status. The implication, reverse identity relation, hypothetical denial, and exact table stay source-bound. The author's qualified suggestion about incomplete formal learning is preserved without inventing a survey of other teachers or an access gate. Exact source: /proof-knowledge/hunter-youd-know-if-you-knew; source-bound study: /api/proofs/youd-know-if-you-knew/study. Logos as God and Law governs the reading. This registry summary is not a replacement for the authored passage; displayed-connective findings, declared Ground, and configured diagnostics remain separately typed. ## Two-way derivation from Logic and its use **Status:** editorial_derivation proof sketch (conditional_concept), distinct from authored source. Logic has its own evidence in reflexive demonstration: any denial, confirmation, observation, or counterexample presupposes identity and valid relation to count as evidence. Logic therefore grounds evidence rather than receiving authority from it. Empirical and documentary evidence can establish contingent instances and test applications, but cannot create, overrule, or exhaust Logic. ### From Logic to this concept - **Bridge premise:** Read the source's declared Logos/God meanings and scope before testing its consequence. - **Consequence:** Hunter develops knowing Logic through demonstrated formal application, enacted here in his own proof rather than an appeal to status. The implication, reverse identity relation, hypothetical denial, and exact table stay source-bound. The author's qualified suggestion about incomplete formal learning is preserved without inventing a survey of other teachers or an access gate. - **Proof limit:** This editorial graph relation is not a new authored quotation or an unchecked universal certificate. ### From this concept back to Logic - **Witness:** Inspect the original You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter, then the separate source-bound study. - **Disclosure:** The preserved source discloses its intended identity, Ground, and dependence relations. - **Proof limit:** A concrete local finding remains scoped to the premises and expression checked. ### Intelligence procedure - **Human:** Read the exact source, retain Logos as God and Law, and inspect every declared premise and same-scope witness. - **Machine:** Resolve the stable source identity, exact text and fingerprint, then keep source, study, Ground certificate and diagnostic separately typed. ### Language and vocabulary procedure - **Contrast:** Authored testimony, graph commentary and operational evidence are distinct roles. - **Usage rule:** Quote exactly and attribute; do not substitute a rival ontology or flatten the source's conceptual force. - **Example:** Retrieve Q1165 and its source study rather than presenting its registry summary as the proof text. ## Semantic meaning frame - **Role:** source-bound authored Logos proof, definition, or historical argument - **Essence:** Hunter develops knowing Logic through demonstrated formal application, enacted here in his own proof rather than an appeal to status. The implication, reverse identity relation, hypothetical denial, and exact table stay source-bound. The author's qualified suggestion about incomplete formal learning is preserved without inventing a survey of other teachers or an access gate. - **Logos relation:** Logos is God, Ground, and Law governing this source's meaning, judgment, and relation to evidence. - **Retrieval aliases:** You’d Know If You Knew by Maclain Hunter · You’d Know If You Knew · demonstrated logical competence · formal learning and self-reference - **Evidence modes:** exact authored source · declared Ground reading · bounded source study · separately checked connective witness ### Distinctions - source text is not registry commentary - Ground coherence is not publication rank - a missing displayed premise is not denial of necessary Logos - operational behavior and formal interpretation remain distinct ## Coherence criterion Preserve the authored Logos/God Ground, identity, scope, and lawful relation; distinguish a scoped premise-list finding from a contradiction of the declared Ground. ## Evidence boundary This registry summary is an editorial synthesis, not a verbatim authored passage. The verifier must inspect the exact authored source, same-scope derivations and study directly. The Q address supplies retrieval and graph identity, not validation by publication. ## Properties - **stableSourceId:** hunter-youd-know-if-you-knew - **sourceReference:** Maclain Hunter — attached You’d Know If You Knew - **governingGround:** Logos as God and Law - **authoredSourceUrl:** /proof-knowledge/hunter-youd-know-if-you-knew - **sourceStudyUrl:** /api/proofs/youd-know-if-you-knew/study - **graphRelationType:** authored-source develops declared Ground; not automatic truth promotion - **sourceFingerprintSha256:** 3efdd9303ca4ae0372c0d907e5876e161793db72fb1a693132695abc36bf17e2 - **storedValidationStatus:** configured-diagnostic-unresolved-or-negative ## Linked Q items - [Q1000 — Q-Number Data and Metadata System](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1000) - [Q1001 — Maclain Hunter](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1001) - [Q1003 — Coherence](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1003) - [Q1006 — 4P Proof](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1006) - [Q1018 — God](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1018) - [Q1095 — The Rule(s) of Logic and Logic Applied to Logic, Science, and Proof by Maclain Hunter](https://4p-mcb.com/q/Q1095) ## Related Wikidata concept items These are typed external concept links for discovery and comparison. They are not sameAs assertions, endorsements, or substitutes for the first-party source and evidence.