Explore related knowledge and questions →

Question 8974: Synthetic Statement, Proof-Term, and Kernel Flags

On this page
  1. Original question and givens
  2. Definition and scope
  3. Step-by-step derivation
  4. Reverse checks
  5. Result
  6. This question review and source binding

Return to catalogue page 45

← Question derivation index · Original question batch

R0016-08974 · q-20261013-advance-20261018-r07-lean-formal-statement-0074

Original question and givens

These are synthetic pipeline receipts, not actual Lean elaboration or kernel checks. The Chinese source pulse did not run Lean builds for these records. A formal statement and a checked proof are distinct states. environment_id="env-23", statement_elaborated_prop=true, proof_term_present=false, kernel_checked=true. Give (environment ID, those three flags, coherence?, state label). A proof flag requires a statement, and a kernel flag requires a proof term.

  • G001 — These are synthetic pipeline receipts, not actual Lean elaboration or kernel checks. The Chinese source pulse did not run Lean builds for these records. A formal statement and a checked proof are distinct states. environment_id="env-23", statement_elaborated_prop=true, proof_term_present=false, kernel_checked=true. Give (environment ID, those three flags, coherence?, state label). A proof flag requires a statement, and a kernel flag requires a proof term.

Definition and scope

Use the original question domain, assumptions and cited MKO definitions. This item has second-context mathematical and bilingual review, with the model, answer and every arithmetic step independently recomputed from the original parameters; the source question remains a candidate.

Step-by-step derivation

S001 · implies

Before

all pipeline flags,names and receipt fields are synthetic input data

After

no actual Lean run,digest verification,name resolution or kernel acceptance is claimed

Conditions: none

These are supplied synthetic receipts,not a Lean run.String fields,coherent flags or complete metadata do not establish actual elaboration,file-digest verification or kernel acceptance.The teaching candidate remains not formalized.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: synthetic_formal_receipt_not_execution · Uses: G001

S002 · implies

Before

statement=Yes;proof term present=No;kernel flag=Yes

After

proof implies statement=Yes;kernel implies proof=No

Conditions: none

Separate the statement,proof-term presence and kernel flag,checking their prerequisite chain.A later flag cannot bypass an earlier requirement.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: formal_statement_proof_kernel_prerequisites · Uses: G001, S001

S003 · implies

Before

environment=env-23;coherent=No

After

synthetic statement/proof state=incoherent receipt

Conditions: none

The state label has-kernel receipt only classifies the three supplied flags.No real kernel receipt was produced or verified here,and the teaching guide is not promoted to a formal proof.

Step identifiers and dependencies

Rule: synthetic_kernel_flag_not_real_receipt · Uses: G001, S002

Reverse checks

  • S003 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S002 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.
  • S001 · premise_and_result_audit — Check against the original data and this step's premises; a one-way implication is not an equivalence.

Result

(env-23, Yes, No, Yes, No, inconsistent-receipt)

The full substitutions and premise checks give the original answer; source identity,format and status are unchanged.

This question review and source binding

Review date: 2026-10-26

Original questions, answers, step expressions, numeric ASTs and historical records are retained. Source candidate labels remain historical and are not overwritten as formal proof.

Source hashes and review receipts
  • input commit: 0f7be61e2c22317a4075561dc822c87d881a50db
  • original question SHA-256: f7804caefe37e7c8642bff5d736d0caa623293425005fbcf675d9e532bff2442
  • candidate record SHA-256: e3eaa6c6dfd5b8cc82e9e85dd7f3930591a234fae74cb2355e9304919e7ea4d1
  • semantic review receipt SHA-256: 00fcddb10a9fb0f56697308976a52e68e2537472bd8e68ecbe96d3c4553f4ad2
  • question-first witness SHA-256: 198e04380b2d32aef2375b07ca0df1f8afa454d1184993173fad8a3c9187a3d1
  • Lean: NOT_RUN · human review: NOT_PERFORMED
Same-source full JSON