Overview
The selected FEP_Formal 2.1.0 manuscript describes 168 stable Lean topics across five areas, using Lean 4.35.0 and Mathlib 4.35.0. It reports a semantic audit with 149 directly formalized rows at narrowed scopes and separates compilation maturity from scientific adequacy. Native receipt-backed compilation and optional Hermes/OpenGauss execution remain different evidence contracts. The manuscript does not prove the empirical FEP, generic Markov blankets or equivalence of its motivating formalisms; this catalog refresh does not rerun Lean, numerical examples or provider workflows.
Overview source: Curated paper metadata.
Methods and contributions
Read the source for the full argument, qualifications, and evidence.
Findings and contributions
- The manuscript reports 149 of 168 rows as directly formalized at deliberately narrowed scopes, independently of compilation maturity.
- The manuscript expressly declines empirical FEP, generic-blanket and broad-equivalence conclusions.
Methods
- Typed catalog with explicit assumptions and semantic dispositions — Described in the selected deposited manuscript; source-text review does not re-execute or independently validate this method.
- Separate native and optional provider evidence contracts — Described in the selected deposited manuscript; source-text review does not re-execute or independently validate this method.
Summary sources: Paper metadata and evidence · Extracted source text.
Document downloads
PDFs are hosted here; supporting sources may use pinned archives.
- FEP_Formal-2.1.0.pdf PDF · 7.52 MiB · declared primary
- fep-lean-manuscript-1.1.0.pdf PDF · 1.91 MiB
- fep_lean-v1.6.0.pdf PDF · 7.15 MiB
- fep_lean_v1_04-24-2026.pdf PDF · 1.82 MiB
These files may be different versions or companion documents. The archive does not identify a latest edition.
Citation
Citation metadata follows the unified bibliography.
Catalog details and resources
Related works
Ranked by recorded methods, topics, contributors and associated software, with contributor roles and domain-only matches labelled. Metadata overlap is not a citation or a scientific equivalence.