User blog comment:PsiCubed2/How to make Deedlit's Mahlo-level notation more intuitive/@comment-35470197-20180807000338/@comment-35470197-20180807234311

> Suffice to say that I haven't understood 90% of what you've written there. :-)

Oh, so your statement "Anybody with even a cursory understanding of Deedlit's notation could tell you that, without needing all the heavy set-theoretical stuff you've mentioned." just means that they can state what I verified, right...? It is trivial. But in order to solve arguments like what we did, we need precise proofs, don't we? I also know the fact that M is far beyond (1,0)-weakly inaccessibles, and hence I can "tell" myself the statement.

Or if you have more elementary proofs, I would like to learn them in order to improve my ability to deak with Mahlo. Since I am not so good at set theory, I thought that I need to interpret (1,0)-weak inaccessibility into a statement in the cumulative universe in order to use the stationarity condition.

> Especially if we also want to make sure that our invention is consistent (which isn't at all obvious, given that even the existence of Mahlos is undecidable in ZF/ZFC).

To be more precise, "undecidable" should be "unprovable", because we do not know the negation is also unprovable. Remember that the consistency of Mahlo is formally unorovable under the consistency of ZFC. It might occur that the existence of a Mahlo cardinal causes contradiction.