User blog comment:Flitri/A new Ordinal based Function on weakening Large Countable Ordinal analogs of Large Cardinal Axioms/@comment-35470197-20190619222721/@comment-35470197-20190620012218

You mean, "if such incorrect definitions of well-known stuffs are precisely corrected, do my stuffs work?", right?

No. There are many undefined stuffs and contradictions as well as your previous blog post. As I pointed out there, definitions referring to undefined stuffs and contradictions do not make sense in mathematics.

Although I said that I did not intend to point out errors, it is good for you to know how many errors your manuscript has. For example: There are further many errors, but I do not want to waste time to point out them more.
 * 1) [1] is not defined in terms of set theory. It is quite ambiguous because you are not working in arithmetic with many separators, and application of [1] can be an operator.
 * 2) Ω(1,0) in the definition of "the 2nd-order ψ" with single varianble is undefined. You might refer to the definition in the multiple variable ψ, but it is also ill-defined because it contains circular logic. You need ψ(α,λ[1]) for any λ∈Ord in the definition of Ω(1,α), you need K[0](α,λ) in the definition of ψ(α,λ[1]), and Ω(1,α) in the defintiion of K[0](α,λ).
 * 3) Descriptions like k < v ∈ Lim, k+1 = v ∈ Suc is quite informal. You must not abbreviate ∨,∧, and →.
 * 4) The definition K(α) = ⋃[u ∈ Ord | u < ω]{ K[u](α) } just gives {K[u](α)|u∈ω}, which does not work at all because it is required to be a set of ordinals. I am certain that you do not understand the axiom of union.
 * 5) "ψ(β, α) is the unique function enumerating ordinals ξ such that ξ = ω^ξ below Ω(β)" is false. You need to learn that there is no function α→ψ(β,α) whose domain is Ord such that it enumerate a small set. I am certain that you are not understanding the notion of ordinals. Even if you restrict the domain to a fixed ordinal, the statement is again false. I am certain that you are not actually understand OCFs.

It is much better to use only stuffs which you understand, i.e. at least you can write the precise definition. Many well-known stuffs in your manuscript are discribed in incorrect ways. I could not understand why you can continue to say that you actually understood them, even though I pointed out errors of your understandings so many times. Of course, if you had never pointed out errors, then it would be natural to misunderstand that you completely understood stuffs which you are using. On the other hand, I pointed out errors so many times. How could you recognise yorself to be confident that you understand them?

Also, it is much better to write a statement which you have a brief idea of a proof. I am certain that you do not have, because your manuscript includes so many contradictions.

Maybe you will say "OK. All of errors are fixed. They were just typos, and hence did not matter the correctness of my contributions. I acctually understand all of them. Now it works well, right?" as you repeated again and again. If you honestly just asked stuffs which you were not understanding, then I could tell them, as I said in the comments in your previous blog post. But you did not, just skipped describing. Then I have no idea how to help you.

By the reasons, I give up.