User blog comment:Flitri/A new Ordinal based Function on weakening Large Countable Ordinal analogs of Large Cardinal Axioms/@comment-35470197-20190619222721/@comment-35470197-20190621005930

> I have a full understanding of ordinals as well if that helps.

No. As I pointed out so many times, your article contains monstrously many mistakes on ```elementary''' topics on ordinals, and hence you do not understand ordinals at all. I am certain that you do not know even the definition of the notion of an ordinal, because what you wrote conflicts the definition.

Also, you do not understand your errors, because you could not fix even the errors which I have already pointed out.

> What exactly am I missing in regards to this notation being consistent?

You are missing the point that you do not understand ordinals at all.

Anyway, my conjecture turns out to be true. You said something like "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?". If you believe that you fully understood ordinals, then how about proving the elementary statements written in your manuscript? Then you will find that they are false. I do not want to point out the same errors again and again.