User blog comment:Ubersketch/Collapsing the first 1-dinal/@comment-35470197-20190702215756/@comment-35470197-20190703004836

> if you want to make this in ZFC you're going to have to make \(\overline{Ω}\) be a pretty big ordinal, but I don't see the problem here.

First of all, you are not working in ZFC, because you clearly write a proper class in your original definition. Stating "I can replace any problematic stuffs by harmless ones" is not an honest solution, because it allows all contradictions to be replaced by something like \(0=0\).

In a set theory in which you can use a proper class, then the ill-definedness immediately follows from the definition of the notion of a set. Do you understand the definition of a set?

Or don't you want such a feedback at all? Then I will stop pointing out ill-definedness to your stuffs.