User blog comment:Flitri/An ordinal Collapsing up to the Least weakly Mahlo Cardinal/@comment-25216794-20190412180012/@comment-35470197-20190412225437

No. In your definition, cof(Ω+1) is ill-defined, and Lim and Suc are not what you intended. Since I pointed out so many times on your mistakes of the definition of cof, they must not be just typos as you state.

As I emphasised, understanding an OCF with weakly Mahlo needs elementary knowledge of set theory. Therefore I doubt that your definition work as you expected, even though I have not completely read it yet.

What I recommend is to study elementary set theory before you construct such a high-leveled mathematical stuff. Otherwise, it costs so much time for others to point out your elementary errors, even if the resulting OCF would be weak.

At least, I give up pointing out, because I have already given you an advice that you should use only what you understand, which you have not accepted. Sorry.