User blog comment:PsiCubed2/How to make Deedlit's Mahlo-level notation more intuitive/@comment-35470197-20180807000338/@comment-35470197-20180807015950

> My I(M2) = Deedlit's I(1,0,0) > > I'm even more baffled by your request that I define I(α), when my entire suggestion is a single line that defines exactly that: I(M×a+b) = χ(a,b).

Then we get \begin{eqnarray*} I(M^2) = I(M \times M + 0) = \chi(M,0) > \Lambda_0 = I(1,0,0), \end{eqnarray*} which obviously conflicts your explanation. This is why I am confused.

Then I guessed that you also extended \(I(1,0,0)\) in some implicit way. Since googologists extend single- or two-variable functions to multi-variable functions using the same function symbols, I guessed that your \(I\) might have been implicitly multi-variable.

> I'm not sure how anyone could be confused this

Ok, maybe my computation above is wrong if you say so. Sorry for it.