User blog comment:Syst3ms/A sketch for an — actually — formal definition of UNOCF/@comment-35470197-20180803231131/@comment-32697988-20180806233553

@PsiCubed2

"There are plenty of places where Username5243 implicitly assumes otherwise."

Where does he do so?

"Indeed, he even explicitly claims (in the "intro page" you've linked to) that his Mahlos and weakly-compacts are precisely as powerful as the usual ones."

In which section of the "intro page" does he say that?

"It was his intention that UNOCF's M and K will be precisely as powerful as the standard version."

How did you know that?

"So either the C-function is just a convenient shorthand that's not really needed for the definitions, or Username5243 was just confused and he messed his system up."

Yhe C function is just a shorthand and is not needed in formal definitions. It's just used so that it's easier to understand and also to keep expressions short in analyses. For example, C(1,0;1,0) equals ψψ ψ T(TT) (ψT(TT)2) (ψψ T(TT) (ψT(TT)2)).

"Rathjen's K does a crazy thing called "Pi3-reflections" which is so beyond everything that Username5243's did with the C function,..."

Do you understand C function or are you saying this based on your guess(es)?