User blog comment:Xtrasnack/Well-defined Oblivion/@comment-43798125-20200115222922/@comment-35470197-20200116030255

@C7X

Not exactly. The OP has never defined the way to refer to the definability unlike Rayo's formulation. I am not certain about whether the OP even understands the issue, because the OP made a similar mistake in the previous deleted blog post.

Also, if the OP changes the definition like "It is Rayo(Kungulus)" or something essentially the same as it, the resulting number is irrelevant to Oblivion, because it has no diagonalisation of "formal systems", which is the most meaningful part in the original intension.