User blog comment:Syst3ms/A formal definition for UNOCF/@comment-35470197-20180728080043/@comment-35392788-20180728125840

>I believe \(\text{cof}(\ddots\kappa) = \kappa\), and if it isn't, then the cofinality rules can be changed ''in a way that makes sense. ''I mean that, if you managed to find an expression such that \(\text{cof}(\ddots\kappa) \neq \kappa\), then it would probably be the result of an overlook on my end.

>What you have to understand is that cardinals in UNOCF have nothing to do with set theory. One of the reasons why it's so popular is because it doesn't require any knowledge of set theory. When we say things like \(I = C(1,0)\), \(M= C(1;0)\) or \(K = C(1;0;0)\), they're just shorthands. The definition of these cardinals doesn't matter with their behaviour. That also makes "provability under large cardinal axioms" irrelevant, since they're mostly just shorthands. Then for your question, I should have mentioned that \(\text{cof}(\delta) < \kappa\). That should clear up any ambiguity.

>Not sure what you mean there.