User blog comment:Syst3ms/A sketch for an — actually — formal definition of UNOCF/@comment-35470197-20180803231131/@comment-30754445-20180805025621

Why do you even need the C function in your definition, though? It makes everything needlessly complex, and doesn't really add anything to the notation.

If everything else works as intended (which would be a miracle, given that the system claims to reach Pi-n reflections for arbitrary n) then the C function can't do anything that the psi functions can't do.

Putting it differently:

If you need the C function to create things like I(1,0,0) then you'll have no way to create things like I(1@ω). The only way to generate the latter is by using the OCF itself (say, by writing ψM(MM ω )), and if you're allowed to do that than you can generate anything the C function can generate as well.

Now, I agree the C notation is a nice ''shorthand. ''It's really nice to be able to write C(1,0,0,0) instead of ψ(M^M^2). But there's no point in adding it to the body of the collapse definition, because it doesn't contribute anything to the process.

(all this assumes that the system is indeed as strong as it claims to be. If it isn't - of course - all bets are off)