On Jun 20, 10:46 am, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > > > On 20 Jun., 15:33, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: > >> (E.g. did anybody study the latter construction [the L=[0,L]]? Does > >> the "issue" exists at all, > > > This issue does not exist in any forum or journal where matheologians > > are the dominating fraction. > > If that distinction has any merit, then it's hard to believe that nobody has > looked into it yet. Anyway, if that is so, this "issue" might very well > become the basis for my PhD thesis... so to speak.
I cannot find your original question. From the few comments I have read it seems that you wish to abolish limit ordinals and relabel the successor of a limit ordinal to the limit ordinal's label, etc. Thus, your omega is what is currently called omega + 1, your omega + 1 is what is now referred to as omega + 1, omega + omega for you would be (omega + omega + 1)...
Is that close?
Is there some problem you believe you can solve with such a system?