When it says "omega structures", does it mean like the omega set of numbers (1 being highest and counting infinitely down)? also, the text is becoming really jumbled from the decaying subjectivization of general perception (see first 0th iteration video) Are any of the comments on this document real? Or is it just part of the webseries? My head aches This definition doesnt quite work since it doesnt assign the empty set an value, so one couldnt, for example, even evaluate the lambda value of finite von neumann ordinals. There is also the issue of how the definition could handle infinite sets, both in that you have to divide by an infinite cardinal number and that the sum goes over uncountably many elements, which can at best only be defined if all but countably many subsets have lambda 0. Edit: you can relatively easily prove that any finite set would then be assigned the same lambda value. For a singleton set $\{x\}$ one has that: $\lambda_{\{x\}} = \frac{1}{2} ( \lambda_\emptyset + \lambda_{\{x\}} ) \implies \lambda_{\{x\}} = \lambda_\emptyset$ From here proceed by a simple induction argument my head hurts and I think my nose is bleeding. Is this document akin to The Principia Mathematica but for a different logic system/data set? This document has no sources? I don't even see an upload date, much less a publication date. Was this just fabricated for the unorthodox kitten 'webseries' or is it a pre-existing document it based on? Towards the end of the document spelling mistakes increase, becoming keymashes, and then this. ending with some characters you wouldn't normally be able to type on an english keyboard easily. data was corrupted, printed out then annotated by pen, and finally scanned back in. Since you seem to be the one to be trying to unravel this all, do you think the first episode's reference to "narrative structures" is in relation to pataphysics?