hey no offense but right now you're giving off big crank energy. no one is going to take your "abstraction logic" seriously because it's disconnected from the literature and completely unverified.
your characterization of things is strange, there is no Rasiowa’s approach that missed a generalization that a modern presentation of Frege's work shows. it's hard to understand from a glance what you are calling "abstraction logic" is but it's near certain it's already been classified as something in the literature. if not then write up a basic result properly so someone in the field can tell you have something at a glance and publish your result with them, you can be first author so it's not like you're giving up any glory and they will ensure you are peer reviewed through the right channels.
but you most likely have no result to speak off. which is fine. just build something. we need more ITPs in the wild, and currently have more of a UI and OS problem than a lack of proper theory.
your characterization of things is strange, there is no Rasiowa’s approach that missed a generalization that a modern presentation of Frege's work shows. it's hard to understand from a glance what you are calling "abstraction logic" is but it's near certain it's already been classified as something in the literature. if not then write up a basic result properly so someone in the field can tell you have something at a glance and publish your result with them, you can be first author so it's not like you're giving up any glory and they will ensure you are peer reviewed through the right channels.
but you most likely have no result to speak off. which is fine. just build something. we need more ITPs in the wild, and currently have more of a UI and OS problem than a lack of proper theory.