User blog comment:Billicusp/Uggh/@comment-12.144.5.30-20160112070930/@comment-27173506-20160117060937

See, here we go at the same thing again. Alloying functions does not increase the strength. Your function has exactly the same growth rate as the function f(n)={n(n)n} in BEAF's dimensional arrays.

A good metaphor for this: imagine building a huge building. Superskyscraper, space elevator: whatever. This is the height of modern architecture. Mankind has reached the skies, and you have pioneered the way. Comes along somebody, who says: "Hah, that's nothing!". He takes the building plans, replicates the building - but he puts on the top of the building a pebble.

Now, that building is technically bigger. Will anybody be impressed? No (except for some modern art critics, perhaps). Why? Because: A) He didn't do anything new, merely replicating what others did before him. And B) The increase is so small, useless and barely noticeable.

With big numbers, this is even more true. Adding a pebble to a building 150,000 kilometers high is ridiculously more noticeable than adding 1 to Graham's Number, which is almost infinitely more strong than squaring a Tetratet, which is vast compared to applying chained arrows to a Gongulus. The two functions: f(n)={n(n)n}, g(n)=f2n(n) grows faster than popbling. Applying the strongest function twice is stronger than applying a weaker function a million times.