User blog comment:B1mb0w/Growth Rate of the S Function/@comment-25601061-20160708203814/@comment-10262436-20160709130807

Hi. You are pointing out my clumsy notation. I will fix this.

You should note my references to FGH of Omega blogs (of which there are many). The similarity between S(T(0),n,1) and f_n(w) should be made clear and the calculation of f_3(w) >> e_0 has been asserted many times now.

The S (and T) Functions deviate from the FGH of Omega definitions after T(1) (= f_w(w)) to avoid ambiguities and to impose a clearly defined ruleset.

Therefore I am confident that S(n,S(T(0),3,1),1) >> f_e_0(n),  and am trying to calculate growth rates beyond T(1) and thru to T^m(1).

Hope this helps.