User blog comment:ArtismScrub/Applying Cascading-E logic to up-arrows/@comment-11227630-20180101233459/@comment-11227630-20180102080636

If ArtismScrub didn't say "i'm done with ridiculous superscripts", the notation will be clear to make strong. A stronger ruleset is: Then a↑(↑)↑(↑)↑b is a↑↑ ↑ b = a↑↑ b a = a↑↑↑...↑↑a (with b ↑'s) = a↑↑↑...↑aa = a↑↑↑...↑×↑↑↑...↑×......↑↑↑...↑×↑↑↑...↑a = ...
 * 1) a $ 1 = a (where $ can be any arrow-expression)
 * 2) a $×↑ 1 = a
 * 3) a $×↑ (b+1) = a $ (a $×↑ b)
 * 4) (if 1 ~ 3 don't apply) a $ b = a $' a, where $' is $ with the rightmost ↑ replaced by b
 * 5) (only when the $n is at the rightmost position) $n = $$...$$ with n $'s

But, if a↑(↑)↑(↑)↑b works in the way ArtismScrub wrote currently, it'll be much weaker. Bacause a↑(↑)↑(↑)↑b = a↑(↑)↑(↑b)a, and then it reduces as if the ↑(↑b) was not at the superscript position of the first arrow.