User blog comment:Cloudy176/THREE function/@comment-3427444-20160709071728

If you trust this old research, the content on the above blog is not true, and THREE(3) is actually equal to TREE(TREE(3)). But the research notated it as three(3) instead of THREE(3). Does this point to an existence to a "weak" analogue of the THREE function (which is stronger than the THREE function itself), just like TREE function has a weak analogue, the tree function?