User blog comment:Mh314159/A new notation for large numbers/@comment-37246647-20190608015320/@comment-39585023-20190608153130

Thank you very much for reading and commenting. And left associated strings get so big I have  no frame of reference for comparison. But I'm not a mathematician, so I often can't follow a lot of the set theory that I see here. I'm an AP physics teacher. I started working on this after I taught one of my classes, just for fun, about Steinhaus/Moser numbers and Knuth up arrows and Graham's number, and we played a game where the winner was the person who wrote the largest exactly computer integer in 20 seconds using well-established notation. And then we came across a video on TREE(3), a number so large that no one knows exactly how large, and I wondered if I could devise an exact computable notation that reaches TREE(3). Can anyone looking at this tell me if my notation reaches or approaches TREE(3)? Thanks.