User blog comment:DrCeasium/Continued hyperfactorial array notation/@comment-1605058-20130327161843

The fact that it needs less complexity to represent given number isn't quite proof. For example, look at Graham's number generating function g(n). Obviously, g(65)>>G, and it is less complex. But it's order type is w, so it's tiny in comparison.

I don't want to offend you, but your notation seems too... simple to even reach linear arrays