User blog comment:QuasarBooster/The Wackermann function/@comment-39128220-20200217133420/@comment-43798125-20200217140649

No There are two possibilities: 1) Wack(1) is too large for computers to comprehend 2) Wack(1) can be computed by literally any computer

Wack(1) = Wack(2) (by 2nd rule) = 2 (by 1st rule)

Wack(1) = 2

So as a matter of fact, Wack(1) = 2, which can be done by hand.