User blog comment:DrCeasium/Hyperfactorial array notation: Analysis part 2/@comment-5529393-20130527105642/@comment-7484840-20130530184201

with the previous version of the notation, yes, but with the new one (sorry about all the definition changes), no. You are correct that with the previous definition, the w/[1] would have taken precedence over the 2, but now, they work the other way round.

Taking an example, 3![2]w/[1] = ((3![1]w/[1])![1]w/[1])![1]w/[1], which is eqivalent to falpha+1(3) when 3![1]w/[1] is equivalent to falpha(3).

So, I've sort of moved the goalposts, but if I hadn't, then you would have been right. Hopefully there shouldn't be any more major definition changes. (I'll check through the rest of the notation for any mistakes).