So this time I drew it out, I need opinions on this and if I should improve it. Basically, there’s two “levels” that it works on. The primary level is indicated right next to H, the secondary level is indicated in parenthesis. If we start with a number, let’s say 2, on H0(1), we can say the next level will have 2 secondary levels, and the amount of up arrows will be 1 as the previous level had only 1 secondary level. This makes H1(1) equal to 2(up arrow)2. Which is (I think) equal to 4. So now we have H1(2), which is 4(four up arrows)4. This means that for the next primary level, H2, there will be 4(four up arrows)4 secondary levels for it. I’m not really sure if this makes sense lol, but the amount of secondary levels is equal to the number that was computed at the highest of the previous primary level, and the amount of up arrows is equal to the number itself, which is defined by what the last number is equal to. I wrote it out on paper this time so that it’s easier to understand. Also, secondary levels are NOT “levels”. They are simply the amount of steps it takes to reach the actual, primary level. Meaning that it really goes from

H0 = 2
H1 = 4(for up arrows)4
H2 = x
(H3 will have x number of secondary levels)

Also, the output of the highest secondary level will be equal to the actual primary level itself, as shown above

Repost of my fast growing function