Mega
A mega, ②, is already a very large number, since ② =
square(square(2)) = square(triangle(triangle(2))) =
square(triangle(22)) =
square(triangle(4)) =
square(44) =
square(256) =
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(256)...))) [256 triangles] =
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(256256)...))) [255 triangles] ~
triangle(triangle(triangle(...triangle(3.2317 × 10616)...))) [254 triangles]
...
Using the other notation:
mega = 
With the function
we have mega =
where the superscript denotes a functional power, not a numerical power.
We have (note the convention that powers are evaluated from right to left):

≈
Similarly:



etc.
Thus:
- mega =
, where
denotes a functional power of the function
.
Rounding more crudely (replacing the 257 at the end by 256), we get mega ≈
, using Knuth's up-arrow notation.
After the first few steps the value of
is each time approximately equal to
. In fact, it is even approximately equal to
(see also approximate arithmetic for very large numbers). Using base 10 powers we get:

(
is added to the 616)
(
is added to the
, which is negligible; therefore just a 10 is added at the bottom)

...
- mega =
, where
denotes a functional power of the function
. Hence 
Moser's number
It has been proven that in Conway chained arrow notation,

and, in Knuth's up-arrow notation,

Therefore, Moser's number, although incomprehensibly large, is vanishingly small compared to Graham's number:
