Is destroying uncountably infinite universes Low 1-C?

[TheOrangeGuy09]

I always did not understand this part. If it is Low 1-C, then why so, because it does not prove significant size needed, it just proves higher dimensionality. A 1D line segment with length of 1 cm contains uncountably infinite 0D points (because there are uncountably infinite numbers between 0 and 2, even between 0 and 10^-10^-10^-10^-10^-10 there are still uncountably infinite numbers. Both are the same size in cardinality, mathematically, even the same size as set of all real numbers), a 2D 2 cm^2 square contains uncountably infinite line segments, and so on. This means that uncountably infinite points does not mean infinite line segment: it can be whatever finite length, even teeny-tiny. Therefore, uncountably infinite n-dimensional objects does not make up an infinitely-sized (n+1)dimensional construct by default: the (n+1)d dimensional construct's extra-dimension can be however small. The uncountable aspect only suggests a raise in cardinality/dimensionality. Therefore, via this principle, it would mean uncountably infinite universes would not result in infinitely-sized 5D structure; it would instead have uncountably infinitely-sized time axis, as well as the values of depth, width, and length of the universes it is made up of (which is usually either observable or infinite), but the 5th dimension can be whatever size. The 5th dimension can indeed be however small.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Bump ig

 

[Mbpoops]

2-A

 

[Thermor]

L1C as due to the universe being duplicated uncountably times, similar to how a hypertimeline works (as the additional temporal dimension duplicates the L2-C universe).

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

L1C as due to the universe being duplicated uncountably times,

Uncountably infinite universes does not equal significant size of the extra-axis, that’s what the post is about. Both 0.1 cm line segment and infinitely-sized line have same cardinality and uncountably infinite amount of 0D points, doesn’t mean that they are of equal size.

similar to how a hypertimeline works (as the additional temporal dimension duplicates the L2-C universe).

Time is another thing since it implies the length of the axis via time being infinite. Technically, even 0.00001 second of universe already contains uncountably infinite snapshots, but I doubt we’d give Low 1-C for erasing a fragment of time.

 

[Thermor]

Uncountably infinite universes does not equal significant size of the extra-axis, that’s what the post is about. Both 0.1 cm line segment and infinitely-sized line have same cardinality and uncountably infinite amount of 0D points, doesn’t mean that they are of equal size.

Time is another thing since it implies the length of the axis via time being infinite. Technically, even 0.00001 second of universe already contains uncountably infinite snapshots, but I doubt we’d give Low 1-C for erasing a fragment of time.

We already do? In the wiki standards, destroying multiple timelines can counts into higher value. Technically the present counts zero seconds as we are constant (so erasing it still valued the same).

 

[StrymULTRA]

This wiki is just arbitrary as hell.

I suppose that the answer is that in 2-A multiverse, it does contain a 5D space between all these universes, but that's assumed to be compactified so that said 2-A multiverse is not Low 1-C despite being a pseudo 5D thing. Meanwhile an infinite^infinite multiverse is more "direct" so it's easier to argue it's Low 1-C.

Answer so it's not good besides taking arbitrary decisions.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

We already do? In the wiki standards, destroying multiple timelines can counts into higher value. Technically the present counts zero seconds as we are constant (so erasing it still valued the same).

So would you give Low 2-C for erasing a second of the timeline from it?

I suppose that the answer is that in 2-A multiverse, it does contain a 5D space between all these universes, but that's assumed to be compactified so that said 2-A multiverse is not Low 1-C despite being a pseudo 5D thing.

I guess so, but even if 5D is compactified, it is still 5D, which no matter how small is uncountably infinite universes. Just like 10^-1000 cm line segment still has uncountably infinite points.

Meanwhile an infinite^infinite multiverse is more "direct" so it's easier to argue it's Low 1-C.

I think it just sounds more impressive but doesn’t really say anything about the size of the new axis tbh. It just proves higher cardinality/dimensionality.

This wiki is just arbitrary as hell.

Answer so it's not good besides taking arbitrary decisions.

I agree with arbitrary part regarding this, it's really weird to me.

 

[Arceus0x]

Basically, it's the points argument. On a coordinate line there is a point. That is a 0D object. When you make a line you get an uncountable infinity of points. A line is 1D. Then you take a u.infinity of lines and make a square which is 3D.

Same logic applies to timelines and multiverses.

A timeline is 4D because it has a u.infinity of 3D snapshots of the universe.

A multiverse with a u.infinity of 4D timelines would require it to be 5D as a u.infinity of timelines would require a whole new axis to contain.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Basically, it's the points argument. On a coordinate line there is a point. That is a 0D object. When you make a line you get an uncountable infinity of points. A line is 1D. Then you take a u.infinity of lines and make a square which is 3D.

The issue with this logic is that you miss the fact that line segment too has uncountably infinite points, no matter how small. [0, 0.1] is same cardinality as set of all real numbers, so line segment of 0.1 cm is same cardinality as an infinitely-sized line: they both have uncountably infinite points. This means merely having uncountably infinite points alone does not imply anything about size (“length”, “volume”, however you call it): it can be whatever and would still satisfy uncountably infinite part. I’m applying same logic on Multiversal scale: just because you have uncountably infinite universes does not mean that the formed 5D construct will be significant in size. New axis can be infinitely sized, or 1987 meters, or 10^-1983 meters, and still satisfy the evidence.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

Low 1-C isn't strictly about dimensions but size or "cardinality" too. So you can have a realm that views lower infinite sized one as infinitesimal and so on and tier it just fine.

 

[Deonment]

The issue with this logic is that you miss the fact that line segment too has uncountably infinite points, no matter how small. [0, 0.1] is same cardinality as set of all real numbers, so line segment of 0.1 cm is same cardinality as an infinitely-sized line: they both have uncountably infinite points. This means merely having uncountably infinite points alone does not imply anything about size (“length”, “volume”, however you call it): it can be whatever and would still satisfy uncountably infinite part. I’m applying same logic on Multiversal scale: just because you have uncountably infinite universes does not mean that the formed 5D construct will be significant in size. New axis can be infinitely sized, or 1987 meters, or 10^-1983 meters, and still satisfy the evidence.

Let me just
Here and here

Q: Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?
No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinitely many, won't be above a single 2-A structure in size.

Q: How do cardinal numbers relate to tiering?
A: Depends on the number in question. The answer varies depending on the specification.

Let's take the smallest infinite cardinal (aleph-0, or ℵ0, the cardinality of countably infinite sets) as an example in this case: A set comprised of a countably infinite number of 0-dimensional points is itself a 0-dimensional space under the usual notions of dimensionality, being thus still infinitely small. Meanwhile, a countably infinite number of planets is High 3-A, a countably infinite number of universes 2-A, and countably infinitely many dimensions High 1-B.

We then move on to the power set of ℵ0, P(ℵ0), which is an uncountably infinite quantity and represents the set of all the ways in which you can arrange the elements of a set whose cardinality is the former, and is also equal to the size of the set of all real numbers. In terms of points, one can say that everything from 1-dimensional space to (countably) infinite-dimensional space falls under it, as all of these spaces have the same number of elements (coordinates, in this case), in spite of each being infinitely larger than the preceding one by the intuitive notions of size that we regularly utilize (Area, Volume, etc.).

On the other hand, an P(ℵ0) number of universes is Low 1-C, and a similar number of spatial dimensions is High 1-B+.

From the FAQ
Your argument is still wrong for other reasons, I just don't want to argue them rn, so

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

Low 1-C isn't strictly about dimensions but size or "cardinality" too.

That’s the problem here. Size, as in “volume”, is not same as cardinality. 1 cm line segment and infinitely sized line segment share the same cardinality, although infinitely sized line is obviously infinitely bigger. Same here. My argument is that merely being higher cardinality should simply be higher dimensionality, not necessarily significant size.

Let me just
Here

I’m not arguing anything about 2-A but uncountably infinite amount of universes.

and here

This is exactly what I am contending though? Higher cardinality does not mean that new dimensional axis is significant in size.

Your argument is still wrong for other reasons, I just don't want to argue them rn, so

Feel free to do whenever you want to, I’m curious.

 

[Deonment]

I’m not arguing anything about 2-A but uncountably infinite amount of universes.
This is exactly what I am contending though? Higher cardinality does not mean that new dimensional axis is significant in size.

???
The first quote quite literally says that unless you have an uncountably many number of 2-A structures (which, for all intents and purposes here, is equivalent to Low 2-C universes) isn't Low 1-C, which
The second quote is quite literally explicit on this matter, that a P(N) number of universes is Low 1-C, which literally answers your question on the matter
The thing about "significant size" is our standards checking if we can assume the higher dimensional expressions of a structure are non-finite, and thus we can assume the higher dimensional aspect has a length of R, and thus we get R^5 (R*R*R*R*R) in the case of a 5D structure, and the size of the sum or a structure which can contain uncountably infinitie timlines is equal to that
But if I need to grab the more explicit quotes from the FAQ

In a way, yes, though not how most would think when using this word. Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on.

Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

The first quote quite literally says that unless you have an uncountably many number of 2-A structures (which, for all intents and purposes here, is equivalent to Low 2-C universes) isn't Low 1-C, which

Don’t you contradict this with:

Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

Which means that under current standards, uncountably infinite amount of universes is indeed Low 1-C, which is my point of contention.

Besides, don’t think 2-A will change much. Countably infinite amount of points won’t even make up a line segment. Unless there is some underlying logic that I’m not getting which changes the case?

The second quote is quite literally explicit on this matter, that a P(N) number of universes is Low 1-C, which literally answers your question on the matter

Not sure on that. P(N0) simply results into 2^N0 which is N1, but what would that guarantee that the extra-axis has significant size? All this higher cardinality only proves extra-axis, not its length, as I demonstrated with example earlier.

The thing about "significant size" is our standards checking if we can assume the higher dimensional expressions of a structure are non-finite, and thus we can assume the higher dimensional aspect has a length of R, and thus we get R^5 (R*R*R*R*R) in the case of a 5D structure

Sure.

the size of the sum or a structure which can contain uncountably infinitie timlines is equal to that

Hold on your horses here. Why? Uncountably infinite timelines simply have their time, length, depth, and width equal to original universes, but the fifth dimension is defined by this uncountability, which can be finite in size and much smaller than other 4 axises. Just like uncountably infinite points can form a 0.000001cm line segment.

But if I need to grab the more explicit quotes from the FAQ

I don’t deny that n-dimensional object contains uncountably infinite lower dimensional slices. My content is that assuming uncountably infinite lower dimensional sizes would automatically result into n-dimensional object with significant size. We don’t give tier for simply being n-dimensional.

 

[Mythic381]

because it does not prove significant size needed, it just proves higher dimensionality.

What do you mean? By standards, an insignificant 5th dimension would be the case for a countably infinite multiverse of 4-dimensional spacetimes, while a significant one would exist in the case of an uncountably infinite multiverse of 4-dimensional spacetimes.

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

What do you mean? By standards, an insignificant 5th dimension would be the case for a countably infinite multiverse of 4-dimensional spacetimes, while a significant one would exist in the case of an uncountably infinite multiverse of 4-dimensional spacetimes.

And that’s what I’m arguing is not the case mathematically. Any 1D line segment however small contains uncountably infinite points, while countably infinite points will never form a whole line and will forever be discreet 0D objects.