- 3,193
- 2,584
No ... inverse square rule dude
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
2-C to 2-A standards, the return
- Thread starter StrymULTRA
- Start date
- Status
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #82
- Is going on deraial now
- Is staff only, so shut up
- 14,831
- 12,258
I only quickly skimmed the thread as it's late.
The example in the OP is flawed, Asriel is not 2-B for scaling to lower-tiered characters, even though his reasoning doesn't reflect that. He was put at 2-B because it was assumed that that many timelines were created in Undertale's cosmology.
After the move this has been disputed in a thread and a downgrade to Low 2-C or 2-C seems likely.
There would obviously be a space between universes. If there wasn't, they would occupy the same space, which is nonsensical. If there's some non-spatial gap (whatever the hell that means) it's completely unquantifiable, even if it has been bridged once, so a multiplier to reach higher tiers through it is nonsensical.
Current 2-C to 2-A standards are dumb since they don't count the spaces between universes being multiplied as well, while they should.
Even if they are multiplied, we don't know the configuration of timelines to be able to accurately quantify the distance between them. There's any number of ways that they could be laid out that could give different results for destroying them. Since authors essentially never get into the weeds this much, we can't say what the requirements are or how they should equalize between different verses, so we don't tier accordingly.
The difference between Finite 2-D, Infinite 2-D and Finite 3-D is like the difference between 3-A (Finite 3-D). High 3-A (Infinite 3-D), Low 2-C (Finite 4-D), 2-C (Infinite 4-D), 2-B (A bigger Infinite 4-D, but still comparable to 2-C), and 2-A (A 4-D power infinitely greater than "baseline" infinite 4-D).
This is a complete misunderstanding of the tiering system. Low 2-C is not finite 4-D, it is infinite 4-D in all axes. 2-B and 2-A are unquantifiably higher steps in 4-D. Low 2-C is one R^4 space, 2-C is 2 to 1000 R^4 spaces, 2-B is 1000+ R^4 spaces, 2-A is infinitely many R^4 spaces. Low 1-C is a space of size R^5 to R^6, a space of size R^5 is also equivalent to uncountably infintely many R^4 spaces, or a qualitative superiority on any number of R^4 spaces.
Think a bit about it, as there is Finite 2-D, there are also bigger degrees of infinite 2-D power right? No matter how much the latter is big, even if is multiplied for infinity^infinity^infinity^... it would still be Infinite 2-D, but on different levels. Same with High 3-A, which is basically what I've said but 3-D.
This is incorrect. It sorta depends on whether you use ordinal math or cardinal math, but since we're talking about size cardinal math is more fitting. Infinity^infinity is actually uncountable infinity, which we equalize to a higher dimension, i.e. 3-D. So infinite^infinite 2-D power would be 3-D.
I've pointed out how actually Low 2-C and 2-C to 2-A have the same relation as 3-A and different degrees of High 3-A
This is false in every way.
Everything else I've seen when skimming this thread is the same stuff that has been addressed repeatedly and even has notes already written about it. I don't think any actual change for clarification needs to be written. We cannot feasibly write an entire dialogue of hundreds of posts back and forth into the tiering system page, and we've already given a basic statement on why we don't allow multipliers here.
The example in the OP is flawed, Asriel is not 2-B for scaling to lower-tiered characters, even though his reasoning doesn't reflect that. He was put at 2-B because it was assumed that that many timelines were created in Undertale's cosmology.
After the move this has been disputed in a thread and a downgrade to Low 2-C or 2-C seems likely.
There would obviously be a space between universes. If there wasn't, they would occupy the same space, which is nonsensical. If there's some non-spatial gap (whatever the hell that means) it's completely unquantifiable, even if it has been bridged once, so a multiplier to reach higher tiers through it is nonsensical.
Current 2-C to 2-A standards are dumb since they don't count the spaces between universes being multiplied as well, while they should.
Even if they are multiplied, we don't know the configuration of timelines to be able to accurately quantify the distance between them. There's any number of ways that they could be laid out that could give different results for destroying them. Since authors essentially never get into the weeds this much, we can't say what the requirements are or how they should equalize between different verses, so we don't tier accordingly.
The difference between Finite 2-D, Infinite 2-D and Finite 3-D is like the difference between 3-A (Finite 3-D). High 3-A (Infinite 3-D), Low 2-C (Finite 4-D), 2-C (Infinite 4-D), 2-B (A bigger Infinite 4-D, but still comparable to 2-C), and 2-A (A 4-D power infinitely greater than "baseline" infinite 4-D).
This is a complete misunderstanding of the tiering system. Low 2-C is not finite 4-D, it is infinite 4-D in all axes. 2-B and 2-A are unquantifiably higher steps in 4-D. Low 2-C is one R^4 space, 2-C is 2 to 1000 R^4 spaces, 2-B is 1000+ R^4 spaces, 2-A is infinitely many R^4 spaces. Low 1-C is a space of size R^5 to R^6, a space of size R^5 is also equivalent to uncountably infintely many R^4 spaces, or a qualitative superiority on any number of R^4 spaces.
Think a bit about it, as there is Finite 2-D, there are also bigger degrees of infinite 2-D power right? No matter how much the latter is big, even if is multiplied for infinity^infinity^infinity^... it would still be Infinite 2-D, but on different levels. Same with High 3-A, which is basically what I've said but 3-D.
This is incorrect. It sorta depends on whether you use ordinal math or cardinal math, but since we're talking about size cardinal math is more fitting. Infinity^infinity is actually uncountable infinity, which we equalize to a higher dimension, i.e. 3-D. So infinite^infinite 2-D power would be 3-D.
I've pointed out how actually Low 2-C and 2-C to 2-A have the same relation as 3-A and different degrees of High 3-A
This is false in every way.
Everything else I've seen when skimming this thread is the same stuff that has been addressed repeatedly and even has notes already written about it. I don't think any actual change for clarification needs to be written. We cannot feasibly write an entire dialogue of hundreds of posts back and forth into the tiering system page, and we've already given a basic statement on why we don't allow multipliers here.
Last edited:
- 15,707
- 7,675
I also shared AKM's views on the thread.
Just a minor thing, infinite ^ infinite is not uncountable infinite. Uncountable infinite is greater like infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite... (repeated infinitely), from my talk with Aeyu. I agree with Angaa's other recent points above.
Just a minor thing, infinite ^ infinite is not uncountable infinite. Uncountable infinite is greater like infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite... (repeated infinitely), from my talk with Aeyu. I agree with Angaa's other recent points above.
Last edited:
- 11,061
- 13,753
That's not how it works for even multi-solar system level or multi-galaxy level even if you can destroy 2 of them. Simply put, we don't know anything about the arrangement of universes in a dimension that is beyond 3-D and math doesn't work either. It's all just a big conjecture. The only way to accurately calculate it is by how many universes you can destroy and that is shown by feats, not multipliers.
- 40,446
- 12,912
No it’s not. Who told you that?
- 40,446
- 12,912
It’s not. Not within 2-C anyway. Just Low 2-C.
- 3,252
- 1,092
Wait, speaking of it, how is Takion only 2-B? Speed Force is much higher than this.
- 164,997
- 71,750
- 3,193
- 2,584
Are you agreeing with the OP then ?
- 40,446
- 12,912
More or less
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #95
With a CRT that's not been accepted yet, Asriel still is 2-B and will keep be, since that CRT legimately died, so he will be a valid example anyways
What are you talking about? If is crossed is not an issue anymore for these multiplers since is multiplied as well, making them able to include new universes as is multiplied, regardless of now arranged and distant these universes are
So? This still doesen't disprove my point at all
From when Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D? Nothing remtely implied so even in the tiering page.
As already explained above, infinite^infinite isn't an higher-D
How so? We literally treat 2-C as beyond infinite times above Low 2-C, to the point that a Low 2-C, even with an infinite multipler, wouldn't reach 2-C, so ofc 2-C on the wiki is beyond infinite times Low 2-C, is kinda implied that 2-C for Low 2-C is like High 3-A for 3-A.
Inb4 "but is unquantifiable not infinite!" because we actually threat the difference as even beyond infinite, you all are contradicting yourselves just to defend your current ratings.
We all already got that the distance between universes for the standards of this wiki is something beyond infinite, and I've actually explained how values from 2-C to 2-A are just sub-tiers of an AP value beyond Finite 4-D, since we treat Low 2-C as Finite 4-D and 2-C and above as Infinite 4-D. I'm literally giving an opinion which doesen't contradict the standards of this wiki, and y'all are going against them, making the tiering system contradictory. Again treating 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as diffrerent, but comparable levels of infinite 4-D AP defintely fits this wiki standars more than counting 2-B as an inacessible level for 2-C.
Last edited:
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #96
Bump
- 29,894
- 30,908
Agnaa explained it well in detail.
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #98
With what? Explanations already debunked and countered? Their arguments are kinda contradicting the wiki standards, as I've already explained before
- 11,061
- 13,753
Please wait at least 12-24 hours before bumping a thread.
- 3,193
- 2,584
"Low 2-C | Universe level+: Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. Common fictional examples of spaces representing such sizes are space-time continuums of a universal scale." - pretty sure that counts as infinite 4-D
This is the first time I have heard of Low 2-C being finite 4-D. In fact, finite 4-D power used to be treated as High 3-A and there is currently no Tier for that
This is the first time I have heard of Low 2-C being finite 4-D. In fact, finite 4-D power used to be treated as High 3-A and there is currently no Tier for that
Last edited:
- 5,461
- 12,442
What makes you say that, exactly? If we take universes to be lined up across a larger 5-dimensional space, then the amount of space between them wouldn't have to increase whatsoever so more universes can occupy it, though I admitedly am not exactly too fond of assuming the existence of the "5-D block" by default.
I don't see the point you are trying make, anyway. How does a character multiplying their power relate to the space between universes becoming larger? And how does this suddenly validate multipliers? At least elaborate on why that's the case.
A universe that is infinite both spatially and temporally would be an object with infinite 4-volume, which, in layman's terms, would mean that its size is infinite on a 4-dimensional scale. Such a universe would still be Low 2-C, and so "infinite 4-D power" (In the way most people mean when they use that term) would still fall under this tier.
By the way, I should note that I am mostly neutral on the premise of this thread. I am just addressing arguments which I think are founded on bad reasoning.
Last edited:
- 14,831
- 12,258
Just a minor thing, infinite ^ infinite is not uncountable infinite. Uncountable infinite would be like infinite ^ infinite ^ infinite... (repeated infinitely), from my talk with Aeyu. I agree with Angaa's other recent points above.
Like I said, it depends on whether you're doing ordinal math (think omega, omega+1, omega*omega, omega^omega, etc.) or cardinal math (involving alephs, beths, etc.) In cardinal math, even 2^infinity is a higher infinity. But under ordinal math, no amount of stacking will get you to a higher infinity. I have discussed this extensively with Aeyu/Ultima and looked into the math behind it; my statement here is correct.
But like I said I think cardinal math is more fitting for how we treat tiers. Ordinals are about order, cardinals are about size. Under ordinals infinity+1 comes later and so could in some way be described as "bigger" but that's not how we treat tiers like 2-A. Under cardinal math infinity+1, infinity*3, or even infinity*infinity are all the same size, you have to get to exponentiation to get higher infinities.
With a CRT that's not been accepted yet, Asriel still is 2-B and will keep be, since that CRT legimately died, so he will be a valid example anyways
That's not the only reason that your example is flawed, as I explained in my post.
What are you talking about? If is crossed is not an issue anymore for these multiplers since is multiplied as well, making them able to include new universes as is multiplied, regardless of now arranged and distant these universes are
I don't understand how it's not an issue. If they're arranged in particular ways or more distant then we cannot know what multiplier is needed to bridge any given gap.
From when Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D? Nothing remtely implied so even in the tiering page.
From when the tiers were made. It's not implied on the tiering page because Ultima is lazy and bad, but as someone who discussed it extensively when the new tiering system was proposed, I can confirm that it's infinite 4-D, and pretty much always has been. Tier 2 is getting increasingly many timelines on a theoretical 5-D axis.
As already explained above, infinite^infinite isn't an higher-D
You are incorrect.
How so? We literally treat 2-C as beyond infinite times above Low 2-C, to the point that a Low 2-C, even with an infinite multipler, wouldn't reach 2-C, so ofc 2-C on the wiki is beyond infinite times Low 2-C, is kinda implied that 2-C for Low 2-C is like High 3-A for 3-A.
Oh if you put it that way I guess so? I don't really think about different degrees of High 3-A but I guess multiple infinite universes would probably correspond to differences in tier 2. But then again, they'd most likely have to have different time to be treated like that, which would make them timelines anyway. But regardless, 3-A shouldn't really be included there, since there isn't a finite 4-D tier.
Like I said, it depends on whether you're doing ordinal math (think omega, omega+1, omega*omega, omega^omega, etc.) or cardinal math (involving alephs, beths, etc.) In cardinal math, even 2^infinity is a higher infinity. But under ordinal math, no amount of stacking will get you to a higher infinity. I have discussed this extensively with Aeyu/Ultima and looked into the math behind it; my statement here is correct.
But like I said I think cardinal math is more fitting for how we treat tiers. Ordinals are about order, cardinals are about size. Under ordinals infinity+1 comes later and so could in some way be described as "bigger" but that's not how we treat tiers like 2-A. Under cardinal math infinity+1, infinity*3, or even infinity*infinity are all the same size, you have to get to exponentiation to get higher infinities.
With a CRT that's not been accepted yet, Asriel still is 2-B and will keep be, since that CRT legimately died, so he will be a valid example anyways
That's not the only reason that your example is flawed, as I explained in my post.
What are you talking about? If is crossed is not an issue anymore for these multiplers since is multiplied as well, making them able to include new universes as is multiplied, regardless of now arranged and distant these universes are
I don't understand how it's not an issue. If they're arranged in particular ways or more distant then we cannot know what multiplier is needed to bridge any given gap.
From when Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D? Nothing remtely implied so even in the tiering page.
From when the tiers were made. It's not implied on the tiering page because Ultima is lazy and bad, but as someone who discussed it extensively when the new tiering system was proposed, I can confirm that it's infinite 4-D, and pretty much always has been. Tier 2 is getting increasingly many timelines on a theoretical 5-D axis.
As already explained above, infinite^infinite isn't an higher-D
You are incorrect.
How so? We literally treat 2-C as beyond infinite times above Low 2-C, to the point that a Low 2-C, even with an infinite multipler, wouldn't reach 2-C, so ofc 2-C on the wiki is beyond infinite times Low 2-C, is kinda implied that 2-C for Low 2-C is like High 3-A for 3-A.
Oh if you put it that way I guess so? I don't really think about different degrees of High 3-A but I guess multiple infinite universes would probably correspond to differences in tier 2. But then again, they'd most likely have to have different time to be treated like that, which would make them timelines anyway. But regardless, 3-A shouldn't really be included there, since there isn't a finite 4-D tier.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Human Resources
- 16,855
- 7,302
"I don't get why, for example if a character able to destroy 2 universes, multiplied their power x 1000, wouldn't be able to destroy 2000 universes, since not only the amount of universes is multipled, but even the quantity of spaces between universes as well."
Would we be able to assume that the distance between them is consistent? Also, a straight multiplier like that doesn't often scale linearly. I'll equate to stars cause why not.
Blowing up the solar system from Saturn is 105 kilofoe. Now, let's do a quick calc with 210 kilofoe and an unknown distance.
4*(5.693x10^41)*((D)/(6.957x10^8))^2 = 2.1059611302×10^49
((D)/(6.957x10^8))^2=9248028.8521
((D)/(6.957x10^8))=3041.05719316
D=2.1156634893*10^12
But uh oh, that is actually slightly less than two times the original distance. 2*(1.49610^12) is actually 2.992*10^12.
As such, we can't reliably say something twice as strong will have a radius twice as far, as it's not a linear relationship.
As such, I don't think we should use multipliers to universes like this.
Would we be able to assume that the distance between them is consistent? Also, a straight multiplier like that doesn't often scale linearly. I'll equate to stars cause why not.
Blowing up the solar system from Saturn is 105 kilofoe. Now, let's do a quick calc with 210 kilofoe and an unknown distance.
4*(5.693x10^41)*((D)/(6.957x10^8))^2 = 2.1059611302×10^49
((D)/(6.957x10^8))^2=9248028.8521
((D)/(6.957x10^8))=3041.05719316
D=2.1156634893*10^12
But uh oh, that is actually slightly less than two times the original distance. 2*(1.49610^12) is actually 2.992*10^12.
As such, we can't reliably say something twice as strong will have a radius twice as far, as it's not a linear relationship.
As such, I don't think we should use multipliers to universes like this.
- 15,589
- 10,502
i did i think
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #105
Oh if you put it that way I guess so? I don't really think about different degrees of High 3-A but I guess multiple infinite universes would probably correspond to differences in tier 2. But then again, they'd most likely have to have different time to be treated like that, which would make them timelines anyway. But regardless, 3-A shouldn't really be included there, since there isn't a finite 4-D tier.
I mean, my example still stands, since, regardless of if Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D or not, we still treat 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as AP values infinitely above Low 2-C, meaning that Low 2-C is still "finite" comparated to them.
Aka if you think at Low 2-C as finite and 2-C/2-A as infinite, my idea still is on, since they are still sub-tiers of values of infinities above Low 2-C, which are still comparable and not inacessible to each other.
I mean, my example still stands, since, regardless of if Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D or not, we still treat 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as AP values infinitely above Low 2-C, meaning that Low 2-C is still "finite" comparated to them.
Aka if you think at Low 2-C as finite and 2-C/2-A as infinite, my idea still is on, since they are still sub-tiers of values of infinities above Low 2-C, which are still comparable and not inacessible to each other.
- 14,831
- 12,258
I mean, my example still stands, since, regardless of if Low 2-C is Infinite 4-D or not, we still treat 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as AP values infinitely above Low 2-C, meaning that Low 2-C is still "finite" comparated to them.
No, X being infinitely larger than Y does not make Y finite. That's not how mathematics works.
Aka if you think at Low 2-C as finite and 2-C/2-A as infinite, my idea still is on, since they are still sub-tiers of values of infinities above Low 2-C.
I don't even understand whatever implications you're trying to draw from that statement.
Inb4 "but is unquantifiable not infinite!" because we actually threat the difference as even beyond infinite, you all are contradicting yourselves just to defend your current ratings.
"Unquantifiable" doesn't mean "It's beyond infinite". It means "It could be 2x, it could be 20x, it could be 10^10^10x, it could be infinitely bigger, it could be more than infinitely bigger". There's not a contradiction there if we don't know where the **** to put it.
No, X being infinitely larger than Y does not make Y finite. That's not how mathematics works.
Aka if you think at Low 2-C as finite and 2-C/2-A as infinite, my idea still is on, since they are still sub-tiers of values of infinities above Low 2-C.
I don't even understand whatever implications you're trying to draw from that statement.
Inb4 "but is unquantifiable not infinite!" because we actually threat the difference as even beyond infinite, you all are contradicting yourselves just to defend your current ratings.
"Unquantifiable" doesn't mean "It's beyond infinite". It means "It could be 2x, it could be 20x, it could be 10^10^10x, it could be infinitely bigger, it could be more than infinitely bigger". There's not a contradiction there if we don't know where the **** to put it.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Human Resources
- 16,855
- 7,302
As seen by the rest of my comment, twice the power doesn't necessarily get you twice the distance. Even if we assume the distance is consistent (which contradicts what equivalence we got this from anyways) the multipliers would still not really work.
- 15,589
- 10,502
welp whatever, i ain't expecting this to go through. nothing of this sort ever goes through.
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #110
No, X being infinitely larger than Y does not make Y finite. That's not how mathematics works.
I knew that such a ""counter"" came. I said COMPARATED to them, since we treat 2-C to 2-A tiers as infinitely above Low 2-C.
Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?
If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.
This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
I don't even understand whatever implications you're trying to draw from that statement.
Simple, try to think at Low 2-C as 3-A and at 2-C as High 3-A, since in this wiki they have a similar gap.
I'm just saying that, a "3-D" equivalent of 2-B would be x1001 times above the baseline High 3-A, and the equivalent of 2-A would be infinite times above High 3-A.
To make you understand, I'll make this table to show you more what I mean.
And yet on the wiki we treat the distance as even beyond infinite because of this, my idea fits the way we compare he AP of a 2-C with the AP of a Low 2-C more than the current tier.
I knew that such a ""counter"" came. I said COMPARATED to them, since we treat 2-C to 2-A tiers as infinitely above Low 2-C.
Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?
If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.
This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
I don't even understand whatever implications you're trying to draw from that statement.
Simple, try to think at Low 2-C as 3-A and at 2-C as High 3-A, since in this wiki they have a similar gap.
I'm just saying that, a "3-D" equivalent of 2-B would be x1001 times above the baseline High 3-A, and the equivalent of 2-A would be infinite times above High 3-A.
To make you understand, I'll make this table to show you more what I mean.
3-D | 4-D
3-A | Low 2-C
High 3-A | 2-C
x1001 High 3-A | 2-B
x Infinite High 3-A | 2-A
"Unquantifiable" doesn't mean "It's beyond infinite". It means "It could be 2x, it could be 20x, it could be 10^10^10x, it could be infinitely bigger, it could be more than infinitely bigger". There's not a contradiction there if we don't know where the **** to put it.3-A | Low 2-C
High 3-A | 2-C
x1001 High 3-A | 2-B
x Infinite High 3-A | 2-A
And yet on the wiki we treat the distance as even beyond infinite because of this, my idea fits the way we compare he AP of a 2-C with the AP of a Low 2-C more than the current tier.
XSOULOFCINDERX
They/Them- 18,468
- 7,262
StrymUltra makes sense to me.
- 6,590
- 1,698
That's because you need to quadruple an explosions power to double it's radius based on what I've seen. If we doubled it's distance, the power would increase by 4.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Human Resources
- 16,855
- 7,302
[I]since we treat [B]2-C[/B] to [B]2-A[/B] tiers as infinitely above [B]Low 2-C[/B].[/I]This is actually wrong, at least when it comes to non 2-A. The issue isn't that they're infinitely superior, but that we can't know how superior they are because a distance between the universes isn't something we have a real life equivalence for and is usually left unspecified. We don't let them reach higher tiers because we want to make as few assumptions about this distance as possible.
It does leave me wondering what we would do when something has a specified distance between universes, or has context indicating the distance between them isn;t very far, like in Worm, but that's of secondary concern.
- 14,831
- 12,258
I knew that such a ""counter"" came. I said COMPARATED to them, since we treat 2-C to 2-A tiers as infinitely above Low 2-C.
Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?
If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.
This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
No, I'm 99% sure that's not how infinities are compared to each other. I'm 99% sure lower infinities are 0 compared to higher infinities. I guess you could argue that's finite but a lot of nuance is missed since it's not like they're the number 20.
Simple, try to think at Low 2-C as 3-A and at 2-C as High 3-A, since in this wiki they have a similar gap.
I understand the words you're saying, but what are the practical conclusions of that? What does that comparison tell us to do?
And yet on the wiki we treat the distance as even beyond infinite because of this, my idea fits the way we compare he AP of a 2-C with the AP of a Low 2-C more than the current tier.
I already responded to that retort in the part you're responding to. Not knowing doesn't mean it's beyond infinite.
Like if X is 1, and Y is Infinity, is logical that 1 is a finite number comparated to Y, right?
If we take Z, which is Infinity x Infinity, Y comparated to Z is finite like X is for Y.
This however doesen't make Y objectively a finite number, but makes it finite comparated to Z, simple as that.
No, I'm 99% sure that's not how infinities are compared to each other. I'm 99% sure lower infinities are 0 compared to higher infinities. I guess you could argue that's finite but a lot of nuance is missed since it's not like they're the number 20.
Simple, try to think at Low 2-C as 3-A and at 2-C as High 3-A, since in this wiki they have a similar gap.
I understand the words you're saying, but what are the practical conclusions of that? What does that comparison tell us to do?
And yet on the wiki we treat the distance as even beyond infinite because of this, my idea fits the way we compare he AP of a 2-C with the AP of a Low 2-C more than the current tier.
I already responded to that retort in the part you're responding to. Not knowing doesn't mean it's beyond infinite.
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #115
No, I'm 99% sure that's not how infinities are compared to each other. I'm 99% sure lower infinities are 0 compared to higher infinities. I guess you could argue that's finite but a lot of nuance is missed since it's not like they're the number 20.
Damn lmao, I thought I was clear, however in my example, as X is 0 comparated to Y, Y is 0 comparated to Z, as Z and Y are infinitely above the previous letter.
I understand the words you're saying, but what are the practical conclusions of that? What does that comparison tell us to do? I already responded to that retort in the part you're responding to. Not knowing doesn't mean it's beyond infinite.
I'm saying that in this wiki we TREAT 2-C as something beyond infinitely above Low 2-C, because of this unknown distance between them, so we can't even assume an infinite multipler making a Low 2-C jump to 2-C. I'm just suggesting ideas based on how we treat these tiers between each other, and my method fits this approach to these tiers more than the Tiering System surrently does.
Aka saying that 2-C is like a thing beyond infinite times above Low 2-C is a reasonable Low-End that is accepted from everyone, and such, treating 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as sub-sets of infinities above Low 2-C respects this Low End we've taken for Tier 2. more than the way the current Tiering System does.
Damn lmao, I thought I was clear, however in my example, as X is 0 comparated to Y, Y is 0 comparated to Z, as Z and Y are infinitely above the previous letter.
I understand the words you're saying, but what are the practical conclusions of that? What does that comparison tell us to do? I already responded to that retort in the part you're responding to. Not knowing doesn't mean it's beyond infinite.
I'm saying that in this wiki we TREAT 2-C as something beyond infinitely above Low 2-C, because of this unknown distance between them, so we can't even assume an infinite multipler making a Low 2-C jump to 2-C. I'm just suggesting ideas based on how we treat these tiers between each other, and my method fits this approach to these tiers more than the Tiering System surrently does.
Aka saying that 2-C is like a thing beyond infinite times above Low 2-C is a reasonable Low-End that is accepted from everyone, and such, treating 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as sub-sets of infinities above Low 2-C respects this Low End we've taken for Tier 2. more than the way the current Tiering System does.
- 14,831
- 12,258
Damn lmao, I thought I was clear, however in my example, as X is 0 comparated to Y, Y is 0 comparated to Z, as Z and Y are infinitely above the previous letter.
Oh okay, your example did use 1 not 0 tho.
I'm saying that in this wiki we TREAT 2-C as something beyond infinitely above Low 2-C, because of this unknown distance between them, so we can't even assume an infinite multipler making a Low 2-C jump to 2-C. I'm just suggesting ideas based on how we treat these tiers between each other, and my method fits this approach to these tiers more than the Tiering System surrently does.
Aka saying that 2-C is like a thing beyond infinite times above Low 2-C is a reasonable Low-End that is accepted from everyone, and such, treating 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as sub-sets of infinities above Low 2-C respects this Low End we've taken for Tier 2. more than the way the current Tiering System does.
I guess that's possible but feels unnecessary, I think the current way of treating it is fine. So just write me down as neutral, but I'd really prefer that @Ultima_Reality accepts that sorta thing before it's implemented.
Oh okay, your example did use 1 not 0 tho.
I'm saying that in this wiki we TREAT 2-C as something beyond infinitely above Low 2-C, because of this unknown distance between them, so we can't even assume an infinite multipler making a Low 2-C jump to 2-C. I'm just suggesting ideas based on how we treat these tiers between each other, and my method fits this approach to these tiers more than the Tiering System surrently does.
Aka saying that 2-C is like a thing beyond infinite times above Low 2-C is a reasonable Low-End that is accepted from everyone, and such, treating 2-C, 2-B and 2-A as sub-sets of infinities above Low 2-C respects this Low End we've taken for Tier 2. more than the way the current Tiering System does.
I guess that's possible but feels unnecessary, I think the current way of treating it is fine. So just write me down as neutral, but I'd really prefer that @Ultima_Reality accepts that sorta thing before it's implemented.
- 14,831
- 12,258
I told Dee/Aeyu about these revisions and these are her responses.
In relation to finite multipliers:
In relation to finite multipliers:
In relation to infinite multipliers:
In response to "If we're saying that infinitely stronger doesn't work that means we can just say it's beyond infinite as a reasonable low-end"
- 15,918
- 2,680
I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
On a side note, since someone showed an example of a verse telling us the distance between universes, applying multipliers for that particular verse would be acceptable once calcs made for destroying universes using the distance given are made.
On a side note, since someone showed an example of a verse telling us the distance between universes, applying multipliers for that particular verse would be acceptable once calcs made for destroying universes using the distance given are made.
- 12,428
- 4,539
- Thread starter
- #119
We are saying with the above there is 2 R ^ 4 expanses. Simply being * 2 the strength necessary to bust a spacetime is too vague. 2* galaxy level isn't multigalaxy level. On top of that, "1000 times bigger" than an uncountably infinite quantity is just kind of schwemn.
False equivalence, I never stated such, I just said that since even the space between universes is bypassed, is multiplied too. The reason why Galaxy x 2 = still Galaxy, is because the distance between galaxies isn't bypassed, but once the same multipler is applied on Multi-Galaxy, x2 Galaxies become x4 Galaxies since even the space between them is doubled.
This is vague. The distance can't be determined to be infinite or not. We can't know the distance. Therefore feats should only apply to affecting specific areas
Indeed, that's why we say that even an infinite multipler isn't enough for a Low 2-C reach 2-C, to respect this low end we have towards such high tiers.
That's a bigger assumption than we use now though. And what is "beyond infinite"? The system doesn't work on vague generalities like that
We kinda do, since this guy is literally beyond another Low 2-C, and yet is still just Low 2-C, even if infinitely above the baseline, aka is more than logical that the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is beyond infinite, due to how we treat such characters.
I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
Again, 4-B x 2 = still 4-B because the distance between Solar Systems isn't bypassed, once you did it, multiplers affect even the space as I've already explained with 3-C. Plus, I've alraedy explained a better way to treat 2-C to 2-A, in a way which fits more our approach to tier 2 than this wiki currently does, read this.
False equivalence, I never stated such, I just said that since even the space between universes is bypassed, is multiplied too. The reason why Galaxy x 2 = still Galaxy, is because the distance between galaxies isn't bypassed, but once the same multipler is applied on Multi-Galaxy, x2 Galaxies become x4 Galaxies since even the space between them is doubled.
This is vague. The distance can't be determined to be infinite or not. We can't know the distance. Therefore feats should only apply to affecting specific areas
Indeed, that's why we say that even an infinite multipler isn't enough for a Low 2-C reach 2-C, to respect this low end we have towards such high tiers.
That's a bigger assumption than we use now though. And what is "beyond infinite"? The system doesn't work on vague generalities like that
We kinda do, since this guy is literally beyond another Low 2-C, and yet is still just Low 2-C, even if infinitely above the baseline, aka is more than logical that the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is beyond infinite, due to how we treat such characters.
I mean, the reason multipliers aren't counted between 2-C and 2-B is simply because of the same reason 2x baseline 4-B isn't 4-A, the distance between both objects makes it so the gap between destroying 1 solar system and destroying 2 is of literal trillions. Because of this, combined with the unknown distance between universes, means that we can't calculate how much is the multiplier that would be needed to jump from one tier to another is. In short, it is possible to jump from 2-C to 2-B via multiplier, but without the ability calculate how much does that multiplier need to be, we can't tier it.
Again, 4-B x 2 = still 4-B because the distance between Solar Systems isn't bypassed, once you did it, multiplers affect even the space as I've already explained with 3-C. Plus, I've alraedy explained a better way to treat 2-C to 2-A, in a way which fits more our approach to tier 2 than this wiki currently does, read this.
.
- 14,831
- 12,258
I think there is a very worthy distinction to make between "We don't know, it could be finite, it could be infinite, it could be more than infinite" and "We know what it is, it is more than infinite, and we will require that to jump tiers".
It feels like we currently have the former, and you're suggesting the latter. I think it's fine to keep things the way they are.
It feels like we currently have the former, and you're suggesting the latter. I think it's fine to keep things the way they are.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
