does this grant High 1-A ?

[Napoleondevious]

High 1-A is described as ; "Characters or objects who transcend 1-A characters in the same vein that 1-A characters transcend the rest of the system. That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-A represents a "meta"-qualitative superiority."

and 1-A ; "Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle."

lets say there is a hierarchy of 1-A, and another character views each of the member of this hierarchy as equally 'nothing' reducing the differentiation between them to fiction, would this grant High 1-A ? as the addition of layers would still be viewed as perfectly nothing from his POV just like a 1-A character seeing a 1D and a 9D space as equally empty, so that would make the transcandant being operate on another system that transcands what r>f can do ?

 

[Napoleondevious]

bump!!

 

[Wesker018]

lets say there is a hierarchy of 1-A, and another character views each of the member of this hierarchy as equally 'nothing' reducing the differentiation between them to fiction, would this grant High 1-A ? as the addition of layers would still be viewed as perfectly nothing from his POV just like a 1-A character seeing a 1D and a 9D space as equally empty, so that would make the transcandant being operate on another system that transcands what r>f can do ?

yeah, pretty sure that is high 1-A , mainly because of the phrase I marked there.

 

[Grabbing_dragon]

lets say there is a hierarchy of 1-A, and another character views each of the member of this hierarchy as equally 'nothing' reducing the differentiation between them to fiction, would this grant High 1-A ? as the addition of layers would still be viewed as perfectly nothing from his POV just like a 1-A character seeing a 1D and a 9D space as equally empty, so that would make the transcandant being operate on another system that transcands what r>f can do ?

Nope because all the layers in 1A are like that

 

[Wesker018]

Nope because all the layers in 1A are like that

Trascending the differentiation/distintion of two beigns that have a qualititive difference between them, it´s in fact High 1-A, Just look at the dragon talisman thread. (asumming the hierarchy mencioned by the OP is 1-A, 1-A + 1 layer, 1-A + 2 layers, etc )

 

[Napoleondevious]

Trascending the differentiation/distintion of two beigns that have a qualititive difference between them, it´s in fact High 1-A, Just look at the dragon talisman thread. (asumming the hierarchy mencioned by the OP is 1-A, 1-A + 1 layer, 1-A + 2 layers, etc )

Thanks alot, it makes sense with an analogy of dimensional tiering from the perspective of a 1-A being

 

[SweetDao]

lets say there is a hierarchy of 1-A, and another character views each of the member of this hierarchy as equally 'nothing' reducing the differentiation between them to fiction, would this grant High 1-A ? as the addition of layers would still be viewed as perfectly nothing from his POV just like a 1-A character seeing a 1D and a 9D space as equally empty, so that would make the transcandant being operate on another system that transcands what r>f can do ?

It could with further evidence, I'd say. If you have a statement like the character transcending the very concept of R>F (or the common genus used for the 1-A hierarchy) it would be High 1-A.

With him only seeing the member of the hierarchy/hierarchy itself as "nothing", it's kinda too vague.

 

[Napoleondevious]

It could with further evidence, I'd say. If you have a statement like the character transcending the very concept of R>F (or the common genus used for the 1-A hierarchy) it would be High 1-A.

With him only seeing the member of the hierarchy/hierarchy itself as "nothing", it's kinda too vague.

well, wouldnt him viewing the difference between them as nothing conclude the system (r>f layers) cant reach him? hence working in a whole different system governing its power ? and be sufficient proof, because its quite literally the only requirements to qualify for 1-A ;
just like what 1-A does to dimensional system and viewing their differences as nothing in addition to them being nothing

 

[Napoleondevious]

Trascending the differentiation/distintion of two beigns that have a qualititive difference between them, it´s in fact High 1-A, Just look at the dragon talisman thread. (asumming the hierarchy mencioned by the OP is 1-A, 1-A + 1 layer, 1-A + 2 layers, etc )

what does OP mean ?

 

[SweetDao]

well, wouldnt him viewing the difference between them as nothing conclude the system (r>f layers) cant reach him?

Not really. That's like saying because you see the difference between A (starting number) and B (whatever you wish to be) as nothing you'll be above math as a whole, which is really shaky tbf.

Again, "not reaching him" is not sufficient. An aleph can never reach an inaccessible cardinal, yet, it's still within the "genus" of maths.

hence working in a whole different system governing its power ?

You'd have to prove this, hence why I said you'd need a statement like "he's above the idea of layers of reality" for example. Obviously this isn't the only way, but that's the most straightforward I can think of.

just like what 1-A does to dimensional system and viewing their differences as nothing in addition to them being nothing

High 1-A isn't about "being bigger/better/ qualitatively higher" than whatever 1-A layer, being or structure you can't think of, it's about being above the "genus" that makes those being exist in the first place.

While within the hierarchy of 1-A, the higher layer see the lower as fiction (let's assume this for the example), hence making them "+1" compared to the lower one, it's not because another being outside the hierarchy being "(hierarchy) + 1" necessarily means it's above the very genus of "R>F", just that the gap is "bigger".

 

[Napoleondevious]

Not really. That's like saying because you see the difference between A (starting number) and B (whatever you wish to be) as nothing you'll be above math as a whole, which is really shaky tbf.

well that would just be beyond any possible numbers ? each of them representing a layer

Again, "not reaching him" is not sufficient. An aleph can never reach an inaccessible cardinal, yet, it's still within the "genus" of maths.

aleph cannot reach inaccessible cardinal unless with high iteration like infinite powersets and self recursions aleph(aleph(aleph...(P(P(P...)))))), which is basically the iterated process of adding something within the same framework (they can be constructed)

You'd have to prove this, hence why I said you'd need a statement like "he's above the idea of layers of reality" for example. Obviously this isn't the only way, but that's the most straightforward I can think of.


High 1-A isn't about "being bigger/better/ qualitatively higher" than whatever 1-A layer, being or structure you can't think of, it's about being above the "genus" that makes those being exist in the first place.

im not familiar with the word "genus", i believe it means a specie ? so everything within a defined framework?

While within the hierarchy of 1-A, the higher layer see the lower as fiction (let's assume this for the example), hence making them "+1" compared to the lower one, it's not because another being outside the hierarchy being "(hierarchy) + 1" necessarily means it's above the very genus of "R>F", just that the gap is "bigger".

im not really talking about an addition of layers, but simply the process between each layer being meaningless (following your idea of transcanding the concept of r>f)

t sur le server de instant manga toi nn?

 

[SweetDao]

well that would just be beyond any possible numbers ? each of them representing a layer

Not really. You'd have to prove that, and even then math goes beyond simply "possible numbers".

aleph cannot reach inaccessible cardinal unless with high iteration like infinite powersets and self recursions aleph(aleph(aleph...(P(P(P...)))))), which is basically the iterated process of adding something within the same framework (they can be constructed)

No, they can only be constructed if you accept a specific axiom, which isn't the natural set theory. The whole point was doing an analogy about "being inaccessible =/= being High 1-A"

im not familiar with the word "genus", i believe it means a specie ? so everything within a defined framework?

Ultima Reality/rambleramble

vsbattles.fandom.com

im not really talking about an addition of layers, but simply the process between each layer being meaningless (following your idea of transcanding the concept of r>f)

Which, again, is not enough by itself. It could be supporting evidence, however, if you had more backing it up.

You can check Eternity Page since I feel it's quite a straightforward way of seeing what really is "High 1-A".

t sur le server de instant manga toi nn?

ya

 

[Infinitinet]

High 1-A is described as ; "Characters or objects who transcend 1-A characters in the same vein that 1-A characters transcend the rest of the system. That is to say: If there is a hierarchy of 1-A layers, each of which operates within the same framework, with the same "algorithm" dictating the difference between them, a High 1-A character would transcend the framework entirely, and instead operate on a different, higher hierarchy, governed by another, likewise higher algorithm. In other words, whereas 1-A is a qualitative superiority, High 1-A represents a "meta"-qualitative superiority."

and 1-A ; "Characters or objects residing in higher states of existence surpassing material composition as a whole, and who are therefore completely unreachable and inaccessible to any and all extensions of the aforementioned structures. Their superiority over such realms, as such, is purely "qualitative"; based entirely on the ontological quality and nature of their existence, rather than any quantitative or numerical principle."

lets say there is a hierarchy of 1-A, and another character views each of the member of this hierarchy as equally 'nothing' reducing the differentiation between them to fiction, would this grant High 1-A ?

Yes.

as the addition of layers would still be viewed as perfectly nothing from his POV just like a 1-A character seeing a 1D and a 9D space as equally empty, so that would make the transcandant being operate on another system that transcands what r>f can do ?

No. Seeing as nothing can be quantitative considering there are 0 coordinates for lower dimensional objects in higher dimensional spaces.

As such it would not transcend reality fiction nor would it count necessarily as even reality>fiction transcendence.

 

[Napoleondevious]

No. Seeing as nothing can be quantitative considering there are 0 coordinates for lower dimensional objects in higher dimensional spaces.

As such it would not transcend reality fiction nor would it count necessarily as even reality>fiction transcendence.

a 0 Dimensional space still has 1 coordinate, the difference between dimension is that the one higher has uncountably many more coordinate

 

[Infinitinet]

a 0 Dimensional space still has 1 coordinate,

It doesn't. An empty set has neither element nor coordinate.

the difference between dimension is that the one higher has uncountably many more coordinate

They don't. 1 coordinate added is from an uncountable many lower co-ordinates.

This is also still a quantitative level.

 

[Napoleondevious]

It doesn't. An empty set has neither element nor coordinate.

They don't. 1 coordinate added is from an uncountable many lower co-ordinates.

0 dimensional spaces are literally used to describe coordinates, a coordinate is a 0 dimensional point within a space, R^n can represent the iterations of coordinates where n is the dimensions, R^0 is literally equal to 1, and i absolutely never mentioned the empty set?

This is also still a quantitative level.

unrelated

 

[Infinitinet]

0 dimensional spaces are literally used to describe coordinates,

Points, which are still 0 dimensional.

a coordinate is a 0 dimensional point within a space, R^n can represent the iterations of coordinates where n is the dimensions, R^0 is literally equal to 1,

This is meant to represent R0 space, not R to the power of 0. So false equivalence.

and i absolutely never mentioned the empty set?

It's an example of 0 dimensional constructs.

unrelated

It's not? It wouldn't be High 1A, is the point.

 

[Wesker018]

Which, again, is not enough by itself. It could be supporting evidence, however, if you had more backing it up.

I think the point here is that in this specific case the character would not only transcend "outer" beings, otherwise they would obviously be layers into the outer, the character is transcending the differentiation, which in this case are qualitative differences so he would be at a point of transcendence we call META-Qualitative Superiority aka High Level 1-A.

The 10th deathless realm of dragon talisman transcends differentiation between outer and non-outer and got a high 1-A because of that, i.e. he transcends qualitative superiorities which is the same case here, since there is a qualititive difference between each level of the hierarchy.

it is sufficient by itself, but it has to be clearly explained that the being ontologically transcends this differentiation, or that these qualitative differences are non-existent from his perspective.

 

[SweetDao]

I think the point here is that in this specific case the character would not only transcend "outer" beings, otherwise they would obviously be layers into the outer, the character is transcending the differentiation

Without further context or description, this is too vague. You can be "above" the differentiation of a hierarchy of layers and yet still be bounded by the common genus.

The 10th deathless realm of dragon talisman transcends differentiation between outer and non-outer and got a high 1-A

Which is vastly different from what the OP suggested. The differentiation between "Non-1-A and 1-A" is not the differentiation between "1-A and another 1-A".

it is sufficient by itself, but it has to be clearly explained that the being ontologically transcends this differentiation, or that these qualitative differences are non-existent from his perspective.

If there is a statement that he transcend "the very idea of 1-A, including the difference between all of them/layers" or something like that, yeah, sure, but that's not what the OP explained.

 

[Wankbreaker]

Which is vastly different from what the OP suggested. The differentiation between "Non-1-A and 1-A" is not the differentiation between "1-A and another 1-A".

So if a higher character sees the difference between a 1-A character and a non 1-A character as “insignificant” and “nonexistent”,that is enough for high 1-A?

 

[Wesker018]

between Non-1-A and 1-A there is a qualititive difference.
Between 1-A and 1-A+1 layer there is a qualititive difference.
1-A sees Non-1-A as fiction .
1-A+1 sees 1-A as fiction.

In this case it does not matter whether it transcends one or the other, but rather the very idea of qualitative leaps or superiorities, since if it transcends that very idea, it means that it cannot be reached by a concatenation of them, that is, it operates in another framework, META-Qualitative (High 1-A).

But again, the verse has to make it clear that this idea of qualitative superiorities is being transcended, there is no need to have an 1-A hierarchy.

So if a higher character sees the difference between a 1-A character and a non 1-A character as “insignificant” and “nonexistent”,that is enough for high 1-A?

Dragon Talisman - Upgrade to High 1-A

As the title of Thread. There are only two things that Ultima has accepted in two other threads: the BDE2 of "Non-Immortality" and "Non-Having-No Immortal" transcends the duality of "immortal" and "Non-Immortality"  Note 无不朽 = Non-Immortality/9th Deathless level (which can be translated to...

vsbattles.com

Dragon Talisman - Upgrade to High 1-A

@Livinaa Can I say that Gu Chensha's character is comparable to the strong characters in Marvel Comics? Because I don't know that there are many characters in Marvel Comics who are in the High1-A+ range. High 1-A+ is basically the same as Tier 0 for High 1-A and below, so no, Gu Chensha isn't...

vsbattles.com

 

[SweetDao]

So if a higher character sees the difference between a 1-A character and a non 1-A character as “insignificant” and “nonexistent”,that is enough for high 1-A?

I'd assume so yeah, but no, this doesn't apply to Featherine, I already asked Ultima about this

 

[Wesker018]

I guess the chinamen pass the test since their definitions are absolutely explicit lol.

 

[Wankbreaker]

I'd assume so yeah, but no, this doesn't apply to Featherine, I already asked Ultima about this

Umineko is very explicit with this,but okay

Can you screenshot exactly what he said? Not that I don’t believe you,but I would rather see what he said directly

 

[SweetDao]

between Non-1-A and 1-A there is a qualititive difference.

Obviously.

Between 1-A and 1-A+1 layer there is a qualititive difference.

Yes and no. There is a specific qualitative difference, but not a "general" one.

1-A sees Non-1-A as fiction .

1-A+1 sees 1-A as fiction.

Yes.

In this case it does not matter whether it transcends one or the other, but rather the very idea of qualitative leaps or superiorities

No, it needs to include "every single level of that common genus". The chinese verse pretty explicit (and lengthy) about how incomprehensible, incredible, how no words could describe it,... I could go on and on. Obviously, the gist of it is "No matter how you twist the specificities, you'll never be able to reach it", which, in this case, indicate a transcendence over not only the specific ways of transcending, but even the act of "transcendence" itself, hence why it's High 1-A.

it means that it cannot be reached by a concatenation of them, that is, it operates in another framework, META-Qualitative (High 1-A).

Again, this needs backup. I've double-checked Dragon Talisman blog and you can't tell me what the OP proposed is explained the same way as Dragon Talisman.

But again, the verse has to make it clear that this idea of qualitative superiorities is being transcended, there is no need to have an 1-A hierarchy.

So in the end we agree, that's perfect

 

[SweetDao]

Can you screenshot exactly what he said? Not that I don’t believe you,but I would rather see what he said directly

I don't think he'd want me to share a screenshot (especially when he always told me not to do so in the past) but you can probably ask him on a discord server/MP him directly.

 

[Infinitinet]

I don't think he'd want me to share a screenshot (especially when he always told me not to do so in the past) but you can probably ask him on a discord server/MP him directly.

Umineko is very explicit with this,but okay

Can you screenshot exactly what he said? Not that I don’t believe you,but I would rather see what he said directly

Might as well wait awhile. I will make a separate thread about it. Let's not derail this.