Low 1-C question

[Eganergo]

It's more of guidelines rather than standard. So volatile.

 

[Eganergo]

Also if that's true, note 4 should be reworded. "At this scale" and no mention of low 1C is confusing enough. It's as if talking entirely about 2A.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

This seems like somethin related to the question i have of infinite possibilities generating infinite worlds


A single universe generates infinite worlds from infinite possibilities but those worlds also branch out creating infinite possibilities and then those do the same thing on repeat for forever and eternity

So like An already infinite set of worlds each produces another infinite set so you can get an Infinite^infinite

those universes branch out for infinity then those branch out for infinity and so on based on infinite possibilities. (1 universe braches to infinity universes and then those universes branch again to infinity)

No one has been able to answer this yet

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

Guys, the question has been answered.

 

[Maxnumb231]

the OP has been answered so i think someone should close this

 

[Greenshifter]

This seems like somethin related to the question i have of infinite possibilities generating infinite worlds


A single universe generates infinite worlds from infinite possibilities but those worlds also branch out creating infinite possibilities and then those do the same thing on repeat for forever and eternity

So like An already infinite set of worlds each produces another infinite set so you can get an Infinite^infinite

those universes branch out for infinity then those branch out for infinity and so on based on infinite possibilities. (1 universe braches to infinity universes and then those universes branch again to infinity)

No one has been able to answer this yet

Baseline 2-A AP, there’s a bijection between NxNxNx... (infinite times) and N. Unless you’re talking about Marvel. Also the range on that is the best you can get in 2-A pretty sure, but less than Low 1-C.

 

[DeathstroketheHedgehog]

Uncountable infinity is when you could not count to it, even after eternity has passed.

An example is saying how many squares (2D) fill up a cube (3D). A square has length and width, but 0 depth, so no matter how many infinite^infinities of layers you try to stack the squares on, it will never have depth, and its depth will always be zero. The cube, a higher dimensional construct, will always be superior in volume, and no amount of squares with infinite area will ever have a value in volume.

So yes. Low 1-C is uncountably infinite universes because it's a higher dimensional construct, and therefore no layers of 4D universal constructs will ever stack up to reach it. 2-A is countably infinite, because it is made with infinite layers of 4D universal constructs.


That's why the description for Low 1-C is:

Low 1-C | Low Complex Multiverse level:Characters who can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

 

[Greenshifter]

Baseline 2-A AP, there’s a bijection between NxNxNx... (infinite times) and N. Unless you’re talking about Marvel. Also the range on that is the best you can get in 2-A pretty sure, but less than Low 1-C.

@TheUnshakableOne Forget what I said here. I thought that proof by induction was valid for infinite itself as well. It is not (only works for finite amounts of “multiplication”), after some research I found that the cardinality of N^N (which you described, that is if your “for eternity” can be taken as literally infinite) is the same as the power set of N. In other words, uncountably infinite aka Low 1-C.

Source:

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

An example is saying how many squares (2D) fill up a cube (3D). A square has length and width, but 0 depth, so no matter how many infinite^infinities of layers you try to stack the squares on, it will never have depth, and its depth will always be zero. The cube, a higher dimensional construct, will always be superior in volume, and no amount of squares with infinite area will ever have a value in volume.

Quite a nice way to simplify it, I can understand this.