Neutral Space Downgrade Thread

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This is a thread to downgrade the neutral space.

Recently this thread passed. However, I want to point out that there is a major problem with it.

The Neutral Space was over inflated in order to get this passed:

History:

It was decided that the Neutral Zone was a 4D structure because it holds the DBS macrocosm.

During this thread, it was decided that the Neutral Space has a temporal Element because Hit can use time manipulation abilities while inside of it.

The problem:

Proponents of the recent upgrade thread are arguing that the Neutral Space has 4 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time.

This heavily inflates the rating of the Neutral Space by making it so that the temporal element is not counted as among the 4D structure but is separated, making the neutral space 4 dimensions of space with 1 dimension of time.

In another staff thread, it was decided that Low 2-C structures can hold other Low 2-C structures.

Hit being able to use his time ability inside the neutral space, does not make it 5D. If that was the case, then every universe with a pocket dimension and almost every multiversal container would be 5D. These standards were put in place to prevent such inflation from occurring.

Furthermore, there is zero evidence as to why the Neutral Space requires 5 dimensions instead of the standard 4 outside of user preference.

The existence of a temporal element just means that one of the existing four dimensions is temporal instead of an additional fifth time dimension.

Special Note: things may get complicated when someone eventually brings up that Neutral Space has insignificant 5D rating. But I want everyone to remember that “insignificant 5D” is not a special rating. Every universe with subspaces and every multiverse has “insignificant 5D” by default per the wiki’s standards. Also OP has stated the insignificant dimension has nothing to do with the upgrade.

Tl;DR: It is not standard to give a space an extra spatial dimension for holding subspaces without explicit proof of an extra dimension.

Agree:
Disagree:
Neutral:

Please do not derail. I ask mods to keep an eye on this thread.

 

[SweetDao]

Should you wait like, three months after it's accepted??

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Should you wait like, three months after it's accepted??

That’s only for when your own thread gets rejected.

 

[Iiliminal]

Yakub and his children are following.

 

[BoastJr]

Immediate Downgrade is kinda crazy my guy

Atleast wait for chariot190 my one and true King of LS

 

[Qawsedf234]

I think you're misunderstanding the point again. The NZ is spatially 4D with one temporal axis. It's not Spatially 3D with one axis holding other spatially 3D zones. You're treating it as 3D+1+1 when it's 4D+1.

 

[Mgebrat282]

Comp DB is (-3D), change my mind

 

[TiltedFN]

Again, the Neutral Zone holds 4D structures as a container, 12 of them. This makes it spatially 4D with a 5th axis that's insignificant as a separator. This makes it 4D spatially. There is no temporal dimension included in those 4 spatial dimensions. You were told already that this is not the case and doesn't have to be. It doesn't make sense. This doesn't apply to every multiversal container since it's a case by case thing. There being an independent time axis for the neutral zone means it's 4D + 1D/5D. Which means it's Low 1-C.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

I think you're misunderstanding the point again. The NZ is spatially 4D with one temporal axis. It's not Spatially 3D with one axis holding other spatially 3D zones. You're treating it as 3D+1+1 when it's 4D+1.

I am not misunderstanding. I am downgrading the accepted notion that the NZ is 4D with plus one space.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I am not misunderstanding. I am downgrading the accepted notion that the NZ is 4D with plus one space.

Then I think you're just wrong about that point then. It had to be spatially 4D to hold infinite 4D spaces and possess a unique temporal axis, which makes it 5D.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Then I think you're just wrong about that point then. It had to be spatially 4D to hold infinite 4D spaces and possess a unique temporal axis, which makes it 5D.

The wiki standards says no. A 4D (3 space plus 1 time) can also do that. You do not need it to have explicitly 4 dimensions of space.

 

[RoninSlayer200]

The wiki standards says no. A 4D (3 space plus 1 time) can also do that. You do not need it to have explicitly 4 dimensions of space.

That literally implies a 3D space would hold somehow 4D universes. You are objectively wrong here.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

This is a thread to downgrade the neutral space.

Recently this thread passed. However, I want to point out that there is a major problem with it.

The Neutral Space was over inflated in order to get this passed:

History:

It was decided that the Neutral Zone was a 4D structure because it holds the DBS macrocosm.

During this thread, it was decided that the Neutral Space has a temporal Element because Hit can use time manipulation abilities while inside of it.

The problem:

Proponents of the recent upgrade thread are arguing that the Neutral Space has 4 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time.

This heavily inflates the rating of the Neutral Space by making it so that the temporal element is not counted as among the 4D structure but is separated, making the neutral space 4 dimensions of space with 1 dimension of time.

In another staff thread, it was decided that Low 2-C structures can hold other Low 2-C structures.

Hit being able to use his time ability inside the neutral space, does not make it 5D. If that was the case, then every universe with a pocket dimension and almost every multiversal container would be 5D. These standards were put in place to prevent such inflation from occurring.

Furthermore, there is zero evidence as to why the Neutral Space requires 5 dimensions instead of the standard 4 outside of user preference.

The existence of a temporal element just means that one of the existing four dimensions is temporal instead of an additional fifth time dimension.

Special Note: things may get complicated when someone eventually brings up that Neutral Space has insignificant 5D rating. But I want everyone to remember that “insignificant 5D” is not a special rating. Every universe with subspaces and every multiverse has “insignificant 5D” by default per the wiki’s standards. Also OP has stated the insignificant dimension has nothing to do with the upgrade.

Tl;DR: It is not standard to give a space an extra spatial dimension for holding subspaces without explicit proof of an extra dimension.

Agree:
Disagree:
Neutral:

Please do not derail. I ask mods to keep an eye on this thread.

The neutral space is an insignificant 5D space for containing macrocosms, so it’s significant in 4 axes, but not significant in the 5th axis. The reason it’s significant in the 4 axes spatially is because the macrocosms are significant 4D structures. Now the time component comes in because even though it’s 5D spatially (one insignificant dimension) the temporal dimension makes it 5D (and if the insignificant dimension was tierable it’d be 6D). You’re pretty much under the assumption that the significant 4th axis the neutral space has is a temporal one, but it’s a spatial one.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

That literally implies a 3D space would hold somehow 4D universes. You are objectively wrong here.

3D space plus time, can hold 4D universes is what I said. You can argue with the wiki which i linked.

By this logic, every universe with a subspace is 5D.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

You’re pretty much under the assumption that the significant 4th axis the neutral space has is a temporal one, but it’s a spatial one.

The purpose is of this thread is to downgrade the neutral space to just three spatial axes and one temporal one.

 

[LuffyRuffy46307]

It hasn't even been two days since it was accepted and it's already been downgraded, someone has blood in their eyes

 

[Starsprite53]

Proponents of the recent upgrade thread are arguing that the Neutral Space has 4 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time.

This heavily inflates the rating of the Neutral Space by making it so that the temporal element is not counted as among the 4D structure but is separated, making the neutral space 4 dimensions of space with 1 dimension of time.

In another staff thread, it was decided that Low 2-C structures can hold other Low 2-C structures.

Hit being able to use his time ability inside the neutral space, does not make it 5D. If that was the case, then every universe with a pocket dimension and almost every multiversal container would be 5D. These standards were put in place to prevent such inflation from occurring.

Furthermore, there is zero evidence as to why the Neutral Space requires 5 dimensions instead of the standard 4 outside of user preference.

The existence of a temporal element just means that one of the existing four dimensions is temporal instead of an additional fifth time dimension.

Special Note: things may get complicated when someone eventually brings up that Neutral Space has insignificant 5D rating. But I want everyone to remember that “insignificant 5D” is not a special rating. Every universe with subspaces and every multiverse has “insignificant 5D” by default per the wiki’s standards. Also OP has stated the insignificant dimension has nothing to do with the upgrade.

I will give my cent.
I disagree, for the Neutral Space to function as a container for multiple complete 4D spacetimes, it must be spatially four-dimensional in its own right, not merely a standard 3D space with time appended. The point about Low 2-C structures being able to contain other Low 2-C structures does not contradict this. That standard refers specifically to spatial dimensionality (Hopefully I'm right about this). A structure can be Low 2-C spatially and still qualify as such while containing other Low 2-C universes. However, once that same structure is shown to have its own independent time axis in addition to those four spatial dimensions, it exceeds tier 2 (YAHOO) and enters Low 1-C territory. In this case, the Neutral Space already needs four spatial dimensions to spatially accommodate full 4D universes, and the presence of a separate temporal dimension (Hit being able to use time-based abilities inside it) makes the total dimensionality five.

 

[RoninSlayer200]

3D space plus time, can hold 4D universes is what I said. You can argue with the wiki which i linked.

By this logic, every universe with a subspace is 5D.

That's for 2-A tho??? Also, again, it doesn't work like that.

3D space cannot act as a container of 4D universes. Time dimension doesn't help you here, also NZ acts as separator of these 4D universes. You have to be a space bigger than the 4D universes for this; a 3D space would be completely dwarfed.

So NZ must be 4D spatially for this. And adding time makes it Low 1-C (5D).

 

[Killerdrone123]

Sigh

Also it's not just a container it also seperates this 4d space times in a way that they don't intersect each other/parallel for that you need ia higher d axis

Like every else have already told you you need a 4d construct to contain this 4d Macrocosms now pair it with its own time axis and you get a 5d/low 1c structure

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

That's for 2-A tho??? Also, again, it doesn't work like that.

3D space cannot act as a container of 4D universes. Time dimension doesn't help you here, also NZ acts as separator of these 4D universes. You have to be a space bigger than the 4D universes for this; a 3D space would be completely dwarfed.

So NZ must be 4D spatially for this. And adding time makes it Low 1-C (5D).

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

 

[God_of_perversion]

You don't know what you're talking about are you? A temporal dimension can't hold space if a 4d structure can hold a 4d universe it must mean that both structures contain the exact same dimensions.
You can't say that a structure made out of 1 spatial d and 3 temporal d can hold a 3 spatial d and 1 temporal d universe within itself

 

[Starsprite53]

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

Because that's not true, read it again.
An infinite space that contains a finite number of universes is not considered 2-A as discussed here.

 

[RoninSlayer200]

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

It technically would be an insignificant 5D space if it also separates those universes. But either way. Neutral Zone is 5D because of its temporal dimension, otherwise it would stay as Insignificant 5D (which would be untierable and stay at Low 2-C).

Low 2-C space (4D) + Time = Low 1-C (5D) by default, which was what was accepted in the NZ thread.

 

[Mgebrat282]

I disagree with this CRT

 

[TiltedFN]

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

That's the thing here. "Theoretically". That thread was to say not all spaces of that caliber will be 2-A if they aren't proven to be able to hold infinite universes. The NZ is Low 1-C because it's 4D spatially with an independent time axis. That makes it 5D, not just because it's a container for universes.

 

[Maniaunavailable]

I mea

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

not true at all lmao

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

The purpose is of this thread is to downgrade the neutral space to just three spatial axes and one temporal one.

Yeah, but you’re wrong because a space that separates 2 space-times is naturally a 5th dimensional space (the 5D axis isn’t significant); however, the 4 axes spatially are significant a 5D space that separates 2 space-times isn’t 4D + 1D, but it’s just 5D spatially (the 5th axis isn’t tierable though).

 

[CastoriceTheFifth]

 

[Killerdrone123]

Okay, so if a low 2-c space that can theoretically hold an infinite amount of universes can’t be 2-A why would the neutral space be low 1-c for holding universes?

You are confusing things again that note indicates that if a space that contains finite space times and said space was said to be infinite it can't be tiered as 2A
as 2A is all about destroying infinite number of space times it has nothing to do with extra dimensional axis

 

[Mgebrat282]

Because that's not true, read it again.
An infinite space that contains a finite number of universes is not considered 2-A as discussed here.

If a dimension has infinite amount of infinite universes and we don't know if they are separeted time-spaces but they are separeted as spaces, does it make a dimension 2-A?

 

[Starsprite53]

I disagree with this thread but this is corny as hell.

 

[Maniaunavailable]

Like i don't think it gets more easier than this, viett literally said it the easiest way possibble

The insignificant axis isn't time axis, it is the 5th spatial axis due to NZ being a separator that separate multiple 4D structure, but we are no talking about that 5th spatial axis, we are talking about NZ's time axis, which adding to already 2-C 4D NZ make it a significant 5D or Low 1-C

 

[Mbpoops]

Should you wait like, three months after it's accepted??

shiro didnt wait 3 months for a hoyo downgrade i dont see a problem here. though ill stay neutal on this thread for now

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Waiting for mods and Qaws to respond. I can’t keep repeating myself: A 3D space+1D time structure can hold other 4D structures. There is no reason to assume the Neutral space has 4D space plus 1D time in order to hold 4D structures.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

it must be spatially four-dimensional in its own right, not merely a standard 3D space with time appended

Where in the standards is this stated?

 

[Mbpoops]

uhh actually i might disagree since the NZ is already 4D and as you said theres an additional time dimension so it would be 4 spatial + 1 time which would be 5D i dont see the issue with the current rating since the neutral dimension just be (4 + N) + 1, 4 spatial + 1 untierable + 1 time

 

[KaramcaS]

Read the damn parallelism section

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

uhh actually i might disagree since the NZ is already 4D and as you said theres an additional time dimension so it would be 4 spatial + 1 time which would be 5D i dont see the issue with the current rating since the neutral dimension just be (4 + N) + 1, 4 spatial + 1 untierable + 1

The downgrade thread is that it doesn’t need to have 4D space plus time to hold the macrocosm.

No one’s provided evidence that it must have 4D space either through direct evidence or the wiki standards

 

[RoninSlayer200]

Waiting for mods and Qaws to respond. I can’t keep repeating myself: A 3D space+1D time structure can hold other 4D structures. There is no reason to assume the Neutral space has 4D space plus 1D time in order to hold 4D structures.

But Qaw has already responded tho? I mean... he was here way before me, and others, and he practically said the same things as "It has to be spatially 4D to hold other 4D universes". A time dimension cannot physically hold universes.

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

But Qaw has already responded tho? I mean... he was here way before me, and others, and he practically said the same things as "It has to be spatially 4D to hold other 4D universes". A time dimension cannot physically hold universes.

Maybe the 3-D space has an abnormally large "cardinality"/size that allows it to contain 4-D spaces and with time axis it'd have a size equivalent of 5-D anyways for holding uncountably infinite 4-D universes in that time axis