Questions about characters above baseline.

[Seventy96]

Many 2-A characters like Lucemon are above baseline...but what this means? 2-A = character who can create or destroy multiverse. So, what this characters must do, to be above baseline?

 

[Schnee_One]

Be stronger then a 2A

 

[Seventy96]

Be stronger then a 2A

Stronger then 2-A is High 2-A, so what 2-A Lucemon (or anyone else) done, to be between this tiers?

 

[Andytrenom]

Basically you have to stomp a 2-A.

 

[First_Witch]

You dont jump a tier just for stomping someone tho? Stomping a Baseline 2A dosnt make you High 2A automaticly, it makes you above baseline.

 

[Kaltias]

Above baseline 2-A means that either you stomped a 2-A, or your feat is above baseline (via including multiple sets of infinite universes)

 

[YungManzi]

I've been kinda wondering this too...I mean, it makes sense within the context of something like my own OC verse where every "universe" is 2-A by itself, and you have characters easily destroying dozens of them.

But for verses that are 2-A or High 2-A themselves with characters on that same level, it's a bit hard to quantify. From what I've seen, most of the examples of characters who are above baseline rely on scaling in-verse.

So, in most cases, the "above baseline 2-A" character would have to be much stronger than another 2-A in-verse, pretty much to the point of stomping via pure force.

Also High 2-A = infinitely superior to a 2-A, not just superior (Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[Andytrenom]

@Kal like destroying the Arrowverse multiverse?

 

[ZacharyGrossman273]

Or doing something like Cronus 2-A feat being extremely casual.

 

[Kaltias]

@Andy

Idk how the Arrowverse multiverse is. But stuff like Digimon/SMT characters affecting an infinite amount of infinite multiverses is probably the most extreme case that I know

 

[YungManzi]

@Kal

"an infinite amount of infinite multiverses"

Isn't that just baseline High 2-A? I actually asked this question a while ago, and was told that this was High 2-A.

Edit: It's the same as my OC verse.

 

[Kaltias]

It's unknown if it's 5-D. Trying to go one dimensional level higher by stacking degrees of infinity is kinda like multiplying 0*infinite.

The result can't be determined, so those kind of feats are usually lowballed as "at least 2-A"

 

[Lightbuster30]

Infinity times 0 is still infinity. Even Infinity^Infinity won't grant you High 2-A, only countlessly infinite will do the job, since countless infinity x 0 is unquantifiable, but still greater than 0 on a 5D scale (something along those lines).

Question of my own: where would we rank characters who can destroy a multiverse in the past, present, and future? Obviously 2-A, but to what degree? Beyonder gets an "at least" for it, which should imply it puts him pretty far into the tier, but idk to what extent.

 

[Kaltias]

It's baseline 2-A. If you were destroying the universe without affecting past and future as well, the feat would be High 3-A.

Beyonder has the "at least" for affecting multiple multiverses I believe

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I feel that destroying infinite amounts of multiverses is still just baseline, as the amount of universes is the same.


Being stronger than a 2-A should be above baseline, cuz being stronger than someone doesn't make you igher dimensional

 

[Lightbuster30]

Nah I think that puts you above baseline. Pretty sure Solaris has 2-C for a past, present, future feat on a Universe scale (the ppf of one universe). Besides, many of the profiles who are tier 2 don't go as deep into specifics as that. Space-Time sure, but usually not explicitly it's ppf.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

You should at least give reasoning...

infinite^infinite=infinite.

If its shown that a 2-A cannot destroy multple multiverses and a character does do it than they are stronger than base

line, but thats more them scaling above a 2-A. Also, com,paring a 2-C to a 2-A is like comparing a high 3-A with a 10-A. Infinity works differently then other numbers, and cannot be held to equal standards on most things

 

[YungManzi]

"I feel that destroying infinite amounts of multiverses is still just baseline, as the amount of universes is the same."

This I don't agree with at all. If this is the case, then characters with 2-A feats would really be baseline Low 2-C, it's the exact same situation.

At least....this is if Ricsi was refering to baseline 2-A and not High 2-A, he left it kind of vague.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

This I don't agree with at all. If this is the case, then characters with 2-A feats would really be baseline Low 2-C, it's the exact same situatio

No, it really isn't. Being low 2-C means your 4D. Again, aplying normal numbers logic to infinity.

Destroying 2 universes is obviously above destroying one universe.

Destroying two infinities is equal to destroying one infinity, because infinite+infinite is still infinite. And no, low 2-C's are not infinites on a 4D scale. 3D High 3-A's are 3D infinites

 

[Kaltias]

A single infinite multiverse is baseline 2-A. If a character destroys multiple infinite multiverses, that's obviously > a single infinite universe.

Infinite^Infinite=Infinite, but higher degrees of infinity are a thing

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

A single infinite multiverse is baseline 2-A. If a character destroys multiple infinite multiverses, that's obviously > a single infinite universe.
Infinite^Infinite=Infinite, but higher degrees of infinity are a thing

Theoriticaly yes, but the degrees are still overall the same. If I take every number and I take only whole numbers, all numbers are obviously "more", but if I add them all together its still the same

 

[Kaltias]

Nah I think that puts you above baseline. Pretty sure Solaris has 2-C for a past, present, future feat on a Universe scale (the ppf of one universe). Besides, many of the profiles who are tier 2 don't go as deep into specifics as that. Space-Time sure, but usually not explicitly it's ppf.

If he does, Solaris needs to be downgraded because that's Low 2-C.

Affecting the entirety of the space-time on a universal scale is, by definition, affecting the timeline as a whole (past, present and future)

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

Pretty sure he is there by scaling.

 

[Kaltias]

Theoriticaly yes, but the degrees are still overall the same. If I take every number and I take only whole numbers, all numbers are obviously "more", but if I add them all together its still the same

They aren't. Real numbers > whole numbers because the former includes every number of the latter, while the opposite isn't true

 

[DMB_1]

If he does, Solaris needs to be downgraded because that's Low 2-C.

Affecting the entirety of the space-time on a universal scale is, by definition, affecting the timeline as a whole (past, present and future)

I believe he's 2-C becuasehe was going to destroy multiple timelines.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

They aren't. Real numbers > whole numbers because the former includes every number of the latter, while the opposite isn't true

tECNICLY, BUT IF YOU PUT THEM TOGETHER, THEY BOTH ARE EQUAL (why cap lock, why?)

Seriously, they are supposed to be bigger, but both are infinite. You cannot be above infinity whitout being higher dimensional. Sure, fiction ignores that, making one 2-A character stronger than another, but the amount of dimensions destroyed stays the same in the scenario where there are multiple multiverses. If not, then we would end up in a situation where one could just decide to dicide thje m,ultiverse in two, making two infinite multiverses, and it would make whomeverdestroys it above baseline

 

[Endless_Astrograph_Sorcerer]

From what I understand, the set of whole numbers contains an infinite set of elements (odd numbers) that the infinite set of even numbers does not contain but both sets have the same cardinality. If one takes any two elements in the set of whole, even, or odd numbers, the number of elements between them will be finite (the set is countable); if one does the same with the set of real numbers, the cardinality (number of elements in a set) of the new set will be the same as the initial set (reals). Which is to say that if you put them together, they're not equal; the former is countable and the latter is uncountable. With the set of even and odd numbers, you can match elements between them forever 1 to 2, 3 to 4, etc...but that can't be done with the set of reals, you'll never find the next element to add because there will always be an infinite number of elements between whatever point you choose.

For a diff way of looking at it.. points are dimensionless, you can keep adding points up to the number of elements in the set of whole numbers and you still won't get a line (one dimensional space). But points do lie on lines and the number of points between any two points will have the same cardinality as the number of points on the line (uncountable). Then the same follows as the dimensional scale increases (lines in a plane, etc..).

I'm getting out of my element though (NPI) so if I jacked something up too bad lmk