• 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.

Inaccessible speed in vs battle wiki

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
The issue is that virtually all characters in our wiki with infinite speed have been given its because they can move so swift that time literally stands still for them, not because they moved a literally infinite distance, and "inaccessible" speed is still about moving infinitely fast, not about landing punches before the character throwing them began to move, i.e. immeasurable.

As such all of this is completely unnecessary, along with providing lots of unnecessary work, and changing an easily understood title into something worse.

Given the above, I firmly reject this revision. We should preferably close this thread.
Click to expand...
Please close this Ant
 
I would prefer to, but I need to wait for other staff members to confirm that it is acceptable.
 
Antvasima said:
The issue is that virtually all characters in our wiki with infinite speed have been given its because they can move so swift that time literally stands still for them, not because they moved a literally infinite distance, and "inaccessible" speed is still about moving infinitely fast, not about landing punches before the character throwing them began to move, i.e. immeasurable.

As such all of this is completely unnecessary, along with providing lots of unneeded work, and changing an easily understood title into something worse.

Given the above, I firmly reject this revision. We should preferably close this thread.
Click to expand...
I see your point here. How about this? We reword the infinite speed explanation so that it makes a clear distinction between “moving so fast time stands still” and “moving an infinite distance in a finite time”, where the former is always superior to the latter? This would save a lot of work and be only a minor change to a page, while also being scientifically accurate.
 
God900 said:
Have you any idea of the amount of characters this will affect?, so now Natsu and Goku would be Infinite speed?...,absurd.
Click to expand...
Lmao no, even if we operate under the hypothetical that they objectively have feats that place them at infinite speed, nobody would accept it regardless
 
Antvasima said:
The issue is that virtually all characters in our wiki with infinite speed have been given its because they can move so swift that time literally stands still for them, not because they moved a literally infinite distance, and "inaccessible" speed is still about moving infinitely fast, not about landing punches before the character throwing them began to move, i.e. immeasurable.

As such all of this is completely unnecessary, along with providing lots of unneeded work, and changing an easily understood title into something worse.

Given the above, I firmly reject this revision. We should preferably close this thread.
Click to expand...
I think there are a lot of characters that have infinite speed for attacks and themselves moving an infinite distance, Necrozma and Kratos off the top of my head. If inaccessible speed does exist, I think a difference should be noted as these characters would be able to blitz infinite speed characters. Even if very little characters qualify for inaccessible speed, which I'm not sure is true, it should definitely be a separate speed tier if it is a thing.
 
The issue with "Inaccessible Speed" is that its premise is objectively wrong. The idea behind it is that since division by 0 is undefined, and undefined =/= ∞, that somehow means acting in no time at all is more impressive than crossing an infinite distance in finite time. But everyone I've seen advocate for Inaccessible Speed forgets that technically, 1/0 does in fact equal ∞, and to express this, I need to go over the concept of a limit. The simplest example of one that is relevant to the topic at hand would be something like this:

1/1 = 1
1/0.1 = 10
1/0.01 = 100
1/0.001 = 1,000
etc.

I'm sure you can see the pattern here, but if not, let me break it down for you: as the divisor becomes smaller, the quotient becomes larger. Put another way, if the equation is represented by the function Y=1/X, then as X approaches 0, Y approaches ∞. Now, this function allows X to have negative values, and because of that, 1/0 has two possible answers: -∞ and +∞. That's why it's undefined: not because there is literally no solution, but because it's one input giving two outputs, which is illegal when it comes to functions... but both of those outputs are infinite anyway.

But here's the thing about speed: its two variables, distance and time, do not permit negative values. Negative distance is nothing more than "moving backwards" and is irrelevant, and negative time leads to a different kind of feat entirely. Without negative values being accounted for, 1/0 can safely be equated to ∞ without issue because -∞, for all intents and purposes, does not exist. The only way for "inaccessible speed" to be possible is for negative speed to also exist, which in turn requires you to work with a nonstandard model of physics. In other words, it's a waste of time and effort.

P.S. This isn't explicitly a counterpoint and I would prefer not to treat it as one, but I bet no one here (on either side, mind you) knows why "inaccessible" was chosen as the rating's name. Simply put, the word is specifically associated with the set-theoretic concept of the inaccessible cardinal - a cardinal number so large that it cannot be reached from below no matter what kind of operations or numbers you use. In other words, it implies that dividing any number by 0 yields an inaccessible cardinal number, which I'm sure is what the person who came up with Inaccessible Speed believed at the time. Again, I'm throwing this out here as a trivia piece, not as an argument against the proposition itself.
 
This is bad on many level even if we doesn't talk about literal math, the moment when you can move and treat infinite distance as finite distance with finite time, mean speed is infinite and finite time is the same as 0 time already
 
Now, exact mathematical definitions for such speeds are difficult to have (maybe with hyperreal numbers... who knows). They go beyond the typical mathematical models for such things and with that beyond physics-based definitions of speed.
Still, I think Inaccessible speed and infinite speed in the suggested definition can reasonably be demonstrated to be the same thing.

To see why, let's look at an example: Say someone can run an infinite distance in 10 seconds. We assume the runner does so at a constant speed, meaning that whenever he runs 1/n-th of the time he ran, he covered 1/n-th of the total distance he ran. (Or, equivalently, that if he runs x-times longer he covers x-times more distance)
With that in mind let us ask ourselves the following question: How long did the runner need to cover the first 100m of his run?
Let's assume that there would be some timeframe t seconds that is longer than 0 seconds in which the runner runs the first 100m (let me add for the math guys here that t shall be a real number).
The runners full running time from 10 seconds, is (10/t) times longer. 10/t can be an incredibly large number, but since t is greater 0 it can't be infinite. (specifically: the division of 2 real numbers unequal 0 is a real number)
Now, by our assumption of constant speed we know that when he runs, for example, twice as long he would cover twice as much distance. So in 2*t seconds he would have covered 2*100m = 200m of distance running.
Similarly, in 10 seconds, which is (10/t)*t seconds, he would have run (10/t)*100m. That could once again be a very large distance. However, as both (10/t) and 100 are finite numbers it can't possibly be infinite distance.
Therefore we have found a contradiction, as we postulated that the runner ran an infinite distance in 10 seconds.
As we gain a contradiction like this the one assumption we made, namely that there is a timeframe t seconds that is longer than 0 seconds in which the runner runs the first 100m has to be false.
As such, the timeframe in which the runner ran the first 100 meter can only be 0 seconds. Anything greater than that leads to a contradiction.

What this demonstrates, in general, is that any character capable of running an infinite distance in finite time is also capable of running a finite distance in 0 time. So infinite speed implies inaccessible speed by the proposed definitions of the terms. As, the other way around, inaccessible speed implies infinite speed the term are equivalent, meaning that they are in fact one and the same speed ranking.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Now, exact mathematical definitions for such speeds are difficult to have (maybe with hyperreal numbers... who knows). They go beyond the typical mathematical models for such things and with that beyond physics-based definitions of speed.
Still, I think Inaccessible speed and infinite speed in the suggested definition can reasonably be demonstrated to be the same thing.

To see why, let's look at an example: Say someone can run an infinite distance in 10 seconds. We assume the runner does so at a constant speed, meaning that whenever he runs 1/n-th of the time he ran, he covered 1/n-th of the total distance he ran. (Or, equivalently, that if he runs x-times longer he covers x-times more distance)
With that in mind let us ask ourselves the following question: How long did the runner need to cover the first 100m of his run?
Let's assume that there would be some timeframe t seconds that is longer than 0 seconds in which the runner runs the first 100m (let me add for the math guys here that t shall be a real number).
The runners full running time from 10 seconds, is (10/t) times longer. 10/t can be an incredibly large number, but since t is greater 0 it can't be infinite. (specifically: the division of 2 real numbers unequal 0 is a real number)
Now, by our assumption of constant speed we know that when he runs, for example, twice as long he would cover twice as much distance. So in 2*t seconds he would have covered 2*100m = 200m of distance running.
Similarly, in 10 seconds, which is (10/t)*t seconds, he would have run (10/t)*100m. That could once again be a very large distance. However, as both (10/t) and 100 are finite numbers it can't possibly be infinite distance.
Therefore we have found a contradiction, as we postulated that the runner ran an infinite distance in 10 seconds.
As we gain a contradiction like this the one assumption we made, namely that there is a timeframe t seconds that is longer than 0 seconds in which the runner runs the first 100m has to be false.
As such, the timeframe in which the runner ran the first 100 meter can only be 0 seconds. Anything greater than that leads to a contradiction.

What this demonstrates, in general, is that any character capable of running an infinite distance in finite time is also capable of running a finite distance in 0 time. So infinite speed implies inaccessible speed by the proposed definitions of the terms. As, the other way around, inaccessible speed implies infinite speed the term are equivalent, meaning that they are in fact one and the same speed ranking.
Click to expand...
May I ask. If moving a distance in 0 time is infinite speed, then why is moving in timeless voids or time stop through speed not considered infinite speed?
 
how is this even a debate, dividing by zero would definitely produce something larger than an infinite value (in fiction it'd work like that at least) so there's really no reason to say that infinite is as fast as inaccessible
 
ZillertheBucko said:
how is this even a debate, dividing by zero would definitely produce something larger than an infinite value (in fiction it'd work like that at least) so there's really no reason to say that infinite is as fast as inaccessible
Click to expand...
to sum it up, it's as simple as this
infinity is not the reciprocal of zero. infinite values can be different, since running an infinite amount of distance in 2 seconds is slower than running that distance in 1 seconds. Hell, we even accept that infinity isn't the highest you can go with the wiki's very own dimensional tiering system featuring "infinite 3d, infinite 4d, etd." Unless we're also gonna start saying that all high 3-A characters have exactly the same power now because they're all infinite.
this is not a real debate, multiplying/diving by zero is not the same as diving/multiplying by an infinite value
 
Darksmash said:
What if t is an infinitesimal number though?(maybe in hyper reals)
Click to expand...
Then I say good luck proving anything of that sort in the hyperreals lol
The hyperreals are far off standard models of speed (meaning that any such consideration could be only for fun) and I'm not sure if the model would even work in it.
To model constant infinite speed, you would want a function f that maps a finite timeframe (e.g. 0 to 10 seconds) unto positions starting with 0 and ending in some infinite hyperreal number. The speed is then the derivation of f and would have to be some constant infinite hyperreal. However, does such a function exist or would the transition from finite to infinite hyperreal under these conditions inevitably create a spot in which the function is not differentiable? I don't know.

Additionally, if one really wanted to make an objective mathematical comparison, one would need to model inaccessible speed, i.e. movement in 0 time, in the hyperreals too. That is also quite tricky. There is no function that projects 0 seconds on multiple locations (as a function only ever projects on 1 value per definition), so one can't model it as one would like.
In fact, I would argue modeling it like that wouldn't even be the best model within the hyperreals. Think about how moving in stopped time / 0 time is usually portrayed. It's not that the character exists simultaneously at multiple locations (from its perspective), but that everything else stands still while he moves around like normal. And when some author talks about 0 seconds passing he certainly means in terms of real numbers, not hyperreals. (Meaning an infinitesimal hyperreal that rounds to 0 would techincally also fit the description)
As such, a timestop in hyperreals would be better modeled as slowing down time to such an extent that only infinitesimal periods of time pass. Everything would still seem frozen in place no matter how long you wait (in fact, quantum mechanics doesn't allow any measurement that would proof that things are not standing still due to the limit on precision), but for the character a before and after now can sensibly be formulated. It would explain how a character walking through a timestop can turn around and not see himself standing there: Since it is not actually the same hyperreal instant.
So, ironically, the infinite speed model in the hyperreals (if it works) would simultanously be the best hyperreal model for moving in stopped time. At least in my opinion.

However, as said at the beginning, the main reason such musing is pointless is that it is a completely unfounded approach as physics works on real (or at times complex) numbers and stuff involving hyperreals would hence just be shoehorning speculation into it.
 
FluffyCreatureZ said:
May I ask. If moving a distance in 0 time is infinite speed, then why is moving in timeless voids or time stop through speed not considered infinite speed?
Click to expand...
I think moving in a time stop is, although it would need to be proven to be through speed not through resistance, which would usually be assumed instead.
Moving in a timeless void isn't infinite speed, as it isn't moving in 0 time. It's in the name really. Timeless void. It's not movement in 0 time, it is movement in a place without time. There is a difference between the empty set {}, which would be no time, and the set containing just zero {0}, which would be 0 time. Alternative explanation can be found on the note on the speed page.
 
Also I think that timeless voids wouldn’t be any kind of speed, it’d just be some kind of time hax thing or acausality
Moving in a time stop is moving in 0
Seconds (otherwise it’d just be an insane time slow, not a stop) so it’d be inaccessible
 
This is pointless either way to me, just put infinite speed for the characters u think fit inaccessible and then put resistance to time stop or timeless voids. I personally believe inaccessible is above inf but it won't go anywhere on the site, at least not with the current staff.
 
Nelliels said:
This is pointless either way to me, just put infinite speed for the characters u think fit inaccessible and then put resistance to time stop or timeless voids. I personally believe inaccessible is above inf but it won't go anywhere on the site, at least not with the current staff.
Click to expand...
sometimes it do feel like that
but there's no reason not to try and get it accepted each time it's brought up
I'm new to this but it seems like this has been one of those ongoing debates somehow, which is wild considering how simple it is but
it's fairly completely obvious it should be accepted, since all the counterarguments I've seen are pretty bad
 
ZillertheBucko said:
sometimes it do feel like that
but there's no reason not to try and get it accepted each time it's brought up
I'm new to this but it seems like this has been one of those ongoing debates somehow, which is wild considering how simple it is but
it's fairly completely obvious it should be accepted, since all the counterarguments I've seen are pretty bad
Click to expand...
I can say the same to you BTW. I'd like you to quote both @KingPin0422 and @DontTalkDT posts, analysing them and point why are they wrong point by point, not "it's wrong because I say so, it's so goddamn obvious" lol.
 
StrymULTRA said:
I mean, it's just an ability which you can resist. Easy as that lmao.
Click to expand...
and if you do it through speed, you would have inaccessible speed
it's really just as simple as that. resistance to time stop does exist, but that doesn't mean inaccessible speed can't exist too, why would that make any sense????
 
StrymULTRA said:
I can say the same to you BTW. I'd like you to quote both @KingPin0422 and @DontTalkDT posts, analysing them and point why are they wrong point by point, not "it's wrong because I say so, it's so goddamn obvious" lol.
Click to expand...
dt's entire argument just comes down to the difference between infinitely small and zero. If we can accept that infinitely small is not the same as zero (god I hope everybody here knows that) , then literally all counters made fall apart
infinities have different values, which goes for infinitely small values too
but there is only one zero, and it's the smallest you can get, completely nonexistent
 
ZillertheBucko said:
dt's entire argument just comes down to the difference between infinitely small and zero. If we can accept that infinitely small is not the same as zero (god I hope everybody here knows that) , then literally all counters made fall apart
infinities have different values, which goes for infinitely small values too
but there is only one zero, and it's the smallest you can get, completely nonexistent
Click to expand...
I'm not the math guy here, you have to convince him not me lol.
 
StrymULTRA said:
I'm familiar enough to not say that every 4D is High 3-A from default.
Click to expand...
uhh sure
anyways the basic thing I'm getting at is that there's different levels of infinity, infinite 2, 3d, 4d, and so on
logically the reciprocal would be the same, different levels of infinitely small would exist.
but I think we can agree that there's only one zero. 5 times 0 is 0, and 2 times zero. It's smaller than infinitely small because there is literally only one possible result of 0
of course, being infinitely fast would also be slower than being "undefined fast", which is why inaccessible would be different from infinite.
 
This is pointless, the only reason Ant didn't close this thread yet was becouse he needed further staff input regarding this matter, but well, with KingPin's and DonTalk's desagreements, this thread can be pretty much close now.

I already called Ant to close this thread lol.
 
What you're actually saying is literally Immeasurable as you're actually saying that this "Inaccessible speed" is an uncountable infinity above Aleph Null, given that is the Inaccessible Cardinal above Aleph Null, with the latter being totally unable to reach it, even if you multiply it to infinity^infinity. Saying that "it's this much superior to Infinite, but not really an uncountable Infinite above" it's a contradiction basically.
 
God900 said:
This is pointless, the only reason Ant didn't close this thread yet was becouse he needed further staff input regarding this matter, but well, with KingPin's and DonTalk's desagreements, this thread can be pretty much close now.

I already called Ant to close this thread lol.
Click to expand...
This, so much this.
 
StrymULTRA said:
What you're actually saying is literally Immeasurable as you're actually saying that this "Inaccessible speed" is an uncountable infinity above Aleph Null, given that is the Inaccessible Cardinal above Aleph Null, with the latter being totally unable to reach it, even if you multiply it to infinity^infinity. Saying that "it's this much superior to Infinite, but not really an uncountable Infinite above" it's a contradiction basically.
Click to expand...
I thought you said you weren’t a math guy but now you’re using all these fancy aleph null words lmao, I consider my logic sound but it’s more so the terminology I’m not getting here

Although this is gonna get cut short because the all powerful admins have decided to close it early for no reason, so there’s really no point in me coming up with a counter. This website is trash
 
ZillertheBucko said:
I thought you said you weren’t a math guy but now you’re using all these fancy aleph null words lmao, I consider my logic sound but it’s more so the terminology I’m not getting here
Click to expand...
I mean, I'm not the math guy here lol. Tho everyone can know what these terms are with some research.
ZillertheBucko said:
Although this is gonna get cut short because the all powerful admins have decided to close it early for no reason, so there’s really no point in me coming up with a counter. This website is trash
Click to expand...
Bye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Enrico Pucci Immeasurable speed
Replies
10
Views
962
Bastos
Bastos
Niece
  • Locked
Downgrade Infinite speed Pucci
Replies
22
Views
2K
Planck69
Planck69
Quintessence_PE
Yan Sen Immeasurable Speed Upgrade
2
Replies
59
Views
3K
PatatesR
PatatesR
BasedNecoScaler69
  • Locked
Infinite speed revisions.
2
Replies
65
Views
4K
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
LordGriffin1000
Danny Phantom A Glitch in Time - Infinite Speed Upgrade? (We making it through the endless Ghost Zone with this one... Probably)
Replies
10
Views
926
Hellformer
Hellformer
Back
Top