Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Thanks for the ResponseNo. Because the resistance is 4D, you'd need the equivalent of uncountably infinite layers of resistance or something idk.
Actually, no. A character who's existence is 4D also possess a 4D mind meaning that you cannot affect their mind with 3D mind hax however not because they get a resistance, but because 3D hax lacks the range. At least that's what I was told.However, it should be mentioned that if the 4D character has no mind resistance showings they probably get dominated.
There's nothing anywhere that states that to my knowledge.At least that's what I was told.
Even that thread contradicts that thoughwell if the 4D being sees 3D being as mere fiction and has R>F transcendence by default he would be immune to the 3D hax no matter how many layers it is in 3D and it is able to affect the 4D being who sees it as fiction would make it smurf 4D hax
For such characters, there is generally no reason to assume that they take hax they aren't shown to exist better than any other character. The exception would be hax that only circumvents durability to a limited extent, such as attacks that target the inner organs directly or pressure points, as the durability is too high to deal even the tiny bit of damage necessary for those to have an effect. That kind of hax is generally resisted by all characters with durability on a higher level of infinity than that of the attacker.
A second, similar, notable exception would be mind manipulating images or sound, which have their mind manipulating property not due to supernatural power but solely due to how they look (e.g. because they contain subliminal messages) could work. If the higher plane character for examples sees such an image as something that for them is just a book or a movie or a game, they would still see it to full effect.
Like its not immunity to mental resistance for 2/3rds of the list and the last third notes it still works but is reduced because of a lack of range rather than it not being effective.In summary, one could say that higher-dimensional characters resist most lower-dimensional hax, but not due to the lack of potency of the hax, but due to a lack of a large enough AoE/range of the ability used.
yeah but like also stated there the difference between 3D and 4D in this context would be uncountably infinite so even if lets take soul manipulation for now them being able to affect it without range will only affect the minuscule amount to the point of being infinitesimal.Like its not immunity to mental resistance for 2/3rds of the list and the last third notes it still works but is reduced because of a lack of range rather than it not being effective.
The page I linked is the thread but the answer I gave was more of a reference to Ultima's response here. my badEven that thread contradicts that though
From what I know, 3D hax only affects a 4d char with 0 resistences by an infinitesimal amount. So little it doesn’t countThere's nothing anywhere that states that to my knowledge.
As such things like soul and mind hax would likely not work. If the soul/mind is higher-dimensional like the body of the higher dimensional character, only an infinitely small fraction of the full thing could be affected. If the soul/mind isn't higher dimensional too, which is also a possibility for non-physical minds and for souls, then the probability that they are located in specifically in the part of the character's body that intersects with the low dimensional plane is 0% (infinitely unlikely). As such things like this shouldn't work for range considerations.
Nope he won't. 4D is uncountable infinity higher than 3D. So if you have 4D resistance, you need hax with 4D potency and higher to effect youJust to clear up something for everyone
My question is tailored not just to 4-D beings but to 3-D characters with 4-D resistances as well
Would a 3-D being with a hundred/thousand layered Mind/Soul hax be able to Mind/Soul Hax a 3-D being with one layer of 4-D Mind/Soul Resistance???
Uncountably infinity higher? What?4D is uncountable infinity higher than 3D.
I though the difference between one dimension and the other is uncountable infinity.Uncountably infinity higher? What?
You can draw a 4-D object right now you know that right? We also have math about that. 4D being infinitely higher sure, but its not uncountably higher.
No. Uncountable infinity is about a true infinite number that you can't comprehend. 3D to 4D is just a new dimensional axis.I though the difference between one dimension and the other is uncountable infinity.
Mate. A new dimensional axis is uncountably infinitely higher than the last. What do you think high 3-A is?No. Uncountable infinity is about a true infinite number that you can't comprehend. 3D to 4D is just a new dimensional axis.
No its not. Uncountably infinite and a higher infinity are two different things. We even note this difference in our tiering pageA new dimensional axis is uncountably infinitely higher than the last
High 1-B | High Hyperverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures whose size is equivalent to a countably infinite number of qualitative sizes above a universal model, usually represented in fiction by endless hierarchies of layers of existence, each succeeding one completely trivializing the previous into insignificance, or more generally a space with countably infinite dimensions.
Low 1-A | Low Outerverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures and expanses of uncountably infinite dimensions, or which have a size roughly analogous to them, such as uncountably infinite sets of hierarchical layers or planes of existence, most specifically ones whose amount of layers is comparable to the set of all real numbers, and are thus equated to the first uncountably infinite cardinal, ℵ1, for simplicity's sake.
That's refering to the number of dimensional axis, it's different. If you claim they are different then what exactly is the difference between High 3-A and low 2-C? Or 2-A and low 1-C?No its not. Uncountably infinite and a higher infinity are two different things. We even note this difference in our tiering page
A High 3-A has infinite 3-Dimensional power while a Low 2-C can effect objects within four dimensional axis that's at least universal in size.If you claim they are different then what exactly is the difference between High 3-A and low 2-C?
As above. The Low 1-C is effecting a dimensional axis the 2-A doesn't have. But that doesn't mean the Low 1-C is uncountably infinitely above a 2-A.Or 2-A and low 1-C?
Aleph universes are for Low 1-A and above. Not for Tier 2 and Low 1-C hierarchiesYou cant be a literal higher infinity than 2-A (aleph-0 universes) and yet still not be Low 1-C (aleph-1 universes), since there is nothing in-between those alephs.
Everything from 3-A to High 1-B involves countable infinite numbers. You do not get into uncountable infinities until Low 1-A and above.And so on and so forth, until any further operations applied over ω (See these pages for more information). However, it is important to know that, while all of these ordinal numbers come after ω, and are by technicality, "bigger" than it, the sets which they represent each possess the same quantity of objects, and thus the same cardinality. Indeed, they are countable sets, and thus are all represented by the same cardinal number: Aleph-Naught, denoted as ℵ0.
After ℵ0, comes the smallest uncountable cardinal number: ℵ1, which is itself indexed by the ordinal number ω1, the set of all countable ordinal numbers. For the purposes of the Tiering System, it is accepted as an Axiom that ℵ1 is the cardinality of the set of all real numbers, and thus equal to the power set of ℵ0, and the same principle is generalized unto any higher cardinal number.
This hierarchy is then extended unto Aleph Numbers whose subscript can be defined as being correspondent to any higher number, be it finite or infinite: ℵ2, ℵ3, ℵ4... ℵω, ℵω+1, ℵω+2, and so on and so forth, with each succeeding cardinal being equal to the power set of the previous one.
They aren't. Aleph-1 universes is literally just uncountable infinite universes, aka Low 1-C. And I linked two profiles that follows this.Aleph universes are for Low 1-A and above. Not for Tier 2 and Low 1-C hierarchies
IncorrectEverything from 3-A to High 1-B involves countable infinite numbers. You do not get into uncountable infinities until Low 1-A and above.
Yes you're correct. I was going off Aleph dimensional spaces rather than universes.Aleph-1 universes
That links to thisIncorrect
In terms of dimensional spaces, 2-A is not an uncountable infinity lower than Low 1-C. In universal spaces though, it would be uncountably lower than Low 1-C.Let's take the smallest infinite cardinal (aleph-0, or ℵ0, the cardinality of countably infinite sets) as an example in this case: A set comprised of a countably infinite number of 0-dimensional points is itself a 0-dimensional space under the usual notions of dimensionality, being thus still infinitely small. Meanwhile, a countably infinite number of planets is High 3-A, a countably infinite number of universes 2-A, and countably infinite dimensions High 1-B.
So we were never operating on the universal scale, but the dimensional scale. Which makes my previous claims in context correct.Mate. A new dimensional axis is uncountably infinitely higher than the last. What do you think high 3-A is?
I get that, but I didn't fully expand my thoughts until right before you posted unfortunately. So to repostWhat that quote is saying is that:
The 4th Dimension is not an uncountably infinite higher than the 3rd Dimension.In terms of dimensional spaces, 2-A is not an uncountable infinity lower than Low 1-C. In universal spaces though, it would be uncountably lower than Low 1-C.
The issue being is that this is what he said originally.
Mate. A new dimensional axis is uncountably infinitely higher than the last. What do you think high 3-A is?
So we were never operating on the universal scale, but the dimensional scale. Which makes my previous claims in context correct.
In this case, no.Whats the general consensus?