• 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.

Just asking

A verse doesn’t need infinite dimensions to be 1-A. It just has to be superior in a way that even if infinite dimensions were added, it wouldn’t matter.
Which is literally the highest possible interpretation, similarly to how we don't give any verse with the statement about "transcending dimensions" 1-A rating by default
 
Which is literally the highest possible interpretation, similarly to how we don't give any verse with the statement about "transcending dimensions" 1-A rating by default
Because “transcending dimensions” can be referring to universes or lower spatiotemporal ones.
 
 そこはユークリッド幾何学の及ばない、超次元的な異空間だ。
Translation:
"It is an otherworldly hyperdimensional space that beyond the reach of Euclidean Geometry."
及ばない mean "unattainable" or "could not reach"
 
 そこはユークリッド幾何学の及ばない、超次元的な異空間だ。
Translation:
"It is an otherworldly hyperdimensional space that beyond the reach of Euclidean Geometry."
及ばない mean "unattainable" or "could not reach"
Low 1A comment makes sense to me
 
The difference is when you just use throw around fancy terms in a vague context or interpret them in a way contrary to the actual writing. I’m just not sure what you think it has to say for it to be 1-A.
It's not about being vague or not, we don't automatically accept "transcending dimensions" as 1-A because it's NLF to assume that it means transcending all possible number of dimensions (when you just need to transcend like 5 random dimensions to be called as "transcending dimensions").

Here is same because transcending euclidean spaces can mean transcending 3-D or 4-D, it's not necessary to transcend all possible extensions of euclidean spaces to be called like that at all.
 
It's not about being vague or not, we don't automatically accept "transcending dimensions" as 1-A because it's NLF to assume that it means transcending all possible number of dimensions (when you just need to transcend like 5 random dimensions to be called as "transcending dimensions").

Here is same because transcending euclidean spaces can mean transcending 3-D or 4-D, it's not necessary to transcend all possible extensions of euclidean spaces to be called like that at all.
Well yeah, it’s NLF because you’re using a vague/insufficient statement to claim that a mention of transcending dimensions is 1-A.

The statement actually said it transcended Euclidean Geometry, not just space. So it does sound like it’s referring to something more specific at play.
 
Well yeah, it’s NLF because you’re using a vague/insufficient statement to claim that a mention of transcending dimensions is 1-A.

The statement actually said it transcended Euclidean Geometry, not just space. So it does sound like it’s referring to something more specific at play.
Hmm? Everytime we refer to Euclidean spaces it means Euclidean Geometry too, they are practically same things
 
Euclidean Geometry is the concept in general which Euclidean spaces are a part of.
When I mention Euclidean spaces I actually mean Euclidean Geometry too, as these spaces are what Euclidean geometry's postulates apply
But still, it's NLF to say that it transcends all possible extensions of Euclidean Geometry as a whole, low ball rating like low 1-C will be more accurate instead
 
When I mention Euclidean spaces I actually mean Euclidean Geometry too, as these spaces are what Euclidean geometry's postulates apply
But still, it's NLF to say that it transcends all possible extensions of Euclidean Geometry as a whole, low ball rating like low 1-C will be more accurate instead
What would it need to say for it not to be NLF?
 
Back
Top