- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #41
You can ask him if space beyond is bigger than universe in the shown video.
-
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.
Ben 10 - Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal
- Thread starter Reiner04
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ben 10 ben 10 cosmology
- Status
- 18,393
- 14,311
Alright, I will ask him.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Upon careful consideration from both a logical and mathematical perspective, I would determine that it is indeed low 1-C, if we took visual interpretation as valid. Alone with the fact that has been compared as literal star (which the star presents 2-A structure), so it should be larger than this structure, it can't be interpreted to be in the same plane/dimensionality, rather in higher one which also been confirmed as beyond space.
I understand the comparison here is visual, but I am asking DontTalk if visual interpretation is valid or not in DMs.
So change my vote to agree.
I understand the comparison here is visual, but I am asking DontTalk if visual interpretation is valid or not in DMs.
So change my vote to agree.
- 5,623
- 7,083
I'll stay neutral for now. But I can see where you're coming from.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Yap, always mention MG randomly in the thread. Wonderful.
- 946
- 829
It basically the same logic, I disagreed with it when I joined this forum but since it's accepted in the FAQ I can't argue against it.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Naw, it is not the same logic, but let's not go topic off. Here is extremely different. But no worries
- 14,748
- 20,572
Last edited:
- 9,720
- 6,181
- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #52
- 18,393
- 14,311
Not really, but he still needs to mention what “FRA” is referring to.
- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #54
Yeah.
- 7,000
- 4,280
That's not how it works. As long as their is a reason to disagree in a post above theirs then saying they disagree for reasons above is enough.
- 18,393
- 14,311
FRA stands for “For reasons above”. He still needs to say which reasons above. There are multiple people disagreeing with different reasons.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I would rather quote someone's reason and say “Disagree FRA” as I show the public which reasons I am referring to.
---> Suggestion ^^
---> Suggestion ^^
- 7,000
- 4,280
They don't, their just has to be a reason above.
- 14,748
- 20,572
I don’t think anything states I have to do that, no.
- 18,393
- 14,311
I am not actually arguing because I don't want to be banned, but logically speaking, FRA could mean any reasons. So, if you want to be inconsistent with reasons of your disagreement's spot in this thread. Sure thing, tho, I would not recommend it.
However, it is important to recognize that the abbreviation “FRA” could be interpreted as having multiple meanings, which could lead to confusion and potential misunderstandings. Therefore, it would be more effective to clearly state the specific reasons for disagreement in order to facilitate a productive and cohesive discourse.
Also, you edited your message, I don't know why are you guys now going against me. I was, technically speaking, being discursive with the usage of FRA.
Furthermore, I apologize if our actions or words have caused any offense. My intention was not to go against you, but rather to ensure that the conversation remains respectful and constructive. I was bespeaking the cohesiveness of your disagreement.
However, it is important to recognize that the abbreviation “FRA” could be interpreted as having multiple meanings, which could lead to confusion and potential misunderstandings. Therefore, it would be more effective to clearly state the specific reasons for disagreement in order to facilitate a productive and cohesive discourse.
Also, you edited your message, I don't know why are you guys now going against me. I was, technically speaking, being discursive with the usage of FRA.
Furthermore, I apologize if our actions or words have caused any offense. My intention was not to go against you, but rather to ensure that the conversation remains respectful and constructive. I was bespeaking the cohesiveness of your disagreement.
Last edited:
- 7,000
- 4,280
FRA don't mean much on their own besides just a general idea of how many people disagree with a conclusion for one reason or another. It's the actual reasons and points made in other posts that matter and need to be countered.
Because as staff members it's our role to correct any misinformation about how the site works.
- 18,393
- 14,311
You are correct that the abbreviation “FRA” on its own does not provide sufficient information about the specific reasons for disagreement. It is important to clearly state and address the specific points and arguments made in order to effectively counter them and facilitate a productive and meaningful discourse. Simply stating that there is disagreement without presenting supporting reasons or evidence does not contribute to the conversation and does not allow for a thorough analysis and understanding of the issue at hand. I encourage all parties to clearly articulate their positions and provide supporting evidence in order to facilitate a productive and informative discussion.
- 159
- 88
Agree with Low 1-C
- 159
- 88
Forgot to say I'd also be ok with Possibly Low 1-C
- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #67
You want to disagree for no reason?
And you?
Pls tell me so that I put down it in disagreement for no reason
- 18,393
- 14,311
Reiner, stop being crazy. @Maverick_Zero_X already addressed which reasons and @Everything12 has his own reasons. No need to have this attitude right now.
Everything12 and I are just chatting about some aspects of this FRA conspiracy theory.
Everything12 and I are just chatting about some aspects of this FRA conspiracy theory.
- 6,968
- 6,751
Please refer to our FAQ and reiterate your argument for Qualitative Superiority.
vsbattles.fandom.com
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #72
Please refer to our FAQ and reiterate your argument for Qualitative Superiority.
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
Natural numbers are countably infinite.
And as per continuum hypothesis that is there is no set between the set of natural numbers and real numbers anything that is bigger than 2A or natural numbers is low 1C or uncountably infinite or Power set of natural numbers.
- 6,968
- 6,751
Sorry. I don't follow. Which section of the FAQ are you referencing?This section of FAQ explains that how Cardinality can be one way to scale things out of many, that there is no such thing as bigger 2A as all 2A's are of same size, just containing one 2A structure Inside is not a proof of being bigger than 2A as natural numbers contain odd and even numbers but still aren't smaller than natural numbers but equal.Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
Natural numbers are countably infinite.
And as per continuum hypothesis that is there is no set between the set of natural numbers and real numbers anything that is bigger than 2A or natural numbers is low 1C or uncountably infinite or Power set of natural numbers.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Q: How do cardinal numbers relate to tiering?
- 10,073
- 3,721
Bigger than 2a is a layer above baseline 2a….right??
- 6,968
- 6,751
I know, but what section of that corresponds to how he derived Low 1-C.
- 18,393
- 14,311
Bigger than 2-A structure as in size, no. It is low 1-C
I assume this one (if I am not wrong)
- 10,073
- 3,721
Wait but if this gets accepted, there would have to be qualitative superiority between 5d and 4d
- 9,853
- 10,600
- Thread starter
- #79
^This one, but to understand this, there should be some understanding over how larger infinities works, to say it simple, only thing that can be bigger than natural numbers is real numbers, there is no other class there is btw them or just what ultima has described above I quoted in the OP, there is no such thing as bigger than 2A while still remaining 2A.
Derailing, the size difference should be significant enough that dwarfs the entire structure to insignificant scale,as it looks and has been stated, it is comparable to star in the universe so it is significant enough.
- 6,968
- 6,751
I'm sorry, but can you elaborate on the two objects/spaces that you are using to compare in size for qualitative superiority?
- Status
Similar threads
