Honkai Impact | Major Downgrade From Low 1-A

[Rakih_Elyan]

attack potential ≠ dc, Ap≠hax, but that doesn't mean it's just stuck at the moon level, you can't assume that the attack that killed Kevin was only at the level of the moon physically, but it must be understood case by case not just seen at a glance, if your mind set is like this, many fictions will be derived, even Goku fighting on a planet did not destroy the planet.

It's indeed case by case, but the narrative in HI3rd would point to on-screen feats physical-wise. Example: Zeroth Shamash that have 6-A physical AP (albeit with herrscher core inside) hurt HoV Sirin, which by scaling to HoV Kiana- should have High 1-C durability.

I don't care about other fiction inconsistencies, Dragon Ball in my opinion is the most egregious example of this.

The Chinese webnovels I've read don't really have this problem, the moment a character becomes Multiversal, their fight will consistently be on a multiversal-scale. I wouldn't force anyone to be on this standard, but that is just my opinion on this. (Delete character profile that have multiversal AP, but doesn't have on screen multiversal feat. Characters with tier 2 and above that don't have on-screen multiversal feat are fraudulent. Those mfers shouldn't exist here.)

I refer to this meme once again:

HI3rd on-screen feats consistently show tier 6 to tier 5 AP.

 

[DrakerX]

You can use Wikipedia to find sources, but this definition in particular is just wrong. Cantor himself proved that such a "number" could not exist.

There is no such cap. But there's the issue. You're trying to apply a concept that goes directly against our standards. In our standards, a "number that is bigger than any other conceivable or inconceivable quantity, either finite or transfinite" simply cannot exist. It's inapplicable.

The issue here is that you're trying to scale Honkai to a nonsensical, incoherent concept that contradicts our standards. It's not Low 1-A, it's completely incompatible with either our tiering system or logic in general.

So tell me, since the definition you gave is incorrect and inapplicable, how else do you think "absolute infinity" should be defined? Clearly we shouldn't use Cantor's definition either. The only way we could reasonably interpret "absolute infinity" is either as a buzzword who's meaning we don't know or as "infinite in a way that's somehow absolute" (which is not enough for Low 1-A).

You are continously shifting your argument, which makes it impossible to actually debate anything. First, characters could not up scale from Absolute Infinity. Then the Absolute Infinity is actually Tier 0 and therefore cannot be applied to this characters. Now Absolute Infinity doesn't have a proper definition.
Yes, in our Tiering System something that is above any quantity, finite or transfinite, do exist, and that's exactly what Low 1-A serve. To categorize everything that is beyond transfinite cardinal, alephs and such. This was discussed and agreed upon in the first CRT, and even while revising the Tiering System itself. The definition and expression of the Absolute Infinity already exist, and it's Ω, something that encompass the system of all numbers, as Cantor explained in that segment I copied and pasted above. The fact that it is "illogical" doesn't really stop a fictional work from using the raw defintion to define the power of a character, does it?
Honestly, this feels like a circular argument that wont get us to anything, so I will comment in here only if something new is actually brought to the table.

 

[Telomera]

Hmmm... not quite in raw power. Absolute infinity has many versions, and theoretically, one version can surpass another. There is a version that is close to the Von Neumann Universe and another that cannot be surpassed, theoretically, in quantitative manner. However, if any one of these versions is true for the verse, making the others false, it would and should still be in the same category as the unsurpassable version, I think. Since it is absolute infinity, being quantitatively beyond it would be kind of... self-defeat, even if taken from context of the verse in "mathematical sense" (which we take here ig). Being above in skill or combat or shit is different thing. But I was told that no one scales above absolute infinity and everyone downscales. So I will wait for response and counter arguments. I am still neutral.

I already pointed out that V isn't a real definition for Absolute Infinity, but here are some other issues/antifeats:

Otto's power was able to resonate across his entire imaginary space (which was supposedly absolutely infinite) despite his same power being clearly limited. This implies that the imaginary space was itself limited rather than actually being "absolutely infinite" in any literal sense.

The Imaginary Tree is itself transfinite and is able to be described with transfinite numbers even though transfinite numbers are smaller than absolute infinity by definition and despite the fact that even Low 1-A is supposed to be beyond transfinite numbers.

The Chinese that is translated as "absolute infinity" is written differently from how Cantor's "absolute infinity" is actually written in Chinese. In the Honkai statement, it is written as 绝对的无限 whereas Cantor's absolute infinity is written as 绝对无限

The book statement has quotation marks around 无限 (which means "infinity"). As quotation marks are often used in Chinese to denote proper nouns or metaphors, this implies that the "absolute infinity" mentioned here is either just a name or figurative language.

 

[Telomera]

You are continously shifting your argument, which makes it impossible to actually debate anything. First, characters could not up scale from Absolute Infinity. Then the Absolute Infinity is actually Tier 0 and therefore cannot be applied to this characters. Now Absolute Infinity doesn't have a proper definition.

Agreed, at least in this case. So why are you appealing to a definition to say that Honkai scales to Low 1-A? If Honkai characters scale to something that "doesn't have a proper definition," that's just unquantifiable, we can't scale them to Low 1-A based off of it.

Yes, in our Tiering System something that is above any quantity, finite or transfinite, do exist, and that's exactly what Low 1-A serve.

That's not what Low 1-A is.

The fact that it is "illogical" doesn't really stop a fictional work from using the raw defintion to define the power of a character, does it?

You're admitting that this scaling is illogical? If so, that's good. The problem with that is that scaling on this site is supposed to be logical, not illogical. If we used illogical scaling, we'd inevitably have to accept nonsense such as "omnipotence^2" or "omnipotence+1" or as mentioned earlier in this thread, "high boundless."

 

[SweetDao]

V is not an "improper infinite" nor did Cantor ever even talk about proper classes or V.

"What this distinction amounts to will become apparent when discussing Cantor's positions in some detail, but we may already say that, applied to the ordinal sequence (the clearest instance of absolute infinity), the main difference lies in that in the conception of the absolute as actual the totality of all ordinals is assumed to be given (in the mind of God or wherever), which totality, however, we are intrinsically unable to grasp and to deal with."

But if you really do think that Cantor's PoV doesn't apply to Honkai Impact, then you'd have to discard his conception of the Absolute Infinite and define it as something else. What do you suggest we define "Absolute Infinity" as instead? I think it would be best to either define it as "infinity that is absolute in some sense" (which is not Low 1-A) or as a made-up buzzword who's meaning we don't know (also not Low 1-A).

I define it as Low 1-A, just like, iirc, Ultima accepted as such when asked about it.

No he didn't. Cantor never even talked about V. That was quite literally after his time. He died before any formulation of V was ever published.

There is no possibility to know the difference between V and other type of class. Rucky Rucker explained it quite well in one of his books. If any proper class (like the sequence of ordinals) is considered as absolute infinite by Cantor, so is V.

There is a kind of second-order One/Many problem that arises here. Are all the different Absolutes the same? Are God, Truth, Beauty, the Class of all Sets, the Mindscape, the Good, and so on, really different facets of some single ultimate ONE? This is certainly debatable. If all wisdom leads to the same thing, then why are there so many different religions, different schools of thought, and different ways of seeking enlightenment? Is a jogger looking for the same thing that a writer is?

This problem actually has an analogue in set theory. In set theory we have two different Absolutes: Infinity, represented by Ω, and Everything, represented by V. Ω can be thought of as the class of all ordinals, while V is the class of all sets. Now every ordinal can be represented as a set, so on the crudest level, V is larger than Ω. But, in pursuing the equivalence of all Absolutes, we could instead ask if each set is coded up by some ordinal, or if in terms of cardinality Images Is Infinity as big as Everything?

No one really knows. The assertion Images means that there is a one-to-one correspondence between the class of all ordinals and the class of all sets. But since such a correspondence is itself a proper class, it is hard to be sure it exists. When the assumption that there is such a correspondence is explicitly made, set theorists call it the Axiom of Global Choice, or, in a stronger form, the Axiom of Ordinal Definability. (See also the end of “The Continuum” in Excursion I, where a relationship between Global Choice and Cantor’s Continuum Problem is pointed out.)

I think it is highly significant that the deepest problems of metaphysics can be given explicit set theoretic formulations. Gödel once expressed the view that present-day philosophy is in a state comparable to that of physics before Newton. Perhaps the ultimate role of set theory will be to do for philosophy what calculus did for physics.

Since Cantor viewed God to be a unity that contained everything in which everything exists, it would make sense for Cantor to think of God as the "set" of all "alephs" (although he understood those terms in a FAR different way than you or I intuitively would).

You do realize that he also considered the sequence of all ordinals as "absolutely infinite" so it means God was divided in multiple things? OR that he saw in all the proper classes/sequences the same properties that he saw in God? If I had to choose one interpretation, I would choose the latter personally. Especially when it is alluded to in the essay.

I'm asking you to PROVE that the class of ordinals would be considered to be absolutely infinite by Cantor, not to beg the question and simply parrot your conclusion over and over again.

It's hammered down multiple times in the essay posted as source on Wikipedia? I've already given you a quote above, but if you want some more:

Once more: actually conceived, the absolute bounds the entire ordinal sequence, whereas potentially conceived, the ordinal sequence is absolutely unbounded.

With his description of the generation process in Grundlagen it was perfectly clear and it was explicitly emphasized by Cantor himself, even in the absence of proofs about the extent of the sequence of ordinals, that this sequence was absolutely infinite so that the ordinals could not be collected into a set.

What makes a sequence (like the ordinal sequence) absolutely infinite or absolutely limitless is its impossibility to be completed by any means whatever. What this means cannot be properly characterized, but nevertheless our understanding of it can be clear enough to justify our acceptance of some basic propositions (as that a sequence isomorphic to an absolutely infinite one is absolutely infinite; or that the sequence of natural numbers is not absolute.)

 

[Furina003]

It's indeed case by case, but the narrative in HI3rd would point to on-screen feats physical-wise. Example: Zeroth Shamash that have 6-A physical AP (albeit with herrscher core inside) hurt HoV Sirin, which by scaling to HoV Kiana- should have High 1-C durability.

I don't care about other fiction inconsistencies, Dragon Ball in my opinion is the most egregious example of this.

The Chinese webnovels I've read don't really have this problem, the moment a character becomes Multiversal, their fight will consistently be on a multiversal-scale. I wouldn't force anyone to be on this standard, but that is just my opinion on this. (Delete character profile that have multiversal AP, but doesn't have on screen multiversal feat. Characters with tier 2 and above that don't have on-screen multiversal feat are fraudulent. Those mfers shouldn't exist here.)

I refer to this meme once again:

HI3rd on-screen feats consistently show tier 6 to tier 5 AP.

what are you talking about? you yourself explained that it can indeed be scaled, if A has Ap 6A and attacks B who has durability H1C, it is not Durability that is reduced, but this will be A's proof to increase his Attack potential to H1c.

you said it was inconsistency because you deliberately closed your eyes and pretended not to see it, you said this was inconsistency because you thought A who originally had Ap 6A could attack B who had Durability h1c, even though this was not inconsistency but this would be A's feat to increase his AP

 

[PedjaTarzan]

what are you talking about? you yourself explained that it can indeed be scaled, if A has Ap 6A and attacks B who has durability H1C, it is not Durability that is reduced, but this will be A's proof to increase his Attack potential to H1c.

you said it was inconsistency because you deliberately closed your eyes and pretended not to see it, you said this was inconsistency because you thought A who originally had Ap 6A could attack B who had Durability h1c, even though this was not inconsistency but this would be A's feat to increase his AP

You two should stop arguing whatever this is
ap dc hax thing doesnt matter here
Honkai has well accepted UES so theres no need to argue so called "inconsistencies" when there are multiple tier 1 feats shown in the story (all of them are listed on profiles)
not to mention that tiering system itself tells us that characters are not needed to bust universes on a good day every time.

I define it as Low 1-A, just like, iirc, Ultima accepted as such when asked about it.

here

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

what are you talking about? you yourself explained that it can indeed be scaled, if A has Ap 6A and attacks B who has durability H1C, it is not Durability that is reduced, but this will be A's achievement to increase his Attack potential to H1c.

you said it was inconsistency because you deliberately closed your eyes and pretended not to see it, you said this was inconsistency because you thought A who originally had Ap 6A could attack B who had Durability h1c, even though this was not inconsistency but this would be A's feat to increase his AP

Reread my post again.

Zeroth Shamash was already 6-A possibly 4-C physically, there calculation for that. It's already a power-up on its own, Siegfried literally sacrificing his hand just to use it. It cannot be powered up again until Kevin turns it into An-Utu.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

not to mention that tiering system itself tells us that characters are not needed to bust universes on a good day every time.

Mark my word, one day this will change.

 

[SweetDao]

here

Thanks pookie, I was too lazy to search for it even though I'm sure he stated it multiple times.

 

[BoastJr]

all this bickering only for goku to solo

 

[Shiroiyo]

I already pointed out that V isn't a real definition for Absolute Infinity, but here are some other issues/antifeats:

Otto's power was able to resonate across his entire imaginary space (which was supposedly absolutely infinite) despite his same power being clearly limited. This implies that the imaginary space was itself limited rather than actually being "absolutely infinite" in any literal sense.

The Imaginary Tree is itself transfinite and is able to be described with transfinite numbers even though transfinite numbers are smaller than absolute infinity by definition and despite the fact that even Low 1-A is supposed to be beyond transfinite numbers.

The Chinese that is translated as "absolute infinity" is written differently from how Cantor's "absolute infinity" is actually written in Chinese. In the Honkai statement, it is written as 绝对的无限 whereas Cantor's absolute infinity is written as 绝对无限

The book statement has quotation marks around 无限 (which means "infinity"). As quotation marks are often used in Chinese to denote proper nouns or metaphors, this implies that the "absolute infinity" mentioned here is either just a name or figurative language.

Otto's limitations don't apply to the Imaginary Tree nor the Imaginary Space, after all he is still a slave to it and was never stated or shown to be stronger than it, therefore he downscales at most as he was "close" to it. Although, even in the scenario we discard him and the cast scaling physically to the Low 1-A rating, there isn't nothing against the Imaginary Tree that wasn't adressed before in this thread.

The stuff about translation and cardinals I adressed here, but a TLDR of this is: even by googling "绝对的无限" you are going to be taken to Cantor's absolute Infinity, either by articles or dictionaries. The scans we got accepted currently dont even say.

The stuff about quotation marks is frankly a nitpick, Otto even says it without any quotation marks (I can get better quality if needed) in the game, also just saying if you are going to use CN text as evidence or defining points, we would need a translation member to clarify things as the priority in this case are the official translations and the game as it is the main canon.

 

[Telomera]

"What this distinction amounts to will become apparent when discussing Cantor's positions in some detail, but we may already say that, applied to the ordinal sequence (the clearest instance of absolute infinity), the main difference lies in that in the conception of the absolute as actual the totality of all ordinals is assumed to be given (in the mind of God or wherever), which totality, however, we are intrinsically unable to grasp and to deal with."

That's the author's (incorrect) interpretation, it's not representative of what Cantor himself actually believed.

I define it as Low 1-A, just like, iirc, Ultima accepted as such when asked about it.

I know you don't believe me yet but Ultima has actually said that V and absolute infinity are different. But of course, you're going to have to take my word for it. For now. Ultima is supposed to respond to this thread soon but "This thread is so cooked" in his words.

There is no possibility to know the difference between V and other type of class. Rucky Rucker explained it quite well in one of his books. If any proper class (like the sequence of ordinals) is considered as absolute infinite by Cantor, so is V.

Cool, because Cantor never said that any proper class was "absolutely infinite" either.

OR that he saw in all the proper classes/sequences the same properties that he saw in God? If I had to choose one interpretation, I would choose the latter personally. Especially when it is alluded to in the essay.

"God" and the "Absolute" were one and the same to Cantor. They're just two names for the same "entity."

It's hammered down multiple times in the essay posted as source on Wikipedia? I've already given you a quote above, but if you want some more:

As I already mentioned, those are the words of the author who wrote that article, not Cantor himself. That author's interpretation in particular is actually disputed.

Also, you do realize that interpreting "absolute infinity" in the way Jańe does makes it scale even LOWER, don't you? According to him, Cantor's interpretation wasn't even an actual completed infinity, but a potential infinity that is impossible to actualize. According to him,

Cantor's later approach to absolute multiplicities is that they are not objects at all. And they are not objects because they only exist potentially."

With this interpretation, the absolute infinite isn't even truly infinite at all in the first place.

 

[BoastJr]

I think you guys are going all over the place (I am just seeing scaling chain, cantor's interpretation and semantics on the Tiering system (?) being disputed but I still cannot follow anything thats happening).

Either summarise and tackle everything one at a time or make a new thread if this gets derailed. Unless you want this to turn into another Nasuverse Fiasco that last 9 months without going anywhere.

 

[Shiroiyo]

I dont want to derail the thread, but I will adress some of the AP concerns.

Most of the tier 1 feats we currently use are straight up destroying tier 2 to 1 structures, no less, with a very few creation ones. Star of Eden? all DC feats, Anchor feats? we have 1 busting feat and a creation one by Honkai energy that most high tiers scales to. There is also a bit of scaling through state of existence like HDE and BDE, and some AP feats by Aeons, Honkai has a well accepted and solid UES since years here, so discussing whether or not it is hax here is irrelevant.

Apart from that, the AP page tells us that you don't need to cause destruction 24/7 at that level, and that low destruction is not proof of low AP, this is just the good old AOE fallacy. We are also told that Honkai users can go there and simply restrict their energy to the smallest possible space, making this argument bad even without VSBW standards.

 

[StrymULTRA]

We are also told that Honkai users can go there and simply restrict their energy to the smallest possible space, making this argument bad even without VSBW standards.

Ki control mentioned.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Most of the tier 1 feats we currently use are straight up destroying tier 2 to 1 structures, no less, with a very few creation ones.

List me some of them besides Otto Imaginary Space, Bianca Anchor and the Captain/Ferryman bazillion ether anchor feats. The only ones I see it being physically there without relying on Imaginary Tree hax is Bianca and the Captain really.

Apart from that, the AP page tells us that you don't need to cause destruction 24/7 at that level, and that low destruction is not proof of low AP, this is just the good old AOE fallacy. We are also told that Honkai users can go there and simply restrict their energy to the smallest possible space, making this argument bad even without VSBW standards

More of a "Sweating to destroy a planet" kind of situation, than an AOE fallacy really. I know ***** like that happen in fiction, but we are talking about something that really affect narratives like Venus and Mars.

This shit sucks bruh, this going to change one day

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Please refrain from discussing things outside the scope of this CRT to avoid cluttering.
since that topic could be and should be a separate CRT

 

[Telomera]

I think you guys are going all over the place (I am just seeing scaling chain, cantor's interpretation and semantics on the Tiering system (?) being disputed but I still cannot follow anything thats happening).

Either summarise and tackle everything one at a time or make a new thread if this gets derailed. Unless you want this to turn into another Nasuverse Fiasco that last 9 months without going anywhere.

Issue 1: Otto's statements are unreliable

One of the two sources for the "absolute infinity" scaling is that Otto himself boasts that "the power that cannot be renormalized is absolutely infinite" (which either refers to the Imaginary tree, his particular Imaginary Space, or Otto's power). The issue here is that Otto is not a reliable source of information whatsoever. Otto had claimed to have transcended Herrscher entirely, becoming a god in comparison to them; yet, he obviously got killed by a Herrscher anyways. That particular boast of his regarding the "absolutely infinite" was in the middle of him claiming that relying on the Herrscher of the Void's power would not be enough to kill him... and then immediately getting killed by the Herrscher of the Void's power seconds later anyways (and my goodness, Otto's voice is grating to listen to).

As demonstrated, Otto has been shown repeatedly to be full of shit. As a result, his boasts of his own power being "absolutely infinite" are not reliable. But there is still a quote from a book claiming that Otto's imaginary space is absolutely infinite. This should be reliable on paper, but there are problems with even that which I will go over below. In light of those problems, this one solitary statement from the book which could've been reliable should be discarded.

Issue 2: Otto's power is limited, and by extension, so is his imaginary space despite it supposedly being "absolute infinity"

Otto's power was stated to be limited (even Shiroiyo seems to accept that), yet he was still able to use that limited power to distort the his entire imaginary space to the point where the entirety of it was resonating with his energy. This indicates that the space itself is limited; otherwise it would be too big for Otto to perform this feat. Since this Imaginary Space in particular, which has been demonstrated to be limited, was described as being 绝对的 "无限" this also indicates that something which is 绝对的 "无限" can still be limited, which speaks against 绝对的 "无限" strictly meaning "absolute infinity" in the Cantorian sense (since Cantor's Absolute Infinite is NOT limited).

Issue 3: The Imaginary Tree is transfinite; thus, it is not "absolutely infinite" in the Cantorian sense nor is it Low 1-A.

The Imaginary Tree is stated to have a transfinite scale and can be described using the concept of transfinite numbers. This is a problem because "transfinite" is literally a word coined by Cantor specifically to refer to infinities that are NOT absolute. Additionally, this is a problem because Low 1-A is beyond transfinite numbers as a whole (the Von Neumann universe is beyond transfinite numbers). Since the Imaginary Tree is transfinite and has a scale that can be described using the concept of transfinite numbers, it cannot be Low 1-A.

Issue 4: Cantor's Absolute Infinite just has a lot of baggage to it that simply does not fit with Honkai's descriptions of "absolute infinity."

Cantor didn't treat numbers as quantitative extensions of strength like in our tiering system does below 1-A, but rather treated them in a Platonic sense and viewed numbers as representing reality itself, including the very relationships and processes that govern both the external and mental world. These numbers encompass both "quantitative superiority" and "qualitative superiority." Already, Cantor's theories go beyond Low 1-A and into 1-A and above

Cantor also viewed the Absolute Infinite as not just beyond numbers, but fundamentally beyond mathematics as a whole. Cantor viewed the "set of all alephs" as something that could not be considered a mathematical object at all (unlike V) due to the Burali-Forti paradox. Instead, he viewed the Absolute as an unique, completely individual unity in which everything is, which contains everything (this already clearly doesn't apply to Otto's "absolutely infinite" imaginary space since it doesn't contain everything in the verse); a metaphysical entity without determination whatsoever in the Hegelian sense ; completely unincreasable (unlike Low 1-A which is treated as increasable on our Tiering System); unable to be conceived as an abstract or mathematical magnitude, number, or order type; and beyond the intellect's ability to define, determine, or distinguish due to the Absolute's sheer immensity.

I'd argue this actually proves it's Tier 0 which absolutely does not apply to Otto or the Imaginary Space, but I want to hear what Ultima thinks of that first. Either way, Cantor's Absolute Infinite does NOT work at all for Otto's imaginary space and thus should not be used to scale here.

Issue 5: The Chinese referring to "absolute infinity" is iffy (should probably get a translation member here though)

In Chinese, Cantor's Absolute Infinite is usually written out as "绝对无限." However, in the actual statement our scaling is based off of, it is written out as 绝对的 "无限". In addition to it being spelled differently, notice the quotation marks. Quotation marks are often used to denote proper nouns (ie names) and metaphorical language, meaning that the "infinity" is likely either just a name/buzzword or figurative language rather than a literal basis for scaling.

 

[Shiroiyo]

With that, I will hopefully make the final post here using the arguments against the OP during thread, and then we wait for translation member or staff. Until that, if possible we should avoid adding more to the thread.

 

[Weaver261]

Issue 1: Otto's statements are unreliable

This is amazing in itself honestly. Everybody in this thread has been repeatedly explaning you about Otto Apocalpyse and his nature. Yet you ignored all of them and went on with your own headcanon. I have been seeing this kind of behavior in recent threads more and more. IMO, I think this should result in some sort of ban.
I don't want to prolong or derail the thread but I feel like I have to say it.

 

[Telomera]

This is amazing in itself honestly. Everybody in this thread has been repeatedly explaning you about Otto Apocalpyse and his nature. Yet you ignored all of them and went on with your own headcanon. I have been seeing this kind of behavior in recent threads more and more. IMO, I think this should result in some sort of ban.
I don't want to prolong or derail the thread but I feel like I have to say it.

You yourself said that Otto talked a lot of false shit just to anger the heroes and draw out their potential. So why do you continue to insist on his credibility? It just proves that his statements aren't credible.

 

[Weaver261]

You yourself said that Otto talked a lot of false shit just to anger the heroes and draw out their potential. So why do you continue to insist on his credibility? It just proves that his statements aren't credible.

Just because he said something for the sake of his plan, all of his words aren't credible anymore? What kind of argument is this? Aside from HoV leveraging the rules of imaginary tree itself, he did transcend herrschers. He is absolute infinity.

I would say we need a new rule for member participating in threads not to oversimplify the context and make the other side looks unconvincing. That's just fraudulent. (Idk if such a rule already exist. We have also told multiple times not to oversimplify the context)

Otto had claimed to have transcended Herrscher entirely, becoming a god in comparison to them; yet, he obviously got killed by a Herrscher anyways.

This is oversimplifying what happened in the story and how it's actually done. Here is how it's actually one by one. Oversimplifying the whole plan to a simple statement of "Otto got killed by HoV." is not a good thing to do.

 

[PedjaTarzan]

Just because he said something for the sake of his plan, all of his words aren't credible anymore? What kind of argument is this? Aside from HoV leveraging the rules of imaginary tree itself, he did transcend herrschers. He is absolute infinity.

I wouldnt say he is The Absolute Infinity as the imaginary space he made was just a sign and he himself was part/slave to the tree, all of these was adressed 3 times by me but op doesnt like me ig . the Absolute Infinity here is the Imaginary Tree, which i dont wanna repeat 500 times, no one ever surspassed.
Every other debate if absolute infinity is 0 or low 1-a is pointless, the current standard indicates that its low 1-a, even said by ultima.
if yall want to debate that. staff discussion is for you, make a thread abt changin the standard and then proceed to argue.
tho this is pointles ass his gracious saviour himself ultima reality will just pop out and nuke low 1-a directly so...yeah
and for him dying to herrscher is absolutely wrong, i previously said hes alive, but didnt bring up the fact he litteraly went to the tree and made an entire universe where kallen is alive and well.
Also it isnt hard to read that only his authoirty and imaginary space were danished, not that he freaking died.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

Otto in no way is an Absolute Infinity.

The tree is, Otto is just one of its goons.

 

[Shiroiyo]

Issue 1: Otto's statements are unreliable

One of the two sources for the "absolute infinity" scaling is that Otto himself boasts that "the power that cannot be renormalized is absolutely infinite" (which either refers to the Imaginary tree, his particular Imaginary Space, or Otto's power). The issue here is that Otto is not a reliable source of information whatsoever. Otto had claimed to have transcended Herrscher entirely, becoming a god in comparison to them; yet, he obviously got killed by a Herrscher anyways. That particular boast of his regarding the "absolutely infinite" was in the middle of him claiming that relying on the Herrscher of the Void's power would not be enough to kill him... and then immediately getting killed by the Herrscher of the Void's power seconds later anyways (and my goodness, Otto's voice is grating to listen to).

As demonstrated, Otto has been shown repeatedly to be full of shit. As a result, his boasts of his own power being "absolutely infinite" are not reliable. But there is still a quote from a book claiming that Otto's imaginary space is absolutely infinite. This should be reliable on paper, but there are problems with even that which I will go over below. In light of those problems, this one solitary statement from the book which could've been reliable should be discarded.

Otto as the False God is stated to have his energy to be in pair with the Herrscher of Finality, said Herrscher is stated to stronger than any other Herrscher (Consistent) Otto didn't get killed, only his power was turned into finite or destroyed (?) and then it vanished, by that time he already had lost his powers, so anything after this timestamp no longer applies to FG Otto, but rather his Kolosten key, and even then he actually didn't die, he is alive as he walks to the Imaginary Tree and only dies to Shamash flames. (Starts here, and he dies here to Shamash)

As I said before, Otto's statements are backed up by the entity that was providing him this energy, by other characters and by the book (Will get into the book soon). Another thing is that even if Otto were unrealible here, just because a character was once, doesn't mean he will be every time, especially when there is extra statements supporting him.

Issue 2: Otto's power is limited, and by extension, so is his imaginary space despite it supposedly being "absolute infinity"

Otto's power was stated to be limited (even Shiroiyo seems to accept that), yet he was still able to use that limited power to distort the his entire imaginary space to the point where the entirety of it was resonating with his energy. This indicates that the space itself is limited; otherwise it would be too big for Otto to perform this feat. Since this Imaginary Space in particular, which has been demonstrated to be limited, was described as being 绝对的 "无限" this also indicates that something which is 绝对的 "无限" can still be limited, which speaks against 绝对的 "无限" strictly meaning "absolute infinity" in the Cantorian sense (since Cantor's Absolute Infinite is NOT limited).

I agreed that Otto was inferior in relation to the Tree due to the "slave" and "close" statements, as you can see here. I will repeat my a bit of my previous point, Nagamitsu is very likely to be out-stated here since if Otto couldn't use all that power at once, it wouldn't make sense for the plot to require that power/energy to be transformed into finite, Otto would at least have to have a downscaling of that infinite value for that infinite to be transformed into finite, since any % of something infinite is still infinite, or else renormalization would be transforming finite into finite.

The Imaginary Space was called infinite here and here. Again, I will argue that Nagamitsu is contradicted by the fact that Otto actually showed to be able to create the space, and was never (visually at least) showed to be limited.

I would give in for the on screen feat/narration here. Imagine person X was robbed by person Y, person X denouces Y for theft, but Y denies it... but in this case we have a camera that recorded the event and we have visual evidence that Y actually stole from X, in which case X is favored due to visual evidence. We also have Kalpas and Elysia busting Imaginary Spaces (Kalpas was stopped before doing it, but Elysia actually did it on one go) for consistency sake.

Issue 3: The Imaginary Tree is transfinite; thus, it is not "absolutely infinite" in the Cantorian sense nor is it Low 1-A.

The Imaginary Tree is stated to have a transfinite scale and can be described using the concept of transfinite numbers. This is a problem because "transfinite" is literally a word coined by Cantor specifically to refer to infinities that are NOT absolute. Additionally, this is a problem because Low 1-A is beyond transfinite numbers as a whole (the Von Neumann universe is beyond transfinite numbers). Since the Imaginary Tree is transfinite and has a scale that can be described using the concept of transfinite numbers, it cannot be Low 1-A.

As for this, there was a discussion about the statement during the firsts upgrades threads and after checking the raws, it actually says that the Tree is infinite in scale even in a transfinite sense, and it currently what we use now. Without the 'even' here, the localization still implies that anyway, as if the Honkai on Earth already makes up for a transfine cardinal, the Tree was still far from and was stated to infinite even in a relation to it, it is consistent. But you like you said in your point 5, it would be good to get some translation members here just to double check.

Issue 4: Cantor's Absolute Infinite just has a lot of baggage to it that simply does not fit with Honkai's descriptions of "absolute infinity."

Cantor didn't treat numbers as quantitative extensions of strength like in our tiering system does below 1-A, but rather treated them in a Platonic sense and viewed numbers as representing reality itself, including the very relationships and processes that govern both the external and mental world. These numbers encompass both "quantitative superiority" and "qualitative superiority." Already, Cantor's theories go beyond Low 1-A and into 1-A and above

Cantor also viewed the Absolute Infinite as not just beyond numbers, but fundamentally beyond mathematics as a whole. Cantor viewed the "set of all alephs" as something that could not be considered a mathematical object at all (unlike V) due to the Burali-Forti paradox. Instead, he viewed the Absolute as an unique, completely individual unity in which everything is, which contains everything (this already clearly doesn't apply to Otto's "absolutely infinite" imaginary space since it doesn't contain everything in the verse); a metaphysical entity without determination whatsoever in the Hegelian sense ; completely unincreasable (unlike Low 1-A which is treated as increasable on our Tiering System); unable to be conceived as an abstract or mathematical magnitude, number, or order type; and beyond the intellect's ability to define, determine, or distinguish due to the Absolute's sheer immensity.

I'd argue this actually proves it's Tier 0 which absolutely does not apply to Otto or the Imaginary Space, but I want to hear what Ultima thinks of that first. Either way, Cantor's Absolute Infinite does NOT work at all for Otto's imaginary space and thus should not be used to scale here.

Absolute Infinity is capped at low 1-A, it is how treat it as of now, unless that changes, it is just baseline low 1-A, we treat it as a quantity (This thread here even has inputs of 3 staffs). If you think that Absolute Infinity should be 1-A or tier 0, you are free to make a thread to upgrade it to these tiers, but as of now it isn't how we treat it. Regardless, it is not how Honkai treats it, Honkai treats it just like our tiering system and most definitions does, something quantitative.

ssue 5: The Chinese referring to "absolute infinity" is iffy (should probably get a translation member here though)

In Chinese, Cantor's Absolute Infinite is usually written out as "绝对无限." However, in the actual statement our scaling is based off of, it is written out as 绝对的 "无限". In addition to it being spelled differently, notice the quotation marks. Quotation marks are often used to denote proper nouns (ie names) and metaphorical language, meaning that the "infinity" is likely either just a name/buzzword or figurative language rather than a literal basis for scaling.

Like covered before, Otto actually states without any quotation mark here, the renormalize here refers to the Imaginary space btw, and even googling the CN is going to take you there. Other than that, we dont know what the " " even means here and assuming it is hyperbolic when the same is stated more directly in the game is baseless imo.

 

[SweetDao]

As for this, there was a discussion about the statement during the firsts upgrades threads and after checking the raws, it actually says that the Tree is infinite in scale even in a transfinite sense

Why not just Aleph Omega?

 

[SweetDao]

we got stoned for putting that in stat values

Weird. So technically the rating is "Aleph Omega" but you people changed the name to "Absolute Infinity" ?

 

[PedjaTarzan]

Weird. So technically the rating is "Aleph Omega" but you people changed the name to "Absolute Infinity" ?

nah i meant for putting the symbol omega sry

 

[TWILIGHT-OP]

Was asked to tag tier 1 specialist.
@DontTalkDT , @DarkDragonMedeus , @Elizhaa , @Ultima_Reality , @Planck69 , @Agnaa

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not really a Tier 1 specialist; I sort of understand bits and pieces here and there, but I am ultimately not quite one of the main experts. And my best explanations are more or less simplified paraphrases from those who do understand it better than I do.

But looking at the OP, I did notice someone mentioning "Transfinite Dimensions as High 1-B." Based on my understanding, transfinite dimensions is merely 1-B at best; by definition, transfinite means ever expanding number that rapidly approaches infinite but never actually reaches infinite. Though, some definitions often words things differently, and often refers to a number that cannot be counted to. But either way, I so far agree that the current justifications for Low 1-A do not hold up.

 

[PedjaTarzan]

I'm not really a Tier 1 specialist; I sort of understand bits and pieces here and there, but I am ultimately not quite one of the main experts. And my best explanations are more or less simplified paraphrases from those who do understand it better than I do.

But looking at the OP, I did notice someone mentioning "Transfinite Dimensions as High 1-B." Based on my understanding, transfinite dimensions is merely 1-B at best; by definition, transfinite means ever expanding number that rapidly approaches infinite but never actually reaches infinite. Though, some definitions often words things differently, and often refers to a number that cannot be counted to. But either way, I so far agree that the current justifications for Low 1-A do not hold up.

The summary explains that the tree is infinite EVEN in transfinite sense, i dont think it merely means that its 1-B with this
Dunno if you read the summaries or not as reading arguments before that were filled with some derailements, all in all thanks for input

 

[Vietthai96]

I'm not really a Tier 1 specialist; I sort of understand bits and pieces here and there, but I am ultimately not quite one of the main experts. And my best explanations are more or less simplified paraphrases from those who do understand it better than I do.

But looking at the OP, I did notice someone mentioning "Transfinite Dimensions as High 1-B." Based on my understanding, transfinite dimensions is merely 1-B at best; by definition, transfinite means ever expanding number that rapidly approaches infinite but never actually reaches infinite. Though, some definitions often words things differently, and often refers to a number that cannot be counted to. But either way, I so far agree that the current justifications for Low 1-A do not hold up.

Actually, Transfinite number mean any number that is infinite, like, cardinal number, so generally speaking, Transfinite number is High 1-B at the very least, of course, this is depend on the verse contexts of what this suppose transfinite number referring to

 

[VoidGoji]

As mentioned before, absolute infinity in the verse is also associated with being/existing beyond dimensions, coupled with "infinite even in a transfinite sense", it should support the Low 1-A rating. It's not just a one-off, no context statement. There is also this thread where it was accepted that absolute infinity is straight up baseline Low 1-A.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

They may seem similar at first glance, but they are absolutely incomparable. First of all, it's absolutely nonsensical to equate sets with classes. Classes were literally made with the intent to avoid the limitations of sets.

Second of all, you're operating under a false understanding of what Cantor believed numbers to be. He didn't treat numbers as quantitative extensions of strength like in our tiering system does below 1-A, but rather treated them in a Platonic sense and viewed numbers as representing reality itself, including the very relationships and processes that govern both the external and mental world. These numbers encompass both "quantitative superiority" and "qualitative superiority."

Thirdly, you're equating a mathematical object with something that is fundamentally beyond mathematics. Cantor viewed the "set of all alephs" as something that could not be considered a mathematical object at all (unlike V) due to the Burali-Forti paradox. Instead, he viewed the Absolute as an absolute unity in which everything is, which contains everything; a metaphysical entity without determination whatsoever in the Hegelian sense; completely unincreasable (unlike Low 1-A which is treated as increasable on our Tiering System); unable to be conceived as an abstract or mathematical magnitude, number, or order type; and beyond the intellect's ability to define, determine, or distinguish due to the Absolute's sheer immensity.

Whereas V is a mathematical object that corresponds to Low 1-A, the Absolute Infinite as put forward by Cantor is a metaphysical entity beyond mathematics entirely that is more along the lines of Tier 0. It is completely incompatible with Otto's power or even the Imaginary Tree.

Yeah, I previously concurred with tiering Absolute Infinity as Low 1-A out of an equation to a proper class but I realize the above is just correct. A proper class includes all sets, but within the framework of set theory itself you can go, in a sense, "further" than them. You can make products of proper classes (Like ORD², which is the class of all 2-tuples of ordinals) and in category theory you can extend that to conglomerates thereof, and so on and so forth. Meanwhile "Absolute Infinity" in the naive set theory sense is applying the definition "Set of all sets" to an unqualified notion of "set" as meaning any collection whatsoever. Meaning it includes everything, including itself (Hence it's a paradoxical object). Nothing is further than it.

So wrt to Absolute Infinity you either: 1) Try to make it quantitative and so arrive at an impossible (re: untierable) object, because the "quantity of all quantities" isn't a thing. 2) Try to go with Cantor's theological view of it and argue it's Tier 0 (Which obviously can't happen here).

So, yeah, I concur with the downgrade. The R>F stuff I also find disagreeable as evidence for High 1-B, so, yeet.

 

[SweetDao]

OP didn't lie when he said they were cooked

 

[VoidGoji]

You guys do know that there more points than just the absolute infinity, right? Stuff about transcending dimensions, not having dimensional information, infinite even in transfintie sense etc. The absolute infinity just reinforced/went with it. 3 out of 4 points are there

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

You guys do know that there more points than just the absolute infinity, right? Stuff about transcending dimensions, not having dimensional information, etc. The absolute infinity just reinforced/went with it.

That's not really enough for low 1-A at all ngl. Hell, most of evidence was even rejected by Ultima in first thread but people made a new thread and went ahead without caring about his stance on previous thread. So I doubt he's really gonna change his position on that.

 

[VoidGoji]

I mean, a certain verse gets Low 1-A because a place lacks true geometry

 

[Telomera]

I mean, a certain verse gets Low 1-A because a place lacks true geometry

Then we should downgrade that verse