- 1,658
- 834
gl with that
-
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.
Low 1-A Honkai Upgrade
- Thread starter SuperNova55555
- Start date
- Status
Re5yh
He/Him- 1,506
- 652
Can't wait for this
- 15,203
- 22,454
Arguing Imaginary Singularity being Low 1-A means every Herrschers also Low 1-A. It is literally the core structure of Herrschers core
- 5,366
- 2,829
What about HoV being unable to interact CoF?
- 15,203
- 22,454
That is the problem with the arguments, claims Imaginary Singularity is Low 1-A mean Herrscher cores is Low 1-A, yet only CoF and likely HoF Kiana get the rating. Pretty much every relevant characters carrying around small Low 1-A objects
Also, the Imaginary Singularity in Herrscher core is the specific characteristic of Current Era Herrscher core, not Previous Era one if i'm remember correctly; as there is fundamentally different nature between the cores of Previous Era and the cores of Current Era
Also, having no dimensional information prettt much is undimensioned or BDE1, not necessarily Low 1-A, so for now, i disgree with Imaginary Singularity argument
I will look at other arguments later, when i have time (probably in about another 10 years)
Unqver
Username Only- 1,389
- 437
You misinterpreted the OP. Its not only that it is devoid of dimensional information but with a combination of projecting itself upon every existing N-dimensional space. It doesn't exist in space-time yet it is a fixed point in all dimensional spaces simutaneously.
- 15,203
- 22,454
And??, you can pretty much projecting every undimensioned thing in every dimensions, it is precisely the nature of undimensional, it do not have dimensions.
Doesn't exist in space-time because it exist in imaginary space, not real space. Seriously, this is not really relevant to Low 1-A
Hjdjdhf
Any/All- 280
- 124
Are all Aeons Low 1A, or only him?
- 7,271
- 6,737
literally later in the story is revealed that the only actual imaginary singularity is CoF and not herrscher cores from herrschers.
i mean tell me how can you have herrschers at low 1-A if u can physically carry their core
That attribute was cut off from herrschers and kept to CoF only
Plus this same scan says that herrschers are projections from cof into reality, further proving that NO, herrscher cores arent the same as CoF
- 14,997
- 10,332
bro...why do all honkai threads end up having like 10 pages
it makes staff less likely to evaluate
it makes staff less likely to evaluate
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #131
I was under the impression she transcends the cosmology but I could honestly care less if we slime her rating lel
Last edited:
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #132
The scans I linked say CoF is the only true Singularity and all the others are just shadows of it.
The argument is not just this lol. I think I did a pretty thorough job of explaining how lacking dimensionality pertains to it’s Low 1-A rating.
I’m not stupid enough to confuse BDE1.
The proof is that the Singularity lacks all quantitative qualifications, and yet can encompass any higher spatial dimension, so it cannot be that the difference between N-dimension and (N+1)-dimension adds anything to it. If it was just some source that contained the space, then it could be qualified in size what comes from it and not be Low 1-A—but it specifically cannot be done so for the Singularity.
Cuz the entire point is that it revokes quantitative difference between smthn like 3D and 11D, but if that’s true, then it naturally cannot be that the difference between 11D and, say, 100D has any difference either.
Because I believe it should be obvious that if we start to follow the logic of your thought, then we put into question the nature of universals (1-A), as well.
Last edited:
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #133
Um, this is why undifferentiation is 1-A btw. Because quantitative addition does not differentiate nor add anything within you, so your division means you cannot be reduced to those states themselves.
But if the Singularity cannot itself be divided into Real Space, then it cannot be that further increments of this same Real Space can encompass it. After all, if the difference between 4D and 5D is literally zero to the Singularity then the former necessarily follows.
And it also cannot be that the Singularity is just something merely non-dimensional because all dimensions and space relate back to it, so it cannot be qualified by these particulars. This is why “lacking space” is different for aspatial objects and the universal of space, yet it is true for both.
Last edited:
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #134
Like, even undifferentiating two separate points leads to Low 1-A because all tiers up to there can be reduced to configurations of their difference. And naturally if they were both one, then all structures up to Low 1-A collapse.
So it should be stressed out that none of these point by themselves are Low 1-A but they synthesize into an inductive case for it.
So it should be stressed out that none of these point by themselves are Low 1-A but they synthesize into an inductive case for it.
Last edited:
- 15,203
- 22,454
Joke aside, will read in about 5 years from now
in the meantime @Ultima_Reality @Qawsedf234 @Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
Your help is appreciated
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #136
Hehe sorry, I have a really bad habit of rambling on and splitting it in multiple different messagesthree posts, not reading all that
Bro summoned the big guy
well ig that’s worth it cuz if he agrees then the rating is pretty much set in stone
- 11,268
- 10,114
Veitthai fears Low 1-A Welt fr fr
- 3,238
- 1,781
- 470
- 307
Disagree.
But of course, Imaginary Space can still manifest in real space. That can actually scale to AP. The issue is that these manifestations in real space (since imaginary space doesn't actually have any AP in and of itself) would have to scale to ALL POSSIBLE dimensional spaces, something that is never even remotely implied in any of the scans you've given.
You do realize this defeats your whole point, right? To qualify for Low 1-A, Imaginary Space would have to be quantitatively SUPERIOR to all possible dimensional spaces. Your first scan literally even points out that when Subspace Lances are still in Imaginary Space and are "intangible object prior to the transformation into a Subspace Lance", they "could not interfere with objects existing within the space of real numbers." Imaginary Space in and of itself doesn't have any superiority at all, it straight up has no relation in terms of AP to objects in real space at all since it can neither interact with them not be interacted with by them. Like Vietthai explained,
But of course, Imaginary Space can still manifest in real space. That can actually scale to AP. The issue is that these manifestations in real space (since imaginary space doesn't actually have any AP in and of itself) would have to scale to ALL POSSIBLE dimensional spaces, something that is never even remotely implied in any of the scans you've given.
That's still not enough for Low 1-A. For Low 1-A, it would not only have to "project itself upon every existing N-dimensional space" but "significantly affect all possible dimensional spaces." There's literally nothing in any of these scans that suggests that the Imaginary Singularity can project itself on all possible dimensional spaces. It only scales to the dimensions that actually exist in the verse.
Last edited:
- 15,203
- 22,454
The hell is this?, why almost everything is strike-through?
- 470
- 307
I don't know, seems to be a glitch. I'll try fixing it.
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #142
I’ll respond to this more thoroughly after a bit but I genuinely do not see a single one of my points addressed
- 470
- 307
Because it's nonsense and has nothing to do with Low 1-A. But fine.
You're making a category error here. The fact that "real space can never encapsulate the Imaginary Singularity" doesn't imply that the Imaginary Singularity has superior AP to real space any more than the fact that "numbers can never encapsulate colors" implies that colors have superior AP to numbers (both are complete nonsense). The Imaginary Singularity doesn't even have any AP in the first place, as demonstrated by the fact that objects in Imaginary Space "could not interfere with objects existing within the space of real numbers" and instead have to manifest in real space first. Real space can never encapsulate the Imaginary Singularity not because the latter has any sort of superiority over the former, but because the two are so different in nature that they aren't even comparable on any scale whatsoever, which goes against the whole point of Low 1-A in the first place.
- 22,681
- 23,229
If imaginary space is intended to be using mathematical imaginary numbers, then there's not an upgrade here. Since Imaginary and Real numbers are different branches of Complex Numbers which wouldn't give you Low 1-A.
Reading the OP, the main issue is that they're taking lacking dimensional classifications as superiority to dimensional classifications. I'm not really seeing Low 1-A here, but I've also haven't reas any of the comments after the OP.
- 5,366
- 2,829
No, the main point in the OP is that this Imaginary Singularity is the singularity where space is born, and it should include the temporal dimension too technically (I'll let OP explain about this) but, no.
If you were refering to my reply in this thread, where I said real spaces are 4-D, there's the word "if" being used. Because in reality, real spaces aren't 4-D, it's only an analogy best explained with space-time continuum whilst not being an actual one
Imaginary Number Spaces
Introduction Hello everyone, this thread will be a continuation of this one. The reason is that I've encountered the case of Imaginary Number Space once again and while reading the aforementioned Q&A, I noticed that several important arguments weren't made, so I'm here to introduce them. A...
Imaginary Number Spaces
Introduction Hello everyone, this thread will be a continuation of this one. The reason is that I've encountered the case of Imaginary Number Space once again and while reading the aforementioned Q&A, I noticed that several important arguments weren't made, so I'm here to introduce them. A...
In the same thread, I explained how it would be possible for a dimensional significance if aleph numbers are used and acknowledged (Imaginary number spaces thread)
Kiana Kaslana Vs Irontomb (Honkai: Star Rail Vs Honkai Impact 3rd)
No, the singularity is not a 0-dimensional point, it's a dimensionless "Pure Singularity" that doesn't have any dimensional information. This is the nature of the Cocoon of Finality that transcends all dimensions in the verse basically, regarding Low 1-A, that tier is easily achieved if you're...
In which I explained it here how aleph is used in-verse, it acknowledges the universe is a Hilbert Space universe that's extendable up to infinite dimensions. This is supported by Continuum Hypothesis being used in the verse, later on, Einstein explained that if the concept of transfinite numbers themselves are used. The Imaginary Tree is infinite in the transfinite sense (whilst Earth, is the lowest transfinite cardinal number), Imaginary Spaces simply put are dimensions outside this whilst being the source of spatiality as I've said that space is born within said singularity and that should include time/dimensions like explained in OP I suppose
- 22,681
- 23,229
This is the only part of the response that addressed my main point:
Where exactly is it stated that physical spatial axis comes from Imaginary Space?
- 470
- 307
Do you even know what the Continuum Hypothesis is? All it does is posit that there is no infinite set with a cardinality in between that of the natural numbers and that of the real numbers. It does not imply the existence of an infinite hierarchy of increasing, physically-actualized transfinite cardinal numbers in Honkai at all.
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #148
Ok back
@Telomera
Alright, so since you’re claiming that Imaginary Space is not superior to Real Space, then I believe you read the argument I used, ye:
If some particular is too big to correspond to any spatial size, then there is no issue with it going through an ontological shift to interact with lower planes.
This also sort of reminds me of dimensional allegories. Stuff like Flatland which claim we leave lower-dimensional slices when in actuality this isn’t true at all. We simply claim that spatial dimensions aren’t inaccessibly separated as such to give leeway to fiction but IRL, such an intersection doesn’t even happen as lower dimensions are genuinely about as physically tangible as shadows.
Short tangent but it’s meant to portray that there’s no issue with it.
Additionally, you could prob read what I told Vietthai (read the below comments, as well), but if you want, I can explain it again.
Uh, I’ll prob be busy in a little bit so I may not be able to reply as fast and stuff.
@Telomera
Alright, so since you’re claiming that Imaginary Space is not superior to Real Space, then I believe you read the argument I used, ye:
Instead, what I see in your reply is you taking one of the five premises I used:
And then make a strawman I never claimed:
And then attack it as if this fake argument is not something I’d disagree with myself:
So how about you actually attack the induction I made? Ya know, the main one:
Additionally:
This is not an anti-feat. Low 1-A is inherently an existential status. This is akin to saying something is not 1-A because it can’t interact with lower realms.
If some particular is too big to correspond to any spatial size, then there is no issue with it going through an ontological shift to interact with lower planes.
This also sort of reminds me of dimensional allegories. Stuff like Flatland which claim we leave lower-dimensional slices when in actuality this isn’t true at all. We simply claim that spatial dimensions aren’t inaccessibly separated as such to give leeway to fiction but IRL, such an intersection doesn’t even happen as lower dimensions are genuinely about as physically tangible as shadows.
Short tangent but it’s meant to portray that there’s no issue with it.
You can kinda just read what I laid out above, but also this scan.
Not what I’m claiming here. It uses it as inspiration, but I think these being different things is very clear if you read the functions of Imaginary Space.
I already addressed this. There’s an entire explanation in the OP, that’s why only one of my five points claims dimensionless-ness. (It’s a synthesis of the whole premises)
Additionally, you could prob read what I told Vietthai (read the below comments, as well), but if you want, I can explain it again.
Uh, I’ll prob be busy in a little bit so I may not be able to reply as fast and stuff.
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #149
Almost forgot this:
Tho I kinda forgot to mention but if Imaginary Space itself is underpinned by some Real Space notions (like genuine spatial dimensions) then I’d also disagree with Low 1-A. But I haven’t actually played HI3 hehe, so that’s up to supporters/opponents to bring up.
All concepts are qualified through Imaginary. I believe this is also very clear if you’ve read the HooH section.
Tho I kinda forgot to mention but if Imaginary Space itself is underpinned by some Real Space notions (like genuine spatial dimensions) then I’d also disagree with Low 1-A. But I haven’t actually played HI3 hehe, so that’s up to supporters/opponents to bring up.
- 5,366
- 2,829
It would be impossible for Imaginary Space to be underpinned by Real Space, Welt is unable to attack Sirin using the Star of Eden who's able to separate Sea of Quanta (11-dimensional structure) from reality. Welt is only able to use his core powers (which is the Imaginary Singularity) since his Star of Eden is a fake one and it doesn't have the Imaginary Singularity
Put it in simpler terms since you play HSR, this is like if Path Space is underpinned by the physical plane of the Imaginary Tree (Destruction of the physical plane = Path Space is destroyed, but it's proven to be literally the otherwise), when we know Aeons have to descend to the physical plane
Last edited:
- 5,366
- 2,829
Continuum Hypothesis implies the existence of Aleph-1 by the way, which in turn implies the existence of cardinality. Absolutely no reason for Einstein to even apply the concept of transfinite cardinals to the Imaginary Tree if cardinality doesn't exist in-verse
Hilbert Space dimensions are aleph-0 anyway.
- 470
- 307
So you've induced that "when it relates back to any spatial dimensions" it "adds no information to the singularity" no matter what dimensionality. So what? How does any of that relate to Low 1-A? AP isn't just a measure of "how much you can relate back to without any information being added to you." None of what you said even remotely implies quantitative superiority. Seriously, there's a reason why schools are starting to teach CER: Claim, evidence and reasoning. Please use all three instead of making a bunch of claims and providing unrelated evidence without actually connecting the evidence to your claim.
It was already explained here that things of imaginary space "could not interfere with objects existing within the space of real numbers" and that "the space of real numbers" "is also the only space able to produce any sort of meaning," so it's pretty clear that Welt was just manifesting it into real space. Meaning that all this scan proves is that the Imaginary Singularity projected into real space is above all of the dimensional weapons that exist in Honkai. Obviously this isn't Low 1-A.
Then in what way is the Imaginary Singularity even actually quantitatively superior to all possible dimensional spaces in the first place? It's obviously not "too big" considering the fact "too big" requires dimensionality, which contradicts the fact that the imaginary space lacks dimensionality entirely. You can't seriously argue for Low 1-A Imaginary Singularity if you can't even tell in what way it is superior without being so vague that your claim loses any meaning.
- 470
- 307
LIterally no one is denying the existence of cardinality in Honkai, that makes no sense. We already scale Honkai above baseline Aleph 1, just not to an Aleph 1-dimensional cosmology.
- 5,460
- 6,527
- Thread starter
- #154
Did u even read the blog bruh. Or at least the other comments.
If Space is a derivative of the Imaginary and incremental additions to it all undifferentiate once causally relating back to it, this by definition delimits quantitative addition lol.
Because if there’s no additional effort needed for the Imaginary to, say, create 4-dimensional space instead of 3-dimensional space, then it can’t be that it needs any more for it to create 5-dimensional space if all you’re doing is adding 0s.
Also again conflating strict AP for substantiality, when it’s clear that if all things causally relate back to it, then it by necessity is superior to those things.
This is the Star of Eden, something that is specifically not the actual Singularity, and is a shadow of it.
I mean, even the Singularity is stated to simultaneously exist in every dimension whilst also specifically not existing in Real Space. It can’t be that this is meant to be understood in the same way as how Universals are all present in all Particulars that relate to it, no? Seems like an odd coincidence that perfectly explains this apparent “anti-feat” of yours.
Also it absolutelyyyy cannot be that something which actively goes through ontological shifts whether proceeding or reverting backwards is capable of altering ontology lol. Why can this also not be the same as Welt subsuming dimensional weapons by utilizing the source of space lol? Why is it procession but not an ability through reversion?
Consult the following:
- 15,203
- 22,454
Since someone mentioned transfinite cardinal, I just want to say that this term means nothing on its own; "transfinite" means anything that is infinite, from Aleph-0 (countable infinite, natural number) to even big cardinals like Inaccessible, Woodin, Mahlo Cardinal; they are all called transfinite cardinals. Just dropping "transfinite cardinal" means nothing; the verse need to specify what cardinal, and we can't assume the largest one, without it being mentioned directly because that would be NLF
And even if the verse mention what Cardinal, said Cardinal needs to underlying and be responsible for the cosmology structure, not some random namedrop
HI3rd only mentions transfinite cardinal to measure the scale of Honkai Energy, Energy does not really have mass or volume, especially when the verse established Honkai Energy to be some kind of non-physical energy, so its "scale" means nothing for the cosmology. Einstein just used the term to measure how much Honkai Energy out there
And even if the verse mention what Cardinal, said Cardinal needs to underlying and be responsible for the cosmology structure, not some random namedrop
HI3rd only mentions transfinite cardinal to measure the scale of Honkai Energy, Energy does not really have mass or volume, especially when the verse established Honkai Energy to be some kind of non-physical energy, so its "scale" means nothing for the cosmology. Einstein just used the term to measure how much Honkai Energy out there
- 5,366
- 2,829
Einstein explained the Tree is "infinite" in terms of transfinite cardinals, do we actually need it to say "The Tree is higher than Berkeley Cardinals" just for it to be quantified as one? We don't
I already proved how it relates to dimensions, the Earth as the lowest transfinite cardinal is elaborated to be a Hilbert Space dimension as it's basically stated the dimensions of space technically can be infinite. This is the "Earth" that Einstein was talking about, and then she tried to apply the concept of transfinite numbers in which she found out the Tree is infinite compared to all this
The arguments that its debunked to simply "Honkai Energy scale" don't even make sense, because even Telomera himself agreed that Honkai is above baseline aleph 1 though I don't know whatever the heck he was saying after that like how it's not an aleph 1 dimensional structure. Like this in itself is already High 1-B+
Transfinite cardinals are meant so that the Low 1-A stuff is consistent, because we obviously don't limit the amount of dimensions here to like 11-D, 12-D or whatever (Which shouldn't even be debated further, since it only serves as said "consistency" / supporting evidence)
Last edited:
- 15,203
- 22,454
Aleph-1 is infinite compared to Aleph-0, so what is your point? , 4D is infinitely greater than 3D, and the verse is already 11D -12D. So again what is your point?
No, we do; we have been doing it since day one
No, you didn't; the Hilbert Space scan is talking about a completely different thing. It isn't even in the game itself but a spin-off novel. The transfinite cardinal scan talking about Einstein compares the Honkai scale on Earth with that of the Tree. They are completely unrelated; let's not make a nonexistent connection between the two
?????. The hell is this?, above baseline Aleph-1?,
- 5,366
- 2,829
My point is that if the lowest transfinite cardinal is Aleph-0, the highest one should at least be Berkeley Cardinal that's the top of the hierarchy
My point is that the verse isn't just 11/12-D, we literally had the opponent who downgraded this verse to admit it's above baseline Aleph-1 even if it's not in a "dimensionality cosmology context" that I still don't understand about
Alright, if the "universe" doesn't refer to where HI3 has its settings in, then what else?
Also why are you talking as if above baseline Aleph-1 is the wrong terminology? Telomera should be like trusted by the staff or whatever so I'm just assuming whatever stuff he said about the continuum hypothesis thing is correct and even that terminology
- 15,203
- 22,454
And you assumed the highest one without a shred of it being mentioned. That is NLF
Aleph-1 or 0 means nothing on their own; they are just cardinal. 1D is Aleph-1 compare to 0D, 2D is Aleph-1 compare to 1D, they are just the scale of infinity, with this infinity is greater than other infinity
huh?. What I mean is they was talking about different topic, not different universes.
Continuum Hypothesis is just another set theory where there is no intermediate cardinal in-between. For example, after Aleph-0 (countable infinite, natural number) is Aleph-1 (uncountable infinite, real number), there is no in-between. So i'm completely confuse about above baseline Aleph-1, and even the verse didn't suggest such a thing
Anyhow, you could get High 1-B from the this scan
Since the second one stated there are infinite lines perpendicular to each other. Dimensional axis is represented by Line, or Vector, so infinite lines are equivalent to infinite dimensional axes, and they are perpendicular which means different, infinite directions, not parallel
Though the 11D SoQ goes against this notion
Also iirc the spin-off novel didn't have official translation
Anyway, i will be busy and it is late night in my timezone so don't expect me to reply
- 7,271
- 6,737
i genuenly never saw anything directly say SoQ is 11D (even in the cosmo blog), only that bubbles can inherit 11 dimensions but that doesnt mean SoQ is 11D either when real space is 4D and img space can jump straight to low 1-A.
and every of those string brane and other theories all of them are used for bubble worlds
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
