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.
What exactly do you mean by "context and all"? If there is enough evidence to draw a deductive rather than an inductive conclusion that; really such a statement makes it to 1-A, if it counts. But well, that takes a lot, a lot of evidence to get there.
This really isn't new - Sorcerer Supreme already mentioned that depending on the universe, there are only 3 spatial dimensions, or there are even infinite ones in other universes. This would update the number of temporal dimensions. It was also mentioned that the dark dimension has more spatial...
I will rephrase my text a bit:
What if, the 1-A+ character not only has a 1-A+ power, but; is itself a 1-A+ structure? Would it change anything? Considering everything else put in the OP.
Ohhh, I see. Basically, it can only be assumed to be one layer above 1-A+, which by default is still 1-A+. And to assume High 1-A more context/information is needed. It is not like this?
Ask:
We have character A, this character A creates infinite beings with part of his power, and one of those infinite beings has a 1-A+ power/potency.
Basically, since only one being of those infinite beings is already 1-A+, and they all have their power coming from character A, wouldn't...
Hello! I saw that Wanda ucm, the feat on the darkhold, they count it as EE, and not as AP. Why is this? I watched the scene and Doctor Strange says that he destroyed the darkhold, not that he did it with erasure, or anything like that. Can someone give me evidence of that, or why it was...
Well, my questions have already been answered, I think that unless other people have doubts about the same thing, they can close the thread. Thank you very much DT, and others for answering my questions.
To be honest, I don't know how the thread got so out of control.
Now, I want to say something that is shocking me: I had understood that R>F was something other than qualitative superiority, but that it still qualified for higher levels as well.
What's going on here? Have those standards changed?
Aleph-1 and aleph-2, you can imagine that it is like the difference of a qualitative superiority more easily. For example, if there is a Low 1-A kingdom (let's ignore the reason for this), and then there is another kingdom that has qualitative superiority to that other Low 1-A kingdom, this...
If there is a universe, in which its size is infinite, and at the same time, its temporal dimension/4D time is infinite, this already counts as qualitative superiority, doesn't it? Since, a moment in the infinite time line is infinitesimal to all infinite time, and that moment of time (the...
(Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm not an expert on this subject)
As far as I know, the extra-dimensional axes are not automatically considered infinitely larger/infinitely greater than their lower dimensions in the verses, unless there is something that manages to contextualize this properly.
I have great doubts about the qualitative superiority and the R>F, if someone answers me I would greatly appreciate it.
First: qualitative superiority could be achieved by being "infinitely larger" than x dimension, and therefore that dimension is infinitesimal to that infinitely larger...
As far as I know, not necessarily a dimensional axis results in being infinitely larger. And, quoting the faq:
So, no, evidence of this superiority is needed even presenting any number of dimensions.
I suppose that "ridiculously large" is not even close to assuming that dimension is an infinity greater. But, if you have more statements that can better assume qualitative superiority, this can serve as support.
If there is a multiverse, in which the universes have R>F transcendence among themselves, as universe>universe>universe and so on with R>F each. But, nevertheless, the characters of the universes can interact with each other with the characters of another universe, and even get damaged, does...
I see. Thank you so much. If you don't mind, I have one last question:
So, if for example in reality of universes, they were dimensions (obviously with qualitative superiority between them) and that the number of dimensions were אW, would those dimensions be 1-A+? Or did I misunderstand?
What would the equivalent of 1-A+ be denoted in set theory? I'm only aware of the notion of "infinite alefs" which, I also know is wrong, I've searched for information on. However; I'm still confused and don't understand much from there on, as far as set theory is concerned. If you can give me...
I have a question about "layers" at 1-A, high 1-A, or 0 levels. For "layers" to count, does there have to be qualitative superiority between them? As:
1-A<layer 1 above baseline 1-A<layer 2<layer 3 etc...
In a qualitative way, or is it not necessary?
Well, according to this, I think that the Spider-Man from the 1999 annual should be High 1-A at least, that he faced this one here (I don't remember his name, sorry) and he had become himself the true nexus.
I don't think they are the same (or, at least not essentially). Since, the divine creator is based on the perception of God that J.M DeMatteis has, who has also said that he is the "real God, not a comic book character"something, well, weird? In short, the divine creator explicitly does not...
Well, I just wanted to say that Oblivion may be the void where creation resides (not kether, as kether is outside of this void). And that is why Oblivion is mentioned as the one who saw the birth of creation. That's all. Sorry for the inconvenience.
Hello Ultima. Sorry to bother you again, but... could you give me permission to speak on your abstract Marvel post? If it's not too much trouble, of course. Greetings!