2-A and Low 1-C

[Vasco]

Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?

​

A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.

However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

So according to the wiki FAQ destroying infinite multiverses and destroying an infinite multiverse is the same both 2-A.

But in the MGK thread it's believed that destroying a structure bigger than 2-A grants Low 1-C so I'm kinda confused.

Post in thread 'Chronos (Chrono Clock) Low 1-C?' https://vsbattles.com/threads/chronos-chrono-clock-low-1-c.137615/post-4838672

Here's a statement from a wiki consultant who made the statement of structure bigger than 2-A = Low 1-C though he says extremely tiny the said character can't perceive the 2-A structure.

What I wanna ask is, does the structure need to be extremely large a 2-A structure won't be able to be perceived in it or does it just have to be larger than a 2-A structurento qualify for Low 1-C?

 

[Vasco]

How do I get staff here?

 

[Vasco]

Hello

 

[Noneless21]

You go to their profile page and drop the message there

 

[Guardian_Doge]

You also, should uh, put the stuff that's not your question in a quote box. Pretty hard to read this.

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

I'm just going to nip a potential misconception about this right now, you don't need 2-A feats/lore to reach Low 1-C (it's good supporting evidence for a cosmology tho) as long as you can prove infinite/unreachable transcendence over a conspicuous 4D structure (E.g a typical Low 2-C universe) or something similar like a R>F difference (with explicit context ofc) you can still reach Low 1-C even if a verse in question doesn't even have a typical multiversal structure (2-A/2-B).

Also judging by the subject of the QnA try to keep the whataboutism to premium in the inevitable below replies.

Now I return to the shadows.

 

[Vasco]

You also, should uh, put the stuff that's not your question in a quote box. Pretty hard to read this.

Sorry, don't know how to do that

I'm just going to nip a potential misconception about this right now, you don't need 2-A feats/lore to reach Low 1-C (it's good supporting evidence for a cosmology tho) as long as you can prove infinite/unreachable transcendence over a conspicuous 4D structure (E.g a typical Low 2-C universe) or something similar like a R>F difference (with explicit context ofc) you can still reach Low 1-C even if a verse in question doesn't even have a typical multiversal structure (2-A/2-B).

Also judging by the subject of the QnA try to keep the whataboutism to premium in the inevitable below replies.

Now I return to the shadows.

I already know this but what i'm asking is different.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Take it like this.

We have 2 container which contains 2-A
by destroying the infinite contents of the container you can get 2-A
But since the container is considered larger than that. it is low 1-C.
there are some fictions where there are multiple of these containers containing an infinite multiverse.
it is possible to destroy the content within these 2 container without destroying the container itself. which is how the weird 2 infinite multiverse destruction can somehow happen. idk how is that possible but that is the only logical conclusion I can think of where in the attack will not be low 1-C

Now here's the deal if a said structure is considered as a container for a 2-A multiverse that can be easily assumed as larger than the 2-A universe.
Take 2 containers of similar size and similar structure
contents are 2-A multiverse with the container itself as low 1-C
a 2-A multiverse containing another 2-A multiverse is illogical and impossible because they would be at the same size and merging them would just make them 2-A because in their dimensional axis they are already infinite. Infinite + infinite = infinite. the only possible way to contain it is by a container that is larger than it mostly with another Axis thus making it a structure with an extra axis. Now the fact that this container already contains an infinite multiverse and yet is large enough to contain it would make it valid or possibly low 1-C regardless of whether it was explained with dimensional superiority or not but those statements do help with making it clearer for the reader and evaluation

As for maou gakuin. bubble worlds contained infinite timelines. and bubble world is contained by the silver sea in a way that
4D contained by a 5D and 5D contained by a 6D

 

[Vasco]

Take it like this.

We have 2 container which contains 2-A
by destroying the infinite contents of the container you can get 2-A
But since the container is considered larger than that. it is low 1-C.
there are some fictions where there are multiple of these containers containing an infinite multiverse.
it is possible to destroy the content within these 2 container without destroying the container itself. which is how the weird 2 infinite multiverse destruction can somehow happen. idk how is that possible but that is the only logical conclusion I can think of where in the attack will not be low 1-C

Now here's the deal if a said structure is considered as a container for a 2-A multiverse that can be easily assumed as larger than the 2-A universe.
Take 2 containers of similar size and similar structure
contents are 2-A multiverse with the container itself as low 1-C
a 2-A multiverse containing another 2-A multiverse is illogical and impossible because they would be at the same size and merging them would just make them 2-A because in their dimensional axis they are already infinite. Infinite + infinite = infinite. the only possible way to contain it is by a container that is larger than it mostly with another Axis thus making it a structure with an extra axis. Now the fact that this container already contains an infinite multiverse and yet is large enough to contain it would make it valid or possibly low 1-C regardless of whether it was explained with dimensional superiority or not but those statements do help with making it clearer for the reader and evaluation

As for maou gakuin. bubble worlds contained infinite timelines. and bubble world is contained by the silver sea in a way that
4D contained by a 5D and 5D contained by a 6D

Okay thanks now I understand.

 

[Kowalski]

Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?​

​

​

A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.

However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

So according to the wiki FAQ destroying infinite multiverses and destroying an infinite multiverse is the same both 2-A.

But in the MGK thread it's believed that destroying a structure bigger than 2-A grants Low 1-C so I'm kinda confused.

Post in thread 'Chronos (Chrono Clock) Low 1-C?' https://vsbattles.com/threads/chronos-chrono-clock-low-1-c.137615/post-4838672

Here's a statement from a wiki consultant who made the statement of structure bigger than 2-A = Low 1-C though he says extremely tiny the said character can't perceive the 2-A structure.

What I wanna ask is, does the structure need to be extremely large a 2-A structure won't be able to be perceived in it or does it just have to be larger than a 2-A structurento qualify for Low 1-C?

Generally speaking, the smallest possible skip in size after the set of countably infinite number of universes or tier 2-A is the set of uncountably infinite number of universes, that is, equivalent to tier Low 1-C (Basically having uncountably infinite 4-D structures, which would result you with 5-D structure according to Real Coordinate Space, and the Generalized Continuum Hypothesis following up with few formal statements). So, yeah, being strictly larger than 2-A structure let alone would already be sufficient for tier Low 1-C in this case.

 

[Vietthai96]

This is math-based, 2-A is countable infinite amounts of 4d object (space-time universe, timeline, etc...). Due to real coordinate space and continuum hypothesis, when you stacking something with uncountable infinite amount of it you get higher D, uncountable infinite amount of point (0D) you will get a line (1D), uncountable infinite amount of line you get a plane (2D), uncountable infinite amount of plane you get a cube (3D), continue this up we have uncountable infinite of 4D object resulting something 5D (Low 1-C)

So go back to the 2-A structure, as i said it contain countable infinite amount of 4d object. According to math theory, larger than countable infinite (set of natural number, Aleph 0) must be uncountable infinite (set of real number, Aleph 1) resulting in something 5D (Low 1-C), it is set theory which said there are multiple set of infinity with different size. So yeah larger than 2-A is Low 1-C. This is simplified answer though

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

I had a question similar to this thread i might be a little late idk

Take it like this.

We have 2 container which contains 2-A
by destroying the infinite contents of the container you can get 2-A
But since the container is considered larger than that. it is low 1-C.
there are some fictions where there are multiple of these containers containing an infinite multiverse.
it is possible to destroy the content within these 2 container without destroying the container itself. which is how the weird 2 infinite multiverse destruction can somehow happen. idk how is that possible but that is the only logical conclusion I can think of where in the attack will not be low 1-C

Now here's the deal if a said structure is considered as a container for a 2-A multiverse that can be easily assumed as larger than the 2-A universe.
Take 2 containers of similar size and similar structure
contents are 2-A multiverse with the container itself as low 1-C
a 2-A multiverse containing another 2-A multiverse is illogical and impossible because they would be at the same size and merging them would just make them 2-A because in their dimensional axis they are already infinite. Infinite + infinite = infinite. the only possible way to contain it is by a container that is larger than it mostly with another Axis thus making it a structure with an extra axis. Now the fact that this container already contains an infinite multiverse and yet is large enough to contain it would make it valid or possibly low 1-C regardless of whether it was explained with dimensional superiority or not but those statements do help with making it clearer for the reader and evaluation

As for maou gakuin. bubble worlds contained infinite timelines. and bubble world is contained by the silver sea in a way that
4D contained by a 5D and 5D contained by a 6D

But if a realm for example were to have infinite timelines inside of it or a vault or something and you destroyed the container and the infinite timelines inside of it would that be low 1-C?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I had a question similar to this thread i might be a little late idk

But if a realm for example were to have infinite timelines inside of it or a vault or something and you destroyed the container and the infinite timelines inside of it would that be low 1-C?

Yes. As long as it is explained as such that there are ontological difference. Between the content and the vault that contains it. Or it was said that the container was specifically destroyed and affected the entirety of infinite timelines inside.

 

[Everything12]

I had a question similar to this thread i might be a little late idk

But if a realm for example were to have infinite timelines inside of it or a vault or something and you destroyed the container and the infinite timelines inside of it would that be low 1-C?

Destroying the Crack of Time or Time Vault are not applicable for Low 1-C.

In addition, the container woukd have to prove that be infinitely larger than it's 2-A to be Low 1-C, simply being a container for infinite tinelines on it's own wouldn't be enough. And if the timelines are contained within objects, such a Scrolls, than the container doesn't even have to be fourth dimensional depending on context.

 

[Vietthai96]

In addition, the container woukd have to prove that be infinitely larger than it's 2-A to be Low 1-C

Not really, you just need larger than countable infinite (2-A) to be uncountable infinite, which make Low 1-C

But anyway Crack of Time or Time Scroll is not really the matter here, it is in-verse problem so kinda irrelevant, and we evaluate thing case-by-case, depend on contexts anyway

 

[Everything12]

Not really, you just need larger than countable infinite (2-A) to be uncountable infinite, which make Low 1-C

You still need context, just being larger a container of infinite timelines is not enough. Whether it be Pokémon or the Silver Sea, the difference between the container and structures inside being infinite was vital information to gain a higher dimension than it's contents.

We aren't dealing with just mathematics, we are dealing with how mathematics related to fictional cosmology structure. So we can't translate ideas one to one, we still need to look at context and evidence.

 

[Delta333]

Not really, you just need larger than countable infinite (2-A) to be uncountable infinite, which make Low 1-C

The problem is that containing an infinite amount doesn't automatically make something bigger than what is inside at all (like how the set of integers is encompassed by the set of naturals), you may think about Silver Sea but bubbles are described as small in relation to the Sea so that's a different case.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Not really, you just need larger than countable infinite (2-A) to be uncountable infinite, which make Low 1-C

But anyway Crack of Time or Time Scroll is not really the matter here, it is in-verse problem so kinda irrelevant, and we evaluate thing case-by-case, depend on contexts anyway

Only bigger in terms of size.

 

[ImmortalDread]

The problem is that containing an infinite amount doesn't automatically make something bigger than what is inside at all (like how the set of integers is encompassed by the set of naturals), you may think about Silver Sea but bubbles are described as small in relation to the Sea so that's a different case.

Mhm

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is due to the fact that nothing is bigger than Aleph 0 but still smaller than aleph 1.
An infinity that contains another infinity does not mean the first one is strictly bigger. As we know, the set of rationals encompasses the set of integers (which is countable infinite) and the latter encompasses/contains the set of naturals as a subset (also infinite), but the three are still all the same size. None of them are uncountable.

Kandaquizorte (bubbles in Silver Sea) qualifies because it actually specifies that it is smaller, instead of just being a conventional subset of the same cardinality.

 

[Vietthai96]

Set of rationals isn't bigger than set of naturals, it "look" bigger but not really bigger, in term of size

But anyway i already said, we still evaluate verse based on contexts, feats, etc......., what i answered is just simplified and generalized, i didn't talk about any specific verse

 

[ImmortalDread]

Set of rationals isn't bigger than set of naturals, it "look" bigger but not really bigger, in term of size

Did I ever say this? Read what I said as next.

 

[Vietthai96]

Did I ever say this? Read what I said as next.

i just added my opinion to your point, not against it or something

 

[ImmortalDread]

i just added my opinion to your point, not against it or something

Alright.

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

Destroying the Crack of Time or Time Vault are not applicable for Low 1-C.

In addition, the container woukd have to prove that be infinitely larger than it's 2-A to be Low 1-C, simply being a container for infinite tinelines on it's own wouldn't be enough. And if the timelines are contained within objects, such a Scrolls, than the container doesn't even have to be fourth dimensional depending on context.

You realized what I was mentioning lol

 

[TheGodOfICE777]

But I’m pretty sure it’d be atleast 4D because its referring to a timeline