2-A Question

[Remus1998]

Does destroying an uncountably, infinitely ever-expanding set of multiverses qualify for 5-D or very high in Multiverse Level+?

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

If the size is uncountably infinite or say, as large as the set of all real numbers then it is Low 1-C.

 

[Sus]

Does destroying an uncountably, infinitely ever-expanding set of multiverses qualify for 5-D or very high in Multiverse Level+?

5D

 

[Everything12]

Nope, 2-B. Uncountable, infinity expanding is complete different to uncountable infinity. This is just 2-B and not very special in 2-B at that, several verses on the site have infinitely expanding mutliverses that lead to a countless (uncountable) number of Universes.

 

[Sus]

oh i didn't notice the comma

u tricked me

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

Nope, 2-B. Uncountable, infinity expanding is complete different to uncountable infinity. This is just 2-B and not very special in 2-B at that, several verses on the site have infinitely expanding mutliverses that lead to a countless (uncountable) number of Universes.

Be careful on your answer, it is obvious that the OP is refering to infinite set in Set Theory.
-Uncountable
-Set
-5-dimensional
-Multiversal+

Hence, is uncountably infinite.
Also, "uncountable" is far more common to cite on uncountable set, in contrary to "countless" which is commonly used to just describe a very large number on this site. You shouldn't nitpicked on comma and "expanding" because not all infinite expansions are ad infinitum in-context, like eternal Inflation theory for instance.

Short answer: It's either 2-A above baseline or Low 1-C, Low 1-C in this site since our Tiering System used the generalized continuum hypothesis.

Long answer: It's either 2-A above baseline or Low 1-C depends on whether how big the uncountable set is. The first uncountably infinite is aleph-1, so large that it can't be reached by aleph-0 (the smallest infinity) that doing bijection from one to another is provably impossible. So the question is, does aleph-1 equal to 1 dimension? We don't know exactly, aleph-1 would only be equated to 1 dimension if the continuum hypothesis is usable, it is a hypothesis which asserted that there is no strict cardinality between N aka cardinality of naturals (aleph-0) and R, or the cardinality of reals which represented as a continuous line, real line, that geometrically correspond to 1 dimension which is a line itself.
So basically N < S < R, that "S" is nonexistent in here, so N < R and R = aleph-1, hence uncountably infinite = 1 dimension.

If the continuum hypothesis is unusable then uncountably infinite isn't necessarily as large as 1 dimension since there is a strict cardinality before R from aleph-0. This site used the first that the power set of N or P(N) which defined the very subset of N or say, infinite^(infinite) which is equal to R, has the same size as the first uncountably infinite.

 

[Everything12]

They might think they are talking about uncountable infinity sets but this

uncountably, infinitely ever-expanding set of multiverses

As stated is not actually an uncountable infinite set. It has the words uncountable and infinite in it, but the comma and placement of the words is vital and makes this no more then 2-B.

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

Fair enough, it's kind of the OP's mistake that he put comma in there, and bad placement of the words.

 

[Everything12]

Or maybe it wasn't a mistake and this is the actual feat and the mistake was thinking "uncountable" and "infinite" meant it was uncountable infinity.

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

I wouldn't say that say that since the OP was strictly talking about 2-A and above baseline, along with something akin 5-dimensional.

 

[Remus1998]

Fair enough, it's kind of the OP's mistake that he put comma in there, and bad placement of the words.

I should not have put that comma there