2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Refer to the title. For context, this originally came from this previous DBH thread where this was mentioned and then again in this Archie Sonic upgrade thread . To be honestly blunt, I have no idea how in the hell "being above baseline 2-A" works, especially if its infinitely above baseline. And when I say this, im not talking about simple scaling chains that determines a character's superiority over another one. Im talking about feats of destroying a [insert number here] number of infinite multiverses to make the AP be based on numbers.

At the end of the day, when not going into business about higher-dimensional planes, infinite is infinite. Anything divided by infinite....is still infinite. So when we have characters who are claimed to be able to destroy 2, 3, or multiple infinite multiverse's, all of those said multiverse's are infinite and when dividing infinite by those numbers, it still remains to be infinite. So why is it that destroying multiple infinite multiverse's is somehow more impressive than destroying 1? Why aren't those "multiple infinite multiverses" just apart of one single infinite multiverse in the end?

I'd like this to be discussed please as I am not the only one who shares the same issues when looking at this.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

It's pretty complicated to explain, but yes; that is apparently how fiction works. There do exist characters who are far above baseline for Infinite Speed but don't quite reach Immeasurable for similar reasons. And there is a difference between Countable Infinity and Uncountable Infinity among other things. The latter is unquantifiably larger than the former.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Question, Infinite^Infinite times baseline 2-A is that countably Infinite, or uncountably Infinite? Also, is Infinite^infinite mean affecting 2 Multiverses?


M-theory says a megaverse starts around the 7th or 8th dimension

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Think of it this way, High 3-A is countable infinity times greater than 3-A. And being able to destroy an infinite number of infinite 3D bodies of space is still Countable Infinity squared. Low 2-C would be one degree of Uncountable infinity above 3-A. There's also such a thing as an Uncountable Number between Countable Infinity and Uncountable Infinity. And it doesn't matter how many times countable infinity is multiplied together, it's still going to be lower than Uncountable number. But Uncountable Infinity is basically Uncountable number multiplied by Countable Infinity.

The gap between 3-A and High 3-A is countable infinity, the gap between High 3-A and Low 2-C is uncountable number, and the gap between 3-A and Low 2-C is uncountable infinity.

Countable Infinity^Countable Infinity would still be countable infinity.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm not sure you're understanding what Kukui is talking about, DDM.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I was answering Upgrade's question in my second comment. And destroying 2 or more 2-A structured multiverses is still 2-A but above baseline. I already answered basically saying it makes no sense, but it's how fiction works.

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

DDM, didn't you say the more logical and/or sensible term for low 2-C would be immeasurable? After all it's beyond infinity and is time and space as well.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Immeasurable technically just means a number that can't be counted in the general consensus. Yes, here we treat Immeasurable as a rating beyond infinite, or basically our word for Uncountable Infinity for speed or lifting strength.

 

[Kaltias]

Degrees of infinity are a thing in math.

Some infinities are "bigger" than others, for example, there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but that's still only an infinitesimally small fraction of all the real numbers.

 

[The_Causality]

Degrees of infinity are a thing in math.

This guy just repeated what I've said in the previous thread

 

[Kaltias]

Yes but i explained it better, git gud Dodo. ovo

 

[Wokistan]

There's also the matter of countable and uncountable infinities which is more complicated, but the latter can in some cases warrant a jump normally reserved for dimensions.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

And destroying 2 or more 2-A structured multiverses is still 2-A but above baseline. I already answered basically saying it makes no sense, but it's how fiction works.

It's not though, because 2x infinity is still infinity. You're not counting past infinity on the same levels of it.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

Degrees of infinity are a thing in math.

Some infinities are "bigger" than others, for example, there are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, but that's still only an infinitesimally small fraction of all the real numbers.

^^^

 

[Kaltias]

I mean, refer to my example above.

There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1, just like there are infinite numbers between 0 and 2, but one of the two sets encompasses the other

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

I'm pretty sure that's a false analogy. With the numbers thing, the only way to get infinite numbers between 1 and 2 are with infinitely smaller numbers in between them. That's not the case here.

 

[Yobo_Blue]

I'm pretty sure that's a false analogy. With the numbers thing, the only way to get infinite numbers between 1 and 2 are with infinitely smaller numbers in between them. That's not the case here.

Not really? It's still two structures with a infinite amount of something

 

[Oblivion_Lightning]

I gotta agree with that as you can get higher values of infinity.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

If that were the case then each universe would be going in an exponentially decaying order to fit the gap between this metaphor of 1 and 2

 

[AKM sama]

I mean every line segment is constituted of infinite number of points. But they are still of different lengths.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

I agree with Kaltias.

 

[Overlord775]

@Cal I don't see where you getting the decay part from

 

[Kaltias]

If you prefer, we can use natural numbers as they make this more simple.

Set 1 is made of all the natural numbers, while set 2 is made of all the natural numbers divisible by 1000.

Are they the same? Ofc not, Set 1 includes every single element of set 2 and more, so it's a "bigger" set, even if both are infinite

 

[Oblivion_Lightning]

An example would be:Every action in each infinite timeline sprouts a universe essentially making infinite universe from each infinite action in said infinite timelines making it infinitely above 2-A.

After typing this I got an infinite headache get me some infinite aspirin please......

 

[InfiniteSped]

Can't two sets have the same "infinity" even if one encompasses the other? Like, all the integers and all the natural numbers, afaik they have the same amount, even if the integers include the naturals + their negative counterparts.

 

[Dragonmasterxyz]

This thread in a nutshell.

 

[InfiniteSped]

https://youtu.be/CuzEqMY9Ys0

A video that talks about it

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

I know that degrees of infinity are a thing, but isn't one the the... quirks of infinity is that when taken in a finite extent its notable, but in an infinite extent it is not.

Like, if you were to take two groups, one being only odd numbers and the other being all numbers, all numbers would be larger, obviously. But on an infinite extent, the overall amount of numbers is equal in both, because infinity as a concept is really weird and often backwards.

Kind of how you could "double" infinity with Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Alright, I'm going to have to remember my calculus and limits to go any further on this lol. But from what I remember, the limit for when x approaches infinity for 2x and x/2 is infinity for both problems, which I'm pretty sure is what I'm arguing.

 

[Overlord775]

Kind of how you could "double" infinity with Hilbert's paradox of the Grand Hotel.

That paradox is flawed, as it assumes that the infinite number of rooms is a bigger infinity than the infinite number of people.

 

[Kaltias]

@Ricsi

Well ye, i'd argue that in this case (going back to feats and stuff) what we should do is more treat an infinite multiverse as the base (So x) to properly compare stuff, otherwise nothing in 2-A would be quantifiable beyond "it's infinite"

@Cal

Ye but what i'm arguing is that 2x/x = 2. So one of the two is bigger than the other when you compare them.

Also because in vs debating terms, it's like saying that a dude 1000 times stronger than a baseline 2-A is as strong as said baseline 2-A because it's infinity anyway.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

@Kukui

Fiction Is fiction. Infinity is supposed to be the be all end all, but most of fiction doesn't care and just does it's own thing. Forcing it to abide by real life math, when it couldn't give less of a shit about it, isn't a good idea at all and will lead to more issues than it could possibly solve.

 

[InfiniteSped]

The issue seems to be that, say, destroying two infinite multiverses isn't technically better than destroying one, since both have the same "level" of infinity (I don't think you can get to an uncountable infinite by just multiplying a countable one). So, even destroying large numbers of those multiverses shouldn't be above baseline, which seems reasonable to me.

 

[Hl3_or_bust]

Would you happen to know about Ordinals? It basically allows infinity to be it's own set of numbers, meaning that infinity * 2 can actually work. So even if we made all of fiction abide by real math, destroying 2 infinite multiverses can still be better than destroying one.

 

[Kaltias]

@Infinite

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that, to me if a verse shows you an infinite multiverse, then another multiverse just as big, treating destroying boyh as baseline is a contradiction to how the verse decided to represent the thing, because it's pretty obvious that it's meant to be > baseline

 

[DMB_1]

Ok, I have no idea about complex math and shit, but I'm just going to state my opinion:

1) Destroying a Septuondecillion of Infinite Multiverses shouldn't be more impressive than destroying just one. Why? Because Infinity times/divided by any Finite Number is still just Infinite. It's as simple as that.

2) Destroying Infinite infinite Multiverses, from what I can understand, would be more impressive because you'd be going into higher degrees of infinity, and Base Infinity divided by Infinity would be just 1.

About case (1), the only way you could be considered "above baseline 2-A" in a similar way, is simply an In-Verse rule that explains it: destroying two of those infinite realms is specifically more impressive than destroying 1? Fine. An In-Verse Scaling chain between 2-A characters? Sure. The feats/scaling chains themselves would probably tend to be either mostly or usually unquantifiable, but that's how it should be IMO.

I'm simpl├▓y against people saying "A bazillion times x a number bigger than ur mom x Baseline 2-A" without any concrete explanations other than "well duh, it sounds more impressive than just 2-A" just to wank their verses to high heavens

 

[Overlord775]

Ok, I have no idea about complex math and shit, but I'm just going to state my opinion:
1) Destroying a Septuondecillion of Infinite Multiverses shouldn't be more impressive than destroying just one. Why? Because Infinity times/divided by any Finite Number is still just Infinite. It's as simple as that.

InfinityxSeptuondecillion/Infinity=Septuondecillion tho

 

[DMB_1]

That wasn't what I was trying to say:

Infinity x Spetuondecillion = Infinity

Infinity / Septuondecillion = Infinity.

 

[Overlord775]

That's clearly the wrong way to do that math equalition

it should just remain Infinity x Septuondecillion

As Infinty is more a simbol than a number

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Mathematically it is the right way to do it.

Also higher degrees of infinity gets you into High 2-A and tier 1 as opposed to infinitely above infinity.

...typing out infinitely above infinity makes it sound dumber than it is.