2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

[DMB_1]

Those are numbers with infinite ciphers, not with an infinitely large value.

 

[Overlord775]

Yes, aleph null or infinity doesn't follow the rules of finite numbers.
If you denote countably infinite number as Y:

Y + 1 = Y

Y x 500 = Y

Y ^ (any finite number) = Y

No, you shouldn't just be removing the addictions and other things

it should be

Y + 1 = Y +1

Y x 500 = Y x 500

Y ^ N = Y ^ N

Just removing the finite part because the chenge is infinitelly small is not a good reason

 

[AKM sama]

Than Aleph Null shouldn't be used

as it clearly defies logic and physic

Saying 1=6 is madness, as it's going against any basic princible of things

Infinity defies logic and physics. That's why some people don't believe in it. But most mathematicians do. It is a mathematical concept, you can't view infinite number in the same way you view finite numbers my dude.

 

[AKM sama]

@Overlord

I think people have already linked some material earlier in the thread but you should definitely watch and read the below materials before commenting in the thread:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrU9YDoXE88

http://www.cwladis.com/math100/Lecture5Sets.htm

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

And the argument of "destroying more should be better" starts again...

 

[AKM sama]

Yeah, it's going in circles.

 

[InfiniteSped]

It'll keep looping like infinity

 

[Overlord775]

@AKM

Already saw the video and have red a bit of the document

But there's a problem

I see MASSIVE flaws in those aguments

First and foremost that the Correspondence thing

You CAN'T just add a new element to an already filled infinite serie

because no matter how long you go down the line, no spot will be empty even if you go on to infinity, as ALL spots are taken.

 

[ShadowWarrior1999]

This.

 

[AKM sama]

Read the whole thing Overlord.

@ShadowWarrior That video just reiterates the same thing present in the video and doc I linked. It's talking about aleph one being bigger than aleph null, or uncountable infinity being bigger than countable infinity, or High 2-A being bigger than 2-A. Whichever you prefer.

Also, this .

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

To infinity and beyond I guess...

 

[Kaltias]

I think you guys are misunderstanding that a multiverse isn't aleph null.

Aleph null is the "number infinity", if you will, and it's the number of elements of the infinite set "multiverse". The multiverse is the set itself.

The set "natural numbers" and the set "natural numbers divisible by 1000" are both infinite, and their cardinality is in fact the same.

Now, those two sets are not equally big. One is a subset of the other, and as such it's necessarily smaller. There is no way around it, one has every element of the other one and more.

Referring to Overlord's example, the set "one multiverse" is in fact a subset of "six multiverses", and as such, it's smaller.

Won't comment about this anymore as i'm busy and don't really care anymore

 

[Overlord775]

Read the whole thing Overlord..

Tring, but the sheer idiocy of the whole thing is almost making me have an headache

like

"If we continue this pattern, will we ever run out of numbers to pair up from each set? No. Since both sets are infinite, we cannot run out of numbers in either set."

That's false, if you repeat the pairing an infinite number of times you'll run out of numbers

 

[Sera_EX]

T...this is still going on? Are we trying to debate just to dish out as much mathematical blah blah we can?

 

[Overlord775]

People disagree with how you think things are

So the debate goes on

 

[AKM sama]

Well, your disagreement doesn't change how things are accepted mathematically, does it.

This thread should be closed. The matter was concluded already, we're just going in circles.

@Kal when you say their "cardinalities" are same, you're basically saying the "number of elements in those sets" are also same. You can pair every element of both sets without missing even a single one and you'll never run out of them in either set. You can't view an infinite quantity the way you do a finite quantity.

 

[PaChi2]

Take a shot every time the word infinite or infinity is used.

Im currently typing this from Heaven because I followed this order.

 

[The_real_cal_howard]

Lucky. I woke up handcuffed to a faucet in an ice bath missing my kidneys.

 

[PaChi2]

Lucky. I woke up handcuffed to a faucet in an ice bath missing my kidneys.

Sorry to hear that, but, on the other hand, if you are missing both kidneys we'll meet soon.

 

[Overlord775]

Well, your disagreement doesn't change how things are accepted mathematically, does it.
This thread should be closed. The matter was concluded already, we're just going in circles.

NO

the result kind of threads are decided by number votes, how many people agree with one of the two sides.

 

[PaChi2]

 

[Overlord775]

@Kal when you say their "cardinalities" are same, you're basically saying the "number of elements in those sets" are also same. You can pair every element of both sets without missing even a single one and you'll never run out of them in either set. You can't view an infinite quantity the way you do a finite quantity.

Do the pairing an INFINITE number of times and you'll run you of numbers, no two ways around it

 

[EmperorRorepmeThree]

CaRdInAlItIeS

 

[AKM sama]

the result kind of threads are decided by number votes, how many people agree with one of the two sides.

This isn't one of those threads pal. If a cat is a cat, it won't become a dog even if people vote for it. Not to mention that'd be appeal to popularity fallacy.

And most of the people including admins already agreed with one side until the discussion was dragged right back to square one.

 

[Sera_EX]

People disagree with how you think things are

So the debate goes on

Wrong again. I didn't say anything about myself or my argument. Most of us agreed to Pritti's argument including Agnaa, Andy, and Kukui. The discussion yet was somehow brought back to the irrelvance of infinity itself.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Before this thread gets closed (if it even will), just one more question?

Since most of us agreed to Pritti's argument that only scaling chains and the method of the feats can determine if a rating is above baseline 2-A, would this mean a fair downgrade for verses who currently justify their ratings with how many multieverses they destroy?

 

[Overlord775]

@Kal when you say their "cardinalities" are same, you're basically saying the "number of elements in those sets" are also same. You can pair every element of both sets without missing even a single one and you'll never run out of them in either set. You can't view an infinite quantity the way you do a finite quantity.

Do the pairing an INFINITE number of times and you'll run you of numbers, no two ways around it

@AKM

 

[Wokistan]

I think most verses like that hold that it is in verse more impressive to do so so idk about downgrading like that. Maybe shift from some direct number to unquantifiable superiority.

Kal's explanation would also be a way to say that X multiverses is bigger than 1 though

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I of course don't mean downgrade the tiers themselves but just the extent of the tiers.

 

[Wokistan]

That's what I was talking about.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Which verses specify destroying multiple multiverse's as more impressive than destroying a single 2-A one?

 

[Wokistan]

Pretty sure D&D does, Oryx, the Taken King's linked explanation treats the Vex as a collective as far superior to just their one infinite forest (though infinite jumps might be different)

I think Blazblue had something going on with this but idk that verse

 

[Sera_EX]

@Kukui

Not many. SMT for example would remain At least 2-A for Kagutsuchi and those superior to him due to the concept of the Sangai.

 

[Wokistan]

The Ur-Drago is explicitly infinitely beyond other 2-As but in fairness that low end doesn't really need to exist

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

@Kukui
Not many. SMT for example would remain At least 2-A for Kagutsuchi and those superior to him due to the concept of the Sangai.

Not many as in "not many would be downgraded"?

 

[Sera_EX]

Yes.

 

[Wokistan]

I can't really think of any besides archie sonic tbh, maybe blazblue since idk it

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

@Okay then Sera. Nvm.

@Wokistan Sonic was a given because of what I linked in the OP. Would Digimon also fall under this? I can be wrong but im pretty sure they use x number of multiverse's to put their 2-As above baseline via the servers or whatnot.

 

[Wokistan]

Digimon isn't 2-A anymore, I thought

 

[Overlord775]

Digimon is in fact no longer 2-A