2-A's "Above Baseline" standard

[AKM sama]

Kaltias makes sense.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is not calculable same reason destroying 2 2-A sized multiverses at once is.

 

[Sera_EX]

The gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is very much calculable. I've learned we can pretty much calc anything. You just need to know the method.

Kaltias is also right about infinity.

The very idea that feats above baseline 2-A not existing is very flawed anyway. We can't see that Kagutsuchi's feat is superior to Neo-Exdeath's?

The whole "adding to infinity thing" is also missing the point. As we're talking about 2-A and At least 2-A. We're not even talking about the difference between tiers, are we?

Keep in mind that 2-A is strictly uncountably infinite universes in the first place. You're not reaching that with branching timelines.

Edit: I did not call anyone a "dumbass" in the slightest. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you really can't handle a blunt dismantle of an entire thread, then don't be here. I'm not attacking anyone directly, that's pitiable in itself. I worded that just as it needed to be. If a gentle touch isn't enough to wake you up, and a firm tap doesn't to make the cut either, perhaps being shaken up a bit will do the job.

 

[Overlord775]

The gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is very much calculable. I've learned we can pretty much calc anything. You just need to know the method.

Mind elaborating ?

Because as far as i know we just have no idea how much energy would be needed to cross the gap between two universes

 

[Agnaa]

You cannot calc Low 2-C to 2-C. You'd have to choose a method based on completely unfounded assumptions that aren't demonstrated or consistently shown across fiction.

Did you make a typo there? 2-A is strictly countably infinite universes, an uncountable amount would go to High 2-A. But you're right about branching timelines not reaching either of those without explicit statements.

 

[Sera_EX]

We chose methods not demonstrated or consistently shown across fiction already. That's having standards in general. I obviously agree with yoi there, but no one wants a feat-based system, the only way yoi don't have to rely on unfair methods. That's another discussion though.

 

[Overlord775]

We chose methods not demonstrated or consistently shown across fiction already. That's having standards in general.

I have very sure that's not the case and our current system fuction like most of fiction threats stuff

 

[Kaltias]

The thing with the gap between Low 2-C and 2-C is that no one ever managed to measure the actual distance between 2 universes, so even if we had ways to calc it, it'd be impossible to do so anyway.

It would be the same as calculating the destruction of two stars via inverse square law without knowing the distance between them.

 

[Agnaa]

We chose methods not demonstrated or consistently shown across fiction already. That's having standards in general. I obviously agree with yoi there, but no one wants a feat-based system, the only way yoi don't have to rely on unfair methods. That's another discussion though.

Well beyond not being demonstrated or consistently shown across fiction, calculating Low 2-C to 2-C has absolutely no basis in reality. Calcs at least have that going for them. Any result for Low 2-C to 2-C is essentially pulled out of our ass by picking arbitrarily between a dozen different reasonable assumptions for it.

 

[Sera_EX]

Ahh, I forgot about not knowing the distance between universes.

 

[AKM sama]

That's enough derailment though.

 

[Sera_EX]

Wait, one more thing just to bury this under the ground because I don't want bad blood between anybody (and it's making me feel sick already):

I sincerely apologize for what I said earlier, regardless of the context, it's just not worth clashing heads with any of you guys over it. Remaining on friendly terms with you all is more important.

I've just been in a bad mood due to a fellow admin and friend going through a very rough time (some of you know who I'm referring to).

I hope that clears that up and we can get back to the discussion at hand.

 

[AKM sama]

I appreciate you coming out and saying this. Meanwhile I'd also like to say that people who debate about different fictional characters need to get a thicker skin too. That remark was unnecessary but the kind of reaction it got was also unnecessary.

 

[Andytrenom]

I get why you would assume destroying two infinite multiverses to be greater than one, it just seems like the most logical conclusion. But seeming more logical doesn't prove something is correct, this still goes against that infinity times 2 is still infinity and the same level of infinity, so unless I'm missing something taking destroying two multiverses to be above baseline as a standard is assuming that fiction will go against actual mathematics unless proven otherwise

I would say 2 or more infinite multiverses being above 1 should be what has to be established or implied within the verse rather than the other way around, especially since this feature of infinity isn't some obscure mathematical idea, it's something most people have learned as children so a work abiding by this concept instead of "more of an infinite thing requires greater power to destroy" isn't any kind of stretch. Even if it was, we don't normally assume fiction is going against RL rules or logic unless shown otherwise

 

[Agnaa]

Yes but by taking that to its logical extreme, there can be no "stronger than baseline 2-A" without reaching to High 2-A. Specifically because (assuming ZFC) there's no set with a size between countably infinite and uncountably infinite.

I think we often have to make choices between what physics says, what pure maths says, and what fiction says. And I think in this case, enough fiction has characters that are stronger than infinite characters that we should account for that.

 

[Pritti]

We can guesstimate that a feat of two infinite multiverses is "At least 2-A" like we've been doing. It's worked well so far.

 

[Sera_EX]

"At least 2-A" is fine (and it's in-between baseline 2-A and baseline High 2-A without being another tier).

 

[Andytrenom]

Yes but by taking that to its logical extreme, there can be no "stronger than baseline 2-A" without reaching to High 2-A. Specifically because (assuming ZFC) there's no set with a size between countably infinite and uncountably infinite.

I think we often have to make choices between what physics says, what pure maths says, and what fiction says. And I think in this case, enough fiction has characters that are stronger than infinite characters that we should account for that.

If a fictional work actually goes against maths by specifying that two infinite multiverses are greater than one, there's no problem treating it that way. My only issue is taking this as the default standard

At that point we aren't making choices between what maths and fiction says, we are just assuming that fiction is saying something contradictory to maths and the notion that it isn't is what has to be proven

 

[Agnaa]

I was more saying that, I think your logic (since adding to infinity isn't actually bigger, destroying 2 infinite multiverses should be treated the same as destroying 1) could be applied to simple statements of "Overlord Deathgod is stronger than Creator Niceboi, who created an infinite multiverse" to say that "Overlord Deathgod" is still only baseline 2-A, since you cannot be stronger than 2-A without reaching High 2-A.

Does that make any sense?

It's not so much talking about the 2 infinite multiverses feats, it's trying to extend that logic to infinite multiverse with a "stronger" statement.

 

[Sera_EX]

I agree with Agnaa. Why downgrade all "At least 2-A" to "2-A" because "math"? That's not consistent at all.

 

[Ricsi-viragosi]

If the verse plain states that one is stronger than the other, then logic doesn't matter to it.

 

[Andytrenom]

@Agnaa My point mainly was that fiction shouldn't be assumed to be contradicting maths without proof, not that it has to abide by mathematical rules all the time

Unless there's actual context implying the destruction of multiple infinities is above the destruction of a single one, it shouldn't be assumed

 

[Agnaa]

Ahh, if that's your point then I'm neutral until I see further arguments given.

 

[Overlord775]

@Andy

2 * Infinity / Infinity = 2 tho

 

[Agnaa]

@Andy

2 * Infinity / Infinity = 2 tho

I hope this is a joke. Infinity doesn't work with algebra.

 

[Andytrenom]

Infinity is ******* weird ma

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

This thread is downright painful to read through...

 

[InfiniteSped]

The problem is that some people treat infinity as just a big number

 

[Zamasu_Chan]

I completely agree with Andy here. Destroy two or more infinite multiverses is still destroying an infinite amount of 4-D space time continuums. And that's the main point, it's 4-D and infinity is the same number.

Unless the dimensional walls between each multiverse is something other than time and space, it's still destroying infinite universes regardless.

 

[Kaltias]

But seeming more logical doesn't prove something is correct, this still goes against that infinity times 2 is still infinity and the same level of infinity, so unless I'm missing something taking destroying two multiverses to be above baseline as a standard is assuming that fiction will go against actual mathematics unless proven otherwise

It's not against actual math though?

Infinite sets encompassing each other are a thing, real numbers > rational numbers > natural numbers, despite all three of them containing an infinite amount of numbers.

Equations don't deal with infinite sets, if you want to solve an equation dealing with infinity you use a "limit" (Which essentially means "the variable is approaching infinity"), and those equations will still tell you that 2x/x = 2 (meaning that the first set is twice as big) even if x is approaching infinity.

 

[Andytrenom]

If it is in line with maths I guess that's different

 

[Overlord775]

@Agnaa

Why exactly doesn't it work ?

>_>

@Andy

The point is, if you destroy two separate multiverses

each infinite in size

It must be a better feat

because destroing two multiverses is obviusly a better feat than destroing only 1

Especially since fiction tends to give borders to infinity

@Zamasu

Some infinities are bigger than others

 

[Agnaa]

@Agnaa

Wh exactly doen't it work ?

>_>

I can't go into detail without doing more research, I just know that "infinity" isn't part of the numbers/operations that standard algebra is consistent with. I think this video briefly mentions it, but there's a whole chain of research I'd need to go down.

 

[Andytrenom]

Anyone can make any statement along the lines of "Fiction tends to do __". That doesn't prove it does

 

[Sera_EX]

Please...no algebra. We have/had enough of that in school.

 

[Overlord775]

@Agnaa

Wouldn't that be fixed by just threating Infinity as a simbol rather than a number ?

@Andy

I guess

 

[Agnaa]

Eugh, do we really have to go down this line of questioning?

If we treat it as a symbol, then what does the symbol represent?

 

[MrKingOfNegativity]

Pretension.

 

[Sera_EX]

I already went there King, and it wasn't going so well.

 

[Andytrenom]

Excepted you neglected to use strikethroughs