A downgrade for space beyond??[Ben10]

[Georredannea15]

still reading the rest but

2-A x 2-A x 2-A.... going infinitely is literally aleph 1

I will keep the answer short.

No. the product of infinite number of 2-A's is still 2-A, if you multiply a countable quantity by a countable quantity, it is still not uncountably infinite, I thought we had put all this behind us, but even though it has been fixed, we are still arguing...

But thank you anyway

 

[Hellformer]

I will keep the answer short.

No. the product of infinite number of 2-A's is still 2-A, if you multiply a countable quantity by a countable quantity, it is still not uncountably infinite, I thought we had put all this behind us, but even though it has been fixed, we are still arguing...

But thank you anyway

"Power Set: The set of all subsets of a given set X, commonly denoted as 2^X or P(X). An example is the power set of {1, 3, 4}, which equals {∅, {1}, {3}, {4), {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}}
This hierarchy is then extended unto Aleph Numbers whose subscript can be defined as being correspondent to any higher number, be it finite or infinite: ℵ2, ℵ3, ℵ4... ℵω, ℵω+1, ℵω+2, and so on and so forth, with each succeeding cardinal being equal to the power set of the previous one"
The cardinality of a power set is equal to 2^X if the the cardinality of superset is X. And each higher infinity is the powerset of the lower infinity, Implying that:
ℵ1 = 2^(ℵ0)
ℵ2 = 2^(ℵ 1)
So on and so forth.
Baseline 2-A = ℵ0
So 2-A × 2-A × 2-A....(ℵ0 times)
= ℵ0^(ℵ0)
Which is numerically greater than 2^(ℵ0) due to equal power.

 

[Georredannea15]

"Power Set: The set of all subsets of a given set X, commonly denoted as 2^X or P(X). An example is the power set of {1, 3, 4}, which equals {∅, {1}, {3}, {4), {1, 3}, {1, 4}, {3, 4}, {1, 3, 4}}
This hierarchy is then extended unto Aleph Numbers whose subscript can be defined as being correspondent to any higher number, be it finite or infinite: ℵ2, ℵ3, ℵ4... ℵω, ℵω+1, ℵω+2, and so on and so forth, with each succeeding cardinal being equal to the power set of the previous one"
The cardinality of a power set is equal to 2^X if the the cardinality of superset is X. And each higher infinity is the powerset of the lower infinity, Implying that:
ℵ1 = 2^(ℵ0)
ℵ2 = 2^(ℵ 1)
So on and so forth.
Baseline 2-A = ℵ0
So 2-A × 2-A × 2-A....(ℵ0 times)
= ℵ0^(ℵ0)
Which is numerically greater than 2^(ℵ0) due to equal power.

The big question is;

What you are saying is all well and good, but what does it have to do with what is in the verse or basically what I am saying?

And I've made a small amendment to the OP, you can take a look at it because the relationship is not like that in the verse "although I don't think it would make much of a difference"

 

[Hellformer]

The big question is;

What you are saying is all well and good, but what does it have to do with what is in the verse or basically what I am saying?

Yes it does, I had given the same explanation as a final draft to Firestorm which you most likely didn't read. However this part wasn't even accepted because Firestorm said he will be discussing it with other staff members before further implementation but idk what made you hurry so much that you made a downgrade thread before it even got accepted.

And I've made a small amendment to the OP, you can take a look at it because the relationship is not like that in the verse "although I don't think it would make much of a difference"

Firestorm already handled it and the only thing which was accepted is Higher temporality instead of uncountably infinite universes. Firestorm has asked DontalkDT for helping so we better wait for the staffs ig?

 

[Georredannea15]

Firestorm already handled it and the only thing which was accepted is Higher temporality instead of uncountably infinite universes. Firestorm has asked DontalkDT for helping so we better wait for the staffs ig?

I thought "uncountable infinite timelines" were accepted along with hypertimeline in the previous revision. So only hypertimeline was accepted, huh?

Well, what I wanted anyway was to wait for DT, in fact when I asked Ultima what Firestorm suggested, his answer was no, I don't mind waiting a bit longer.

 

[Hellformer]

I thought "uncountable infinite timelines" were accepted along with hypertimeline in the previous revision. So only hypertimeline was accepted, huh?

Happy realization buddy, uncountably Infinite timelines weren't accepted and was instead put at halt. If it was really accepted then you would have seen Low 1-C rating for branching timelines

Well, what I wanted anyway was to wait for DT, in fact when I asked Ultima what Firestorm suggested, his answer was no, I don't mind waiting a bit longer.

I don't mind waiting a bit long either. Firestorm will discuss with DontTalkDT and reach a conclusion.

 

[Georredannea15]

Happy realization buddy, uncountably Infinite timelines weren't accepted and was instead put at halt. If it was really accepted then you would have seen Low 1-C rating for branching timelines

... Well, we've touched on that too...

I don't mind waiting a bit long either. Firestorm will discuss with DontTalkDT and reach a conclusion.

 

[Firestorm808]

I thought "uncountable infinite timelines" were accepted along with hypertimeline in the previous revision. So only hypertimeline was accepted, huh?

Well, what I wanted anyway was to wait for DT, in fact when I asked Ultima what Firestorm suggested, his answer was no, I don't mind waiting a bit longer.

Dude, the other thread was still open. As I said earlier, the conversation could have just continued there. Only one thing was accepted at the time. I'm still not sure why you needed an entirely new thread.

Also, what exactly did you ask Ultima? Was this a post on his wall or the vs discord server? I expected an answer with more of an explanation of what's missing and needed under the current context.

 

[Georredannea15]

Dude, the other thread was still open. As I said earlier, the conversation could have just continued there. Only one thing was accepted at the time. I'm still not sure why you needed an entirely new thread.

I explained why in there, actually. A bit long

Also, what did exactly you ask Ultima? Was this a post on his wall or the vs discord server? I expected an answer with more of an explanation of what's missing and needed under the current context.

I asked Ultima on Discord what you quoted above for DT, his answer was no

 

[Hellformer]

Dude, the other thread was still open. As I said earlier, the conversation could have just continued there. Only one thing was accepted at the time. I'm still not sure why you needed an entirely new thread.

Can this thread be locked so that we continue our discussion in the upgrade thread? Otherwise it seems too messed up.

 

[Georredannea15]

Can this thread be locked so that we continue our discussion in the upgrade thread? Otherwise it seems too messed up.

No need, Since Firestorm has already tagged DT, and given that a staff member already agreed with OP. Complicated? I don't think so. One's an upgrade, one's a downgrade revision.

 

[Hellformer]

No need, Since Firestorm has already tagged DT, and given that a staff member already agreed with OP. Complicated? I don't think so. One's an upgrade, one's a downgrade revision.

D̶o̶w̶n̶g̶r̶a̶d̶e̶ o̶f̶ s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶n̶'t̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶e̶d̶ y̶e̶t̶
Let Firestorm decide if he wants to lock or not

 

[NXCHT.66]

following

 

[Georredannea15]

D̶o̶w̶n̶g̶r̶a̶d̶e̶ o̶f̶ s̶o̶m̶e̶t̶h̶i̶n̶g̶ w̶h̶i̶c̶h̶ h̶a̶s̶n̶'t̶ b̶e̶e̶n̶ a̶c̶c̶e̶p̶t̶e̶d̶ y̶e̶t̶
Let Firestorm decide if he wants to lock or not

It doesn't matter if it's finished or not, I don't want an active revision(with a staff agree) to be moved on to an already finished revision. I think that's reason enough

 

[Hellformer]

It doesn't matter if it's finished or not, I don't want an active revision with a staff member already agree to be moved on to an already finished revision. I think that's reason enough

Let Firestorm decide.

 

[Georredannea15]

Let Firestorm decide.

So? I think it is absurd to suggest this. I have already touched on many things in the OP and all we have to do now is wait for DT here.

Just waiting for DT should not be so complicated

 

[Hellformer]

So? I think it is absurd to suggest this. I have already touched on many things in the OP and all we have to do now is wait for DT here.

Just waiting for DT should not be so complicated

Then we better wait to see what happens

 

[Georredannea15]

Then we better wait to see what happens

I think just waiting for it would be the best option

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump??

 

[ProfectusInfinity]

I'm neutral on the hypertimeline downgrade (leaning somewhat on disagreeing), but I absolutely agree with the uncountably infinitely many timelines downgrade.

As I mentioned in the last thread, you typically need to prove that the number of timelines is such that there is a timeline created for every infinitesimal point in time, since time is continuous, and thus comprises a number of moments equal to a set of real numbers. Statements like "there is a timeline for every event" don't fulfill that scope, as Agnaa explains here:

MWI only upgrades to Low 1-C if we know that a branching timeline is created for every instant. Things like "for every being, of which an infinite number exist" or "for every event" don't qualify, since they'd only create a countably infinite amount.

Stop cherry picking arguments and making stuff on your own. Him saying 10 year old, 16 year old and 30 year old were simply examples given to NW Ben for the sake of understanding. I've given several other examples in the OP which weren't from these. And how do you expect Paradox to explain all the snapshots in an episode which barely lasts 22 minutes. AND NW Ben wasn't aware of this so it's obvious that he simply wanted him to understand instead of wasting time.

This sounds like a strawman, no one ever said they expect professor paradox to spend infinite time in a single episode listing off the amount of timelines. We just need evidence that there's an additional timeline corresponding with each instant in time, or that the process of the multiverse branching resembles infinite timelines, each of which individually have more infinite timelines, each of which individually have their own infinite timelines, ad infinitum resulting in an Infinity*Infinity*Infinity... ad infinitum quantity. A single "ad infinitum" statement without context is no different from any other 2-A cosmology. I'm not really seeing the evidence that would indicate uncountably infinitely many timelines.

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump??

 

[Georredannea15]

Bump