The set of {0,1,3} is the same as that of {1,2,3} because each having elements that the other lacks. but the set {0,1,2,3} has one integer more than the set {0,1,3} or {1,2,3}. This is what I am talking about. And the degree or magnitude whatever of being able to destroy one more multiverse will diminish as n or R increases. This I can accept.
Once you get to infinite sets, you can pair up every element from one set (say the set of all whole numbers), with another set (say the set of all even numbers), which intuitively sounds larger. But if you do this, every element from one will be paired with one from the other with none to spare. That's why we'd say it's equal in size. This gets pretty crazy, with even {set of every googolplex'th number} having the same number of elements as {set of every single algebraic number} and {set of every single fraction written using whole numbers}.
It's really hard to get an intuitive grasp on this as finite sets work nothing like this, but that's where the math falls.
I would like to have the link. Maybe what I exactly want to say is not about the size but the order.
Here's the link
So the consensus from the #61149 thread is that
"if the character can at once destroy/create/significantly affect a number of universes,
and the number of universes (each as a space-time continuum) qualifies for the concept of 'infinite',
this character is 2-A or 'Multiverse level+',
and every character within 2-A attack potency band share the same attack potency level because
'Hey Wiz, what's half of infinity? In-f***ing-finity!'".
... Right?
Then some questions arise:
1. the authors (usually) do not have the cosmology blogs alongside them when writing their stories, and so there will/may/might be cases where a band of characters exist, one said character is known for destroying/creating/significantly affecting a number of universes and
2. the same logic flows for High 3-A where
2.1. is it confusing that we call High 3-A as High Universe level and Low 2-C as Universe level+? Say we call
8-C Building level, 8-C+ Building level+, and High 8-C Large Building level
6-A Continent level, 6-A+ Continent level+, and High 6-A Multi-Continent level
Should we actually call 3-A+ Universe level+ and put all characters who "demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D area or an infinite number of finite or infinite universes when not accounting for any higher dimensions or time"
Then we call Low 2-C Low Multiverse level- instead?
3. Is the concept of Low 1-A redundant?
1-B Hyperverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy spaces whose size corresponds from 8 to any higher finite number of levels of infinity above a standard universal model. In terms of "dimensional" size, this can be equated to 12-dimensional real coordinate spaces and up (R ^ 12 and up)
High 1-B High Hyperverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures whose size is equivalent to a countably infinite number of qualitative sizes above a universal model.
We know that 1-A characters functionally transcend the rest of the Tiering System (in here anywhere up to High 1-B), and stand outside of any extensions of infinite hierarchies and sizes, to varying degrees and magnitudes.
A character has to transcend a character of 1-A on the manner a 1-A transcends a High 1-B to become a High 1-A.
A character has to transcend a character of High 1-A on the manner a High 1-A transcends a 1-A and 1-A transcends a High 1-B to become a Tier 0.
It seems that the sub-division of Low 1-A and "Mid" 1-A is unnecessary.
Open for further discussion.
vsbattles.fandom.com
