A new Tiering System FAQ page in the wiki

[Antvasima]

Hello.

I just want to inform our community about that @Ultima_Reality and @DontTalkDT have created a new Frequently Asked Questions page regarding the VS Battles wiki's tiering system. It should hopefully make it easier for us to decide when to apply or not apply the highest tiers.

If our staff have very important questions or suggestions regarding the page for DontTalk and Ultima, please mention them below.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I haven't seen it, but may look more into it later. I agree with the idea, but I have recently heard things thrown around as of late. But I may weigh in when I have time.

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. No problem.

 

[First_Witch]

Not a Staffmember, but i must say this: Ultima and DT have done tremendous work with that page. I have never seen such a detailed but compact and intuitive page dealing with complext mathematical concepts like this before. Anyone with basic knowledge about set theory can grasp that FAQ and i implore anyone who might have to deal with fiction that contains higher dimensions to read the page.

Makes me scared thinking about what this wiki would have done without Ultima and DT.

 

[Antvasima]

They have both been of massive help to this community, yes, and DontTalkDT has been helping us write definition pages for almost as long as I have been here at this point.

 

[Jasonsith]

I have an issue with the "Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?" portion.

The draft page uses the example of "Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size" to argue how "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" is not a better feat than "destroying a single infinite". However, this for against the general concept that (1+n) R > n R for given positive number R. Should one try to argue destroying one infinite multiverse is the same as destroying multiple infinite multiverse, the focus should be on the size of the said multiverse being "infinite".

This is important to note as the concept of "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" and "destroying a single infinite multiverse" should not stick together if the said multiverse is infinite. Otherwise they still stay at 2-A.

In my opinion, if there are noted feats of "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" and "destroying a single infinite multiverse", it seems a good practice to re-examine the size of the said multiverse.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have an issue with the "Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?" portion.

The draft page uses the example of "Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size" to argue how "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" is not a better feat than "destroying a single infinite". However, this for against the general concept that (1+n) R > n R for given positive number R. Should one try to argue destroying one infinite multiverse is the same as destroying multiple infinite multiverse, the focus should be on the size of the said multiverse being "infinite".

This is important to note as the concept of "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" and "destroying a single infinite multiverse" should not stick together if the said multiverse is infinite. Otherwise they still stay at 2-A.

In my opinion, if there are noted feats of "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" and "destroying a single infinite multiverse", it seems a good practice to re-examine the size of the said multiverse.

I would reply to that, but I don't understand what you are arguing for.
For a start: Are you saying that the point itself is wrong, that the explanation is wrong or that both are right, but that a different explanation would be easier to understand?

 

[Theglassman12]

Can I ask one thing, does the whole cosmology size also affect tier 1 stuff, and not just 2-A? Having a fraction of something that can see something like a 2-A realm as fiction would still be baseline Low 1-C right?

 

[Star_King_Demon_Lord]

Question: Just mentioning dimensions isn't good enough to get a tier?

 

[Antvasima]

I placed a "staff only" requirement for this thread, since I feared that it would turn into a mess otherwise, but since there are very few replies so far, it seems rather safe to remove it.

However, regular members should still only post here if they have something genuinely important to say.

 

[Agnaa]

The page seems good. Only change I'd make is, I think it's better grammar to replace "Is transcending an 1-A character" with "Is transcending a 1-A character". "An 1-A" sounds weird imo.

 

[Greenshifter]

I have gotten permission from DDM to post here.

I have a problem with the following:

“The reason behind this is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (Even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite”

I’ve done prior research on this and the cardinality of infinite^infinite is equal to the cardinality of 2^infinite which is the power set of ℵ0. Which is equal to low 1-C if said structure (infinite multiverses with infinite universes in them) is destroyed.

I also have a small suggestion to talk about Large Extra Dimensions in the immeasurable speed section. You somewhat touch upon LED in the AP part but I think a clarification that you get immeasurable speed by default if you exist or move in a LED wouldn’t hurt (at least that’s how I understood it).

On that note this might also be the ideal time to elaborate a little on higher degrees of immeasurable speed in the FAQ (and how for instance being able to move in the 6th dimension grants a higher degree of immeasurable than being able to move in the 5th in a cosmology that functions via LED) since I know people who despite being a part of the wiki for a long time and having argued practically every aspect of it, who are not aware of the existence of higher degrees of immeasurable speed since it isn’t mentioned on any page.

As a side note some clarification on whether a verse needs to explicitly have more than 1 temporal dimensions to qualify for higher degrees of immeasurable speed would be appreciated as well as a clarification on whether destroying multiple temporal dimensions would grant higher ratings such as low 1-C.

 

[Agnaa]

Infinitely many infinite multiverses isn't infinite^infinite, it's infinite*infinite, or infinite^2, which is not a higher cardinality.

EDIT: There needs to be an infinite collection of larger and larger collections of infinite timelines, then multiverses, then multiverses of multiverses, and so on infinitely, to be infinite^infinite and reach Low 1-C in that way.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have gotten permission from DDM to post here.

I have a problem with the following:

“The reason behind this is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (Even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite”

I’ve done prior research on this and the cardinality of infinite^infinite is equal to the cardinality of 2^infinite which is the power set of ℵ0. Which is equal to low 1-C if said structure (infinite multiverses with infinite universes in them) is destroyed.

Assign each multiverse a natural numbers (there are infinte of those) and assign each universe in the multiverses a natural number. So countably infinite multiverses with countably infinite universes each, each given an adress in the form (x,y), with x and y being some natural numbers. Write that as x/y instead. Apply the diagonal argument. Therefore the total numbers of universes is only equal to the of the natural numbers, i.e. of a single infinite set of universes.

I also have a small suggestion to talk about Large Extra Dimensions in the immeasurable speed section. You somewhat touch upon LED in the AP part but I think a clarification that you get immeasurable speed by default if you exist or move in a LED wouldn’t hurt (at least that’s how I understood it).

You don't get immeasurable speed by default. The FAQ in fact explains why you don't.

as well as a clarification on whether destroying multiple temporal dimensions would grant higher ratings such as low 1-C.

The FAQ specifies that temporal dimensions are treated as similar to physical ones in that regard.

 

[Eficiente]

I like most of it but disagree on how it uses higher-dimensions and higher-dimensional beings as that always using the theory of it it gives, as opposed to it only being the case when proven. Any random verse having some being from the 7th dimension or the like doesn't mean the being or that dimension are larger than the regular 3rd dimension, the standard thing for everybody to think is that the writers may not know sh*t about things like that and the 7th dimension may be just another universe, but weeeird or with gimmicks to it.

 

[Eficiente]

In a resent example of this I read there is an old comic where beings from the Fifth Dimension attack Earth and the Human Torch has to go there to end some tyranny and stuff. The Fifth Dimension is another dimension of time and space but it's really just other universe with basically aliens living in it, yet by what we claim then they're apparently infinitely larger than us due to technical math, physics and stuff? That's kinda untrue.

 

[Agnaa]

Saying that beings with a larger number of spatiotemporal dimensions are bigger is not saying that we automatically take every usage of "dimension" as talking about spatiotemporal dimensions when context clearly points to "dimension" meaning "timeline/universe/realm".

Beings in Rick and Morty's "Dimension C-197" will not be treated as having a C-197 amount of dimensions.

 

[Eficiente]

At minimum I believe that will lead to confusion; surely anyone will see Rick & Morty's way of calling universes like Dimension C-197 and know they're just universes, but when a verse puts it less clear than that and calls it the Fifth Dimension or the "[whatever number]th dimension" then, if I was some random person, I would think that would count for what the first answer talks about in the page. Because it treats higher-dimensions as always infinitely larger than lower-dimensions.

 

[Theglassman12]

Can I ask one thing, does the whole cosmology size also affect tier 1 stuff, and not just 2-A? Having a fraction of something that can see something like a 2-A realm as fiction would still be baseline Low 1-C right?

Can anyone answer this question?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Can anyone answer this question?

A finite fraction of Tier 1 power is Tier 1.

 

[Agnaa]

A finite fraction of Tier 1 power is Tier 1.

I think this sort of thing requires a lot of care, since "a fraction" doesn't necessarily mean "a finite fraction" when we're dealing with these sorts of infinities.

 

[Theglassman12]

@DontTalkDT does that upscale from normal tier 1 or would that still be baseline?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Okay, I pretty much skimmed through the blog, and I will say they did an excellent job. Although, I still have some things to wrap my head around, and I think I might as well note the difference between a countable infinite number of multiverse containing a countable infinite number of universes; countable infinite number of multiverses containing uncountable infinite number of universes, uncountable infinite number of multiverses containing countable infinite universes, and uncountable infinite number of multiverses containing uncountable universes.

Redundant much redundant aside, there is a difference between all that. But the 1-A and above stuff are still over my head as usual.

 

[Jasonsith]

I would reply to that, but I don't understand what you are arguing for.
For a start: Are you saying that the point itself is wrong, that the explanation is wrong or that both are right, but that a different explanation would be easier to understand?

I have a mixed opinion for myself.

First, mathematical fact: (n+1) R > n R > 1 R for any non-negative R and any positive n larger than 1
If the said R is indefinitely large, (n+1) R will be close to n R but still larger than n R, and is .

Yes I am for the statement that "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" is a better feat than "destroying one single infinite multiverse".

---

However, one question spawns from it (or some more): Does "destroying infinitely multiple infinite multiverses" equal to "destroying infinitely multiple infinite space-time continuua", and does that equal to 5-dimensional? < Is this what @Theglassman12 is asking?

 

[Theglassman12]

No that’s not what I’m asking. I’m asking if the cosmology size that downgraded the 2-A characters apply to Anyone thats tier 1 in general, with a realm having a fraction of something tier 1 related that doesn’t involve transcending said tier 1 thing.

 

[Agnaa]

First, mathematical fact: (n+1) R > n R > 1 R for any non-negative R and any positive n larger than 1
If the said R is indefinitely large, (n+1) R will be close to n R but still larger than n R, and is .

This actually isn't true for infinite sets. The claim isn't "Just adding 1 is so close that it's basically the same thing". If you create a coherent notion for the size of sets and apply them to infinite sets, you will find that {set of all whole numbers} is the exact same size as {set of all even numbers}.

You can talk about one set having elements that the other lacks, but that's not necessarily related to size. A set of {0, 1, 3} has the same size as the set {1, 2, 3} despite them each having elements that the other lacks.

You can talk about the order of sets, where omega is the smallest infinite ordinal, omega+1 comes afterwards, and omega+2 comes after that, and so on, but order is not size.

Yes I am for the statement that "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" is a better feat than "destroying one single infinite multiverse".

There are coherent ways to interpret that as a better feat (for example, by using order instead of size), but we had a long thread about this topic where we came to the conclusion that those feats should be tweeted as equally impressive, unless further context is provided (i.e. the verse shows that destroying 2 infinite multiverses is more difficult for characters than destroying 1 infinite multiverse).

 

[Jasonsith]

First, mathematical fact: (n+1) R > n R > 1 R for any non-negative R and any positive n larger than 1
If the said R is indefinitely large, (n+1) R will be close to n R but still larger than n R, and is .

This actually isn't true for infinite sets. The claim isn't "Just adding 1 is so close that it's basically the same thing". If you create a coherent notion for the size of sets and apply them to infinite sets, you will find that {set of all whole numbers} is the exact same size as {set of all even numbers}.

You can talk about one set having elements that the other lacks, but that's not necessarily related to size. A set of {0, 1, 3} has the same size as the set {1, 2, 3} despite them each having elements that the other lacks.

You can talk about the order of sets, where omega is the smallest infinite ordinal, omega+1 comes afterwards, and omega+2 comes after that, and so on, but order is not size.

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.

Yes I am for the statement that "destroying multiple infinite multiverses" is a better feat than "destroying one single infinite multiverse".

There are coherent ways to interpret that as a better feat (for example, by using order instead of size), but we had a long thread about this topic where we came to the conclusion that those feats should be tweeted as equally impressive, unless further context is provided (i.e. the verse shows that destroying 2 infinite multiverses is more difficult for characters than destroying 1 infinite multiverse).

I would like to have the link. Maybe what I exactly want to say is not about the size but the order.

 

[Agnaa]

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

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

Is there anything that you think should be modified in the page based on the above comments?

 

[Jasonsith]

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.

 

[Agnaa]

1. I don't understand your question here.

2. Some people have suggested that change, I think it's been rejected for being a pretty minor aesthetic change and there not being a replacement that people were happy enough with.

3. 1-A doesn't require explicit transcendence of High 1-B hierarchies. It isn't just "0 > High 1-A > 1-A > High 1-B". Stuff 1-B and below involves various numbers of spatiotemporal dimensions. High 1-B is an infinite number of spatiotemporal dimensions. Low 1-A is an uncountably infinite number of spatiotemporal dimensions, the very maximum that's allowed under conventional space-time models. 1-A is the minimum that breaks conventional space-time models.

Low 1-A isn't really a weaker outerversal, that's why some people suggested making 1-B into Low 1-B, High 1-B into 1-B, and placing the tier we now call Low 1-A at High 1-B. I think this was decided against for a variety of reasons, but it included the large amount of work required to shift all those tiers. Low 1-A definitely deserves to exist as its own tier as quite a few verses involve constructs of those sizes in their cosmology, so it doesn't make much sense to merge it into High 1-B.

 

[Greenshifter]

Infinitely many infinite multiverses isn't infinite^infinite, it's infinite*infinite, or infinite^2, which is not a higher cardinality.

EDIT: There needs to be an infinite collection of larger and larger collections of infinite timelines, then multiverses, then multiverses of multiverses, and so on infinitely, to be infinite^infinite and reach Low 1-C in that way.

Yeah I screwed up here big time but I thought the blog was referencing what you wrote after edit when they said infinitely many. (Yet still wrote down only infinitely^2).

You don't get immeasurable speed by default. The FAQ in fact explains why you don't.

I mean with LED I mean the type of stuff that would qualify for actually getting a higher dimensional tier if said structure were destroyed (I thought LED would by default be that large, because I'm pretty sure it's treated that way elsewhere). I understand where you are coming from with the dimensions are irrelevant to distance part, but I'm more referencing higher realms in a way that someone sees the dimension of time as an infinitesimal speck to themselves and they can essentially read a timeline like a book (from front to back and vice versa), you may have accounted for that by saying "seeing time as a spatial dimension" but the part where if you live in an LED (higher dimension that results in a higher-dimensional tier upon destruction) you see time this way by default, seems to be missing.

The FAQ specifies that temporal dimensions are treated as similar to physical ones in that regard.

That is correct but it's quite vague on whether temporal dimensions also need prove to be infinitely superior to count for a higher tier or whether they are by default since

"So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth."

sounds like it would grant low 1-C by default.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT does that upscale from normal tier 1 or would that still be baseline?

There is no real baseline with those things, as a character half as strong would always still be the same tier. So yeah, the existence of a weaker tier 1 does technically not really make you stronger. At least that's how I view it.

I mean with LED I mean the type of stuff that would qualify for actually getting a higher dimensional tier if said structure were destroyed (I thought LED would by default be that large, because I'm pretty sure it's treated that way elsewhere). I understand where you are coming from with the dimensions are irrelevant to distance part, but I'm more referencing higher realms in a way that someone sees the dimension of time as an infinitesimal speck to themselves and they can essentially read a timeline like a book (from front to back and vice versa), you may have accounted for that by saying "seeing time as a spatial dimension" but the part where if you live in an LED (higher dimension that results in a higher-dimensional tier upon destruction) you see time this way by default, seems to be missing.

LED per default still don't get immeasurable speed for exactly the reasons explained in the FAQ. In LED you don't see time like that by default in the slightest. Reality-Fiction based tier 1s often have immeasurable speed, but that's a different story entirely and not really default either.

That is correct but it's quite vague on whether temporal dimensions also need prove to be infinitely superior to count for a higher tier or whether they are by default since

"So, for example, a spacetime continuum comprising two temporal dimensions (Instead of just one) would have an additional time direction whose "snapshots" correspond to the whole of a 4-dimensional spacetime, and so on and so forth."

sounds like it would grant low 1-C by default.

It probably is assumed that they are large. At least I find a small time-like dimension rather unlikely, given the nature of time.

 

[Greenshifter]

Ok thanks, I assumed that LED would essentially be the same as reality-fiction based tier 1s due to sheer size and that it was the exception to the rule.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out so much DontTalk. It is extremely appreciated.

 

[Jasonsith]

I would need further time to digest on the above ideas. Thank you anyway. I need to work now.

Oh Question 1 elaborated:
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 still there can be characters "comparably weaker or stronger". Do we just put them at the same tier as to the sense that stronger multiple infinite universe busting does not generate an AP stomp over a single infinite universe busting? Because half of infinity is inf@cking finity

 

[Elizhaa]

Neat on the page and nice work on it, as well

I will read the page when I got the time.

 

[IntangibleForceAC]

1-A is confusing as hell

 

[Antvasima]

Well, hopefully this page will help make it easier to understand when to apply the tier.

 

[Eficiente]

I had to search back this thread as the page made has no discussions linked, which it should. I feel like this thread was a compromise, will I need to insist in it to have the issue I pointed out be tackled or should I not bother the people following it and make my own thread?