Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page

[Qawsedf234]

An Infinite or 5 God STR would be uncountably stronger than a 5 Hunter STR?

No, for the same reason 5 2A spaces isn't Low 1-C.

 

[Firestorm808]

No, for the same reason 5 2A spaces isn't Low 1-C.

Got.

So, under the gameworld context below, only the same aleph structure applies?

Where an Infinite Hunter STR = 1 God STR = Aleph-0

Infinite God STR = 1 SuperGod STR = Aleph-1

Infinite SuperGod STR = Aleph-2

 

[Qawsedf234]

Where an Infinite Hunter STR = 1 God STR = Aleph-0

Infinite God STR = 1 SuperGod STR = Aleph-1

These would both be Aleph-0

Infinite SuperGod STR = Aleph-2

This is probably Aleph-1

 

[DontTalkDT]

If I understand the analogy right infinite Super God STR would still be Aleph-0. Like how infinite multiverses with infinite universe each are still 2-A. Or how infinite of those are still 2-A.

More directly: Since God STR and SuperGod STR is actually the same (both Aleph-0, there is no difference) just doing the process that got you from God STR to SuperGod STR won't get you to something higher by applying it to SuperGod STR. Because that's the exact same thing as applying it to God STR, since those two are equal.

Generally, "multiypling" an infinity by countably infinite a finite number of times won't ever land you in a bigger infinity.

If Infinite Hunter STR = 1 God STR, Infinite God STR = 1 SuperGod STR, Infinite SuperGod STR = 1 SuperSuperGod STR and so on, then you would need SuperSuperSuperSuperSuperSuperSuperSuper (repeat Super another countably infinite times) God STR to reach Aleph 1.
Hence the difference between two cardinalities is large enough that multipliers and stat scaling is practice are basically never relevant.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Where is this thread?

 

[Firestorm808]

Where is this thread?

The recent posts were in regarding how to portray a character B being uncountable stronger than character a via a narrative description.

Using a game-like world seemed to be the closest analog due to a universal number system in place.

I'm pretty sure just blatantly saying that B is uncountable stronger than A needs more context.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The recent posts were in regarding how to portray a character B being uncountable stronger than character a via a narrative description.

Using a game-like world seemed to be the closest analog due to a universal number system in place.

I'm pretty sure just blatantly saying that B is uncountable stronger than A needs more context.

Bump.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The recent posts were in regarding how to portray a character B being uncountable stronger than character a via a narrative description.

Using a game-like world seemed to be the closest analog due to a universal number system in place.

I'm pretty sure just blatantly saying that B is uncountable stronger than A needs more context.

Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@Firestorm808

What should currently be done here?

 

[Antvasima]

The recent posts were in regarding how to portray a character B being uncountable stronger than character a via a narrative description.

Using a game-like world seemed to be the closest analog due to a universal number system in place.

I'm pretty sure just blatantly saying that B is uncountable stronger than A needs more context.

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Qawsedf234

What do you think should be done here currently?

 

[Qawsedf234]

What do you think should be done here currently

Idk.

The math is that a finite number repeated infinitely isn't enough and neither is a normal infinity.

You need infinity multiplied to the power of infinity to get Aleph-1.

• Doesn't work = Multiverse where there's infinite different choices or parallel worlds = Example D&D's Mortal Plane or Arrowverse's Multiverse
• Does work = Multiverse where there's an infinite amount of branching points that themselves branch an infinite number of times, that also contains those infinite branching points = Example the MCU Multiverse

 

[Firestorm808]

Going back to the OP, it seems impossible to portray a character as uncountbly stronger without literally saying "uncountably" stronger or something.

To figuratively portray the quantity of uncountably infinite seems impossible without some usage of mathematical terms.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Going back to the OP, it seems impossible to portray a character as uncountbly stronger without literally saying "uncountably" stronger or something

There's no visual feat that would grant you an Aleph-1 number of universes. It would require statements to get to that point.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

There's no visual feat that would grant you an Aleph-1 number of universes. It would require statements to get to that point.

So what should we do?

 

[Kulf_Boba]

Bump.

 

[Firestorm808]

There's no visual feat that would grant you an Aleph-1 number of universes. It would require statements to get to that point.

And the same can be said about portraying a character as uncountably stronger than someone else without scaling to some structure, yes?

 

[Qawsedf234]

And the same can be said about portraying a character as uncountably stronger than someone else without scaling to some structure, yes?

Without statements I don't see a clean way to portray an Aleph-1 difference without doing a "Flat object in comparison" sort of thing.

 

[Antvasima]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0

We seem to need your help here.

 

[Ezaru]

Ah, okay. So only the below would be the correct Alephs?

A Single Number = A Single Separate Spactio-Temporal Layer
Aleph-0 = An infinite number set of Spactio-Separate Temporal Layers which fit inside a Single Timeline
Aleph-1 = An infinite number set of Timelines in which an infinite number set of Separate Temporal Layers fits inside each

Aren't all of these all just aleph0?

Like a single space time is already infinite right?

And, 1d>2d>3d> are each an uncountably infinite gap, but an infinite amount of infinite amounts of infinite timelines is still the same as an infinite timeline

Infinity x Infinity = Infininty, right?

And infinity x infinity x infinity is also still infinity

Edit: Sorry didn't realize which section I was in

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[Firestorm808]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

"Without statements I don't see a clean way to portray an Aleph-1 difference without doing a "Flat object in comparison" sort of thing."

A variation of this statement should be added to the Tiering System Explanation Page.

Something like:

"Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier."

"An uncountably infinite number, assumed to be the cardinality of the real numbers themselves"

Note that there isn't a substantial way to portray an uncountably/Aleph-1 difference without statements other than comparing it to an existing Aleph-1 object or structure.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Could something like this work?

A countable infinity can be visualised and listed because it is a set of total ordering. The set of all natural numbers, integers and rational numbers can all be listed in a definite order, hence the cardinality of all of those numbers is aleph-0, therefore countable. However, the same thing cannot be said for the set/series of all real numbers between 0 and 1; there are unending infinite and forever expanding permutations of decimal values between 0 and 1, therefore cannot be visually ordered by any case because it simply contains far too many numbers to be listed out, making it impossible to be ordered and counted. If you were to attempt to count all real numbers between 0 and 1, no matter how many eternities you dedicate, there'll forever be unending and continuous decimal values for you left to count, meaning you'll never truly count out all real numbers between 0 and 1 no matter not, because it is simply impossible. To summarise, there is an uncountably infinite quantity of numbers between 0 and 1; visually showing all of those numbers is utterly impossible. A simple explanation can be seen in this video.

With this inferred, a Low 1-C feat cannot be entirely depicted or shown without direct statements in support of it. For instance, if an infinite multiverse of any size were destroyed, it would be classified as 2-A. However, if there are statements indicating that the infinite multiverse's cosmological structure is uncountably infinite, it can be considered Low 1-C.

A practical example: Structure A contains infinite space-time continuums (2-A). Structure B contains an uncountably infinite space-time continuums (Low 1-C). If Character A can destroy an infinite series/set of Structure A, infinite times, and even for an infinite time, he'll still be 2-A and unable to destroy Structure B, because Structure B is never-ending and simply too big to be considerably destroyed, meaning destroying it will be impossible. For Character A to be able to destroy Structure B, God will have to make a statement that he has indeed destroyed an unending infinite series/set of Structure As, for his feat to be equivalent to destroying Structure B.

 

[Antvasima]

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality @Executor_N0

What do you think about the suggestions within following two posts?

Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page

An Infinite or 5 God STR would be uncountably stronger than a 5 Hunter STR? No, for the same reason 5 2A spaces isn't Low 1-C.

vsbattles.com

Acceptable Narrative Examples of "Uncountably Infinite" Addition to the Tiering System Explanation Page

An Infinite or 5 God STR would be uncountably stronger than a 5 Hunter STR? No, for the same reason 5 2A spaces isn't Low 1-C.

vsbattles.com