-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Adding a note on why destroying multiple Infinite-sized multiverses is not entirely worthless
- Thread starter Rikimarox2
- Start date
- Status
- 15,130
- 6,906
We should wait Ultima for this, because the threads were basically how OP said.
Rikimarox2
He/Him- 7,926
- 4,438
- Thread starter
- #44
That's the thing, I believe Ultima had a different view on this before, which Is why we should wait.
- 16,959
- 4,855
With all due respect, knowledgeable members can have difference of opinions and one or the other isn't the gold standard. Now of course, if Ultima agrees with DT, thats a wrap. But it's always best to see if other knowledgeable users on the subject have a different takeaway before we conclude the matter.
- 167,684
- 76,264
- 10,873
- 12,277
Not being in the same "group" ≠ more range, though. At least not without more evidence/context.
Like, see it as piles of sand. Two piles of sand thrown on each other are still just a pile of sand, even if one sand pile is red and the other is blue.
- 16,959
- 4,855
Verses should be taken to their own threads to discuss their cases there btw. Just so we don't clog up this one.
- 15,130
- 6,906
Oki dokie. I have other evidence saved anyway.
- 15,130
- 6,906
Deleted the answer since it'll need its own thread.
- 16,959
- 4,855
Link me the thread when you make it too plz?
- 15,130
- 6,906
- 12,524
- 3,492
I agree with DontTalk. If having multiple 2-A multiverses isn’t treated as being above baseline in AP, neither should range.
Rikimarox2
He/Him- 7,926
- 4,438
- Thread starter
- #54
Finally found the comment that Ultima made.
I asked a question that if destroying more 2-As doesn't grant anything in terms of ap, shouldn't it be the same for range?
He answered with:
"Not necessarily, since you'd still be reaching through some manner of distance to affect these universes. Unknowable, yes, but still existent."
His stance might have changed on this, so it's preferable if we wait for him still.
I asked a question that if destroying more 2-As doesn't grant anything in terms of ap, shouldn't it be the same for range?
He answered with:
"Not necessarily, since you'd still be reaching through some manner of distance to affect these universes. Unknowable, yes, but still existent."
His stance might have changed on this, so it's preferable if we wait for him still.
- 4,773
- 2,574
It’s not only in different group,I mean in PMMM if destroying one infinite multiverses doesn’t mean destroying two of them then that means affecting one ≠ affecting multiple 2-As at the same time
- 16,959
- 4,855
This is basically my thoughts as well. Destructive value is one thing to not be auto increase by higher than baseline 2-A, but range is in the boat of distance, which shouldn't need evidence to be proven above baseline like the former.
DragonLord
She/Her- 1,570
- 1,590
The Multiple Infinite Multiverses thing always confused me on this site between users, for example the Highest Attack Potency Thread has 2-A with DND I think at Infinitely above baseline
- 15,130
- 6,906
Contradicting Ultima.
- 6,163
- 16,275
I have a bit of a neutral point of view in regards to this. As I see it, affecting multiple, completely isolated sets of infinite universes can indeed give you a higher range, since we could (And usually do) envision the distance between them as defined over a 5-dimensional space, which allows us to say Multiverse X is more distant from Multiverse Z than Multiverse Y is, and similar things.
The issue with this is that the distance between these sets is impossible to reliably quantify without proper data, which most verses usually don't provide in explicit terms, and this, in turn, reduces any and all statements we make about such things into guesswork at best. So, affecting multiple multiverses shouldn't be assumed to qualify for a range feat, either, at least as the default.
- 15,130
- 6,906
So, for verses such as Pokémon, it would be needed a CRT to explain why the verse is actually valid for these standards to be >baseline in size right? And if is true, would it scale to also AP other than range?
- 4,773
- 2,574
Yeah Imo this thread can be closed because destroying multiple 2-As is not above baseline by default,instead those verses need to have an actual feat that show difference range between normal 2-A and countless 2-As,making note for this just only make people being more confused
Rikimarox2
He/Him- 7,926
- 4,438
- Thread starter
- #68
Yeah, we can close it. Most verses with more 2-As just need a CRT in order to see if they qualify or not.
- 167,684
- 76,264
What should the note say, and where should it be placed?
Rikimarox2
He/Him- 7,926
- 4,438
- Thread starter
- #71
Can't we just edit Ultima's comment a bit and add it as a note?
"It should be noted that affecting multiple multiverses does not grant a higher range, by default. While it is true that affecting multiple, completely isolated sets of infinite universes can indeed give you a higher range, the issue with this is that the distance between these sets is impossible to reliably quantify without proper data, which most verses usually don't provide in explicit terms, and this, in turn, reduces any and all statements we make about such things into guesswork at best. As such, affecting multiple multiverses shouldn't be assumed to qualify for a range feat, either, unless given enough sufficient data to quantify the distance."
Or just add in the entire comment, or make up an entire new note. Your choice.
"It should be noted that affecting multiple multiverses does not grant a higher range, by default. While it is true that affecting multiple, completely isolated sets of infinite universes can indeed give you a higher range, the issue with this is that the distance between these sets is impossible to reliably quantify without proper data, which most verses usually don't provide in explicit terms, and this, in turn, reduces any and all statements we make about such things into guesswork at best. As such, affecting multiple multiverses shouldn't be assumed to qualify for a range feat, either, unless given enough sufficient data to quantify the distance."
Or just add in the entire comment, or make up an entire new note. Your choice.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Where should such a note be placed in that case? Also, I would prefer input from DontTalk how to word it first.
- 167,684
- 76,264
Then we need the help of @DontTalkDT to properly word the note for the FAQ page.
Rikimarox2
He/Him- 7,926
- 4,438
- Thread starter
- #75
iN the tiering system faq, in the section where it talks about how destroying multiple multiverses doesn't grant higher AP. It should be noted preferably above the text where it says: "However, such a feat may indeed qualify as stronger if the verse itself treats it as such."
So, the entire thing should be like this:
Though, we should probably just wait for DontTalk, he'll probably word it much better.
So, the entire thing should be like this:
A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or otherwise fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not a better feat than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A
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, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
It should also be noted that affecting multiple multiverses does not grant a higher range, by default. While it is true that affecting multiple, completely isolated sets of infinite universes can indeed give you a higher range, the issue with this is that the distance between these sets is impossible to reliably quantify without proper data, which most verses usually don't provide in explicit terms, and this, in turn, reduces any and all statements we make about such things into guesswork at best. As such, affecting multiple multiverses shouldn't be assumed to qualify for a range feat, either, unless given enough sufficient data to quantify the distance.
However, such a feat may indeed qualify as stronger if the verse itself treats it as such.
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, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
It should also be noted that affecting multiple multiverses does not grant a higher range, by default. While it is true that affecting multiple, completely isolated sets of infinite universes can indeed give you a higher range, the issue with this is that the distance between these sets is impossible to reliably quantify without proper data, which most verses usually don't provide in explicit terms, and this, in turn, reduces any and all statements we make about such things into guesswork at best. As such, affecting multiple multiverses shouldn't be assumed to qualify for a range feat, either, unless given enough sufficient data to quantify the distance.
However, such a feat may indeed qualify as stronger if the verse itself treats it as such.
Though, we should probably just wait for DontTalk, he'll probably word it much better.
- 15,130
- 6,906
Bump
- 5,224
- 2,625
Yeah I think so, let's hope it works.
Hey, at least the 2-B keys will still be OP lmao
- 15,130
- 6,906
I'll do so after this thread is finished.
- 7,142
- 4,657
Eh, I'd start it now. Knowing how these threads go we will have several more days to wait for anything to happen despite a conclusion having seemingly been reached.
- 15,130
- 6,906
Oki. Gonna do it when I have time. However, I'd need a confirmation to see if more multiverses are still more AP rather than just range.
- Status
