Adding a note on why destroying multiple Infinite-sized multiverses is not entirely worthless

[Everything12]

If you have proof that in-verse destroying more infinite Multiverses is treated as a strength feat that shows your stronger than someone who can destroy only one infinite multiverse then yeah, it's still an AP feat, otherwise no.

 

[StrymULTRA]

If you have proof that in-verse destroying more infinite Multiverses is treated as a strength feat that shows your stronger than someone who can destroy only one infinite multiverse then yeah, it's still an AP feat, otherwise no.

But the range would be threated as still bigger ig

 

[Planck69]

Just so we're clear, this isn't going to be because the Pokemon multiverses are separate right?

 

[StrymULTRA]

Just so we're clear, this isn't going to be because the Pokemon multiverses are separate right?

They kinda of are because of Ultra Space stuff.

 

[Planck69]

They kinda of are because of Ultra Space stuff.

I'm asking if that's the only justification because at this point, that's no longer higher range.

 

[StrymULTRA]

I'm asking if that's the only justification because at this point, that's no longer higher range.

It's not. Might elaborate further on said CRT since there's more evidence anyway

 

[DontTalkDT]

I whipped up the following draft:

==Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?==

'''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.
One could, in fact, say that the only general mathematical difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not.
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.

Similarly to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses can by default not be considered a feat of superior range to just affecting a single one. As mentioned before objectively there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either.
This gets further worsened by the unique nature of what we consider multiversal range. The distance between universes and distances between things in or between multiverses are usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead are approximated by the number of universes. Such an approximation of course breaks down if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers, such as in this case. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare it to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist. If, for example, travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges. However, one can not compare those to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances. It's like asking whether x > y means x > z, without knowing how z relates to either x or y.

However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as stronger or of higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective, though. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

It's a bit longer than I would like it to be, but I wanted to not leave "higher if the verse treats it as such" without comment. Thought it might safe some future confusion about whether, well, any possible difference between multiverses qualifies for proving a significant gap in range or power.
Also kinda don't like how I wrote the x y z part. I struggled with expressing my thoughts in normal words there. Suggestions for rewording are welcome.

 

[Vietthai96]

That is insanely long DontTalk, Could we add it in a spoiler-like tab?? I'm currently busy with work, i will help with shortening the draft if i can, sorry

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out DontTalk.

Maybe you could structure the text so the part after the following section turns collapsible? Meaning, it is shown by clicking on a text button.

"==Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?==

'''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''' "

 

[Vietthai96]

It's a bit longer than I would like it to be, but I wanted to not leave "higher if the verse treats it as such" without comment. Thought it might safe some future confusion about whether, well, any possible difference between multiverses qualifies for proving a significant gap in range or power.
Also kinda don't like how I wrote the x y z part. I struggled with expressing my thoughts in normal words there. Suggestions for rewording are welcome.

Alright my version of your draft:

==Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?==

'''A:''' In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for '''2-A'''

The reason 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. The only general mathematical difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either, and it is worsened of what we considered multiversal range as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses are usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead are approximated by the number of universes, leading to a breaks down if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.
However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.

Well this is it, i don't think it is much shorter than your version, but shorter nonetheless, also i nuke the x,y,z - while it is good all and all, i don't think people will spend their time to read xyz math example you gave. At the same time i try to connect the sentence, paragraph to make a continuous and connecting "messenge" which allow reader to goes with the flow of the answer better, you have to many disconnect sentence which could discourage people to read. What about your thought DontTalk

 

[StrymULTRA]

Stuff

If we can prove that in a verse the multiverse size is larger than baseline, would that count as also AP other than just better range?

 

[Planck69]

There's no such thing as being larger than baseline for a 2-A multiverse so I don't know what exact you'd be proving.

 

[StrymULTRA]

There's no such thing as being larger than baseline for a 2-A multiverse so I don't know what exact you'd be proving.

I kinda of don't understand. Are you telling me that now is completely impossible to get larger than baseline?

 

[Arcker123]

Question that may or may not be relevant: is bfring beyond a 2-A multiverse a higher feat of range for the BFR?

 

[Planck69]

I kinda of don't understand. Are you telling me that now is completely impossible to get larger than baseline?

Technically speaking no, you can just prove it takes more power to destroy more universes for scaling purposes, even though the multiverseis technically the same size. You seemed to be implying to me that you were talking about stuff like infinite multiverses qualifying for higher AP.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Technically speaking no, you can just prove it takes more power to destroy more universes for scaling purposes, even though the multiverseis technically the same size. You seemed to be implying to me that you were talking about stuff like infinite multiverses qualifying for higher AP.

Nono I mean.

If the multiverses are actually separated and not part of the same infinity, would it qualify for higher degree of 2-A?

 

[Planck69]

Only if its made very explicitly clear that it takes more power to affect them. Just being separate means nothing on its own.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Only if its made very explicitly clear that it takes more power to affect them. Just being separate means nothing on its own.

Now returning to my og question. Range as well or is still higher?

 

[Planck69]

Now returning to my og question. Range as well or is still higher?

From what I understand, range will essentially never go up unless an author goes really, really in-depth into the explanation on a mathematical level.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you very much for helping out DontTalk.

Maybe you could structure the text so the part after the following section turns collapsible? Meaning, it is shown by clicking on a text button.

"==Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?==

'''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''' "

@DontTalkDT

 

[DontTalkDT]

Sorry for the delay. I got distracted with other threads and the heat that makes me not want to work on anything for 90% of the day.

Thank you very much for helping out DontTalk.

Maybe you could structure the text so the part after the following section turns collapsible? Meaning, it is shown by clicking on a text button.

"==Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?==

'''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''' "

I can. If we don't get it written in a short form, that seems like a good idea.

If we can prove that in a verse the multiverse size is larger than baseline, would that count as also AP other than just better range?

I would assume we handle those things separately. So it basically depends on what the verse has to say regarding that.

Alright my version of your draft:


Well this is it, i don't think it is much shorter than your version, but shorter nonetheless, also i nuke the x,y,z - while it is good all and all, i don't think people will spend their time to read xyz math example you gave. At the same time i try to connect the sentence, paragraph to make a continuous and connecting "messenge" which allow reader to goes with the flow of the answer better, you have to many disconnect sentence which could discourage people to read. What about your thought DontTalk

Aside from some minor grammar stuff that sounds good to me.
I would only add the "This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements...." section back in, although I would maybe reformulate it to not use variables. I think the example is rather illustrative to the problem of both AP and Range.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out.

Given that you live further south than I do, if you can afford it, I would strongly recommend buying a portable cooling air-conditioner machine, place it in your work room, put the nozzle of the air exhaust hose through a window, and then run it during the days with earplugs in your ears. I have used one during the summers for the last few years, and it has worked great.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So, finally remembered to finish this up. I copied the draft onto the page with the mentioned minor fixes to grammar / formulation.

From my side this thread could be closed now.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you. I will close this thread then.