- 18,393
- 14,323
If you are space-time continuum itself (which is in matter of fact a 4D in its nature), you get HDE for that which is a large size type 8 as well
-
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.
Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)
- Thread starter PrinceofPein
- Start date
- Status
- 3,493
- 1,360
Those characters get HDE for being a 4D being, not just being large size type 8. Beings who are 3D but are type 8, shouldn't qualify.
- 532
- 768
Because if you become a bigger infinity than a certain infinity (i.e. Aleph-0 for example) then you have to gain a new dimensional axis. Because an area with the size of Aleph-1 must have 4 spatial dimensions. And so it goes on like this
- 18,393
- 14,323
Do you mean something of a size comparable to that of the space-time continuum, but distinct from it? (as in, for not being space-time continuum itself?)
I agree with you, although it is not often depicted in fiction in such a complex manner. Perhaps you could consider adding a prominent note to provide further clarification on the matter.
I agree with you, although it is not often depicted in fiction in such a complex manner. Perhaps you could consider adding a prominent note to provide further clarification on the matter.
- 3,493
- 1,360
That's not true in anyway. R^4 is still Aleph-1. The R in R^n refers to real number line, which is Aleph-1. If you are bigger than the R^3, then you can just be X^3, where X is a number system where R is a subset of it, such as the Complex numbers. You still wouldn't have to gain a new dimensional axis. Also things with HDE can be any size.
edit: meant aleph-1
That's fine. You can just have an example on HDE: "Being a spacetime continuum can allow a character to have HDE, but simply being bigger or the same size a spacetime doesn't necessitate having HDE, unless it is stated the character has an extra-dimensional axis."
Last edited:
- 532
- 768
If this structure is 3 spatial + 1 temporal, yes. But I'm talking about 4 spatial dimensions. And something with the size of Aleph-0 can't have that.
- 3,493
- 1,360
Last edited:
- 532
- 768
Not according to current wiki standards and not in terms of pure size.
A new dimensional axis = Uncountable infinite size.
So basically what I mean is that if you become a bigger infinity than the infinity of an infinite(in size) 3D structure, that structure becomes 4D because this refers to a qualitative superiority. And this is valid for every structure with 4 spatial dimensions. Because (as i said) this means there is a qualitative superiority between them.
- 18,393
- 14,323
I am uncertain as to the reason for the exclusion of the temporal dimension, as it does not seem to provide any significant qualitative superiority, particularly in comparison to its inclusion in tier 2.
- 3,493
- 1,360
Our wiki equates the power of destroying a bigger infinity as 4D, but being infinitely bigger doesn't automatically give you an additional space axis. That's not how it works. You'll just be infinitely bigger in 3 axes of space. Which is why they shouldn't get HDE.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Being uncountable infinite bigger does give you an additional dimension, from tier 3 to tier 2. Yes
- 3,493
- 1,360
Not mathematically.
- 532
- 768
I'm not talking about being infinitely bigger than something, which can mean different things. I'm talking about being a bigger infinity than the infinity of something. Like Aleph-1, which is a bigger infinity than Aleph-0.
It's not really difficult to understand. Unless you say that a bigger infinity than the infinity of Aleph-0 is still Aleph-0
- 3,493
- 1,360
R^n is all Aleph-0. Our wiki starts Aleph-1 at Low 1-A.I'm not talking about being infinitely bigger than something, which can mean different things. I'm talking about being a bigger infinity than the infinity of something. Like Aleph-1, which is a bigger infinity than Aleph-0.
It's really not very difficult to understand. Unless you say that a bigger infinity than the infinity of Aleph-0 is still Aleph-0
- 532
- 768
What I'm talking about has nothing to do with what you're saying. We're talking about size. What you're saying is the number of spatial dimensions.
Something the size of Aleph-0 cannot contain 4 spatial dimensions. Because according to wiki standards, we consider the size of an infinitely big 3D structure to be Aleph-0. And if you get uncountably bigger (which means being a bigger infinity than infinity of something) than Aleph-0, in the sense of pure size, that gives you an extra dimensional axis. This is what we call qualitative superiority.
- 18,393
- 14,323
This is... mathematical. What else are we talking about when I mention infinity?
- 3,493
- 1,360
And like I said earlier, being bigger size doesn't equate to an additional spatial dimension. Being infinitely bigger than R^4 will just be X^4 where X is a set where R is a subset of X.
Being infinitely bigger doesn't automatically give you an extra axis of dimensions. You can just be infinitely bigger in the same direction.
- 532
- 768
We are not talking about a simple case of being big. It's being uncountably infinitely big. By denying this, you are directly denying the qualitative superiority that we accept in wiki standards.
It's also cringe-worthy that you took part of what I said and ignored where I actually made a point.
Sigh Anyways, I don't want to lose my IQ anymore.
- 3,493
- 1,360
And I like said earlier, being uncountable infinitely bigger in size doesn't equate to an additional spatial dimension. Being uncountably infinitely bigger than R^4 will just be X^4 where X is a set where R is a subset of X.
You can still have qualitative superiority, but that doesn't mean an extra dimensional axis exists. Hence why Qualitative Superiority shouldn't automatically give a character HDE.
- 532
- 768
This is a qualitative superiority, so yes. It gives another dimensional axis.
It gives it in terms of size. If these statements like being uncountably infinitely big are in terms of power, yes, that only gives AP, not HDE. But what we are talking about here is size.
And even DT has confirmed this in the messages above. So it doesn't mean anything if you say it won't;
- 18,393
- 14,323
It does, WHAT? This is the whole point of uncountable infinite.
- 3,493
- 1,360
Here is what DT says:
And in the one thing you quoated, DT also said:
Which kind of contradicts the next line, so idk, they will have to explain the distinction between that. BUt there are other statements, as I have posted above.
You can be uncountably bigger in the same direction, that doesn't automatically mean the creation of a new axis of space.
- 532
- 768
You've got to be kidding me.....
In the messages you quoted, DT is talking about a normal R>F example and a simple size comparison. Not uncountably infinitely big as in the message I quoted.
- 3,493
- 1,360
The second and third messages I quoted are speaking about size.
And this semantic argument of bigger vs. uncountably infinitely bigger isn't useful because R is already uncountably big, and anything bigger than it would automatically be uncountably bigger. You cannot be countably bigger than an uncountable infinity.
- 18,393
- 14,323
Prove it
- 532
- 768
Yeah, you definitely don't understand what you read
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #107
Okay that is enough derailment, this is still a staff thread
- 3,493
- 1,360
You can stack an uncountably infinite amount of squares next to each other and they will forever create an bigger and bigger square. Only when you stack the squares in a new direction parallel to the second dimension, will it become a cube.
OR for more visual representation:
AAAAAAA
I can keep adding an uncountably infinite amount of As to that String of letters. Each letter can be represented by 1 dimension in terms of position (x).
AAAAAA
AAAAAA
By adding a new direction of As (going down and up), to that string of letters, I can now represent each A by two dimensions in terms of position (x,y).
Last edited:
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #109
I have updated the OP now
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #111
he has not replied to the new additions in the OP, so it is best to tag him here again.
Last edited:
- 167,857
- 76,474
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #113
Bump
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #115
waiting for DT to sign off on the current OP
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #117
Our HDE page are for those who are higher dimensioned in the word sense. i.e. those with an extra geometry axis
so we should add this notes to the HDE page
- 167,857
- 76,474
Thank you. I will remind @DontTalkDT again.
PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,073
- 6,000
- Thread starter
- #119
Bump
- Status
Similar threads
