Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

[Antvasima]

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically?

@PrinceofPein

 

[Georredannea15]

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically?

If i remember correctly, statements such as "higher plane" or "higher existence" can be "higher dimensional plane" with their context in the verse, only then it would be HDE, otherwise no (well, i guess). I think it was something like that.

I don't know if this page should be written but I think it can be written.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

• Being infinitely larger than or containing infinite 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

Can I change this text to the following below to reduce verbosity and ambiguity @Antvasima :

• Being countably infinitely larger than 3-dimensional objects do not imply the existence of an extradimensional axis because the third dimension is already countably infinite in capacity. However, being uncountably infinitely larger does qualify.

 

[PrinceofPein]

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically?

This is fine to be added currently
Post in thread 'Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)' https://vsbattles.com/threads/additions-to-the-hde-page-staff-thread.153009/post-5894728

You can tag DT, he has a different opinion on how size differences should be handled. And that is all that is left to do here

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. I will ask DontTalk for help then.

 

[Reiner04]

This thread has yet to be concluded to be this dead. Bump.

 

[Antvasima]

@PrinceofPein @ImmortalDread @Deagonx @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Arnoldstone18 @Ultima_Reality @Reiner

Can any of you write an explanation post regarding what we need to evaluate here please?

A tally for which members here that think what would also be very useful.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Those following drafts need to be evaluated according to my understanding of the thread. Note that those are not yet added to the page.

This is from @Ultima_Reality, he wants to change from

Simply stating that something is from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects. Statements that something is Higher Dimensional also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

to this

Simply stating that something is from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects. Statements that something is "higher-dimensional" also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

Additionally, usages of "Higher Dimension" should be treated with scrutiny, as "Dimension" is oftentimes used to refer to places, and not directions in space, and as such the term can easily be used in the same sense as "Higher Realm/Plane" and similar verbiage. Context should be used to determine whether it truly refers to increased dimensionality.

Reason: It appears to be causing some confusion/misconception. Particularly the word figuratively.

• Agreements: @Deagonx, @Ultima_Reality, @DarkDragonMedeus
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

@Arnoldstone18 want to change this text:

• Being infinitely larger than or containing infinite 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

to this one to avoid verbosity and ambiguity

• Being countably infinitely larger than 3-dimensional objects do not imply the existence of an extradimensional axis because the third dimension is already countably infinite in capacity. However, being uncountably infinitely larger does qualify.

Reason:
Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

To ensure clarity and precision, I propose the following amendment to the HDE page:

• Agreements: @Ultima_Reality, @DarkDragonMedeus
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

@Arnoldstone18 want to change this text:

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs, with three or more dimensions, are often a measure of power and do not necessarily indicate the presence of an extradimensional axis.

to this one:

• Ontological differences over 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs are often a measure of power and could possess a transcendent level of existence. However, none of these indicate the presence of an extra-dimensional axis

Reason: Beings of ontological superiority often have a level of existence incomprehensible to 3-D objects, entities or constructs. So I’d like for this to be reworded to something like, or something similar above.

Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

This change aims to distinguish between countably and uncountably infinite sizes and their implications for dimensional classification. I believe this amendment aligns with our understanding and provides a very clear framework for evaluating entities based on size.

• Agreements: none
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

 

[PrinceofPein]

Those following drafts need to be evaluated according to my understanding of the thread.

This is from @Ultima_Reality, he wants to change from

to this
Reason: It appears to be causing some confusion/misconception. Particularly the word figuratively.

• Agreements: @Deagonx
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

This is accepted already as far as I know

@Arnoldstone18 want to change this text:

to this one to avoid verbosity and ambiguity

• Agreements: none
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

This changes the information. Which is only larger than "infinite 3-D" would mean QS.
Also not all third dimension structures are infinite in its capacity so I really do not know what that point means or see the purpose of it.
Also we are yet to decide how we will treat uncountable infinite difference in size. Means QS but granting extra axis for every instance is to be determined.

@Arnoldstone18 want to change this text:

to this one:

Reason: Beings of ontological superiority often have a level of existence incomprehensible to 3-D objects, entities or constructs. So I’d like for this to be reworded to something like, or something similar above.

• Agreements: none
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

This is not necessary.

@PrinceofPein @ImmortalDread @Deagonx @IdiosyncraticLawyer @Arnoldstone18 @Ultima_Reality @Reiner

Can any of you write an explanation post regarding what we need to evaluate here please?

A tally for which members here that think what would also be very useful.

We need to determine how we will treat uncountable infinite in size differences. That's the only main thing left here.
DT has different views on how it should be done.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Thanks for evaluation, and I would like to add your vote, but respective to our rules, I am not allowed. Is there any of those that are already added to the page? If yes, I will remove it from my post since it will be redundant to evaluate an already accepted change that is found in the page. If not, we are obligated to wait for more expert opinions/stances of other staff members regardless if it is necessary addition or not.

We need to determine how we will treat uncountable infinite in size differences. That's the only main thing left here.
DT has different views on how it should be done.

This is not how Ant wanted the request. If any case, where is the suggested relevant draft that is being discussed? Since I did not find it and I will be more than welcome to add it to the list.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This is not how Ant wanted the request. If any case, where is the suggested relevant draft that is being discussed? Since I did not find it and I will be more than welcome to add it to the list.

There is no draft or arguments right now.
Just people's thought on it but nothing concise and in a post.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This situation lacks productivity. If you're looking to transition to a new topic, it would be better to initiate a fresh staff thread. The current thread is quite disorganized, which makes it unappealing for anyone, especially DT, to engage with. Alternatively, since you haven't addressed the previous messages, it implies that the suggestions in those messages are still pending evaluation.

You could also consider creating a post for DT to assess. If you're seeking DT's opinion on something, you can reach out to him on his wall or through QnA.
Furthermore, based on my recent check of the page, it appears that none of those suggestions have been implemented either.

@Antvasima this post is the list of awaiting of evaluations from staff members.

If you want to ping staff members, here is the list who were present in this staff thread.
@Deagonx, @Qawsedf234, @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Firestorm808, @Agnaa, @CloverDragon03, @Eficiente, @LordGriffin1000

I will be no longer replying to anyone, I will eventually only update the vote tally and afterward apply the accepted ones.

 

[PrinceofPein]

This situation lacks productivity. If you're looking to transition to a new topic, it would be better to initiate a fresh staff thread. The current thread is quite disorganized, which makes it unappealing for anyone, especially DT, to engage with. Alternatively, since you haven't addressed the previous messages, it implies that the suggestions in those messages are still pending evaluation.

You could also consider creating a post for DT to assess. If you're seeking DT's opinion on something, you can reach out to him on his wall or through QnA.
Furthermore, based on my recent check of the page, it appears that none of those suggestions have been implemented either.

@Antvasima this post is the list of awaiting of evaluations from staff members.

If you want to ping staff members, here is the list who were present in this staff thread.
@Deagonx, @Qawsedf234, @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Firestorm808, @Agnaa, @CloverDragon03, @Eficiente, @LordGriffin1000

I will be no longer replying to anyone, I will eventually only update the vote tally and afterward apply the accepted ones.

You don't need to apply anything the original premise of the thread is done and the changes applied.
The size thing can have it's own thread as this one is dead already, anyone who have argument for size should create a new thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I don't need to apply anything, thus they are listed as “awaiting of approval” since they are suggested.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

It’s a waste of time and energy for a whole new thread to discuss a simple change.

Let’s just get someone to look at the size bit and get this thread over with.

@Arnoldstone18 want to change this text:
to this one to avoid verbosity and ambiguity

• Agreements: none
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

Ultima agrees with my suggestion for making things that are uncountably infinitely larger in size compared to a n-D to naturally be n+1D to accommodate their size. Period. So the OP decided to make the wording ambiguous for some reason with the “requires further context” bit. Hence why i merely requested for the OP’s wording to be more specific on what was specifically agreed on. The OP’s wording isn’t accepted either. Infact Ultima disagrees with the reasoning behind it. Another reason why we don’t need a new CRT.

 

[ImmortalDread]

May I see the agreement before adding the vote? Also, ultimately the size discussion will be shifted into a new discussion since the OP refused to create a post to makes easier for others to understand what is being argued or suggested.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

May I see the agreement before adding the vote? Also, ultimately the size discussion will be shifted into a new discussion since the OP refused to create a post to makes easier for others to understand what is being argued or suggested.

Here, Ultima contested the OP.

The OP partially conceded and made his wording on faulty logic to which Ultima contested again, here.

Also we don’t need to make a new discussion. I’ll direct staff myself. With your tally and my posts.

 

[PrinceofPein]

It’s a waste of time and energy for a whole new thread to discuss a simple change.

How we treat sizes is not simple and it's usually based on contexts

The OP’s wording isn’t accepted either.

I dont care about the rest of your post, but the wording was accepted and that has always been the wording that staffs that approved it read and they agreed, so please stop with the false accusations.

since the OP refused to create a post to makes easier for others to understand what is being argued or suggested.

It is not my argument so why would I make arguments for it?
Arnold is the one making the claims so he should make an argument, so far I have seen none though like i said.
Ultima also agrees with it from my messages with him so he too can make an argument for it.
But them coming after a thread was applied and expecting it too still be flaming hot is not exactly possible.
So best case would be a new thread.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Here, Ultima contested the OP.

The OP partially conceded and made his wording on faulty logic to which Ultima contested again, here.

I will add the vote, then. Thanks for the note.

It is not my argument so why would I make arguments for it?
Arnold is the one making the claims so he should make an argument, so far I have seen none though like i said.
Ultima also agrees with it from my messages with him so he too can make an argument for it.
But them coming after a thread was applied and expecting it too still be flaming hot is not exactly possible.
So best case would be a new thread.

Sure

@Arnoldstone18 Can you create a post concisely, and what are you suggesting changing or apply? Be aware that I am talking about size difference which is not added in my post. Once you have done it, I will add it to my post, so it can be complete ready for evaluation.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Yeah… no… I’m not going back and forth with Pein when I wasn’t even responding to you in the first place.

The evidence is there that Ultima disagreed with the wording you changed the wording on size from the originally "accepted" and objectively incorrect wording. No staff member has seen your changes beyond that point. I am simply contesting your change with mine. That is all there is to it.

---

@Arnoldstone18 Can you create a post concisely, and what are you suggesting changing or apply? Be aware that I am talking about size difference which is not added in my post. Once you have done it, I will add it to my post, so it can be complete ready for evaluation.

Sure,

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

To ensure clarity and precision, I propose the following amendment to the HDE page:

"Being countably infinitely larger than 3-dimensional objects does not imply the existence of an extradimensional axis, given that the third dimension already encompasses a countably infinite capacity. However, when an entity is uncountably infinitely larger in size, it qualifies for a higher-dimensional existence."

This change aims to distinguish between countably and uncountably infinite sizes and their implications for dimensional classification. I believe this amendment aligns with our understanding and provides a very clear framework for evaluating entities based on size.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is already in my post. But I will add the reason regardless.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, Ultima's suggestion seems to make sense to me, but I am not sure about the two from Arnoldstone18.

@Deagonx, @Qawsedf234, @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Firestorm808, @Agnaa, @CloverDragon03, @Eficiente, @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically? @PrinceofPein

vsbattles.com

 

[PrinceofPein]

Being countably infinitely larger than 3-dimensional objects does not imply the existence of an extradimensional axis, given that the third dimension already encompasses a countably infinite capacity

First, if you are countably larger than than an infinite 3-D object that means you are uncountably infinite so, by your argument that does means extradimensional axis, but your first point goes against your own argument when it combined that larger than 3-Dimension objects does not grant extra axis, my own edit, pointed out for when the 3-D objects are infinite. In terms of HDE, only when you are uncountably infinite larger in terms of volume would grant an extra axis.

Secondly, the second statement makes no sense, no 3-D object on its own contain infinite capacity, unless it is infinite in volume. you are something that will be called 3D and you are not infinite.
You probably worded it wrongly and I really do not even see what you are trying to say there, as it does not make sense.

Tldr: your suggestions are more confusing than mine.
Since these are Ultima's arguments preferably let him argue for it.

What do you think about this?

Remind DT in person about this. He made the size argument which I dont really agree with but just neutral to, since it can go both ways and both will be correct.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

First, if you are countably larger than than an infinite 3-D object that means you are uncountably infinite so, by your argument that does means extradimensional axis, but your first point goes against your own argument when it combined that larger than 3-Dimension objects does not grant extra axis, my own edit, pointed out for when the 3-D objects are infinite. In terms of HDE, only when you are uncountably infinite larger in terms of volume would grant an extra axis.

Secondly, the second statement makes no sense, no 3-D object on its own contain infinite capacity, unless it is infinite in volume. you are something that will be called 3D and you are not infinite.
You probably worded it wrongly and I really do not even see what you are trying to say there, as it does not make sense.

Tldr: your suggestions are more confusing than mine.
Since these are Ultima's arguments preferably let him argue for it.

I know you are capable of reading comprehension.

So I would prefer that you not engage in this mere act to insult me or my proposal.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I know you are capable of reading comprehension.

So I would prefer that you not engage in this mere act to insult me or my proposal.

I am not insulting your proposal, I am okay with the premise of it, I am just explaining that your wordings do not pass that proposal along.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

What you typed…

First, if you are countably larger than than an infinite 3-D object ..

What I typed…

Being countably infinitely larger than 3-dimensional objects does not imply the existence of an extradimensional axis

What you typed…

Secondly, the second statement makes no sense, no 3-D object on its own contain infinite capacity

What I typed…

given that the third dimension already encompasses a countably infinite capacity

So yeah…

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well, Ultima's suggestion seems to make sense to me, but I am not sure about the two from Arnoldstone18.

@Deagonx, @Qawsedf234, @DontTalkDT, @Ultima_Reality, @Firestorm808, @Agnaa, @CloverDragon03, @Eficiente, @LordGriffin1000

What do you think about this?

Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically? @PrinceofPein

vsbattles.com

I will take a look after the perception time and smurf hax threads are done. (Unless it's conclusively settled before then)

 

[PrinceofPein]

What you typed…




What I typed…




What you typed…




What I typed…


So yeah…

Point being??

You think there is a difference between "3-D" and "3-Dimensional"?

My reply was to tell you that infinitely larger than finite 3-D objects and larger than infinite 3-D objects grants different tiers HDE wise.
Hope this is clear.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I am very concerned about what you are trying to accomplish by misconstruing even the clear order of the things i typed in bold.

My reply was to tell you that infinitely larger than finite 3-D objects and larger than infinite 3-D objects grants different tiers HDE wise.

This is irrelevant to what I typed . I suggest you stop trying to justify your mistake. Any further assertion on what you think I said will ultimately lead to embarrassment.

---

I have called @DarkDragonMedeus

 

[PrinceofPein]

This is irrelevant to what I typed . I suggest you stop trying to justify your mistake. Any further assertion on what you think I said will ultimately lead to embarrassment.

Except it is relevant to the size argument, anyway this is going nowhere, let me wait for Ultima

 

[ImmortalDread]

You both should stop derailing this thread. This is the reason it is 4 pages, because of this back and forth. I made this specific post, so staff members can evaluate it, not to witness some endless discussion between you both.

 

[Agnaa]

Well, Ultima's suggestion seems to make sense to me, but I am not sure about the two from Arnoldstone18.

@Agnaa

What do you think about this?

Additions to the HDE page (Staff Thread)

So how would you suggest that Ultima's draft for a rule text is modified more specifically? @PrinceofPein

vsbattles.com

I currently have 46 threads in my "to-evaluate" backlog, I've added this to the list, and will get to it eventually.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I am leaning towards agreeing with Arnold and Ultima in what they are saying thus far.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I added your vote,

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

To ensure clarity and precision, I propose the following amendment to the HDE page:



This change aims to distinguish between countably and uncountably infinite sizes and their implications for dimensional classification. I believe this amendment aligns with our understanding and provides a very clear framework for evaluating entities based on size.

I like the spirit of the proposal, but I think the draft is a bit wonky. I've written one of my own:

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such.

A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and "gluing" them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces.

The long line itself can also be generalized into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analogues, and as such the same principle holds for higher dimensions as well.

Any input is welcome.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Sure, fix your draft and remove "URL" if you don't mind.

 

[Antvasima]

I like the spirit of the proposal, but I think the draft is a bit wonky. I've written one of my own:



Any input is welcome.

@Agnaa @Qawsedf234 @Planck69 @DontTalkDT @Elizhaa

What do you think?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Those following drafts need to be evaluated according to my understanding of the thread. Note that those are not yet added to the page.

ACCEPTED​

This is from @Ultima_Reality, he wants to change from

Simply stating that something is from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects. Statements that something is Higher Dimensional also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

to this

Simply stating that something is from a Higher Plane or a Higher Existence does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis in relation to 3-dimensional entities or objects. Statements that something is "higher-dimensional" also need to be interpreted in context, as authors at times use the term figuratively.

Additionally, usages of "Higher Dimension" should be treated with scrutiny, as "Dimension" is oftentimes used to refer to places, and not directions in space, and as such the term can easily be used in the same sense as "Higher Realm/Plane" and similar verbiage. Context should be used to determine whether it truly refers to increased dimensionality.

Reason: It appears to be causing some confusion/misconception. Particularly the word figuratively.

• Agreements: @Deagonx, @Ultima_Reality, @DarkDragonMedeus
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

ACCEPTED​

@Ultima_Reality would like to change from

Being infinitely larger than or containing infinite 3-dimensional objects, entities, or constructs signifies an uncountable infinite difference, which can suggest qualitative superiority. However, without further context, this does not necessarily imply the existence of an extradimensional axis.

To ensure clarity and precision, I propose the following amendment to the HDE page:

As far as being larger than infinitely-sized objects or spaces goes, one must analyze the context of the feat in question to determine if it truly qualifies for Higher-Dimensional Existence. In terms of volume (Or, more generally, measure), the only way to be truly bigger than an object of infinite size is to have a non-zero size in a space of more dimensions than the object in question. However, portrayals of more expansive realms containing infinitely large things within themselves are not necessarily indicative of such.

A good construction to exemplify this is the topological space known as the long line. In essence, it is a space obtained by taking an uncountably infinite number of line segments and "gluing" them together end-to-end, and so it is in some sense much longer than the real line, which is comprised of only a countably infinite number of such line segments. Nevertheless, they are both 1-dimensional spaces.

The long line itself can also be generalized into 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional analogues, and as such the same principle holds for higher dimensions as well.

Reason: Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

This change aims to distinguish between countably and uncountably infinite sizes and their implications for dimensional classification. I believe this amendment aligns with our understanding and provides a very clear framework for evaluating entities based on size.

• Agreements: @Ultima_Reality, @Elizhaa
• Disagreements: none
• Neutral: none

 

[Arnoldstone18]

Basically, I'd like to address a point of contention regarding the classification of entities based on size in the context of higher-dimensional entities (HDE). The current wording on the HDE page about larger than infinite constructs has raised some concerns.

Ultima has pointed out that uncountably infinite entities should be considered as existing in a higher dimension. For those who are knowledgeable on Dragon Ball Super, it is akin to how Infinite Zamasu's size exceeded 3-D space, leading him to merge with the timeline.

This change aims to distinguish between countably and uncountably infinite sizes and their implications for dimensional classification. I believe this amendment aligns with our understanding and provides a very clear framework for evaluating entities based on size.

Ehhh… this bit on “Size” conflicts with my suggestion on “Ontology”.

Also Ultima acknowledged and expanded on my suggestion to what the addition should be instead. So you can just replace mine with Ultima’s since I agree with it.