Alien X Low1C

[Quintessence_PE]

As far as I remember Alien X was low1c because he saw an infinite universe as a dot, but now people with such feats can't be low1c, so shouldn't it be downgrade?

 

[Benimōru]

 

[Wikisource]

Before that, I want to take a look at the scan (blog, crt helped Alien X get to L1C).

 

[ShionAH]

As far as I remember Alien X was low1c because he saw an infinite universe as a dot, but now people with such feats can't be low1c, so shouldn't it be downgrade?

Please downgrade Alien X

 

[Brogeefrong]

As far as I remember Alien X was low1c because he saw an infinite universe as a dot, but now people with such feats can't be low1c, so shouldn't it be downgrade?

i think he would still have possibly Low 1-c cause he's possibly 6d rn

 

[Quintessence_PE]

i think he would still have possibly Low 1-c cause he's possibly 6d rn

I don't think alien x is low1c with the current system

 

[Wikisource]

As far as I remember Alien X was low1c because he saw an infinite universe as a dot, but now people with such feats can't be low1c, so shouldn't it be downgrade?

Based on what I read in Alien X's AP explanation, I think the downgrade is fine

 

[KLOL506]

Y'all acting like you can determine whether a verse of Low 1-C caliber can be downgraded just like that.

No. You need a Staff-Only thread with your queries and wait to see of Staff deem the current justifications valid or not.

Also, did you read the cosmology page and the Annihilaarg profile and its contents prior to making this Q&A thread? Or even ask the Verse Experts?

 

[Quintessence_PE]

Y'all acting like you can determine whether a verse of Low 1-C caliber can be downgraded just like that.

No. You need a Staff-Only thread with your queries and wait to see of Staff deem the current justifications valid or not.

Dude, what are you talking about? It's not even a downgrade, I just wondered if it could be low1c according to the current site rules, which I think it won't be, so I was curious about the opinions of other members and that's why I opened a question and answer?

 

[KLOL506]

Based on what I read in Alien X's AP explanation, I think the downgrade is fine

My response was to this.

 

[Wikisource]

My response was to this.

I have seen quite a few debates about the validity of AX's L1C on many different forums and many of them I often don't see clearly as to their validity. Maybe I'll wait for an explanation from Ben 10 supporters :>

 

[Benimōru]

No. You need a Staff-Only thread with your queries and wait to see of Staff deem the current justifications valid or not.

Is it necessary to discuss such topics in the staff discussion? I mean, can't it be in the content revision?

Just out of curiosity btw

 

[KLOL506]

Is it necessary to discuss such topics in the staff discussion? I mean, can't it be in the content revision?

Just out of curiosity btw

Tier 1 and Ben 10 in the same thread? Nah, as it would fall under the "Controversial Verses" category.

Tier 1 alone would normally demand a staff-only thread.

 

[Fixxed]

As far as I remember Alien X was low1c because he saw an infinite universe as a dot, but now people with such feats can't be low1c, so shouldn't it be downgrade?

He saw the 2A structure as a dot. Bruh even you can "wank" that to even higher level, because dot is 0 dimension

And i never saw where the "now people with such feats cant be low 1C"??? Are you have a thread about that???

 

[Benimōru]

I feel like it makes more sense to actually discuss this in a downgrade thread rather than in a Q&A, but I'd still like to respond just this once.

He saw the 2A structure as a dot. Bruh even you can "wank" that to even higher level, because dot is 0 dimension

There is no such thing. There is only a place that sees a 2-A structure as a star. Which is not "seeing something as infinitesimally small". Also, there is no statement in the series that shows what you're saying, there is only an image comparison and this makes the argument that Space Beyond sees a 2-A structure as 0-dimensional vague and just an assumption.

And i never saw where the "now people with such feats cant be low 1C"??? Are you have a thread about that???

I 100% agree that those kind of feats can make you L1-C. But ironically, Alien X doesn't have that kind of feat.

Anyways, I am already planning to open a downgrade thread about this Alien X stuff, so it makes more sense to talk about it there with those who are willing to.

 

[Lord_Farquaad69420]

Its more complicated than that, you should probably look at the blogs and crt's

 

[Fixxed]

There is no such thing. There is only a place that sees a 2-A structure as a star. Which is not "seeing something as infinitesimally small". Also, there is no statement in the series that shows what you're saying, there is only an image comparison and this makes the argument that Space Beyond sees a 2-A structure as 0-dimensional vague and just an assumption.

Then why the OP call it "dot"? Is i even claim the space beyond see the 2A as 0 dimensional??? I say "dot" is zero dimension

And actually if you read the cosmology they use higher infinity (aleph) for higher dimensional

 

[Benimōru]

Then why the OP call it "dot"?

I mean, I can write anything I want in the OP. Isn't the important thing that the evidence you provide supports it?

And I am not saying that what is written in the blog cannot be L1-C according to the system, but that there is no in-series support to prove what is written in the blog.

But whatever.

 

[Benimōru]

Is i even claim the space beyond see the 2A as 0 dimensional???

I should also point this out. The argument of seeing something as a dot was related to the Space Beyond's seeing the infinite 2-A universes as a "star/glow". Alien X is just scaling to cosmology. This feat does not directly belong to him.

 

[Fixxed]

I mean, I can write anything I want in the OP. Isn't the important thing that the evidence you provide supports it?

And what I was talking about was not that what is written in the blog is wrong, but that there is no in-series support to prove what is written in the blog.

But whatever.

You cant write anything in OP, i just follow what the OP write. Dont ask me about where the "see just as dot" proof in the verse, ask the OP that write about that

No, it has proof about higher infinity, space beyond is infinitely bigger than the infinite size of universe. Universe being aleph-0 and space beyond being aleph-1 because infinitely bigger

 

[Benimōru]

You cant write anything in OP, i just follow what the OP write. Dont ask me about where the "see just as dot" proof in the verse, ask the OP that write about that

Yeah, that's actually why I said it would be better to talk about it in a downgrade thread instead of a Q&A. Because this is a topic that needs the direct words of the supporters of the verse, not a general topic like tiering standards.

No, it has proof about higher infinity, space beyond is infinitely bigger than the infinite size of universe. Universe being aleph-0 and space beyond being aleph-1 because infinitely bigger

There is a difference between seeing something as infinitely small (what is referred to in the FAQ as qualitative superiority) and being infinitely bigger than something.

What you call seeing something infinitesimally small is an example of seeing something as a dot or maybe smaller than a dot, as you mentioned in the messages above. But to be infinitely bigger than something is only to be "multiplied infinitely times (? x Aleph_0)" bigger than it, and this is not a higher infinity. And infinite x infinite does not take you to a higher infinity as well since wiki accepts continuum hypothesis as correct.

 

[Quintessence_PE]

He saw the 2A structure as a dot. Bruh even you can "wank" that to even higher level, because dot is 0 dimension

And i never saw where the "now people with such feats cant be low 1C"??? Are you have a thread about that???

I have discussed with you many times before on different subjects and I don't want to tire my tongue any more. Seeing the universe as a dot does not give you a higher dimension.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah, that's actually why I said it would be better to talk about it in a downgrade thread instead of a Q&A. Because this is a topic that needs the direct words of the supporters of the verse, not a general topic like tiering standards.

Bruh... i just say the one that make a argument about "see as dot" is the OP it self not me or the supporter of this verse

There is a difference between seeing something as infinitely small (what is referred to in the FAQ as qualitative superiority) and being infinitely bigger than something.

What you call seeing something infinitesimally small is an example of seeing something as a dot or maybe smaller than a dot, as you mentioned in the messages above. But to be infinitely bigger than something is only to be "multiplied infinitely times (A x Aleph_0)" bigger than it, and this is not a higher infinity. And infinite x infinite does not take you to a higher infinity since wiki accepts continuum hypothesis as correct.

I say about higher infinity bruh

Infinite×infinite is still infinite, you know why??? Because they have same cardinality or same size of infinite. If you infinitely bigger than that, it mean you have bigger size or bigger cardinality that cannot be still in the same degree of infinity

And infinitely bigger is not multiplied or add more infinite. It literally BIGGER infinity

 

[Benimōru]

Bruh... i just say the one that make a argument about "see as dot" is the OP it self not me or the supporter of this verse

Yeah, I know that. I was just saying I agree with you in that point.

In a bit of an awkward and long way ig. I apologize if I misunderstood

I say about higher infinity bruh

Infinite×infinite is still infinite, you know why??? Because they have same cardinality or same size of infinite. If you infinitely bigger than that, it mean you have bigger size or bigger cardinality that cannot be still in the same degree of infinity

And infinitely bigger is not multiplied or add more infinite. It literally BIGGER infinity

Fixxed. I'm not even sure we understand each other. We both already think that infinity x infinity is the same infinity.

The problem here is that I believe that being infinitely bigger than something is just adding "x infinity" to it and should be interpreted as such. And you believe that it is directly a higher infinity.

And I guess it will be the staff who will decide which is the right one.

 

[Fixxed]

I have discussed with you many times before on different subjects and I don't want to tire my tongue any more. Seeing the universe as a dot does not give you a higher dimension.

Many times??? Bruh i just remember 1 times, and many people argue with me many times

Bruh i just say you to prove what you say. I dont remember or even see this:

but now people with such feats can't be low1c

Can you give a thread or anything about that???

 

[Fixxed]

The problem here is that I believe that being infinitely bigger than something is just adding "x infinity" to it and should be interpreted as such. And you believe that it is directly a higher infinity.

No bruh i dont believe that, i know that
Being "bigger" and "add" infinite is not same. Because "bigger" is directly mean greater size or cardinality or yeah increase the quality
And "add" is just increase the quantity of something

 

[Benimōru]

Being "bigger" and "add" infinite is not same. Because "bigger" is directly mean greater size or cardinality or yeah increase the quality

The problem here is that not every "being infinitely bigger" is a direct reference to cardinality. I think it needs context. But yes, if there is a reference to cardinality as you say, I am not stupid enough to disagree with that.

For the part about why being bigger does not directly refer to cardinality, I prefer to quote Everything12's words rather than my own.

So:

...to use this form of argument you must prove that the difference between the countable infinite structure and the other elements is akin to that of uncountable infinite. Just because the element is outside the structure does not prove that they are bigger, such as with how the likes of the intergers or rational numbers are no greater than the natural numbers. You need to have evidence of a qualitative difference. No matter what form of argument you mean, no matter what sciences you bring. A qualitative difference is as important to reaching Tier 1 as Cantor's diagonal was to proving uncountable infinite exists and that the nature of the real numbers was different to that of the rational numbers.

And this:

The Tier above 2-A is Tier 1-C So to be a higher Tier than 2-A is Low 1-C. Like being bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. But the countable infinite natural numbers is included within the intergers which some would assume to be bigger than them, yet they are also just countably infinite. So you can seem to be bigger than baseline 2-A infinity but you aren't actually any bigger.

What I am not sure about is what the "standards" accept this as. That's why I said it was more reasonable to hear the answer from a staff member.

Also I am not talking about "adding" either. If I were talking about adding something, I would use "+" not "x". To explain myself better, for example, if you are 2 times bigger than something 10cm, that makes you 10 x 2cm. So what I accept is not adding but rather multiplying.

 

[Fixxed]

The problem here is that not every "being infinitely bigger" is a direct reference to cardinality. I think it needs context. But yes, if there is a reference to cardinality as you say, I am not stupid enough to disagree with that.

For the part about why being bigger does not directly refer to cardinality, I prefer to quote Everything12's words rather than my own.

So:



And this:



What I am not sure about is what the "standards" accept this as. That's why I said it was more reasonable to hear the answer from a staff member.

Also I am not talking about "adding" either. If I were talking about adding something, I would use "+" not "x". To explain myself better, for example, if you are 2 times bigger than something 10cm, that makes you 10 x 2cm. So what I accept is not adding but rather multiplying.

By default infinitely bigger is refer to size or cardinality, it specific case if it dont

E12 is talking about being outside not prove it being bigger

Just because the element is outside the structure does not prove that they are bigger, such as with how the likes of the intergers or rational numbers are no greater than the natural numbers.

Yeah being just bigger than 2A structure or infinite size structure is not will give you higher D (it will actually in some case). But it different if it being infinitely bigger

+ and × is adding quantity by default, it not bigger in size (yeah as long as it mean for infinity i think)

 

[Benimōru]

By default infinitely bigger is refer to size or cardinality, it specific case if it dont

Is there a page or a staff message that you can quote that this is so?

E12 is talking about being outside not prove it being bigger

Not really, I quoted E12 because he said this in the Alien X upgrade, but if you want me to quote other posts of his, that's fine too.

Kinda got it the wrong way around, I'm not saying that anything bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C like anything bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. I'm saying that unless your bigger than 2-A in a certain qualitative way then you aren't actually bigger and Low 1-C, like only the real numbers are uncountable infinite while the integers and rationals are just countable infinite.

So my idea is that even if it says "infinitely bigger", it should be needs context that it means cardinality. But if it is mentioned anywhere on the wiki that it is basically accepted in terms of cardinality, then sure.

 

[Fixxed]

Is there a page or a staff message that you can quote that this is so?

It not have a page for write that. But yeah we give anything that infinitely larger or bigger is high 3A, we not say it have many infinitely thing, just one thing that infinitely bigger

Not really, I quoted E12 because he said this in the Alien X upgrade, but if you want me to quote other posts of his, that's fine too.

Kinda got it the wrong way around, I'm not saying that anything bigger than 2-A is Low 1-C like anything bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. I'm saying that unless your bigger than 2-A in a certain qualitative way then you aren't actually bigger and Low 1-C, like only the real numbers are uncountable infinite while the integers and rationals are just countable infinite.

yeah he just say bigger than... not infinitely bigger than...

So my idea is that even if it says "infinitely bigger", it should be needs context that it means cardinality. But if it is mentioned anywhere on the wiki that it is basically accepted in terms of cardinality, then sure.

Isnt you mean infinitely bigger is can about quality (size) and quantity (add)???
And i say infinitely bigger is by default about size

 

[Benimōru]

It not have a page for write that. But yeah we give anything that infinitely larger or bigger is high 3A, we not say it have many infinitely thing, just one thing that infinitely bigger

Yes, I know that, what I mean is, is there a post or something where the wiki/staff etc. accepts that this statement is always (except in some cases) referring to cardinality. Because I need it to accept what you say.

yeah he just say bigger than... not infinitely bigger than...

I know that as well. But the reason I quoted those posts was that E12 said this to the OP on one of the CRTs where the "being infinitely bigger than infinite structure" thing was presented.

Isnt you mean infinitely bigger is can about quality (size) and quantity (add)???
And i say infinitely bigger is by default about size

I don't remember saying that it is used in the sense of quantity (sorry if I said something wrong somewhere and was misunderstood as such).

What I mean to say is that even if this "being infinitely bigger" is used in the sense of size, it doesn't directly refer to a bigger infinity. As I said above, I don't think it makes sense to take it as such by saying that it directly refers to cardinality. Because we won't even know whether the author really meant a "higher infinity", or whether the author knew anything about set theory. So, even if this is used in the sense of size, it will just be Aleph_0 x Aleph_0. Which means, it will look like it's bigger but it would be the same infinity. Just like the example of rational numbers and real numbers that E12 mentioned.

This is my current opinion btw. If you can show me a post where the wiki accepts this as (generally) referring to cardinality, then my opinion won't matter much.

 

[Fixxed]

Yes, I know that, what I mean is, is there a post or something where the wiki/staff etc. accepts that this statement is always (except in some cases) referring to cardinality. Because I need it to accept what you say.

I mean it always by default refer to size

I know that as well. But the reason I quoted those posts was that E12 said this to the OP on one of the CRTs where the "being infinitely bigger than infinite structure" thing was presented.

Yeah but E12 seems not thouch the" infinitely bigger" at all, he just say bigger

What I mean to say is that even if this "being infinitely bigger" is used in the sense of size, it doesn't directly refer to a bigger infinity. As I said above, I don't think it makes sense to take it as such by saying that it directly refers to cardinality.

Bruhh... cardinality is size or measure. Bigger size mean bigger cardinality

In mathematics, the cardinality of a set is a measure of the number of elements of the set
.
.
The cardinality of a set is also called its size

 

[Georredannea15]

I mean it always by default refer to size

Yeah but E12 seems not thouch the" infinitely bigger" at all, he just say bigger

Bruhh... cardinality is size or measure. Bigger size mean bigger cardinality

Stop repeating this bullshit that has been refuted by DT and Ultima because it won't do anything

 

[Vietthai96]

I have discussed with you many times before on different subjects and I don't want to tire my tongue any more. Seeing the universe as a dot does not give you a higher dimension.

Seing 2-A as a dot =/= Seing universe as a dot lol, 2-A contain infinite amount of 4d structure, universe either is a single 3d structure or single 4d structure, vastly different

Stop repeating this bullshit that has been refuted by DT and Ultima because it won't do anything

Are you..........DT and Ultima clone???

 

[Benimōru]

Yeah but E12 seems not thouch the" infinitely bigger" at all, he just say bigger

Then I'll just quote DT and go. I've already opened the revision, so I'd rather discuss the rest there

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both. Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

 

[Georredannea15]

Seing 2-A as a dot =/= Seing universe as a dot lol, 2-A contain infinite amount of 4d structure, universe either is a single 3d structure or single 4d structure, vastly different

That's completely wrong

Are you..........DT and Ultima clone???

Maybe I am. Is there a problem, son?

 

[Fixxed]

Stop repeating this bullshit that has been refuted by DT and Ultima because it won't do anything

Refuted by DT and ultima, while ultima say, bigger than 2A is low 1C and the safes is 2A but it not mean it not low 1C

Low 1-C sounds fine, if all of the qualifying factors are met, which they seem to in this case. As said before, there is no such thing being larger than a 2-A structure while still remaining 2-A yourself (Unless the verse establishes that this is possible somehow), so Chronos perceiving infinite timelines as so tiny she cannot perceive them fits that bill.

KLOL comment:

Me: Ultima, Do you get Low 1-C for encompassing and being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C structure, or a 2-A structure? Because from what the current standards say it's only about encompassing a 4-D structure. It does not specify what kind of 4-D structure it's talking about, Low 2-C or 2-A.

Ultima: Muddy territory, frankly. 2-A is generally a much safer starting point for that, since we don't really accept that there any any jumps in size that are higher than "baseline" 2-A but smaller than Low 1-C (See the standards on the destruction of multiple infinite multiverses); the smallest skip in size at that point is just Tier 1. Meanwhile with Low 2-C we are forced to include a bunch of shit between it and Low 1-C.

Bruh can you just stop bring ultima say this DT say that. And just give the standard that literally write in wiki for proof???

 

[Georredannea15]

2-A is safer=/= Low 1-C, You'll still need more concrete statements and contexts for QS

 

[Fixxed]

Then I'll just quote DT and go. I've already opened the revision, so I'd rather discuss the rest there

Yeah i comment in that. I just think DT missunderstand with what the thread disccusion, he think it same structure but being bigger, yeah structure infinitely bigger that contain other structure is not same as infinitely bigger structure

 

[Fixxed]

2-A is safer=/= Low 1-C, You'll still need more concrete statements and contexts for QS

Are you not reading the first quote???
what he say in that???