Analyzing the Tiering System

[Nepuko]

Yea I was thinking the same.

Also 450 posts Ultima Reality you should rlly start working on that thread, or you'll face the consequences from a certain Hamburger.

 

[Maxnumb231]

No matter which option is accepted the number of tier 0 characters will only be a handful so I'm not sure why the same happening to high 1-A is an argument against option 3

king pin, ultima and I made our inputs against option 3 and also why high 1-A shouldn't exist as a whole (which i also explained why it should on ly be 1-A then tier 0)

 

[Nepuko]

You know it's prob best not to use names or we can also go : Ant, DontTalk, DarkDragon, Sera and me made points for Option 3 owo

 

[Antvasima]

The entire point of this wiki is indexation and classification. If a greater number of tiers helps us with that purpose, we should preferably apply them.

 

[Maxnumb231]

The entire point of this wiki is indexation and classification. If a greater number of tiers helps us with that purpose, we should preferably apply them.

i agree to this but there are thing to classify which we can entirely change when it comes to the tiers, we can always axiomatically erase high 1-A due to how it would be a messy place for it. but if everyone votes for option 3 then option 3 it is.

 

[Andytrenom]

No matter which option is accepted the number of tier 0 characters will only be a handful so I'm not sure why the same happening to high 1-A is an argument against option 3

I think it is 1-A that is in risk of not having many characters

And apart from just quantity, the speration isn't very great either. Low 1-A starts as something beyond hausdroff metric with various hieracrchies within it, and then 1-A is taken as the point when that heirarchy reaches infinity, and High 1-A represents a level of power that can't be achieved by stacking infinity (At least that's my impression)

Thus, Low 1-A and High 1-A are their own distinct concepts while 1-A is just an extension of Low 1-A. That isn't really ideal since 1-A is the core tier while the other two are sub tiers, imo it makes more sense to just define 1-A in the way it was originally suggested, which is the aforementioned "unattainable by stacking infinities" bit and keep low 1-A as the buffer of sorts between High 1-B and 1-A.

And is it really so hard to clarify "at the top of infinite heirarchies" in someone's Low 1-A justification? The point of needing to differentiate different kinds of characters really isn't a good one for needing these 3 tiers, because the one letter and one number in the tiering heading isn't the only thing we have to describe how powerful a character is, and 1-A not being its own thing+there being so few characters in the category makes it feel more optimum to just stick by the "low 1-A>beyond hausdroff measures, 1-A>beyond infinity stacking" system that was suggested before

Edit: More specifically 1-A was supposed to be based on inaccessible or worldy cardinals. Either way the fact remains that it was based on its own distinct mathematical concept which in option 3 I guess will be given to High 1-A

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Ugh. Please don't overcomplicate things with too many tiers. There is absolutely no need to bring back High 1-A and in fact Option 2 is already perfectly self sufficient.

 

[Andytrenom]

Btw I should clarify my comment wasn't strictly directed at Paul, it was just more convenient to keep the general problems i had in one post

 

[Maxnumb231]

If u guys didnt know ultima made the continuation thread so far he hasnt linked it. But to the point, I agree with matt here that bringing back high 1-A will just compact stuff that was already used in other options.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I personally prefer to keep transcending infinite outerversal hierarchies more distinctive from base level than a mere + sign, given the unfathomable difference in terms of scale.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is Ultima's new thread:

https://vsbattles.com/vsbattles/3532239

Should I close this one now?

 

[Zeifyl]

While I fully agree with the dimensional stuff, I can't agree with the 1-A stuff.

Unreachable cardinals are still, in some way, shape, or form, part of infinity, and should therefore still be part of High 1-B (or, at most, a Low 1-A).

I can't imagine any way to keep 1-A and 0 within the confines of math, at all.

 

[Maxnumb231]

While I fully agree with the dimensional stuff, I can't agree with the 1-A stuff.

Unreachable cardinals are still, in some way, shape, or form, part of infinity, and should therefore still be part of High 1-B (or, at most, a Low 1-A).

I can't imagine any way to keep 1-A and 0 within the confines of math, at all.

Ok and beyond logic in itself is still part of mathematics or per say set theory. Heck fiction intends to use "beyond infinity" or "beyond logic" when math itself in its complexicty is above logic and "infinity"

 

[Zeifyl]

Ok and beyond logic in itself is still part of mathematics or per say set theory. Heck fiction intends to use "beyond infinity" or "beyond logic" when math itself in its complexicty is above logic and "infinity"

If you can assign a value to it, you can have that many dimensions, theoretically. Thus, it is not beyond dimensionality as a concept.

So this isn't really "beyond infinity" as much as it's "beyond possibility".

 

[Antvasima]

I will close this thread now.