Animator vs. Animation Tier 1 upgrade

[RatherClueless]

He said he won't reply here

I believe you can convince DT. You need summon the Ultima to Crt. Agree

 

[DontTalkDT]

I agree with High 1-B based on e clearly creating an infinite-dimensional space (13:05).

This should also qualify as Dimensional Manipulation.

I have no idea where you see creating of infinite dimensional space there.

We know that space exists and is manipulated in this video through certain other creations, btw.

Such as this simple trick here: TSC creates a 2-D circle out of pi x r^2 (7:45) which transforms into a 3-D cylinder when he incorporates 8 into the formula (7:49).

We also see lots of manipulation of mathematical symbols that doesn't transform space and see that the transformation in question does in fact not do it. So what's your point?

 

[Phoenks]

I have no idea where you see creating of infinite dimensional space there.

I have no idea how you don't see the creation of an infinite dimensional space there.

It creates a zero-dimensional point (2n=0) [13:07] which turns into a 2-D circle (2n=2) [13:08], and rapidly continues to increase in dimensionality until reaching infinity (2n=infinity) [13:14].

We also see lots of manipulation of mathematical symbols that doesn't transform space and see that the transformation in question does in fact not do it. So what's your point?

The transformation in question blatantly does transform space. It turns a 2-D circle into a 3-D cylinder which aligns with the formula going from pi x r^2 to 8 x pi x r^2.

The plane they are in is a spatial one that they are constantly destroying and manipulating throughout the video with these mathematical formulae and symbols.


DT I'm very confused on your arguments here.

 

[Rau]

What exactly did DT say that makes sense to you? Because everything he said goes against the High 1-B scaling.

DT basically said they aren't even manipulating space at all, but just symbols/text. This isn't true.

And also said that the dimensionality stuff doesn't make sense because it doesn't show to take up the entire space (Which is a weird argument because there's no reasonable way he could've showed that in a way that wouldn't completely destroy the fluidity of the video and the viewer's perspective of what was going on).

The way it was animated perfectly and blatantly shows what he was trying to convey in the first place. I find DT's statements to be really weird.

this is a little weird. manipulation and H-1.B are two very different things. I disagree with parts 1.A.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have no idea how you don't see the creation of an infinite dimensional space there.

He creates a zero-dimensional point (2n=0) [13:07] which turns into a 2-D circle (2n=2) [13:08], and rapidly continues to increase in dimensionality until reaching infinity (2n=infinity).

He increases an exponential function there (or, at least that's what it looks like. His notation is unclean). The mathematics has nothing to do with higher dimensions and what we see is just more lines being added and growing denser until they form a white sphere or disk. Interpreting that as adding dimensions is incredibly farfetched.

Edit: Let me add that some explanations videos seem to correlate the terms of the infinite sum to the volume of n-dimensional spheres. I can see where the idea comes from, but then it doesn't really work out with the infinite sum being there.

The transformation in question blatantly turns a 2-D circle into a 3-D cylinder which aligns with the formula going from pi x r^2 to 8 x pi x r^2.

The plane they are in is a spatial one that they are constantly destroying and manipulating throughout the video.


DT I'm very confused on your arguments here.

It's really not that hard of an argument to understand. The whole time during the video they are manipulating countless formulas that don't manipulate space. Yeah, sometimes they manipulate one and it has relevance for space, but that is more the exception than the rule.

In this case, he fires on a line and we see it go from span {x_1} to span {x_1, x_2} to span {x_1, x_2, x_3}, but we literally see that the line does not become an infinite three dimensional space. It just has no effect on space, but just on the formula, the same way earlier in the video him taking 6 x 2 had no effect on space or putting - in front of e^i*pi didn't have an effect or how the whole e^i*pi -pi business just spawned a half circle in real space. Or how transforming into e^i * pi/4 is equated to reaching higher in real space at that time, despite the location technically being "higher" in imaginary space. Or how putting a multiplication symbol to his feet multiplied his speed. Not everything that's mathematically done represents a literal physical transformation of space. How mathematical transformations equate into reality is played with fast and loose here. So if we literally see that no infinite higher D space is created by that formula, it makes no sense to assume that it actually does happen, as there are plenty other not straight-played mathematical stuff in the video.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I will do so as he knows mathematics

@Ultima_Reality

Forced to watch an entire video

Some would call this slave labor, you know.

 

[Phoenks]

He increases an exponential function there (or, at least that's what it looks like. His notation is unclean). The mathematics has nothing to do with higher dimensions and what we see is just more lines being added and growing denser until they form a white sphere or disk. Interpreting that as adding dimensions is incredibly farfetched.

How is it farfetched at all?

A point (What we clearly see drawn) = 0 dimensions. The 2n = 0 is consistent with this.

A circle (We also see clearly drawn) = 2 dimensions. The 2n = 2 is consistent with this.

So on and so forth. It seems quite simple to me, DT.

It grows denser because more degrees of freedom are being added, but we only have a 2-D screen (How we watch the content) to work with here. That's just the limitations of the video itself. It's very far from an inaccurate depiction of dimensions.

The whole time during the video they are manipulating countless formulas that don't manipulate space.

But they are using the formulae to manipulate space? Such as when fighting with them, or destroying the ground, and etc. To me, this seems to happen a lot of the time in the video. Not everything is manipulating space, no, as you mention he uses the multiplication sign to multiply his speed. However, assuming they aren't messing with space at all is what I would consider far fetched.

In this case, he fires on a line and we see it go from span {x_1} to span {x_1, x_2} to span {x_1, x_2, x_3}, but we literally see that the line does not become an infinite three dimensional space.

How in the world is he supposed to draw this in a 2-D video format? You're asking to see an infinite three dimensional space before you believe it actually is? Lol.

It's clear as day what he is trying to convey. He literally puts it there mathematically... How more blatant can it get?

the same way earlier in the video him taking 6 x 2 had no effect on space or putting - in front of e^i*pi didn't have an effect or how the whole e^i*pi -pi business just spawned a half circle in real space.

Earlier in the video they didn't seem to be using the math to manipulate space, but rather TCS seemed to be learning about how math worked with the manipulation of the formulas and whatnot. However, through his manipulation of them, he seemed to be capable turning numbers into objects that he could physically grab and fight with in a spatial plane.

e^i*pi -pi business just spawned a half circle in real space. Or how transforming into e^i * pi/4 is equated to reaching higher in real space at that time, despite the location technically being "higher" in imaginary space.

These are inconstancies, but yet these also are still examples of him using math to manipulate space regardless of whether or not they aren't in the right space at the time.

Or how putting a multiplication symbol to his feet multiplied his speed. Not everything that's mathematically done represents a literal physical transformation of space.

We were never arguing that EVERYTHING was a manipulation of space, only that a lot of crucial moments and important scenes for scaling did indeed involve a manipulation of space.

So if we literally see that no infinite higher D space is created by that formula, it makes literal sense to assume that it actually does happen, as there are plenty other not straight-played mathematical stuff in the video.

Good thing that we literally do see an infinite D space created by the formula.

 

[Phoenks]

Some would call this slave labor, you know.

It's a really neat and fun video. I think you'd enjoy it.

 

[DontTalkDT]

How is it farfetched at all?

A point (What we clearly see drawn) = 0 dimensions. The 2n = 0 is consistent with this.

A circle (We also see clearly drawn) = 2 dimensions. The 2n = 2 is consistent with this.

So on and so forth. It seems quite simple to me, DT.

It grows denser because more degrees of freedom are being added, but we only have a 2-D screen (How we watch the content) to work with here. That's just the limitations of the video itself. It's very far from an inaccurate depiction of dimensions.

2n = 2 would imply n = 1, technically.

And to answer the question: Because it's correlating numbers to dimensions for the only reason of more lines appearing. Not because it's said or demonstrated to be more dimensions or anything.

But they are using the formulae to manipulate space? Such as when fighting with them, or destroying the ground, and etc. To me, this seems to happen a lot of the time in the video. Not everything is manipulating space, no, as you mention he uses the multiplication sign to multiply his speed. However, assuming they aren't messing with space at all is what I would consider far fetched.

I haven't said they aren't manipulating space at all, I said they are not always manipulating space and in particular they are not doing so in instances where we see them not doing so.

How in the world is he supposed to draw this in a 2-D video format? You're asking to see an infinite three dimensional space before you believe it actually is? Lol.

It's clear as day what he is trying to convey. He literally puts it there mathematically... How more blatant can it get?

A 3D space is not further hard to draw. That aside, again, we see that it's not always space manipulating and the burden of proof that it is in this instance, if it not always is, is on you.

Earlier in the video they didn't seem to be using the math to manipulate space, but rather TCS seemed to be learning about how math worked with the manipulation of the formulas and whatnot. However, through his manipulation of them, he seemed to be capable turning numbers into objects that he could physically grab and fight with in a spatial plane.

So? They still don't support the "every time a number or formula changes its space manipulation" idea.

These are inconstancies, but yet these also are still examples of him using math to manipulate space regardless of whether or not they aren't in the right space at the time.

It's really more generating a line than manipulating space.

We were never arguing that EVERYTHING was a manipulation of space, only that a lot of crucial moments and important scenes for scaling did indeed involve a manipulation of space.

Problem is that you fail to prove that this instance has to be one of the scenes where it is manipulating space and the fact that it is in no way visually indicated to be speaks against the idea.

Good thing that we literally do see an infinite D space created by the formula.

Ah, you can see infinite dimensional space now? I just see some lines.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

2n = 2 would imply n = 1, technically.

And to answer the question: Because it's correlating numbers to dimensions for the only reason of more lines appearing. Not because it's said or demonstrated to be more dimensions or anything.




Ah, you can see infinite dimensional space now? I just see some lines.

The lines very clearly imply extra axes.

 

[DontTalkDT]

The lines very clearly imply extra axes.

Proof?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Proof?

 

[DontTalkDT]

....that's some nice lines, just not applicable to any of the scenes we are talking about as they are from a completely different part? Like, want me to post pictures of lines in the videos which are not coordinate grid lines? There are a bunch of those as well.


Honestly, the best shot here is that the maker confirms that the infinite sum in the last formula for the circle-stuff shouldn't be there. Then there would be a proper argument for infinite D.

 

[TyranoDoom30]

Funny that we allow a verse with many fanfiction content in it and is not on FC/OC wikia

Not a Math Mega Expert so i will stay neutral

 

[JustANormalLemon]

I love how DT argument is "It's not infinity space if you can't see It" and at the same time "It's impossible to see infinit space"

Any way, whem the dimensions where = 0 It was represented by a single dot, each new dimension added a new axis where added represented by a circle, whem the axis became infinity they circled TSC to the point of beigh a entirely brigh circle

 

[Alexander]

Is he the same guy who Say that a verse that clearly is connected to another verse was just a ''meta joke''even if that other verse is from the same creater and both clearly are connected

 

[JustANormalLemon]

Is he the same guy who Say that a verse that clearly is connected to another verse was just a ''meta joke''even if that other verse is from the same creater and both clearly are connected

Send me the verse/verses on my wall, I need to see It

 

[DontTalkDT]

I love how DT argument is "It's not infinity space if you can't see It" and at the same time "It's impossible to see infinit space"

My argument isn't that you are supposed to see higher dimensional space. My argument is that, if physical space is generated, you should be able to see the 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional space that, according to the notation, should have been generated by the the formula before the 4-dimensional one.

Or at least any indication that something changes.

Like, if the R^n formula thing would stand beside the circle thing at the end I would be perfectly happy. Because we would have a formula that talks about higher D stuff correlated with an animation that could be interpreted as higher D stuff.

The problem is that the 1 formula clearly talking about higher D has no animation showing that anything actually changes, while the animation that could demonstrate higher D is next to a formula that isn't explicitly about higher D.

 

[JustANormalLemon]

We are literraly discussing if something that is mathematically proven in the video can be applied, It's really ironic

 

[DontTalkDT]

We are literraly discussing if something that is mathematically proven in the video can be applied, It's really ironic

Nothing is mathematically proven in the video.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

We are literraly discussing if something that is mathematically proven in the video can be applied, It's really ironic

vsbw brainrot

 

[JustANormalLemon]

My argument isn't that you are supposed to see higher dimensional space. My argument is that, if physical space is generated, you should be able to see the 1-dimensional, 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional space that, according to the notation, should have been generated by the the formula before the 4-dimensional one.

Or at least any indication that something changes.

Like, if the R^n formula thing would stand beside the circle thing at the end I would be perfectly happy. Because we would have a formula that talks about higher D stuff correlated with an animation that could be interpreted as higher D stuff.

The problem is that the 1 formula clearly talking about higher D has no animation showing that anything actually changes, while the animation that could demonstrate higher D is next to a formula that isn't explicitly about higher D.

It literaly shows the axis beingh created as a grapicall representation trough?

We know that "i" represents the imaginary numbers dimensions trough?

So "i" is alread "=" 1 dimension trough?

So a infinit number of "i" Alread represents a infinit numbers of dimensions trough?

Nothing is mathematically proven in the video.

me staring at the milion formulas in the entire video that where even acepted by a math nerd for the creation of the video It self you sure?

 

[JustANormalLemon]

It literaly shows the axis beingh created as a grapicall representation trough?

We know that "i" represents the imaginary numbers dimensions trough?

So "i" is alread "=" 1 dimension trough?

So a infinit number of "i" Alread represents a infinit numbers of dimensions trough?

Actually, discard that, I have no idea how that all worked sinse I am as smart as a Lemon whem talking about math

 

[DontTalkDT]

It literaly shows the axis beingh created as a grapicall representation trough?

Where exactly? With the formula talking about higher dimensions or with the graph corresponding to a formula not talking about higher dimensions?

We know that "i" represents the imaginary numbers dimensions trough?

I agree... what's your point?

So "i" is alread "=" 1 dimension trough?

Sure, not as the symbol but we are shown that the imaginary axis exists. But again, what's your point?

So a infinit number of "i" Alread represents a infinit numbers of dimensions trough?

No? Why would you get that idea? Every i represents the same dimension, i.e. the imaginary axis

me staring at the milion formulas in the entire video that where even acepted by a math nerd for the creation of the video It self you sure?

Yeah, pretty sure. Because a formula isn't a proof, especially not for stuff that the formula doesn't even correlate to.

 

[Hjxdvd]

At timestamp 13:13, Euler's Identity removed its imaginary segment, changing its factorial to the Gamma function by reorientating its index. The variable n expanded up to infinity hence expanding up to infinite dimensions, therefore qualifies as an evident High 1-B feat.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function
^^More info on the Gamma function and its alternatives.
The variable n represents the number of dimensional domains (number of coordinate spaces) and each term becomes an n-dimensional unit sphere.

The Gamma function generally comes up in, for example, the formula for the volume of an n-dimensional ball

Like a circle has area pi\*r^2, a sphere has volume (4/3)pi*r^3

Now you generalize that into higher dimensions

This thing is pretty blatantly High 1-B for me. Hax or whatever.

 

[JustANormalLemon]

Yeah, pretty sure. Because a formula isn't a proof, especially not for stuff that the formula doesn't even correlate to.

But It's show to corelate in the animation trough?

 

[DontTalkDT]

The Gamma function generally comes up in, for example, the formula for the volume of an n-dimensional ball

Like a circle has area pi\*r^2, a sphere has volume (4/3)pi*r^3

Now you generalize that into higher dimensions

This thing is pretty blatantly High 1-B for me. Hax or whatever.

As said:

Edit: Let me add that some explanations videos seem to correlate the terms of the infinite sum to the volume of n-dimensional spheres. I can see where the idea comes from, but then it doesn't really work out with the infinite sum being there.

Like, the formula is almost the formula for the volume of an n-dimensional ball and if it actually were the formula for that I would be fine with the interpretation. But that's kinda ignoring the infinite sum sign in the formula, which just makes it not the formula for an n-dimensional ball.

I mean, it's by far the most solid argument there is for the idea. I could see the maker saying "Yeah, the infinite sum doesn't belong there, it's just supposed to be ignored". But, like, the author not meaning what is actually written is a little speculative without some confirmation?

 

[DontTalkDT]

But It's show to corelate in the animation trough?

Which formula specifically and which animation?

 

[DontTalkDT]

As said:

Like, the formula is almost the formula for the volume of an n-dimensional ball and if it actually were the formula for that I would be fine with the interpretation. But that's kinda ignoring the infinite sum sign in the formula, which just makes it not the formula for an n-dimensional ball.

I mean, it's by far the most solid argument there is for the idea. I could see the maker saying "Yeah, the infinite sum doesn't belong there, it's just supposed to be ignored". But, like, the author not meaning what is actually written is a little speculative without some confirmation?

Y'know what, by popular demand I would be fine with a "possibly High 1-B" for that reasoning, I suppose.

 

[JustANormalLemon]

Which formula specifically and which animation?

Animation vs math, all of them

Also would like to put atention on time stamp 03:00 where we have a glimpce of the fact the mathematics there afect the dimensionality of objects

This is later applied in the "cilinder" later whem TSC turns a 2D object into a 3D one

In the end, at 13:00 "e" is using the same idea (in a more advanced way) to manipulate the dimensions of the circle graphic

Any way, I need to say I am happier with AvA beingh a high 3-A verse, but the mathematics seen to show a clear intentions of manipulation of multiple infinities and axies so I still say the "possible high 1-B" would be my dream

And for every one confused about ehat I am saying, don't worry, I some times write to much before thinking

 

[DontTalkDT]

Animation vs math, all of them

Also would like to put atention on time stamp 03:00 where we have a glimpce of the fact the mathematics there afect the dimensionality of objects

This is later applied in the "cilinder" later whem TSC turns a 2D object into a 3D one

In the end, at 13:00 "e" is using the same idea (in a more advanced way) to manipulate the dimensions of the circle graphic

Any way, I need to say I am happier with AvA beingh a high 3-A verse, but the mathematics seen to show a clear intentions of manipulation of multiple infinities and axies so I still say the "possible high 1-B" would be my dream

And for every one confused about ehat I am saying, don't worry, I some times write to much before thinking

Yeah, as said, not all of them manipulate space. So there is no general rule that R^4 must mean that 4D space is generated.

 

[JustANormalLemon]

Yeah, as said, not all of them manipulate space. So there is no general rule that R^4 must mean that 4D space is generated.

The one at the end of the video clearly cid manipulated space whem 0 represented a single point (a 0 dimensions space) and a 2 a 2D space, and I think you are looking this kinda wrong, all the mathmatical elements in the video have the hability to manipulate graphics, and graphics are space, but It's not a rule sinse the graphics need to be summon first to show them manipulating It

 

[JustANormalLemon]

I also would like to say I'm giving a more casual view sinse I'm not really good at math

 

[GarrixianXD]

I also would like to say I'm giving a more casual view sinse I'm not really good at math

No worries

Y'know what, by popular demand I would be fine with a "possibly High 1-B" for that reasoning, I suppose.

So shall I recast ur vote or ur comfortable at the disagree section?

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

I think you should add some tags to this thread.

 

[GarrixianXD]

I think you should add some tags to this thread.

Thanks for notifying

 

[eibwen]

I feel smart reading this thread while knowing myself unable to understand anything

 

[Spinoirr]

I feel smart reading this thread while knowing myself unable to understand anything

Same

 

[eibwen]

*btw a question
would TSC tier 1 thing exclusive for him being inside the mathematical space? (i'm doubting he can use all this math-stuff outside of it for now, idk if alan decide to have him doing all that in the future)

 

[GarrixianXD]

*btw a question
would TSC tier 1 thing exclusive for him being inside the mathematical space? (i'm doubting he can use all this math-stuff outside of it for now, idk if alan decide to have him doing all that in the future)

For the moment, kinda likely because Animation vs. Math is the most recent video we've seen but I'm not sure
It'll only be exclusive to TSC and Euler's Identity from my knowledge at least; though it could be safe to assume TSC could harness mathematics outside the mathematical dimension because we've seen those stick figures capable of manipulating data outside its application before (take Animation vs. Minecraft for instance)
I don't know about the noogai3 because he's only canon to the Animator vs. Animation series