- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #281
Yes, all universes has been concluded to be 2A.
-
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.
Ben 10 - Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal
- Thread starter Reiner04
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ben 10 ben 10 cosmology
- Status
- 7,550
- 7,738
The Time Stream is a higher dimensional cylindrical structure that contains the Space Beyond within its walls.
- 4,604
- 6,575
I see. And what of the relative size? Is the Time Stream infinite in length? And how does its size compare to the Space Beyond within its walls?
- 4,604
- 6,575
Appreciated. I'll trust that the previous discussion on that topic was adequate.
- 7,550
- 7,738
The Space Beyond is flat within the wall of the Time Stream.
Yes, the Time Stream is infinite in length.
- 4,604
- 6,575
Then I believe my main lingering doubts are resolved, provided all the information is correct. Consider me a supporter of the change.
- 12,124
- 4,364
hgiS
- 2,630
- 2,446
giSh
- 12,562
- 2,517
Personally unsure at the moment. The gist of this is that since there's a space quantifiably larger than a "2-A universe", it must be of a higher dimension? And because a 2-A structure is, by definition, infinite 4-D then there shouldn't be anything 2-A that is also larger than infinity? And that the size of the 2-A structure implies that there's a 5th axis from which the cluster can be viewed as finite? Sounds fine in theory, but then any cosmology with multiple 2-A structures should, by that logic, be Low 1-C, no? But instead that wouldn't even be considered a larger 2-A (which can be established, even if illogical). I may have missed something, but this seems to be having your cake and eating it too.
Can you expand more on the black space being infinitesimal in comparison to the timestream?
Can you expand more on the black space being infinitesimal in comparison to the timestream?
- 16,960
- 4,860
Just to clarify for everyone here, the discussion on whether or not universes in Ben 10 are 2-A is actually still on going
Zamasu brought up a debunk thread to counter this, he brought up good points to refute this idea and I still plan to continue the thread for this.
Zamasu brought up a debunk thread to counter this, he brought up good points to refute this idea and I still plan to continue the thread for this.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #293
I see, the thread was open for more than 3 months without inputs and zamasu then suddenly left, in anycase this thread is not concerned with that.
- 12,124
- 4,364
it isn't at the moment, the thread closed
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #296
Uh, no. Having multiple 2A is stated in our FAQ to be nothing more than 2A, as one infinity can contain other infinity w/o being bigger than that.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #297
Also the point is that 2A universe is just a countable infinite and very first thing that can be bigger than this is uncountable infinite, there is nothing in between countable infinite and uncountable infinite (natural numbers and real numbers) unless a verse establish so. Which infact is as well accepted to be low 1C in FAQ and space beyond views these 2A structures as nothing more than tiny stars.
Lormac_CC
He/Him- 2,376
- 944
it is, the only reason why many people agree is because the universe in question is 2-A
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #299
I know
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #300
Uh wait, I am being told off site that after being opened for months and when zamasu left after telling that he will reply we close the thread that no one is opposing and i made this thread (which I was planning to do but was on hold because of zamasu), you want to continue the thread right now in the middle of my crt? I must be misunderstanding.
- 16,960
- 4,860
Continue THAT thread? Not necessarily. But the points Zamasu brought up being continued in a new thread or being mentioned here (which is very much on topic as this entire upgrade solely relies on the idea that all universes in Ben 10 contain infinite universes)? Yes. Whatever comes first.
I don’t know exactly what went on here with Zamasu and y’all as I was away from the wikia for sometime, but everyone has different situations to deal with in their personal lives to step away for any length of time they want or need. Just because I was absent when Zamasu decided to leave doesn’t mean me or someone else who agrees with his take cannot continue what was left off.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #302
Then there is no thread going on with the topic this thread using as premise, everything that is being used as premise are preconcluded. There is no need of further derailment.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #303
@GyroNutz , this is the idea behind the thread (and has been used previously for many verses), Natural numbers contains even numbers and odd numbers but yet aren't bigger than them but equal as we aren't jumping any higher but just adding more elements in the same size of space and it's even mentioned in The FAQ:
But as there is no way to reach any higher or bigger than the countable infinite by the methods I mentioned above like multiplying, divide or what not. We use the idea in Set theory of Power set of set is greater than the set. That said infinities uses the same method to jump higher over countable infinite and reach another infinite uncountable infinite (aleph1). So very first thing that is bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinite which is low 1C when is over a 2A structure. The point that space beyond sees those structures just as tiny stars basically fits the discription.
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
There is really no such thing as finitely or countable infinite bigger than 2A and so difference is uncomfortable which is Low 1C as per standards, said by Ultima:
Also proceeding further,
Kevin: Where are we? There is nothing on my instruments.
Professor paradox: There is nothing outside either, Do you see that thin glow?
Gwen: A star?
Professor paradox: Actually, it's the universe. We are in the space beyond.
This entire conversation supports that universes are insignificant comparison to space beyond that professor paradox just straight out said there is nothing outside but when goes a bit in conversation, said that there is but just too small to notice or mention normally, space beyond is largely empty and by far bigger than those universes and it is supported by the visuals as well.
Last edited:
- 7,142
- 4,658
My opinion is unchanged, 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.
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.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #305
It is literally bigger tho, entire seen is screaming for it. They're tiny stars in it, they're thin glow and insignificant to be noticed + supported by visuals which are literal. The idea of integers having odd numbers and natural numbers is only valid when the size of the structures are same. Of which there is no evidence but contradict the context.
Literally everyone here has no problem with space beyond being bigger than the universe as it is obvious.
Last edited:
- 7,142
- 4,658
Appearing as tiny stars is not evidence of a qualitative difference. The difference between countable and uncountable infinity is so much greater than that.
Also, Integers are not odd and even (though they do contain them), they are positive (natural numbers) and negative and zero.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #307
It is? Regardless of what you add to infinite or just keep adding infinite or multiply it. You'll never reach beyond it, never go beyond it. Only way is to go uncountable which is low 1C as per our FAQ.
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
vsbattles.fandom.com
I know? Did i say they're same? I said their sizes are same regardless if one contains the other. Natural numbers can never be bigger than odd numbers.
- 7,142
- 4,658
Are the integers outside the natural numbers? Are the integers bigger than the natural numbers?It is? Regardless of what you add to infinite or just keep adding infinite or multiply it. You'll never reach beyond it, never go beyond it. Only way is to go uncountable which is low 1C as per our FAQ.
Tiering System FAQ
A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #309
Integers just contains natural numbers and odd numbers but aren't bigger as they shows one to one correspondence with each other.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #312
Also that I am being asked to prove stuff like, prove that the difference between the size of space beyond is uncountable infinite when I have already done it? It seems to be there is a misconception that uncountable infinite is infinitely larger countable infinite when it is not, there is no such thing as bigger than countable infinite by countable infinite times. Uncountable infinite is simply the seconds largest infinity just after countable infinite. That's it, there is no size comparison known. How much bigger is uncountable infinite comparison to countable infinite? We don't know but we do know that uncountable infinite is indeed larger that's it, saying countable infinite times bigger than countable infinite is just.... Doesn't right. It's just another infinite.
The set of real numbers has minimal possible cardinality which is greater than the cardinality of the set of integers. That is, every set, S, of real numbers can either be mapped one-to-one into the integers or the real numbers can be mapped one-to-one into S. As the real numbers are equinumerous with the powerset of the integers,and the continuum hypothesis says that there is no set
for which
.
Last edited:
- 7,142
- 4,658
It's true that uncountable infinity is so unbelievable big that it's hard to actually get a grasp on how big it is.
However we do know what the real numbers that are uncountable infinite are; that being every number on the number line including decimals, so we do have somewhat of an idea of how big it is and it's not a complete unknown. With it being something like infinity ^ infinity, and that's how the likes of the wiki treats it.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #314
Just bigger than countable infinite, nothing more nothing less is all that is known.
- 7,142
- 4,658
We do know that the real numbers are uncountable infinity, so that's what we use as a measuring stick to prove if something has the qualitive difference to be uncountable infinite.
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #316
Okay....:/
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #317
Just saw the edit. And then again, we don't know it's value and how big infinity^infinity is from infinity. As in the end it'll just break of in infinite*infinite*.....-infinite. so it's just unknown. We just treat it as real numbers are bigger than natural numbers and Power set of set is greater than set. We have idea of it being bigger as it cannot be reached by just simply multiplying infinities or what not, in the end just being significantly bigger is all.
As I quoted above, real numbers contains minimal greater cardinality than natural numbers.
- 7,142
- 4,658
We know that the natural numbers are countable infinite.
We know that despite having additional elements, that the integers and rational numbers are not greater than the natural numbers and are also countable infinity.
We know that the real numbers are greater than countable infinity; uncountable infinity.
We know that the real numbers are every number on the number line including decimals; giving them a size like infinity ^ infinity, because their is a whole lot of decimal numbers between even 0 and 1.
Thus uncountable infinity equals a value equal to the real numbers. That is the logic the wiki uses.
We know that despite having additional elements, that the integers and rational numbers are not greater than the natural numbers and are also countable infinity.
We know that the real numbers are greater than countable infinity; uncountable infinity.
We know that the real numbers are every number on the number line including decimals; giving them a size like infinity ^ infinity, because their is a whole lot of decimal numbers between even 0 and 1.
Thus uncountable infinity equals a value equal to the real numbers. That is the logic the wiki uses.
True that infinity ^ infinity is a value so great that it's hard to grasp it, but we have a vague idea of what it means, and that vague idea is close to our understanding of how big the real numbers are. So that's what we use. That's just what you got to deal with when you got something as large as uncountable infinity.
Last edited:
- 9,982
- 10,821
- Thread starter
- #319
Just bigger than natural numbers
- 7,142
- 4,658
Well it is 0 and 0.1 and 0.01 and 0.001 and 0.0001 and 0.00001 and 0.000001 and 0.0000001... then we got 0.11 and 0.111 and 0.1101 and 0.11001... and somewhere after that we have 0.2 and all the stuff that comes after that, until we get to 1 and then we do the same thing for every decimal between 1 and 2, and then their all the decimal place between all the other countably infinite natural number, then we include all the countable infinite negative numbers and the decimals between them as well.Just bigger than natural numbers
So while we don't have a concrete list of how large the real numbers and all it's decimals are, no one has the time or brainpower for that, we do at least have an idea.
Said idea is close to what we think infinity ^ infinity would be. So that's the comparison we use. And as the real numbers are uncountably infinite, that's what we use as the value you need to be equal to be considered uncountable infinite.
- Status
