- 9,982
- 10,819
- Thread starter
- #281
Yes, all universes has been concluded to be 2A.whether all universes in all clusters can be considered 2-A structures,
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes, all universes has been concluded to be 2A.whether all universes in all clusters can be considered 2-A structures,
The Time Stream is a higher dimensional cylindrical structure that contains the Space Beyond within its walls.In comparison to the whole Time Stream that Ben and Maltruant Fly through, the Space Beyond is infinitesimal. Can I get more context on this? Watching the clips provided, I don't see where this is confirmed. I don't see the Space Beyond that they travel through even referenced in the clip where they travel through the Time Stream; I suspect there's just some context not given from this clips that explains this away, but I need to understand this in more depth before I can agree with it.
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?The Time Stream is a higher dimensional cylindrical structure that contains the Space Beyond within its walls.
Appreciated. I'll trust that the previous discussion on that topic was adequate.Yes, all universes has been concluded to be 2A.
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?
Then I believe my main lingering doubts are resolved, provided all the information is correct. Consider me a supporter of the change.The Space Beyond is flat within the wall of the Time Stream.
Yes, the Time Stream is infinite in length.
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.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.
it isn't at the moment, the thread closedJust 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.
it isn't at the moment, the thread closed
I still plan to continue the thread for this.
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.Sounds fine in theory, but then any cosmology with multiple 2-A structures should, by that logic, be Low 1-C, no?
The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components.
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.The gist of this is that since there's a space quantifiably larger than a "2-A universe"
it is, the only reason why many people agree is because the universe in question is 2-AI 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.
I knowit is, the only reason why many people agree is because the universe in question is 2-A
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.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.
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.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.
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.Continue THAT thread? Not necessarily.
@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: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.
This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.
That comparision doesn't really work here, because if you considered a "transcendence" descriptor as actually indicating some form of superiority in size that is capable of being given the same tier as the space being transcended, then you could as well just give it Low 1-C, since 2-A is in itself a tier indicating a structure whose (4-dimensional) volume is already ∞, and so there is really no such thing as being finitely or countably infinitely bigger than it, as the current standards on affecting multiple infinite multiverses attest to. The difference needs to be uncountable, one way or another. "At least 2-A" would be the absolute least you could choose. ~said by ultima This thread
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.Just because the element is outside the structure does not prove that they are bigger,
Appearing as tiny stars is not evidence of a qualitative difference. The difference between countable and uncountable infinity is so much greater than that.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. 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.
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.Appearing as tiny stars is not evidence of a qualitative difference.
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.Also, Integers are not odd and even (though they do contain them), they are positive (natural numbers) and negative and zero.
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...vsbattles.fandom.com
Integers just contains natural numbers and odd numbers but aren't bigger as they shows one to one correspondence with each other.Are the integers outside the natural numbers? Are the integers bigger than the natural numbers?
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 setfor which.
It's true that uncountable infinity is so unbelievable big that it's hard to actually get a grasp on how big it is.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. 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.
Just bigger than countable infinite, nothing more nothing less is all that is known.It's true that uncountable infinity is so unbelievable big that it's hard to actually get a grasp on how big it is
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.Just bigger than countable infinite, nothing more nothing less is all that is known.
Okay....:/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.
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.infinity ^ infinity
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.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.
Just bigger than natural numbershow big the real numbers are
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