Ben 10 - Re-evaluation of the Low 1-C Time Stream Proposal

[Qawsedf234]

The space beyond this cube would be in the Aleph-1 (5-D) range, right?

An Aleph-1 in this example wouldn't be the cube. It would be the collective of every arrangement of the cube that could exist contained in a set.

Being beyond the cube is qualitative superiority, which is a different thing. on the wiki

 

[Firestorm808]

An Aleph-1 in this example wouldn't be the cube. It would be the collective of every arrangement of the cube that could exist contained in a set.

Being beyond the cube is qualitative superiority, which is a different thing. on the wiki

I see.

So for our current example, "The Space Beyond" being the space beyond an infinite number of 2-A structures would be qualitatively superior and count for Low 1-C in this methodology?

 

[Qawsedf234]

being the space beyond an infinite number of 2-A structures would be qualitatively superior

It would be a higher infinity without being a different Volumatic axis. Just containing a 2-A space wouldn't be Low 1-C unless that 2-A space is shown to be infinitesimal. The Ben 10 example doesn't show that.

 

[Firestorm808]

It would be a higher infinity without being a different Volumatic axis. Just containing a 2-A space wouldn't be Low 1-C unless that 2-A space is shown to be infinitesimal. The Ben 10 example doesn't show that.

Isn't the single 2-A plane infinitesimal to the infinite cube of 2-A planes?

In turn, the single 2-A plane would be even more infinitesimal to the space beyond the infinite cube?

Isn't the infinite cube supposed to be the absolute limit of 4-D space?

Are we supposed to show that the infinite cube is infinitesimal to the space beyond it?

 

[Georredannea15]

It would be a higher infinity without being a different Volumatic axis. Just containing a 2-A space wouldn't be Low 1-C unless that 2-A space is shown to be infinitesimal. The Ben 10 example doesn't show that.

Yes, that's what I meant, even if this space infinitely larger than the infinite number of of 2-A multiverses, they still share the same axis because there is no difference in volume between them and the multiverse is not shown to us as having 0 volume compared to space.

 

[Reiner04]

The main issue here is more along the lines that the characters and the universes themselves exist within the same movement axis. Kevin is going in a direction towards another universe and they can see the current and future universes (assuming there's no additional context).

The Space beyond is 5D (or extra axis) for containing 4D Universes separate from each other, Kevin and others in the spaceship are with Professor paradox who always keeps them safe and the way things should be wherever he takes them, just like trio being able to survive on moon and in the forge of creation w/o any space suit and forge of creation as well has weird time flow but space ship can travel into it just fine. As long as professor paradox is with them, they won't really face any issue. The reason for the upgrade as well was that "The space beyond contains more space than the space contained by 2-A structure" aka more number of cardinals of space than the cardinal of space contained by 2-A structure (natural numbers) which accounts for uncountable infinite and the smallest uncountable infinite is Aleph 1, there is no cardinality possible Between aleph 1 and aleph 0. To Quote Wikipedia's definition;

a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than that of the set of all natural numbers.

The smallest infinite cardinal number is aleph 0. The second smallest is (aleph-one). The continuum hypothesis, which asserts that there are no sets whose cardinality is strictly between aleph 0 and aleph 1.

 

[Qawsedf234]

The reason for the upgrade as well was that "The space beyond contains more space than the space contained by 2-A structure" aka more number of cardinals of space than the cardinal of space contained by 2-A structure (natural numbers) which accounts for uncountable infinite and the smallest uncountable infinite is Aleph 1, there is no cardinality possible Between aleph 1 and aleph 0. To Quote Wikipedia's definition;

Yeah there's no backing to that at all. Just being bigger isn't enough to say it's a Aleph-1 superiority. Especially when the universes themselves are shown as taking up a notable amount of space and aren't just points or flat images.

 

[Firestorm808]

I'm not aware of any existing precedent regarding this sort of application of the Qualitative Superiority standards, especially for spaces containing an infinite number of 2-A structures.

I found the CRT for the Kingdom Hearts verse, and we have the following senior staff statement agreeing for Low 1-C space outside a single 2-A structure.

Low 1-C is fine by me. We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present. Add that to the space in question here being explicitly described as infinite and the worlds as "small" compared to it, and you have a fairly straightforward case.

I don't think the 2-A option is terribly logical either, after mulling it over: 2-A would imply that universes in KH are displaced over 4-D space, which doesn't work when parallelism of any two objects by definition requires an extra axis: For two line segments to be parallel, you'd have to set it so they wouldn't touch regardless of how far they are extended, which wouldn't be possible if they stood side-by-side in 1-D space as in here, meaning you would need them to be displaced over a plane. Same thing happens with planes: For them to be parallel, they shouldn't ever be able to meet, so you'd need them to be displaced over 3-D space. Generalizing that to the 4-D case, spacetimes would obviously have to be displaced over a 5-D region (This works by definition, too: If they're different spacetime continuums then obviously they can't share the same space, in the way 3-D objects exist around us for instance)

The same goes for Chronoverse:

Eh, better late than never.

The Darkness Beyond Time being Low 1-C is fine to me. What with it being the infinite void beyond the multiverse to which discarded timelines are ejected, and blah blah blah. You can actually see some of those timelines floating around as little bubbles inside of it, as shown in the gallery here, so I guess that helps too. Same applies to Zurvan, which the DBT receives scaling from, given the description of one of the Dream Devourer's attacks.

 

[Reiner04]

Yeah there's no backing to that at all. Just being bigger isn't enough to say it's a Aleph-1 superiority. Especially when the universes themselves are shown as taking up a notable amount of space and aren't just points or flat images.

But we have these stuff for quite long now and even a CRT against it in the name of "Bringing back old standard of above baseline 2-A was rejected" since it'll end up with infinite amount of cardinalities between 2-A and low 1-C.

Bring Back Old 2A Above Baseline Standard

Currently, we use the CH (Continuum Hypothesis) as our Invisible default standard to determine the boundary between 2A and Low 1-C. For a little explanation, CH is an hypothesis which stating that there is no set between the set of Natural number and the set of Real number (no set between...

vsbattles.com

 

[Fixxed]

The continuity hypothesis is nothing like this. No matter how far you advance a finite structure, it is still a finite structure.

For example, the set of natural numbers is larger than the set of even integers, but they still have the same infinity. So this logic is flawed and unsupported.

Because aleph 1 is not simply being bigger than aleph 0, it is something equal to aleph 0^aleph 0, and something is simple like "being infinitely greater than infinity" does not provide this.

Bruh... just search it in google

there is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the integers and the real numbers,

Well they have same size of infinity. If one is bigger infinity then it higher infinity

Aleph 1 is next infinity because it cardinality is bigger than aleph 0. What cardinality mean?? It mean measurement or size. So bigger size of infinity it mean bigger cardinality that mean bigger or higher infinity. Bruh just search it

The cardinality of a set is also called its size,

I bet you never research your own argument

 

[Benimōru]

I will read the above messages and edit the OP accordingly if there is a change in the vote status, but before that I will ask again.

Fixxed, do you have permission to write here?

 

[Georredannea15]

The Space beyond is 5D (or extra axis) for containing 4D Universes separate from each other, Kevin and others in the spaceship are with Professor paradox who always keeps them safe and the way things should be wherever he takes them, just like trio being able to survive on moon and in the forge of creation w/o any space suit and forge of creation as well has weird time flow but space ship can travel into it just fine. As long as professor paradox is with them, they won't really face any issue. The reason for the upgrade as well was that "The space beyond contains more space than the space contained by 2-A structure" aka more number of cardinals of space than the cardinal of space contained by 2-A structure (natural numbers) which accounts for uncountable infinite and the smallest uncountable infinite is Aleph 1, there is no cardinality possible Between aleph 1 and aleph 0. To Quote Wikipedia's definition;

Rather than universes with gaps between each other, you will need universes that do not intersect on any angular axis.

But we have these stuff for quite long now and even a CRT against it in the name of "Bringing back old standard of above baseline 2-A was rejected" since it'll end up with infinite amount of cardinalities between 2-A and low 1-C.

Bring Back Old 2A Above Baseline Standard

Currently, we use the CH (Continuum Hypothesis) as our Invisible default standard to determine the boundary between 2A and Low 1-C. For a little explanation, CH is an hypothesis which stating that there is no set between the set of Natural number and the set of Real number (no set between...

vsbattles.com

This is a very minuscule thread, it may be outdated. That's why we used more current quotes

Well they have same size of infinity. If one is bigger infinity then it higher infinity

Aleph 1 is next infinity because it cardinality is bigger than aleph 0. What cardinality mean?? It mean measurement or size. So bigger size of infinity it mean bigger cardinality that mean bigger or higher infinity. Bruh just search it

There is no point in going over and over the same things, I explained my answers to you with support and examples.

I bet you never research your own argument

Bro, these are the arguments I have defended before, I am just providing support for them, that's all.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah there's no backing to that at all. Just being bigger isn't enough to say it's a Aleph-1 superiority. Especially when the universes themselves are shown as taking up a notable amount of space and aren't just points or flat images.

What i see in here is space beyond not only just contain the 2A structure, but make it small portion that exist inside of it. It make the 2A structure just as a star compare to space beyond that we can see it as the universe

So yeah the space beyond make the 2A structure as small portion in it self, not just contain it

 

[Reiner04]

This is a very minuscule thread, it may be outdated. That's why we used more current quotes

Things don't get outdated within 5 months and don't assume things yourself if no thread has been made on the same topic and has gotten accepted.

 

[Firestorm808]

Especially when the universes themselves are shown as taking up a notable amount of space and aren't just points or flat images.

Each of the universes that you see in the screenshots are 2-A structures. A single universe would be a speck of what you see on screen.

 

[Fixxed]

There is no point in going over and over the same things, I explained my answers to you with support and examples.
Bro, these are the arguments I have defended before, I am just providing support for them, that's all.

Evidence?? Bruh where your evidence. I literally copy paste what the wikipedia say about continuum hypothesis and cardinality. And you?? Where your evindence, what i see just a assumption without proof

 

[Georredannea15]

Things don't get outdated within 5 months and don't assume things yourself if no thread has been made on the same topic and has gotten accepted.

I don't assume anything myself. What? I supported my arguments with so many quotes.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Fixxed and @Reiner were involved in the prior verse threads, so I didn't think about it too much when they started replying, so long as things stay constructive.

Now, however, you guys seem to be derailing.

I'll be cleaning up the thread. Please refrain from any further derailment.

 

[Benimōru]

@Reiner

I should point out that I was the one who invited Reiner on his profile wall.

 

[Georredannea15]

I should point out that I was the one who invited Reiner on his profile wall.

He is already a supporters of the verse and had a big share in Low 1-C, it is natural for him to be here.

 

[Firestorm808]

In any case, I would advise that we close this thread until further notice.

We shouldn't be applying standards that are not part of the current staff agreements regarding our tiering system. (See previous staff thread on 2-A relation to Low 1-C and Ultima's recent statements.)

The requirements for Tier 1 are a sensitive topic. Several verses would be impacted.

If you want to continue this thread, you would first need a different staff thread regarding the requirements of Low 1-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

In any case, I would advise that we close this thread until further notice.

We shouldn't be applying standards that are not part of the current staff agreements regarding our tiering system. (See previous staff thread on 2-A relation to Low 1-C and Ultima's recent statements.)

The requirements for Tier 1 are a sensitive topic. Several verses would be impacted.

If you want to continue this thread, you would first need a different staff thread regarding the requirements of Low 1-C.

It would be healthier to call them instead. Because from what they say in the quotes, this Low 1-C is shaky. Because they both made their statements, so I'm in favor of waiting for them.

 

[Reiner04]

That's the point, the general consensus here on wiki is that bigger than 2-A that constitute a real size difference btw 2-A and bigger structure to the point 2-A looks dwarf is enough for low 1-C. Any of previous thread and any wiki member knows that, to which this downgrade goes against. Infact even in my upgrade thread general consensus were that bigger than 2-A is low 1-C and was approved by ultima as well. DT has discarded downgrade threads related to that as well. I believe first of all a proper thread be made that dwarfing 2-A structures aren't low 1-C just like before (which was rejected) then a thread like this should be proceeded.

It would be healthier to call them instead. Because from what they say in the quotes, this Low 1-C is shaky. Because they both made their statements, so I'm in favor of waiting for them.

Ultima and majority staff approved the previous upgrade thread which was based of "bigger than 2-A is low 1-C". There is nothing different here.

 

[Benimōru]

In any case, I would advise that we close this thread until further notice.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't it have been better to say that before all this discussion?

And I don't think it would be good to close this. If this was too controversial, you should have close the L1-C upgrade as well.

So I would prefer other staff members to come and give their opinion.

And I will try to respond as much as possible in 5-6 hours.

 

[Firestorm808]

As I stated before, Ultima gave solid Low 1-C ratings for spaces larger than a single 2-A structure.

For a claim of this magnitude that not even spaces of an infinite number of 2-A structures would fulfill, a dedicated staff thread is recommended as it would apply to multiple verse.

 

[Georredannea15]

That's the point, the general consensus here on wiki is that bigger than 2-A that constitute a real size difference btw 2-A and bigger structure to the point 2-A looks dwarf is enough for low 1-C. Any of previous thread and any wiki member knows that, to which this downgrade goes against. Infact even in my upgrade thread general consensus were that bigger than 2-A is low 1-C and was approved by ultima as well. DT has discarded downgrade threads related to that as well. I believe first of all a proper thread be made that dwarfing 2-A structures aren't low 1-C just like before (which was rejected) then a thread like this should be proceeded.
Ultima and majority staff approved the previous upgrade thread which was based of "bigger than 2-A is low 1-C". There is nothing different here.

Bro it's nuked, what I quoted things above says the exact opposite, Also Qawsedf touched on this above so just wait for them.

 

[Benimōru]

As I stated before, Ultima gave solid Low 1-C ratings for spaces larger than a single 2-A structure.

Sir, what I and Qawsedf, who you tagged and who you said would clarify the situation, are trying to say is that if you are not qualitatively bigger than 2-A, you are not actually bigger anyway. Space Beyond is not bigger than these universes in terms of infinity. It just contains them.

Anyway, I have to go now. I will try to answer everyone, when I come back

 

[Georredannea15]

As I stated before, Ultima gave solid Low 1-C ratings for spaces larger than a single 2-A structure.

For a claim of this magnitude that not even spaces of an infinite number of 2-A structures would fulfill, a dedicated staff thread is recommended as it would apply to multiple verse.

I remember Ultima asking KLOL for a list of verses whose Low 1-C justification was just this. Yes, I'm sure this was nuked.

 

[Firestorm808]

I remember Ultima asking KLOL for a list of verses whose Low 1-C justification was just this. Yes, I'm sure this was nuked.

Do we have staff threads confirming such a decision?

 

[Georredannea15]

Sir, what I and Qawsedf, who you tagged and who you said would clarify the situation, are trying to say is that if you are not qualitatively bigger than 2-A, you are not actually bigger anyway. Space Beyond is not bigger than these universes in terms of infinity. It just contains them.

More precisely, being infinitely large in the sense of "size" doesn't mean much. There is already a quote above, you must being infinitely larger in the term of "volume", not size

 

[Georredannea15]

Do we have staff threads confirming such a decision?

He had a conversation with KLOL, ask him if you want. I don't remember much of the details, but I'm sure that's why you asked for the list. It may be in a thread, I'll take a look at it.

 

[Reiner04]

Do we have staff threads confirming such a decision?

It was entirely different topic which involves bigger than low 2-C structure not 2-A. He's mixing up stuff and misunderstanding everything which I'm not big fan of. It would be beneficial to just tag Ultima and ask him to confirm if bigger than 2-A structure to the point it dwarfs it to just being a star is enough for low 1-C or not to avoid any derailing and stuff.

 

[Georredannea15]

It was entirely different topic which involves bigger than low 2-C structure not 2-A. He's mixing up stuff and misunderstanding everything which I'm not big fan of. It would be beneficial to just tag Ultima and ask him to confirm if bigger than 2-A structure to the point it dwarfs it to just being a star is enough for low 1-C or not to avoid any derailing and stuff.

I just quoted what they wrote about being infinitely larger than 2-A and Low 2-C. And yes, I was always supporting this before they say these, it is not new thing for me.

 

[Firestorm808]

@Ultima_Reality

There is a disagreement here regarding the treatment of space beyond 4-D structures.

Looking at your previous decisions, you agreed to Low 1-C spaces extending outside a single 2-A structure and dwarfing them to being too small.

Kingdom Hearts

Low 1-C is fine by me. We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D, at present. Add that to the space in question here being explicitly described as infinite and the worlds as "small" compared to it, and you have a fairly straightforward case.

I don't think the 2-A option is terribly logical either, after mulling it over: 2-A would imply that universes in KH are displaced over 4-D space, which doesn't work when parallelism of any two objects by definition requires an extra axis: For two line segments to be parallel, you'd have to set it so they wouldn't touch regardless of how far they are extended, which wouldn't be possible if they stood side-by-side in 1-D space as in here, meaning you would need them to be displaced over a plane. Same thing happens with planes: For them to be parallel, they shouldn't ever be able to meet, so you'd need them to be displaced over 3-D space. Generalizing that to the 4-D case, spacetimes would obviously have to be displaced over a 5-D region (This works by definition, too: If they're different spacetime continuums then obviously they can't share the same space, in the way 3-D objects exist around us for instance)

Chronoverse

Eh, better late than never.

The Darkness Beyond Time being Low 1-C is fine to me. What with it being the infinite void beyond the multiverse to which discarded timelines are ejected, and blah blah blah. You can actually see some of those timelines floating around as little bubbles inside of it, as shown in the gallery here, so I guess that helps too. Same applies to Zurvan, which the DBT receives scaling from, given the description of one of the Dream Devourer's attacks.

For the current CRT, we have the Space Beyond. This space extends outside an infinite number of 2-A structures.

Would you consider this space Low 1-C?

 

[Georredannea15]

@Ultima_Reality

There is a disagreement here regarding the treatment of space beyond 4-D structures.

Looking at your previous decisions, you have agreed to Low 1-C spaces extending outside a single 2-A structure before.

Kingdom Hearts



Chronoverse


For the current CRT, we have the Space Beyond. This space extends outside an infinite number of 2-A structures.

Would you consider this space Low 1-C?

Btw we already tagged Ultima, DT and all the other staffs.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Quick question
Is it seeing each universe as stars?
Or
It is seeing the entire 2-A structure as a star?

 

[Reiner04]

Quick question
Is it seeing each universe as stars?
Or
It is seeing the entire 2-A structure as a star?

Entire 2-A structure, yeah.

 

[Firestorm808]

Quick question
Is it seeing each universe as stars?
Or
It is seeing the entire 2-A structure as a star?

A faint glow in the distance, which Gwen thinks is a star, is a 2-A structure.

 

[Georredannea15]

Quick question
Is it seeing each universe as stars?
Or
It is seeing the entire 2-A structure as a star?

This was the concern and objection of Everything12's the previous thread, it looks like stardust from a far.


"Seeing from afar like stardust=/=seeing like infinitesimal pieces" He's arguments

 

[PrinceofPein]

Entire 2-A structure, yeah.

A faint glow in the distance, which Gwen thinks is a star, is a 2-A structure.

This was the concern and objection of Everything12's the previous thread, it looks like stardust from a far.


"Seeing from afar like stardust=/=seeing like infinitesimal pieces" He's arguments

An infinite space in which people inside think a 2-A structure which is a faint glow in the sky is a star.
It means the space is infinitely larger than that glow in the sky, now if it can be proven that there is QS between this two spaces that is enough for low 1-C space.