Bigger infinity should be uncountable infinity

[Fixxed]

Yeah time to fixed this non sense. I still not know why the standard still keep this non sense, i think about this all days but still not get why this make sense

So in previous thread , we already decided that being bigger than 2A in size can possibly have higher dimensional structure, as long as it not mean more amount of 2A structure

No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

The problem is in the next paragraph

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them.

As it say there, we either must prove the verse explicitly use uncountable infinity statement or prove infinity multipliers is still insignificant to that structure

The thing is, when it comes to infinity, all countable infinity are same in size/amount. So even if you multiply infinite by infinite, it still have same size of infinite. The reason why we just give bassline rating to more 2A structures even infinitely more because we know all countable infinite are same in size.
Soo there are no infinite that already bigger than countable infinite and still a countable infinite, it againts the definition of countable infinity it self

We not need to prove infinite multipliers for sure it was not just countable infinite, it needless

Because of that bigger infinite should be uncountable infinite by default. It not make sense we still put some infinite that already stated to be bigger than other infinite in same degree as the letter

Btw, just have some structure that bigger than infinite i dont think will get anything at all, for it not higher infinite structure to begin with. Soo this thread just for infinite size structure

Summary:

• All countable infinite are same in size, so there no smaller of bigger infinite in countable infinite
• therefore, All structure that are infinite and bigger than other infinite is uncountable infinite by default
• Some structure that not infinite but still bigger than infinite are not uncountable infinite by default

 

[ROZAN-TIMSINA0]

neutralagree
went over my head

 

[GarrixianXD]

The term "bigger infinity" is just too vague to be consistently defined. If you mean "bigger infinity" in the context of having a cardinality strictly larger than aleph-null, then yes, it'll qualify as uncountable infinity.

Though, honestly, the term "bigger infinity" can simply refer to the difference/ratio between the set of all natural numbers, integers and rational numbers. The set of all integers is 2 times bigger than the set of all natural numbers; the set of all rational numbers is practically infinitely bigger than both the former and latter — all three of those sets have the same cardinality; aleph-null.

I'm going to be neutral if not leaning towards disagreeing; jumping over an entire cardinality simply with the word "bigger" just sounds too much of an extrapolation to me.

 

[Fixxed]

The term "bigger infinity" is just too vague to be consistently defined. If you mean "bigger infinity" in the context of having a cardinality strictly larger than aleph-null, then yes, it'll qualify as uncountable infinity.

Though, honestly, the term "bigger infinity" can simply refer to the difference/ratio between the set of all natural numbers, integers and rational numbers. The set of all integers is 2 times bigger than the set of all natural numbers; the set of all rational numbers is practically infinitely bigger than both the former and latter — all three of those sets have the same cardinality; aleph-null.

I'm going to be neutral if not leaning towards disagreeing; jumping over an entire cardinality simply with the word "bigger" just sounds too much of an extrapolation to me.

Well it not vague, if it bigger then it is bigger. We all know all countable infinite in fact are in same size. If there are bigger infinite, it must be uncountable infinity

The thing is all natural number and all integers and rational are equal, there are no 2 times bigger, because all of that is countable infinite. There are no infinite that bigger than other in countable infinite number
You know right even infinite×infinite are still the same infinite

So the term "bigger infinite" cannot be just a integers or rational, because in fact it not bigger than other infinite

 

[Fixxed]

The term "bigger infinity" is just too vague to be consistently defined. If you mean "bigger infinity" in the context of having a cardinality strictly larger than aleph-null, then yes, it'll qualify as uncountable infinity.

Though, honestly, the term "bigger infinity" can simply refer to the difference/ratio between the set of all natural numbers, integers and rational numbers. The set of all integers is 2 times bigger than the set of all natural numbers; the set of all rational numbers is practically infinitely bigger than both the former and latter — all three of those sets have the same cardinality; aleph-null.

I'm going to be neutral if not leaning towards disagreeing; jumping over an entire cardinality simply with the word "bigger" just sounds too much of an extrapolation to me.

When i say "bigger". I literally mean bigger in size, not just multply something

So it not just like yeah add more amount, but the nature of infinite is literally bigger than other infinite

 

[GarrixianXD]

When i say "bigger". I literally mean bigger in size, not just multply something

So it not just like yeah add more amount, but the nature of infinite is literally bigger than other infinite

I'd agree with the change then.

 

[Tatsumi504]

Though, honestly, the term "bigger infinity" can simply refer to the difference/ratio between the set of all natural numbers, integers and rational numbers. The set of all integers is 2 times bigger than the set of all natural numbers; the set of all rational numbers is practically infinitely bigger than both the former and latter — all three of those sets have the same cardinality; aleph-null.

Technically their size strictly remains the same. Consider an infinite box filled with oranges but then you swap out half the oranges for apples, the size stays constant but what has changed is the number of elements.

Don't know about the thread though

 

[GarrixianXD]

Technically their size strictly remains the same. Consider an infinite box filled with oranges but then you swap out half the oranges for apples, the size stays constant buy what has changed is the number of elements.

Yeah, I’m aware of that.

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This was discussed extensively in the previous thread and was rejected. We are definitely not going to reverse such a vital standard based on a thread that doesn't bring anything new to the table. @DontTalkDT

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This was discussed extensively in the previous thread and was rejected. We are definitely not going to reverse such a vital standard based on a thread that doesn't bring anything new to the table. @DontTalkDT

@Antvasima

 

[DontTalkDT]

Taking bigger to default to a cardinality relationship is just pure speculation. Plenty verses use finite multipliers at infinite tiers and say they're stronger. Others define bigger just in terms of a subset relationship (i.e. if set A contains strictly more things than set B it's bigger, since it contains all of B and some extra).
If you want to uncountable stuff you have to actually bring evidence that cardinality is meant.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Pretty much what I mean. The OP give an impression like he’s talking about cardinality differences which I kinda agreed.

 

[Fixxed]

Plenty verses use finite multipliers at infinite tiers and say they're stronger. Others define bigger just in terms of a subset relationship (i.e. if set A contains strictly more things than set B it's bigger, since it contains all of B and some extra).

Yeah i think i already clear about that in OP, but multipliers even if it infinite multipliers are in fact still the same size of infinite. Also contain more things not make its bigger in infinite sense. Still countable infinite, i dont think the infinite being bigger in that sense. We can throw away some verse that use that

Bigger infinite must be bigger in literal size that dwarf other infinite. Yeah just more quantity will not grant anything, it not "bigger" to begin with

 

[DontTalkDT]

Yeah... so your proposal doesn't work, as you can't guarantee to begin with that the bigger statements are meant in terms of strict mathematical cardinality.
If the verse said "bigger in terms of cardinal numbers" there would be no debate.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah... so your proposal doesn't work, as you can't guarantee to begin with that the bigger statements are meant in terms of strict mathematical cardinality.
If the verse said "bigger in terms of cardinal numbers" there would be no debate.

No, bigger with more context can mean something else. But if it just stated bigger, it mean yeah bigger in term of size, why it even mean something else without any context. Bigger infinite will be bigger size of infinite by default, as something like multipliers or more quantity are not bigger but just add more amount

And why the word "cardinal" must included in there. Being bigger in literal sense of size is enough i think, as all countable infinite also same in literal size

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

So what if A encompasses B and both are described as infinite?

 

[GarrixianXD]

So what if A encompasses B and both are described as infinite?

There won't be any significant difference, as long as the same level of infinity.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

There won't be any significant difference, as long as the same level of infinity.

so what exactly can count without having those explicit ass statements almost no verse has?

 

[GarrixianXD]

so what exactly can count without having those explicit ass statements almost no verse has?

Implications of having infinitesimal properties can imply a larger infinity. Like, a completely endless labyrinth with infinities within infinities that never concludes.

 

[Tony_di_bugalu]

So for example if infinite A has countless B and all are infinite would that count?

 

[Huesito88]

So for example if infinite A has countless B and all are infinite would that count?

Countless is treated at infinite in your example? (Or just standard countless)

 

[GarrixianXD]

So for example if infinite A has countless B and all are infinite would that count?

No.

 

[Fixxed]

Implications of having infinitesimal properties can imply a larger infinity. Like, a completely endless labyrinth with infinities within infinities that never concludes.

I always think it was the hard way, because you must prove the number of infinite are infinite power set by infinite (infinite^infinite). It also a quantity proof

I more like use quality of the infinite instead quantity
The simple way is just to prove your infinite is bigger size than other infinite. I mean your infinite are more superior in quality than other infinite

 

[GarrixianXD]

I always think it was the hard way, because you must prove the number of infinite are infinite power set by infinite (infinite^infinite). It also a quantity proof

I more like use quality of the infinite instead quantity
The simple way is just to prove your infinite is bigger size than other infinite. I mean your infinite are more superior in quality than other infinite

Pretty sure the new tiering system will revise the qualitative superior thing. Power sets define a larger set, yeah, so that'd be a greater infinity.

 

[Fixxed]

Pretty sure the new tiering system will revise the qualitative superior thing. Power sets define a larger set, yeah, so that'd be a greater infinity.

Yeah but i dont talking about qualitative superiority here, i say quality statement, because power set of infinite are definitely a quantity statement or proof

I mean if some verse already stated bigger infinite, some statement about the quality of the infinite, it should be bigger infinite by default

 

[GarrixianXD]

Yeah but i dont talking about qualitative superiority here, i say quality statement, because power set of infinite are definitely a quantity statement or proof

I mean if some verse already stated bigger infinite, some statement about the quality of the infinite, it should be bigger infinite by default

Don’t know if “quality statement” can be applied within this area, especially under your context.

 

[Fixxed]

Don’t know if “quality statement” can be applied within this area, especially under your context.

Well if we use the logic "all countable infinite are same size" or same quality. Higher quality (bigger size) of infinite must not be countable infinite anymore. So yeah logically it can be applied

 

[GarrixianXD]

Well if we use the logic "all countable infinite are same size" or same quality. Higher quality (bigger size) of infinite must not be countable infinite anymore. So yeah logically it can be applied

Size refers to quantity, not quality.

 

[Fixxed]

Size refers to quantity, not quality.

Quantity are amount of somethings not measurement of something

Well even if size are quantity, all countable infinite are same in quantity. If one infinite already stated to have more element than other infinite, it is higher infinite. Of course the statement "more element" are needed here, not only just a multiplication of infinite

 

[StrymULTRA]

Yeah, no.

If you have an infinite-sized box with infinite rocks inside, both of them would still be High 3-A, the Box won't be Low 2-C.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Quantity are amount of somethings not measurement of something

This is incorrect. Measurement is clearly quantity because it measures the magnitude — “in amount of something” going by your interpretation.

Well even if size are quantity, all countable infinite are same in quantity. If one infinite already stated to have more element than other infinite, it is higher infinite. Of course the statement "more element" are needed here, not only just a multiplication of infinite

It’s not the same in quantity; it’s only close but the value is never constant — cardinalities are considered to be rated the same value is because the finite stacks means infinitesimally nothing to the infinite value, however, saying that they’re all precisely the same constant quantity is just wrong.

The “more elements” statement needs to specify it denotes a higher cardinality or attributes something that makes the value considerably larger than a countable number.

 

[Fixxed]

This is incorrect. Measurement is clearly quantity because it measures the magnitude — “in amount of something” going by your interpretation.

Because you look it in math sense, in math there are no quality just quantity. But in oxford dictionary quality are standard of measurement of something when compared to other same thing. By definition quantity are amount of something, and quality are degree of something. And yeah bigger infinite are higher degree of infinite by logic

It’s not the same in quantity; it’s only close but the value is never constant — cardinalities are considered to be rated the same value is because the finite stacks means infinitesimally nothing to the infinite value, however, saying that they’re all precisely the same constant quantity is just wrong.

The “more elements” statement needs to specify it denotes a higher cardinality or attributes something that makes the value considerably larger than a countable number.

Hah?? Bruh, all countable infinite set are same in quantity or number, it is what hilbert hotel paradox want to tell about

Cardinality is measurement of number of the set, if your infinite set are have more number of elements than natural number, it is not countable infinite anymore

In continuum hypothesis, there are no cardinality between integers (countable) and real number (uncountable). So i dont know where this "it's only close" came from. There are no close value between countable and uncountable, the infinite set is either countable or uncountable

Well consider cardinality are the number of elements in set, "more elements" are indeed higher cardinality. It is too weird and ignorant for think we must literally stated the word "cardinality" where the definition basically mean that thing

 

[StrymULTRA]

If you have an infinite-sized box with infinite rocks inside, both of them would still be High 3-A, the Box won't be Low 2-C.

Tell me OP, is a box that is 30 cm in width, 10 cm in height and infinite cm in length the same as an infinite line of rocks that is 1 cm diameter max?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This thread has started going in circles. I'm tempted to have it closed on the spot unless you come up with genuinely new reasoning.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah, no.

If you have an infinite-sized box with infinite rocks inside, both of them would still be High 3-A, the Box won't be Low 2-C.

Bruh i dont think you understand what i write. i never say about infinite size that contain infinite things

 

[StrymULTRA]

Bruh i dont think you understand what i write. i never say about infinite size that contain infinite things

But isn't this thread literally about the good ol "Low 1-C from containing a 2-A multiverse" lol?

 

[Fixxed]

But isn't this thread literally about the good ol "Low 1-C from containing a 2-A multiverse" lol?

No. This thread about bigger infinite that making other infinite smaller. Containing something not make it bigger in infinite sense unless you containing it and dwarf it, also the structure that containing some infinite structure must be infinite. Thats exactly what i write

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

This thread has started going in circles. I'm tempted to have it closed on the spot unless you come up with genuinely new reasoning.

It's been days without engagement from DT or any other evaluating staff, so I'm going to have this thread closed.

 

[GarrixianXD]

Because you look it in math sense, in math there are no quality just quantity. But in oxford dictionary quality are standard of measurement of something when compared to other same thing. By definition quantity are amount of something, and quality are degree of something. And yeah bigger infinite are higher degree of infinite by logic

A higher degree of infinity needs to be strictly defined by cardinality. Quality is rather the comparison of measurements.

Hah?? Bruh, all countable infinite set are same in quantity or number, it is what hilbert hotel paradox want to tell about

Cardinality is measurement of number of the set, if your infinite set are have more number of elements than natural number, it is not countable infinite anymore

In continuum hypothesis, there are no cardinality between integers (countable) and real number (uncountable). So i dont know where this "it's only close" came from. There are no close value between countable and uncountable, the infinite set is either countable or uncountable

Uhm... no. It is not the same in quantity or number. You can add an infinitesimal number to 1 and it'll always forever equal 1, but 1 alone and 1 + an infinitesimal number are not precisely the same quantity. The same logic of divisors applies to the natural log.

You cannot divide by zero, but you can divide by a number that is infinitely close to zero which will give you either positive or negative infinity -- relying on either approaching from above or below.

1/infinity is generally considered equal to zero, but in reality, it's only an infinitesimal number extremely close to zero but it'll still be categorized as zero nonetheless.

It was stated that cardinality is not greater, which is absolutely correct. But the quantities are not the same. As to why? Because the quantities are extremely compressed and neglected to the cardinality, just like infinitesimal quantities to integers.

Well consider cardinality are the number of elements in set, "more elements" are indeed higher cardinality. It is too weird and ignorant for think we must literally stated the word "cardinality" where the definition basically mean that thing

Cardinalities can be insinuated and implied. We don't need to strictly use the word "cardinality" for literally everything there is. More elements are indeed a higher cardinality in a higher scale but not a continuum; it's stated that there aren't strictly any sets whose cardinality is between aleph-0 and aleph-1, therefore simply a few elements or what not wouldn't qualify for a higher degree.