- 9,982
- 10,819
Ah well, as obvious as it is, the "Bigger than 2-A" standard has been a blurry thing for more than a year. I don't really see any proper staff consensus on it. At many places some knowledgeable staff and members have said it's Low 1-C and that bigger than 2-A while still being 2-A is impossible. While some say it's not and that for low 1-C, only statements like having an uncountable infinite difference between 2-A, and a bigger structure grants it. This thread is to get a proper consensus on it. Some says that we shouldn't apply maths as fiction breaks rules all the time and should eliminate bigger than 2-A standard as a direct method to get Low 1-C. While other days we default to logic by default unless fiction breaks it.
@Ultima_Reality :
@Qawsedf234 :
@DontTalkDT :
Hope we can get a proper consensus on it and remove it or get it clarified already,if a standard can't be of any use to me then it shouldn't exist! (Jk).
The end goal of this thread is to create a "Spaces Containing 4-D Structures" or similar section in the FAQ Page.
"These spaces would be considered Low 1-C if they meet at least these requirements:"
Below is a chart for us, going over the various combinations of information of space surrounding/containing a 4-D structure(s). If you have recommendations for other attributes to judge by, let us know.
@Ultima_Reality :
Anyway, this particularly bothersome thing left aside: I'll say I'm neutral with regards to whether or not "the space beyond" is Low 1-C. As I've expressed to some of the thread's participants off-site, I think this largely depends on whether we consider inherently finite visual representations (In this case, a universe being mistaken for a star when seen from the space beyond it) to mean anything when it comes to infinitely large objects and spaces. Although I will say that being finitely, or more generally, countably, larger than a 2-A space is not a thing, no, unless the verse makes clear that such a thing is possible, in which case we're obviously forced to roll with it. As a default, though, we don't do that.
@Qawsedf234 :
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.
@DontTalkDT :
Hope we can get a proper consensus on it and remove it or get it clarified already,
The end goal of this thread is to create a "Spaces Containing 4-D Structures" or similar section in the FAQ Page.
"These spaces would be considered Low 1-C if they meet at least these requirements:"
Below is a chart for us, going over the various combinations of information of space surrounding/containing a 4-D structure(s). If you have recommendations for other attributes to judge by, let us know.
Space Surrounding/Containing | The 4-D Structures are Depicted as Very Small Compared to the Space? | The Space is explicitly described as Infinite or another synonym? | Is the Space Low 1-C? |
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures | No | No | |
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures | No | Yes | |
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures | Yes | No | |
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures | Yes | Yes | |
A Finite # of 2-A Structures | No | No | |
A Finite # of 2-A Structures | No | Yes | |
A Finite # of 2-A Structures | Yes | No | |
A Finite # of 2-A Structures | Yes | Yes | |
An infinite # of 2-A Structures | No | No | |
An infinite # of 2-A Structures | No | Yes | |
An infinite # of 2-A Structures | Yes | No | |
An infinite # of 2-A Structures | Yes | Yes |
Last edited by a moderator: