Bigger than a Single 2-A Structure being a Low 1-C Standard - Clarification

[Deagonx]

You would need to be told that either specifically its 5 dimensional volume is infinite or that specifically the 5th dimensional axis (the one you add to the standard timelines) is infinite (or very large) for that to work. But I figure if you have information that specific then you wouldn't need this thread. In general, infinite could mean infinite by 3D or 4D standards, or in the sense of countably infinite times larger than a spacetime continuum, so that is just not enough.

And of course, countable x countable = countable, so infinite infinite multiverse structures do nothing to enhance 2-A.

This is my same understanding.

Also, reminder that this is a staff discussion. Comments from non-staff should clarify in the very beginning of the comment who they got authorization from to comment. This topic is rather important and addresses our tiering standards, so it is important that it does not become overly cluttered.

 

[Firestorm808]

Yes, that was indeed the case.

Granted, we have confirmation that Yggdrasil created the Realm Between Realm as a result of its branches so like, it's Low 1-C anyway (Comment on that thread plz).

So let's say we have an infinite number of 4-D constructs that you can visually see spread all around inside a higher space.

Can we consider this higher space qualitative 5-D?

 

[Planck69]

So let's say we have an infinite number of 4-D constructs that you can visually see spread around inside a higher space.

Can we consider this higher space qualitative 5-D?

We can consider the space 5-dimensional, especially if they're treated as parallel realities, since they'd have to be displaced across a higher-dimensional axis by necessity.

As for whether the totality of this space is Low 1-C or not, one would have to prove that this axis (in this case the space between space-time continuums) is large or infinite in scope.

Personally, I think that a visual depiction of space-time continuums as specks or something equivalent should be enough. But I think the wiki requires a statement or something outright confirming the scope for it to qualify for a higher tier.

 

[Firestorm808]

We can consider the space 5-dimensional, especially if they're treated as parallel realities, since they'd have to be displaced across a higher-dimensional axis by necessity.

As for whether the totality of this space is Low 1-C or not, one would have to prove that this axis (in this case the space between space-time continuums) is large or infinite in scope.

Personally, I think that a visual depiction of space-time continuums as specks or something equivalent should be enough. But I think the wiki requires a statement or something outright confirming the scope for it to qualify for a higher tier.

Thank you for your answer.

(Comment on that thread plz).

Will do.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Personally, I think that a visual depiction of space-time continuums as specks or something equivalent should be enough. But I think the wiki requires a statement or something outright confirming the scope for it to qualify for a higher tier.

Yeah, the problem with visual depictions is that you have to violate size in some way if you want to show 5D space in a 2D/3D image.
E.g.

This is a somewhat typical way to depict timelines. But you can't really see the width/height/depth of the universes in a way that would allow you to conclude how big the distance between them is. Like, that they are thin lines is obviously a metaphor, not something you could use in pixel scaling. (Otherwise this would just be a bigger 3D space and hence not 5D at all)

Yggdrasil extends infinitely throughout this space.

Do we have confirmation that it extends infinitely in the 5th dimensional axis direction, instead of infinitely in on of the 4 other dimensional axis directions yet?

Because I want to be clear (As I also already said in the GoW thread) just extending infinitely in 5D space means nothing. It needs to be confirmed to be in the 5th dimensional direction.

 

[Planck69]

Yeah, the problem with visual depictions is that you have to violate size in some way if you want to show 5D space in a 2D/3D image.
E.g.

This is a somewhat typical way to depict timelines. But you can't really see the width/height/depth of the universes in a way that would allow you to conclude how big the distance between them is. Like, that they are thin lines is obviously a metaphor, not something you could use in pixel scaling. (Otherwise this would just be a bigger 3D space and hence not 5D at all)

I see, makes sense.

Do we have confirmation that it extends infinitely in the 5th dimensional axis direction, instead of infinitely in on of the 4 other dimensional axis directions yet?

Because I want to be clear (As I also already said in the GoW thread) just extending infinitely in 5D space means nothing. It needs to be confirmed to be in the 5th dimensional direction.

Yeah, it does. But since it also made that infinite 5-D space so the tiering never really focused on that aspect of it, hence why I was unsure if it would be a good example here.

 

[Firestorm808]

Yeah, the problem with visual depictions is that you have to violate size in some way if you want to show 5D space in a 2D/3D image.
E.g.

This is a somewhat typical way to depict timelines. But you can't really see the width/height/depth of the universes in a way that would allow you to conclude how big the distance between them is. Like, that they are thin lines is obviously a metaphor, not something you could use in pixel scaling. (Otherwise this would just be a bigger 3D space and hence not 5D at all)

"We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D"

We know these spacetimes are 4-D. If a 5-D space were to be depicted in a 3-D perspective, then pure 4-D space would depict these timelines positioned in just a flat plane. If you can show "width/height/depth" positioning of these spacetimes in this space, then it would show that they exist in a space larger than pure 4-D.

 

[Antvasima]

As usual, I think that DontTalk makes good sense above.

 

[Reiner04]

So.. uh.. what to do in case of fiction shows structures that are far bigger than 2-A structure to the point that it reduces that entire structure to a insignificant size? Until now, we were used to scale it to Low 1-C unless fiction contradicts our site standards regarding how we treat infinities.

Also, if there will be infinite number of those 2-A structures in that bigger space will it change anything? Is there smth like bigger than 2-A structures is context dependent if they're applicable for tiering? Or it depends on how they have been portrayed?

 

[Reiner04]

Badump.

 

[Firestorm808]

Using the FAQ's cube example, an infinitely branching timeline can be considered a 4-D 2-A plane.

If we have more than one of these planes, these infinite sized planes need to exist on a different 5-D axis. Infinite sized planes can't intersect with each other.

In turn, these planes exist in 5-D space.

 

[Reiner04]

Bump.

 

[Theglassman12]

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	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	No	Yes	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	No	No
A Finite # of Low 2-C Structures	Yes	Yes	No, don't really see how this grants tier 1 and not just a larger tier 2 structure.
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No
A Finite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Maybe, at best this is supporting evidence
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	No	Yes	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	No	No
An infinite # of 2-A Structures	Yes	Yes	Has some potential grounds for tier 1, if it functions similar to how a 3-D graph treats 2-D lines as an infinitesimal plane then it could work.

 

[Firestorm808]

@DontTalkDT

Shouldn't the analogy of 2-D lines to a 3-D cubes/space also apply to 4-D "lines/timelines" and 5-D "cubes/spaces"?

Isn't the geometric method accepted by us?

"Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on."

"stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."

Using the FAQ's cube example:

A single 4-D (Low 2-C) structure is a geometric line.

The line branching to infinity (2-A) would make a geometric plane.

Other separate lines would branch out and each make their own geometric plane.

This collection of infinite plane squares would make an infinite cube.

This infinite cube would be the absolute limit of 4-D space.

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

If we have more than one of these planes, these infinite sized planes need to exist on a different 5-D axis. Infinite sized planes can't intersect with each other.

In turn, these planes exist in 5-D space.

 

[Reiner04]

So.. uh.. what to do in case of fiction shows structures that are far bigger than 2-A structure to the point that it reduces that entire structure to a insignificant size? Until now, we were used to scale it to Low 1-C unless fiction contradicts our site standards regarding how we treat infinities.

Also, if there will be infinite number of those 2-A structures in that bigger space will it change anything? Is there smth like bigger than 2-A structures is context dependent if they're applicable for tiering? Or it depends on how they have been portrayed?

Uh, Should there be a section in the FAQ about how bigger than 2-A structures be treated considering we have a section for more number of 2-A structures being explained? Also, bump to this question. What to do in such cases (which has been and is primary problem of this and many other threads).

 

[Reiner04]

Sigh, I hateTier 1 threads...
Bump.

 

[Reiner04]

Well, considering the staff consensus over bigger than 2-A not being Low 1-C (@Theglassman12, @Qawsedf234), this line of FAQ needs to be changed if further the consensus over it comes same, but yeah, i can wait till further;

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. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

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.

This line of FAQ basically states that at the scale of infinities, all countable infinite, regardless even if there are are many or even infinite of them, are of exactly same size and only uncountable infinite size can makes up any difference.

Which asserts that size difference from 2-A on wards in case of bigger directly means uncountable infinite (and supports the notion which has been around for years).

 

[DontTalkDT]

"We already assume that the space in which spacetimes are displaced is 5-D"

We know these spacetimes are 4-D. If a 5-D space were to be depicted in a 3-D perspective, then pure 4-D space would depict these timelines positioned in just a flat plane. If you can show "width/height/depth" positioning of these spacetimes in this space, then it would show that they exist in a space larger than pure 4-D.

Such pictures wouldn't work. If the picture is taken literally, then the space outside the balls has the same dimension as the balls. I.e. everything would be only one universe.
If we wish to assume that those are actual universes with separate spacetimes, then this isn't a size-conserving depiction and the extra dimensions could correspondingly be insignificant in size.

@DontTalkDT

Shouldn't the analogy of 2-D lines to a 3-D cubes/space also apply to 4-D "lines/timelines" and 5-D "cubes/spaces"?

Isn't the geometric method accepted by us?

No? Like, how you metaphorically depict something has nothing to do with its actual geometrical layout. Only that actual layout matters and the pictures don't tell you that.

"Basically, an arbitrary object of dimension n is essentially comprised by the total sum of uncountably infinite objects of one dimension less, which may be described as lower-dimensional "slices", each corresponding to one of the infinite points of a line. For instance, a square is made of infinitely many line segments (Lined up on the y-axis), a cube of infinitely many squares (Lined up on the z-axis), and so on."

"stated to exist above physical dimensions in relation to a 4-dimensional cosmology would be Low 1-C with no further context."

Using the FAQ's cube example:

A single 4-D (Low 2-C) structure is a geometric line.

The line branching to infinity (2-A) would make a geometric plane.

Other separate lines would branch out and each make their own geometric plane.

This collection of infinite plane squares would make an infinite cube.

This infinite cube would be the absolute limit of 4-D space.

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

If we have more than one of these planes, these infinite sized planes need to exist on a different 5-D axis. Infinite sized planes can't intersect with each other.

In turn, these planes exist in 5-D space.

It would be better to discuss that in a less metaphorical depiction. As said, those images tend to just not translated 1-on-1 to reality.

One important difference to the explanations you quoted is the important phrase "uncountably infinite objects". (Well, and the second quote means in the sense of qualitative superiority, so that's kinda unrelated) Your explanation only uses countably infinitely many for each construct.

In general, countably infinite many planes don't make an infinite cube. It makes an arbitrary small cube (if we count the void between the planes as part of it; the cube would be more void than timeline). Likewise, your geometric plane would be arbitrarily small.


Multiple timelines do, in any case, exist in 5D space. But not in a significantly large 5D space.
As long as you have countably infinite 4D volumes, they will always have 0 5D volume together. That makes it, by our understanding of size, reasonable to assume that they can all fit into an arbitrarily small 5D volume.

 

[Reiner04]

Multiple timelines do, in any case, exist in 5D space. But not in a significantly large 5D space.
As long as you have countably infinite 4D volumes, they will always have 0 5D volume together. That makes it, by our understanding of size, reasonable to assume that they can all fit into an arbitrarily small 5D volume.

So yeah I've got no shame if the depiction is literal about 2-A structure (not balls or crystals sized of humans like DBH and Trinity 7 waifus), and is supported by statements that entire 2-A structure accounts to nothing but insignificantly small stars in space beyond and that the space contains infinitely many 2-A structure as well each of insignificant size with the beyond space beyond incredibly large (stated and shown and is literal), yeah an indirect question of what's your stance is on bigger than 2-A structure, will the space beyond be Low 1-C due to being larger than 2-A? I'm kinda in got no choice situation but to ask as the creator of the thread to reach any conclusion, so that this topic can end once and for all but you can ignore (obviously) in case you don't have any strong opinion on this point (understandable, yeah, I'm trying to maintain neutrality). I gotta run now.

 

[DontTalkDT]

So yeah I've got no shame if the depiction is literal about 2-A structure (not balls or crystals sized of humans like DBH and Trinity 7 waifus), and is supported by statements that entire 2-A structure accounts to nothing but insignificantly small stars in space beyond and that the space contains infinitely many 2-A structure as well each of insignificant size with the beyond space beyond incredibly large (stated and shown and is literal), yeah an indirect question of what's your stance is on bigger than 2-A structure, will the space beyond be Low 1-C due to being larger than 2-A? I'm kinda in got no choice situation but to ask as the creator of the thread to reach any conclusion, so that this topic can end once and for all but you can ignore (obviously) in case you don't have any strong opinion on this point (understandable, yeah, I'm trying to maintain neutrality). I gotta run now.

If the 2-A structure is of insignificant enough size to qualify as the space having qualitative superiority, then yes. But you kinda need to judge that case by case IMO.

 

[Fixxed]

space having qualitative superiority

I have some question about this

How can the space being qualitative superior???
I mean this mean for the size or for power or for what???
I read the page it say that infinitely superior is not enough, soo is "beyond infinitely superior" enough???

 

[Qawsedf234]

I mean this mean for the size or for power or for what???

The thing about it is that you're talking about a different layer of power. To use our system, 3-A and High 3-A are within the same layer. Its about 3-Dimensional Power. Low 2-C is a step higher, its about 4-Dimensional Volumes that is a different magnitude compared to a 3-Dimensional volume. That's why being bigger isn't the same as embedding something or being a higher dimensional space.

 

[Fixxed]

The thing about it is that you're talking about a different layer of power. To use our system, 3-A and High 3-A are within the same layer. Its about 3-Dimensional Power. Low 2-C is a step higher, its about 4-Dimensional Volumes that is a different magnitude compared to a 3-Dimensional volume. That's why being bigger isn't the same as embedding something or being a higher dimensional space.

Soo basically you must make the structures as some subspace that very very limited by the space's existence for just have a insignificant higher order space. And you must prove that space is infinity for make it significant. Is that qualitative superior mean??? Make something is significant???

 

[Qawsedf234]

Is that qualitative superior mean???

FAQ explains it

Q: What is qualitative superiority?​

A: Qualitative superiority, also sometimes called being qualitatively greater, is a term colloquially used to mean that something is superior to an extend that it justifies being on a higher tier of infinity in terms of our Tiering System than the thing they are superior to. That means a character qualitatively superior to the usual spacetime continuum would, for example, be Low Complex Multiverse level (Tier Low 1-C) at the level represented by the R^5. Someone qualitatively superior to that would have the same tier, but on the higher level of infinity represented by the R^6 and someone qualitatively superior to that level would be baseline Complex Multiverse level (Tier 1-C).
In the same vein a space being qualitatively superior to another space, means that destroying that space would land you on a higher level of infinity in the Tiering System than destroying the space it is superior to.
In rough terms it means as much as being "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size".

The reason it is called qualitative superiority is that, instead of quantitative terms such as being 2 times, 100 times or even infinite times more powerful or greater, this type of superiority is typically justified by the nature of the superiority. The most standard case is dimensionality, where a difference in the quality that is dimensionality, implies the necessary quantitative difference. Another typical example is reality-fiction differences. Those are cases like viewing a plane of reality as mere fiction, like for example writing on a sheet of paper or a dream. They are assumed to imply superiority of a similar scale.
Of course, the same levels of superiority can also be reached via sufficiently explicit quantitative statements, such as when cardinalities above countably infinite get involved in a manner that implies a corresponding difference in power/size.

As the idea of "more than countably infinite times greater in power or size" implies, most statements of superiority wouldn't suffice to reach qualitative superiority, even if applied to already being infinitely stronger than the baselines for the level. E.g. being twice, a hundred or even infinite times stronger than a Multiverse level+ character, who already has infinite multiversal strength, would still not be enough to reach qualitative superiority over a multiverse.

 

[Reiner04]

If the 2-A structure is of insignificant enough size to qualify as the space having qualitative superiority, then yes. But you kinda need to judge that case by case IMO.

Okaish, thanks, so bigger than 2-A structures are case by case scenarios. You know whenever I ask a question I first stab my heart and then starts typing, so I'm courageous one.

I have some question about this

How can the space being qualitative superior???
I mean this mean for the size or for power or for what???
I read the page it say that infinitely superior is not enough, soo is "beyond infinitely superior" enough???

I believe DT is answering the question in accord to the scenario I've given (the 2-A structure being insignificantly small like stars and the space beyond being larger than it), it depends on context in sense if it's clear enough or portrayed as such that we can apply "bigger than countable infinite " notion it (since the topic is about that itself). just not to abuse what minimum or for the sake of simplicity has been given.

 

[Reiner04]

​

If the 2-A structure is of insignificant enough size to qualify as the space having qualitative superiority, then yes. But you kinda need to judge that case by case IMO.​

So.. i should drop dead Shouldn't there be a FAQ section to explain or atleast give the direction to when bigger than 2-A should and shouldn't qualify for low 1-C? Given that it has been more of bigger query of many than most of sections of our FAQ Something like:

If there is structure bigger than 2-A structure has been established in a fiction, will it be by default low 1-C sized structure?

It highly depends on what you mean by "bigger", if bigger here just stands for "more" number of 2-A structure then no, As stated previously, more number of 2-A structures or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably or so, would make no difference than single 2-A structure in terms of size and won't be scaled any above. But when it comes to real size difference, where cardinality of a given structure is bigger than cardinality of 2-A structure with sufficient portrayal of such spaces being significantly superior and bigger, then it qualifies, unless a specific fictional work disregard how infinities are generally treated, keep in mind that even if they're a bigger than countable infinite, they won't qualify directly unless they either have mentioned uncountable infinite size directly or have portrayal/statements of being significantly large and superior to 2-A structure to the point of making 2-A structure or even infinite of them, insignificant in size, as all of multiversal structures past low 2-C has insignificant 5th dimension as an container to keep all of Universes separate and so, are insignificantly larger than countable infinite but still not scaled to Low 1-C. Please note that when there is no mention of cardinality in fiction and there exist just a structure that is stated to be bigger than 2-A structure or shown to be bigger than 2-A (container of the multiverse), then it's important to evaluate if the structure mentioned/shown is just metaphorical representation of space that contains the multiverse or not, as in general, the space that contains infinite multiverse are generally shown and stated to be bigger in metaphorical sense and aren't meant to be taken literally, and such cases are need to be evaluated carefully on case by case basis. If there is sufficient context that space that contains the 2-A structure is significantly larger than it to the point of making it or even infinite of them insignificant size in comparison, then such spaces would be allowed to be treated as higher level of infinite or Aleph 1 or qualitative superior, unless said fiction contradicts it somehow.

Or it should be smth else? What do you think? Is my existence cursed it fine?

 

[Reiner04]

I've edited my proposal, a more than bit in above post after reading the thread all over once again.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

So.. i should drop dead Shouldn't there be a FAQ section to explain or atleast give the direction to when bigger than 2-A should and shouldn't qualify for low 1-C? Given that it has been more of bigger query of many than most of sections of our FAQ Something like:

Or it should be smth else? What do you think? Is my existence cursed it fine?

I've edited my proposal, a more than bit in above post after reading the thread all over once again.

I guess you capture this thread's point well enough, but your formatting, spelling, and grammar are so all over the place that the draft's basically unreadable in its current state, and you repeat so many points that your draft's twice as long as it needs to be. I rewrote a cleaned-up version for you:

Is a structure larger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

It depends on what "bigger" means here. If "bigger" means ''more'' 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, more 2-A structures or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size or power unless the fiction specifies otherwise. However, if "bigger" indicates a genuine size difference where the fiction portrays a structure as significantly superior to a 2-A structure and exceeding the latter's cardinality, the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless, again, the fiction specifies otherwise. To elaborate, things larger than a countable infinity of Tier 2 structures only meet the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if they either explicitly mention an uncountably infinite size or have portrayals/statements of being sufficiently superior to the 2-A structure to render it insignificant. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C all have an insignificant 5D axis separating them that isn't automatically Low 1-C; as such, a fiction that doesn't mention cardinality when portraying a structure "larger" than a 2-A structure in some way requires one to consider first if it's only such an insignificant space containing the multiverse, which would be the default assumption unless the fiction satisfies the above requirements.

 

[Reiner04]

I guess you capture this thread's point well enough, but your formatting, spelling, and grammar are so all over the place that the draft's basically unreadable in its current state, and you repeat so many points that your draft's twice as long as it needs to be. I rewrote a cleaned-up version for you:

Thanks. Me and my English smh

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@Antvasima @DontTalkDT Is this draft acceptable?

 

[Reiner04]

Snip

There's just a small error, it's possible and do happens to be greater in power than 2-A beings via scaling chains w/o them getting Tier 1 as mentioned by @DontTalkDT here:

But yeah, the main point is any 2-A feat will be equal, you can at best have scaling chains to get higher and, if you do, those won't get you Tier 1

This draft is only applicable for Structures or sizes as that's the only thing where difference can't exists w/o being uncountable,

And of course, countable x countable = countable, so infinite infinite multiverse structures do nothing to enhance 2-A.

So "power" from the draft need to be removed.

It depends on what "bigger" means here. If "bigger" means ''more'' 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, more 2-A structures or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size or power unless the fiction specifies otherwise.

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

New version:

Is a structure larger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

It depends on what "bigger" means here. If "bigger" means ''more'' 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, more 2-A structures or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size unless the fiction specifies otherwise. In this case, the only way to receive 2-A power above the baseline is to upscale from other characters who've performed 2-A feats, not by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" indicates a genuine size difference where the fiction portrays a structure as significantly superior to a 2-A structure and exceeding the latter's cardinality, the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless, again, the fiction specifies otherwise. To elaborate, things larger than a countable infinity of Tier 2 structures only meet the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if they either explicitly mention an uncountably infinite size or have portrayals/statements of being sufficiently superior to the 2-A structure to render it insignificant. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C all have an insignificant 5D axis separating them that isn't automatically Low 1-C; as such, a fiction that doesn't mention cardinality when portraying a structure "larger" than a 2-A structure in some way requires one to consider first if it's only such an insignificant space containing the multiverse, which would be the default assumption unless the fiction satisfies the above requirements.

 

[DontTalkDT]

@DontTalkDT Is this draft acceptable?

New version:

Change suggestions:

If we talk about above baseline 2-A, I would maybe include a reference to this existing explanation regarding above baseline 2-A at an appropriate place.

Instead of 'significantly superior' use 'qualitative superior'. We have a good explanation of what the latter term means, making it unambiguous, contrary to the former. Similarly, I would use qualitatively superior instead of "rendering insignificant", as things can be insignificant to various extents, not all of which necessary fit.

Not quite happy with how cardinality is used. The difference between 2-A and Low 1-C is not one of cardinality. It's a difference of size and the quantitative difference can be roughly described as more than countably infinite large. Countably infinite is of course a cardinality, but a specific one, and hence probably worth mentioning as such.
In particular, if you are bringing up cardinality it is important to always say the cardinality of what. E.g. 2-A and Low 1-C has the same cardinality of point.
For 2-A to Low 1-C one could say that Low 1-C could contain a higher cardinality of universes than the countably infinite that make up 2-A. But it is probably better to just say something along the lines of Low 1-C structures being more than (countably) infinite times larger than infinite universes or something like that.

 

[Reiner04]

Change suggestions:

If we talk about above baseline 2-A, I would maybe include a reference to this existing explanation regarding above baseline 2-A at an appropriate place.

Instead of 'significantly superior' use 'qualitative superior'. We have a good explanation of what the latter term means, making it unambiguous, contrary to the former. Similarly, I would use qualitatively superior instead of "rendering insignificant", as things can be insignificant to various extents, not all of which necessary fit.

Not quite happy with how cardinality is used. The difference between 2-A and Low 1-C is not one of cardinality. It's a difference of size and the quantitative difference can be roughly described as more than countably infinite large. Countably infinite is of course a cardinality, but a specific one, and hence probably worth mentioning as such.
In particular, if you are bringing up cardinality it is important to always say the cardinality of what. E.g. 2-A and Low 1-C has the same cardinality of point.
For 2-A to Low 1-C one could say that Low 1-C could contain a higher cardinality of universes than the countably infinite that make up 2-A. But it is probably better to just say something along the lines of Low 1-C structures being more than (countably) infinite times larger than infinite universes or something like that.

Ummm this?

Is a structure larger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

It depends on what "bigger" means here. If "bigger" means ''more'' 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, more 2-A structures or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. In this case, the only way to receive 2-A power above the baseline is to upscale from other characters who've performed 2-A feats, not by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures, since they would be of no different size but same. However, if "bigger" indicates a genuine size difference where the fiction portrays a structure as qualitative superior to a 2-A structure and exceeding the latter's cardinality of universes to show a corresponding size difference, the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless, again, the fiction specifies otherwise. To elaborate, Structure larger than 2-A only meet the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if they either explicitly mention an uncountably infinite number of universes or have portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite number of them can't reach. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C all have an insignificant 5D axis separating them that isn't automatically Low 1-C; as such, a fiction that doesn't mention cardinality of universes when portraying a structure "larger" than a 2-A structure in some way requires one to consider first if it's only such an insignificant space containing the multiverse, which would be the default assumption unless the fiction satisfies the above requirements. It's also important to evaluate if the structure mentioned/shown is just metaphorical representation of space that contains the multiverse or not, as in general, the space that contains infinite multiverse are generally shown and stated to be bigger in metaphorical sense and aren't meant to be taken literally, and such cases are need to be evaluated carefully on case by case basis.

 

[Reiner04]

Also there are few things, I believe, I do not seems to grasp or how to accommodate all in one place properly, so if someone knowledgeable on the matter could wrote it off, given if the current one is wrong.

 

[Reiner04]

bVmp

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

Ummm this?

Your grammar is still quite poor.

Is a structure bigger than a 2-A structure Low 1-C by default?

It depends on what "bigger" means here. If "bigger" means having more 2-A structures, then no; as stated previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably so, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. In this case, the only way to achieve 2-A power above the baseline is to upscale from other characters who've performed 2-A feats, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures, since they would be of the same size. However, if "bigger" indicates a genuine size difference where the fiction portrays a structure as qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure and exceeding the latter's cardinality of universes to show a corresponding size difference, the structure qualifies for low 1-C unless, again, the fiction specifies otherwise.

To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A only 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 an infinite number of them can't reach. Multiversal structures past low 2-C all have an insignificant 5D axis separating them that isn't automatically low 1-C; as such, a fiction that doesn't mention the cardinality of universes when portraying a structure as "larger" than a 2-A structure in some way requires one to consider first if it's only such an insignificant space containing the multiverse, which would be the default assumption unless the fiction satisfies the above requirements.

It's also important to evaluate if the structure mentioned or shown is just a metaphorical representation of space that contains the multiverse or not. In general, the space that contains an infinite multiverse is generally shown and stated to be bigger in a metaphorical sense and isn't meant to be taken literally. Such cases need to be evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis.

 

[Reiner04]

Your grammar is still quite poor.

No bullying!!! (Thanks).

 

[KingNanaya]

bump

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

@DontTalkDT