Can you get 2-A tier by having infinite size relative to multiple 4-D object ?

[Andika_CL_atmadja]

Basically this.

 

[SentientStick]

if this infinite size allows the entity to encompass, manipulate, or otherwise impact a countably infinite number of 4-D spaces then yes.

 

[Blackcurrant91]

technically there is no quantative difference in size between a Low 2-C and a 2-A sized object (both are infinite 4-D)

Something larger then this could be Low 1-C possibly.

 

[Lewis]

Basically this.

omg Leonardo
he has been reincarnated.

 

[KLOL506]

MY ******* GOD I JUST REALIZED THIS IS ABOUT BEING INFINITELY BIGGER THAN A LOW 2-C/2-C STRUCTURE TO OBTAIN 2-A, NOT LOW 1-C.

My apologies. I will delete my prior comment.

 

[Hasty12345]

I think, and MG fans can correct me if I'm wrong, but Anos was once 2-A for being able to destroy an object infinite in-relation to a 2-B object, so I think so with a big asterisk.

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @LephyrTheRevanchist @Everything12 @Qawsedf234 @Elizhaa

Would this also work for a space infinitely bigger than a Low 2-C realm or multiple Low 2-C realms constituting up to any number of 2-C? Or does this need a direct comparison statement too and the space itself being stated to be infinite in size but not compared to the realms at hand is too insufficient?

 

[Remus1998]

So you're asking being infinite in size compared to 4D constructs makes it a 2-A structure yes?

 

[KLOL506]

So you're asking being infinite in size compared to 4D constructs makes it a 2-A structure yes?

That's what the OP is asking, yes.

 

[Remus1998]

Imo yeah, I personally have White Space from Sonic Generations as a 2-A construct for that reason

 

[KLOL506]

Bump. This is quite important.

 

[King_Gorilla4002-8922]

Basically this.

Yes ,Rimuru It has 2A for that reason

 

[DontTalkDT]

Depends on how, I suppose. In some very specific circumstances, maybe.
Like, if you can hold infinite 4D space but aren't 5D or something.

 

[Executor_N0]

Originally I remember the problem for bringing the gap between Low 2-C with 2-C and above was the undefined 5th-dimensional gap between the many 4D universes across 5D space, requiring the power to access universes across the parallel axis.

In theory, a single timeline can already be an infinite 4D, in all dimensional axes, universe when an universe can last an eternity and have infinite 3D space.

But I think that original ruling isn't in effect anymore.

 

[KLOL506]

Depends on how, I suppose. In some very specific circumstances, maybe.
Like, if you can hold infinite 4D space but aren't 5D or something.

Hmmmmmmmmm.

 

[KLOL506]

Depends on how, I suppose. In some very specific circumstances, maybe.

What specific circumstances are we looking at? And how specific?

Like, if you can hold infinite 4D space but aren't 5D or something.

Wait, you need direct in-verse confirmation for that? Simply being called "infinitely larger than a space-time continuum or multiple space-time continuums" isn't enough? You need a "Can hold an infinite amount of 4D space" alongside it to get 2-A?

 

[KLOL506]

Originally I remember the problem for bringing the gap between Low 2-C with 2-C and above was the undefined 5th-dimensional gap between the many 4D universes across 5D space, requiring the power to access universes across the parallel axis.

In theory, a single timeline can already be an infinite 4D, in all dimensional axes, universe when an universe can last an eternity and have infinite 3D space.

But I think that original ruling isn't in effect anymore.

Ah. This mess.

 

[Georredannea15]

Wait, you need direct in-verse confirmation for that? Simply being called "infinitely larger than a space-time continuum or multiple space-time continuums" isn't enough? You need a "Can hold an infinite amount of 4D space" alongside it to get 2-A?

Not really. If this were strictly true for 2-A, many verses that are 2-A would have to be downgraded, because they are all spaces that usually contain more than one space-time and are infinite or infinitely larger than them. And if they have a transcendence to this space-times, they are usually Low 1-C.

 

[Fixxed]

Yeah old MGF and tensura have their 2A rating with that way

But i think, if you infinity larger than low 2C then you will have between 2A or low 1C depends on context the verse give. If it have context about transcending the low 2C and the low 2C is just a small thing a microcosmos or something like that, yeah it will low 1C

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah old MGF and tensura have their 2A rating with that way

But i think, if you infinity larger than low 2C then you will have between 2A or low 1C depends on context the verse give. If it have context about transcending the low 2C and the low 2C is just a small thing a microcosmos or something like that, yeah it will low 1C

Or if you transcends Low 2-C and become infinitely larger than it. This can be 2-A or more Low 1-C.

 

[Fixxed]

Or if you transcends Low 2-C and become infinitely larger than it. This can be 2-A or more Low 1-C.

I will say it low 1C

Bruh.. the 2A it just go with logic that it have more space for contain more infinitely low 2C structure
And then low 1C is infinitely superior in size, not just can contain more thing

 

[Tanin_iver]

Basically this.

Depends on if the structure has infinite size in relation to finite sized 4D objects or infinite sized 4D objects.
The former is Low 2-C and the latter is Low 1-C.

Originally I remember the problem for bringing the gap between Low 2-C with 2-C and above was the undefined 5th-dimensional gap between the many 4D universes across 5D space, requiring the power to access universes across the parallel axis.

In theory, a single timeline can already be an infinite 4D, in all dimensional axes, universe when an universe can last an eternity and have infinite 3D space.

And why aren't we following this, when this seems a better interpretation?

 

[KLOL506]

And why aren't we following this, when this seems a better interpretation?

Because it was murked due to the whole Tier 2 multiplier debacle.

 

[CodeCCLL]

2A context for Rimuru's İmaginary Space : Rimuru's Imaginary Space contains energy that can create tens of thousands (>10.000~2B) of finite 4D structures. It is also stated that Imaginary Space is infinite compared to 4D structures (2B) and cannot be filled with 4D structures (2A). So it was considered Imaginary Space 2A. Also, structures absorbed by Rimuru are stored in Imaginary Space, and Rimuru has previously absorbed a High 3A field and a Low 2C structure. If ıt have such a context and ıt have the mentioned requirements ıt should have 2A.

 

[Georredannea15]

2A context for Rimuru's İmaginary Space :

Rimuru's Imaginary Space contains energy that can create tens of thousands (>10.000~2B) of finite 4D structures. It is also stated that Imaginary Space is infinite compared to 4D structures (2B) and cannot be filled with 4D structures. So it was considered Imaginary Space 2A. Also, structures absorbed by Rimuru are stored in Imaginary Space, and Rimuru has previously absorbed a High 3A field and a Low 2C structure.

If ıt have such a context and ıt have the mentioned requirements ıt should have 2A.

Simply speaking, there is a structure that has many things besides these statements , such as transcending all of these spacetimes, being infinitely larger than them, and contain the higher dimensional light.

 

[KLOL506]

Bump

 

[Reiner04]

Basically this.

Low 2-C.

 

[Georredannea15]

Low 2-C.

My brother downgraded many 2-A verses in one comment.

 

[KLOL506]

Low 2-C.

LMAO

 

[Reiner04]

My brother downgraded many 2-A verses in one comment.

Not my fault, complain to our standards and no, none will be downgraded.

 

[Georredannea15]

Not my fault, complain to our standards and no, none will be downgraded.

Then this is 2-A too, because even a single 4D highlighted in red is Low 2-C. If you include more than one of these and you are infinite, you simply become 2-A.

 

[Reiner04]

because even a single 4D highlighted in red is Low 2-C

Nah. 4D is not Low 2-C by default w/o size stated and not gonna argue on it either, agree to disagree.

If you include more than one of these and you are infinite, you simply become 2-A.

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah old MGF and tensura have their 2A rating with that way

But i think, if you infinity larger than low 2C then you will have between 2A or low 1C depends on context the verse give. If it have context about transcending the low 2C and the low 2C is just a small thing a microcosmos or something like that, yeah it will low 1C

Actually, it's not enough to see Low 2-C as a microcosm, you have to be 2-A for that. Because, according to the standards, there is no baseline layer on 2-A.

 

[Georredannea15]

Nah. 4D is not Low 2-C by default w/o size stated and not gonna argue on it either, agree to disagree.

Bro think of it as a 4-D universal space-time continuum.

 

[Reiner04]

Bro think of it as a 4-D universal space-time continuum.

Not all 4D objects or space are of universal size. There has to be size mentioned.

 

[Georredannea15]

Not all 4D objects or space are of universal size. There has to be size mentioned.

Bro think of it as a 4-D universal space-time continuum.

I just told you to assume, I know not every space-time continuum is universal by default. More precisely, "if the verse says otherwise, it is not assumed that way." For example DB

 

[Fixxed]

Actually, it's not enough to see Low 2-C as a microcosm, you have to be 2-A for that. Because, according to the standards, there is no baseline layer on 2-A.

No, a space that contain 4D universes in it own is basically 5D, but our standard get strict on that, so we must provide some further proof like the 4D universe is only a small subspace of that space or something like transcending that universe, something that make the space that contain the universe is not just contain but strictly bigger or superior

 

[Reiner04]

Actually, it's not enough to see Low 2-C as a microcosm, you have to be 2-A for that. Because, according to the standards, there is no baseline layer on 2-A.

No.

 

[Reiner04]

Anyway, as for OP, it's Low 2-C if no further context is there. gtg.

 

[Georredannea15]

No, a space that contain 4D universes in it own is basically 5D, but our standard get strict on that, so we must provide some further proof like the 4D universe is only a small subspace of that space or something like transcending that universe, something that make the space that contain the universe is not just contain but strictly bigger or superior

The statement of the "microcosm" is not fundamentally sufficient by itself for qualitative transcendence. For example, Low 2-C universes would be a "microcosm" compared to a 2-A or 2-B multiverse.(Because basically all of the 2-A and 2-B multiverses would be infinitley or uncountably(not infinite) larger than a single Low 2-C structure.)

The decisive things here are the extra expressions and the nature of the universes seen as microcosms.

Other than that, As DT said, not every plane holding multiple 4-D universes is 5-D. This requires multiple 4-dimensional universes located in the same physical space, completely parallel to each other, never intersecting at 90 degrees and other angles.