You know there's also an R>F so ontological difference in this damn profile, right? rather than seeing it as a point, he also sees it as fiction, here's the context that makes Low 1-C certain, but unless you have it, the other statement alone is insufficient. Staff have made the necessary explanations and I still have no idea what you are advocating.
Ultima himself said in the GoW revision that these verses should be dropped unless there is something that will not have ontological difference. @KLOL506 This man throws his explanations at you.
I'll say it again, but I guess you don't want to understand. Ultima said this for 2-A because 2-A doesn't have any baseline layers on it. If KLOL sees no problems, he can quote his conversations with Ultima about it here.
In the text that person gave the infinitesimal is given as an example of qualitative superiority, those were all examples of things that can be said to describe that, not that you need all of them. The more different ways of describing that difference the better, especially if the work defines it in various ways that are incomplete in just one scope, but can form the bigger picture by placing them all together.Uhhhh...Read the page completely because it says in other parts of the page there must be things that require an R>F transcendence and ontological difference as well, and DT mentions this above. Don't focus on a single phrase.
In addition, the explanations in the standards don't go into details and make a generalization explanation. It gets much more detailed when it comes to layering, and that's where DT and Ultima's statements come into play. If they deny it, you still shouldn't defend it.
I swear that's exactly what I wanted to say. I said that these statements can only be Low 1-C as long as they have a supporting statement or context to explain the ontological difference, otherwise they will still remain in Tier 2. That's what DT and Ultima said, but they don't want to understand me or them.
I repeat again. As long as it's a 2-A structure, or if you have an R>F transcendence as in Reiner, or a statement that supports ontological difference, it's Low 1-C. What Ultima and DT have said is that a few statements like "transcends" or "see like a point" or "become infinitely larger" alone aren't enough for Tier 1, and it's 2-A at best.
you think only R>f can be tier 1, then downgrade all verses tier 1 without R>f context
Just read the more clearly. R>F is just one of many explanations for an ontological difference.
Look dude, read it well and I'll say it again, "seeing it like a fiction" so an R>F is just one of them, if you have a statement like this to support the ontological difference
But I'm sure there are "transcendent" statement in DMC. Also, what I'm talking about here, among others, is that it's not enough just to be infinitely larger and see it as a point. As DT and Ultima said.
Mehh, at least PoH will be 6-D. Also, KLOL is a Madrid soldier man
Here is one of the contexts that strongly supports ontological difference.
Being infinitely large for more than one Low 2C structure isn't the same as an infinite Low 2C structure.
What's the difference?
Bruhh... first of all i from above say the proof of infinitely greater than low 2C the safest tier is 2A, but if you have some proof that the low 2C is just a small piece of that space that make the low 2C is infinitesimall portion of it then it is low 1C
Infinite low 2C is mean the infinite is still in the structure of low 2C, infinitely bigger than low 2C is mean bigger than the structure it self
Can you please re-phrase that, I am having a hard time following.
There are no statement like that, just a demon world that infinitely bigger and the human world comapare to it just as a light
If you're still ignoring enough of what DT and Ultima have said, I won't be able to say anything about it. But Ultima asked for a list of ineligible people and verses with no extra context.
And what I wanted to say is that the phrases "being infinitely larger" and "seeing like a point" aren't enough without having goddamn more phrases that have been clarified by Ultima, DT, Agnaa and other staff. Even the size comparison statement doesn't bring Tier 1 to a definitive conclusion.
^Literally this.
And the Tier 1 experts who deny it... Anyway girls, this guy is gone. Take care of yourselves.
The simplest analogy to what I explained above would be like this:
The problem is that infinity + infinity or infinity^ infinity will still be an infinity of the same mathematical degree. So even in such a case the Executor said that the infinitely larger universe could still be Low 2-C.
BRUH, I LITERALLY ELABORATED ON ULTIMA'S SIZE COMPARISON REQUIREMENTS AND PROVED ITS NECESSITY, WHAT ARE YOU BLABBERING ABOUT.
Have you not read the bolded section in the comment I addressed prior.
I did say the same thing, did you not read that part properly or did you misunderstand what I said? I just clarified having infinity * infinity is 2-A according to the wiki although it should still be Low 2-C. Basically infinite sized space time continumm is Low 2-C, but an infinite collection of space-time continuums is 2-A even tho they are both infinite 4D and hence, should just be Low 2-C.The problem is that infinity + infinity or infinity^ infinity will still be an infinity of the same mathematical degree. So even in such a case the Executor said that the infinitely larger universe could still be Low 2-C.
No, you didn't really prove it, you just quoted what was written, but I showed you the comments of DT, Agnaa, Ultima and other staff on this topic. I don't understand why you are still pushing so hard even if what you say and claim is still not enough by the staff.
Me: Do you get Low 1-C for encompassing and being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C structure, or a 2-A structure? Because from what the current standards say it's only about encompassing a 4-D structure. It does not specify what kind of 4-D structure it's talking about, Low 2-C or 2-A.
Ultima: Muddy territory, frankly. 2-A is generally a much safer starting point for that, since we don't really accept that there any any jumps in size that are higher than "baseline" 2-A but smaller than Low 1-C (See the standards on the destruction of multiple infinite multiverses); the smallest skip in size at that point is just Tier 1. Meanwhile with Low 2-C we are forced to include a bunch of shit between it and Low 1-C.
Ultima: Although speaking in terms of raw logic, then I'll note that encompassing an infinitely large structure alone isn't necessarily an infinity higher than it.
Long line (topology) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Take this thing, for example.
Ultima: In a way you can say that, compared to the real number line, it extends a lot further.
Since the real number line is made of a countably infinite amount of intervals placed side-by-side (Intervals like, say, [0,1] or [1,2], I'm sure you know what I'm talking about).
While the long line is made of an uncountably infinite number of such intervals.
Despite that "increased" length the long line is still a 1-dimensional object.
It's not 2-D.
So, there being something that says "Yeah the structure is, in fact, larger than what it encompasses" is important.
No, pretty much. Going by that drawing, the 4-D objects may have finite hypervolume, and as such being infinitely large on that scale would just mean yours is infinite. It would be just Low 2-C.
Basically this.
If these were Space-time continuities in the universal size, and the space containing them was a larger, infinite space, or an infinitely larger space than them, would it still be 2-A or 2-C?
I swear that's exactly what I wanted to say so far. I've argued that for this there should be statements like R>F, "transcends" or "higher plane existence". Because these are the statements that best explain the ontological difference. That's why such statements are necessary besides being "infinitely greater".
