• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

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

Rakih_Elyan said:
Yeah, **** no.

Infinitely 4D constructs that are larger than a single infinite 4D structure are still 4D, not 5D.

It is like saying that a 1-Dimensional line that is infinitely longer than a single infinite length of the 1D line is 2D.

Completely wrong and hilarious.

oh? It's a Wiki standard?

Time to change the standard again and I have some verse to downgrade.

Adios.
Click to expand...
Man I swear that's what I've been saying since, but no one believes me. If you are going to open revision for this, I can help you
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
Yeah, **** no.

Infinitely 4D constructs that are larger than a single infinite 4D structure are still 4D, not 5D.

It is like saying that a 1-Dimensional line that is infinitely longer than a single infinite length of the 1D line is 2D.

Completely wrong and hilarious.

oh? It's a Wiki standard?

Time to change the standard again and I have some verse to downgrade.

Adios.
Click to expand...
then go for it, downgrade the tier system, and also i know what verse you are going to downgrade it anyways your L1A thread isn't done yet
 
If he opens it, I'll help him. After all, DT, Ultima and Agnaa, who set the standards, support this and accept that it is so, but if you still say "the standards do not mean this"... Yes, a revision should be opened.
 
Yeah like reading between the lines these people are saying the same thing but they are referring to different things with the small part, infinitely, etc etc.

When something is said to be infinite larger than 4D they refer to it as set in a way they are larger than 4D in comparison to it being a infinite set of Low 2-C structure (2-A)

It even mentioned one to two levels of infinity.

So yes seeing an entire low 2-C structure as infinitesimal qualifies for low 1-C. Being infinitely small to you wouldn't make something an atom etc. It is way lower and way more insignificant to the point that they may as well not exist entirely

Infinite size of 4D space is still 2-A as being infinite in size doesn't make you 1 infinity larger.
You're just infinite in size not larger than it
 
let say there are infinite number 1D line (infinite in size) parallel to each other and displaced in 2D space. If those 1D line able to fill the volume of 2D space completely and infinitely would that mean it's 2D at bare minimum ?
 
Andika_CL_atmadja said:
let say there are infinite number 1D line (infinite in size) parallel to each other and displaced in 2D space. If those 1D line able to fill the volume of 2D space completely and infinitely would that mean it's 2D at bare minimum ?
Click to expand...
If there was just 2 of those infinite lines instead of an infinite number of them, it would still be 2D, just finite 2D. With what u have proposed with infinite number of those lines, it would be infinite 2D.
 
TheGreatJedi13 said:
Yeah like reading between the lines these people are saying the same thing but they are referring to different things with the small part, infinitely, etc etc.

When something is said to be infinite larger than 4D they refer to it as set in a way they are larger than 4D in comparison to it being an infinite set of Low 2-C structure (2-A)

It even mentioned one to two levels of infinity.

So yes seeing an entire low 2-C structure as infinitesimal qualifies for low 1-C. Being infinitely small to you wouldn't make something an atom etc. It is way lower and way more insignificant to the point that they may as well not exist entirely

The infinite size of 4D space is still 2-A as being infinite in size doesn't make you 1 infinity larger.
You're just infinite in size not larger than it
Click to expand...
You see, seeing an infinite 4D object as an infinitesimal object will just make you even more infinite than infinite 4D. Not 5-D. Saying you become 5-D because of that doesn't make sense in geometry.

Also, Infinite 4D space (or space-time) are Low 2-C. Inifinite 3D space are High 3-A. And Infinite amount of infinite 4-D space are 2-A.
 
Once again, I will ask the proper questions.

@DontTalkDT

DOES BEING INFINITELY LARGER THAN ONE OR A COUPLE OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIMES CONTINUUMS) CONSTITUTE 2-A BY DEFAULT?

IF NOT, WHAT EXACTLY DO WE NEED FOR IT TO BE 2-A? DOES IT NEED MORE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT? DOES IT NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIME CONTINUUMS)?
 
Reiner said:
There is no such thing as infinitely bigger than Low 2-C while still being Low 2-C.
Click to expand...
Erm... no. The best example is topology. Imagine that an infinite line sees another infinite line as finite, both lines will still be 1-dimensional

Or in a 10-dimensional infinite universe and a 4-dimensional infinite universe, draw a line from the beginning to the end of the 10-dimensional universe, and likewise draw a small line in the 4-dimensional universe,

Although one line is infinite in 10-D and the other line is finite in 4-D, geometrically there is no difference between them, both are still 1-D and occupy only 1 axis of the universe in which they exist.
 
Georredannea15 said:
Erm... no. The best example is topology. Imagine that an infinite line sees another infinite line as finite, both lines will still be 1-dimensional

Or in a 10-dimensional infinite universe and a 4-dimensional infinite universe, draw a line from the beginning to the end of the 10-dimensional universe, and likewise draw a small line in the 4-dimensional universe,

Although one line is infinite in 10-D and the other line is finite in 4-D, geometrically there is no difference between them, both are still 1-D and occupy only 1 axis of the universe in which they exist.
Click to expand...
Wtf, there is no such thing as bigger than Infinite while still being infinite, I'm not gonna read alat.
 
Guys. Calm down. Please.

I have asked the necessary questions. Let DontTalkDT handle it.
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
You see, seeing an infinite 4D object as an infinitesimal object will just make you even more infinite than infinite 4D. Not 5-D. Saying you become 5-D because of that doesn't make sense in geometry.

Also, Infinite 4D space (or space-time) are Low 2-C. Inifinite 3D space are High 3-A. And Infinite amount of infinite 4-D space are 2-A.
Click to expand...
We don't just use geometry we also use infinite set theory and others if its applicable
Georredannea15 said:
Erm... no. The best example is topology. Imagine that an infinite line sees another infinite line as finite, both lines will still be 1-dimensional
Click to expand...
You just described infinite set theory.
And its a known way to portray superiority.
We dont just use geometry for stuff like this.
What u are arguing for only works against HDE whether the line will be 2D or not(which in this case no its not) but still the line that sees infinite as finite will be ontologically superor
 
Brothers. Shut up. Please.

I have asked the questions. Please. I beg of you. Wait. 😭
 
If you derail from the question I asked one more time, I will ask thread mods to start deleting comments.
 
Rakih_Elyan said:
You see, seeing an infinite 4D object as an infinitesimal object will just make you even more infinite than infinite 4D. Not 5-D. Saying you become 5-D because of that doesn't make sense in geometry.

Also, Infinite 4D space (or space-time) are Low 2-C. Inifinite 3D space are High 3-A. And Infinite amount of infinite 4-D space are 2-A.
Click to expand...
More infinity or bigger infinity is what that make you have higher tier. Bruh just see how gan's tower have it high 1B rating
 
Fixxed said:
More infinity or bigger infinity is what that make you have higher tier. Bruh just see how gan's tower have it high 1B rating
Click to expand...
he wants to change the wiki's tier 1 system, it's useless for you to explain to him that he still stands firm in his own arguments
 
KLOL506 said:
Once again, I will ask the proper questions.

@DontTalkDT

DOES BEING INFINITELY LARGER THAN ONE OR A COUPLE OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIMES CONTINUUMS) CONSTITUTE 2-A BY DEFAULT?

IF NOT, WHAT EXACTLY DO WE NEED FOR IT TO BE 2-A? DOES IT NEED MORE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT? DOES IT NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIME CONTINUUMS)?
Click to expand...
@DontTalkDT It has been over two months brother, please respond.
 
KLOL506 said:
What specific circumstances are we looking at? And how specific?


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?
Click to expand...
Like, infinite x 4D is just 4D.

But if you have "space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal.

What is meant needs to be judged based on context. Kinda hard to make a criteria that covers every possible scenario.

KLOL506 said:
TL; DR, being infinitely larger than a 2-A structure helps gaining Low 1-C much easier, but for that to happen with Low 2-C, 2-C or 2-B, your work is just made insanely harder and you have to include a bunch of shit in-between like transcendence, qualitative superiority, R>F and what have you, but even with 2-A alone, you won't necessarily get Low 1-C right outta the gate without good-enough context.
Click to expand...
Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both.

Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

Also see: Why destroying infinite multiverses (which is basically what being infinitely larger than 2-A may mean) is not Low 1-C.
 
DontTalkDT said:
Like, infinite x 4D is just 4D.

But if you have "space big enough to hold infinite 4D spaces" that's obviously multiversal.

What is meant needs to be judged based on context. Kinda hard to make a criteria that covers every possible scenario.
Click to expand...
Which makes me come back to these two questions:

DOES BEING INFINITELY LARGER THAN ONE OR A COUPLE OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIMES CONTINUUMS) CONSTITUTE 2-A BY DEFAULT?

IF NOT, WHAT EXACTLY DO WE NEED FOR IT TO BE 2-A? DOES IT NEED MORE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT? DOES IT NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIME CONTINUUMS)?

DontTalkDT said:
Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both.

Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

Also see: Why destroying infinite multiverses (which is basically what being infinitely larger than 2-A may mean) is not Low 1-C.
Click to expand...
I see.
 
KLOL506 said:
Which makes me come back to these two questions:

DOES BEING INFINITELY LARGER THAN ONE OR A COUPLE OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIMES CONTINUUMS) CONSTITUTE 2-A BY DEFAULT?

IF NOT, WHAT EXACTLY DO WE NEED FOR IT TO BE 2-A? DOES IT NEED MORE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT? DOES IT NEED AN INFINITE NUMBER OF 4-DIMENSIONAL UNIVERSE-SIZED CONSTRUCTS (SPACE-TIME CONTINUUMS)?
Click to expand...
Than one definitely is not.

Multiple is debatable, but in the past the answer was that we do not multiplier upscale multiverses.

If we go by that, then you need either actually infinite universes (or equivalent) or something made clear to be size wise equivalent to such (e.g. due to having the capability to hold that number of universes)
 
DontTalkDT said:
Than one definitely is not.
Click to expand...
This one I couldn't get because of the "than one", could you elaborate a bit more?

DontTalkDT said:
Multiple is debatable, but in the past the answer was that we do not multiplier upscale multiverses.

If we go by that, then you need either actually infinite universes (or equivalent) or something made clear to be size wise equivalent to such (e.g. due to having the capability to hold that number of universes)
Click to expand...
I see. So being infinitely larger than a single Low 2-C space-time continuum or multiple of them wouldn't result in a 2-A rating, you would need there to be blatant statements of it being able to contain an infinite number of them or straight up show the structure being capable of holding an infinite number of them. Am I correct?
 
DontTalkDT said:
Than one definitely is not.

Multiple is debatable, but in the past the answer was that we do not multiplier upscale multiverses.

If we go by that, then you need either actually infinite universes (or equivalent) or something made clear to be size wise equivalent to such (e.g. due to having the capability to hold that number of universes)
Click to expand...
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 size compared to 4D structures (2B) and cannot be filled with 4D structures (2A). So it was considered Imaginary Space 2A.

Does it meet these requirements ?
 
CodeCCLL said:
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 size compared to 4D structures (2B) and cannot be filled with 4D structures (2A). So it was considered Imaginary Space 2A.

Does it meet these requirements ?
Click to expand...
From what DT said, I do not see how this qualifies.

Is it directly stated that the Imaginary Space is infinite compared to these realms? Is it directly stated verbatim that even a 2-B number of universes will never be able to fill this Imaginary Space? Is it then directly stated again to be infinitely larger compared to them?

If none of that is fulfilled, 2-A is kill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Low 2-C(Universal+) and 2-C(Low multiversal)
Replies
14
Views
531
Gp972
Peter1129
Accelerating up to infinity
Replies
15
Views
1K
Peter1129
Peter1129
Lilixa
There is one 4-D Object which stretched infinitely which make it bigger than 2-C and displaced in 5-D Space. Can this object get 2-A tier ?
Replies
2
Views
942
KLOL506
KLOL506
Haruki_Shizu
Can a verse have multiple tier 0?
Replies
16
Views
3K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Tanin_iver
Some clarifications on the standard assumptions of Tier 2 and above
Replies
8
Views
2K
GrathOfLux
GrathOfLux
Back
Top