Countless?

[Phoenks]

Guys why is countless being treated as being some finite, but limitless number?

At the current moment, countless is beyond literally any finite number you can think of on this wiki.

Because of this, while it is always said to be separate from infinite, it practically means the same exact thing on the site anyway.

Because, no matter what finite number I come up with, "countless" is still always beyond it on this wiki.

I could have some grahams number to the power of a googolplex that goes throughout through a tree(3) hierarchy, and that would still be nothing in comparison to countless.

In this sense, it mimicks the meaning of infinite.

Why?

Wouldn't it be better to put some actual limitations in place? Based on how verses treat this term?

Or at the very least, just make countless equal to infinite/endless?

 

[Kachon123]

Yeah, I've always thought this as well. What's the difference?

 

[ImmortalDread]

In 2-B terms, it simply means from 1001 – countless amount of space-time continuums.
And for your last question, it simply should be put as “unknown”, since you can't add limitations to the term, as it simply contravenes its notion.

In this sense, it mimicks the meaning of infinite.

I will express this in mathematical notation:

Finite < countless < infinite/endless.

 

[Phoenks]

In 2-B terms, it simply means from 1001 – countless amount of space-time continuums.
And for your last question, it simply should be put as “unknown”, since you can't add limitations to the term, as it simply contravenes its notion.


I will express this in mathematical notation:

Finite < countless < infinite.

This doesn't answer my question.

I know what countless currently means on this wiki, but it doesn't make any sense.

It is said to be finite, but is still treated as limitless.

I would also agree with it being unknown if there's no way to consistently add limits to it.

And I don't think it should be compared to other finite things if that is the case.

 

[Chariot190]

To be completely fair, 99% of the time writers and authors don't differentiate between infinite and countless and will use it interchangeably. It's just us battle boarding brainrotted nerds that make a hard difference when half the time it means the same thing.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It is said to be finite, but is still treated as limitless.

Ya, it is the between defined finite amount of X and infinite amount of X. It is finite, but it can't be measured or a huge number than cannot properly be counted.

 

[Phoenks]

Ya, it is the between defined finite amount of X and infinite amount of X. It is finite, but it can't be measured or a huge number than cannot properly be counted.

That isn't how it works bruh. You can't be finite while also being above any finite number. That doesn't make sense. That's the whole reason I'm bringing this up.

 

[ImmortalDread]

You can, one can be measured and one can't be measured but still within the scope of finiteness.

 

[Phoenks]

You can, one can be measured and one can't be measured but still within the scope of finiteness.

If it can't be measured, is limitless, and is beyond all finite numbers.

Then it mimicks the exact definition of infinite.

 

[ImmortalDread]

How do you measure countless if it is beyond all finite numbers. Explain.

Phoenks, read what I said carefully:

You can, one can be measured and one can't be measured but still within the scope of finiteness.

I was referring the latter to “countless”
I also suggested above that it should be “unknown but yet higher than any defined finite amount due to its nature of the term”.

In conclusion, it can be inferred that the measurement of the “countless” is inconceivable and the very essence of the term itself is hinged upon its inability to be quantified, for its magnitude surpasses numerical limitations and can only be expressed as "too many to count".

Therefore, any attempt to ascertain a numerical value would inevitably contradict the essence of the term and reduce it to a mere synonym of “countless”.

So again, you are overthinking it.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Also, you can read this discussion. We had a whole hilarious debate over this.

 

[Phoenks]

I misread your comment and updated it almost immediately after.

If it can't be measured, is limitless, and is beyond all finite numbers.

Then it mimicks the exact definition of infinite.

 

[Nierre]

What is bro cooking?

 

[ImmortalDread]

If it can't be measured, is limitless, and is beyond all finite numbers.

Then it mimicks the exact definition of infinite.

Yes, but still within the scope of finiteness.

 

[Phoenks]

Yes, but still within the scope of finiteness.

Once again, this doesn't make any sense.

It is basically treated as infinite while also being finite.

That's the problem I have with this.

It is either wanking countless statements to an absurd degree, or is limiting them when they should just be infinite. Because the definition on this website pretty much makes them infinite anyway.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Phoenks, it should not make sense, it is what it is. But suggesting creating limitations… just goes against what the word represents.
Also, no VSBW technically does not make them infinite anyway, they are still within the scope of finiteness.

Furthermore, I suggested reading two threads that I have linked above (before you lose sanity rn)

 

[azontr]

Phoenks, it should not make sense, it is what it is.

Stop cooking.

 

[Phoenks]

Phoenks, it should not make sense, it is what it is. But suggesting creating limitations… just goes against what the word represents.
Also, no VSBW technically does not make them infinite anyway, they are still within the scope of finiteness.

Furthermore, I suggested reading two threads that I have linked above (before you lose sanity rn)

What is the point in not making sense?

I am suggesting limitations because as of right now it either severely wanks things or limits them. It should either be treated as infinite, or there should be limits made regarding statements that mention the word "countless." Because right now, the whole problem is that the way we treat them doesn't make any sense.

You seem to not be understanding what I am saying by "vsbw treats it as infinite"

Yes, vsbw thinks "Infinite" is more than "Countless," but defines them in the exact same way, as I mentioned in this thread. The only difference is that they then choose to say that countless is still finite.

 

[ImmortalDread]

why...are you suggesting limitations to a word in English where it goes against having limitations... what

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yes, vsbw thinks "Infinite" is more than "Countless,"

as it should, because this is how math works

but defines them in the exact same way, as I mentioned in this thread.

No, it does not, one is within the scope of finiteness and other is within the scope of infiniteness

The only difference is that they then choose to say that countless is still finite.

No, it is English that differed both of them.

 

[KLOL506]

Pain Suffering Agony Torment

Just when I thought this was dead and buried

 

[Alexander]

being a number so big that ''can't be counted''it is a pretty hard thing to think of.
considering that,you could count into googlo or something like that,or a number to high that is still consider finite but still pretty high to count.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I am suggesting limitations because as of right now it either severely wanks things or limits them. It should either be treated as infinite, or there should be limits made regarding statements that mention the word "countless." Because right now, the whole problem is that the way we treat them doesn't make any sense.

“Wanks”

Is this statement for you wanked?

Countless space-time continuums has been destroyed by this hero!

This is the most blatant 2-B statement ever, nothing here is “wanked”. And yes it is simply an example.

 

[Phoenks]

Dread I'm going to ignore you at this point because you're saying a whole lot of nothing. You aren't addressing my points. In fact, you're actually making me even more confused by how this wiki treats countless.

Your whole defense so far has been this:

Phoenks, it should not make sense, it is what it is.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It was sarcasm since you're simply ignoring the notion of the word and want to add limitations. How do I suppose to address to something like this?
Also, my whole defense is pretty much here

Also comparing it to infinite is merely fundamentally erroneous, one is infinite and other is finite but conducts as limitless.

 

[Phoenks]

I was referring the latter to “countless”
I also suggested above that it should be “unknown but yet higher than any defined finite amount due to its nature of the term”.

No, that gives the same exact problem and doesn't solve anything.

In conclusion, it can be inferred that the measurement of the “countless” is inconceivable and the very essence of the term itself is hinged upon its inability to be quantified, for its magnitude surpasses numerical limitations and can only be expressed as "too many to count".

So, then it is the same as infinite, but treated differently for ???? I have no clue.

Especially when it comes to Japanese verses, because they literally use the word as a cooler-sounding synonym.

want to add limitations.

This is only one suggestion.

I also suggested that we just take "countless" as being a synonym of infinite, similar to how we treat endless.

Especially for Japanese verses.

So basically, either make it infinite, or actually define and limit it. Currently, it is as if it is both infinite and finite at the same time. It doesn't make sense.

 

[ImmortalDread]

No, that gives the same exact problem and doesn't solve anything.

You did not state which problem?

So, then it is the same as infinite, but treated differently for ???? I have no clue.

No, re-read it.

Especially when it comes to Japanese verses, because they literally use the word as a cooler-sounding synonym.

Prove it since this is simply a generalization fallacy.

I also suggested that we just takes the statements as being a synonym of infinite, similar to how we treat endless.

Especially for Japanese verses.

But in English, they are not synonyms lol.

This thread may help you.

 

[Phoenks]

To be completely fair, 99% of the time writers and authors don't differentiate between infinite and countless and will use it interchangeably. It's just us battle boarding brainrotted nerds that make a hard difference when half the time it means the same thing.

Okay so I realized I didn't completely clarify my suggestions in the OP.

I think there's two ways to go about it:

1. Judge countless statements case by case and determine specific limitations they might have. Instead of just making them limitlessly finite.

2. Make countless statements equivalent to infinite or endless statements because the wiki defines countless nearly the exact same as infinite anyway.

 

[ActuallySpaceMan42]

Well definition-wise, countless changes based on the context of the scene.

• If a character is being shot at by a barrage of arrows, there are countless arrows. Because at that moment before sed character gets hit or tries to block the arrow, there is no way for them to count that many arrows. At that moment, there are indeed countless arrows.
• At the same time, a character could be looking at the Multiverse, and describing how there are countless universes. Again this can mean, there are too many that they don't know where to start, or even begin trying to count them, or that there are infinite and counting is meaningless.

Wiki-wise, you can technically count to infinity, if you are given infinite time, so that's another contradiction that can be brought up if something is said to be countless in a literal sense.

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Guys why is countless being treated as being some finite, but limitless number?

At the current moment, countless is beyond literally any finite number you can think of on this wiki.

Because of this, while it is always said to be separate from infinite, it practically means the same exact thing on the site anyway.

Because, no matter what finite number I come up with, "countless" is still always beyond it on this wiki.

I could have some grahams number to the power of a googolplex that goes throughout through a tree(3) hierarchy, and that would still be nothing in comparison to countless.

In this sense, it mimicks the meaning of infinite.

Why?

Wouldn't it be better to put some actual limitations in place? Based on how verses treat this term?

Or at the very least, just make countless equal to infinite/endless?

It's some huge number but it's a number somewhere. Name any number, countless can be it + 1, it +2, it +3, etcetera.
Infinity is a cheat code. Name any number and it will not only be bigger but it will also be bigger by a margin that no number you add to it will define: Itself.

 

[Fixxed]

Well infinite is countless but countless is by default not infinite. Countless just "to many for count"

 

[Cat275]

This thread is an abomination to mankind.

 

[Dereck03]

This thread is an abomination to mankind.

Hey your mom... Got some catnip?

 

[Magicomethkuon]

Spoiler: COMPREHENSIVE SCALE

Countless = HxH hiatus. But still infinitely smaller than absolute infinity, a Berserk hiatus.

 

[Metalballrun]

The issue in this wiki is really moreso abusing how the wiki treats the term "countless". It's pretty much a ticket to 2-B tier. Though treating countless as beyond 1000 isn't really incorrect, technically.

Countless is just a term for a number that is too many to count. How many is that world widely differs in different context. A thousand, a million, or a billion can be countless depending on whether someone is talking about salt or grains of sand.

Mathematically, "countless" isn't even a thing. "Uncountable" is, and that's already a type infinity. So the definition of "countless" is pretty much what people in the wiki decided it to, basically.

 

[Cat275]

Hey your mom... Got some catnip?

I won't give you catnip dereck. Also don't talk to me in vsbw.

 

[Dereck03]

I won't give you catnip dereck. Also don't talk to me in vsbw.

You stfu don't talk to me or ping me.

 

[Nierre]

Err..

 

[Cat275]

Alright dereck feelings are mutual.

 

[Maskofthedragon]

The difference only exists to make certain ratings have an extra hurdle