Default Size of Extra Dimensional Axes

[Iamunanimousinthat]

This thread is to ask what is the Wiki’s standard assumed size of an extra dimensional axis.

If a verse establishes that an extra dimensional axis exists, and that axis is not compacted, can we assume its size is equal to all other dimensional axes?

For example, we know that a verse has 3 spatial axes that are infinite in size. If a fourth spatial axes is introduced, do we believe that it is also infinite in size?

If not, why not?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Per default we do not. I mean, in real life higher D theories the 3D axis of regular space may be infinite, but all the others are tiny.

Once some higher D axis are established to be significant in size one can see case-by-case whether it makes sense to assume the same for the rest.

 

[Ped2018]

Does this really deserve a staff discussion thread? This is an Q&A.

 

[LephyrTheRevanchist]

Does this really deserve a staff discussion thread? This is an Q&A.

I moved it

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

established to be significant in size

May I ask what constitutes as a significant size?

 

[Greenshifter]

May I ask what constitutes as a significant size?

Is it anything that isn’t compactified?

 

[Bobsican]

A significant size for our purposes is infinite size, as much destroying a finite amount of 4-D stuff doesn't equal Low 2-C, which is why destroying a pocket reality (aka, that isn't universe-sized) with a time axis confirmed isn't used for tier 2.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

A significant size for our purposes is infinite size, as much destroying a finite amount of 4-D stuff doesn't equal Low 2-C, which is why destroying a pocket reality (aka, that isn't universe-sized) with a time axis confirmed isn't used for tier 2.

what’s the difference between destroying finite 3D space with a time axis vs. finite 4D space with a time axis?

 

[Bobsican]

Naturally the extra axis of course, but how it falls exactly on tiering is a bit outside my area.

 

[Greenshifter]

A significant size for our purposes is infinite size

That’s incorrect, I think (the part of the) dimensions (people scale to) in TTGL for instance aren’t infinite in size but just extremely large.

 

[Greenshifter]

as much destroying a finite amount of 4-D stuff doesn't equal Low 2-C

Pretty sure that’s only valid after the tiering system rework, destroying an infinite amount of 4D stuff is 2-A, thus Low 2-C must be a finite amount. I also don’t think the length of the timeline matters just yet.

 

[Bobsican]

Tiering system rework? That's news to me.

 

[StrymULTRA]

TTGL downgrade incoming???

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Per default we do not. I mean, in real life higher D theories the 3D axis of regular space may be infinite, but all the others are tiny.

Once some higher D axis are established to be significant in size one can see case-by-case whether it makes sense to assume the same for the rest.

Actually I want to bring back my question and reframe it and ask if the size matters at all?

infinity x infinity is still infinity and
Infinity x finite is still the same infinity.

Even if the 4th spatial axis was 1 meter in size. There would still be an uncountably infinite set of 4th dimensional space via the dimension of time.

 

[Greenshifter]

Tiering system rework? That's news to me.

Maybe a bit of an exaggeration, tier 2 rework and tier 2 is part of the tiering system so minor rework of that.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Bump!

 

[Arnoldstone18]

what’s the difference between destroying finite 3D space with a time axis vs. finite 4D space with a time axis?

i don’t think the size of space matters or should matter. Only the Axes. Your question basically asks what the difference between destroying 4-D (3D + 1D time) and 5-D (4D + 1D time)

Of course destroying a 5-D structure is Low 1-C and a 4-D Low 2-C.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

i don’t think the size of space matters or should matter. Only the Axes. Your question basically asks what the difference between destroying 4-D (3D + 1D time) and 5-D (4D + 1D time)

Of course destroying a 5-D structure is Low 1-C and a 4-D Low 2-C.

I do agree size shouldn't matter (outside outliers), as I explained above, infinite snapshots of infinite space and infinite snapshots of finite space amount to the same thing.

 

[Arnoldstone18]

I do agree size shouldn't matter (outside outliers), as I explained above, infinite snapshots of infinite space and infinite snapshots of finite space amount to the same thing.

Yeah.

Well I believe your question has been dealth with