- 50
- 2
basicly, a character destroyed an uncountably infinite number of universes but the dimensional scale of said multiverse was never stated so what im asking is, is a complex multiverse an uncountably infinite number of universes ?
-
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.
Does destroying a more than countably infinite number of universes qualify for a low 1-C rating ?
- Thread starter A_fan_of_a_fan
- Start date
-
- Tags
- tiering system
- Status
- 8,675
- 5,559
I believe that'd just be 2-A, considering we don't count multiple sets of infinite universes as any higher than 2-A.
Low 1-C is higher-dimensional existence, 6-dimensional existence specifically.
Low 1-C is higher-dimensional existence, 6-dimensional existence specifically.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #3
very well then.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #5
you see, when i read the 2-A explanation i thought that destroying a more than countably infinite universes would qualify for a higher tier thinking that a complex multiverse is a 6-11 dimensional space-time construct composed of an uncountably infinite number of universes.
if the wiki treats such a feat as a 2-A qualifier like promestein said then i suggest that the description of 2-A be changed from "a countably infinite number of universes" to just infinite to avoid confusion.
what do you think ?
if the wiki treats such a feat as a 2-A qualifier like promestein said then i suggest that the description of 2-A be changed from "a countably infinite number of universes" to just infinite to avoid confusion.
what do you think ?
- 30
- 1
I suppose that "coutably infinite" is used instead of "infinite" because an uncountably infinite number of 4D space-time continuums is actually no different from a 5D space-time continuum.
Basically, it's the same that you can't draw a uncoutably infinite numbers of points on a infinitely large paper with an infinitely small pen without drawing at least one segment, no matter how small it is.
Now I wounder what an uncountable infinite number of dimensions would looks like. Probably something beyond our capacity to imagine... so no different from a dimensionless object.
Basically, it's the same that you can't draw a uncoutably infinite numbers of points on a infinitely large paper with an infinitely small pen without drawing at least one segment, no matter how small it is.
Now I wounder what an uncountable infinite number of dimensions would looks like. Probably something beyond our capacity to imagine... so no different from a dimensionless object.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #7
so it qualifies as high 2-A correct ?
also how can we imagine how a more than countably infinite number of dimentions would look like when we can even imagine the 4th dimension.
also how can we imagine how a more than countably infinite number of dimentions would look like when we can even imagine the 4th dimension.
- 15,614
- 7,054
More than a countably infinite set is still an infinite set. It is still 2-A.
A set of all even real numbers is infinite. So is a set of all real numbers period. Set 2 contains all numbers within set 1 plus even more, but both are infinite.
Destroying a multiverse with a number of universes equal to the numbers contained within either set is 2-A, despite the fact set 2's multiverse is larger.
This is also why "At least 2-A" exists and why you need to pretty explicitly ascend to an entirely new degree of infinity in order to start climbing tiers, at that point.
Though in fairness, it could also qualify for High 2-A depending on specific interpretation.
For example, destroying a multiverse composed of a number of universes equal to the set of real numbers between the interval [0,1]. There is no way to arrive at any specific value in a finite amount of time within this set, therefore the real numbers between this interval are uncountably infinite. While it is possible to say that one would still only need to destroy an infinite number of universes to erase this multiverse, the argument could also be made that this is not enough, for even then you will not reach the end, and you would need to go above and essentially have power that could destroy a number of universes in the cardinality of aleph-one.
There is not really a clear answer, which is why before I mentioned "At least 2-A" being likely the best option in the case of a fully unspecified "uncountably infinite" number of universes.
A set of all even real numbers is infinite. So is a set of all real numbers period. Set 2 contains all numbers within set 1 plus even more, but both are infinite.
Destroying a multiverse with a number of universes equal to the numbers contained within either set is 2-A, despite the fact set 2's multiverse is larger.
This is also why "At least 2-A" exists and why you need to pretty explicitly ascend to an entirely new degree of infinity in order to start climbing tiers, at that point.
Though in fairness, it could also qualify for High 2-A depending on specific interpretation.
For example, destroying a multiverse composed of a number of universes equal to the set of real numbers between the interval [0,1]. There is no way to arrive at any specific value in a finite amount of time within this set, therefore the real numbers between this interval are uncountably infinite. While it is possible to say that one would still only need to destroy an infinite number of universes to erase this multiverse, the argument could also be made that this is not enough, for even then you will not reach the end, and you would need to go above and essentially have power that could destroy a number of universes in the cardinality of aleph-one.
There is not really a clear answer, which is why before I mentioned "At least 2-A" being likely the best option in the case of a fully unspecified "uncountably infinite" number of universes.
- 167,333
- 75,830
@A fan of a fan
As far as I am aware, a countable infinity x 0 = 0, whereas an uncountable infinity x 0 = unknown.
This is the reason for why we use the term in conjunction with Hausdorff dimensions/dimensional geometry. You can read the Tiering System page for some more explanation.
As far as I am aware, a countable infinity x 0 = 0, whereas an uncountable infinity x 0 = unknown.
This is the reason for why we use the term in conjunction with Hausdorff dimensions/dimensional geometry. You can read the Tiering System page for some more explanation.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #10
alright i understand now, thank you both for the explanation but azathoth to make sure that we're on the same page, if i destroyed a more than countably infinite number of universes would that give me a 2-A or an at least 2-A rating ?
and since in either case it won't put me in anything higher than 2-A i think it would be convenient to change description of the 2-A rating from 'countably infinite to just infinite.' if you gentlemen would agree to do so to avoid future confusion.
antvasima i have read most of the tiering page almost fifteen times already and only thought of this question because i was debating a person on G+ and i claimed that an uncountable sets of universes is automatically at least 6-D with no real proof so i decied to ask more knowledgable people like the ones in this
and since in either case it won't put me in anything higher than 2-A i think it would be convenient to change description of the 2-A rating from 'countably infinite to just infinite.' if you gentlemen would agree to do so to avoid future confusion.
antvasima i have read most of the tiering page almost fifteen times already and only thought of this question because i was debating a person on G+ and i claimed that an uncountable sets of universes is automatically at least 6-D with no real proof so i decied to ask more knowledgable people like the ones in this
- 15,614
- 7,054
@A fan
It's open to interpretation, and depends on the context, really. In most cases, it would usually just be referred to as "infinite", which would be 2-A.
However, specific mention of "uncountably infinite" as its own designation aside from plain ol' "infinite" could be "At least 2-A" for context, though like I said, you could make the argument for it being High 2-A. However, in cases like this, "At least 2-A" or maybe even "Possibly High 2-A" could work depending on the context the phrase is used in.
Regardless, it wouldn't be "At least Low 1-C" without something far more specific to show the possibility of it being this high.
It's open to interpretation, and depends on the context, really. In most cases, it would usually just be referred to as "infinite", which would be 2-A.
However, specific mention of "uncountably infinite" as its own designation aside from plain ol' "infinite" could be "At least 2-A" for context, though like I said, you could make the argument for it being High 2-A. However, in cases like this, "At least 2-A" or maybe even "Possibly High 2-A" could work depending on the context the phrase is used in.
Regardless, it wouldn't be "At least Low 1-C" without something far more specific to show the possibility of it being this high.
- 167,333
- 75,830
Your friend at Google+ may have a point. An uncountable infinity is not bound by the order of dimensional geometry rules that we defined.
A higher dimension is a more a countably infinite number of times larger than the preceding one, but an uncountable infinity is another issue entirely.
Given that 2-A is considered as an unfathomably small 5-D according to our current rules, an uncountable infinity might warrant 6-D or higher, depending on the scale. It would be better to ask DontTalk about it however.
A higher dimension is a more a countably infinite number of times larger than the preceding one, but an uncountable infinity is another issue entirely.
Given that 2-A is considered as an unfathomably small 5-D according to our current rules, an uncountable infinity might warrant 6-D or higher, depending on the scale. It would be better to ask DontTalk about it however.
- 15,614
- 7,054
@Ant
Actually, I believe anything one step above countable infinity can be described using a cardinality of aleph-one, which is only one higher degree of infinity. In this case, larger cardinalities would increase degrees of infinity, not random countable infinities between certain intervals.
Edit: Did a double-check just to be sure. Aleph-naught is the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers, and describes sets that are countably infinite. Aleph-one is next up, and that can describe a set uncountable ordinal numbers. Aleph-one is the second smallest infinite cardinal number/essentially one degree of infinity higher.
Actually, I believe anything one step above countable infinity can be described using a cardinality of aleph-one, which is only one higher degree of infinity. In this case, larger cardinalities would increase degrees of infinity, not random countable infinities between certain intervals.
Edit: Did a double-check just to be sure. Aleph-naught is the cardinality of the set of all natural numbers, and describes sets that are countably infinite. Aleph-one is next up, and that can describe a set uncountable ordinal numbers. Aleph-one is the second smallest infinite cardinal number/essentially one degree of infinity higher.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #15
@Azathoth
so from what i understand is that if its refered to as just infinity then its 2-A but if its specifically stated to be an uncountable set then it qualifies for at least 2-A or possibly high 2-A correct ?
so from what i understand is that if its refered to as just infinity then its 2-A but if its specifically stated to be an uncountable set then it qualifies for at least 2-A or possibly high 2-A correct ?
- 15,614
- 7,054
@A fan
If in context, a point is made to specifically separate said concepts, then yes. That would most likely be the case.
If in context, a point is made to specifically separate said concepts, then yes. That would most likely be the case.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #17
very well then i see no point in continuing this discussion, thank you all very much for the input
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #19
i guess we'll wait then.
- 30
- 1
Is it possible to have a uncoutably infinite numbers of 4D space-time continuums without having a continuum of 4D space-time continuum (or basically a 5D space-time continuum)?
Or more simply, is it possible to have a uncoutably infinite of points without having a continuum of points (which should create a segment)?
Or more simply, is it possible to have a uncoutably infinite of points without having a continuum of points (which should create a segment)?
- 2,512
- 261
It is as following:
n-1 dimensional sub-manifolds have a n-dimensional size of 0.
Measures (the things that mathematically define size) have a property called $ \sigma $-Additivity. This states, to say it in simple terms, that the volume of countably infinite not overlapping objects together is equal to the sum of each of the objects volume separately.
So due to that property the n-D size of countably infinite objects that have a size of 0, like our n-1-D objects, is still certainly 0.
For anything higher than countably such a law doesn't exist.
Counter examples are easy to find, like that one can take the contably infinite points in the interval [0,1], which all have a 1-D size of 0, and unify them to the whole interval, which has a size of 1.
However that such a unification of more than countably infinite n-1-D sets has a n-D size of more than 0 isn't granted.
Examples for that are more complicated, but a classical one being cantor sets.
So ranking wise for destroying such a thing at least 2-A, possibly High 2-A, would be the most appropiate ranking.
Given that universes in 5-D space can be at most be the whole space, it shouldn't be assumed to be something higher.
If we want to explicitely consider this case in the tiering I would suggest writing it as:
Multiverse level+: Characters who can destroy and/or create a countably infinite number of 4-dimensional universal space-time continuums or larger sets with 0 5-dimensional size.
n-1 dimensional sub-manifolds have a n-dimensional size of 0.
Measures (the things that mathematically define size) have a property called $ \sigma $-Additivity. This states, to say it in simple terms, that the volume of countably infinite not overlapping objects together is equal to the sum of each of the objects volume separately.
So due to that property the n-D size of countably infinite objects that have a size of 0, like our n-1-D objects, is still certainly 0.
For anything higher than countably such a law doesn't exist.
Counter examples are easy to find, like that one can take the contably infinite points in the interval [0,1], which all have a 1-D size of 0, and unify them to the whole interval, which has a size of 1.
However that such a unification of more than countably infinite n-1-D sets has a n-D size of more than 0 isn't granted.
Examples for that are more complicated, but a classical one being cantor sets.
So ranking wise for destroying such a thing at least 2-A, possibly High 2-A, would be the most appropiate ranking.
Given that universes in 5-D space can be at most be the whole space, it shouldn't be assumed to be something higher.
If we want to explicitely consider this case in the tiering I would suggest writing it as:
Multiverse level+: Characters who can destroy and/or create a countably infinite number of 4-dimensional universal space-time continuums or larger sets with 0 5-dimensional size.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #22
i don't think it is possible.
how can you denote it as being 4D if you're saying it doesn't have a 4D continuum ?
how can you denote it as being 4D if you're saying it doesn't have a 4D continuum ?
- 167,333
- 75,830
@DontTalk
Thank you for the reply.
I thought that the 4-Dimensional universes were stacked on top of each other in 5-Dimensional space, just that they took up unfathomably small space within it?
Thank you for the reply.
I thought that the 4-Dimensional universes were stacked on top of each other in 5-Dimensional space, just that they took up unfathomably small space within it?
- 2,512
- 261
Well, they do take up a unfathomably small space within it.
So small that this space is regarded as having a volume of 0.
Or one could alternatively say that if you take any 5-D volume with a size larger than 0 you could put infinite universes inside that space and still have some left.
Mathematically seen being smaller than anything greater than 0 and having a size of 0 is essentially the same.
In regards to "stacked on top", well, in a sense they are. They are not necessarily touching each other, though (one could put two universes a larger distance away from each other for example).
So small that this space is regarded as having a volume of 0.
Or one could alternatively say that if you take any 5-D volume with a size larger than 0 you could put infinite universes inside that space and still have some left.
Mathematically seen being smaller than anything greater than 0 and having a size of 0 is essentially the same.
In regards to "stacked on top", well, in a sense they are. They are not necessarily touching each other, though (one could put two universes a larger distance away from each other for example).
- 167,333
- 75,830
@DontTalk
Okay. Thank you. Do you have suggestions for how we should reword the 2-A and High 2-A descriptions in the Tiering System page, in order to better clarify these issues for all visitors?
Okay. Thank you. Do you have suggestions for how we should reword the 2-A and High 2-A descriptions in the Tiering System page, in order to better clarify these issues for all visitors?
- 30
- 1
I've forgotten about this fractal, however if I remember correctly, this imply that the number of dimension is above n-1, but still lesser than n, so an integer number of dimensions.
I suppose including any larger sets with 0 5-dimensional size like you said is the most accurate and simple way to define the limit between 2-A and High 2-A
I suppose including any larger sets with 0 5-dimensional size like you said is the most accurate and simple way to define the limit between 2-A and High 2-A
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #27
@DontTalk
that sounds reasonable thank you for the input DontTalk. so its basically just like what azathoth said right ?
also it would be cool if the 2-A rating was changed to what you wrote, or i have a better idea, the high 1-B rating has a note that states Take note that even if a character is a more than countably infinite number of times superior to an infinite-dimensional space, or similar, it would still usually only qualify for High 1-B, as long as the character does not transcend the concepts of time and space altogether.
this note is pretty much talking about beings of uncountably infinite number of dimensions and that no matter how strong they are they would still qualify for that rating as long as they're not beyond dimensional.
i suggest doing somehting similar to the 2-A rating, something along the lines of
Take note that even if a character is capable of creating/destroying a more than countably infinite number of universes it would still qualify for a 2-A rating as long as the multiverse in question doesn't have an explicitly stated dimensional scale.
that sounds reasonable thank you for the input DontTalk. so its basically just like what azathoth said right ?
also it would be cool if the 2-A rating was changed to what you wrote, or i have a better idea, the high 1-B rating has a note that states Take note that even if a character is a more than countably infinite number of times superior to an infinite-dimensional space, or similar, it would still usually only qualify for High 1-B, as long as the character does not transcend the concepts of time and space altogether.
this note is pretty much talking about beings of uncountably infinite number of dimensions and that no matter how strong they are they would still qualify for that rating as long as they're not beyond dimensional.
i suggest doing somehting similar to the 2-A rating, something along the lines of
Take note that even if a character is capable of creating/destroying a more than countably infinite number of universes it would still qualify for a 2-A rating as long as the multiverse in question doesn't have an explicitly stated dimensional scale.
usually if you can destroy an infinite number of universes you will be 2a provided that you are destroying space time as well to qualify for high 2a rating you would have to be either a 5 dimensional or destroy infinity *infinity universes as a 5 dimensional person is infinitely superior to a 4 dimensional person your question was more than an infinite universes now usually infinity is taken to be same no matter how much you add in this wiki if you multiply infinity by infinity only then it is a step higher so more than can mean anything infinity +35=infinity infinity*2=infinity so it is still 2a thank you
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #30
you didn't get my question
- 15,614
- 7,054
I thought so. Thank you for the verification, man.DontTalk said:
- 167,333
- 75,830
@Azathoth and DontTalk
Well, we still need to clarify these issues in the 2-A and High 2-A Tiering System descriptions. Do you have suggestions?
Well, we still need to clarify these issues in the 2-A and High 2-A Tiering System descriptions. Do you have suggestions?
- 15,614
- 7,054
@Ant
I believe DT had a suggestion in his original post to make things more clear.
I believe DT had a suggestion in his original post to make things more clear.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #35
@Ant
I did make a suggestion in this thread yesterday if you haven't checked my comment yet.
I did make a suggestion in this thread yesterday if you haven't checked my comment yet.
- 167,333
- 75,830
How about something like this:
Multiverse level+: Characters who can destroy and/or create a countably infinite number of 4-dimensional universal space-time continuums. Take note that they are technically lined up along a 5-dimensional axis, but that their geometrical size still amounts to 0 within this scale.
High Multiverse level+: Characters who are 5-dimensional, and/or can destroy and/or create 5-dimensional space-time constructs of a not insignificant size. Characters that can destroy an uncountably infinite numbers of universes may potentially also be assigned this tier, as their geometrical 5-D size is higher than 0.
Multiverse level+: Characters who can destroy and/or create a countably infinite number of 4-dimensional universal space-time continuums. Take note that they are technically lined up along a 5-dimensional axis, but that their geometrical size still amounts to 0 within this scale.
High Multiverse level+: Characters who are 5-dimensional, and/or can destroy and/or create 5-dimensional space-time constructs of a not insignificant size. Characters that can destroy an uncountably infinite numbers of universes may potentially also be assigned this tier, as their geometrical 5-D size is higher than 0.
- 50
- 2
- Thread starter
- #37
@Ant
This is reasonable to me but i think we should wait for azathoth and DontTalk to input their opinions
This is reasonable to me but i think we should wait for azathoth and DontTalk to input their opinions
- 15,614
- 7,054
I would add in a "potentially" after the "may" in High Multiverse level+'s description (since the most accurate was decided to be "At least 2-A, possibly/likely High 2-A"), but other than that it seems completely fine.
- 167,333
- 75,830
Okay. I have updated the description.
DontTalk does not seem interested anymore, or maybe he is too busy. Do you think that I should update the Tiering System page in the meantime?
DontTalk does not seem interested anymore, or maybe he is too busy. Do you think that I should update the Tiering System page in the meantime?
- Status
