finite 4-D objects/beings

[TiltedFN]

If a character is stated to be higher dimensional, like having a 4th spatial axis on their body, how big would that 4th axis be, would it automatically be infinitely larger than any 3d plane, object, or being? Because if dimensions are equated to the real number line, how do we have finite objects? Is it subsets, or compactification? Because in theory, shouldn't every 3d object be infinitely larger to actually have that 3rd axis of space? And generalizing that in a 4d scope, how do finite objects work? And what is the default assumption for how big that 4th axis would be, because if its not equated to R, how does that extra axis even exist? Can another axis be perpendicular to the first 3 but still finite in length? Because if that is true (which clearly it is) who are finite objects possible and higher dimensional beings.

 

[LuisGeno]

(Take this with a grain of salt, as I'm not an expert on this subject)
As far as I know, the extra-dimensional axes are not automatically considered infinitely larger/infinitely greater than their lower dimensions in the verses, unless there is something that manages to contextualize this properly.

 

[Timeless]

if you have 2d square, a 3d cube is infinitely bigger, cause it takes infinite squares to make a 3d cube, but the cube is still finite in size, because an object infinitesimal in size (depth of a 2d objects) x an infinitely larger object (depth of a 3d object) = a finite value. so a 4d object would be infinitely bigger than a 3d object but still finite in size

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Any size. It doesn't matter. You can have 100D being that's smaller than an atom, and a 2D being that's bigger than the moon.

People like to say, "higher D x is infinitely bigger" but that's kind of misleading. It's like saying if Johnny had 5 apples and Anna had 0 apples, Johnny has infinitely more apples than Anna has. A cube is infinitely bigger than square in only one direction, because the square has 0 depth, and the cube has depth. And yes, you can fit an infinite amount of squares in a cube, because you can stack an infinite amount of 0s on top of each other.

(Here's a fun fact to help you visual this better. If a circle and a sphere have the same radius, you can only fit one circle in the sphere, without overlap.)

 

[TiltedFN]

Any size. It doesn't matter. You can have 100D being that's smaller than an atom, and a 2D being that's bigger than the moon.

People like to say, "higher D x is infinitely bigger" but that's kind of misleading. It's like saying if Johnny had 5 apples and Anna had 0 apples, Johnny has infinitely more apples than Anna has. A cube is infinitely bigger than square in only one direction, because the square has 0 depth, and the cube has depth. And yes, you can fit an infinite amount of squares in a cube, because you can stack an infinite amount of 0s on top of each other.

(Here's a fun fact to help you visual this better. If a circle and a sphere have the same radius, you can only fit one circle in the sphere, without overlap.)

i see, its just hard to visualize, lets say, a 4d being, but can they be any size? I know people like mr mxy is a 5d being yet smaller than an average human, i always have people telling me that a higher D being will always be infinitely larger than a lower dimensional being. And it all seems misleading, because aren't tesseracts kind of small but just more complex than a 3d cube?

 

[TiltedFN]

if you have 2d square, a 3d cube is infinitely bigger, cause it takes infinite squares to make a 3d cube, but the cube is still finite in size, because an object infinitesimal in size (depth of a 2d objects) x an infinitely larger object (depth of a 3d object) = a finite value. so a 4d object would be infinitely bigger than a 3d object but still finite in size

But could a 3d object and a 4d object still be comparable in size? Just not as complex?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

i see, its just hard to visualize, lets say, a 4d being, but can they be any size? I know people like mr mxy is a 5d being yet smaller than an average human, i always have people telling me that a higher D being will always be infinitely larger than a lower dimensional being. And it all seems misleading, because aren't tesseracts kind of small but just more complex than a 3d cube?

Tell them they are wrong and that beings can be any size. Remember that each dimensional axis is still going to be measured in the same unit. So you can be 5 meters long in 5 dimensions or 30 meters in 3 dimensions.

 

[TiltedFN]

Tell them they are wrong and that beings can be any size. Remember that each dimensional axis is still going to be measured in the same unit. So you can be 5 meters long in 5 dimensions or 30 meters in 3 dimensions.

So would that extra axis be w? x,y,z,w? Also im still a bit confused, you said a cube is only infinitely bigger than a square in one direction? But how is that cube not infinite in size, how is it finite? Does only the direction matter?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

So would that extra axis be w? x,y,z,w?

Technically you can name the extra axis whatever you want, but you can call it w for ease.

Also im still a bit confused, you said a cube is only infinitely bigger than a square in one direction? But how is that cube not infinite in size, how is it finite? Does only the direction matter?

Say you have a flat piece of paper. Let's pretend it's really 2D and has no depth. Then you take a book that's 3D. The flat paper has length and width, but no height. The book can have equal length and equal width with the paper. However since the paper has no depth, you can fit an infinite amount of the paper inside the book, as long as you stack the papers on top of each other.

 

[TiltedFN]

Say you have a flat piece of paper. Let's pretend it's really 2D and has no depth. Then you take a book that's 3D. The flat paper has length and width, but no height. The book can have equal length and equal width with the paper. However since the paper has no depth, you can fit an infinite amount of the paper inside the book, as long as you stack the papers on top of each other.

That was a great analogy, and then you get height by stacking it in a perpendicular axis correct? So generalizing that to actual beings, a 4d being would be infinitely larger in one perpendicular axis right? But how can that being still be any size? Even the same size as 3d beings?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

That was a great analogy, and then you get height by stacking it in a perpendicular axis correct? So generalizing that to actual beings, a 4d being would be infinitely larger in one perpendicular axis right? But how can that being still be any size? Even the same size as 3d beings?

All dimensions are still measured in the same unit. So a 4D being will be 2 meters in 4 directions, while a 3D being will be 2 meters in 3 directions. Remember when we say that higher dimensional beings are infinitely bigger, its a kind of misleading statement.

 

[TiltedFN]

All dimensions are still measured in the same unit. So a 4D being will be 2 meters in 4 directions, while a 3D being will be 2 meters in 3 directions. Remember when we say that higher dimensional beings are infinitely bigger, its a kind of misleading statement.

i mean i kind of see why, but it is still a bit misleading, because isn't it because no matter how far you extend infinitely in 3 axis, you will never reach 4d? But a 4d object or being can still be any size in the 4th direction? Is that why being uncountably infinitely greater is need to reach 4d? Yet can still be any size?

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

i mean i kind of see why, but it is still a bit misleading, because isn't it because no matter how far you extend infinitely in 3 axis, you will never reach 4d? But a 4d object or being can still be any size in the 4th direction? Is that why being uncountably infinitely greater is need to reach 4d? Yet can still be any size?

That's because a lot of people erroneously say things like "Uncountably infinite amount of 3D objects is 4D" which isn't true at all. You can stack an absolute infinite amount of 3D objects together and it will never become 4D until you stack them perpendicular to the 3rd dimension.

 

[Rakih_Elyan]

i mean i kind of see why, but it is still a bit misleading, because isn't it because no matter how far you extend infinitely in 3 axis, you will never reach 4d? But a 4d object or being can still be any size in the 4th direction? Is that why being uncountably infinitely greater is need to reach 4d? Yet can still be any size?

Yeah.

You can have 1D uncountable infinite long line, and yet it still is 1D object.

 

[TiltedFN]

That's because a lot of people erroneously say things like "Uncountably infinite amount of 3D objects is 4D" which isn't true at all. You can stack an absolute infinite amount of 3D objects together and it will never become 4D until you stack them perpendicular to the 3rd dimension.

okay I see, yeah that clears up a lot of confusion, I just have so many people claiming that 3d x being is infinitely above 4d x being in every aspect, strength, speed, size, blah blah blah. Now I know they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

okay I see, yeah that clears up a lot of confusion, I just have so many people claiming that 3d x being is infinitely above 4d x being in every aspect, strength, speed, size, blah blah blah. Now I know they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

And when we talk about tiering, we deal with extra dimensional space. A being can 100D, and be tier 9C. A higher dimensional being can have advantages due to their physicality such as the ability HDE, but it doesn't automatically grant higher tiers.

 

[TiltedFN]

And when we talk about tiering, we deal with extra dimensional space. A being can 100D, and be tier 9C. A higher dimensional being can have advantages due to their physicality such as the ability HDE, but it doesn't automatically grant higher tiers.

what if you gain HDE by powering up, does that warrant a tier? Because i know you can't gain HDE by just a mere powerup correct? Or getting like infinitely powerful.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

what if you gain HDE by powering up, does that warrant a tier? Because i know you can't gain HDE by just a mere powerup correct? Or getting like infinitely powerful.

You can gain it, but that doesn’t warrant a tier jump.