GetBackers AP rather small revision.

[Firephoenixearl]

So there are 3 key points in this CRT to talk about:

High 7-A
Akabane Kuroudo, Ginji Amano and Ban Midou's 7-A keys should go to High 7-A because as i wrote in Der Henker's page, he actually 1 shot people who are much stronger than Ginji's 7-A feat (which he did with 1 hand). And given how high into 7-A the feat is, it's rather reasonable to have them at High 7-A instead.

At least High 6-B, possibly 6-A
This is to replace their High 6-A statement which is calcless and comes from a statement. So i'd say it would be better to use this KE calc which is in about the same ballpark. High 6-B. Considering how the dude who performed this feat got memed on by Paul Wan and Der Kaiser. Ban Midou beat Der Kaiser and then getting stronger still. Adding a "possibly 6-A" seems fair imo. As long as the calculation is correct i mean.

How high into 2-A?
"If the infinite stacking coincidence created this world... And it's fragments one by one will become human..."

This was the statement we got from the raws. So there are infinite coincidences (events), but each event would have its own set of possibilities to choose from. So how high would that be?

Currently my opinion is K^∞ (where K is an unknown number based on how many choices each possibility would have).

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Bump

 

[PhantomØ4]

Isn't K to the power of infinity just infinity? Finite multiplied by finite inifnite times.

 

[DarkGrath]

Exactly how close was the 7-A feat to High 7-A? Like, how many multiples would it take? If it was like... a one-shot above a feat that's 1% below High 7-A, I think you can reasonably upscale. I don't remember the specifics behind the upscaling rules though.

 

[PhantomØ4]

948 Megatons, so 62 megatons off.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Isn't K to the power of infinity just infinity? Finite multiplied by finite inifnite times.

Yes, but everything is infinity. ∞^2 is still ∞ but it's a higher degree. So while everything is infinity, something that is "∞x∞" would logically be greater than ∞ despite both being infinity. Similarly for K^∞. That's why it still 2-A (which is infinite), just a higher degree.

@Grath

As Monster said its 948megatons, so less than 1% for the next tier.

 

[DarkGrath]

Well, that'd actually be about 6.2%, but that's a pedantic detail.

I know that the standards on going up in tiers via scaling is very strict, so I'll have to check previous discussions on the topic.

 

[PhantomØ4]

Ah yeah, I know about that much. Just confused as to why finite times finite an inifnite amount of times yields a higher degree of infinity. Like would Inifinity x 2 be greater that it? I can't really situate it.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Idk why i was thinking of 6.2 megatons, my bad.

I mean they are strict sure but like, the difference is so small practically a sneeze will get them a higher tier.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Ah yeah, I know about that much. Just confused as to why finite times finite an inifnite amount of times yields a higher degree of infinity. Like would Inifinity x 2 be greater that it? I can't really situate it.

As i've been told before "2^Y" reaches infinity quicker than "Y x 2" so same reasoning for infinities. ∞ x 2 < 2^∞

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Bump

 

[Antvasima]

The first two suggestions seem fine to apply, but I don't know either way about the third. Perhaps you can ask a few calc group members?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Yeah i don't think there would be any problems on the 1st one.

Though im confused. Calc group members for 2-A? Did you perhaps mean a calc group member to evaluate the High 6-B?

 

[Antvasima]

I mean that I am not sure if your estimation for the degree of infinity is accurate.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Hmm, should i ask UltimaReality, he seems like a better person to ask than calc group members.

 

[DMUA]

I swear I already said the calcs are fine but sure yes calc

 

[Firephoenixearl]

The 2nd calc is a new one.

 

[GyroNutz]

First two seem fine. Third one is just K * infinity. Each event has K possibilities, so each event can be shown in K ways. Not sure if that gets you higher into 2-A or not.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

It's K^∞. Cus it's possibilities.

Think of walking into 4 cross roads. You can take any 3 choices in each of them. So the number of choices you can make is:

3^4. Not 3 x 4.

 

[GyroNutz]

But each event has its own possibilities. If you had 5 bags (events) each with 3 unique marbles (possibilities) there are 15 total marbles (possiblities)

 

[Firephoenixearl]

That's a terrible example. It's different from bags. Cus i can make several different choices.

Your bags example is basically saying, that after making 1 choice i cannot make any more choices. So i can only choose 1 marble, which is not the case, as after choosing the 1st marble from 1 bag, i can then choose the 3rd marble from another bag, the 2nd from another on etc. Similarly i can choose the 2nd marble from the 1st bag, the 2nd marble from the 2nd bag, the 1st from the 3rd bag and so on.

Again think of the crossroad example. The number of possibilities is always "possible choices ^ events".

Again the crossroad example is a much better one as it's the same as what would actually happen.

 

[GyroNutz]

The bag example is what happens because each event is confined to its own set of possiblities. An event that simultaneously has two separate possiblities would not make sense, nor would an event that has possibilities not in its set make sense.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Each event has its own set of possibilities but it is followed by another even with its own set of possibilities.

It's hard to explain by writing but look at this picture for an idea. To explain that picture

So we have a random point. Any, it represents an event. In that event you can choose from (as the example shows) 7 different routes. Then no matter in which route you go, you'll encounter another event with 2 different possibilities. Then choosing any random event there will lead to another event with 2 other different possibilities.

You will go in different routes, but in each route you'll be encountering different events. And therefore different choices.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

It is basic probability mathematics.

 

[GyroNutz]

I know what a tree diagram is. I just don't buy that this is describing infinite events which give way to its own "many worlds" tree.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I don't think it works in any other way. If you make a different choice you won't still go to the same event. It's like saying "If i choose to stay home i will meet my friends at school". It is completely illogical for the different choices to always lead to the same event.

That's how possibilities work. The "many worlds" is precisely the idea here. Which is why it's 2-A in the first place. Which is what MakubeX explains here.

 

[Antvasima]

I personally think that GyroNutz is probably correct, but you should probably get input from Executor N0, Antoniofer, Ugarik, DontTalkDT or Ultima.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Are we talking number of vertices, edges or paths of the tree?

Number of vertices and edges is countable, number of paths is more than that.

If this is typical "timeline splits at every event" type of multiverse then it's countable, given that.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well yes and no. The thing is, the events are...infinite. It's been stated that the world is built off of infinite events.

And there is also the fact that the futures are written in The Archiver which is the creator of the 2-A system.

 

[Schnee_One]

Well, that'd actually be about 6.2%, but that's a pedantic detail.

I know that the standards on going up in tiers via scaling is very strict, so I'll have to check previous discussions on the topic.

Not really, that's not even 1.5x, which is the baseline for tier jumping.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Well yes and no. The thing is, the events are...infinite. It's been stated that the world is built off of infinite events.

Yes. And under the assumption that the events are infinite (i.e. that the tree we are talking about has paths from the root that have infinite vertices on them), the number of vertices is still countable.

That can be seen like this: Pick a root (e.g. the first event). From there you separate the vertices of the tree (the events) into levels, by how far away they are from the root.

So the root is level 0.

All vertices/events, whichs distance from the root is 1, are level 1.

All vertices/events, whichs distance from the root is 2, are level 2.

And so on. One level for each natural number.

Each level has only a finite amount of vertices/events. That follows per induction: The n-th level has finite vertices/events. Each of those have only finite unlisted neighbors. The amount of vertices/events on the n+1th level is the sum of the finite amount of neighbors of each of the finite edges, which is also finite.

Hence you can count the number of vertices/events as follows: First you count those of the 0th level. Those are finite so you finish that. Then you count those on the 1st level. Those are finite so you finish that. Then you count the 2nd, 3rd etc.

If you pick a random vertice/event then it is in one of the levels. As every level is eventually listed/counted it has a place in the counting/listing described. As such the total number is countable.

(That the construct I described has timelines with infinite events follows from König's infinity lemma btw.)

And there is also the fact that the futures are written in The Archiver which is the creator of the 2-A system.

I don't understand how that influences things.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

I'm fine with the first two suggestions but I'm not sure about the third one since I'm not good with tier 2 stuff and above so I'm no help there.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I get your point DT, but when the number of vertices that makes up a world is specifically stated to be infinite, how would calling that finite work? You're still seeing at it from a point of "there's a start and endlessly grows".

Well what if we think of it as more of an actually infinite actions from point A to point B in time (start to whatever point they're talking about). So no matter what 2 actions you take, there's always more actions that happened in between. So as an example:

I get up and go to school. (In between, brushed my teeth, wore my clothes, left for school)

I get up and brushed my teeth. (In between left my bed, went to the bathroom)

I get up and leave my bed. (In between: decided to get up and decided to leave my bed)

etc etc etc

Obviously this is just a different take on the issue, based on the fact that we know that the vertexes from the beginning to whatever X point when Ginji meets his mom is infinite. ("the infinite stacking coincidence created this world") So would looking at this from this perspective instead make more sense?

Because as i said, not that your explanation doesn't make sense, but it directly contradicts the canon as you're saying that at the point which Ginji's mom was talking about, the number of events would have just been a large number which is, as i said, contradicts the words.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Your idea would make it so that the resulting object isn't a tree anymore (because there is no concept of a "prior" event anymore). Given that it protocols events happening in infinitely small timeframes, that's rather unlikely. And even then it only reaches more than countable by assuming infinite time passes and by extrapolating the growth rate to the entirety of eternity.

There are also a few problems with that notion. For one thing that "the infinite stacking coincidences" don't include future ones isn't actually given. The talk is about the amount of events in an ongoing process.Whether this are total or present is unclear.

Also, how certain are you about that translation? This statement is very close to "the infinitely stacking coincidences", which would have a very different meaning.

Even if there are infinite in the presence, there is no rule that multiple events can't exist simultaneously. If you have infinite spatially separate events with unknown growth rate you don't necessarily get more than countable either.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

How is it not a tree? It just becomes a tree with infinite vertices.

Well about that, the wording and context imply it is not.

• The wording: It says the world is built (already built, a finished process so...the past) instead of sth like "the world builds up to infinite events" or "builing up to infinite events" something along the lines of implying that it is not the present that is built on infinity

• The context: This was Ginji's mom talking about how Ginji (who died in the real world which is what lead to her creating the virtual world) is a byproduct of the world's events and can never be the same ginji, just a biological clone at best. So she was talking about how the people are "built".

About the translation i guess im pretty sure considering i asked Shiroyasha who is a native japanese speaker. Though i only gave him the sentence about the coincidences so as not to bother him with the entire page there might be a slight possibility of that sentence being weird due to lack of context but seems unlikely. If you're doubtful i dont mind asking shiroyasha to come here and help us with the meaning of the whole chapter.

About the multiple events existing simultaneously it would still leave the entirety with infinite events.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that DontTalkDT is correct. We should preferably go with his interpretation.

 

[Antvasima]

Also, this is just a notification about that all discussion posts made after April 14 will disappear in the new forum, so if there are any important content revisions that need to be referenced in the new forum, please back them up here:

https://archive.org/web/

The threads can be updated with later backups if more posts are made in them. Just use the "Save Page Now" function.

 

[Firephoenixearl]

I think that DontTalkDT is correct. We should preferably go with his interpretation.

I mean, not that i dislike his interpretation, i think it's sensible, but it goes against the canon words used in this scan here.

 

[Antvasima]

Has a Japanese-fluent wiki member checked it yet?

 

[Firephoenixearl]

Well ShiroyashaGinSan, who is the only native Japanese speaker listed in the Multilingual Members List, is the one who translated the quote that i put in bold in the OP. I also asked him a little earlier again to come here and see whether or not the context of the whole page changes the overall meaning, just in case.