-
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.
High-Godly regeneration problem
- Thread starter Setsuna_tenma
- Start date
-
- Tags
- regeneration
- Status
- 20,504
- 1,587
Ant, could you tag Sera here? Her input would be nice to have.
- 15,755
- 5,653
If it was Type 2 I’m sure they would mention it.
- 15,702
- 7,663
The problem is that is just mid-godly regen plus acausality
Honestly, reading from the thread where the regeneration was accepted, I think erasure from history in context was complete erasure to the point that even proofs of characters' existence like memories of the affected character, events regarding the affected character, and the character's items are erased. I think a clarifying note could work as an update.
It seems like many Acausal characters wouldn't necessarily get High-Godly from regeneration from history since they tend to exist outside history.
I agree that standard space-time erasure isn't enough for High-Godly erasure.
- I believe this case is not how it works; acausality still needs proof, for instance.
Honestly, reading from the thread where the regeneration was accepted, I think erasure from history in context was complete erasure to the point that even proofs of characters' existence like memories of the affected character, events regarding the affected character, and the character's items are erased. I think a clarifying note could work as an update.
It seems like many Acausal characters wouldn't necessarily get High-Godly from regeneration from history since they tend to exist outside history.
I agree that standard space-time erasure isn't enough for High-Godly erasure.
Ovy7
He/Him- 2,498
- 2,080
Same. IMO History Erasure is much more about the context of the erasure than something like plot or concept erasure (which are pretty clear on their own). For example, you can delete someone from history on a physical lvl with their soul, mind, and concept still be present, and that character would get High-Godly regen under the current qualifications for it.
So History Erasure should IMO have some more stuff about what qualifies as High-Godly for deleting someone from history (like also deleting the very concept of that character too), as how it is now it's way too broad.
edit:
Well, I guess this would depend on how said verse treats narratives, but from my experience, all verses I know of that use narratives treat them as a much more fundamental lvl of existence, with its own independent space-time and even concepts. So in this case regen from plot erasure would be much more powerful (?) than just regen from history erasure on say, physical or soul lvl.
So History Erasure should IMO have some more stuff about what qualifies as High-Godly for deleting someone from history (like also deleting the very concept of that character too), as how it is now it's way too broad.
edit:
Well, I guess this would depend on how said verse treats narratives, but from my experience, all verses I know of that use narratives treat them as a much more fundamental lvl of existence, with its own independent space-time and even concepts. So in this case regen from plot erasure would be much more powerful (?) than just regen from history erasure on say, physical or soul lvl.
- 3,044
- 2,592
So, as anyone who has read my blog about planes of existence, concepts and essences knows, I have a very different opinion about high-godly as a whole, so I did this answer to the topic (Of course, I would need to do a blog with the suggestions to make it more clear, I'll try to do that as fast as possible). As it's very different and I know most of the members wouldn't agree with it, I'll hide it, so fell free to read it if you want.
tl;dr If we start to be less specific and give more generic explanations, but full of information and examples, about planes of existence and not be working with the "names" themselves, none of this will be a problem anymore (At least, not in the level that we have so far).
At one point the problem is more of what we consider is being used for the regeneration, what still is the "being" that is regenerating and of course, the levels of "existence" from which is being regenerating.
The most clear example of this is the "Metaphysical" regeneration (As suggested before) and is exactly an example of "metaphysical" not being understood, since "Souls" and "Spirits" are also "metaphysical". And of course, the tendency of considering "souls" and "concepts" as different things outside of the field of range, unless specified.
For me the levels of regeneration are about how much is left from a "being" to still be able to regenerate. This is clear over the course of the "physical" levels of regeneration that goes from big parts of our body, to smaller and more important ones until we reach the sub-atomic scale. The limit of the "physical" regeneration is when there's no more "physical" aspects of the being, if the being still exists as a metaphysical entity then the being "still exists", but not in our physical scope.
Being a soul and creating a new body isn't really "regeneration from nothing at all", but "regeneration from a soul that creates a new body from matter that isn't part of the being or simply matter from nothing", so would be "nothing" from the absence of matter of that "being", but not in all "levels of existence".
And the problem with "mid-godly is regenerating the soul and mind" goes with the problem that we lack a way of really explaining how this would work in a "universal" sense, that is, a generic explanation that isn't defined by the terms, but by the meaning that they carry (That is, "soul" and "mind" are simply generic names that we use, and the real proof for that level of regeneration should be the meaning that we use and how close it's to the meaning used in a fictional work, but we lack definitions of "soul"/"mind" that can solve these problems).
If we really want to solve this, we would need to fix all the problems that we have with "multi-layered levels of being" that we have (Such as the lack of explanation of why we consider Concepts an level beyond souls and mind... while this was really never the case while we really analyze deep the philosophies about it).
About a solution, I still think that the most basic explanation for High-Godly should simply be "Regeneration out of nothing", a being that is capable of "be" out of nothing, literal creatio ex nihilo. No common sense should apply to this, is simply the illogical nature of "something" being able to appear out of absolute nothingness (In the context of the setting, of course). There should be nothing in any of the levels of existence in that setting, so no source of "power" of something that "exists" (Like a machine capable of producing matter out of nothing), it should be "nothing" that is now capable of "exist".
Low-godly is what we already do, a being has no "physical matter" and a non-physical aspect (Be it soul, mind or any metaphysical essence) is capable of "regenerating" the physical self. Absolutely, no difference from what we already do. But a question of my own would be if the process really matters. Like if the "soul" needs to somehow create more matter to create a new body, of if the soul could simply manipulate existing matter to create a new body. In a way if someone could erase all the matter of existence, the latter soul wouldn't be able to create new bodies, while the first could. So only if a "Metaphysical" essence is really capable of creating matter out of "physical" nothing (Independent of the process - that is, be it by emanations, creating matter out of "soul energy" and so on - ).
The problem would be the definition of "Mid-godly", and in a way even low-godly. If we define high-godly as the regeneration out of nothing and the setting of the "verse" only has mind-body dualism, the destruction of both the mind and the body would already be enough to consider as "high-godly". And this is why I'm sure that a lot of people would say that "destruction from the concept, plot, etc" should be the right choice. And of course this is the moment when I would like to read everyone's opinions about this. But before I would like to explain why I don't think that using "plot/history/concept" should be the right alternative.
First about "concepts". There's a lot of misunderstanding of what "concepts" really are even after the revision of the multiple types of concepts. First, concepts as most of the people here likes to talk about (That's, platonic concepts) are "metaphysical essences" that describes an universal aspect of the physical universe. The "concept of cat" describes every possible "cat" in the world and "cats" are "more cats" as they are closer to be the "concept of cat". This is an universal essence, since it describes more than a single thing and can also describe abstract notions of the world, such as "good", "right", "beauty" and so on. But this isn't the only type of essence, there are also the "Particular essences", the ones that describes "particular things" in the physical world. Is what makes "you"... "you", is the soul that is the solution to theseus' paradox, the mind that describes what your body does and so on. Both "universal" and "particular" essences are metaphysical essences that describes something. Their relation to the setting (If they transcend time and space for example), depends on the setting and you can even have more than one "metaphysical" level of essences and have an literal infinite hierarchy of concepts that transcends lower concepts in the same way that the concept transcends the physical universe. How many levels of existence (Or being/selfhood) and how particular and universal concepts relate to each other will depend on the setting.
So just saying "concept" as "someone's concept" would make no sense. The concept of someone has no difference from its soul or spirit in the most generic sense, if we are taking about a setting that separates the levels of being as "mind - soul - spirit - concept" that would make sense, but this is simply semantics about saying "concept" and not really addressing the very concept of "Concept". If someone is really destroyed in the "conceptual level" this would depend on the concept that is being destroyed. If you are a human and the "concept of human" is destroyed, this would be different from being destroyed from just the soul, but to proof that every single human in existence would also need to be destroyed, so this really isn't what we are talking about when someone talks about destroying "concepts" grating "high-godly", but someone's concept, that then goes back to the problem of someone's concept not being different from a soul. If we really are just going to say that a "concept is a metaphysical essence that transcends the soul", then we should really discuss how this should be explained in a more generic way (That is, explaining the concepts themselves instead of simply saying words without knowing their meaning).
And now the problem about "plot"... this is just super specif and used mostly only in fictions that deals with "metafiction". If in the end the "Plot" is just a more basic plane of existence that is equalized as the "plot of the story/movie/comicbook/etc", then we go back to the original solution of simply being "levels of existence" and nothing more, and should be addressed in a generic way to make it more simple to understand. If we are really talking about "plot" as in fiction itself, in a metafiction way, this is a big problem. The wiki already is against using metafiction as something literal, at most we use it as a way of explaining more confusing concepts (Like equating a higher plane of existence as seeing the lower one as a comic book), fiction as fiction itself should never be taken literally. If we do that, we would simply be going to turn this power into something more and more specific without more "generic" applications that other verses could use.
And this is why a simple "regeneration out of nothing" with "levels of being" should be the best way to address not only high-godly, but "godly" regenerations as a whole.
Low-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete physical destruction of the user's body, instead restoring it from their disembodied consciousness, whether that be their soul, mind, some other nonphysical aspect of themself, esoteric or metaphysical energy, or something else. (No real changes from our already existing standard).
Mid-Godly: The ability to regenerate even after the complete destruction of the body and others aspects of one's existence (Such as the mind or soul), but not total destruction in every level of existence.
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after erasure from all aspects of existence, a literal regeneration of nothing in relation to all the levels of existence.
In a way if we would consider the "concept" and "plot" as simply "higher levels of reality", then nothing really changed from this.
The most clear example of this is the "Metaphysical" regeneration (As suggested before) and is exactly an example of "metaphysical" not being understood, since "Souls" and "Spirits" are also "metaphysical". And of course, the tendency of considering "souls" and "concepts" as different things outside of the field of range, unless specified.
For me the levels of regeneration are about how much is left from a "being" to still be able to regenerate. This is clear over the course of the "physical" levels of regeneration that goes from big parts of our body, to smaller and more important ones until we reach the sub-atomic scale. The limit of the "physical" regeneration is when there's no more "physical" aspects of the being, if the being still exists as a metaphysical entity then the being "still exists", but not in our physical scope.
Being a soul and creating a new body isn't really "regeneration from nothing at all", but "regeneration from a soul that creates a new body from matter that isn't part of the being or simply matter from nothing", so would be "nothing" from the absence of matter of that "being", but not in all "levels of existence".
And the problem with "mid-godly is regenerating the soul and mind" goes with the problem that we lack a way of really explaining how this would work in a "universal" sense, that is, a generic explanation that isn't defined by the terms, but by the meaning that they carry (That is, "soul" and "mind" are simply generic names that we use, and the real proof for that level of regeneration should be the meaning that we use and how close it's to the meaning used in a fictional work, but we lack definitions of "soul"/"mind" that can solve these problems).
If we really want to solve this, we would need to fix all the problems that we have with "multi-layered levels of being" that we have (Such as the lack of explanation of why we consider Concepts an level beyond souls and mind... while this was really never the case while we really analyze deep the philosophies about it).
About a solution, I still think that the most basic explanation for High-Godly should simply be "Regeneration out of nothing", a being that is capable of "be" out of nothing, literal creatio ex nihilo. No common sense should apply to this, is simply the illogical nature of "something" being able to appear out of absolute nothingness (In the context of the setting, of course). There should be nothing in any of the levels of existence in that setting, so no source of "power" of something that "exists" (Like a machine capable of producing matter out of nothing), it should be "nothing" that is now capable of "exist".
Low-godly is what we already do, a being has no "physical matter" and a non-physical aspect (Be it soul, mind or any metaphysical essence) is capable of "regenerating" the physical self. Absolutely, no difference from what we already do. But a question of my own would be if the process really matters. Like if the "soul" needs to somehow create more matter to create a new body, of if the soul could simply manipulate existing matter to create a new body. In a way if someone could erase all the matter of existence, the latter soul wouldn't be able to create new bodies, while the first could. So only if a "Metaphysical" essence is really capable of creating matter out of "physical" nothing (Independent of the process - that is, be it by emanations, creating matter out of "soul energy" and so on - ).
The problem would be the definition of "Mid-godly", and in a way even low-godly. If we define high-godly as the regeneration out of nothing and the setting of the "verse" only has mind-body dualism, the destruction of both the mind and the body would already be enough to consider as "high-godly". And this is why I'm sure that a lot of people would say that "destruction from the concept, plot, etc" should be the right choice. And of course this is the moment when I would like to read everyone's opinions about this. But before I would like to explain why I don't think that using "plot/history/concept" should be the right alternative.
First about "concepts". There's a lot of misunderstanding of what "concepts" really are even after the revision of the multiple types of concepts. First, concepts as most of the people here likes to talk about (That's, platonic concepts) are "metaphysical essences" that describes an universal aspect of the physical universe. The "concept of cat" describes every possible "cat" in the world and "cats" are "more cats" as they are closer to be the "concept of cat". This is an universal essence, since it describes more than a single thing and can also describe abstract notions of the world, such as "good", "right", "beauty" and so on. But this isn't the only type of essence, there are also the "Particular essences", the ones that describes "particular things" in the physical world. Is what makes "you"... "you", is the soul that is the solution to theseus' paradox, the mind that describes what your body does and so on. Both "universal" and "particular" essences are metaphysical essences that describes something. Their relation to the setting (If they transcend time and space for example), depends on the setting and you can even have more than one "metaphysical" level of essences and have an literal infinite hierarchy of concepts that transcends lower concepts in the same way that the concept transcends the physical universe. How many levels of existence (Or being/selfhood) and how particular and universal concepts relate to each other will depend on the setting.
So just saying "concept" as "someone's concept" would make no sense. The concept of someone has no difference from its soul or spirit in the most generic sense, if we are taking about a setting that separates the levels of being as "mind - soul - spirit - concept" that would make sense, but this is simply semantics about saying "concept" and not really addressing the very concept of "Concept". If someone is really destroyed in the "conceptual level" this would depend on the concept that is being destroyed. If you are a human and the "concept of human" is destroyed, this would be different from being destroyed from just the soul, but to proof that every single human in existence would also need to be destroyed, so this really isn't what we are talking about when someone talks about destroying "concepts" grating "high-godly", but someone's concept, that then goes back to the problem of someone's concept not being different from a soul. If we really are just going to say that a "concept is a metaphysical essence that transcends the soul", then we should really discuss how this should be explained in a more generic way (That is, explaining the concepts themselves instead of simply saying words without knowing their meaning).
And now the problem about "plot"... this is just super specif and used mostly only in fictions that deals with "metafiction". If in the end the "Plot" is just a more basic plane of existence that is equalized as the "plot of the story/movie/comicbook/etc", then we go back to the original solution of simply being "levels of existence" and nothing more, and should be addressed in a generic way to make it more simple to understand. If we are really talking about "plot" as in fiction itself, in a metafiction way, this is a big problem. The wiki already is against using metafiction as something literal, at most we use it as a way of explaining more confusing concepts (Like equating a higher plane of existence as seeing the lower one as a comic book), fiction as fiction itself should never be taken literally. If we do that, we would simply be going to turn this power into something more and more specific without more "generic" applications that other verses could use.
And this is why a simple "regeneration out of nothing" with "levels of being" should be the best way to address not only high-godly, but "godly" regenerations as a whole.
Low-Godly: The ability to regenerate from the complete physical destruction of the user's body, instead restoring it from their disembodied consciousness, whether that be their soul, mind, some other nonphysical aspect of themself, esoteric or metaphysical energy, or something else. (No real changes from our already existing standard).
Mid-Godly: The ability to regenerate even after the complete destruction of the body and others aspects of one's existence (Such as the mind or soul), but not total destruction in every level of existence.
High-Godly: The ability to regenerate after erasure from all aspects of existence, a literal regeneration of nothing in relation to all the levels of existence.
In a way if we would consider the "concept" and "plot" as simply "higher levels of reality", then nothing really changed from this.
tl;dr If we start to be less specific and give more generic explanations, but full of information and examples, about planes of existence and not be working with the "names" themselves, none of this will be a problem anymore (At least, not in the level that we have so far).
- 6,605
- 4,143
To add to Ovy7's points ( he basically resumed what I think myself so I take him as a basis here):
I would say that "erasure from history" qualifying for High Godly would be if your very actions were also erased in the process. If you killed someone then this person never was dead to begin with since it never encountered you, if you made a team then this team never was made, your name never has been registered, etc...
Narrative is also treated as higher because of how it would work in itself (and how it is portrayed in general in fiction); you first have the "plot/narrative", then you insert concepts inside it, then characters and object with all the soul/mind/matter. History is just a part of the story same way.
I would say that "erasure from history" qualifying for High Godly would be if your very actions were also erased in the process. If you killed someone then this person never was dead to begin with since it never encountered you, if you made a team then this team never was made, your name never has been registered, etc...
Narrative is also treated as higher because of how it would work in itself (and how it is portrayed in general in fiction); you first have the "plot/narrative", then you insert concepts inside it, then characters and object with all the soul/mind/matter. History is just a part of the story same way.
- 10,652
- 4,729
- Thread starter
- #50
thats just acausality and mid-godly regen. Coming back from your action erased is not the same as conceptual erasure.
- 6,605
- 4,143
I feel like this would actually be a great idea, although not everything which isn't physical should be treated as equal imo.
- 6,605
- 4,143
Not really, since your concept never has been anywhere.
Like your "influence never happened anywhere on any level" and no concept can be linked to you.
- 164,967
- 71,693
Executor made some well-thought out suggestions, but that would be beyond the scope of this thread, as we have had so long discussions about the topic previously to determine our standards, and Assaltwaffle, Sera EX, Azathoth, Kepekley23, etcetera are not here to help us out any more.
- 10,652
- 4,729
- Thread starter
- #54
its not conceptual erasure. It does not erases your concept just you at all point in time.
Destroying all books is not the same as erasing the concept of books
- 6,605
- 4,143
Destroying all books doesn't remove the fact that someone wrote them or that someone learned something from them, which is the "actions/influence" I'm talking about. False equivalence here.
- 6,605
- 4,143
Did they all quit?
It would be a huuuuuuuge site-wide revision from the look of it, so I agree that it would need to have its own thread and all.
- 10,652
- 4,729
- Thread starter
- #57
its close enough. Erasing someone across time does not mean his concept has been erased it just him he is erased across time.
- 6,605
- 4,143
You repeated this without giving any further argument tho. Conceptual also is one way to get High Godly, not the only one.
- 10,652
- 4,729
- Thread starter
- #59
time erasure does not erase someone across all level of existance which is the requirement for high-godly. Its just physical or spiritual erasure across time.Anyway i won`t be able to respond for a while exams are aproaching and i have tutions in the morning
- 29,868
- 30,876
Sera Ex still has her staff tags, but she hasn't contributed to the wiki since September. And she's barely active on Discord these days. Everyone else did pretty much retire yes.
- 9,953
- 1,999
Once again it seems we can't reach to the conclusion of what is beyond being erased at both physical and spiritual level. Logically, the most that one can be erased is to the point it has no left any traces of every kind: no physical nor spiritual remains, no records, all actions made or that could have possibly been made are unmade.
Now, as any issue with "highest tier powers" its subject to nlf and are very difficult to prove, like for example if a character that has possible been erased in all levels but yet its records/essence remain in some isolated place/plane (even if fragmented) then we can't say it was erased at all levels, similar case if its remembered by one particular entity, if one can't remember that being then one can hardly say it was erased at all levels (unless you wantnto argue about that very entity being Omnipotent).
Now, as any issue with "highest tier powers" its subject to nlf and are very difficult to prove, like for example if a character that has possible been erased in all levels but yet its records/essence remain in some isolated place/plane (even if fragmented) then we can't say it was erased at all levels, similar case if its remembered by one particular entity, if one can't remember that being then one can hardly say it was erased at all levels (unless you wantnto argue about that very entity being Omnipotent).
- 9,953
- 1,999
Although, interpreting the definition of High-Godly as Mid-Godly + Acausality may be factible (at the end, it would be a character regenerating in a world where it was not supposed to exist, making it a living paradox). Not counting alterations in the timeline as a higher form of regen, then the higher form would be regenerating from ones Essence, that is what makes something or someone what fundamentally is, someone completely lacking essence do not have soul, spirit, emotions, personality, will, genotype, etc (normally, erasing the essence do not involve erasing the form).
- 14,820
- 12,239
Narrative/plot is above history in many verses, particularly high-tiered ones, as they have layered cosmologies where being "above time" starts on a far lower level than being "above the plot". But I believe that many lower-tiered verses have narrative/plot stuff as essentially a meta way of describing history, such as Doki Doki Literature Club.
- 9,953
- 1,999
Being erased from plot is variable through fiction, and can't be demmed superior nor inferior relative to Low/Mid-Godly and such; I would also hate to deal with some character being rated as High-Godly only cuz it has removed from an episode/chapter and then it came back in another one (cuz I'm pretty sure few users will try this).
- 20,504
- 1,587
I feel like that would create inconsistencies and we cannot assume all plot to be the same.
- 14,820
- 12,239
- 9,953
- 1,999
In an additional note, the power needs to erase the user along its story, simply erasing its story and doing anything to the user then it wouldn't be a regen feat (like typical wishing to never have existed, altering reality,but without quite affecting the affected's condition).
- 20,504
- 1,587
@Agnaa This is why i said this
- 14,820
- 12,239
But my point's sorta been that that note could apply to more than just erasure from history. At the very least it could apply to erasure from the plot/narrative, and I think it could apply to conceptual/informational destruction unless we know that those things already function on a Mid-Godly level otherwise.
- 164,967
- 71,693
Just a reminder.
- 20,504
- 1,587
I do agree with this.
@Antvasima
Im sorry ant but i can't say i agree with that one. Might as well deny any kind of change to the site and keep it stale since some members left. Im not saying to rush this change, but a discussion between people should definitely happen and see what conclusion we get to.
- 5,045
- 2,536
Where does one get these expert opinions then and how long does one need to wait?
- 20,504
- 1,587
The thing is, these "experts" may or may not ever come back into our community. I'd be fine if it was just a "let's wait for them", but it's very likely that they just aren't coming back, which means if we hold on to that then no large changes shall ever happen to the wiki again.
- 14,820
- 12,239
I'd hope that there's at least some people still around who participating in the old threads.
Or at the absolute worst, we could look through the old threads and see if the points brought up now were considered back then.
I think you're grossly overstating things by saying that no large changes will ever happen again. We have many experts on almost every other subject.
Or at the absolute worst, we could look through the old threads and see if the points brought up now were considered back then.
I think you're grossly overstating things by saying that no large changes will ever happen again. We have many experts on almost every other subject.
- 20,504
- 1,587
I personally do not know who is considered knowledgeable on these topics besides the people Ant mentioned so i can't say much about who the people to call here would be. But i do support the reading through the old threads and seeing the arguments.
As for the overstatement, it is not really that big of an overstatement if we only wait for the old experts than on some topics (like this one) where the experts just aren't there nothing can happen.
As for the overstatement, it is not really that big of an overstatement if we only wait for the old experts than on some topics (like this one) where the experts just aren't there nothing can happen.
Wokistan
Bioluminescent African American Working At The CIA
VS Battles
Administrator
Calculation Group
Human Resources
- 16,849
- 7,300
Not sure I'd necessarily be able to agree that retroactive EE is inferior to concept stuff. If you never existed, neither would any concept of you besides potentially types 2 and up, yet concept 3 EE's still used for High-Godly.
- 29,868
- 30,876
Actually, I think I may know the difference between High-Godly or Mid-Godly + Acausality. High-Godly also means you regenerate your history; or your past, present, and future. Acausality depending on the level basically means you can live without having a history. Type when can live without a past, type 2 can live without a past or future, type 3 just has innumerable pasts, presents, or futures that can potentially mean they have virtuously infinite lives via time paradoxes. And type 4 or 5 can pretty much live without a past, present or future. But High-Godly isn't simply being able to live without those, but can actually regenerate their history.
It's kind of like a difference between someone who can live without a head to someone who can actually grow their head back.
It's kind of like a difference between someone who can live without a head to someone who can actually grow their head back.
- 2,025
- 312
This is kind of a problem. Those who regenerate from timeline erasure does not necessarily regenerate their history as well (unless you want to make that default assumption). At least, I don't know any verse that explain that. Most just comeback and that's it.
- Status
