How does Outerversal work?

[Iaakk]

Is Outerversal just an aleph 2 number of the 3rd spatial dimension. How does that work?

What is it that makes an aleph 2 cardinal scale so high and mean that no layers of dimensionality cannot be added to it in the sense it transcends any notion of it?

Why and how are alephs even used in tiering and scaling?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Is Outerversal just an aleph 2 number of the 3rd spatial dimension. How does that work?

Aleph-2 amount if geometric dimensions or the equivalent.

What is it that makes an aleph 2 cardinal scale so high and mean that no layers of dimensionality cannot be added to it in the sense it transcends any notion of it?

Aleph-0 is an of infinite numbers. Aleph-1 is set containing all possible sets of Aleph-0 or a set of possible infinite sets.

Aleph-2 by the same notion would an An Aleph-1 set of Aleph-1. A set containing infinite sets that contain infinite sets.

Just being bigger isn't enough, since that can be covered by any of the infinite amount of sets. You need to be bigger than an infinite amount of sets containing infinite sets repeating.

Why and how are alephs even used in tiering and scaling?

Idk. Decided to base it in some with numbers rather than relying on beyond dimensions statements.

 

[Iaakk]

Aleph-2 amount if geometric dimensions or the equivalent.

Can you give an example because I am confused

Aleph-0 is an of infinite numbers. Aleph-1 is set containing all possible sets of Aleph-0 or a set of possible infinite sets.

Aleph-2 by the same notion would an An Aleph-1 set of Aleph-1. A set containing infinite sets that contain infinite sets.

Just being bigger isn't enough, since that can be covered by any of the infinite amount of sets. You need to be bigger than an infinite amount of sets containing infinite sets repeating.

This isn't helping, can you explain with an example of more detailed?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Can you give an example because I am confused

You have 4. 4 can be broken down in the following sets:

• [0]
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [1, 2]
• [1, 3]
• [2, 3]
• [1, 2, 3]

The set theory of 4 is greater than 4, because there are many ways to get to 4. An Aleph-1 is an infinite set of infinite number sets.

This isn't helping, can you explain with an example of more detailed?

Aleph-0 can be any of the following:

• the set of all integers,
• any infinite subset of the integers, such as the set of all square numbers or the set of all prime numbers,
• the set of all rational numbers,
• the set of all constructible numbers (in the geometric sense),
• the set of all algebraic numbers,
• the set of all computable numbers,
• the set of all computable functions,
• the set of all binary strings of finite length, and
• the set of all finite subsets of any given countably infinite set.

Aleph-1 is a set containing an infinite array of different versions of infinite number strings. Aleph-2 is a set containing an infinite array of infinite Aleph-1 strings.

 

[Iaakk]

You have 4. 4 can be broken down in the following sets:

• [0]
• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [1, 2]
• [1, 3]
• [2, 3]
• [1, 2, 3]

The set theory of 4 is greater than 4, because there are many ways to get to 4. An Aleph-1 is an infinite set of infinite number sets.

What? I'm still really confused

Aleph-0 can be any of the following:

• the set of all integers,
• any infinite subset of the integers, such as the set of all square numbers or the set of all prime numbers,
• the set of all rational numbers,
• the set of all constructible numbers (in the geometric sense),
• the set of all algebraic numbers,
• the set of all computable numbers,
• the set of all computable functions,
• the set of all binary strings of finite length, and
• the set of all finite subsets of any given countably infinite set.

Aleph-1 is a set containing an infinite array of different versions of infinite number strings. Aleph-2 is a set containing an infinite array of infinite Aleph-1 strings.

How does this relate with dimensionality and is impressive whatsoever? And what is having no dimensional limits scale to?

 

[Qawsedf234]

What? I'm still really confused

It's set theory. If you don't get it you'll never be able to get anything above Aleph-1.

How does this relate with dimensionality and is impressive whatsoever?

Infinite Dimensions are High 1-B. Having an infinite set of infinite dimensions is Low 1-A. Having an infinite set composed of infinite sets contains different arrangements of infinity is Aleph-2.

It's about how even if you're infinitely stronger or superior, the gap between Low 1-A and 1-A is greater than 11-C to Low 1-A. So the point about 1-A and above is that even a transinfinite amount of dimensions is smaller than the rating.

And what is having no dimensional limits scale to?

Whatever the highest dimension the cosmology shows +1 without greater evidence.

 

[Reiner04]

Is Outerversal just an aleph 2 number of the 3rd spatial dimension. How does that work?

Low outer is Aleph 2 amount of elements regardless of what the element is, take anything, aleph 2 amount of rice grains, aleph 2 amounts of egg, aleph 2 amounts of waifus or aleph 2 amounts of Reiner. These elements just have to be physically exist within verse cosmology but I must mention that it's not the same case with Low 1-C aka aleph 1, in which case, elements must be number of Universes or space equivalent to it.

Oh well, for outer, Aleph 2 amount of spatial dimensions

 

[Iaakk]

Low outer is Aleph 2 amount of elements regardless of what the element is, take anything, aleph 2 amount of rice grains, aleph 2 amounts of egg, aleph 2 amounts of waifus or aleph 2 amounts of Reiner. These elements just have to be physically exist within verse cosmology but I must mention that it's not the same case with Low 1-C aka aleph 1, in which case, elements must be number of Universes or space equivalent to it.

Oh well, for outer, Aleph 2 amount of spatial dimensions

Wait what is the difference between aleph 1 and aleph 2 then? And how can you imagine aleph 1 spaces that scale to outer? What about a realm transcending a realm that transcends an infinite hierarchy of dimensions?

 

[Iaakk]

It's set theory. If you don't get it you'll never be able to get anything above Aleph-1.

What about a realm transcending a realm that transcends an infinite hierarchy of dimensions

Infinite Dimensions are High 1-B. Having an infinite set of infinite dimensions is Low 1-A. Having an infinite set composed of infinite sets contains different arrangements of infinity is Aleph-2.

Is there screenshots of examples for this because it is really hard to imagine from text

 

[Qawsedf234]

What about a realm transcending a realm that transcends an infinite hierarchy of dimensions

Like Low 1-A if you can prove all of those things.

Is there screenshots of examples for this because it is really hard to imagine from text

Tiering System Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Reiner04]

Wait what is the difference between aleph 1 and aleph 2 then? And how can you imagine aleph 1 spaces that scale to outer? What about a realm transcending a realm that transcends an infinite hierarchy of dimensions?

This section of FAQ pretty much explains it.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

All Outerversal tiers (low, "", high) is basically is unreachable you can say to any lower tier under certain degree and extension.

Low outer = unreachable by any countable infinite numbers of dimensions, Universes, Low 1-C structures, 1-B, yeah any below. Take any countable infinite amount of them but you still won't get to Low 1-A, in aleph form, it's aleph 1 higher dimensions or aleph 1 amount of high 1-B or aleph 2 numbers of waifus or god knows what you want to have of aleph 2 amount. They will be atleast low outer. Mark it, i said "atleast" because it'll go above if you choose to take aleph 2 amount of spatial dimensions.

Outer = it is unreachable by all structure below in the similiar manner low outer is unreachable from below, that is countable infinite amount of Low 1-A structures or any below won't get you to this tier. In Alephs, it's equals to aleph 2 amount of dimensions and have aleph 3, aleph 4, blah blah blah blah... same as high 1B has blah blah blah.

High 1-A: unreachable by all below and is undefinable in relation to 1-A realm, means take countable or even uncountable infinite numbers of all structure below including 1-A and you still won't reach it. Inaccessible cardinals in short.

Boundless = makima mommy, Asuna mommy etc (not really). same as high 1-A exceeds 1-A (logically), it exceeds high 1-A logical frame work.



Since you do only seems wants to have idea of how larger and big it is to scale and how their differences makes sense, I just let you have an idea through this explanation, but you must know what countable infinite and uncountable infinite is.

 

[Iaakk]

This section of FAQ pretty much explains it.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

All Outerversal tiers (low, "", high) is basically is unreachable you can say to any lower tier under certain degree and extension.

Low outer = unreachable by any countable infinite numbers of dimensions, Universes, Low 1-C structures, 1-B, yeah any below. Take any countable infinite amount of them but you still won't get to Low 1-A,

Isn't infinity or High 1-B not countable

in aleph form, it's aleph 1 higher dimensions or aleph 1 amount of high 1-B or aleph 2 numbers of waifus or god knows what you want to have of aleph 2 amount. They will be atleast low outer. Mark it, i said "atleast" because it'll go above if you choose to take aleph 2 amount of spatial dimensions

Why is that low outer? Can't it be contained within 3D or something, shouldn't it be aleph 1 spatial dimensions?

Outer = it is unreachable by all structure below in the similiar manner low outer is unreachable from below, that is countable infinite amount of Low 1-A structures or any below won't get you to this tier. In Alephs, it's equals to aleph 2 amount of dimensions and have aleph 3, aleph 4, blah blah blah blah... same as high 1B has blah blah blah.

what? I'm confused, do you mean that uncoutnable or countble layers of low 1-A isn't 1-A?

 

[Iaakk]

Like Low 1-A if you can prove all of those things.

But isn't it aleph 1 amount of dimensions

Tiering System Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

I literally read that and heck I watched the vsauce vid a while ago, and I understand it.. But it's hard to imagine aleph 2 amounts of dimensions (plural) in a verse and why that's outer

 

[Qawsedf234]

But isn't it aleph 1 amount of dimensions

Aleph-1 is an infinite set of all types of infinities. Just being above Infinite Dimensions isn't enough unless it's a notable type of transcendence.

aleph 2 amounts of dimensions (plural) in a verse and why that's outer

You just have to stop thinking of Outer as meaning outside of. It's a legacy tiering name rather than a hard description nowadays.

 

[Reiner04]

Isn't infinity or High 1-B not countable

For that, you gotta first learn what countable and uncountable infinities are.

So, cya after that.

 

[Iaakk]

For that, you gotta first learn what countable and uncountable infinities are.

I do know them.
If the cardinal countinium is infinite of every natural number known in existence even as the rational numbers including fractions, it created aleph null. Say if you were to zero to it, in that case then you would have a set of numbers that exceeds the natural numbers of infinite (called aleph null) called the ordinal numbers. First such as being ω. If you were to add one, this is infinite, so there is no quantitative amount, so it would just be ω+1, then ω+2, then ω+3, and so on. Basically this is another “layer” of infinity that exceeds past the aleph null infinity set of natural cardinals. The Axion or replacement is when things get interesting, using this method, you are able to bring out the aleph null or ω to make a new set which cannot be ended. Basically you can do ωx2, which is impossible, and even better ω^ω, heck using this method you can do ω^ω^ω^ω^ω^ω and so on until there is no pint, where you can just use epsilon not and continue on. However, when we get to the main topic, everything we just learned about aleph null and ω (also known as omega I forgot to say it lol) is just natural numbers to ω. What if, there was a single number that you can’t reach. No matter how many axioms of replacements you have, you cannot just reach the cardinal. This is called the INACCESSIBLE CARDINAL, this is inaccessible and you can’t reach it.

But what's hard to imagine is this scaling to outer, in 3 spatial dimensions.

 

[Iaakk]

Aleph-1 is an infinite set of all types of infinities. Just being above Infinite Dimensions isn't enough unless it's a notable type of transcendence.

So is aleph 1 something like MWI because it's uncotubely infinite?

You just have to stop thinking of Outer as meaning outside of. It's a legacy tiering name rather than a hard description nowadays.

What?? Isn't that what it means? The background of all dimensions?

 

[Qawsedf234]

So is aleph 1 something like MWI because it's uncotubely infinite?

Aleph-1 is a space that can contain a infinite array of Aleph-0 Dimensions.

What?? Isn't that what it means?

It's a legacy name. It's all based on set theory regarding a number of dimensions you have.

 

[Reiner04]

I do know them.
If the cardinal countinium is infinite of every natural number known in existence even as the rational numbers including fractions, it created aleph null. Say if you were to zero to it, in that case then you would have a set of numbers that exceeds the natural numbers of infinite (called aleph null) called the ordinal numbers. First such as being ω. If you were to add one, this is infinite, so there is no quantitative amount, so it would just be ω+1, then ω+2, then ω+3, and so on. Basically this is another “layer” of infinity that exceeds past the aleph null infinity set of natural cardinals. The Axion or replacement is when things get interesting, using this method, you are able to bring out the aleph null or ω to make a new set which cannot be ended. Basically you can do ωx2, which is impossible, and even better ω^ω, heck using this method you can do ω^ω^ω^ω^ω^ω and so on until there is no pint, where you can just use epsilon not and continue on. However, when we get to the main topic, everything we just learned about aleph null and ω (also known as omega I forgot to say it lol) is just natural numbers to ω. What if, there was a single number that you can’t reach. No matter how many axioms of replacements you have, you cannot just reach the cardinal. This is called the INACCESSIBLE CARDINAL, this is inaccessible and you can’t reach it.

But what's hard to imagine is this scaling to outer, in 3 spatial dimensions.

That's seems heard somewhere iykyk.
It's not in 3 dimensions anymore if it's unreachable and contains all of below and even countable amount of them as nothing but dust. In any case, it'll be better if you know countable and uncountable infinities are and if you already know, then it's won't be hard for u to atleast imagine this all scaling and transcendence, even if you do not know the Alephs, you'll atleast have a better idea to it.

 

[Iaakk]

That's seems heard somewhere iykyk.

I wrote it myself taking notes from the vsauce vid

It's not in 3 dimensions anymore if it's unreachable and contains all of below and even countable amount of them as nothing but dust. In any case, it'll be better if you know countable and uncountable infinities are and if you already know, then it's won't be hard for u to atleast imagine this all scaling and transcendence, even if you do not know the Alephs, you'll atleast have a better idea to it.

But it is hard, it's hard to imagine an outerversal realm from this

 

[Iaakk]

Aleph-1 is a space that can contain a infinite array of Aleph-0 Dimensions.

So any possible amount of dimensions such as High Hyper stuff and more

It's a legacy name. It's all based on set theory regarding a number of dimensions you have.

Wait so it's bounded by dimensionity?

 

[Reiner04]

But it is hard, it's hard to imagine an outerversal realm from this

Obviously you can't, you just how to see how big they are in comparison to structure below it.

Wait so it's bounded by dimensionity?

It can be, cannot be. It may lack dimensions but the point is, the bigger or the superior the realm will be in comparison, the higher will be the tier. Space that lacks dimensions are just different thing than space that has dimensions, none of them are necessarily superior to one another unless fiction portrays them as such. We just don't know how a space that lacks dimensions as a property will look like, if there is evidence that such spaces that lacks dimensions as a property and are superior and can accomodate all of infinite dimensions and even more, then you can tier them as such but just because they're aspatial doesn't mean they're superior. It's just different property than us.

Imagine it like rock and water, waters property is to flow and rock property is to stay concrete, how one is comparable or strong from each other is not just about their one single property to hold or not.

Here read our Beyond dimensional page, may will help ya.

Beyond-Dimensional Existence

Beyond-Dimensional Existence on this wiki refers to the state of being of characters who exist outside, and are independent of, space and its dimensions. This is different from Zero-Dimensionality in that a zero dimensional thing is still spatial in nature, but simply lacks more than zero...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Reiner04]

I wrote it myself taking notes from the vsauce vid

Well... hmm. I would advice to watch cantor's diagonal argument more than thrice, that should be sufficient.

 

[Iaakk]

Obviously you can't, you just how to see how big they are in comparison to structure below it.

SO like High 1-B structures being pale in comparsin to Low 1-A cuz Low 1-A transcends High 1-B?

It can be, cannot be. It may lack dimensions but the point is, the bigger or the superior the realm will be in comparison, the higher will be the tier. Space that lacks dimensions are just different thing than space that has dimensions, none of them are necessarily superior to one another unless fiction portrays them as such.

Are you saying space that lacks dimensions is just Type 1 BDE and scales nowhere because there is no dimensinoal coordinates in it so it's 0D and it can be different if the space that lacks dimensions is superior to such dimensions. If so I know, but how does this deal with anything?

We just don't know how a space that lacks dimensions as a property will look like, if there is evidence that such spaces that lacks dimensions as a property and are superior and can accomodate all of infinite dimensions and even more, then you can tier them as such but just because they're aspatial doesn't mean they're superior. It's just different property than us.

Are you saying spaces that are uncontistrained by the concepts of dimensions is this?

Imagine it like rock and water, waters property is to flow and rock property is to stay concrete, how one is comparable or strong from each other is not just about their one single property to hold or not.

what?

Here read our Beyond dimensional page, may will help ya.

I read that already

 

[Iaakk]

Well... hmm. I would advice to watch cantor's diagonal argument more than thrice, that should be sufficient.

can you give me link, and why? I watched VSAUCE's vid

 

[Qawsedf234]

any possible amount of dimensions such as High Hyper stuff and more

Even if you were infinitely greater than High 1-B you wouldn't be Low 1-A. It's a space that can contain the infinite permutations of an infinite dimensional array.

Wait so it's bounded by dimensionity?

Yes. Everything in the wiki works off a dimensional basis. Which is why I said to ignore older definitions of the tier since they don't represent the modern version.

 

[Iaakk]

Even if you were infinitely greater than High 1-B you wouldn't be Low 1-A. It's a space that can contain the infinite permutations of an infinite dimensional array.

Isn't that basiclly MWI, or uncountably infinite? Like infinite doors with each door having infinite more doors and those doors having infinite more doors ad infium?

Yes. Everything in the wiki works off a dimensional basis. Which is why I said to ignore older definitions of the tier since they don't represent the modern version.

Then shouldn't transcending dimensionality be beyond tiering?

 

[Qawsedf234]

Isn't that basiclly MWI, or uncountably infinite?

It's based off of Hilbert Space. There's types of MWI that incorporates that concept, but not all of them do and most of the time we don't default to a High 1-B MWI with just a title drop.

Then shouldn't transcending dimensionality be beyond tiering?

As I've said before, without more to it transcending dimensions is just a +1 thing on this site.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Then shouldn't transcending dimensionality be beyond tiering?

If you were to absolutely ascribe no limits to said statement. Otherwise it's +1 or perhaps even 1-A depending on verse context.

 

[Iaakk]

It's based off of Hilbert Space. There's types of MWI that incorporates that concept, but not all of them do and most of the time we don't default to a High 1-B MWI with just a title drop.

How does this differ from the uncountable infinity that scales to Low 1-A?

As I've said before, without more to it transcending dimensions is just a +1 thing on this site.

But didn't you just say the entire tiering system is bound and concluded off dimensionality?

 

[Reiner04]

Are you saying space that lacks dimensions is just Type 1 BDE and scales nowhere because there is no dimensinoal coordinates in it so it's 0D and it can be different if the space that lacks dimensions is superior to such dimensions. If so I know, but how does this deal with anything?

I'm saying we don't know, I didn't said it's 0d, since 0d itself a dimension. We simply, don't know how a space that lacks dimensions looks like or acts like more than that it's merely lacks one of properties of space that we live in, is to have dimensions. Unless specified by fiction itself over how they should be treated or how superior they're. They are just BDE.

you saying spaces that are uncontistrained by the concepts of dimensions is this?

Yeah, a space that is kind of smth that is just "different" and "weirder" than ours. Unless fiction species them to smth for smth. They are just meh.

what?

Just like water has property to flow, our space has dimension as property. Lacking it may gives smth but we don't know what's that unless fiction specifis since we simply don't know, aside from that Dimensional manp or spacetime hax may not work since they clearly lack it, we can conclude only this much nothing more. It's purely fictional.

can you give me link, and why? I watched VSAUCE's vid

Well, you can just search it up. Any popular YT will be enough, it's not that of hard concept. So it'll be fine.

 

[Reiner04]

SO like High 1-B structures being pale in comparsin to Low 1-A cuz Low 1-A transcends High 1-B?

Yeah and to the point that even countable infinite*countable infinite*countable infinite.. keep going infinitely not reach it. You simply need uncountable infinite amount of high 1B,

Lemme show you with a bit of portrayal how large Low 1-A is in comparison to all structure in tiering system below if they ever comes themselves to compare in front of Low 1-A.

Planets: here we are in countably infinite amount.
Low 1-A: so what?

Universe: here now we are in countably infinite amount.
Low 1-A: so what?

Multiverses: here we are in countably infinite amount.
Low 1-A: so what?

low 1-C: here we are in countably infinite amount.
Low 1-A: so what?

High 1-B: here we are in countably infinite amount.
Low 1-A: so what dumb head? Don't you all know that even you all even combined can't reach me unless you go uncountable? You'll always be dust to me.

Low 1-A = uncountable infinite amount of high 1-B anything below is merely just dust to him. No comparison.

This is best I can go with. That's the reason we use, all of it is just insignificant.

 

[Iaakk]

I'm saying we don't know, I didn't said it's 0d, since 0d itself a dimension. We simply, don't know how a space that lacks dimensions looks like or acts like more than that it's merely lacks one of properties of space that we live in, is to have dimensions. Unless specified by fiction itself over how they should be treated or how superior they're. They are just BDE.

So your just describing Type 1 BDE?

Yeah, a space that is kind of smth that is just "different" and "weirder" than ours. Unless fiction species them to smth for smth. They are just meh.

Like your saying type 1 BDE can be 5D in context?

Just like water has property to flow, our space has dimension as property. Lacking it may gives smth but we don't know what's that unless fiction specifis since we simply don't know,

Isn't it just type 1 BDE period? What do you mean by it gives smthn, and again, how is this relevant?

 

[Iaakk]

Well, you can just search it up. Any popular YT will be enough, it's not that of hard concept. So it'll be fine.

Is this video good?

 

[Reiner04]

So your just describing Type 1 BDE?

Yeah, BDE1&2 is what you were asking, to be unbounded by dimensions or lack it. They lack dimensions in the same way dead body lacks live and so, deathnote won't work on them, "life" here becomes a property that one lacks and other have. Same with dimensions.

Isn't it just type 1 BDE period? What do you mean by it gives smthn, and again, how is this relevant?

They'll get what fiction shows them to have or logically, if they should.

It's going lengthier you know, you have to understand few things yourself as well by reading or reason it just like we all did

 

[Iaakk]

It's going lengthier you know, you have to understand few things yourself as well by reading or reason it just like we all did

I'm trying to. I just watched a video about cantor as you suggested, but it's literally the same concept as vsauce. This is my explanation for the best I can figure

If the cardinal countinium is infinite of every natural number known in existence even as the rational numbers including fractions, it created aleph null.

Say if you were to add zero to it, in that case then you would have a set of numbers that exceeds the natural numbers of infinite (called aleph null) called the ordinal numbers. First such as being ω. If you were to add one, this is infinite, so there is no quantitative amount, so it would just be ω+1, then ω+2, then ω+3, and so on. Basically this is another “layer” of infinity that exceeds past the aleph null infinity set of natural cardinals.

The Axion or replacement is when things get interesting, using this method, you are able to bring out the aleph null or ω to make a new set which cannot be ended. Basically you can do ωx2, which is impossible, and even better ω^ω, heck using this method you can do ω^ω^ω^ω^ω^ω and so on until there is no pint, where you can just use epsilon not and continue on. However, when we get to the main topic, everything we just learned about aleph null and ω is just natural numbers to ω. What if, there was a single number that you can’t reach. No matter how many axioms of replacements you have, you cannot just reach the cardinal. This is called the INACCESSIBLE CARDINAL, this is inaccessible and you can’t reach it.

What is confusing is how I can relate this with dimensionality and tiering

 

[Qawsedf234]

How does this differ from the uncountable infinity that scales to Low 1-A?

High 1-B is Aleph-0. It's an infinite array of numbers. Aleph-1 is a infinite set composed of infinite arrays. It's a spacial size difference.

But didn't you just say the entire tiering system is bound and concluded off dimensionality?

It is. But you're under the false impression that being beyond dimensions automatically equates to 1-A. It does not on this site, as that line of thinking is considered an NLF. As the FAQ says it's just cosmology +1.

Say if you were to add zero to it, in that case then you would have a set of numbers that exceeds the natural numbers of infinite (called aleph null) called the ordinal numbers.

It's not adding zero. It's that if you continuously switch number arrays at alternating intervals you'll reach a figure no other Aleph-0 would contain, which would require a larger set to contain that array. Adding more numbers to it does nothing.

 

[Reiner04]

I'm trying to. I just watched a video about cantor as you suggested, but it's literally the same concept as vsauce. This is my explanation for the best I can figure

Diagonal argument proves that real numbers are bigger than natural numbers. Let's say you made a list of natural numbers till infinite and put them in one to one correspondence with different decimal numbers.

1 → 0.154967906.....
2 → 0.646907689.....
3 → 0.896865555.....
4 → 0.467877998.....
5 → 0.987789556.....
\
\
(till infinite)

Now we think we have listed all of decimal numbers that can exist in correspondence to all natural numbers that can exist, no one is left since both are equal, infinite, yeah?

Now take one values from all the decimals we have wrote (and would have wrote till infinite) from alternate places (not same, you're not supposed to take values from 10st decimal place again from another decimal number if you have already taken it once). You'll get smth like: 0.14688....
Now switch the all of decimal places of number we have created from any other number, 0.14688.. will become 0.26499..., now 0.26499... doesn't exist in the list we created previously, it doesn't exist for "1" since it doesn't have "1" at 10th decimal place, it doesn't exist for "2" since we doesn't have "4" at 100th decimal place, etc.

So we got extra number that can't be listed in one to one correspondence with natural numbers, now you can just list it inside the list again with the list by adding 1 more number in the list of natural numbers and it's size won't increase since "1 + infinite = infinite" and repeat the same whole process we did above and you will get again one more decimal that doesn't exist in the list then again and again and again... adinfinitum. You'll always get one decimal number left regardless how many times you do it. That shows it cannot be listed in one to one correspondence at all since they're not equal, clearly, set of decimal numbers are bigger than set of natural numbers, so large that infinite+infinite+... won't reach it. That's uncountable, decimal numbers are uncountable. Now it's time for me to run away since, no more. Gtg nice to cya and have a nice day.

 

[Iaakk]

Diagonal argument proves that real numbers are bigger than natural numbers. Let's say you made a list of natural numbers till infinite and put them in one to one correspondence with different decimal numbers.

1 → 0.154967906.....
2 → 0.646907689.....
3 → 0.896865555.....
4 → 0.467877998.....
5 → 0.987789556.....
\
\
(till infinite)

Now we think we have listed all of decimal numbers that can exist in correspondence to all natural numbers that can exist, no one is left since both are equal, infinite, yeah?

Now take one values from all the decimals we have wrote (and would have wrote till infinite) from alternate places (not same, you're not supposed to take values from 10st decimal place again from another decimal number if you have already taken it once). You'll get smth like: 0.14688....
Now switch the all of decimal places of number we have created from any other number, 0.14688.. will become 0.26499..., now 0.26499... doesn't exist in the list we created previously, it doesn't exist for "1" since it doesn't have "1" at 10th decimal place, it doesn't exist for "2" since we doesn't have "4" at 100th decimal place, etc.

So we got extra number that can't be listed in one to one correspondence with natural numbers, now you can just list it inside the list again with the list by adding 1 more number in the list of natural numbers and it's size won't increase since "1 + infinite = infinite" and repeat the same whole process we did above and you will get again one more decimal that doesn't exist in the list then again and again and again... adinfinitum. You'll always get one decimal number left regardless how many times you do it. That shows it cannot be listed in one to one correspondence at all since they're not equal, clearly, set of decimal numbers are bigger than set of natural numbers, so large that infinite+infinite+... won't reach it. That's uncountable, decimal numbers are uncountable. Now it's time for me to run away since, no more. Gtg nice to cya and have a nice day.

I know this, didn't my description of it explain it well? And again, how does this relate with dimensionality?

 

[Iaakk]

High 1-B is Aleph-0. It's an infinite array of numbers. Aleph-1 is a infinite set composed of infinite arrays. It's a spacial size difference.

Wait I thought you can just achieve aleph 1 by just transcending high 1-B? What do you mean infinite set composed of infinite arrays, do you mean countably infinite High 1-B or something?

It is. But you're under the false impression that being beyond dimensions automatically equates to 1-A. It does not on this site, as that line of thinking is considered an NLF. As the FAQ says it's just cosmology +1.

Then what is dimensionality used for in boundless tiering?