Hypertimeline

[Seraphor12]

If a realm has hypertimeline but it is not universal in size so, would it still qualify for low 1C?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

fries in the bag lil bro

 

[Seraphor12]

fries in the bag lil bro

ig answering normally wouldn't have been that hard ig

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

ig answering normally wouldn't have been that hard ig

typo

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

with how wack vsbw timeline requirements are probably not

 

[Ezaru]

I assume no, for the same reason that destroying 1m^4 of rock isnt 4d, even though technically any 4d (spacially) rock should be uncountably infinite 3d mass

I think this question is the same as asking if destroying a non-universe / pocket sized timeline is 2-C and given we have feats like Kaguya's (Naruto) below that, the answer is no I guess

 

[Seraphor12]

So it would be just tier 2? or even below depending on the size of realm?

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

So it would be just tier 2? or even below depending on the size of realm?

earth to moon distance level

 

[Ezaru]

So it would be just tier 2? or even below depending on the size of realm?

I dont think it would even be tier 2, for the same reason that destroying say, a tesseract isnt infinite 3d ap or Kaguya who destroyed ( or was going to ) an entire timeline isnt tier 3

But a more knowlegable member can confirm

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

dimension standards are wack since one time axis would have infinite points between any two given points which any independent point contains entirety of that realm. meanwhile a higher time axis would contain the entire set of points on the lower time axis as if it were a singular point on the higher time axis thus inherently needing to be a higher infinity.

 

[Frey_Starlight]

not in the current standards but logically it would. so pack it up

 

[Ezaru]

dimension standards are wack since one time axis would have infinite points between any two given points which any independent point contains entirety of that realm. meanwhile a higher time axis would contain the entire set of points on the lower time axis as if it were a singular point on the higher time axis thus inherently needing to be a higher infinity.

Pretty sure the same is true of say, a 3d object having uncountably infinite amounts of 3d objects

But if you destroy a hypercube/tesseract you dont get 3-A ap

 

[Seraphor12]

a 3d object having uncountably infinite amounts of 3d objects

Wdym?

 

[Ezaru]

Wdym?

Timelines are considered = to 4d spacially because a timeline has uncountably infinite copies of a 3d universe, one for each uncountably infinite second, in the same way, a 4d universe has uncountably infinitely many 3d universes along its 4th axis

Its also why uncountably infinite universes is 1-C ( I think? )

However, even a second of a timeline would have uncountably infinite "moments"

And even a small snippet of 4d space would have uncountably infinite 3d space along its 4th axis

But the wiki doesnt treat it that way

At least I think thats accurate

 

[Hasty12345]

To be low 1-C you need 5 significantly sized axes, but I do wonder if you could argue a smaller hypertimeline to be a valid low 2-C structure

 

[Ezaru]

To be low 1-C you need 5 significantly sized axes, but I do wonder if you could argue a smaller hypertimeline to be a valid low 2-C structure

The issue is none of the axis count if its just a pocket timeline

 

[Seraphor12]

Its also why uncountably infinite universes is 1-C ( I think? )

However, even a second of a timeline would have uncountably infinite "moments"

Yeah that would be low 1C, 2 to 5 uncountable infinite universes would be 1C. And for "a second of a timeline would have uncountably infinite moments" I am confused for this part? I think it should be infinite not uncountable infinite

 

[Frey_Starlight]

And for "a second of a timeline would have uncountably infinite moments" I am confused for this part? I think it should be infinite not uncountable infinite

It would be because there are quite literally uncountable intervals of smaller tick of time like for example , there will be uncountable moments between nanosec ticks, pico sec ticks,........., inumerably infinite intervals can be hypotheically created

 

[FinePoint]

We arbitrarily require timeline feats to be universally sized and include the entire axis.

This is to prevent random pocket dimensions from qualifying.

 

[FinePoint]

It would be because there are quite literally uncountable intervals of smaller tick of time like for example , there will be uncountable moments between nanosec ticks, pico sec ticks,........., inumerably infinite intervals can be hypotheically created

And this is correct.

Logically, a 4D object of any size contains unaccountably infinite 3D matter- but again, we have arbitrary requirements to prevent outliers.

 

[KLOL506]

We arbitrarily require timeline feats to be universally sized and include the entire axis.

This is to prevent random pocket dimensions from qualifying.

Inshallah we will remove that arbitrary requirement one day and make all pocket dimensions great again

 

[Ezaru]

Yeah that would be low 1C, 2 to 5 uncountable infinite universes would be 1C. And for "a second of a timeline would have uncountably infinite moments" I am confused for this part? I think it should be infinite not uncountable infinite

Idk what you mean by "2 to 5 uncountable universes"

One second of a timeline would have uncountably infinitely many "moments" because we treat time like r^1 or a number line, there are uncountably infinite numbers between 1 and 2, as well as between 1 and 100 or 0.000000001 and 10000000000

 

[Ezaru]

Inshallah we will remove that arbitrary requirement one day and make all pocket dimensions great again

 

[Seraphor12]

Idk what you mean by "2 to 5 uncountable universes"

I meant this

Characters or objects who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy higher-dimensional structures that are two to five uncountably infinite levels above Low 2-C structures. In ordinary distribution, this corresponds to R^6 to R^9 (6 to 9-dimensional real coordinate space).

 

[FriendOfTheTeaParty]

And this is correct.

Logically, a 4D object of any size contains unaccountably infinite 3D matter- but again, we have arbitrary requirements to prevent outliers.

i dont see how we cant just prevent outliers by arguing them on a case by case basis to be an outlier instead of limiting verses that could very much not be outliers.

 

[Seraphor12]

i dont see how we cant just prevent outliers by arguing them on a case by case basis to be an outlier instead of limiting verses that could very much not be outliers.

Honestly, you’re right that would be more fair but that case by case basis will take more time and would invite bias and inconsistency, and gives too much room for abuse. Although I still support the idea for case by case basis as it would not limit verses which are not outliers.

 

[Ezaru]

I meant this

Ah, that is refering to 6d-9d though, 2 to 5 extra dimensions, basically, each uncountable layer = 1d, but 5 uncountably infinite universes would still be low 1-C

An uncountably infinite universe or uncountably infinite number of universes is only 5d / Low 1-C. To get to 6d-9d you would need like aleph2-aleph5 amounts of universes I think (aleph0 = infinity aleph1 = uncountable)

 

[FinePoint]

i dont see how we cant just prevent outliers by arguing them on a case by case basis to be an outlier instead of limiting verses that could very much not be outliers.

I agree with you, for the record.

If you made a staff thread along those lines, you'd have at least my support.