Infinite Multiversal Space Container Tier Discussion

[LordGriffin1000]

This is a STAFF Discussion.

Not the best title but that's irrelevant. I'm going to keep this short because I'm sick and got a lot of other things to do but this topic has been on my mind for a minute, and was brought about from the discussion happening on this Devil May Cry revision thread.

To be brief, we all know 2-A/Multiverse level+ is the ability to create/destroy/effect (significantly) an infinite number of universes (space-time continuum), as stated of our Tiering System page.

"Characters or objects that can significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums."

The Issue

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

But the question is this. What happens if a character creates/destroys/effects one of these spaces that's stated to be infinite but the number of universe inside it is finite? To give an example, this character was brought up in the thread because their 2-A justification is as follows...

"Multiverse level (Rimuru has Turn Null which is the primordial energy which allows the user to destroy the existing world and create a new world. Using his Turn Null, Veldanava was able to create the world which has several parallel universes. Over a period of countless years, Turn Null accumulated in Rimuru's Imaginary Space, which gives him enough energy to recreate the world, which contains many parallel universes, tens of thousands of times), likely Multiverse level+ with Void God Azathoth (Ciel has likely turned the stomach into Imaginary Space which is infinite in size, making Imaginary Space hypothetically large enough to contain an infinite amount of space-time continuums)"

As you can see, the 2-A justification is using the hypothetical logic that because the bigger space (Imaginary Space regarding this verse) is likely infinite, it theoretically can contain an infinite number of space-time continuum. However, according to one of our staff members on the DMC thread, we don't have an actual standard for this. Which brings us here now.

So that simply leaves 2 options.

1. We allow theoretically scaling like this, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum they still get 2-A

2. We don't allow this type of scaling, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum will only be rated based off the number of universes actually in said infinite space.

Conclusion

Pending...

 

[Deagonx]

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

But the question is this. What happens if a character creates/destroys/effects one of these spaces that's stated to be infinite but the number of universe inside it is finite?

I think the existing standards pretty clearly don't allow for this to be 2-A, otherwise the distinction between 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A which is based on the amount of universes would become meaningless.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I share Deagon's sentiments. By nature, a realm anywhere from High 3-A to 2-B can be infinite in size without actually containing infinite universes. In the case of Rimuru, I'd say the 2-A rating should go

 

[CloverDragon03]

Also, I'd like to link this thread because, given the topic at hand, I feel it's relevant

 

[LordGriffin1000]

Also, I'd like to link this thread because, given the topic at hand, I feel it's relevant

Ignoring how jumbled that thread is (especially ignoring the tier 1 comments), it seemed to be a back and forth between users but Don'tTalk commented on this topic on page six of that thread, saying being infinitely larger than one universe is a no, multiple is debatable but apparently still no, and said you'd need an actual infinite number of universes or a direct statement saying it can hold an infinite amount.

Now I don't know if Don'tTalk changed their thoughts given that was last year.

 

[Executor_N0]

I asked permission from LordGriffin1000 to comment here, about the subject:

The classifications in the Tiering System work by fitting with the description, if a feat has no direct equivalent to the system, it's by definition untiereable, which can sometimes end up as just Hax. For example, space-time destruction of very limited size isn't often accepted for Tier 2, but it can be accepted as an ability, even though it carries a 4-Dimensional level of destruction. For example, it wouldn't just be put as Tier 8 because the space-time rift happened to destroy a building as if it was a standard 3-D explosion, it could be "Tier 8, via Space-time destruction", in which case the 3-D destruction is being described as a side-effect of the 4-D destruction, the 4-D part is considered a hax that causes a 3-D effect (Or as a more common example, any small-sized reality-warping feat that still has a Tier using reality warp).

Affecting the "container of universes" isn't a feat that is described by 2-C, 2-B or 2-A, because the container is 5-D or higher, it's judged by the standards of Low 1-C and above. It's "implied" (By the range of effect) that any 2-C to 2-A feat has some insignificant 5D+ scope of effect, but what is done with that information is the same that is done to make a 4-D explosion that destroys a building as a side-effect, the destruction level is limited to the dimensions that it has a significant size, while the insignificant size is used to describe some different propriety (Be it hax or range, which is what is used to differentiate the tiers from 2-C to 2-A) that makes it different from not having it.

So, the container itself should be judged by whether it fits a significant 5-D+ size. If it isn't, then it has no effect on the destruction level other than the amount of parallel 4-D spaces that were destroyed (Which judges the non-significant 5-D size by the number of spaces destroyed). In broader strokes, 2-C up to 2-A are just Low 2-C feats that are classified by how much they can go across a 5th-dimensional axis (I remember some people saying that there should be no division between 2-C up to Low 1-C, this is the reason for that, we do that more for convention due to fiction often showing a difference in level between number of universes destroyed, so we follow it).

Basically, when dealing with affecting not just universes across a higher-dimensional space, but the higher-dimensional space itself, first judge if the higher-dimensional space classifies to have a significant size in that higher-dimensional level, if it doesn't, then affecting it shares the same propriety as hax/range, and so the feat is described by the Tier 2 standards (That is, the amount of parallel 4-D spaces affected across a 5th-dimensional axis).

 

[DontTalkDT]

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

 

[CloverDragon03]

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

Idk if you clarified this, but just in case:

What do you think of structures that are infinitely large compared to a space-time continuum they contain, but are never stated/shown to contain infinite universes?

 

[Deagonx]

So, the container itself should be judged by whether it fits a significant 5-D+ size. If it isn't, then it has no effect on the destruction level other than the amount of parallel 4-D spaces that were destroyed (Which judges the non-significant 5-D size by the number of spaces destroyed). In broader strokes, 2-C up to 2-A are just Low 2-C feats that are classified by how much they can go across a 5th-dimensional axis (I remember some people saying that there should be no division between 2-C up to Low 1-C, this is the reason for that, we do that more for convention due to fiction often showing a difference in level between number of universes destroyed, so we follow it).

Basically, when dealing with affecting not just universes across a higher-dimensional space, but the higher-dimensional space itself, first judge if the higher-dimensional space classifies to have a significant size in that higher-dimensional level, if it doesn't, then affecting it shares the same propriety as hax/range, and so the feat is described by the Tier 2 standards (That is, the amount of parallel 4-D spaces affected across a 5th-dimensional axis).

I agree with this.

I think it should be 2-A, but you have to proof that it can be significantly affected, which I suppose is somewhat harder.
But then, well, if you showed that you could affect a space large enough to hold a 2-A structure in a way that would significantly affect infinite universes if they were present in it, that sounds 2-A to me.

I'm a bit confused on this. My understanding is that any cosmology that contains multiple universes must have an insignificantly sized 5-D axis, and the scale from 2-C to 2-A is characterized by the number of universes. If such a cosmology contains 10 infinitely sized universes, and the cosmology is called "infinite" is that not definitively a 2-C level structure?

 

[DontTalkDT]

Idk if you clarified this, but just in case:

What do you think of structures that are infinitely large compared to a space-time continuum they contain, but are never stated/shown to contain infinite universes?

I believe in the past we decided not to do multipliers in Tier 2, so that should stay Low 2-C, I guess. Possibly above baseline.

I'm a bit confused on this. My understanding is that any cosmology that contains multiple universes must have an insignificantly sized 5-D axis, and the scale from 2-C to 2-A is characterized by the number of universes.

One can justify Tier 2 that way, yes.

If such a cosmology contains 10 infinitely sized universes, and the cosmology is called "infinite" is that not definitively a 2-C level structure?

I'm not sure what difference the universes being infinitely large or the cosmology being called infinite should make here.
But if a cosmology contains 10 universes then, barring details that make it larger, it would be Low 2-C, yes.

I fail to see the connection to OPs question, though.

 

[Deagonx]

But if a cosmology contains 10 universes then, barring details that make it larger, it would be Low 2-C, yes.

Just to clarify, you mean 2-C right?

I fail to see the connection to OPs question, though.

The topic came up in a related thread about a different verse that lacks any sort of statement like the one LG gave in the OP about how the space "could contain infinite universes." It's just a combination of being called "infinite" and contained a finite number of realms.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Just to clarify, you mean 2-C right?

Yeah, I do. It was late...

The topic came up in a related thread about a different verse that lacks any sort of statement like the one LG gave in the OP about how the space "could contain infinite universes." It's just a combination of being called "infinite" and contained a finite number of realms.

Oh, I see.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

So unless the bigger space has relevant statements like being infinite compared to the realms within it or being stated to be capable of holding and infinite amount of universes + actual proof that they significantly effected that 5th space axis and not just by some insignificant amount, we shouldn't count these as 2-A feats and just rate them based on the actual number of universes within the space?

 

[Deagonx]

So unless the bigger space has relevant statements like being infinite compared to the realms within it or being stated to be capable of holding and infinite amount of universes + actual proof that they significantly effected that 5th space axis and not just by some insignificant amount, we shouldn't count these as 2-A feats and just rate them based on the actual number of universes within the space?

My understanding is, if there is direct evidence that a Low 2-C space is infinitesimal relative to the larger space, that's actually a Low 1-C feat. However, it would need to be more than just the realm being called infinite.

 

[LordGriffin1000]

My understanding is, if there is direct evidence that a Low 2-C space is infinitesimal relative to the larger space, that's actually a Low 1-C feat. However, it would need to be more than just the realm being called infinite.

So we're pretty much going to need a statement saying it can hold infinite universes if it doesn't specifically have an infinite amount to get 2-A, since the the bigger space insignificant 5-D axis holds no impact on the tier.

 

[CodeCCLL]

I got permission from @Dereck03

To give an example, this character was brought up in the thread because their 2-A justification is as follows...

To explain the context.

In the Tensura Web Novel continuity, the term "World" refers to a multiverse consisting of several parallel universes embed in an un-significant 5D space known as sub-space.

Rimuru's Imaginary Space is filled with Turn Null energy, which can create this multiverse tens of thousands of times. Rimuru can absorb Low 2-C constructs through his Ultimate Skill Beelzebub and Azathoth, but Imaginary Space cannot be completely filled with Low 2-C structures.

Imaginary Space was long ago accepted as 2-A, but given that the space in which the Low 2-C structures are embedded is an un-significant 5-D space and the 5th axis can already capable of hold on infinite number of Low 2-C structures. I completely agree that such structures should not be considered 2-A unless they contain an infinite number of Low 2-C structures.

So we're pretty much going to need a statement saying it can hold infinite universes if it doesn't specifically have an infinite amount to get 2-A, since the the bigger space insignificant 5-D axis holds no impact on the tier.

Affecting the "container of universes" isn't a feat that is described by 2-C, 2-B or 2-A, because the container is 5-D or higher, it's judged by the standards of Low 1-C and above. It's "implied" (By the range of effect) that any 2-C to 2-A feat has some insignificant 5D+ scope of effect, but what is done with that information is the same that is done to make a 4-D explosion that destroys a building as a side-effect, the destruction level is limited to the dimensions that it has a significant size, while the insignificant size is used to describe some different propriety (Be it hax or range, which is what is used to differentiate the tiers from 2-C to 2-A) that makes it different from not having it.

So, the container itself should be judged by whether it fits a significant 5-D+ size. If it isn't, then it has no effect on the destruction level other than the amount of parallel 4-D spaces that were destroyed (Which judges the non-significant 5-D size by the number of spaces destroyed). In broader strokes, 2-C up to 2-A are just Low 2-C feats that are classified by how much they can go across a 5th-dimensional axis (I remember some people saying that there should be no division between 2-C up to Low 1-C, this is the reason for that, we do that more for convention due to fiction often showing a difference in level between number of universes destroyed, so we follow it).

Basically, when dealing with affecting not just universes across a higher-dimensional space, but the higher-dimensional space itself, first judge if the higher-dimensional space classifies to have a significant size in that higher-dimensional level, if it doesn't, then affecting it shares the same propriety as hax/range, and so the feat is described by the Tier 2 standards (That is, the amount of parallel 4-D spaces affected across a 5th-dimensional axis).

Actually @Executor_N0 explained this point quite well. The 5th axis can already hold on two to infinite number of Low 2-C structures (2-C, 2-B, 2-A), so the container containing the Low 2-C structures does not mean anything in terms of Tier 2 ratings, what matters is how many Low 2-C structures are in the 5th axis in question.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Got permission from Qawsedf to post here

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

1. We allow theoretically scaling like this, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum they still get 2-A

2. We don't allow this type of scaling, meaning if a character creates/destroys/effects the infinite space (with an insignificant 5-D axis) that contains a finite number of space-time continuum will only be rated based off the number of universes actually in said infinite space.

I don't intend to talk about the in-verse stuff, but I just had this thought while thinking about this "Space between universes" and how we treat them...
I don't know if it was just me or if someone else thought of it too before, but here goes nothin'......
I'll be starting from the basics and then moving on to the actual stuff to avoid any confusion;
Dimensional Axis
Basically, an "Axis" is akin to a line, and two dimensional axes are akin to 2 perpendicular lines.

From what I understand of the standards, an axis that is an infinite line [both sides extending to infinity] is significant in size, and that which does not extend to infinity [at which point it's not even a "Line" other than in name, and is more or rather just a Line segment] is an insignificant space.

In terms of points, you can say a line is a complete R[equivalent to a real number set], an uncountably infinite amount of points. On the other hand, a line segment is not an R. A line segment still, however, has a countably infinite amount of points, equivalent to the cardinality of the set of natural/integers/whole numbers.

Application in Higher-Dimensionality
Let's make this simple by using an example we all know. A Time Axis. It basically refers to the Dimensional Axis of time, which when overarching 3 spatial dimensions, is considered the 4th dimension.
By our standards, we assume that this axis/line, which extends perpendicular to the 3D plane, is assumed to spawn a snapshot/copy of the structure it's overarching [normally 3-dimensional universe] for each point on that line. In essence, this means that a time axis as a whole spawns an uncountably infinite amount of 3D snapshots of the physical universe, making it qualify for 4D under our standards, a Space-time continuum.

Now, from the same analogy, how many snapshots would a finite amount of "Time" spawn? For instance, let's say, how many snapshots would a time worth a 100 million years spawn? A hundred million snapshots? No! It will spawn an infinite amount of them, or, to be precise, a countably infinite amount. Because even a single second can be divided infinitely[countably infinitely], so naturally, a hundred million years would spawn a countably infinite amount of points. It's like how between any two numbers in the set of rational numbers, there exist countably infinitely many more rational numbers[decimals].

So, by that logic, the amount of 3D snapshots spanned is countably infinite, thus scaling it to what we consider as High 3-A [Infinite 3D].

Space between Space-Time continuities
Basically, just as the title says, it's the Space between two or more Space-Time continuums. We assume it to be the 5th dimensional axis separating 4D Space-time continuums, or, in other words, the 4-Dimensional Space-time continuums are embedded in this 5-dimensional space. By the fact that it's the "5th dimensional axis" or "4th dimension by order of purely space", it means it's perpendicular to the regular 4 dimensions, length, width, height, and time.

However, we also assume that by default, it's not considered "Infinite"[in the sense of how a line is infinite] in size by default, or what we usually call as "Significant size". Rather, we assume that it's insignificant in size in terms of its extensions towards the 5th dimension; aka, it's a line segment, not a line. We treat it as being unknown in size unless stated otherwise, and thus, it does not grant any specific tier above 2-C by itself.

Application in Higher-Dimensionality
The above basically means that this 5th dimensional axis [4th spatial dimension], which is not equivalent to a whole R[Set of real numbers], is similar to the concept of "Finite time overarching a 3-Dimensional space"; I.e., both are countably infinite in size.

Now, we all know how the equation to represent 3-D is R x R x R [or R to the power of 3] right? By the same logic, the equation to represent 4-D would be R x R x R x R, and that for 5-D would be R x R x R x R x R. However, if the 5th dimension is not equivalent to a whole R, and instead equivalent to N[set of natural numbers], then the equation becomes R x R x R x R x N.

Now, since we know that the R part of the equation is equivalent to a 4-D Space-time Continuum, we'll go ahead and replace it by that:
=4-D Space-Time Continuum x N
= 4-D x Countably Infinite
This basically means that this finite 5th dimensional axis is capable of spawning snapshots of whatever it overarches a countably infinite amount of time [in the same sense that a finite length line segment still has a countably infinite number of points on it].

Regarding "Empty Spaces"
I thought this question may arise, to why not answer this from the start; "What about when the Space between space-times is empty, where are the snapshots?".

The answer to this is quit simple; they don't need to be shown to physically contain them. Because we're forgetting that an "Axis" is strictly used for denoting direction, it is not the actual direction[in a way], insofar as that even without a line, that direction can still exist. Basically, where do we draw a line on? A plane! But how do we draw a line? By extending a set of points in the same linear direction.

Another example, between a 10m3 [meter cube] space filled with stuff and a 10m3 space that's empty, is there any difference in spatial size of the space itself? Obviously not, it's just a matter of perspective that those spaces are being filled, but them being or not being filled doesn't decide whether they exist or not, if we remove the stuff from the first 10m3 space, what we're left with is the same space with the same size.

So basically, the conclusion;
The Space between Space-Times, even if insignificant, but as long as it's not 0, should qualify for 2-A
Impacts and Fixes
Now, I do know how much of a diverse impact this will make on almost, if not all the tier 2s, but this was an inconsistency [at least imo] that should've been dealt with at some point in time, so why not now?

Spoiler: New Rules

For destruction feats, we can make the following rules:

1. If a character destroys the multiverse in the sense of destroying the 5th axis as well along with everything else, we consider it as 2-A.
2. If only the 5th axis is destroyed and the universes embedded inside are left untouched, it means only a single dimensional axis is destroyed, making it scale to nowhere significant enough to rate on even a 3D scale.
3. If the universes are destroyed but the 2-A space is left intact, we rate it based on the amount of universes destroyed.

On another hand, I think that one of the main things will be its impact on non-uncountably infinite multipliers[and maybe non-countably infinite too, tho I'm not sure how countably infinite multipliers are treated atm within the tiering system] , which as we know, are currently inapplicable from tier 2 onwards. For this, we can take make some of the following limitations:

1. We don't assume that there exists a space separating Space-time continuities unless stated otherwise. Or at least, we don't "count them within the cosmology" by default unless stated otherwise.
2. Verses where if a characer with X amount of power could destroy a space-time, and with 2X he could destroy multiple space-times, then higher multipliers are applicable for that character unless contradicted otherwise in-verse; Example being cases where multipliers enhance Destructive Capacity, and optionally, Attack Potency too.
3. And if for characters that do not show destroying more then a single space-time with a 2X multiplier, we'll assume the same for all multipliers for them unless stated/shown otherwise in-verse; Example being multipliers that enhance Attack Potency, but not Destructive Capacity.
4. For default multipliers that stack after a Low 2-C base form, we assume them as "Attack Potency Multipliers" or "Physical Multipliers", like how we do with "Higher into 2-A"; in other words, "Above Baseline AP" stuff, unless shown otherwise as in case 2.

Thank you for reading everyone.
I will try to be active in this thread if someone finds this post interesting and takes it into consideration, but my reply may come late due to me being busy with irl matters at the moment.

I may or may not edit this post later if I find grammar errors or typos, so feel free to point that out. With that said, cya in a few days!

 

[Fixxed]

Bump

 

[CNBA3]

Honestly, if it is an “infinite space containing finite number of finite universes”, to me is sounds like High 3-A or High 3-A+ because finite universes of said size would likely still be below High 3-A or 3-A+ because even if there are an infinite number of them, it would still cap out at between those 2 tiers.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

Honestly, if it is an “infinite space containing finite number of finite universes”, to me is sounds like High 3-A or High 3-A+ because finite universes of said size would likely still be below High 3-A or 3-A+ because even if there are an infinite number of them, it would still cap out at between those 2 tiers.

Universes here refer to 4-D Space-Time Continums, the op made that cIear:

Now, it is currently accepted that the space that separates and contains these infinite universes is by default infinite (because it would half to be to hold an infinite number of 4-D universes/space-time continuum or if it's stated to be infinite) with an insignificant 5-D Axis.

 

[Unoriginal777]

Hello everyone,

As you can no doubt tell, I’m new to this website although I've known about it for a while. I came here after my friend SuperSonicTL convinced me to join VSBW and after joining I’m excited to see where my journey here will take me.

Now that being said, after carefully reviewing the wiki standards I have what I think to be a slight criticism of the current tier 2 standards. Namely when those standards move beyond the basic Low 2-C reference point. So say someone is trying to push for 2-A which is represented by characters who can “significantly affect, create and/or destroy a countably infinite number of separate space-time continuums." Now I think we would all agree that the space/void which fits these timelines would itself be 2-A at least (given what it fits). However, say you have a verse that has the void and the statement of being infinitely greater than the notion of space-time continuums. Well to my shock, what typically happens is people take the following view.

As such, even if the verse in question logically could/should be eligible to fit those infinite space-times in the container, because the container itself doesn’t specify a multiverse, it is then rejected and placed subjectively into 2-C as being "vaguely" above Low 2-C. This notion is one which has always struck me as strangely peculiar seeing as the logic when applied to other tiers that deal in similarly infinite spaces/pocket dimensions doesn’t hold up. For example, at the High-3A tier it is not required that a specified infinite content is demonstrated/shown as much as the fact that the cosmological structure/space itself stretches on infinitely regardless of its demonstrated contents.

Still in my attempts to understand how this assumption came to be I decided it was worth doing a little more research, but still felt the reasoning behind this strange standard in tier 2 at every turn to be somewhat...lacking.

For example, from what I’ve heard from hearsay (even in this thread) the typical reasoning why simply being “infinite” in comparison to a confirmed 2-C space is “not enough” for tier 2-A is the fact that because the distance between tier 2 constructs is technically infinite (seeing as tier 2 constructs are themselves infinite due to their 4D status for lack of better term) a claim to being infinitely larger then a space-time continuum should then be ignored as follows.

Nevertheless, I think there’s a problem with this line of reasoning as well in that it fails from a perspectival sense. Think of it this way, we all acknowledge that time-spaces are infinite given their 4D constitution with the addition of a temporal axis. However, the fact we can count said universes which are infinite constructs in blatantly finite terms in all tier 2 standards (as seen in tiers, Low 2-C, 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A) means that it shouldn’t have to be a blurry topic when we have a confirmed Low 2-C space and a space containing it which is infinitely larger then it as by acknowledging the notion of a space-time continuum at all an author is technically taking a God’s eye view from a 4D perspective which trivializes the 4D construct to a finite object to count. This is a very similar concept to how one counts higher infinities and differentiates them from say the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and 2 and the infinite amount of decimals between 1 and infinity; a cornerstone of VSBW as a whole given what we know of Set Theory.

So for the sake of consistency I believe the best path forward would be to alter the tier 2-C, 2-B, and 2-A standards with the add-on that a verse may also qualify for these rankings should they prove capable of affecting spaces/pocket dimensions that can imitate a multiverse containing 2 to 1000 universes, 1001 to any higher finite amount, and especially spaces that can contain infinite universes despite not showing direct evidence of containing said amount of universes in their expanse because size is the be all, end all of the issue when scaling a dimension of sorts. Not the inside contents or else we'd need to turn that level of scrutiny towards standards for scaling similarly infinite spaces like those in the High 3-A classification.

In any case, regardless of your perception of my viewpoint I would like to take a moment to thank VSBW for giving me the opportunity to speak on this platform.

Sincerely,
Unoriginal777