infinite speed is contradictory ?!

[Napoleondevious]

"Infinite Speed (Able to travel any finite distance in zero time, or move an infinite distance within a finite amount of time. Teleportation does not count. For further information, see the "Further Explanations"-section below)"

so, you can traverse an infinite distance, but how does that makes sense ? the distance being infinite implies it has no ends, so how can you "travel" it, so reach its end, when it has none ? the distance being traverseable is contradictory with it being infinite to begin with no?

one last thing, why dont we differentiate infinite speed regarding 0 timeframes ? it implies that they are both comparable but the tiering system 1-A relies on the fact that something cannot be reduced to 0 (by breaking it into parts, which gives 1-A its strength ), any distance in 0 time should be far above infinite distance in non 0/infinite timeframe, if we divide a distance of any lenght by the former speed (and so looking at how much time it takes to traverse) we always get 0, the latter, in 0 timeframe cannot even move, as its speed multiplied by 0 should be equal to 0, while the former already demonstrated being able to move in 0 timeframe.
or is it too hard to treat 0's and divisions ?

i dont know the history of "inaccessible speed" on this wiki, so i dont know if this is a heated topic that was already extensively discussed, if there are already existing thread treating this topic please send it here.

 

[Wikisource]

"Infinite Speed (Able to travel any finite distance in zero time, or move an infinite distance within a finite amount of time. Teleportation does not count. For further information, see the "Further Explanations"-section below)"

so, you can traverse an infinite distance, but how does that makes sense ? the distance being infinite implies it has no ends, so how can you "travel" it, so reach its end, when it has none ? the distance being traverseable is contradictory with it being infinite to begin with no?

First of all, the wording here is incorrect, the quote says to move an infinite distance, not to move to its end point. If you are asking how to move an infinite distance or how a character with infinite speed can move an infinite distance, the answer is because they have infinite speed. It can be generalized by the formula distance = speed x time. For example: Distance is infinite, time is 5s, then we have speed = distance/time; ∞/5 = ∞. Infinity divided by any finite number is equal to infinity, besides the basic logic that moving an infinite distance in a finite time will have infinite speed. And that how you can move in a infinite distance.

it implies that they are both comparable but the tiering system 1-A relies on the fact that something cannot be reduced to 0 (by breaking it into parts, which gives 1-A its strength )

A 1-A not really cannot reduce to 0. It cannot be reduced to Non 1-A. In fact, non-strictly, as long as 1-A cannot be reduced to Non 1-A, then reducing to 0 is not a problem.

any distance in 0 time should be far above infinite distance in non 0/infinite timeframe, if we divide a distance of any lenght by the former speed (and so looking at how much time it takes to traverse) we always get 0, the latter, in 0 timeframe cannot even move, as its speed multiplied by 0 should be equal to 0, while the former already demonstrated being able to move in 0 timeframe.
or is it too hard to treat 0's and divisions ?

Well, I think this does not apply to finite speeds. It is clear that if we let time be 0, then multiplying it by any finite speed using the formula above will result in a distance of 0. That is, you cannot move in 0s with a finite speed for any distance. This only applies to infinite speeds. And it would probably be quite complicated if we were to multiply or divide 0 by infinity, since these are Indeterminate Form cases that need to be handled using limits in calculus.

i dont know the history of "inaccessible speed" on this wiki, so i dont know if this is a heated topic that was already extensively discussed, if there are already existing thread treating this topic please send it here.

It got erased from this wiki and it also does not meet the new tiering system.

 

[Napoleondevious]

First of all, the wording here is incorrect, the quote says to move an infinite distance, not to move to its end point. If you are asking how to move an infinite distance or how a character with infinite speed can move an infinite distance, the answer is because they have infinite speed. It can be generalized by the formula distance = speed x time. For example: Distance is infinite, time is 5s, then we have speed = distance/time; ∞/5 = ∞. Infinity divided by any finite number is equal to infinity, besides the basic logic that moving an infinite distance in a finite time will have infinite speed. And that how you can move in a infinite distance.

the moment an infinite distance is traversed, it must move to the 'end' of someting infinite to be classified as fully traversed no? but it still has no ends, so this classification doesnt make sense

A 1-A not really cannot reduce to 0. It cannot be reduced to Non 1-A. In fact, non-strictly, as long as 1-A cannot be reduced to Non 1-A, then reducing to 0 is not a problem.

by 0 i meant non 1-A things yes, since things like dimensions are kinda viewed as 0 to 1-A, im saying this to show how an inaccessible speed can do things an infinite speed can, but the infinite cant to what an inaccessible speed can, since 0 times anything = 0
(by inaccessible i mean the type of infinite speed that moves in 0 timeframe, and infinite as traversing an infinite distance)

Well, I think this does not apply to finite speeds. It is clear that if we let time be 0, then multiplying it by any finite speed using the formula above will result in a distance of 0. That is, you cannot move in 0s with a finite speed for any distance. This only applies to infinite speeds. And it would probably be quite complicated if we were to multiply or divide 0 by infinity, since these are Indeterminate Form cases that need to be handled using limits in calculus.

doesnt calculus and limits deal with quantities that approaches infinity or 0, while never truly being 0 or infinity? i dont think it would answer the question then

It got erased from this wiki and it also does not meet the new tiering system.

is there a thread dealing with it ?

 

[Digital_Franz]

so, you can traverse an infinite distance, but how does that makes sense ? the distance being infinite implies it has no ends,

Who said that because a distance is infinite then it has no end? That's the whole point of the Aleph cardinals. Also, you can see that infinite universes are often seen in multiverses just as little bubbles, to show that this infinity has a beginning and an end.

so how can you "travel" it, so reach its end, when it has none ? the distance being traverseable is contradictory with it being infinite to begin with no?

Nope. With infinity you cannot have a line, just a segment. That is why for time which is a line we speak of uncountable infinity.

one last thing, why dont we differentiate infinite speed regarding 0 timeframes ? it implies that they are both comparable but the tiering system 1-A relies on the fact that something cannot be reduced to 0 (by breaking it into parts, which gives 1-A its strength ),

I don't see why you include 1-A here because they are two very different contexts. The Tiering System says that 1-A cannot be divided until it reaches non 1-A, not that something cannot be reduced to 0.

any distance in 0 time should be far above infinite distance in non 0/infinite timeframe, if we divide a distance of any lenght by the former speed (and so looking at how much time it takes to traverse) we always get 0, the latter, in 0 timeframe cannot even move, as its speed multiplied by 0 should be equal to 0, while the former already demonstrated being able to move in 0 timeframe.
or is it too hard to treat 0's and divisions ?

I don't know why you mix things up so much. Possibly you can't divide the distance by the time because speed is infinite and you will just go to the limits and then you can't multiply the time by the speed since you will have infinite x 0 which is an indeterminate form. Crossing a finite or infinite distance in a finite or 0 time is still infinite, although these infinite speeds are not equal.

 

[Wikisource]

the moment an infinite distance is traversed, it must move to the 'end' of someting infinite to be classified as fully traversed no? but it still has no ends, so this classification doesnt make sense

No, you shouldn't define it like that. For example, in set theory and especially Continuum Hypothesis, besides infinity, the only thing bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. By the above logic, doesn't the countable infinity also have a "limit" or "end point" for the uncountable infinity to beyond/bigger than it?

 

[Wikisource]

by 0 i meant non 1-A things yes, since things like dimensions are kinda viewed as 0 to 1-A, im saying this to show how an inaccessible speed can do things an infinite speed can, but the infinite cant to what an inaccessible speed can, since 0 times anything = 0
(by inaccessible i mean the type of infinite speed that moves in 0 timeframe, and infinite as traversing an infinite distance)

is there a thread dealing with it ?

I seem to be confusing inaccessible speed with irrelevant speed, but either way both are getting too far by current standards.

doesnt calculus and limits deal with quantities that approaches infinity or 0, while never truly being 0 or infinity? i dont think it would answer the question then

It can be used to solve cases such as infinity divided by infinity or infinity multiplied by 0 because they are Indeterminate Form.

 

[Napoleondevious]

Who said that because a distance is infinite then it has no end? That's the whole point of the Aleph cardinals. Also, you can see that infinite universes are often seen in multiverses just as little bubbles, to show that this infinity has a beginning and an end.

cuz infinite is not finite so not limited so no limits thats analoguous to no ends, i just dont understand how we can go at the end of something infinite

I don't see why you include 1-A here because they are two very different contexts. The Tiering System says that 1-A cannot be divided until it reaches non 1-A, not that something cannot be reduced to 0.

by 0 i mean non 1-A

by 0 i meant non 1-A things yes, since things like dimensions are kinda viewed as 0 to 1-A, im saying this to show how an inaccessible speed can do things an infinite speed can, but the infinite cant to what an inaccessible speed can, since 0 times anything = 0
(by inaccessible i mean the type of infinite speed that moves in 0 timeframe, and infinite as traversing an infinite distance)

No, you shouldn't define it like that. For example, in set theory and especially Continuum Hypothesis, besides infinity, the only thing bigger than countable infinity is uncountable infinity. By the above logic, doesn't the countable infinity also have a "limit" or "end point" for the uncountable infinity to beyond/bigger than it?

they dont really need a limit for one to fo further beyond in size, im pretty sure sets look at the number of elements, R has more elements than N but they still go from -infinity to + infinity, R is a continuum and is broken in many pieces infinitely

 

[Wikisource]

they dont really need a limit for one to fo further beyond in size, im pretty sure sets look at the number of elements, R has more elements than N but they still go from -infinity to + infinity, R is a continuum and is broken in many pieces infinitely

So why do you say that infinite distance has an end point to be crossed by infinite speed? In essence, an infinite distance can be generalized as an infinitely long straight line, and N and R can also be generalized as two infinitely long straight lines made up of infinitely many points representing the elements of their sets. In general, the latter is still longer than the former. And it doesn't change the nature of the problem that infinite has same mechanism.

 

[Digital_Franz]

cuz infinite is not finite so not limited so no limits thats analoguous to no ends, i just dont understand how we can go at the end of something infinite

Unfortunately, this is not the case. Infinity has a beginning and an end, which is why there are "big" infinities. Take 1 and 1.1 for example. Do you know how many numbers exist in this segment? Unfortunately, it remains a simple segment that has a beginning and an end.

by 0 i mean non 1-A

1-A can be reduced to non 1-A.

 

[Napoleondevious]

1-A can be reduced to non 1-A.

by reducing i mean divided quantitatively (since we re dealing with its opposite), not ontological regression or literally just removing it (like A - A)

So why do you say that infinite distance has an end point to be crossed by infinite speed?

im saying that infinite speed cannot be crossed because it necessitate an end that qualifies the feat as "traversing the whole distance" which contradicts its limitless nature, having no bound

 

[Wikisource]

im saying that infinite speed cannot be crossed because it necessitate an end that qualifies the feat as "traversing the whole distance" which contradicts its limitless nature, having no bound

One again, that same with I said above.