Infinite speed revisions.

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Currently infinite speed is described as

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)

However, the applications nfinite speed vary heavily in function, so i propose to split them into types.

Type 1. Being able to move a Infinite distance in 0 time.

Type 2. Being able to move a Infinite distance in finite time.

Type 3. Moving an finite distance in 0 time.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

We do not need to give types to every power, please god make it stop.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

We do not need to give types to every power, please god make it stop.

You cant treat all types of infinite speed as the same.

Example being, just because you can travel a finite distance in 0 time does not mean you can travel an infinite distance

 

[Deidalius]

Moving in 0 time is Inaccessible speed, a concept that still hasn't been added to VSBW yet, is in other wikis.

I wonder if anyone tried to get Inaccessible speed into VSBW before? I will support them, though I won't waste time arguing for it.

And yeah, we should split the different ways of achieving Infinite speed, since they're very different from each other.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I wonder if anyone tried to get Inaccessible speed into VSBW before? I will support them, though I won't waste time arguing for it.

I can see a good case for it but thats too much brainrot to even try to argue for

 

[Huesito88]

For your proposal which one would you suggest is superior to the other?

 

[TheGatememer]

They’re the same picture.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

For your proposal which one would you suggest is superior to the other?

They're all ordered by superiority, but Type 1, as Type 1 infinite speed is automatically assumed to be able to replicate the other 2 feats

 

[KingNanaya]

Should be a staff thread. Disagree regardless.

 

[Milly_Rocking_Bandit]

You cant treat all types of infinite speed as the same.

Example being, just because you can travel a finite distance in 0 time does not mean you can travel an infinite distance

That’s not the point of indexing. If you fit the requirements, then you are granted the tier. These variations, as far as I can see, only exist for match-ups, because no profile would ever need to specify that just because they can use x method, doesn’t mean they can achieve y method.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

That’s not the point of indexing. If you fit the requirements, then you are granted the tier. These variations, as far as I can see, only exist for match-ups, because no profile would ever need to specify that just because they can use x method, doesn’t mean they can achieve y method.

The requirements vary massively in function, to the point they cant be grouped by the same umbrella term.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Should be a staff thread. Disagree regardless.

Can you explain why?

 

[KingNanaya]

Can you explain why?

Controversial page revision

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

I really don't see a point.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

I really don't see a point.

You dont see how inherently flawed assuming a character that can move an infinite amount of distance of 0 time is equal to a character that moves a finite distance in 0 time?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Controversial page revision

that's not really a debunk of any points, but alright

 

[KingNanaya]

that's not really a debunk of any points, but alright

I was saying why it should be a staff thread

 

[Testarossa002]

I really don't see the point

If any character falls into this, just specify when adding the tier

Speed: Infinite Speed (Could move 10 metres in 0 time)

 

[Scottycj256]

Currently infinite speed is described as



However, the applications nfinite speed vary heavily in function, so i propose to split them into types.

Type 1. Being able to move a Infinite distance in 0 time.

Type 2. Being able to move a Infinite distance in finite time.

Type 3. Moving an finite distance in 0 time.

all three lead to the EXACT same result. no.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

all three lead to the EXACT same result. no.

How the hell do they lead to the exaact same result

 

[Scottycj256]

How the hell do they lead to the exaact same result

moving an infinite distance in 0 time is exactly the same as moving a finite distance in 0 time

if you used the speed formula AT ALL you'd understand that dividing by 0 leads to infinite speed, but clearly you dont understand

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

moving an infinite distance in 0 time is exactly the same as moving a finite distance in 0 time

if you used the speed formula AT ALL you'd understand that dividing by 0 leads to infinite speed, but clearly you dont understand

infinity / 0 = infinity

finite number by 0 = undefined number

explicitly very not the same, but okay

 

[SeijiSetto]

infinity / 0 = infinity

finite number by 0 = undefined number

explicitly very not the same, but okay

limit of finite number / x as x -> 0 = +inf or -inf (this only happens for negative values of x)
since we're talking about speed here, distance/time, x has to be positive because negative time just is not relevant here
meaning it can safely "be ignored" so to speak and it just leaves you with infinity

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

limit of finite number / x as x -> 0 = +inf or -inf (this only happens for negative values of x)
since we're talking about speed here, distance/time, x has to be positive because negative time just is not relevant here
meaning it can safely "be ignored" so to speak and it just leaves you with infinity

That makes a lot of sense, but still, the varying types of infinite speed can theoretically have very different execution.

As technically, it'd take "longer" if you did an infinite amount of actions in finite time vs no time at all

 

[SeijiSetto]

That makes a lot of sense, but still, the varying types of infinite speed can theoretically have very different execution.

As technically, it'd take "longer" if you did an infinite amount of actions in finite time vs no time at all

i'll link you this post by DT in which he basically says they're the same
i was trying to summarise it but the tl;dr is
say you have a guy who can run inf distance in 10s
say he covered the first 100m of said journey in some time (real number), t which is > 0
in 2t time he would have covered 200m, in t/2 time he would have covered 50m
in 10 seconds (also expressed as [10/t] * t sec), he would have covered 10/t * 100m - which isn't infinite
contradiction based on the initial assumption that t has to be > 0, meaning t = 0
and thus they're identical

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

i'll link you this post by DT in which he basically says they're the same
i was trying to summarise it but the tl;dr is
say you have a guy who can run inf distance in 10s
say he covered the first 100m of said journey in some time (real number), t which is > 0
in 2t time he would have covered 200m, in t/2 time he would have covered 50m
in 10 seconds (also expressed as [10/t] * t sec), he would have covered 10/t * 100m - which isn't infinite
contradiction based on the initial assumption that t has to be > 0, meaning t = 0
and thus they're identical

dt's post seems to gloss over the existence of infintesimals, which is basicaly (1/infiniteith? ) Ziller also makes a good point on running an infinite distance in 2 seconds being slower than 1.

but yea this is more brainrot than i initially anticipated

 

[SeijiSetto]

dt's post seems to gloss over the existence of infintesimals, which is basicaly (1/infiniteith? )

what does that have to do with stuff here? not as an accusatory statement, just clarification

Ziller also makes a good point on running an infinite distance in 2 seconds being slower than 1.

but infinity/2 = infinity/1 = infinity

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

what does that have to do with stuff here? not as an accusatory statement, just clarification

We assume the runner does so at a constant speed, meaning that whenever he runs 1/n-th of the time he ran, he covered 1/n-th of the total distance he ran. (Or, equivalently, that if he runs x-times longer he covers x-times more distance)

This is covered by the runner covering a an infinitesimal amount of distance in a infinitesimal amount of time.

but infinity/2 = infinity/1 = infinity

Not exactly true. Yes, the result is infinite, but a lesser one, if that makes sense

 

[Testarossa002]

That makes a lot of sense, but still, the varying types of infinite speed can theoretically have very different execution.

As technically, it'd take "longer" if you did an infinite amount of actions in finite time vs no time at all

Same way it's longer for someone who travelled from Earth to the sun in 2 minutes as opposed to someone who moved 4 metres in a nanoseconds or something

It's still FTL eitherways

 

[KLOL506]

This is needlessly stupid for reasons I don't have to explain.

 

[CloverDragon03]

This is completely unnecessary. Disagree

 

[KLOL506]

@DarkDragonMedeus @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @LordGriffin1000 @Maverick_Zero_X @Just_a_Random_Butler @Emirp sumitpo @Lonkitt @Planck69 @Theglassman12 @DarkGrath

 

[Qawsedf234]

I wonder if anyone tried to get Inaccessible speed into VSBW before? I will support them, though I won't waste time arguing for it.

Yes, but it's been rejected multiple times.

For the OP the most I'd get is just listing them as examples of what counts as infinite. But there's no reason to seperate them

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

This is needlessly stupid for reasons I don't have to explain.

Just because character can do x doesnt mean they can do y is basically what im arguing here

 

[SeijiSetto]

Not exactly true. Yes, the result is infinite, but a lesser one, if that makes sense

the set of all natural numbers is countably infinite {1, 2, 3...}
the set of all EVEN natural numbers is the same countably infinite {2, 4, 6...}

you'd expect the latter to have "half" the number of elements but they are the exact same size

 

[KLOL506]

Just because character can do x doesnt mean they can do y is basically what im arguing here

And it makes no sense to begin with because it's still covering 3D space all the same.

My disagreement with this proposal still stands.

 

[Theglassman12]

Yeah not sure what’s the point of separating the infinite speed types when they all achieve the same thing. Disagree with this thread

 

[KLOL506]

The requirements vary massively in function, to the point they cant be grouped by the same umbrella term.

Only the end result matters. Not how it's achieved.

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

Only the end result matters. Not how it's achieved.

But the end result is different

Performing infinite actions instantly is different than performing infinite actions over any amount of time, like a year

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I don't get the big idea. In theory, yes, traveling Infinite distance in 0 time is better than traveling finite distance in 0 time or even something as basic as traveling infinite distance in 1 second is a lot better than traveling infinite distance in 1000 years, but this is all pointless. They're all still infinite speed. Yes, Character A could be much faster than character B and still be infinite and that's how scaling chains work even if it mathematically makes little to no sense in terms of outcome given it's the same.

We don't need to break up Infinite speed into multiple tiers, we can still acknowledge scaling chains or characters being on better levels of Infinite, but Infinite speed is still infinite speed. There is no need to overcomplicate something intended to be simple.