- 707
- 146
Well i agree with the L1C,for the 1B i still neutral.If you want then can be like L1C possibly/potentially 1B for the best choice??
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about Low 1-C, likely 1-B?Well i agree with the L1C,for the 1B i still neutral.If you want then can be like L1C possibly/potentially 1B for the best choice??
Oh my bad, reading through the entire thread I thought seeing someone saying something about High 1-CThere is no High 1-C though
The raws keep the kanji for endless (キリがない). In my view, it indicates the statement is less likely to be hyperbolic with the contexts above, and also an unknown amount of times is just an endless amount of time.There ain't no high 1-C.
Honestly, I find that "Low 1-C, possibly 1-B/Much Higher" is much better, since the endless shit could very well be hyperbolic, and they transcended an unknown amount of times.
I think other staff's inputs are still being waited on.It seems that there are many people who agree with Low 1-C and the abilities addition for Yogiri and UEG so should we apply the low 1-C tier for now or we should wait for more inputs until everything get accepted?
Enlighten usI could see an argument made for High 1-B since all the definitions, except one for kanji, are basically infinite.
so if those space-time continuums are accepted as tier 1 structure then it would be high 1-B instead?
no pls stop anything but not fatewe have a new rivals against fate now.
Thats fine by me.Would "At least Low 1-C, likely 1-B" and any variations thereof work?
This ^Would "At least Low 1-C, likely 1-B" and any variations thereof work?
3D is literally just R^3, which is obtained by multiplying R^2 by another R.No, even an uncountable set which is just an additional element(variable, letter) to the countable set(odds, evens, etc) is merely being significantly greater to the set, aka the quantity. It doesn’t change their dimensionality since regardless of where they, a countable or uncountable infinity number of 2-dimensional objects, are placed at in a 2-dimensional spatial direction. They can never equate to a 3-dimensional object since it would require for them to have depth, a dimensional axis not present in a 2-d space.
Need more staff input.Are we all agreement on Low 1-C, likely 1-B, now??
Quite derailing but this is wrong, especially when we treat higher infinity as a new dimensional axis and...No, even an uncountable set which is just an additional element(variable, letter) to the countable set(odds, evens, etc) is merely being significantly greater to the set, aka the quantity. It doesn’t change their dimensionality since regardless of where they, a countable or uncountable infinity number of 2-dimensional objects, are placed at in a 2-dimensional spatial direction. They can never equate to a 3-dimensional object since it would require for them to have depth, a dimensional axis not present in a 2-d space.
. I could see an argument made for High 1-B since all the definitions, except one for kanji, are basically infinite.
The link you provided is merely the continuum hypothesis which boils down to “there’s no size of infinity between the natural and real sets”.Quite derailing but this is wrong, especially when we treat higher infinity as a new dimensional axis and...
Infinite cardinals don't work like that. Adding more elements isn't the same as reaching a higher cardinal infinity altogether.So somehow adding another 2-dimensional element/variable to the already infinite set to make its cardinality bigger is equated to a new dimensional axis?
Again, that's just wrong. 3D is R^3, and the multiplication by an uncountable set being bound in the same general direction isn't a coherent idea.Increasing, through a powerset, the cardinality of a countable infinite 2-dimensional set into an uncountable one doesn’t magically give them depth, if anything they are just innumerable greater in quantity than the former set.
You are assuming that the multiplication has to be bounded within the confines of the same axes when that isn't even a coherent notion. If I multiply an infinite line by 2 I would get 2 lines in 2D space, not some infinity x 2 line in the same direction.
This is literally the same as arguing that multiplying a point by 2 wouldn't give 2 points because the second point would have to be stacked at the location of the first point itself. A very weird perspective
About the thread if u dont mind, what are u thoughts about the Low 1-C/1-B stuff?Infinite cardinals don't work like that. Adding more elements isn't the same as reaching a higher cardinal infinity altogether.
Again, that's just wrong. 3D is R^3, and the multiplication by an uncountable set being bound in the same general direction isn't a coherent idea.
I will just quote myself
Aye and our rules on the validity of dimensions aren’t (or at least weren’t) about questioning if an author is referring to spatial dimensions or not, they’re about affirming if those dimensions are compact or not.It's a world where width, length, and height were complemented by additions of fifth dimension.
The statement of can't see from 3D is simply supporting statement of the fact that abyss has more spatial dimension.
Also, how did the statement of character on the page is not reality fiction difference? Are you saying character that drawn on the page are real? You're confusing character and drawing here. The characters that we draw in the page are not real, but the drawings are. And the statement specified that the king threat lower beings (in lower dimension) as character on the page not drawing on the page.
Oh hi mark.Snip