Insufficient Explanations on the Vs. Battles Tiering Pages (STAFF ONLY)

[The_Impress]

So I'll preface this by saying, I didn't follow the tiering revisions, I don't do high tier, I am just not clued in, in the slightest, in this regard, let's say. I believe that makes me advantaged in realizing what is sufficient information needed to help an outsider from this circle even understand what are they talking about.

Anywho the reason why I make this thread in fact, is that our wiki does an extremely poor job in explaining its highest tiers, Low 1-A to 0, and sufficient edits need to be made to make them even coherent. Beginning with...

Tiering System Explanation Page​

Set Theory Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This page REQUIRES you to have very precisely read the Tiering System page, and even then you'd have to contextualize information given in your own head, for you see, this page does not tell what transcendence gives you what tier.

The page's function ONLY tells you what infinity stacking is, it doesn't tell you about

• Where this infinity stacking is applied on the Tiering System exact, (Only "it's Low 1-A")
• That supposedly the type of infinities we stack in the Tiering System changes
• Which types of infinities stacked lead to what tier

And honestly...

• What the absolute hell does this have to do with tiers

Make no doubt, it ISN'T necessary in the slightest that a person may check the Tiering System page first, and even if they were, you're still unnecessarily splitting information between two pages the user will have to check back-and-forth, something HELLISH if it's in regards to complicated concepts.

This is not even mentioning the tiering system page is atrocious as well. Speaking of...

Tiering System Page​

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

This page is so bad in its explanation, that despite not knowing about what the new revisions did, I genuinely went " wait what that can't be right " and had to discuss with Ultima in regards to it, and I was correct.

Now the tiering explanation is serviceable up till 1-A, and because I want to illustrate the issues with the descriptions given, I'll state you my (incorrect) interpretation of it, High 1-B to Tier 0. I am trying my damndest here, as well.

High 1-B | High Hyperverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures whose size is equivalent to a countably infinite number of qualitative sizes above a universal model, usually represented in fiction by endless hierarchies of layers of existence, each succeeding one completely trivializing the previous into insignificance, or more generally a space with countably infinite dimensions.

So High 1-B is easily understood, it's just a being able to affect an infinite number of dimensions or an infinite dimensional being, which are analoguous to the core "infinite layers of existence"

Low 1-A | Low Outerverse level: Characters who can universally affect, create and/or destroy structures and expanses of uncountably infinite dimensions, or which have a size roughly analogous to them, such as uncountably infinite sets of hierarchical layers or planes of existence, most specifically ones whose amount of layers is comparable to the set of all real numbers, and are thus equated to the first uncountably infinite cardinal, ℵ1, for simplicity's sake.

Alternatively, this tier can also be assigned to characters who transcend High 1-B structures when no further context regarding the nature of such transcendence is given.

Low 1-A is where things start to get complex, it describes an "uncountably infinite number of planes affected", if the Tiering Explanation Page was linked here however (it isn't), but **** it, I saw the Vsauce video, sure, Low 1-A is equal to ℵ1, I'll buy it.

Also keep in mind you can transcend High 1-B to be Low 1-A, this'll be very important in abit

1-A | Outerverse level: Characters who can significantly affect, create and/or destroy realms or states that fully transcend infinitely-layered hierarchies and/or dimensional levels on a conceptual or existential level, normally being portrayed as entirely external abstractions that lie outside of the applications of spatiotemporal dimensionality as a constant defined by physics on any level, even compared to infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions,

So now we get to good ol' 1-A, and this is where the web of contradicting and imprecise terms begin to happen.

The paragraph above explains in essence, that the character needs to be above an uncountable infinity by a physical level besides dimensions (used in our tiering system) but the terms are nightmarish

• "Infinite" in this entire description, that aren't a part of "Uncountably Infinite" should be completely removed altogether from this, because we're done with countable infinite, we've been done with it since Low 1-A.
  • Note the wording ESPECIALLY, on "compared to infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions", every human being in existence would register this as "compared to countably infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions", implying you can get 1-A by transcending High 1-B, except no, WE OURSELVES STATE, that's Low 1-A
• For the ever-lovin' God's sake, don't give us what characters "normally get it from", this implies they can also get it from transcendences aside from being "entirely external abstractions that lie outside of the applications of spatiotemporal dimensionality as a constant defined by physics on any level, even compared to infinite or uncountably infinite dimensions"
  • And if there are, SPECIFY THEM, you can "fully transcend" something "on a conceptual and existential level" by just being a higher dimension, conflating with the Low 1-A definition, since "conceptual" and "existential" alone are VERY VAGUE terms

All in all these are buzzwords and what-ifs with no real meaning behind them, thus useless.

usually by perceiving them as akin to fiction or something similarly insignificant.

I'll straight up say it, this point is actually dogshit presumption, FAR LOWER BEINGS have claimed this, and FAR HIGHER BEINGS have rejected this. I know it's a vs. debating tradition, but our own wiki standards have move far away from this notion, even dismissing it across multiple pages as a notably relevant factor to tiering. Should not even be mention.

However, do note that a character can qualify for this rating even if their verse does not have an infinitely-layered or equivalent cosmology, as long as it is either stated, shown or left very obvious that the character in question already bypasses the very nature of such structures altogether, in a way that simply "stacking" more of them logically would not allow one to reach their level of power / size.[3]

What the absolute hell does "very obviously" mean? Give an example.

Also "simply stacking" means nothing, HOW is that different from bypassing? Word it.

Mathematically, 1-A has its size represented by further uncountably infinite cardinals beyond useful applications of certain measures (ℵ2 and onwards, most specifically) and can be extended unto greater levels of infinity, representing different complexities or qualitative "steps" on an Outerversal scale, in the same way 1-B and 1-C are divided. Characters who stand an infinite number of steps above "Baseline" Outerversal realms and structures are to have a + modifier in their Attack Potency section (Outerverse level+)

This is the only paragraph that ends up meaning anything, because it's reliant on someone else explaining the tier for the page, it's ℵ2 and onwards, fine. Moving on.

High 1-A | High Outerverse level: Characters who can affect and create/destroy states or realms which are completely transcendent over infinitely-layered Outerversal hierarchies and any extensions thereof, as well as the framework in which such entities are defined in the first place. Note that simply adding more "layers" to an already infinite 1-A hierarchy (or some structure of equivalent size) is not enough to reach this tier, and one must be completely external and unreachable by it in any form.

This is also just completely contradicting text.

• At this point we have been made aware of Uncountable Infinities, so natural assumption is, this implies that if I just do ω+1 Outerversal Hierarchies, this is enough for it to be High 1-A, since "COMPLETELY TRANSCENDED" means jack if you don't give a SINGLE CRITERIA for said completion.
• But this gets contradicted because "simply adding more layers isn't enough", except, this implies you can never HAVE anything above 1-A since the vague transcendence will also be adding a """"" layer""""" in the very layman's terms you've used.
• "and one must be completely external and unreachable by it in any form." means absolutely nothing if you don't explain it. By most purposes a lower """"""""""" layer"""""""""""" can't reach you.

0 | Boundless: Characters who demonstrate an equivalence to, or can create/destroy/affect, transcendental abstract levels of existence which conceptually stand superior to even High 1-A levels. Being “omnipotent” or any similar reasoning[4] is not nearly enough to reach this tier; characters at this level must transcend High 1-A characters as High 1-A characters would transcend 1-A ones. This tier has no true endpoint, and can be extended unto any higher level, spiraling infinitely upwards.

So it's ω+2 and up. Got it. Thanks!

Conclusion​

I just want people who wrote these descriptions to realize not everyone was in their thread, not everyone knows their shorthands or "you get what I'm saying" s, and they can't understand shit you listed on these pages if you forget to elaborate on them.

Even ignoring that, these pages are chocked to the brim with irrelevance and buzzwords with no real meanings, and honestly need to be worked on HEAVILY, to even be comprehensible properly.

 

[The_Impress]

@Antvasima gather input, it's important :V

 

[The_Impress]

i started breaking midway too so ignore some wording choices

 

[KLOL506]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @QuasiYuri The only dudes I know smart enough to tackle this shit.

 

[The_Impress]

@Ultima_Reality @DontTalkDT @Executor_N0 @QuasiYuri The only dudes I know smart enough to tackle this shit.

Meh the entire concept of the thread IS wording it in a way so you don't need to be "smart enough to tackle this"

 

[DontTalkDT]

Let me just say that the descriptions being hard to understand is a problem we are very aware of. Like, Antvasima is trying to find somebody to fix it for months now.

The reason I personally have a hard time to simplify the descriptions is that I have no real overview over the vast majority of Tier 1 verses and the reason they are ranked as is. I.e. I don't know the status quo and hence most simplifications I think of could change what the tiers are. Like, even knowing that we formally identify a tier as related to some inaccessible cardinal, the evidence we demand for that tier certainly isn't mathematically related to the cardinal in stricter sense.

I once wrote up the following as a (very rough) idea for simplification in a chat, but... well, I already explained my problem.

Ok, so my first idea would be to use the term "level of infinity" (or something similar) more extensively. We already use it for 1-C and 1-B, but not really for 1-A.
The first step of that is to give the term a clear definition. Then we could use it for Tier 1-A & 0 to explain things without using other complicated terminology.
Obviously, that only is meaningful if we manage to explain what we mean with levels of infinity in an easy way.

The current definition of the term is indirectly given on the tiering system page as follows:

Characters who can significantly affect spaces of qualitatively greater sizes than ordinary universal models and spaces, usually represented in fiction by higher levels or states of existence (Or "levels of infinity", as referred below) which trivialize everything below them into insignificance, normally by perceiving them as akin to fictional constructs or something infinitesimal.

The idea of that definition is good. There are two things to expand on, though.

1. I would establish what it means for a character's power to be on a higher level of infinity compared to another power and what it means for a realm to be on a higher level of infinity compared to another realm separately. The two ideas are of course connected (higher level of infinity realm is such that significantly affecting it requires a higher level of infinity power), but having clear terminology for both will be helpful I think.
2. Explain clearer what "trivialize everything below them" means.

Regarding the second point, we have to make a decision.
We define the minimum gap between levels of infinity as being equal to the difference between the size of a higher dimensional space to a space with one less dimension. The way we usually interpret that is that a higher level of infinity in power than another character begins at being more than countably infinite times more powerful than that character.
That is a useful and precise way to formulate it, not to mention that it is easy to write. At the same time, it is also a difficult to understand way, as it requires basic knowledge of cardinals.
So I'm not sure if it's better to just do the explanation using countable infinity or if it's better to try to paraphrase it in simple, but inevitably vaguer, terms.
Perhaps we should do both and then run it past some people and see how they would evaluate a number of cases based on their understanding.

In any case, once we have a definition of the term we can write the tiering system in easier ways like this (unrefined draft for idea purposes incoming):

Low 1-C: Characters whose power is one or two levels of infinity above Tier 2.
1-C: Characters whose power is three to five levels of infinity above Tier 2.
High 1-C: Characters whose power is six to seven levels of infinity above Tier 2.
1-B: Characters whose power is more than 7, but less than infinite, levels of infinity above Tier 2.
High 1-B: Characters whose power is infinite levels of infinity above Tier 2.

(Those are pretty similar to what we have already)

Low 1-A: Characters that possess power one level of infinity higher than any power that is High 1-B.
1-A: Characters that possess power more than one, but less than infinite, levels of infinity higher than any power that is High 1-B.
1-A+: Characters that possess power infinite levels of infinity higher than any power that is High 1-B.
High 1-A: Characters that possess power at least one level of infinity higher than any character with 1-A+ power.
Tier 0: Characters that possess power at least infinite levels of infinity higher than characters with 1-A+ power.

 

[The_Impress]

I feel if the issue ends up turning into "we don't know what is 1-A/higher as the WIKI thinks it", that may genuinely be harmful from our indexing standpoint.

Like, I genuinely would say exclusion is a 100% fine if it leads to precision. I'd like for some others to weigh in on DT's point because I feel that makes it a core issue with the tiering itself, rather than a woridng issue alone.

 

[Antvasima]

As DontTalk said, I have been talking with him and @Ultima_Reality about making the system easier to understand for a long time now, considerably longer than just a few months as far as I am aware. However, we still need them to find the time and interest to handle it. I would obviously greatly appreciate if this can be heavily prioritised.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I pretty much agree to all of the above, yeah, especially with the parts about the descriptions in the Tiering System page.

While what DontTalk drafted up above is good on paper, I am unsure if "level of infinity" is really a proper term to use for all tiers, because what exactly this means, and how big of a difference it is, shifts definitions entirely when you enter Low 1-A and 1-A, and the same happens, except even more severely, with High 1-A and 0, so I think going at least a bit in-depth is important if we want to accurately describe those things.

Either way, I wrote down my own draft in an attempt to correct the issue, since, even putting aside the verbosity, the current tiering descriptions are frankly full of fluff.

Note: I tried my best here, but I still don't know if it's straightforward enough, so, I welcome any and all criticism.

For Low 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects with a cardinality greater than that of the real numbers, meaning in practical terms that their number of dimensions is aleph-1 (An uncountably infinite number, assumed to be the cardinality of the real numbers themselves), and as such that they fully exceed High 1-B structures, which have only a countably infinite number of dimensions.

Note that, if the High 1-B structure in question is an hierarchy of levels of existence, then simply being at the top of such a hierarchy does not qualify a character for this tier without more context, and an additional layer added ontop of the 'infinitie-th" level of this hierarchy is likewise not enough. To qualify, they'd need to surpass the hierarchy as a whole, and not simply be another level within it. More information on the concept is avaliable on this page

For 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects with a cardinality equal to the cardinal aleph-3, which translates in practical terms to levels that completely transcend Low 1-A structures, to the same degree they transcend High 1-B and below. In terms of the amount of dimensions a space has, this tier represents a space with an aleph-2 number of dimensions.

This can be extrapolated to larger cardinal numbers as well, such as aleph-3, aleph-4, and so on, and works much the same way as 1-C and 1-B do in that regard.

For High 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects that are larger than what the logical framework defining 1-A can allow, and as such exceed any possible "levels" contained in the above tiers, including an infinite amount of them. Practically speaking, this would be something completely unreachable to any 1-A hierarchies.

A concrete example of such an object would be a large cardinal, which is most simply defined as a number too large to be constructed or even be proven to exist at all using the tools provided by standard mathematics, and as such has to be "assumed" to exist in order to be made sense of or defined in formal ways (Unlike the standard aleph numbers, which can be straightforwardly put together using the building blocks of set theory). More information on the concept is avaliable on this page.

For 0:

Characters that can affect objects which completely exceed the logical foundations of High 1-A, much like it exceeds the ones defining 1-A and below, meaning that all possible levels of High 1-A are exceeded, even an infinite amount of such levels.

↓ This part of the description may or may not be under consideration. I largely put it there to give some formal grounding to Tier 0, since, at the moment, it has none. At least nothing in a written page. Again, criticism (Especially from you @DontTalkDT) is welcome here.

A notion that exemplifies this idea is the Reflection Principle, which in simple terms, is essentially the notion that the collection of all possible sets is unable to described by any mathematical sentence or formula whatsoever, as for any given property that we might attempt to ascribe to it, it will always be possible to find some smaller cardinal that also has that property, meaning in short that any given description can never capture how big the "universe" of all sets truly is, and instead only talks about something strictly smaller than it.

 

[Antvasima]

Thank you for helping out, Ultima and DontTalk. It is extremely appreciated.

@Ovy7 @Ionliosite @First_Witch @Elizhaa @KingPin0422 @QuasiYuri @AKM sama @Promestein @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Ogbunabali @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou

Your input would also be very appreciated here.

 

[Antvasima]

@Dino_Ranger_Black @JustSomeWeirdo @Theglassman12 @Crabwhale @Eficiente @GyroNutz @DarkGrath @The_Wright_Way @Moritzva @Firestorm808 @DemonGodMitchAubin @Everything12 @Duedate8898 @Planck69 @KingTempest @QuasiYuri @Armorchompy @CrimsonStarFallen @UchihaSlayer96 @Confluctor @Hop_Hoppington-Hoppenhiemer @Executor_N0 @Spinosaurus75DinosaurFan @Therefir @DMUA @Jasonsith @KieranH10 @Migue79 @Psychomaster35 @Amelia_Lonelyheart @DragonGamerZ913 @KLOL506 @M3X @Dark-Carioca @AbaddonTheDisappointment

Your input would also be appreciated here.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

That's a lot of pings.

 

[Armorchompy]

Sorry, can't help with this, outside of my field.

 

[Antvasima]

That's a lot of pings.

Yes, this is a very important issue that our staff should be made aware of.

They should preferably only respond here if they can provide constructive input though.

 

[M3X_2.0]

I don't do high Tier either. They are confusing and they smell like bullshit to me. I also have no interest on characters or verses like that. Street level characters supremacy.

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. I made a general ping since I am uncertain which staff members that know enough about this topic to help out.

 

[The_Impress]

Honestly I'll say this, the entire POINT of the thread, in blunt terms, is to make them NOT bullshit or confusing.

Like I prefer if people not familiar actually stay, I'm not familiar with this shit either and that is the crux of the issue, you literally can't be familiar with it UNLESS you just happened to be ingrained into this shit, and these tiers are just completely gatekept from anyone new joining in.

If you find something that doesn't make sense to you personally, call it out. That's the entire point, explaining it to the detail that it makes sense to MOST everyone

 

[KLOL506]

I don't do Tier 1 bullshittery either, but I already pinged the peeps that I know are the most capable of handling it.

 

[M3X_2.0]

Honestly I'll say this, the entire POINT of the thread, in blunt terms, is to make them NOT bullshit or confusing.

Like I prefer if people not familiar actually stay, I'm not familiar with this shit either and that is the crux of the issue, you literally can't be familiar with it UNLESS you just happened to be ingrained into this shit, and these tiers are just completely gatekept from anyone new joining in.

If you find something that doesn't make sense to you personally, call it out. That's the entire point, explaining it to the detail that it makes sense to MOST everyone

Okay then, but like, someone needs to write a simple way how these Tiers works, like, very basic english and explanation without using some complex terms. Once that's done, we can work on a middle ground between something complex and somthing simple.

 

[Planck69]

Ultima's draft seems fine after a read through but its 1-A section could use some work on explaining how to get to said tier without immediately getting into the mathematical nitty gritty. What qualifies as 1-A seems to be one of the most commonly asked questions on this site regarding Tier 1.

Though

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I'm not the best at explaining Tier 1 borders either, especially not the 1-A and above stuff. I know basics that being 5-D and above does NOT grant tiers Low 1-C and above nor does having powers to effect those dimensions to an extent, but the ability to create/destroy/significantly effect those dimensions 5-D and above while noting each dimension is uncountable infinite in scale. Which we don't absolutely have to say uncountable infinity but details on each dimension being "Qualitively Superior" which in itself has always sounded admittedly vague. Dimensional tiering as a whole was never intended to simplified, and expecting your average wiki debater to know how it works is like expecting some underage kids who never went through basic levels of academics to know how to work a white collar job.

However, Ultima Reality's input is looking good even if there should be a ways to improve it. Even if I'm not sure how, perhaps more input could help; If only Azzy was still here.

 

[Antvasima]

Yes, Azzy was great.

 

[First_Witch]

Well, if people dont mind then i will use this to ask questions regarding our standards then, maybe that helps making our explanations simpler. And, well, i apologize in advance if what im saying in following is super elementar, wrong and stupid. But i think i rather take the embarrasment of being wrong and have at least my basics covered and corrected

Currently, my biggest question is... What exactly IS Low-1A? I used to operate under the pretense that Low-1A was something akin to baseline 1-A, the first layer that trancends an High 1-B structure in its entirety. But considering that we align it with Aleph 1, is it its own hierachy? To make my thoughtprocess a bit more clearer, let me explain how i view and explain to myself mentally how the tiering system works;

Basically, i take a example structure and asign the corresponding numbers to it. Example: High 1-B, an infinite layered hierachy, a infinite dimensional structure, whatever it is. Such structure corresponds with Aleph 0, or the smallest infinity. The set of all natural numbers is called Aleph 0, so its easy to assign numbers to the corresponding structure. 3 Is anything from below human to an infinite universe, 4 is a infinite space time continuum, 5 is 5 dimensional, 6 is 6 dimensional etc etc, until you reach Aleph 0, which corresponds to the entirety of the infinite layered structure. So far so easy.

So Aleph 1, the last Aleph i still have a semblance of a grasp on. Aleph 1 is, continuing or number example, all real numbers right. Aleph 1 is uncountably, its a infinite bigger than the infinity that is Aleph 0, like how the set of all real numbers is literally bigger than the set of all natural numbers is. So its logical to say that a structure, that is Aleph 1 big to a smaller structure that is Aleph 0 big, to be superior by size or whatever superiority you want to assign it.

So ultimatly, how exactly does Aleph 1 correlate to Low 1-A. This is not a proof it question, that i dont doubt that it is correct, but rather a "how does it correlate", if that makes sense. Currently, i have 3 ideas of Low 1-A:

1. Low 1-A corresponds to Aleph 1 in its entirety, making it a single layer in a Outerversal Hierachy (Aleph infinity? Omega? I dont know the name)

2. Low 1-A corresponds to the numbers within Aleph 1, making it its own infinite layered hierachy. Seeing as by sheer amount of numbers between 0 to 1 in Aleph 1 already dwarves Aleph 0 in amounts, is this how we visualize the layers in a Low 1-A hierachy? Like R(Real number)0 to R1 is Layer 0 to Layer 1 in Low-A because they are literally bigger than Aleph 0 and could fit more than a infinite amount of such structures inbetween?

3. Or, now that i actually wrote down my thoughts, both? Which would make Low-1A compareable to our old 1-A pre Ultima and DT tiering system revision and our current 1-A compareable to our old High 1-A? Isnt our tiering system thus unfathomoably bigger than it used to be then?

I will ask more after i have my basics down, thanks in advance for your attention.

 

[First_Witch]

And if what i wrote is in fact super wrong and stupid, feel free to tell me and delete it. I dont want to be responsible for spreading misinformation, even in passing, when it comes to such an important topic

 

[Antvasima]

No problem. It is good that you voice your concerns so they can hopefully be cleared up.

 

[The_Impress]

For Low 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects with a cardinality greater than that of the real numbers, meaning in practical terms that their number of dimensions is aleph-1 (An uncountably infinite number, assumed to be the cardinality of the real numbers themselves), and as such that they fully exceed High 1-B structures, which have only a countably infinite number of dimensions.

Note that, if the High 1-B structure in question is an hierarchy of levels of existence, then simply being at the top of such a hierarchy does not qualify a character for this tier without more context, and an additional layer added ontop of the 'infinitie-th" level of this hierarchy is likewise not enough. To qualify, they'd need to surpass the hierarchy as a whole, and not simply be another level within it. More information on the concept is avaliable on this page

This is better than the current description, yes.

For 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects with a cardinality equal to the cardinal aleph-3, which translates in practical terms to levels that completely transcend Low 1-A structures, to the same degree they transcend High 1-B and below. In terms of the amount of dimensions a space has, this tier represents a space with an aleph-2 number of dimensions.

This can be extrapolated to larger cardinal numbers as well, such as aleph-3, aleph-4, and so on, and works much the same way as 1-C and 1-B do in that regard.

So is the notion that like an infinite series of Low 1-A structures need to be inferior to you?

For High 1-A:

Characters who can affect objects that are larger than what the logical framework defining 1-A can allow, and as such exceed any possible "levels" contained in the above tiers, including an infinite amount of them. Practically speaking, this would be something completely unreachable to any 1-A hierarchies.

A concrete example of such an object would be a large cardinal, which is most simply defined as a number too large to be constructed or even be proven to exist at all using the tools provided by standard mathematics, and as such has to be "assumed" to exist in order to be made sense of or defined in formal ways (Unlike the standard aleph numbers, which can be straightforwardly put together using the building blocks of set theory). More information on the concept is avaliable on this page.

This is better too

For 0:

Characters that can affect objects which completely exceed the logical foundations of High 1-A, much like it exceeds the ones defining 1-A and below, meaning that all possible levels of High 1-A are exceeded, even an infinite amount of such levels.

Can you exemplify this?

Okay then, but like, someone needs to write a simple way how these Tiers works, like, very basic english and explanation without using some complex terms. Once that's done, we can work on a middle ground between something complex and somthing simple.

...yes. That is the point of the thread. Help with it by calling out what you feel needs to be more in layman's terms

 

[M3X_2.0]

I... still don't understand anything Ultima wrote.

 

[The_Impress]

Well, if people dont mind then i will use this to ask questions regarding our standards then, maybe that helps making our explanations simpler. And, well, i apologize in advance if what im saying in following is super elementar, wrong and stupid. But i think i rather take the embarrasment of being wrong and have at least my basics covered and corrected

Currently, my biggest question is... What exactly IS Low-1A? I used to operate under the pretense that Low-1A was something akin to baseline 1-A, the first layer that trancends an High 1-B structure in its entirety. But considering that we align it with Aleph 1, is it its own hierachy? To make my thoughtprocess a bit more clearer, let me explain how i view and explain to myself mentally how the tiering system works;

Basically, i take a example structure and asign the corresponding numbers to it. Example: High 1-B, an infinite layered hierachy, a infinite dimensional structure, whatever it is. Such structure corresponds with Aleph 0, or the smallest infinity. The set of all natural numbers is called Aleph 0, so its easy to assign numbers to the corresponding structure. 3 Is anything from below human to an infinite universe, 4 is a infinite space time continuum, 5 is 5 dimensional, 6 is 6 dimensional etc etc, until you reach Aleph 0, which corresponds to the entirety of the infinite layered structure. So far so easy.

So Aleph 1, the last Aleph i still have a semblance of a grasp on. Aleph 1 is, continuing or number example, all real numbers right. Aleph 1 is uncountably, its a infinite bigger than the infinity that is Aleph 0, like how the set of all real numbers is literally bigger than the set of all natural numbers is. So its logical to say that a structure, that is Aleph 1 big to a smaller structure that is Aleph 0 big, to be superior by size or whatever superiority you want to assign it.

So ultimatly, how exactly does Aleph 1 correlate to Low 1-A. This is not a proof it question, that i dont doubt that it is correct, but rather a "how does it correlate", if that makes sense. Currently, i have 3 ideas of Low 1-A:

1. Low 1-A corresponds to Aleph 1 in its entirety, making it a single layer in a Outerversal Hierachy (Aleph infinity? Omega? I dont know the name)

2. Low 1-A corresponds to the numbers within Aleph 1, making it its own infinite layered hierachy. Seeing as by sheer amount of numbers between 0 to 1 in Aleph 1 already dwarves Aleph 0 in amounts, is this how we visualize the layers in a Low 1-A hierachy? Like R(Real number)0 to R1 is Layer 0 to Layer 1 in Low-A because they are literally bigger than Aleph 0 and could fit more than a infinite amount of such structures inbetween?

3. Or, now that i actually wrote down my thoughts, both? Which would make Low-1A compareable to our old 1-A pre Ultima and DT tiering system revision and our current 1-A compareable to our old High 1-A? Isnt our tiering system thus unfathomoably bigger than it used to be then?

I will ask more after i have my basics down, thanks in advance for your attention.

Also yes this is ideal for the purposes of the thread :y

 

[The_Impress]

I... still don't understand anything Ultima wrote.

Why what's the issue? :v

 

[M3X_2.0]

Everything about infinite numbers and cardinality, how does that translates into a Tier?

 

[The_Impress]

Everything about infinite numbers and cardinality, how does that translates into a Tier?t

Ah, I recognise now that Ultima didn't apecify what said objects are to be considered in his post.

So your issue currently is that it's not clear what the hell we're taking cardinality of, right?

 

[M3X_2.0]

Yeah, like, why are we using what we are using currently? And how does that translates into a Tier?

 

[The_Impress]

"Why" part I think is better answered in the "Tiering System FAQ" page, since that's not of direct importance of the reader. "How does it translate to tier" is better answred here though, because helping visualise the end result is important for indexing purposes.

 

[Duedate8898]

I do not understand any of this too well, so I would be happy to share my viewpoints on this. I remember back when it was first implanted, there was mention of maybe giving explicit examples to better help users understand.

 

[Confluctor]

Yeah, adding examples would make things better. Less headache at the end. And Ultima's new draft is good, but I think it can be simplified further.

 

[Antvasima]

I think that Ultima's new draft seems good as well. Further explanations of what it means can be added to the respective Tiering System FAQ and Explanation pages.

 

[Qawsedf234]

I can try and write something later.

But at the moment no definition should use the word aleph if you want it simple.

 

[Antvasima]

I do not mind if we use the term aleph, if it is necessary to properly define our system, as long as our two complementary explanation pages explain the term in as easy to understand manner as possible.

 

[DontTalkDT]

A concrete example of such an object would be a large cardinal, which is most simply defined as a number too large to be constructed or even be proven to exist at all using the tools provided by standard mathematics, and as such has to be "assumed" to exist in order to be made sense of or defined in formal ways (Unlike the standard aleph numbers, which can be straightforwardly put together using the building blocks of set theory). More information on the concept is avaliable on this page.[/I]

I always felt like using the large cardinal here doesn't work well here. Like, just transcending the prior 1-A hierarchy system in most verses really shouldn't approach getting to large cardinals, seeing how ridiculously large regular cardinals can get already.

But transcending a 1-A hierarchy (system) is usually how characters get there, no?

A notion that exemplifies this idea is the Reflection Principle, which in simple terms, is essentially the notion that the collection of all possible sets is unable to described by any mathematical sentence or formula whatsoever, as for any given property that we might attempt to ascribe to it, it will always be possible to find some smaller cardinal that also has that property, meaning in short that any given description can never capture how big the "universe" of all sets truly is, and instead only talks about something strictly smaller than it.

What do you mean with that? One can define a class of all sets, which would be the collection of all possible sets.

 

[KingPin0422]

I pretty much 100% agree with the draft Ultima wrote up, but I'd like to bring a few points of information:

This can be extrapolated to larger cardinal numbers as well, such as aleph-3, aleph-4, and so on, and works much the same way as 1-C and 1-B do in that regard.

Doesn't the last part kind of contradict the FAQ? 1-A layers are supposed to use a larger measurement compared to 1-C and 1-B according to the FAQ, so you should preferably clarify that there are some subtle differences.

A concrete example of such an object would be a large cardinal, which is most simply defined as a number too large to be constructed or even be proven to exist at all using the tools provided by standard mathematics, and as such has to be "assumed" to exist in order to be made sense of or defined in formal ways (Unlike the standard aleph numbers, which can be straightforwardly put together using the building blocks of set theory). More information on the concept is avaliable on this page.

Why not just use the inaccessible cardinal as the example here? It makes sense to use it as most people here treat it as the baseline for High 1-A, and indeed, it is most people's first experience with large cardinals, being the traditional entry point to the large cardinal hierarchy. I know there's worldly cardinals as well, but... eh.

↓ This part of the description may or may not be under consideration. I largely put it there to give some formal grounding to Tier 0, since, at the moment, it has none. At least nothing in a written page. Again, criticism (Especially from you @DontTalkDT) is welcome here.

A notion that exemplifies this idea is the Reflection Principle, which in simple terms, is essentially the notion that the collection of all possible sets is unable to described by any mathematical sentence or formula whatsoever, as for any given property that we might attempt to ascribe to it, it will always be possible to find some smaller cardinal that also has that property, meaning in short that any given description can never capture how big the "universe" of all sets truly is, and instead only talks about something strictly smaller than it.

This isn't a point of information, but I wanna say that it is obviously necessary to give some sort of basis for tier 0 if it lacks one. People assume that it just refers to Mahlo cardinals and up, despite that we technically have never officially declared such, and so people form conceptions of tier 0 that may not be true, but which we cannot disprove because not even we seem to know what it truly is. Using the reflection principle/the universe of sets to define tier 0, on the other hand, works wonderfully. It fits a tier called "Boundless" far better than a random large cardinal without prohibiting further scaling (there is such a thing as a multiverse of sets!) or leading to anything being downgraded from tier 0, as far as I am aware.