Is Tier 2-C/2-B/2-A, technically 5D in personal cosmology?

[MightyFrogBeyond]

I’m unsure how a character who can go from affecting an entire timeline, to then affecting an infinite amount of timelines, is not 5D.

In my cosmology,
Each spacetime continuum would be separated by a 5D space. But, if a character could affect an infinite amount of spacetime continuums, how would they do that?

Wouldn’t their power never escape their own spacetime continuum due to being stopped by the 5D space around them?

My question is, if a character affected an infinite amount of spacetime continuums, would it technically be 5D?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

insignificant 5D space don't qualify for tier low 1-C

an infinite amount of 4D object doesn't make a full 5D universe

It was already acknowledged even by DonttalkTD that being multiversal is equivalent to having a minor 5D range within their own multiverse
which is once again an insignificant 5D space

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

insignificant 5D space don't qualify for tier low 1-C

an infinite amount of 4D object doesn't make a full 5D universe

It was already acknowledged even by DonttalkTD that being multiversal is equivalent to having a minor 5D range within their own multiverse
which is once again an insignificant 5D space

So, being C-A for Tier 2 is like having

faux-5D power?

Define a “significant” 5D space compared to a “insignificant” one, please.

My cosmology’s 5D space is insignificant despite containing an infinite amount of 4DSTCs? What if I said the 5D space is infinite in size? Would it still be insignificant?

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

I’m unsure how a character who can go from affecting an entire timeline, to then affecting an infinite amount of timelines, is not 5D.

In my cosmology,
Each spacetime continuum would be separated by a 5D space. But, if a character could affect an infinite amount of spacetime continuums, how would they do that?

Wouldn’t their power never escape their own spacetime continuum due to being stopped by the 5D space around them?

My question is, if a character affected an infinite amount of spacetime continuums, would it technically be 5D?

Infinite timelines is not 5D here, no, neither it is on CSaP. The only wiki that has such thing is ACF.
(Edit: I hope I did not misunderstand your question)

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

Infinite timelines is not 5D here, no, neither it is on CSaP. The only wiki that has such thing is ACF.

Right. The reasoning as GreatJedi said is because affecting an infinite amount of timelines is comparable to affecting an insignificant amount of 5D space.

Then, I asked what if the 5D space was infinite in size. Would it then be considered “significant” and therefore, qualify for Low 1-C?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

So, being C-A for Tier 2 is like having

faux-5D power?

Define a “significant” 5D space compared to a “insignificant” one, please.

My cosmology’s 5D space is insignificant despite containing an infinite amount of 4DSTCs? What if I said the 5D space is infinite in size? Would it still be insignificant?

Insignificant is basically sizes that is not universal in size in said dimension

you know how if you have a graph

imagine a solid square with a value of 5 on each side
now imagine each universe is 1 line

now the square simply has a value of 5 and we don't know if it's cm, meters, etc. but we know it is insignificant because it is too small.

now you know how the number of lines between 0-1 and 1-2 is already infinite because of how infinitely small each line is they don't have the value vertically and only horizontally
that's basically where the issue is.
if an infinite amount of dimension can be kept in as small as 1 measure or even less
then that is so insignificant that it is not notable let alone universal in size in 5D space
thus it is an insignificant size with unknown value.

now it doesn't matter if the universe (assumed as a line) is infinite in size
their vertical value will not change and remain null. but we do know that you can store infinite of them and it will still be a measurable value between 0-1 or even less

now if the cosmology space is said to be 5 dimensional and infinite in size
it would no longer be insignificant unless it is portrayed wrongly that it doesn't really appear as such.
in that case, the latter would need a case by case evaluation. but generally being said to be 5 dimensional in space would often be sufficient

but allegory or phrasing such as the space between dimension/universe is infinite often do not qualify because that could also refer to the insignificant 5D space
because an insignificant 5D space can and may appear infinite in 4D scale perspective but still minuscule in 5D sense

 

[TheOrangeGuy09]

but allegory or phrasing such as the space between dimension/universe is infinite often do not qualify because that could also refer to the insignificant 5D space
because an insignificant 5D space can and may appear infinite in 4D scale perspective but still minuscule in 5D sense

Tbh in a sense of HDE object it would not be infinite, as a 1D line segment, consisting of infinite amount of 0D points, is still considered finite. It would not make sense to call the line segment infinite due to containing lower-dimensional points

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

Insignificant is basically sizes that is not universal in size in said dimension

you know how if you have a graph

imagine a solid square with a value of 5 on each side
now imagine each universe is 1 line

now the square simply has a value of 5 and we don't know if it's cm, meters, etc. but we know it is insignificant because it is too small.

now you know how the number of lines between 0-1 and 1-2 is already infinite because of how infinitely small each line is they don't have the value vertically and only horizontally
that's basically where the issue is.
if an infinite amount of dimension can be kept in as small as 1 measure or even less
then that is so insignificant that it is not notable let alone universal in size in 5D space
thus it is an insignificant size with unknown value.

now it doesn't matter if the universe (assumed as a line) is infinite in size
their vertical value will not change and remain null. but we do know that you can store infinite of them and it will still be a measurable value between 0-1 or even less

now if the cosmology space is said to be 5 dimensional and infinite in size
it would no longer be insignificant unless it is portrayed wrongly that it doesn't really appear as such.
in that case, the latter would need a case by case evaluation. but generally being said to be 5 dimensional in space would often be sufficient

but allegory or phrasing such as the space between dimension/universe is infinite often do not qualify because that could also refer to the insignificant 5D space
because an insignificant 5D space can and may appear infinite in 4D scale perspective but still minuscule in 5D sense

I am almost understanding your allegory about the lines. So, you mean that my 5D space could be graphed and represented as a square. On each side, it has a value of 5 but the measuring is unknown ( could be cm, meters, miles, etc. ).

But, what we do know is, that this square is not infinite because it’s “bound” by a numerical value. So, by proxy, that makes this square an insignificant size because it’s not infinite?

Now, looking at the square. Each line ( such as between 0 and 1 ) can still contain an infinite amount of 4DSTCs. Or even, 0 and 0.001 can contain an infinite amount of 4DSTCs.
And every other space between the lines that make up the square such as: 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 can each contain an beyond an infinite amount of infinites due to these numbers on the graph being a “higher infinity” right?

I don’t understand what vertical value means in this case.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Tbh in a sense of HDE object it would not be infinite, as a 1D line segment, consisting of infinite amount of 0D points, is still considered finite. It would not make sense to call the line segment infinite due to containing lower-dimensional points

Context matters on this one
because after all to contain an infinite multiverse the space between them must also be infinite relative to the infinite multiverse
but there lies the issue even if it is infinite relative to the multiverse. It would only appear as limited in a higher purview. it all depends on the purview. a purview being used concerning and relative to the infinite multiverse then of course it would appear infinite but if it is in the purview of a higher dimensional perspective overall it would not be described as infinite

often details like these are unnecessary to the story unless one aims to establish a higher dimension. hence the assumption of space between the universe being called infinite doesn't mean 5D and is defaulted to insignificant 5D size else all 2-A are just low 1-C in disguise and there will be no differentiation.

There is also the container for the infinite multiverse or a higher number than the infinite multiverse but as per faq it is often meaningless as it is an illogical statement unless one aims to explain a higher dimension explicitly context-wise and not through assumption

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

I am almost understanding your allegory about the lines. So, you mean that my 5D space could be graphed and represented as a square. On each side, it has a value of 5 but the measuring is unknown ( could be cm, meters, miles, etc. ).

But, what we do know is, that this square is not infinite because it’s “bound” by a numerical value. So, by proxy, that makes this square an insignificant size because it’s not infinite?

Now, looking at the square. Each line ( such as between 0 and 1 ) can still contain an infinite amount of 4DSTCs. Or even, 0 and 0.001 can contain an infinite amount of 4DSTCs.
And every other space between the lines that make up the square such as: 0-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5 can each contain an beyond an infinite amount of infinites due to these numbers on the graph being a “higher infinity” right?

I don’t understand what vertical value means in this case.

Vertical value is basically like another axis. me saying Vertical is translating it into simple words. but I basically mean vertical axis
because with the line argument it is only 1 axis
and you can't really stack up that horizontal axis to make a vertical one if they don't have a value in the vertical axis

in regards to uncountable infinite that one is a different ballpark as I believe it is possible for a horizontal axis without vertical axis to be considered as large enough to be of a higher tier but not considered as higher dimensional

Since we know Uncountably infinite means it is never ending and cannot be contain

so in this case if the horizontal line is uncountably infinite it would be a higher tier
and if they explained that the stacking of horizontal axis to form a vertical axis is uncountably infinite
then even if its value is 0 in vertical axis in theory it would still amount to infinite value thus bypassing the whole container of 0-1 or 0-2 resulting into 0-infinite making the vertical axis infinite in size with also an infinite in size horizontal value forming an infinite 5D space that qualifies

 

[MightyFrogBeyond]

Vertical value is basically like another axis. me saying Vertical is translating it into simple words. but I basically mean vertical axis
because with the line argument it is only 1 axis
and you can't really stack up that horizontal axis to make a vertical one if they don't have a value in the vertical axis

in regards to uncountable infinite that one is a different ballpark as I believe it is possible for a horizontal axis without vertical axis to be considered as large enough to be of a higher tier but not considered as higher dimensional

Since we know Uncountably infinite means it is never ending and cannot be contain

so in this case if the horizontal line is uncountably infinite it would be a higher tier
and if they explained that the stacking of horizontal axis to form a vertical axis is uncountably infinite
then even if its value is 0 in vertical axis in theory it would still amount to infinite value thus bypassing the whole container of 0-1 or 0-2 resulting into 0-infinite making the vertical axis infinite in size with also an infinite in size horizontal value forming an infinite 5D space that qualifies

I want to get back to my cosmology for now.

So, my cosmology is a 5D space that is insignificantly small that: contains an infinite amount of 4DSTCs.

If I have a character who affects these infinite 4DSTCs, it would not be a Low 1-C feat, correct?
Because that’s what I wanted. I wanted my character to show a feat of affecting infinite timelines but started questioning how he would do that without it looking 5D.

So, my question now is…
“How can I explain that, although my character is affecting infinite timelines, the 5D space is unaffected”?


Or, is there really no way of getting around that. And, affecting infinite timelines is truly a 5D feat. But, it’s an insignificantly small 5D feat so it wouldn’t reach Low 1-C anyway?

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

If I have a character who affects these infinite 4DSTCs, it would not be a Low 1-C feat, correct?
Because that’s what I wanted. I wanted my character to show a feat of affecting infinite timelines but started questioning how he would do that without it looking 5D.

correct

So, my question now is…
“How can I explain that, although my character is affecting infinite timelines, the 5D space is unaffected”?

You don't really have to explain anything. It is general knowledge that the space between dimension is insignificant for scaling

Or, is there really no way of getting around that. And, affecting infinite timelines is truly a 5D feat. But, it’s an insignificantly small 5D feat so it wouldn’t reach Low 1-C anyway?

Sadly it is
even a 2-C feat is a 5D feat but so small it is basically nothingburger
Tier 2 in the wiki function differently from tier 10 to 3 and 1