On the Wikipedia page
- On top of everything it says "Dimension One of the concepts in mathematics" (次元 数学における概念の一つ), it's not that the kanji always refers to that, this meaning of the word is what the page is explaining.
Yep. Dimensions/dimensionality is one of the concepts in mathematics indeed. I know you said that "on top of everything else", but it doesn't change a thing. Especially when that page is what's linked at the end of the Jisho page, which is the one you seem to have misunderstood the most.
- Likewise after explaining well that concepts it even says "Also, in turn, dimension may mean the structure of the world." (また、転じて次元は世界の構造を意味することがある。), tho you should already know this by the bullet point before.
It can mean a perspective/point of reference/level of something, but when you initially translated to Twitter statement, you didn't consider that a possibillity. Why is it different now? Do you really believe the statement referred to AD as transcending the structure of the world or are you using this as an excuse to say the statement is ambigious? That's what I meant when I said that I looked for alternatives as to what else the statement could mean and couldn't find one that makes sense. Neither "structure of the world" nor "perspective" really make sense here. If for some reason, you want to use "level of something" though, it would probably still support my conclusion since the Wiki page on that section goes:
"In particular, it often means that there is a difference in quality rather than a difference in quantity, and that it cannot be understood without incorporating a completely different element (dimension)."
- The stuff in the bullet point before in turn was some warning in the place where it was explaining what that take on Dimension means, a whole section below called "Diverted expression" (転用表現) goes over other meanings the word has that, among them being Perspective / Scale, World as in reality of unknown size (which is pointed out to often be used in fiction), among other meanings.
I already brought up the first one, and the second one is Ijigen, not Jigen. It's derived from Jigen, sure, but they're not to be used interchangeably.
- You linked a version of that wikipedia page from 2011 when it falsely claimed this to be the Jap. meaning of Dimension rather than the take on the word as a concept in physics and mathematics in its categories. This would be shady as f*ck if it weren't because we're too soft to do something about it rather than to let it pass, so I again feel empty.
How do you back up your claim that it "falsely" did so? If you still think I'm shady in how I select my sources, I invite you to look up the Oxford definition of Jigen. It doesn't get much more reliable than that, and you don't even have to count on me to provide it.
The 3rt, last take it gives on the word is is Dimension as it's used in physics and mathematics, the first is just Dimension as in something else (Could be anything), and second "perspective; point of reference; level (of something)". You have no reason to overhype things when even the source you link doesn't say what you aim it to be.
You're not a Jisho user so I'll try to break this down for you once again. If Jigen merely translated to the english word "dimension" and nothing more specific, Jisho would not have included that 3rd slot. The whole reason it exists is to expand upon the first one. It's not there to provide a 3rd alternative for what Jigen could mean because by your logic and by basic common sense, the first one should already cover it. Look at other Jisho pages and you'll find that the overwhelming majority of them aren't structured like that. Jigen is special because it means something more specific than "dimension". It means "(mathematical/physical dimensions)". Something the WordHippo page and the Oxford definition support. Even the Wikipedia page does so once you pay attention to the specifics.
This is some crazy idea you made up, Jigen is not just frequently used as in "reality of unknown size" in fiction,
I never said that. Why would I say that?
but there are cases of this being the case in Kirby,
here for example (The Energy Spheres did not cross over the 1st dimension, 2nd, 3rt and 4th in Kirby's universe, they went into other realities/dimensions, hence they were in other realities).
They had to go through a higher dimensional space to get there, so they did cross physical dimensions. The same goes for Greater Doomer and Galacta-Knight. They're not an oversight. They're supporting evidence, and proof that Japanese people do in fact use Japanese words correctly. They don't use Jigen for, say, Magolor's home dimension/universe. They use it to describe the greater whole of AD.
The reason why you made up that only Isekai can be used as "reality of unknown" is not research but convenience, and even w/o evidence against it it would still be a monumental claim to say that a word has never been used in its most common meaning and instead has only been used in its higher take.
Not really, since said higher take is literally the definition of the word. And I didn't say that ONLY Isekai can be used for a reality of unknown size. I said that's probably the one they would use, as it often is. There are other options available to them, but Jigen is not one of them.
Again, your own sources don't exactly imply the same you say. The twitter post says neither 越える or 超える but 超えて.
I noticed. It never made a difference in any of the translations of the Tweet I've seen, and the leading kanji "超" is what serves as the distinction between the two variations. This one referring to a superiority. Unless you have proof that the difference in the final character of the word somehow makes it something other than Koeru, I don't think we're gonna go anywhere new with this.
The distinction between 越える or 超える is correct but not as rigid as you portray it, the link given to you by that person in reddit says as much
"Depending on the interpretation, both can be used." (解釈によって、どちらも使えます。) And "
超える is used when it's about exceeding a certain quantity, standard, or limit. (e.g. living beyond 100 years old, going over quota this month, luggage went overweight, flu cases increased beyond 100,000, etc.)" can be interpreted with exceeding as in something being moved into another quantity, standard or limit rather than the quantity, standard or limit becoming more complex, it's the same on those context.
Depending on the interpretation, both CAN be used, yes. But that requires there to be room for interpretation in the first place. The two variations exist for a reason, and like the Reddit response that linked this page says, they each have thier own meaning so they're not mutually interchangeable. 100 years of age, quota, or a certain weigh limit are all things that you can be "beyond" in the sense of surpassing it or crossing it. It depends on how you define the limitation for each of those things since they're not exactly tangible things. You can't physically cross or be physically superior to them in any objective way, so both terms are usable, and in english, the word "beyond" encompasses both of them.
If you're described as being beyond (Keoru) a gorilla for example, you either crossed the gorilla's territory and reached the other side of it, or you're superior to the gorilla. You can say both of them depending on the context, but you can't say them interchangeably like you can with the afromentionned examples.
The same goes for being beyond (Koeru) space-time/dimensions. You either cross them, or surpass them, and that's where the variations of koeru come into play. They let us know which one it is.
Well, it's more like you were pushed into better defending your own lack of attention on the matter of Jiren.
That's projection. All of my sources were previously linked in this discussion with the exact same intent as they are now. All I did was compile them in a concise comment. You're the one who previously unfollowed the thread and was pushed into following it again because your FAQ edits didn't do anything to convert people to your side or change my arguments. You're the one who didn't comment on any of my sources until you were left no other choice.
You are missing
what you make of this, which if you did and said something correct rather than something to be corrected we wouldn't be having this thread.
If I said something you agree with rather than something you disagree with, we wouldn't be having this thread. Can't argue with that. Sure.
Or how
"more than countably infinite times greater in power or size", which even that is a rough way of saying it, is so easily attainable via 1 word over space-time/dimension.
Right now, it kind of is. If you don't like that, you can edit the FAQ as many times as you want. If saying it in a less rough way would help shutting down this upgrade, that would be a good place to start for you.
Forgot to add, while Kirby twitter is very trustworthy, it's still a tertiary way of sorts to get canon information (If you take games as primary and guides as secondary), the info comes from a lead character who isn't sure of its ancient source being fully deciphered and passed on to 2 follower characters in the first 2 posts who in turn aren't sure of what the lead character explained, and
1 follower character in the last post who is more certain of what she heard but still adds uncertainly to what she says. This adds
some level of unreliability, maybe it's not like a text you would find in an encyclopedia guidebook but more so what you would find written in a promotional poster. When the DLC the twitter posts were advertising came out it said nothing about each dimension in AD being more complex than a regular dimension.
Minor thing to say.
Good point, actually. But I have to ask. If my assertion is correct, what good does that actually do for your side of the argument? I'm genuinely asking.
