Low 1-C question

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

So, I have been told by a user in this thread that destroying uncountable infinite universes (2-A Multiverse) is enough to get Low 1-C rating.

Is this true?

 

[Eganergo]

No, uncountable infinite universes just mean a bigger 2A since countable infinite universes are the same as baseline 2A in potency.

Read note 4 on Tiering.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

I still don't get it regarding the Y>X example, but let me put it this way:

Thinks a verse cosmology as a garden with infinite numbers of trees, and each of these trees has infinite number of branches.

Would this makes the verse Low 1-C or just higher degree of 2-A?

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

It's the latter

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

From what I understand. If you just destroy an infinite amount of infinite universes, you're just a stronger 2-A

But If you destroy an uncountable amount of infinite universes, then you're low 1-C

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

Uhh, just to makes sure, Uncountable = Countless right?

Wouldn't destroying "uncountable amount" be less impressive than destroying "infinite amount"?

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

I dunno. I didn't make the tieting system

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

No, Uncountable is a synonym for "Countless", which was less impressive than "Infinite".

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Again, I didn't make the tiering system, that's just how it is.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

This needs input from staffs.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

This is what the tier page says about it (This is directly copy and pasted btw):

In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or otherwise fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not a better feat than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A

The reason behind this is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (Even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

This illustrates some of the more unintuitive properties of sets with infinite elements: Namely, given a set X, it being a subset of another set Y does not imply that Y > X in terms of size. An example of this is how the set of all natural numbers contains both the odd numbers and even numbers, yet all of these sets in fact have the same number of elements.

However, such a feat may indeed qualify as stronger if the verse itself treats it as such.

Hope this helps.

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

Destroying infinite low 2-C constructs gives u low 1-C

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Isn't that just 2-A? Destroying infinite space time-continuums is 2-A

 

[TOAAPRESENCE1]

Isn't that just 2-A? Destroying infinite space time-continuums is 2-A

Low 1-C | Low Complex Multiverse level:Characters who can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

 

[Maxnumb231]

that would just be 2-A as suggested by 2-A description.

2-A: Multiverse level+​

Characters who are capable of significantly affecting[1], creating and/or destroying a countably infinite number of space-time continuums.

that being said it is a general consensus in this wiki even if someone who's atleast 2-A can STILL not achieve low 1-C in this case of scenario.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

Low 1-C | Low Complex Multiverse level:Characters who can affect, create and/or destroy the entirety of spaces whose size corresponds to one to two higher levels of infinity greater than a standard universal model (Low 2-C structures, in plain English.) In terms of "dimensional" scale, this can be equated to 5 and 6-dimensional real coordinate spaces (R ^ 5 to R ^ 6)

^This is what confused me. Isn't that just 2-A?

 

[Axxtentacle]

^This is what confused me. Isn't that just 2-A?

I’m new here, but i’ll give my take on this anyway.
2-A to me seems to be affecting, creating and/or destroying a multiverse with infinite universes, while 1-C seems to be destroying whatever construct this multiverse/potential multiverses reside in. I may be wrong, but this is how i’m interpreting it. Basically, 1-C is just 1 construct higher.

 

[Maxnumb231]

I've been quite tolerant against low 1-C description as it is vague, but if we go with dimensional tiering, 6D beings would fit the low 1-C.

U can be infinite^Infinite above baseline 2-A doesn't still make you low 1-C

 

[Rikimarox2]

Isn't uncountable infinite something related with math and shit? It's definitely isn't talking about countless or smth.

 

[Maxnumb231]

Isn't uncountable infinite something related with math and shit? It's definitely isn't talking about countless or smth.

yes uncountable infinite is math thing yes.

countless if we take into more context would just be infinite.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

I'm gonna use this analogy again:

The cosmology of Verse A is like a big city that contains Infinite amount of Gardens that exists separately, with each garden contains Infinite amount of trees that also exist separately, with each tree has Infinite amount branches.

A branch in this analogy = Low 2-C construct
A tree in this analogy = 2-A Multiverse
A Garden in this analogy = Infinite amount of 2-A
And the city itself is what encompassed all of that, including the infinite amount of gardens.

If a character destroyed the city, would they be Low 1-C is my question.

 

[Greenshifter]

No, uncountable infinite universes just mean a bigger 2A since countable infinite universes are the same as baseline 2A in potency.

Read note 4 on Tiering.

You sure about that? Isn’t Destiny Low 1-C for uncountable universes? Uncountable is way bigger than countable (not to be confused with unquantifiable or countless, which is still finite). It’s the reason you can’t make a bijection between the real numbers and the natural numbers. Meanwhile bijections are the reason why bigger 2-A universes are still only baseline 2-A when it comes to destroying them.

Also from note 4: “Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.”

 

[Greenshifter]

I'm gonna use this analogy again:

The cosmology of Verse A is like a big city that contains Infinite amount of Gardens that exists separately, with each garden contains Infinite amount of trees that also exist separately, with each tree has Infinite amount branches.

A branch in this analogy = Low 2-C construct
A tree in this analogy = 2-A Multiverse
A Garden in this analogy = Infinite amount of 2-A
And the city itself is what encompassed all of that, including the infinite amount of gardens.

If a character destroyed the city, would they be Low 1-C is my question.

No. But if your amount of branches is equal to the amount of real numbers between 0 and 1 (aka you can’t count them because there is no smallest number between 0 and 1) then yes (so uncountable, not countless).

 

[Eganergo]

They shouldn't be low 1C then. Just look at note 4; at this scale (which probably still refering to 2A). Though, I'm not the one who make the tiering, better call the one who actually made it.

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

But according to note 4:

The reason behind this is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (Even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses that form this ensemble: It is countably infinite, as the union of countably-many countable sets is itself countable, and thus does not differ in size from its components. Thus, only an uncountably infinite number of universes actually makes any difference in terms of Attack Potency, at this scale.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

No. But if your amount of branches is equal to the amount of real numbers between 0 and 1 (aka you can’t count them because there is no smallest number between 0 and 1) then yes (so uncountable, not countless).

So, being Infinite is still "countable"?

 

[Emirp sumitpo]

Not really, I think. It's more of a countable amount of infinity rather than infinity being countable. I think

 

[Maxnumb231]

what t he latter said, uncountable infinite is more complex than countable infinite in this case... which is why note 4 said it would make a difference if it was uncountably infinite

 

[Eganergo]

Basically uncountable infinity >> any countable infinity, on 2A scale. That's why infinity^infinity doesn't make your AP a higher 2A than baseline 2A. Meanwhile uncountable infinity universe is above baseline 2A. As for low 1C? I don't think it would qualify, but I'll let the people who made this stuff talks. Our standard changes a lot anyway.

 

[Greenshifter]

So, being Infinite is still "countable"?

Bingo. You can count from 0 to infinity in the natural numbers. You can’t in the real numbers.

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

Ah, I think I started to get it. One last question though:

If there is a universe where each action that took in that universe creates a new timeline, would that be "uncountable" or "countless" as there is no way to count how many action that has happened from the beginning to the end of said universe?

 

[Maxnumb231]

Ah, I think I started to get it. One last question though:

If there is a universe where each action that took in that universe creates a new timeline, would that be "uncountable" or "countless" as there is no way to count how many action that has happened from the beginning to the end of said universe?

that would just be endless expansion not necessarily "uncountable"... if u start from limited number of timelines and just starts growing another thats just an expansion of how the timeline would be at.

 

[Eganergo]

Simple wiki explanation. Still hard to understand, but that's that. Including read to Cantor's approach.

 

[Greenshifter]

Ah, I think I started to get it. One last question though:

If there is a universe where each action that took in that universe creates a new timeline, would that be "uncountable" or "countless" as there is no way to count how many action that has happened from the beginning to the end of said universe?

Countless. So 2-B, look at Ben 10 or other verses with quantum mechanics and many worlds interpretation. (Also technically you can count the amount of actions from beginning to end, many worlds says something like 10^500 possibilities)

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

I see.

Thanks for the answer, this can be closed now.

 

[Greenshifter]

You’re welcome

 

[Beast_Zero_Gudako]

I'm blaming my school for not teaching me this subject.

 

[Rikimarox2]

I'm blaming my school for not teaching me this subject.

We all are.

 

[Greenshifter]

Tbf it’s quite complex maths if you start diving deeper into it.

 

[Ionliosite]

Uncontable Infinity is Low 1-C, yes. We had a thread about this regarding what was "above baseline 2-A", and the reason it was decided everything ended as baseline by default is because all countable infinities are of the same size, while an uncountable infinity is Low 1-C, hence the change on standards on 2-A.