Low 2-C Standard Confusions: Dividing Infinity

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

I made a promise that I would make this thread at some point when I had the chance, and might be a bit late, but doing it now.

Getting straight to the point, some here are confused about how exactly Low 2-C works, or should be working, in terms of scaling. Especially downscaling. And admittedly, me included. The crux of this issue stems from the matter of how Low 2-C power is divided up into weaker quantities, but still remains as weaker Low 2-C energy, since this reaches a point where the tier is dealing with infinite 4-D energy with anything tier 2 (and upward). And you know, anything infinite divided up still remains as, well...infinite. At least, that's how its supposedly supposed to work for Low 2-C. Out of all my time on this site since I've first come here, this was something I was told and remembered being the case as part of the basics for Low 2-C and all of tier 2 and higher tiers in our tiering system. It's why many of our Low 2-C / Tier 2 (and higher) characters can be tiered at this level for downscaling from Low 2-C by any given unquantifiable extent, and still remain a Low 2-C.

However, some here say otherwise on that and that dividing Low 2-C energy up won't always be Low 2-C, at least in a non-linear fashion. So as for which is true? Thats what this thread is to make clear, and preferably, write down somewhere in our notes for tier 2 so that this confusion doesn't happen again.

Does divided up Low 2-C energy still result in unquantifiably lower Low 2-C? Does it not? And if it does, where do we draw the line at?

 

[manu_zarri]

Mathematically speaking
Low 2-C = Uncontable Infinite

Uncontable Infintie : any number that isn't uncontable infinite is still Uncontable Infinite

in Uncontable Infinite case, you would get either infinite or nothing. definitely not Low 2-C

this is also applied to space-time and spatial dimensions in physic

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Low 2-C cannot truly be divided, and tbh, I don't really think their is such a thing as baseline Low 2-C. I know I mentioned requirements for a space-time continuum to actually scale to AP, and not every example that would scale to AP would scale to striking strength or durability.

Simply distorting a space-time continuum, stabilizing one, or causing one to became unstable via time paradox are not physical AP. But collapsing one via physical strikes whether in multiple hits or oneshot would be Low 2-C. Using EE on a timeline would be Low 2-C AP, but wouldn't scale to striking strength or durability by default.

And I could go on with more details, but I just woke up.

 

[manu_zarri]

Using EE on a timeline would be Low 2-C AP, but wouldn't scale to striking strength or durability by default.

How?

 

[OneBleachHurricane]

How?

EE on a Timeline, in other words Hax.

 

[manu_zarri]

EE on a Timeline, in other words Hax.

its' only exclusive for Low 2-C or what?

Pretty sure Alien X got downgraded because the 2-B feat was done by EE

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

How?

im also questioning that. However, this thread isn't for discussing this.

Its to discuss the division of Low 2-C power.

 

[manu_zarri]

Its to discuss the division of Low 2-C power.

Ok sorry for derail, btw, the question should be alredy answered i guess

 

[YukaSama4]

So if it can't be divided does that mean that any character on low 2C will only attack a low 2C attack and its impossible for it to attack using for example 5 joules AP? Or it means something else?

 

[manu_zarri]

So if it can't be divided does that mean that any character on low 2C will only attack a low 2C attack and its impossible for it to attack using for example 5 joules AP? Or it means something else?

it can be dividied by the result wouldn't change.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

So the answer is that, yes, Low 2-C power is still warranted by divided up energy, just obviously unquantifiably lower?

 

[Executor_N0]

The problem is with the idea of "divining" as if the use of any energy can simply be by a factor of a division and with a non-zero value for said division.

If a character has infinite power, it doesn't need to use "a non-zero percentage" of its infinite power all the time. It could simply use 1 joule of energy (That would be equal to 0% of its energy) and isn't wrong. Is no different from the already used explanation of a battery with infinite energy and that doesn't mean something charged by it needs to use infinite energy.

You can use "infinitesimal" fractions of infinite power and there's nothing wrong with it.

And if you think about it, no use of energy is really by "division", is by subtraction. You remove energy from its source. Division is more of a easy way to say how much of something was used.

Infinite joules - 100 joules = infinite joules. That would be like 0% of its total energy, but still possible.

So, a character can have infinite power and not use infinite power, and only use "a small fraction of its power" to do non-infinite things (Small fraction being a "infinitesimal".

A problem that I can se happening is when it's stated "how much" of infinite power was used. At that point you can simply say that it's due to the author not knowing what is being done, and has a character using infinite energy in one scene, and later needs to use "1%" of its power to do a non-infinite thing.

So, it's really a case-by-case thing.

But no, a character having infinite power don't need to always do "infinite things" and a small "non-infinite" amount of energy can be used from it and even be called "a fraction of its power".

The idea that "infinite divided by anything still is infinite" is really a wrong way of thinking that anything that has infinite power can be compared as always using said infinite power, or if lots of characters contributes to an infinite feat, it means all of them needs to also have infinite energy. Again, would be a case by case thing.

 

[YukaSama4]

The problem is with the idea of "divining" as if the use of any energy can simply be by a factor of a division and with a non-zero value for said division.

If a character has infinite power, it doesn't need to use "a non-zero percentage" of its infinite power all the time. It could simply use 1 joule of energy (That would be equal to 0% of its energy) and isn't wrong. Is no different from the already used explanation of a battery with infinite energy and that doesn't mean something charged by it needs to use infinite energy.

You can use "infinitesimal" fractions of infinite power and there's nothing wrong with it.

And if you think about it, no use of energy is really by "division", is by subtraction. You remove energy from its source. Division is more of a easy way to say how much of something was used.

Infinite joules - 100 joules = infinite joules. That would be like 0% of its total energy, but still possible.

So, a character can have infinite power and not use infinite power, and only use "a small fraction of its power" to do non-infinite things (Small fraction being a "infinitesimal".

A problem that I can se happening is when it's stated "how much" of infinite power was used. At that point you can simply say that it's due to the author not knowing what is being done, and has a character using infinite energy in one scene, and later needs to use "1%" of its power to do a non-infinite thing.

So, it's really a case-by-case thing.

But no, a character having infinite power don't need to always do "infinite things" and a small "non-infinite" amount of energy can be used from it and even be called "a fraction of its power".

The idea that "infinite divided by anything still is infinite" is really a wrong way of thinking that anything that has infinite power can be compared as always using said infinite power, or if lots of characters contributes to an infinite feat, it means all of them needs to also have infinite energy. Again, would be a case by case thing.

So, an infinite energy can be divided, and a character can use like a few joules while it has infinite power, but it will be like dividing by zero (like taking zero from it) , does the same thing apply to spaces? Like an infinite space but you can fly 5km there, it will mean that you flew 0% of that space right? Or it has a different rule?

 

[Executor_N0]

So, an infinite energy can be divided, and a character can use like a few joules while it has infinite power, but it will be like dividing by zero (like taking zero from it) , does the same thing apply to spaces? Like an infinite space but you can fly 5km there, it will mean that you flew 0% of that space right? Or it has a different rule?

It's basically the same thing. In the same way destroying a part of an infinite space isn't high 3-A by default because it could still be a finite fraction of an infinite thing.

It's possible to have finite parts of infinite things (Infinite of them of course) and to use those finite parts, and that would be like each of them representing "0%" of the whole.

 

[manu_zarri]

The problem is with the idea of "divining" as if the use of any energy can simply be by a factor of a division and with a non-zero value for said division.

If a character has infinite power, it doesn't need to use "a non-zero percentage" of its infinite power all the time. It could simply use 1 joule of energy (That would be equal to 0% of its energy) and isn't wrong. Is no different from the already used explanation of a battery with infinite energy and that doesn't mean something charged by it needs to use infinite energy.

You can use "infinitesimal" fractions of infinite power and there's nothing wrong with it.

And if you think about it, no use of energy is really by "division", is by subtraction. You remove energy from its source. Division is more of a easy way to say how much of something was used.

Infinite joules - 100 joules = infinite joules. That would be like 0% of its total energy, but still possible.

So, a character can have infinite power and not use infinite power, and only use "a small fraction of its power" to do non-infinite things (Small fraction being a "infinitesimal".

A problem that I can se happening is when it's stated "how much" of infinite power was used. At that point you can simply say that it's due to the author not knowing what is being done, and has a character using infinite energy in one scene, and later needs to use "1%" of its power to do a non-infinite thing.

So, it's really a case-by-case thing.

But no, a character having infinite power don't need to always do "infinite things" and a small "non-infinite" amount of energy can be used from it and even be called "a fraction of its power".

The idea that "infinite divided by anything still is infinite" is really a wrong way of thinking that anything that has infinite power can be compared as always using said infinite power, or if lots of characters contributes to an infinite feat, it means all of them needs to also have infinite energy. Again, would be a case by case thing.

Obviously a characther can be Low 2-C and use 3-A raw power, but we are mathematically speaking about the division itself, when another axis, due to his size, it's uncontable infinite compared to the other, meaning it would be still uncontable infinite with a certain logic

 

[Planck69]

Honestly, this more case by case to me.

If the actual proportion of total power, such a half or a fifth or 30%, is mentioned and it's a significant percentage then it should scale to Low 2-C.

If it's just vague allusions to being comparable to a portion of Low 2-C power, like barely surviving a casual attack, then it shouldn't.

I feel that people forget that most authors don't actually realise the sheer difference between Tier 3 and Tier 2 in terms of power and don't take that into account when scaling these characters.

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

Im fine with it being case by case or anything similar, but my main issue is that this note isn't actually written down somewhere in the notes of our tiering systems standards.

Because as it stands, we are in a really big gray area of how this is applied. One instance we abirtrarily make exceptions and don't treat divided Low 2-C energy as Low 2-C. And then in another instance, we stick to that notion that it does so downscaling is better solid and otherwise.

 

[manu_zarri]

btw, i feel kinda you can't do a division with any number and have the result that is lower than uncontanble set without using uncontable set.
Holding on is a thing, but dosen't need be mesured

 

[Planck69]

Im fine with it being case by case or anything similar, but my main issue is that this note isn't actually written down somewhere in the notes of our tiering systems standards.

Because as it stands, we are in a really big gray area of how this is applied. One instance we abirtrarily make exceptions and don't treat divided Low 2-C energy as Low 2-C. And then in another instance, we stick to that notion that it does so downscaling is better solid and otherwise.

Are we? This should just be common sense honestly. Anyway;

"It should be noted that while any percentage of Low 2-C power would logically be Low 2-C as well, most works of fiction never take into account the uncountably infinite power difference between it and lower tiers. As such, downscaling from a Low 2-C character or feat should be done very carefully and treated on a case-by-case basis."

Something like this?

 

[manu_zarri]

I mean

let'st take Beerus in BoG
he was definitely holding (i don't remember how much), that's why goku dosen't scale to Low 2-C

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

This also factors into timeframes for low2C feats.....so this note kinda important for it to...since "per unit time" feat would still be mathematically low2C.

Basically if timeframe is "t", then feat becomes low2C/t......

So would we able to accommodate this too??
What is your opinion on this??

 

[Planck69]

Mathematically, Pre-DBS Vegeta would be Low 2-C. Thing is, we should probably draw a line between genuine scaling and feats via technicality. So for non-immediate timeframes, I'm more inclined for it to be unquantifiable.

 

[manu_zarri]

This also factors into timeframes for low2C feats.....so this note kinda important for it to...since "per unit time" feat would still be mathematically low2C.

Basically if timeframe is "t", then feat becomes low2C/t......

So would we able to accommodate this too??
What is your opinion on this??

?

you meant uncontable infinite/time?

im not really sure, but it's still uncontable infinite.
i don't really remember if there was a formula, but physically speaking time dosen't have an actual size, or if it have, we can't be sure if our mesure for describe it is really enough.

but whatever you just need prove the time and that's all

 

[ProfessorKukui4Life]

This also factors into timeframes for low2C feats.....so this note kinda important for it to...since "per unit time" feat would still be mathematically low2C.

Basically if timeframe is "t", then feat becomes low2C/t......

So would we able to accommodate this too??
What is your opinion on this??

In fairness, I think there may be a difference between actually holding your power back and dividing that power up into smaller weaker quantities post-division.

Because in the formers case, the character who’s holding back can suppress their own power to any given degree they choose that is within the limits of their capabilities.

While in the latters case, the characters power isn’t really being surpressed from the level it’s initially at. Instead, the power is being distributed from the level it’s normally at and just grows smaller from that degree, which should logistically be an infinite degree for this.

At least, this is how I’m seeing the difference between them anyway.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Mathematically, Pre-DBS Vegeta would be Low 2-C. Thing is, we should probably draw a line between genuine scaling and feats via technicality. So for non-immediate timeframes, I'm more inclined for it to be unquantifiable.

Well if you are talking about RoSaT feat...then formally it doesn't even qualify for low2C via our standards....and for entirely different factor even if not different logic/reason per se.
The spatial radius is small compared to our official benchmark.

But I am talking about genuine low2C structures qualifiable via our standards.
And we don't have timeframe benchmarks same way we have for space.

I think I can make a convincing case for for even non-immediate timeframes.
We can atleast make it case by case at bare minimum.
Principly same as 2A overtime feats.

?

you meant uncontable infinite/time?

im not really sure, but it's still uncontable infinite.
i don't really remember if there was a formula, but physically speaking time dosen't have an actual size, or if it have, we can't be sure if our mesure for describe it is really enough.

but whatever you just need prove the time and that's all

Yeah....this exactly.

Say for example timeline is set R.
And time frame is t.
If you were to divide it for per unit time feat...

You would still end up with set R functionally same even if it looks different, same length and all.
Basically every element from original set R will apear in remainder set, just look different.

In fairness, I think there may be a difference between actually holding your power back and dividing that power up into smaller weaker quantities post-division.

Because in the formers case, the character who’s holding back can suppress their own power to any given degree they choose that is within the limits of their capabilities.

While in the latters case, the characters power isn’t really being surpressed from the level it’s initially at. Instead, the power is being distributed from the level it’s normally at and just grows smaller from that degree, which should logistically be an infinite degree for this.

At least, this is how I’m seeing the difference between them anyway.

Yeah....they are different...

A character has full faculties on how much power they want to output from their infinite reserves...finite or infinite.

But same is not the case for what I mentioned...

But since this note also affects the issue I brought up in some informal way we qualify certain feats themselves....I felt it necessary to bring up.

 

[manu_zarri]

Yeah....this exactly.

Say for example timeline is set R.
And time frame is t.
If you were to divide it for per unit time feat...

You would still end up with set R functionally same even if it looks different, same length and all.
Basically every element from original set R will apear in remainder set, just look different.

basically

 

[Planck69]

Well if you are talking about RoSaT feat...then formally it doesn't even qualify for low2C via our standards....and for entirely different factor even if not different logic/reason per se.
The spatial radius is small compared to our official benchmark.

But I am talking about genuine low2C structures qualifiable via our standards.
And we don't have timeframe benchmarks same way we have for space.

Spatial radius shouldn't really matter if it has its own genuine temporal dimension, which would mean an uncountably infinite number of snapshots of anything inside, which is Low 2-C regardless. Again, this is mathematically, not via wiki standards since it can lead to very inflated statistics. But this is going on a tangent (and I was never really good at math so yeah lol).

Anyway, timeframes really depend on how the feat is performed. If a character uses their own internal power to destroy the universe over a set period of time then I can see it scaling to Low 2-C. Anything else might be too vague.

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Spatial radius shouldn't really matter if it has its own genuine temporal dimension, which would mean an uncountably infinite number of snapshots of anything inside, which is Low 2-C regardless. Again, this is mathematically, not via wiki standards since it can lead to very inflated statistics. But this is going on a tangent (and I was never really good at math so yeah lol).

Anyway, timeframes really depend on how the feat is performed. If a character uses their own internal power to destroy the universe over a set period of time then I can see it scaling to Low 2-C. Anything else might be too vague.

Lol I ain't good at maths too...just enough to understand our system.

But yeah the 2nd paragraph I can concur with.

 

[YukaSama4]

I agree with applying it case for case

Because in the formers case, the character who’s holding back can suppress their own power to any given degree they choose that is within the limits of their capabilities.

While in the latters case, the characters power isn’t really being surpressed from the level it’s initially at. Instead, the power is being distributed from the level it’s normally at and just grows smaller from that degree, which should logistically be an infinite degree for this.

I think this will also depend on the case, like if a character has a solid feat and it's proven to be low 2C, later sth like that happened, I don't think it should be a reason to downgrade the character rather, an inconsistency or the power that got divided was finite.
But as I said the character should have a strong evidence like B destroyed xyz Universes, or created xyz Universes.. Itc.

Anyway, timeframes really depend on how the feat is performed. If a character uses their own internal power to destroy the universe over a set period of time then I can see it scaling to Low 2-C. Anything else might be too vague.

Agree with that too

Are we? This should just be common sense honestly.

I mean, I agree with Kukui that it should be listed somewhere in the wiki