Make Arnos Great Again (MAGA): Hypertimeline

[Fixxed]

Seems like just different time flow rate, which per the FAQ is not nearly enough for hyper timelines. Otherwise, our own universe would have so many time axes due to black holes and time dilation inside them.

I'm outside home right now, so will make a more elaborative comment later when am back, in a few minutes to at best some hours.

If it was finite yes. Infinite amount of time cannot be considered as just different different flow of time, as oppose we consider it as one whole timeline. The standard clearly stated this

No...
This is basically the same as saying that a line segment in terms of a number of points it has is equivalent to uncountable infinity... Which is utterly wrong by the way.

Bruh i think you must search before you reply or just ask chatgpt, the set of real numbers was uncountable by default
Cantor prove this by binary digit (0 and 1)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

And this what chatgpt say

The set of all decimals between 0 and 1 has the cardinality of the continuum, denoted by 𝑐, which is the same as the cardinality of the real numbers.

To understand this, consider that any decimal between 0 and 1 can be written as an infinite decimal expansion. For example, the number
0.𝑎1𝑎2𝑎3..., where 𝑎𝑖 is a digit in the set {0,1,2,.…,9}, can be mapped to a sequence of digits, and there are infinitely many such sequences. This set is uncountably infinite, meaning it has a cardinality larger than that of the set of natural numbers (which is countably infinite).

Thus, the cardinality of the set of decimals between 0 and 1 is the same as the cardinality of the real numbers, 𝑐, which is 2^ℵ0 , where ℵ0 represents the cardinality of the natural numbers.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

And this what chatgpt say

unfathomably mid. i think i'll disagree for this alone

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

considered as just different different flow of time, as oppose we consider it as one whole timeline. The standard clearly stated this

Not really. Mind quoting a part of the standards that say an infinite time achieved by time acceleration is equivalent to Low 2-C?

Because by the same logic, they means every snapshot of the "World" has to be of the same length, which presents several problems:

• Beings with clearly finite lifespan are clearly shown to live more than just an "instance".
• Anos himself should have been able to live for more than an instance, at all, yet we can see they as the accelerated time on his body returned to normal, nothing more happened to it.

Therefore, due to several anti feats, it's not a full on hyper timeline. After all, for a hyper timeline, each and every single snapshot IS equal to a 4D eternity, it's not a "they can be" but rather "they are" each equivalent of that, yet I see no such thing here.

Bruh i think you must search before you reply or just ask chatgpt, the set of real numbers was uncountable by default
Cantor prove this by binary digit (0 and 1)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_diagonal_argument
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardinality_of_the_continuum

And this what chatgpt say

Hmm, interesting. It seems my analogy was wrong for this case. My bad, in that case. I also went ahead and confirmed it by a human source, and it seems it's true.

In any case, my overall assessment of the in-verse case remains the same.

 

[Ottavio_Merluzzo]

unfathomably mid. i think i'll disagree for this alone

I concur with this. Like... ChatGPT ???

 

[Fixxed]

Not really. Mind quoting a part of the standards that say an infinite time achieved by time acceleration is equivalent to Low 2-C?

This

In those cases, the destruction of any one timeline is only counted if it was not connected to any other timeline for an infinite amount of time. Otherwise, if there are several timelines none of which are separate for an infinite amount of time, they would all be counted as just one timeline for the purpose of tiering their destruction or creation.
Note that timelines, by default, are assumed to be infinitely long i.e. it’s assumed that there is no end to time.

Because by the same logic, they means every snapshot of the "World" has to be of the same length, which presents several problems:

• Beings with clearly finite lifespan are clearly shown to live more than just an "instance".
• Anos himself should have been able to live for more than an instance, at all, yet we can see they as the accelerated time on his body returned to normal, nothing more happened to it.

Therefore, due to several anti feats, it's not a full on hyper timeline. After all, for a hyper timeline, each and every single snapshot IS equal to a 4D eternity, it's not a "they can be" but rather "they are" each equivalent of that, yet I see no such thing here.

The nature of every frame in timeline is same basically there are no bigger and smaller frame, If one frame can contain infinite amount of time the other frame can

Also the keeper literally have ability to accelerate the time to infinity in his own domain/world in a single instant. He can use this anytime he want inside his domain. So it correct to say every frame can contain the eternity of time. He can basically doing that again and again. Soo yes every frame can contain eternity of time

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

This

This is aII taIking about timeIines, separate space-times, not some time acceIeration stuff -_-

The nature of every frame in timeline is same basically there are no bigger and smaller frame, If one frame can contain infinite amount of time the other frame can

That is for timeIines, different causaIIy isoIated space-time continuities, not time acceIeration, once again.

Also the keeper literally have ability to accelerate the time to infinity in his own domain/world in a single instant. He can use this anytime he want inside his domain. So it correct to say every frame can contain the eternity of time. He can basically doing that again and again. Soo yes every frame can contain eternity of time

But aII of those frames are not of that eternaI Iength aII the time, the time keeper has to manuaIIy do it. So again, that is a can be case, not a they are case.

RegardIess, it seems the base of your argument is that the time acceIerated stuff is treated as a different timeIine, which is just wrong.

 

[Astral_Trinity439]

unfathomably mid. i think i'll disagree for this alone

PersonaIIy, same, but eh, I went ahead out of curiosity and found a human source saying simiIar stuff on a math site.

 

[AwkguyDB]

disagree fra

 

[Wikisource]

Ig I'm neutral now, this seems vague...

 

[Robo432343]

huh shouldn't the verse be Low 1-C anyway because of chapter 425 stuff

"Each sanctuary is a microcosm of the world. Just as the upper limit of the root of the world is fixed, the number of fire dewdrops in da ku kadate is fixed, as is the number of flowers in this sanctuary."

 

[Godsatoshi23]

huh shouldn't the verse be Low 1-C anyway because of chapter 425 stuff

"Each sanctuary is a microcosm of the world. Just as the upper limit of the root of the world is fixed, the number of fire dewdrops in da ku kadate is fixed, as is the number of flowers in this sanctuary."

Have to wait for v10 to get translated.

 

[Fixxed]

This is aII taIking about timeIines, separate space-times, not some time acceIeration stuff -_-

Bruh it talking about having infinite amount of time mean one whole timeline

That is for timeIines, different causaIIy isoIated space-time continuities, not time acceIeration, once again.

Bruh infinite amount of time literally mean timeline. You accelerate time to infinite mean you already taste infinite amount of time

And you just need 4D inside every frame of timeline to have hypertimeline

But aII of those frames are not of that eternaI Iength aII the time, the time keeper has to manuaIIy do it. So again, that is a can be case, not a they are case.

Bruh if it can then it was big enough to contain that. If you have infinite container it mean it can contain infinitely many of things but not necessary must always contain that, if that container not contain that are we gonna say it was not infinite or say it cannot contain infinitely many of things?

RegardIess, it seems the base of your argument is that the time acceIerated stuff is treated as a different timeIine, which is just wrong.

Can you quoting where the standard say accelerate time to infinite are not mean infinite amount of time that are a whole timeline?
You not explained why accelerating time to infinity cannot being a whole timeline

And i already give you the standard that say infinite amount of time mean a timeline

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Bruh it talking about having infinite amount of time mean one whole timeline

Bruh infinite amount of time literally mean timeline. You accelerate time to infinite mean you already taste infinite amount of time

And you just need 4D inside every frame of timeline to have hypertimeline

Bruh if it can then it was big enough to contain that. If you have infinite container it mean it can contain infinitely many of things but not necessary must always contain that, if that container not contain that are we gonna say it was not infinite or say it cannot contain infinitely many of things?


Can you quoting where the standard say accelerate time to infinite are not mean infinite amount of time that are a whole timeline?
You not explained why accelerating time to infinity cannot being a whole timeline

And i already give you the standard that say infinite amount of time mean a timeline

I recommend talking to @Qawsedf234 he told me that the only acceptable evidence to get a higher temporal dimension us proving a different time direction

Statements (unless very obvious and has no alternative meanings) and uncountable infinities don't count.

 

[Fixxed]

I recommend talking to @Qawsedf234 he told me that the only acceptable evidence to get a higher temporal dimension us proving a different time direction

Statements (unless very obvious and has no alternative meanings) and uncountable infinities don't count.

Yes it was right, but how we prove about this different time dimension not just have one way. Like overeaching timeline for example

I think you misintepret what qawsed say because the standard make clear about this, uncountable infinite is count as one of example for get second time dimension

A spacetime continuum with two time axes, instead of just one, could likewise be visualized as a line comprised of uncountably infinitely many points, each of which is a static "snapshot" of the entire regular timeline with 3 space and 1 time dimension. It would hence be one uncountably infinite level above a timeline and as such baseline Low 1-C. Similarily, adding even more time dimensions would add one level of dimensional superiority each time.

 

[TheUnshakableOne]

Yes it was right, but how we prove about this different time dimension not just have one way. Like overeaching timeline for example

I think you misintepret what qawsed say because the standard make clear about this, uncountable infinite is count as one of example for get second time dimension

Its possible I misunderstood him but this is what he told me

 

[Fixxed]

Its possible I misunderstood him but this is what he told me

He say about spatial dimension there. Yeah even infinite dimensional space can work under just one single time direction

Well the funny things is he agree with DB hypertimeline that doesnt have direct literal statement of second time dimension

 

[Laviossiii]

Ahhh, occam's razor applies here. You are making an overly complex explanation for a simple Time Acceleration feat, which means nothing beyond that.

 

[Shar122]

I disagree with OP too

 

[NousGalia]

After reading all the arguments from the comments section, I agree with the OP.

 

[PHANtomFELdway]

After reading all the arguments from the comments section, I agree with the OP.

W wanker.

 

[wwereymy235]

Maga?

 

[Laviossiii]

Maga?

"Make Arnos Great Again"

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Disagree. That's not how it works

 

[fandom_29dan]

Neutral for now. need more evidence that is concrete.

 

[Wikisource]

Yea, after read OP again, I think I will change my mind, from Neutral to Disagree with FRA.

 

[Megaraptor149]

W wanker.

When Tensura supporter talk about wank.

 

[PHANtomFELdway]

When Tensura supporter talk about wank.

Tensura has no wank

 

[Wikisource]

Both wank

 

[Catpija]

Tensura has no wank

 

[YoPercy]

Tensura has no wank

 

[Huesito88]

Bump