Everyone knows that, it's still aleph null.
The infinities they used is terribly wrong. If the maths and infinities is not correctly used then it shouldn't be applied but just what explaination has been given should be considered. We don't have to use irl infinities if verse don't follow it.
Yes. "For the multiverse is literally a transfinite number -- that is, a number greater than infinity -- of universe."
They used it to establish higher infinity levels of power. The fact that he couldn't google bijection in the 90s shouldn't overwrite that.
No. All aleph numbers are transfinite. In the text they say that aleph null is the starting point, and that it reaches to aleph infinity. So we cannot rewrite this to say it's just describing aleph null when it explicitly is not.
And i am saying that shouldn't be anything more than aleph 0. Aleph 0 still can have infinite infinites, but are countable. That's what i see from the scans.
I don't really care if they are mentioning the whole hierarchy of aleph numbers, they just use it wrong.
So essentially this comes down to, "should we ignore what the comic says literally about an infinite level of greater infinities because they didn't describe bijection in a mathematically accurate way?" And you are in the camp of "yes."
2 times infinite, it requires uncountably times larger than infinite to reach another level or higher than existing tier tho.
Well, i can also say you are ignoring what's in the text itself and you're trying to make sense of something that clearly is contradicting itself. even numbers are greater than odds is quite a red flag, isn't it? Why should we ignore that?
Two infinities are only larger than each other if one is uncountable. Which means their reference to Cantors aleph numbers, described as "an infinite series of infinite numbers, all greater than eachother" is describing aleph null all the way to aleph infinity.
Except I am not ignoring the text. I fully recognize that they didn't describe bijection accurately. I am just not going to try and use that to downplay what the text is explicitly saying.
I don't think you understand what we are trying to say. So let me explain it better:
I understand just fine. As I said, I recognize that they did not use bijection correctly. Despite that, they clearly establish that they are referring to greater infinities and use the word "transfinite" and reference Cantor who is the one that established the existence of uncountable infinities, and this is used to directly establish higher levels of infinite power.
{2^aleph0}=aleph1/ This is axiom of power in zfc
Look, i really don't care anymore. If you want that upgrade, that's fine. But i don't think anyone will take "cantor is mentioned and the word transfinite" seriously.
I don't think anyone will take "None of the greater infinities are real because he didn't understand bijection" seriously.
Aleph 1 is unreachable to all countable infinities. Marvel says it's only TWO times larger.
Nobody said those greater infinities aren't real. I said what the writer is describing is just aleph 0.
Aleph 0 isn't "an infinite series of infinite numbers, each greater than each other."
Neither do pretty much any authors who have characters tiered at that level.
Aleph null can absolutely have infinite countable infinities. Though not "greater".
Then it's clear that they didn't mean uncountable infinity whatsover when they don't know what it is. They made it reachable with twice and that should be taken.
Alot of mathematics based verses do know how set theory works.
You're right! Not greater. So he can't be describing aleph null.
I'm not saying no authors do. I said the vast majority of authors who have characters in that tier do not.
I agree with this because it cannot apply mathematical notation to infinity sets.
Like? Besides marvel.
Sorry, you're asking me for examples of authors who do not know advanced mathematics, in the context of disagreeing with my statement that the vast majority of authors don't know obscure math theories?
But he is clearly not describing higher alephs because... ugh, i can't just be repeating myself.
No, i'm just interested what you think.
"Infinite levels of greater infinity" explicitly stated twice isn't enough for a higher tier? Sheesh.
The words help a great deal.
Because he got bijection wrong. I remember. But he's directly establishing an infinite hierarchy of greater infinities, which is all we really need.
Even though those alephs are weak asf?
This is just what the author tried to explain in the beginning, but then he explicitly talks about several math theories, and then e got into Cantor's theory of transfinite aleph numbers.
