-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Multiversal question
- Thread starter Sus
- Start date
- 26,437
- 30,771
It's just baseline unless the verse treats it as higher
- 26,437
- 30,771
I'm pretty that's just infinite...
- 3,759
- 1,620
Post in thread 'Timeline question' https://vsbattles.com/threads/timeline-question.121668/post-4016192
Take a look at this thread
- 26,437
- 30,771
Also I don't think infinite^infinite is the same as infinite*infinite
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #8
i was that guy i remember
- 26,437
- 30,771
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #10
no it doesn't, baseline 2A it is, thank you for answering
- 416
- 150
infinite*infinite isn't it like infinite universes where 1 universe contains infinite universes? I think infinite*infinite universes > infinite universes but still in 2A
- 26,437
- 30,771
Infinite times infinite is still just infinite
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #13
unfortunately it doesn't work like that
- 416
- 150
- 3,759
- 1,620
- 26,437
- 30,771
That doesn't answer my question
- 4,809
- 2,599
Did you read that thread?
- 26,437
- 30,771
I'm asking whether infinite^infinite is the same as infinite times infinite. Not whether infinite^infinite is Uncountably infinite universes. I'm pretty sure Teezar didn't even answer the question right.
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #21
10^10 = 10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10*10
10*10 = 10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10+10
replace 10 with infinite and u get ur answer
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #22
Q: Is destroying multiple infinite multiverses a better feat than destroying a single one?
A: In spite of what our intuitions may tell us, destroying or fully affecting multiple infinite-sized multiverses is in fact not better than doing the same to a single infinite multiverse, and thus, not above the "baseline" for 2-A
The reason 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. The only general difference between multiple infinitely-sized multiverses and a single one is representation. What is considered to be multiple multiverses in one fiction could be considered a single multiverse in another, and vice versa, without the objective properties of those collections of universes changing. The only difference is where an author decided to draw the line between what belongs to the same multiverse and not. 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.
Similar to Attack Potency, affecting multiple multiverses by default can not be considered a feat of superior Range to affecting a single one. As mentioned before there is no real difference between the size or properties of one or multiple multiverses. Hence there can be no objective difference in range either. This is made even worse by the fact that what we considered multiversal range, as the distance between universes or the distances between things in or between multiverses, is usually not directly stated or quantifiable in fiction, but instead is approximated by the number of universes. That idea becomes meaningless if we try to quantify different ranges within sets of universes of equal numbers. As a consequence, even if one verse gave an indirect indicator of different ranges in its multiverse it would be impossible to compare to a different fiction where such a quantification doesn't exist.
For example, if travelling to another multiverse is said to take longer than travelling within the same one, that would seem to be an indication of different ranges, but at the same time one can not compare those informations to another fiction, as there is no way to tell how travelling within the same multiverse in another fiction compares range wise to either of those distances.
However, feats regarding affecting multiple multiverses may indeed qualify as higher range if the verse itself treats it as such. Those feats need to be relatively explicit and objective. For example, one multiverse being outside of the range of an effect or of the power of a character that can affect one infinite multiverse doesn't necessarily mean the multiverse is further away. Other factors such as differences in nature and domain of the multiverses or characters could, amongst other many other factors, also be the reason.
- 416
- 150
- 26,437
- 30,771
From wikipedia:
1. Exponentiation is normally denoted with a superscript. However, {\displaystyle x^{y}}
- 26,437
- 30,771
I feel you, **** mathematics
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #29
it's basically multiplying a number a specific amount of times
2^5 = 2*2*2*2*2 = 32
5^2 = 5*5 = 25
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #31
yes, infinite^infinite is infinite multiplied by infinite infinite times infinitly (holy too much infinite)
this is a good representation in amount of universes
an infinite collection of larger and larger collections of infinite timelines, then multiverses, then multiverses of multiverses, and so on infinitely, to be infinite^infinite and reach Low 1-C in that way.
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #33
baseline 2A as explained above
- 8,874
- 5,709
How exactly is infinity^infinity = uncountably infinite? It would still be countably infinite from what I understand.
- 7,505
- 4,602
- Thread starter
- #37
it wouldn't
- 3,759
- 1,620
- 8,874
- 5,709
Aha but that's the power set of aleph null, it's 2^aleph null, if that's uncountably infinite, wouldn't infinity^infinity be bigger?
Similar threads
