• 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.

Nasuverse Upgrade: High 1-A for Swirl of The Root

Status
Not open for further replies.
Theoretical said:
Literally that's just it holy

No I'm saying everything in 1-A is not exempt from that idea of infinity hence the root existing beyond that by definition would put it at high 1-A because any level or layer in 1-A participates under that idea of infinity

I'm saying the mention of infinity having limits and using the analogy of non Euclidean geometry implies that

Because If you take it to be a difference between aleph 1 and 2 it would be saying the root is a similar infinity to the same infinity that has limits which would contradict the statement
If we use proof by contradiction

The root can't be above just aleph 1 and 2 because that's still not exempt from the idea of limits in infinity because using those same arithmetic operations that come all the way from non Euclidean geometry you would be capable of reaching the root but you can't with arithmetic operations like that

So it can't be aleph 1 to 2 difference if it's not aleph 1 to 2 difference it can't be 3 because the contradiction would exist again it can't be aleph 4 because the contradiction would exist again hence by proof by contradiction it would be a logical conclusion that it's high 1-A

There's no need for more scans they're already there
Click to expand...
The relationship between Aleph 1 and Aleph 2 is similar to what you describe. And you absolutely can't put the two in the same infinity. Aleph 2 is infinitely greater than Aleph 1. Aleph 2 is like an inaccessible point for Aleph 1. Even if aleph 1 continues with an arithmetic continuum, it still won't be able to reach aleph 2. Just like an arrow that travels an infinitely long road...

Also, what you mean is to get 1-A+ and H1-A by repeating it in an arithmetic way. As I said, your logic is correct and beautiful (similar to Ichiban verse) but inverse statments are not enough to support this arguments.
 
I disagree.

I don't find anything particular persuasive in the proposed text.

"The concept of infinity is twinned with the concept of finite existence. It is this finite existence, this is end of all things that Shiki Ryougi observes with her arcane eyes, and the same end that she cuts to make entropy act quickly almost immediately. The prison she was contained in was made to be infinite, an inconceivable non-Euclidean space" - The Garden of Sinners [Empty Boundaries] Volume II (page 214]
Click to expand...
To me, this is just another Binary example, which the Swirl is already above.

Infinity and Finite as binaries are not that impressive, and it definitely has nothing to do with sets of infinity or hierarchies of infinity.

Frankly, it's a massive reach to stretch this small excerpt to a High 1-A level, frankly, I don't think it's even 1-A or anything above Low 2-C by itself.
 
Tarang123 said:
You made a claim, I asked if there's anything that actually states or implies this
Click to expand...
Bro I already explained this within the threat
I said non Euclidean geometrical spaces exists and basic tautology would infer that A (take A to be non Euclidean geometry) if and only if A

In layman's terms a non Euclidean geometrical space exemplifies properties of a non Euclidean geometrical space which has those recursively stacked infinities then I had to explain how non Euclidean geometry does to someone else shiver Shakti because he thought it didn't

After that to which I said r>f still works non Euclidean geometry is not necessarily an important aspect

This question is equivalent to is the 5th dimension the 5th dimension
Tarang123 said:
I meant that is there any evidence from the series that this is actually a property of that cosmological structure.
Click to expand...
Bro did you read the scan 💀
 
Theoretical said:
In layman's terms a non Euclidean geometrical space exemplifies properties of a non Euclidean geometrical space which has those recursively stacked infinities then I had to explain how non Euclidean geometry does to someone else shiver Shakti because he thought it didn't
Click to expand...
I'm asking if there's a link or a source where I can read this for myself.

I got where the connection came from; that wasn't hard. I'm asking if there's evidence of the recursively stacked infinities being a thing in non-euclidean geometric space.
 
Georredannea15 said:
The relationship between Aleph 1 and Aleph 2 is similar to what you describe
Click to expand...
No its not if you can say P(R^R) >aleph 2 then it's most certainly not exempt from the arithmetics that I said the root would exist beyond
Georredannea15 said:
Aleph 2 is like an inaccessible point for Aleph 1
Click to expand...
Once again no its not if it was we wouldn't powerset aleph 1 to reach aleph 2 you're mis-using the term inaccessible in mathematical context
Georredannea15 said:
inverse statments are not enough to support this arguments.
Click to expand...
They are literally and I told you if that's not the case it leads to contradictions therefore high 1-A should hold
Udlmaster said:
Infinity and Finite as binaries are not that impressive
Click to expand...
Calling the infinity finite is a metaphor to say it has limits if you think the statement is literal like that you're saying nasuverse doesn't have r>f because every infinity in it except the root is just finite that's not how it works
Udlmaster said:
it definitely has nothing to do with sets of infinity or hierarchies of infinity
Click to expand...
It definitely does your interpretation is way off context
Udlmaster said:
Frankly, it's a massive reach to stretch this small excerpt to a High 1-A level, frankly, I don't think it's even 1-A or anything above Low 2-C by itself.
Click to expand...
And your reason for that is its talking ab binary relation aka finite and infinity which appears to me that you're taking the statement literal which leads to further contradictions because it would be inferring that nasuverse has no r>f difference and everything in the verse is downgraded to below high 3-A because everything is finite but the root then leads to the root being high 3-A

I'm just showing you out of every interpretation that the people had against it yours leads to the most absurd conclusion of them all
 
Tarang123 said:
I'm asking if there's a link or a source where I can read this for myself.

I got where the connection came from; that wasn't hard. I'm asking if there's evidence of the recursively stacked infinities being a thing in non-euclidean geometric space.
Click to expand...
Check out lines at infinity, real projective space, and projective plane in the Wikipedia this is what I said in the thread beforehand in regards to that

"The lines at infinity provide a closure for a projective plane and still exists alike in real projective planes

A real projective plane still has the same vectors from your usual Euclidean space R^1 being the first R^2 being the second
Infinity^infinity entailing 2 dimensions as seen above infact a projective plane along with lines at infinity becomes a real projective plane by taking vectors K of a projective plane to be real numbers which becomes RP^2

Lines at infinity are a part of hyperbolic geometry/non Euclidean geometry

Non Euclidean geometry and Euclidean geometry share similarities this is one of them so the idea still works is that it then"
 
You can't say it's any infinity X within the first dimension to 1-A+ because they use the same arithmetic which is supposed to be unreachable from the root

It can't be aleph 1 and Aleph 2 difference that's not an inaccessible difference and misrepresents the term inaccessibility in mathematics you can't say something is inaccessible to something but still powerset to reach it

Saying it's not supported in the scans doesn't even make sense

Those infinities have limits there's always one higher if you say no arbitrarily that only refers to the 4th dimension from the 3rd is saying the 4th would have no limits and has fundamentally different arithmetic operations from the 3rd which it's not true you can't say it's aleph 2 because it's still not exempt from this

Every denial of this using those arguments just leads to absurd conclusions or contradictions which is why I have repeatedly said implementing proof by contradiction one can infer that its only high 1-A as that interpretation leads to no contradictions while interpretations that are against it leads to internal contradictions
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
I agree with the points Udl, Tarang, Paul etc made. I think this is just needless extrapolation trying to interpret things that literally do not imply that at all.
Click to expand...
Those points were repeatedly debunked already tbh
 
BestMGQScalerEver said:
interpret things that literally do not imply that at all.
Click to expand...
I explain how they imply did I not? If you're gonna say they don't imply you're going to have to provide an alternative interpretation that's more valid than mine but so far every single of one their interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion or contradictory conclusion while mine still holds I've been implementing proof by contradiction thus far and it's still not attacked
BestMGQScalerEver said:
I think this is just needless extrapolation
Click to expand...
Every single one those were neither assumptions nor things not implied I already explained that's the opposite from the non Euclidean geometry spaces to the arithmetics of infinities from the first dimension to 1-A+ and how powersetting is not exempt from that
BestMGQScalerEver said:
I agree with the points Udl, Tarang, Paul etc made.
Click to expand...
So you agree your interpretation leads to an absurd conclusion or contradictory conclusion as well because that's how it is for them

Udl's interpretation leads to nasuverse being below high 3-A and the root only being high 3-A

Tarang leads to contradictions

As for Paul it wasn't refutations its just saying it's not adequate evidence which I already said that's not a refutation that's why we have prima facie justifications lol
 
Tarang123 said:
It's not your CRT though. It's the other guy's, and he agreed with his own CRT which is meme-worthy. Did you expect people to not clown on that?
Click to expand...
I agreed to my own CRT for a bit bro, it's a meme come to grass
 
Tarang123 said:
You made it lol. Didn't you literally say that you did it for him cause he was too lazy to? That makes the CRT yours'.
Click to expand...
Can you read? I literally said all the scans and explanations came from him. All I did was copy-paste them from a comment he made and put into here.
 
DaReaperMan said:
People who argue like this in a tier 1 CRT need to touch grass
Click to expand...
Yeah because the debates just end up being people who are biased towards the verse and people who are biased against a verse becoming stronger than their favorite verse.
 
DaReaperMan said:
People who argue like this in a tier 1 CRT need to touch grass
Click to expand...
Most sane vsbw member refutation this can't be real I've never been more severely disappointed at humanity than I have today

If you're gonna get in a thread where arguments happen and you have a problem with what the other person say but you'd rather not address it but rather make these overused jokes then idk what that says ab your self awareness (disclaimer I workout ion think any more grass needs to be touched if I do that)
 
Tarang123 said:
Should be common sense that people shouldn't be advertising their agreements to their own CRTs lmfao.
Click to expand...
It's literally not my CRT. How many times have I told you? I merely created it, but the contents inside ain't my idea. They are all Theoreticals'. That's why I gave him the full credit. And that's why I stated that I agree with it because it wasn't my idea.
 
Theoretical said:
This is so ******* embarrassing 😭
Click to expand...

neco-arc-neco-arc-chaos.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Wankbreaker
Removal of 1-A Root.
Replies
37
Views
9K
Violatas
Violatas
Resttt
About the Omniscience of Manaka Sajyou
Replies
4
Views
2K
Resttt
Resttt
Ultima_Reality
Tier 0 Swirl of the Root Retake
2 3
Replies
104
Views
40K
Wankbreaker
Wankbreaker
Grand_Saver_Ritsuka
  • Locked
At the boundary of tier 0: Swirl of the root tier 0 upgrade
7 8 9
Replies
353
Views
64K
Ultima_Reality
Ultima_Reality
Shadow-Ragna
  • Locked
Void Shiki faces the Mihawk treatment
Replies
18
Views
3K
KingNanaya
KingNanaya
Back
Top