- 842
- 511
From what I've seen at the very least it should actually be high 1-A and a few layers there I don't know how it got to tier 0
-
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
- Thread starter Tdjwo
- Start date
- Status
- 4,523
- 2,242
Then make a CRT later
- 4,523
- 2,242
The narrative stack is High 1A. Things above it are tier 0 iircFrom what I've seen at the very least it should actually be high 1-A and a few layers there I don't know how it got to tier 0
- 25,632
- 15,962
My god here we go again
it should be a physical law called the SCP law
SCP Law: any content revision involving non-SCP tier 1 and above Verses will eventually devolve into talking about Scp if given enough time.
it should be a physical law called the SCP law
SCP Law: any content revision involving non-SCP tier 1 and above Verses will eventually devolve into talking about Scp if given enough time.
Udlmaster
They/Them- 6,925
- 2,128
Not really, I just said that the statement by itself is Low 2-C at best.
Within the context of Nasuverse, it's like, what? 1-C? The Spiral itself is 1-A because it transcends any description, which is far more impressive.
It's why Transcending Time and Space doesn't make you tier 0, because we scale it relative to the contextual verse, not to some unfathomable maximum interpretation one comes up with to make their favourite verse on top.
Being infinitely stronger than someone doesn't equal a Transcendence, that's what I'm saying. Not that hard to comprehend.
Are... are you trolling?
Of course you can implement things you don't mean to, what do you think 99% of the fiction on this Hell site is? None of them are designing their stories for the VSB tiering system, it's incidental.
Like, yeah, no writer knows that the 5th Dimension has any relation to Reality > Fiction transcendence because it's a niche internet term.
Genuinely go talk to normal people, because being in debate discords seems to be awful for your ability to communicate.
No, it wouldn't. It would just mean that those infinites are made finite in comparison.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again;
"Proof by contradiction is just the argumentation of people who don't have evidence to support their claims."
Non-Euclidean geometry isn't a label, nor is it a meta-textual tool used by a niche internet group. It's almost like there's genuine differences that you're overlooking for the sake of argument.
Want to show me the empirical evidence for that, buddy? Because I can assure you, you can't prove that claim with observation, it's purely mathematical, which isn't empirical evidence.
The Metric system is an objective measuring system on Earth, corresponding to constants on Earth. There is an absolute standard for a metric gram or a metric ton.
The Tiering system isn't such an example, given to the fact that everyone who breaks away from VSB makes their own failing website making their own tiering system.
You seem to love saying "as I explained beforehand".
I can assure you, you are repeating as much as you think you are, you're just not as convincing as you like think you are.
Certified Discord Debater moment.
"Heh, you can't prove that this guy doesn't know about <niche internet ideas>"
Certified "I didn't read properly" moment.
I didn't say your argument is reaching for the highest, I said people do.
And I do think you're aiming for one of the highest interpretations you can go for, which is why a lot of people remain unconvinced, because we're not buying what you're selling.
You keep saying that, and you keep being wrong.
It's patently obvious you have no evidence to back up your claim, so you're going for Proof by contradiction to get to your claim, but people already, including myself, who give non-contradictory interpretations, you're not as objective as you think you are.
Regardless, I'm not responding again, not unless I see something I think is actually of value to argue against rather than the repeated "I addressed this/As I explained beforehand/your response is contradictory".
Tdjwo
He/Him- 3,175
- 1,298
- Thread starter
- #206
Anyways, since this back and forth argument is leading nowhere, and the agree:disagree ratio is humongously huge in favour of the side agreeing, I would say we need a knowledgeable staff member on Nasuverse or Euclidean Geometry to see to this. In my opinion, I still think the crt makes perfect sense, and those who disagree are mainly doing so due to lack of understanding of context, infinities in relation to non euclidean maths as well as the total ignorance of True infinity/Concept of Infinity being referenced here.
- 25,632
- 15,962
You mean @Ultima_Reality?
- 25,632
- 15,962
- 3,346
- 1,911
I think the main problem with h1-a/tier 0 threads is that the average vs debater doesn't really get the concept behind these tiers, so we either get uninformed crts, or uninformed responses
- 292
- 123
I still agree with the thread I don't think there were alot of assumptions yes he did extrapolate a lot having written paragraphs from a single scan, but most of that came from him just explaining non Euclidean geometry and how it's infinity works which is extrapolated from non Euclidean geometry itself which obviously isn't an assumption
Most of the arguments seem to correspond to the argument too even him pointing out r>f which functions under the same principle and there were additions as well with [] also having properties of inaccessibility and existing inaccessibly beyond everything in the nasuverse which would include 1-A things such as Roa's soul and the origin which is accepted to already exist in the root
To which the only thing people use to go against is just it not being adequate evidence which doesn't seem like that's the case but to which he responded again saying prima facie justification which is to be taken as true unless actually attacked
There were also arguments ab interpretations that were already addressed as every other interpretation provided was proven to lead to contradictions which is why he repeatedly said he implements proof by contradiction which attest for his interpretation for it being high 1-A holdon and the others interpretation leading to contradictions
Overall arguments presented for were better than arguments presented against the thread so as a result I still agree
Most of the arguments seem to correspond to the argument too even him pointing out r>f which functions under the same principle and there were additions as well with [] also having properties of inaccessibility and existing inaccessibly beyond everything in the nasuverse which would include 1-A things such as Roa's soul and the origin which is accepted to already exist in the root
To which the only thing people use to go against is just it not being adequate evidence which doesn't seem like that's the case but to which he responded again saying prima facie justification which is to be taken as true unless actually attacked
There were also arguments ab interpretations that were already addressed as every other interpretation provided was proven to lead to contradictions which is why he repeatedly said he implements proof by contradiction which attest for his interpretation for it being high 1-A holdon and the others interpretation leading to contradictions
Overall arguments presented for were better than arguments presented against the thread so as a result I still agree
- 3,346
- 1,911
quick question, is this still about the lower conceptual form of the root, or 「 」
Georredannea15
He/Him- 4,726
- 3,122
What is meant by absolute inaccessibility is that there is absolute (always) inaccessibility between the subset and superset. Because numbers and sets repeat themselves arithmetically over and over again, but never reach the superset (this is the continuity theory.)
I think I answered the wrong title and I'm too lazy to change it
- 842
- 511
Saying that is to take the statement literal once again its gonna take every infinity in the nasuverse to be finite and 3-A and below lool because "there can't be true infinity aside from the root"
You're just making arguments and not understanding how absurd of a conclusion that those arguments entail
I already said taking the interpretation that oh only the 3rd dimension is running under such arithmetics imply the 4th isn't which is a contradiction which implies the 5th isn't which is a contradiction even up to the 8th or 1-C its a contradiction again
Nobody said that lool this a false equivalence
False equivalence again nobody argued for this
And I'm assuming you have a way to justify every single author in the planet implementing things that they don't mean to if not the statement would just be epistemically unjustifiable hence we dismiss it
There are various cringe verses that implement heavy set theory and it doesn't seem like it's not that those authors don't mean to implement them that's a very absurd thing to say lmao
Clearly nasu does and it's accepted stop derailing the thread with your rambles
Do you have anything better to do than to insult people on a thread instead of saying anything with substance?
Okay so that supports what I'm saying thank you
You realize you proof by contradiction is a form of supporting your claims by showing how any other claim that goes against the claims leads to an contradiction therefore the initial claim that is to be proven is true
I don't know what Ohio form of proof by contradiction that you read about but you need to get your refund back because you got scammed studying that book of proof by contradiction
Non Euclidean geometry is a label that of a geometrical space that exemplifies properties of the a non Euclidean geometrical space that doesn't address anything
The term r>f is just a name gaven to the empirical nature of dimensionality like I said whether it's a term gaven by the internet or not doesn't entail that it doesn't exist in the actual narrative if the notion exists like I said the term can be used
Pretty ironic for the person who's best argument against this was that "proof by contradiction is a notion for people who don't wish to prove their claims" even tho by definition you're proving your claims by assuming a contradiction lel and various times you make dis-analogous analogies which are false equivalences to actually attack the argument lel
Physics describes the nature in informal Languages to be like that that information language description can correspond to mathematical theorems again like I said
You need more education I suggest you stop focusing on vsbw threads and focus more in your physics class at school
Nobody is talking ab the tiering system im talking ab terms that are not contingent on the tiering system "non Euclidean geometry and set theory" the tiering system just implements certain notions that already exist and are generally thought to properly describe reality an example being Euclidean geometry which our is accepted to run by from many physicians
That literally has nothing to do with discord are you seriously sane you want I say "oh yeee nasu doesn't know about that" and not prove it this has to be the most hypocritical thing that I've heard today, to say I don't want to prove by claims which is why I want to implement proof by contradiction (which is a form of formal proof system) but you want to make claims and don't prove them when I say you'd have to prove them you say "certified discord debater moment" you're cringe
But say something with substance and stop derailing the thread like I said i
I use beforehand to demonstrate how every refutation you've said thus far has already been addressed
Okay that has nothing to do with the thread then say something with substance there's no way you got into a thread just to say I'm so maaad at person B but I won't address anything on the thread
The interpretation seems more logical and doesn't lead to contradictions like yours does
More people seem convinced than those that don't seem convinced are you bro the amount of people who agree>the amount of people who disagree
And the people who disagreed misrepresented the argument atleast 5 times because most of them had comprehension issues
While the others just arbitrarily deemed it to not be sufficient evidence with no justifications
I already demonstrated how it leads to a contradiction.... You still have yet to address it
What claims let's see
-Non Euclidean geometry functions under those infinities? I did I already proved it lol
-every infinity from the first dimension to 1-A+ functions under the same arithmetic? I already proved it
-the interpretation that the root would exist beyond that? I did that's where I used proof by contradiction
Everything has been proven is there anything else you'd like to say then?
Obviously if you're gonna repeat a refutation I'm gonna repeat my response to that refutation
You can't talk about waiting to see something of value then proceed to say "certified discord debater moment" when you're asked to justify your nonsensical claims that being "no author knows about what they implement
- 842
- 511
That is not absolute inaccessibility or whatever you call it lol its just another higher infinity
Not hard to grasp
- 842
- 511
I agree I'm getting tired too
- 167,857
- 76,474
@CrimsonStarFallen @Iapitus_The_Impaler @RegisNex1232 @Newendigo @Zencha9 @Creaturemaster971 @ShadowWhoWalks
What do you think about this?
Also, can somebody knowledgeable please explain the relevant information that needs to be evaluated here in a single well-structured post, so the following staff members can more easily evaluate this thread?
@Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Everything12 @Planck69
What do you think about this?
Also, can somebody knowledgeable please explain the relevant information that needs to be evaluated here in a single well-structured post, so the following staff members can more easily evaluate this thread?
@Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Everything12 @Planck69
- 42,765
- 37,006
Yeah I still disagree, High 1-A may not be my strain of weed but this definitely doesn't qualify as it brings external concepts like Alephs into context that has nothing to do with them.
- 3,346
- 1,911
alephs dont have to be directly stated, as long as theres a certain level of inaccessible superiority/transcendence, it applies the same.
- 3,346
- 1,911
This scan is important to the crt in general
Actual infinity is completed as a collection; the idea is further extrapolated by using the analogy of a non-Euclidean space which is still an infinite space but with limits because for any dimension X, it would be infinite, but the limit comes from the next dimension, which is a directly higher infinity.
So for 2 dimensions, it would be infinity^infinity in hyperbolic Geometry/non-Euclidean geometry and the idea is carried on to any dimension up to 1-A+ the arithmetic and principle stays the same all the way up to 1-A+, the limit of the infinity relative to the first dimension would be infinity|^infinity, it can't reach the second dimension which is a higher infinity
power setting one infinity to reach another is an arithmetic operation that carries on all the way up to 1-A+ as well, and power setting a set of natural numbers is 2^n or infinity^infinity, which is still similar arithmetic to the hyperbolic Geometry stacking of any dimension X takes 2 dimensions for now being infinity^infinity
the op is NOT stating that this space is 1-A+, only that the same mathematical formula is being used for spaces up to 1-A+
Getting into the root in comparison, it is said that;
Essentially, this means that the Root is distinct from such infinities, and the arithmetic operations used in those infinities cannot be used on the Root. This is why infinities that use arithmetic operations of infinity^infinity can be cut by Shiki Ryougi, who can perceive the end of such infinities due to her eyes being connected to the Root, which is an infinity of a fundamentally greater scale to such infinities and why for her such infinities are only small rooms as said;
The root being above these infinities, suggests that it has a level of transcendence over them.
This makes it clear cut that the Root would be ontologically equivalent to the inaccessible cardinal in magnitude and should be High 1-A
Furthermore, the origin is accepted to exist within the Root and should be 1-A; as such, we've already had people like Roa, who is accepted as having a 1-A soul that exists within the Root from which he can reincarnate from.
The ontological nature of the Root would exist inaccessibly greater than such baseline 1-A things and should be more supporting evidence for it being High 1-
Here is the op, my
CliffsNotes explanations in bold
- 42,765
- 37,006
It's Not that simple mate, but I know full well I'll just be stonewalled here until we die of old age, so I don't feel like arguing this beyond "Yeah this ain't High 1-A"
Especially when the guy who argued against it is Udl who kind of Deals with that shit often, like he said, this is one of the highest interpretations of this, I'm all for wank, but make it believable wank, and this ain't believable wank to me
- 842
- 511
Ion feel like arguing allat again too
Every other one is seemingly contradictory as I've said over and over again
- 842
- 511
I don't think nobody posited the existence of Alephs in the nasuverse i was just merely saying if we refer to the ontological nature of the root it'll be similar to the inaccessible cardinal because arithmetics used to construct infinities from the first dimension all the way up to 1-A+ cannot be used to reach it which I already explained how I came to that conclusion
The problem that people seem to have is that it's alot of paragraphs inferred from one scan to which I already said most of the paragraphs there is just me explaining the nature of the infinity within the context of non Euclidean geometry and r>f
And how that idea carries on to 1-A+
- 42,765
- 37,006
- 3,346
- 1,911
there is no mention of infinite^infinite dimensions in the thread
- 842
- 511
That's not what the thread says infinity^infinity can be reached using the same arithmetics that the root would transcend saying it's only infinity^infinity low 1-A is contradictory
Also infinity^infinity is just an analogy ab how the arithmetics work nobody is inferred that the root is infinity^infinity
- 842
- 511
To my knowledge no contradiction has been presented for my argument while instead I explained how others interpretation would be contradictory
People are still not understanding it
Infinity^infinity was just an analogy nobody really said the root is infinity^infinity
- 3,346
- 1,911
it'd bee better if you made a simpler version of the op, as staff are coming to check this soon
- 842
- 511
I'll make it wacky I guess
We have two ideas of infinity
One has limits because there's always one greater then an example is given with a non Euclidean geometrical space, Which it would be
Infinity^infinity that representing 2 dimensions the first infinity having limits predicated from a higher one existing
This idea already exists in the nasuverse not only with that non Euclidean geometrical space but with r>f as well that's why true infinity can never exists because there's always one greater the idea carries on to Alephs and up 1-A+ they don't have to exist if the idea posits the root to be distinct from those kinds of infinities
The root instead is said to be distinct from that kind of infinity having no limits hence arithmetic operations that are usually used to construct other infinities like infinity^infinity or powersetting can't be used to reach the root because it's distinct from infinities like that
Similarly the inaccessible cannot be reached by arithmetics operations of those infinities from 1-A+ and below for example continously powersetting a 1-A structure to reach high 1-A won't work
So from that I'm inferring that the roots ontological nature should be equivalent in that sense to the inaccessible cardinal and should be high 1-A
[] also has similar properties of inaccessibility I'm not using negative theology primarily but I'm saying [] can be supporting evidence for that in this case
And furthermore by [] the root should be inaccessibly greater and forever unreachable to things that are already 1-A in the nasuverse like Roa's soul which is accepted as such
So far the only solid refutation is that it's only described like that because the root just has an end to everything because it's the beginning of everything and the end of everything but in this case it has nothing to do with it being the beginning and end of everything it's just talks ab the difference between the infinity of the root and other infinities
- 292
- 123
man, whenever I see it, you come to the conclusion without reading the arguments
Let me tell you what the argument you didn't read claims that what is Inf^Inf is already at level 1A, that's the same as taking infinite layers in 1A, and this is equivalent to aleph-omega, which someone with cardinal knowledge can easily perceive, and it's aleph- Being beyond omega i.e. an unreachable cardinal would suffice, but what you're saying is inf^inf is something that refers to "dimensions" and just inf^inf can give you all sorts of different contexts so it may not even give you Low 1-A again (what I'm talking about here is scale (infinities that don't mean dimensional) defends what I mentioned at the beginning, so for God's sake, you shouldn't make a direct and nonsensical conclusion like "yes, this gives the X layer" by making a comment about scale without understanding it.
- 3,693
- 2,061
Well i know what the OP mean, next dimension is mean higher infinity and because we accepted infinity of higher infinity or aleph-omega as 1A+ then OP want to use that
First. I dont even know why he bring about infinite^infinite. My bruh... aleph 1 or infinite^infinite of 6D is 7D aleph 1 of 10D is 11D and then again and again like that, that not make it next aleph. So i think he bring that for the infinite^infinite dimensions
Second. If one infinity structure is being limited or small then the other infinity structure that mean being infinitesimall is not mean you reach next higher infinity, bruh... there are verse that the lower infinity structure is being limited to the higher one and then stacked one after one until infinity and it not get tier 1A+
- 3,693
- 2,061
I know that bruh he talking about stacking higher infinity until infinity
Infinite^infinite is already on 1A level? Proof?
- 292
- 123
Proof? seriously you don't read the scale
- 842
- 511
Infinity^infinity was never a representation of any Aleph just 2 spatial dimensions and later on to demonstrate that it goes all the way up to 1-A+
I don't know where you got all of that considering you said you understand what the OP meant, because if you did you'd understand the actual arithmetics that I demonstrated and you wouldn't say this nonsensical stuff
I said it reaches another infinity in a sense that's its infinity^infinity if we have 3 dimensions it's gonna be infinity^infinity^infinity, or take R^1 then R^2 even tho the example is practically still the same then I explained later on in the OP using lines at infinity and how real projective spaces work to further attest for the proposal at hand
Once again I doubt you understand the OP nobody said if you stack it to infinity you get 1-A+ I said the arithmetics used from the first dimension to 1-A+ are all the same and the root exists beyond infinities constructed by those arithmetics you've misinterpreted the argument like 3 times rn and you say you understand it
Nobody said that
- 12,828
- 3,995
I have no idea what this thread is even about anymore, but nothing in that scan even remotely indicates High 1-A and no amount of extrapolation done can let the Root reach High 1-A from that.
Are we really still trying to make stuff high tiers off of random statements of non-euclidian geometry? Like, come on.
Are we really still trying to make stuff high tiers off of random statements of non-euclidian geometry? Like, come on.
- 842
- 511
It's not even about the lower infinity simply being infinitesimal to the other one it's a genuine higher infinity that's how it works as I explained before with lines at infinity and real projective spaces which is supposed to pertain to the non Euclidean geometry statement
Then I outlined r>f also satisfies that specific proposal of them being higher infinities and not what you described
And nobody said stacking infinities to infinity
Then I outlined r>f also satisfies that specific proposal of them being higher infinities and not what you described
And nobody said stacking infinities to infinity
- 10,346
- 11,896
Ditto
- 842
- 511
Nobody made high tiers from random statements of non Euclidean geometry it was more than that but if that's how the staff interprets can't do nothing about that
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
