Puella Magi Verse High 1-B Upgrade (Redux)

[Dog3352]

There is no infinite tetrahedron in all layers in both the translation and the original text. This paragraph you translated is also an outer tetrahedron. The previous one is superimposed layer by layer, and finally falls to the lower layer with an infinite number of tetrahedrons outside.

CAP nonsense, in translation it says "The shadow forms a smaller tetrahedron inside the original tetrahedron. Upon closer inspection, I can see even smaller and smaller tetrahedrons inside it. Like a kaleidoscope, layers and endless more layers of tetrahedrons manifest. Inside each is an endless series of them. And outside, infinitely many more emanate outward to surround it."
Anyone with a minimum of text interpretation can see that you are still talking about layers, can't you see the "And outside"? Making it very clear that he is talking about the layers of the regular Tetrahedron, and only started talking about the outside of the regular Tetrahedron when he said "And outside, infinitely many more emanate outward to surround it.".

 

[Unqver]

CAP nonsense, in translation it says "The shadow forms a smaller tetrahedron inside the original tetrahedron. Upon closer inspection, I can see even smaller and smaller tetrahedrons inside it. Like a kaleidoscope, layers and endless more layers of tetrahedrons manifest. Inside each is an endless series of them. And outside, infinitely many more emanate outward to surround it."
Anyone with a minimum of text interpretation can see that you are still talking about layers, can't you see the "And outside"? Making it very clear that he is talking about the layers of the regular Tetrahedron, and only started talking about the outside of the regular Tetrahedron when he said "And outside, infinitely many more emanate outward to surround it.".

Is it possible that this translation is incorrect? The original meaning of this paragraph was to surround an infinite regular tetrahedron
The paragraph you sent is the one I told you in the original text.
that is影【正四面体のなかには、正四面体が無限に続き、その外を、正四面体が無限に覆い囲んでいる】。

 

[Dog3352]

Is it possible that this translation is incorrect? The original meaning of this paragraph was to surround an infinite regular tetrahedron
The paragraph you sent is the one I told you in the original text.
that is影【正四面体のなかには、正四面体が無限に続き、その外を、正四面体が無限に覆い囲んでいる】。

I'll take a look at the translation.

 

[Unqver]

【正四面体のなかには、正四面体が無限に続き、その外を、正四面体が無限に覆い囲んでいる】。
In the regular tetrahedron, the regular tetrahedron infinitely continues, andThe regular tetrahedron is covered with infinity.
Look at the previous reply as a joke.
Each layer of tetrahedron extends infinitely and is covered by the greater infinity of the upper layer, and then the lower layer is just an infinitesimal point in the eyes of the protagonist in the upper layer below.

It is interesting that I translated this passage a long time ago.

 

[Dog3352]

It is interesting that I translated this passage a long time ago.

Well, I've already mentioned about 4 times that this translation is wrong, and I've even confirmed that mine is right.

I just took a look, and apparently, this is the translation:

"[Within a regular tetrahedron, an infinite number of regular tetrahedra continue, and on the outside, an infinite number of regular tetrahedra cover and surround it.]"

I'll check further later to be sure, but for now, that's simply it, talking about the infinite regular Tetrahrdrons, and the layers within them (I just confirmed that this translation is correct).

In fact, as I said before, even if we assume that the railway is the lowest layer, saying that the railway is 2A, and even saying that one layer is infinitely larger than the previous one, would only be low 1C, since it is only a single uncountable infinity, since the entire hierarchy of layers would just be "infinity^infinite infinitely", making only the original Tetrahedron something that goes beyond the uncountable infinity.

Tiering System FAQ

A: Whether higher-dimensional entities qualify for such high tiers or not depends on several different factors, which may take root both in and out-of-verse. To explain this situation, we must first clarify what exactly being higher-dimensional entails. In a way, yes, though not how most would...

vsbattles.fandom.com

"No, the default assumption is that this is not the case. "Bigger" could mean having more 2-A structures and, as explained in greater detail previously, having more 2-A structures, or even infinitely many 2-A structures, unless uncountably infinite many, won't scale above a single 2-A structure in size. This is due to these structures actually have the same size as a baseline 2-A structure. It is, however, possible to at least achieve above the baseline 2-A power by upscaling from other characters who've performed 2-A feats or of the feats themselves, rather than by affecting 2-A structures containing other 2-A structures. However, if "bigger" is indicated to mean a size difference that makes the structure qualitatively superior to a 2-A structure the structure qualifies for Low 1-C unless the fiction specifies otherwise."

"To elaborate, a structure larger than 2-A meets the requirements for qualitative superiority over them if it either explicitly mentions an uncountably infinite number of universes or has portrayals/statements of being bigger in size than 2-A structures to the point that even infinite multipliers on top of the size of that structure are of no relevance to it. Multiversal structures past Low 2-C frequently have a distance of unknown length along a 5th dimensional axis separating them. That isn't automatically Low 1-C, as for Low 1-C the distance must be known to be of non-insignificant size.

 

[Unqver]

Uh, uh, uh,bump

 

[cain]

bump

 

[Unqver]

bump

 

[Spectra_Schiffer]

I thought this topic was already over

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

How many staff members have to agree for the upgrade to go through?

 

[Spectra_Schiffer]

as far as i know 3

 

[Unqver]

.

Agree: @Phoenks @Spectra_Schiffer @Setsuna_tenma @Kisaragi_Megumi @Kwk258 @BestMGQScalerEver @Lynieryz @Unqver @Leafbladie @Shadowbeast @deonment @Robo432343 @Gonzalo @Zencha9 @Satanichia_Chlammy_Mafahl @LordGriffin1000 @Maverick_Zero_X @Benimōru @Reiner04 @ShivaShakti @Jinsye @DarkDragonMedeus @Jozaysmith?

If only three staff members agree, shouldn't this be passed?

 

[Rose_of_Ragnarok]

If only three staff members agree, shouldn't this be passed?

I think it's 3 vote difference compared to the "Disagreed" staff members.

 

[Dog3352]

If only three staff members agree, shouldn't this be passed?

Well, according to what I read on the content review page, a content review that is related to a character going from tier 3 to tier 2 (or above) requires more than 3 agreements, and the fact that 2 not agreeing (2 who are very experienced with tier 2 to tier 1) also affects something I think.