Should probably be fine with the place its released in. Also the 2nd point isn't an indication of canonicity either as the novel setting would have to be recognized outside of the novel instead of the novel recognizing other settings, that is not how canonicity works.
Honestly you're just arguing in bad faith. Agnaa already said the evidence wasn't what he had issue with over discord, he just didn't like the word choice I used.
But that's basically the argument you have... It should not be difficult to understand. The page is very clear for everyone to understand.
I know english isn't your first language, but Agnaa never said "The thread is wrong" his issue was how I was wording things. He isn't taking a side in the debate here. That's pretty clear.But that's basically the argument you have... It should not be difficult to understand. The page is very clear for everyone to understand.
I am not malicious or anything, I saw these things by my friend about a year ago and I told him the same things lol.
Using the String... That's even worse, it's something completely independent of the situation here and not supported by the hierarchy that you actually presented.
Read the messages above, this have already been clarified. What remains to debate is the High 1-B hierarchy.
Wild when you are just wrong, lmao
I will say it once more, fiction will be fiction, authors can and will write shit that seems contradictory whether due to an insufficient knowledge of a topic or due to a lack of ***** to give
No, he wasn't, Agnaa was clarifying what qualified, he was not speaking on the context in which these statements exist, and when I clarified to him what the context was, in the image I sent, he agreed with it qualifying.
You don't need English as a first language to understand this. It is even more epic to say this to me, assuming that you have read the page, even though you have read it but did not understand it
I mean, yeah it does qualify because i'm arguing it is an uncountable increase.
Basically, because there is a reference to so many statements and that it is in 4-D, there is a night and day difference between the probability of it being H1-B and the probability of it not being H1-B.
Lmao, you're still denying what he said. But I won't have that argument with you. Until you read the standards. I would appreciate it if you would stop communicating with me as much as possible.
Yes, here is the problem, being uncountable does not make it uncountable infinite. This is still a quantity, and the difference between it and the uncountable infinity is still "uncountable infinity"
I didn't, I was taking issue with part of Shiva's argument for it being QS (although I disagree with Shiva claiming that the issue was semantic). From what I've heard, there are other aspects of the quote at hand which could very well indicate that.
However, some works have dimensions that directly describe the gap between reality and illusion. According to the new standards, these should be 1-A. So, are these dimensions only limited to the upper limit of 2-A or are low1-c higher
But basically what you say is not QS is their QS argument...
What do you even mean by "quantity". Every tier has "quantity" currently.
From what I heard on Discord, it sounds like there's two arguments for QS.
What do you say... This is a very rare and extreme case. Look, no one denies that this will happen, but they say it will be very, very difficult for it to happen here.
Quantity... Independent of this, it still means a level that can be reached with some amount and repetition. And things like "infinity" or "uncountability" are currently treated as "quantity" on the wiki. That's why we don't use such things in qualitative differences
Wtf are you saying. Quantitative superiority is still considered a dimensional jump.
I will simply just repost my previous post and say that no it doesn't, otherwise a bunch of tier 1 shit would just be unknown
Yeah and every tier up to high 1-A can be reached with repeated uses of the power set function, your point being?
Dimensional jumps aren't inaccessible leaps. Inaccessible jumps only start at High 1-A.
I have read a novel and mentioned more than once the difference in dimensions, such as true and false, dreams and reality. Three dimensions are not only a continuum of time and space, but also have a timeline split. In the ending, the protagonist rises to the fourth dimension, stating that the universe he is currently in is just his dream. At the end, he directly says that the whole world may also be an illusory dream
It can to be enough in old standarts, yes. But it is not enough at the current standards threshold.
This is basically the situation, but judging from the cans, there is no situation of seeing the "lower plane as a point". This is basically something that is interpreted.
Because in the new standards, there will be an uncountable, infinite quantity that enables the dimensional jump. Fundamentally, nothing will change with such dimensional jumps.
So, while the protagonist was within the hierarchy of the tetrahedrons, the higher and lower layers transfigured her body into a singularity. At the edge of her vision she sees a small dot that suddenly starts to evolve getting bigger in front of her (this is in reference to how the dot and sounds evolve infinitely in comparasion between the difference of the lower and upper layers of the hierarchy just like her body). I think this can work.
But instead of an increase in itself, this is a constantly rotating increase and decrease... In other words, there is a decrease, and then there is an equally point-shaped rise, and this continues infinitely.
Descending is because she wants to reach a place at the bottom of the tetrahedron, where the bottom is infinite, so what are you trying to say?But instead of an increase in itself, this is a constantly rotating increase and decrease... In other words, there is a decrease, and then there is an equally point-shaped rise, and this continues infinitely.
That's why it is said that it first "went down and then went up"
I stated this in my first comment.
In short, she expressed first an infinite fall and then an infinite rise in the form of a point on her body
The fact that this constantly repeats within itself is not an infinitely increase in hierarchy, it always keeps she at the same level.
I genuinely do not know where you are even getting this interpretation.
I quite literally just don't see how what you're saying is correct. If you could cite the page that says this, then maybe I could at least understand the logic.
I can at least understand the argument here
I think it should be fine as being considered canon
this is literally the exact opposite of what the text states and implies
Firstly, I completely cannot understand what you are saying? The original text clearly states that it is an infinite class, and the gap is also very obvious. In the eyes of the upper class, the infinitely small class is actually infinitely large. How can we obtain a circle? The generation of more tetrahedra is due to her shuttle rather than some descent and return
No, the small dot was the train station which from the perspective of the lower layer in the tetrahedron looks just like this, a dot. As she approches the higher layer, the dot reveals to be a train station in her eyes, which shows how high is the difference between each tetrahedron, it's like how lower and higher dimensions works.
Because what is expressed is that it first smalls infinitely within itself, then grows at the same level within itself in the form of points and becomes singularity.
What is said in the first place is basically an infinite decline, and then an ascension again as you describe. This keeps it at the same level
Lmao yes. It doesn't really mean that you see it as a point in the sense of existence. She simply states that where she sees it as a small dot in a maze, as she gets closer to the dot, the dot gets bigger and the sound coming from it gets louder. This is like seeing a structure from a distance as a dot. Just like we humans see a star as a dot from kilometers away.
