Puella Magi Verse High 1-B Upgrade

[BestMGQScalerEver]

1. Or the author just completely doesn't understand the implication of his statement. Authors define mathematical concepts incorrectly all the time. For example the infamous scan where a Marvel abstract says "The set of all odd and even numbers is larger than the set of all even numbers". We go with how its described in the actual prose.

I just believe we shouldn't use it

 

[Benimōru]

1. Or the author just completely doesn't understand the implication of his statement. Authors define mathematical concepts incorrectly all the time. For example the infamous scan where a Marvel abstract says "The set of all odd and even numbers is larger than the set of all even numbers". We go with how its described in the actual prose.

The example you gave has nothing to do with what the author said. The only thing that is being said here is that the character gets infinitely smaller and infinitely bigger as she go downwards and becomes a singularity.

2. No it is not. You should probably read the tiering system standards. Dimensions are quantity disparities, not quality. You can't be larger than an infinite object by a finite amount.

No, we have gone over this issue two or more times. Just because you look bigger than infinity doesn't make you a bigger infinity in actual sense. And even mathematically, being infinitely bigger than infinity is still the same infinity.

 

[ShivaShakti]

The example you gave has nothing to do with what the author said. The only thing that is being said here is that the character gets infinitely smaller and infinitely bigger as you go downwards and becomes a singularity.

No, we have gone over this issue two or more times. Just because you look bigger than infinity doesn't make you a bigger infinity in actual sense. And even mathematically, being infinitely bigger than infinity is still the same infinity.

1. I'm saying the author clearly defines the fourth dimension in terms not applicable to how it works in actual science and math at all, and should be treated accordingly.

2. Do you realize that our current tiering system is based on set theory, and the fact that there can be infinities larger than eachother? You clearly aren't familiar with how it works.

 

[Benimōru]

2. Do you realize that our tiering system is based on set theory, and the fact that there can be infinities larger than eachother? You clearly aren't familiar with how it works.

Yes I know that already, but you just don't know how the continuum hypothesis works. What you call being infinitely bigger than an infinity only takes you to Infinity x Infinity, which still leaves you in the same infinity. What you need to reach to a higher infinity is to repeat this infinitely again, i.e. infinite^infinite.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Yes I know that already, but you just don't know how the continuum hypothesis works. What you call being infinitely bigger than an infinity only takes you to Infinity x Infinity, which still leaves you in the same infinity. What you need to reach to a higher infinity is to repeat this infinitely again, i.e. infinite^infinite.

And our current policy does not so it this way. Being infinitely larger than an infinite object is adequate for larger tiers. This has been how we've done it for a while, and if you disagree this isn't the thread to discuss it.

 

[Benimōru]

Being infinitely larger than an infinite object is adequate for larger tiers. This has been how we've done it for a while, and if you disagree this isn't the thread to discuss it.

No, we don't do that

DT:

Infinitely larger in general doesn't get you to Low 1-C whether from Low 2-C or from 2-A. You need qualitative superiority and then it's the case for both. Proving qualitative superiority is where you might find differences. Being infinitely larger than a 2-A space is certainly better supportive evidence than just being infinitely larger than a Low 2-C space. However, it's not a sufficient criteria.

Infinitely bigger =/= qualitative superiority

 

[Georredannea15]

Lmao no. Still don't bring up this "infinitely greater than infinity = +1" bullshit anymore. We've already dealt with that. Even if you see a small piece of it, it won't be enough

 

[ShivaShakti]

No, we don't do that

DT:

Infinitely bigger =/= qualitative superiority

Yeah I don't know what DT is saying there, but that's blatant misinformation. Ultima has also said otherwise if you want to start bringing up admin statements.

 

[Georredannea15]

Yeah I don't know what DT is saying there, but that's blatant misinformation. Ultima has also said otherwise if you want to start bringing up admin statements.

According to what? And Ultima didn't object to it... That's what the current standards say. The place quoted above is where the standards are now, and they were made by common agreement

 

[Shadowbeast]

According to what? And Ultima didn't object to it... That's what the current standards say.

Those are the "bigger than 2-A = Low 1-C?" standards, it's not related to the relationship of layers of an High 1-B tiering.

 

[Georredannea15]

Those are the "bigger than 2-A = Low 1-C" standards, it's not related to the relationship of layers of an High 1-B tiering.

The main reason for this was that it was said "infinitely greater than infinity = +1 dimensionality" and this has changed.

Not only for 2-A, but for all layers.

 

[ShivaShakti]

According to what? And Ultima didn't object to it... That's what the current standards say. The place quoted above is where the standards are now, and they were made by common agreement

"Uncountably larger" than 2-A is Low 1-C, and it says so right here.

 

[StrymULTRA]

"Uncountably larger" than 2-A is Low 1-C, and it says so right here.

Infinite x infinite isn't uncountable.

 

[ShivaShakti]

Infinite x infinite isn't uncountable.

You can't be "countably" larger than something infinite. It'd be uncountable.

 

[Georredannea15]

"Uncountably larger" than 2-A is Low 1-C, and it says so right here.

What do you understand by the expression uncountably infinitely greater? Do you think it's a simple "being infinitely larger?" lol

 

[Benimōru]

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.

You don't even know what you're posting atp. We went over this situation more than once in the Alien X downgrade and there was even a separate staff thread for this. If you don't know about something, just keep quiet

 

[Georredannea15]

You can't be "countably" larger than something infinite. It'd be uncountable.

Lmao it's all a quantity.

 

[Agnaa]

You can't be "countably" larger than something infinite. It'd be uncountable.

You're completely misunderstanding that. We require explicit statements of being "uncountably infinitely larger" or being "so much larger that it's even greater than simply being infinitely larger", and that's what the page says. We don't just assume that "larger" = "uncountably infinitely larger" because that's the only mathematically correct way of actually having a different size.

 

[StrymULTRA]

You can't be "countably" larger than something infinite. It'd be uncountable.

That's outdated lol. Low 2-C is already infinite 4D, by your logic everything 2-C to 2-A should already be Low 1-C instead.

 

[ShivaShakti]

That's outdated lol. Low 2-C is already infinite 4D, by your logic everything 2-C to 2-A should already be Low 1-C instead.

Tier 2 should just be one tier anyways

 

[ShivaShakti]

You're completely misunderstanding that. We require explicit statements of being "uncountably infinitely larger" or being "so much larger that it's even greater than simply being infinitely larger", and that's what the page says. We don't just assume that "larger" = "uncountably infinitely larger" because that's the only mathematically correct way of actually having a different size.

Regardless, we already resolved this on discord and our disagreement is purely a semantic one it seems.

 

[deonment]

Agree with High 1-B, I have no idea why a discussion is being had when there is a clear comparison to points in scope in accompaniment to the statement of being infinitely smaller.

 

[StrymULTRA]

Tier 2 should just be one tier anyways

Are you unironically telling me that destroying a timeline is the same as destroying a billion universes ?

 

[deonment]

Are you unironically telling me that destroying a timeline is the same as destroying a billion universes ?

Yes, hell most of the tiering system should stop at high 3-A before jumping to 1-A, yet here we are

 

[Qawsedf234]

So reading the High 1-B quote, the main issue to me is that it's very clearly using a Tetrahedron as the object in question, which is just a four sided pyramid. It could mean High 1-B if you want to go with it being some metaphorical thing, but judging by other comments she's going downwards with the starting layer being 4th Dimensional.

The only real way I can see this being High 1-B is if you argue that the 4th Dimension is actually Low 1-A. Which is weird to do but if DC can do it I guess this universe can.

Anyways barring more evidence I don't think this is Tier 1. Though you can probably get somewhere in Tier 2 with it.

 

[Unqver]

So reading the High 1-B quote, the main issue to me is that it's very clearly using a Tetrahedron as the object in question, which is just a four sided pyramid. It could mean High 1-B if you want to go with it being some metaphorical thing, but judging by other comments she's going downwards with the starting layer being 4th Dimensional.

The only real way I can see this being High 1-B is if you argue that the 4th Dimension is actually Low 1-A. Which is weird to do but if DC can do it I guess this universe can.

Anyways barring more evidence I don't think this is Tier 1. Though you can probably get somewhere in Tier 2 with it.

Forgive me for replying only now. I have stated more than once in my reply that 3D includes various spatiotemporal continuum, time series, and timeline

 

[ShivaShakti]

So reading the High 1-B quote, the main issue to me is that it's very clearly using a Tetrahedron as the object in question, which is just a four sided pyramid. It could mean High 1-B if you want to go with it being some metaphorical thing, but judging by other comments she's going downwards with the starting layer being 4th Dimensional.

The only real way I can see this being High 1-B is if you argue that the 4th Dimension is actually Low 1-A. Which is weird to do but if DC can do it I guess this universe can.

Anyways barring more evidence I don't think this is Tier 1. Though you can probably get somewhere in Tier 2 with it.

I personally feel the "downward hierarchy" seems to more so imply that each of the planes represent more fundamental layers of existence. The speaker saying that "the scaffolding supporting her shatters" seem to allude to them underlying her in a more abstract way, as opposed to just being literally smaller levels beneath her

 

[KingNanaya]

It's not only a downward hierarchy, actually there's a downward hierarchy which are inside the tetrahedron and outside there are a upward hierarchy which creates infinitely many more layers just like the downward hierarchy. So it's not limited to a downward hierarchy.

if this is the case, then I can see high 1-B

 

[Georredannea15]

if this is the case, then I can see high 1-B

Read the whole thread, it's actually a misinterpretation, but I don't know if it matters much. It's already had two disagree

 

[Shadowbeast]

Read the whole thread, it's actually a misinterpretation, but I don't know if it matters much. It's already had two disagree

Your interpretation is very specific and the novel does not state this, there is a tetrahedron that creates an infinite hierarchy of layers downwards with an infinite difference between the upper and lower layers. And outside of it (already implying that the other hierarchy is not bellow) the process is repeated in an upper layer that covers the entire tetrahedron. Is it hard to understand?

 

[KingNanaya]

It's already had two disagree

I had only seen 1 disagree (qawsedf) and one staff clarifying something about tier 2 (Agnaa)

 

[Benimōru]

Your interpretation is very specific and the novel does not state this, there is a tetrahedron that creates an infinite hierarchy of layers downwards with an infinite difference between the upper and lower layers. And outside of it (already implying that the other hierarchy is not bellow) the process is repeated in an upper layer that covers the entire tetrahedron. Is it hard to understand?

Still lacks qualitative superiority.

 

[deonment]

Still lacks qualitative superiority.

Agree with High 1-B, I have no idea why a discussion is being had when there is a clear comparison to points in scope in accompaniment to the statement of being infinitely smaller.

 

[Unqver]

Still lacks qualitative superiority.

I don't even know how many times I've explained this thing. In the upper level, the seemingly infinitely small points are actually infinitely large

 

[KingNanaya]

Still lacks qualitative superiority.

that is qualitative superiority. it's both infinitely contracting and expanding. it is by no means "finite" in any sense.

 

[Qawsedf234]

Forgive me for replying only now. I have stated more than once in my reply that 3D includes various spatiotemporal continuum, time series, and timeline

In my view I think you're handling the argum wrong then. You should have a section explaining why the 4th Dimensional stuff shouldn't limit the cosmology like with DC, since at the moment it's just a large contradiction.

 

[Unqver]

In my view I think you're handling the argum wrong then. You should have a section explaining why the 4th Dimensional stuff shouldn't limit the cosmology like with DC, since at the moment it's just a large contradiction.

Then how to explain it correctly?

 

[IdiosyncraticLawyer]

The only real way I can see this being High 1-B is if you argue that the 4th Dimension is actually Low 1-A. Which is weird to do but if DC can do it I guess this universe can.

In my view I think you're handling the argum wrong then. You should have a section explaining why the 4th Dimensional stuff shouldn't limit the cosmology like with DC, since at the moment it's just a large contradiction.

At the moment, DC has nothing above 1-B, so what are you talking about?

 

[Georredannea15]

I had only seen 1 disagree (qawsedf) and one staff clarifying something about tier 2 (Agnaa)

Agnaa has already said it won't be QS. Qawsedf also disagreed... And as long as you don't have a context like in DC. "And given that DC is no longer at H1B or higher"

 

[Georredannea15]

that is qualitative superiority. it's both infinitely contracting and expanding. it is by no means "finite" in any sense.

Infinity is also a quantity, and what is happening here is that within the 4-dimensional structure there are layers going down infinitely, and then going up infinitely from where they are.

So it's actually all happening in 4-D and the infinite ascending is actually going back to the way it was before the infinite descending, it doesn't change much.

First it goes down infinitely, then it goes up infinitely from where it was and returns to its original state, and this happens in 4-D