Question about 2-A’s ap standard

[Keeweed]

This is probably a bad time to make this thread for me because I’m sick and have a test tomorrow, but since I’m laying here might as well ask something that has been on my mind.

Pretty much 2-A ap got changed to even if you destroy a multiverse that is larger than an other one you would still have the same ap as if you destroyed the smaller one. The arguement was that both are infinite and thus both are the same ap. But that contradicts how we treat a ton of other things on this site. We can have scaling chains for infinite speed and infinite ap without treating that like a contradiction because apparently “there are larger infinites” so why wouldn’t that just be the case here. Also tier low 2-C already requires you to destroy something that is infinite; if all infinites are the same then low 2-C to 2-A would all be the same. So why does 2-A treat infinite as just being a singular thing that can’t be bigger or smaller when other parts of this site act and rely on infinity having the ability to be larger or smaller than other infinites?

Now maybe I just didn’t understand the downgrade thread or there is an obvious answer I can’t think of due to being sick. But I just find it strange 2-A can have scaling chains to begin with because some infinites can be larger than others. But actually destroying a larger infinity is treated as being nonsense and all infinite things are the same when it comes to 2-A ratings.

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I think basically you can be higher into 2-A with a scaling chain, but destroying a 2-A structure will always be baseline unless the verse treats that 2-A structure as requiring more power to destroy than another 2-A structure.

 

[Keeweed]

I know that, my question was why do we treat it that way. If the 2-A structure is larger why do act like it takes the same amount of power to destroy as a smaller one?

 

[FluffyCreatureZ]

I know that, my question was why do we treat it that way. If the 2-A structure is larger why do act like it takes the same amount of power to destroy as a smaller one?

Because of how infinity works, since it's never ending, if you have a 2-A structure which is infinite and then you have another 2-A structure but you say this one is infinite + 1 then both will be the same size since infinity +1 is still infinite. Bigger infinities don't work here because an actual bigher infinity would be low 1-C. At least that's how I think it works.

 

[Keeweed]

But can’t there be larger infinites. A low 2-C structure can be infinite but we treat destroying an infinite number of differently then just destroying one of them. Also we allow scaling chains and don’t treat those as anti feats. Along with having multiple other things on this site relying on their being bigger or smaller infinites. So why is 2-A so specific when it comes to infinite when no other tier is.

Low 1-C wouldn’t be the bigger infinity here. Low 1-C is completely disconnected to 2-A as 2-A is spatially flat in comparison.

 

[The_Axiom_of_Virgo]

But can’t there be larger infinites. A low 2-C structure can be infinite but we treat destroying an infinite number of differently then just destroying one of them. Also we allow scaling chains and don’t treat those as anti feats. Along with having multiple other things on this site relying on their being bigger or smaller infinites. So why is 2-A so specific when it comes to infinite when no other tier is.

Low 1-C wouldn’t be the bigger infinity here. Low 1-C is completely disconnected to 2-A as 2-A is spatially flat in comparison.

Tbh I know that a significant number of folks (both users and staff) heavily disagree with the current 2-A standards but I dunno if anything will come of it.

Tho I agree the current standards make zero logical sense in the context of the inherit illogical nature of fiction.

 

[GreatIskandar14045]

But can’t there be larger infinites. A low 2-C structure can be infinite but we treat destroying an infinite number of differently then just destroying one of them. Also we allow scaling chains and don’t treat those as anti feats. Along with having multiple other things on this site relying on their being bigger or smaller infinites. So why is 2-A so specific when it comes to infinite when no other tier is.

Low 1-C wouldn’t be the bigger infinity here. Low 1-C is completely disconnected to 2-A as 2-A is spatially flat in comparison.

Actually, the reason why we allowed such jumps, from Low 2-C to 2-A is because we just don't know how far is the distance between universes (or some say because higher levels of Tier 2 affects the subset of 5-dimensional space/bulk).

2-A is = or > infinite baseline Low 2-C can never be proven.

 

[Keeweed]

Well that has to do with that 5D subset. There being a bigger or smaller infinity isn’t the problem there (also I need to make a thread about that, not to remove it just clarification because I’ve never seen that properly explained).

Now that I’ve had time to proper rethink this I remembered my largest problem with saying bigger and smaller infinities shouldn’t be separated.

Infinity+1 and infinity aren’t the same thing. If we have two characters fighting each other the infinities should cancel out because they are the same, but one character would have the remainders still. (Same thing vs same thing + ?) why wouldn’t the one that destroyed something larger be stronger. The verse by default would need to have larger infinites because it has something more than infinity.