I've known that since before you or I entered VSBW. That doesn't change the point I am making, which I will clarify below.
Not specifically that portion, and if I have I don't remember. But he has translated the Daizenshuu versions. It still wouldn't change anything, we've known it can also mean 4 areas, and directions is not much different.
I know that. And Herms knows that. Whether it is plural or singular depends on the context of the sentence. You, I and Herms, we all know Dragon Ball lore well. But we don't know the context of Japanese sentences as much as Herms does because we aren't translators. To give you an example:
This is from the Daizenshuu only.
"There is a ruling Kami for each galaxy."
Each galaxy. Singular. The Daizenshuu blatantly says there are 4 galaxies. You cannot translate it like "there is a ruling Kami for each galaxies". Doesn't make any sense. If it were 4 areas or directions, the sentence would have been "there is a ruling Kami for each set of galaxies".
This isn’t a page from the daizenshuu but a translated text. Look at the last sentence of your scan. It says that the solar system is a galactic nebula. I think Herms himself debunked this on twitter. If you were more careful with your refute, then you would've noticed
I brought this up already.
Here is Herms' clarification on how the guidebooks describe the 4 galaxies:
"Essentially there are two possibilities: that there are 4 galaxies (NSEW) that are also called “Areas”, or there are 4 Areas (NSEW), that contain many galaxies. The guidebooks all go with the first option (when they don’t just leave the whole thing as vague as the manga, that is): Daizenshuu 7 twice says that there are 4 galaxies. DBZ Son Goku Densetsu and the Super Exciting Guide: Character Volume both say so too."
He names three guides including the Daizenshuu that say there are only 4 galaxies. Why did you think "4 galaxy DB" was such a big issue until we decided to drop the Daizenshuu explanations altogether? This is why. It is either blatant at some places, left vague at some places, or feeds contradictory information at some places such as having infinite galaxies. Keep in mind the Daizenshuu is not written by Toriyama, but Shueisha. And it has many versions, 7 being the most recent one. So the collection is prone to errors.
In the first paragraph of that same image he says "galaxy/galaxies" and even lays down two options. One of these options being that one of the 4 "galaxies" contain galaxies within themselves. Even in the following image...
He also says this here:
"various other parts of Daizenshuu 7 and other guidebooks and whatnot all say there are only 4 galaxies, so we can probably safely ignore this"
...he says, at the beginning of the sentence, that it's somewhat up to interpretation.
- He uses galaxy/galaxies interchangeably.
- He says there are two possibilities.
- He say's it's somewhat up to interpretation.
- He says it can probably, not objectively, be ignored.
He's clearly not claiming anything is objective. Why would he? galaxy and galaxies are the same so it's ultimately up to interpretation. Yet, you insist it only means a total of 4 galaxies.
Here's another where it blatantly says the universe is divided into 4 galaxies.
Not 4 sets/groups of galaxies. Straight up 4 galaxies.
Again, this translation was by the dude who made people think Cell was 4-A.
Hell, according to the Daizenshuu scan which is linked in the OP, the "galaxy" is not what we recognize as a real galaxy. "Planets gather and form a nebula, and beyond that, a collection of gathered nebulae is called a galaxy."
All this accounts for Daizenshuu being a very ambiguous source of information regarding this. Hence we do not use it anymore.
Not my scans in the OP. They also use the 4-A solar system scan.
With that in mind, there is a statement in Daizenshuu 7 that says universe is endless. While we do not use Daizenshuu as a credible source in this matter, this particular statement still does not have to contradict anything. Endless is often used synonymously with very vast and not always used literally to mean "infinite". The line comes from the same Daizenshuu and the same paragraph that says there are only 4 galaxies in the universe.
Two more statements about infinitely expanding, which is fine. It contradicts nothing.
I can't tell what translations your using here in particular. At least my cans are contextualized.
And one statement saying "an infinite space of light and darkness where the unknown lives". While it may contain "infinite" (and you can get it translated by Herms), it comes from a poster showing Freeza. Characters like Freeza represent "darkness". They represents "the unknown". It's clear that the statement is referring to evil characters like Freeza when it talks about darkness and unknown, and is contrasting it with "light". No factual statement ever describes the universe as being composed of "light" and "darkness". It's clear that the statement is not meant to be taken literally/scientifically, when compared to any other statement that describes the universe in any normal capacity (being composed of vacuum, matter, stars, galaxies, planets, etc.). Even if it is meant to be taken literally, the credibility of Daizenshuu itself is in question due to several instances of contradictions and ambiguity.
Prove it. This is merely headcanon. Guru's side of the page say there are countless monsters where light can't reach. Guru certainly isn’t some kind of monster. Even using your logic "beyond the stars where light cannot reach." would mean he's evil because this metaphorical light can’t reach him.
And on the other hand we have the primary source itself without any vagueness and contradictions, which describes the universe verbally and visually as clear as a crystal.
You use the term vague a lot. Vague means:
of uncertain, indefinite, or unclear character or meaning. | thinking or communicating in an unfocused or imprecise way.
Tell me how all three texts are uncertain or unclear. I had no problem reading and comprehending them. You shouldn’t have trouble with it either.
1. Jaco states the universe has a crazy/countless number of galaxies.
No contradictions.
2. Bulma states the universe has a center and Earth is on the very edge.
Space is infinite beyond the stars and earth is shown at the edge of a galactic region. Still consistent.
3. There is literally a nameless planet among other celestial bodies at the edge of both U7 and U6.
The nameless planet is in it's own neutral space. This claim means nothing unless you’re implying the universes are strictly 3-A.
4. Both universes have been visually shown to have edges that coincide with each other.
This means nothing. Our own wiki represents space time contunuums as uncountable infinity composed into a single universe, which is usually represented as a sphere.
Take Xenoverse for example. We see the timelines have their own shape but they are beyond infinite due to having an infinitely long past present and future, even if it's down to the nanosecond or even plank time.
In simple terms, those are dimensional walls.
This leaves no doubt that the universe is not infinite in any capacity.
Your main argument hinges a negative interpretation that views the daizenshuu as inconsistent (
or less valid) and should only be for cherry picked things. Therefore your logic requires more assumptions on which statements to use.
I, on the other hand, take statements from the daizenshuu and manga at face value and still managed to make sense. Therefore, I make far less assumptions that you, if any at all.
Because you're making more assumptions, you're making the extra ordinary claim. And as we all know, extraordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence.
