Question: If we're saying that higher dimension =/= stronger (by infinity trumping the last dimension and stuff), why is Low 2-C stronger than High 3-

[Amexim]

^

If High 3-A is weaker than Low 2-C because infinite 3D power is nothing to any finite 4D power, why wouldn't that be true for every dimension? I'm confused, and I can't follow the Tiering Explanations and threads, and they're always talking about 1-C and up, which I NEVER understood.

 

[Antoniofer]

The difference its the same as destroying anything within the coordinate [infinite, infinite, infinite] and [-infinite, -infinite, -infinite], and destroying the coordinate where that universe its localized; that according to our system, the last one would be stronger.

 

[Amexim]

Negative infinity...? Translate for the layman, I thought I was an expert (joking) only because the idea of not being able to interact with something that has a whole other direction to its shape and size (?) was essentially extrapolated to be the same for power, but since energy is a universal constant, and you can be 5D and still Wall Level, I don't understand how facing 4D power is anything other than a descriptor of direction rather than strength. Since Higher D=/=Higher AP factually speaking.

 

[Amexim]

Ohhh Wait. It's like destroying the 3D object, and then destroying the box or table that contains the 3D object. Ok. That makes sense. And that power being 4D is just a consequence of the "container" being 4D and things that are in certain dimensions can only be interacted with by things that are a certain dimensional spacial size. So, effectively, you can be 4D and wall level, it's just that low 2-C and such is about destroying 4D universal "containers". That makes sense. Ok. I got it, if that's the correct explanation.