Questions about High 3-A, Low 2-C, and 2-A?

[BoomBoomMan535]

I understand that the requirements to be High 3-A is to either destroy, create, or affect an infinite 3d area or an infinite amount of finite universes. But to be 2-A you have to affect infinite space-time continuums or just 1 to qualify for Low 2-C.

What's the distinction between universes and space-time continuums that the tiering system makes is it timelines or something?

If it is timelines why is destroying, creating, or affecting a timeline of one universe a better feat than affecting infinite universes?

Sorry if I sound dumb just kind of confused about how the tiering works

 

[BoomBoomMan535]

Anyone?

 

[Rocker1189]

Typically people would not respond that quickly just saying.

I am no expert but I believe it is because of dimensionality. Destroying an entire timeline is a 4th dimensional feat making it infinitely more powerful than an infinite 3D feat. The person with the infinite destruction of finite universe would have better range and destructibility, however they would have less AP(see AP Vs Destructive Capacity). That's how I imagine it works at least.

 

[BoomBoomMan535]

Typically people would not respond that quickly just saying.

I am no expert but I believe it is because of dimensionality. Destroying an entire timeline is a 4th dimensional feat making it infinitely more powerful than an infinite 3D feat. The person with the infinite destruction of finite universe would have better range and destructibility, however they would have less AP(see AP Vs Destructive Capacity). That's how I imagine it works at least.

Ok I'll get used to it.

I understand what you're saying but what other ways could you reach Low 2-C if you're a 3-A or High 3-A? Is it only via creating, destroying, or affecting timelines or are there more ways?

 

[KingTempest]

Ok I'll get used to it.

I understand what you're saying but what other ways could you reach Low 2-C if you're a 3-A or High 3-A? Is it only via creating, destroying, or affecting timelines or are there more ways?

That's the only way.

You can not go from 3-A or High 3-A to Low 2-C or anything tier 2 and above via a numerical multiplier or something.

You would need to destroy/affect/create a timeline to gain that tier.

 

[KingPin0422]

A universe is a spacetime continuum, but for our purposes, we assume that feats of destroying, creating, or otherwise significantly affecting a universe includes only its spatial aspect, which is usually 3-A because it is also a standard assumption that the universe in any given fiction is at least as large as our own observable universe. If "space" in this case is infinitely large, then significantly affecting it would be High 3-A as a feat.

Low 2-C would be when such a feat clearly affects not only the entire expanse of space, but every moment of time as well. From there, the rest of tier 2 encompasses any greater number of spacetime continua, up to a countably infinite amount at 2-A.

 

[BoomBoomMan535]

That's the only way.

You can not go from 3-A or High 3-A to Low 2-C or anything tier 2 and above via a numerical multiplier or something.

You would need to destroy/affect/create a timeline to gain that tier.

A universe is a spacetime continuum, but for our purposes, we assume that feats of destroying, creating, or otherwise significantly affecting a universe includes only its spatial aspect, which is usually 3-A because it is also a standard assumption that the universe in any given fiction is at least as large as our own observable universe. If "space" in this case is infinitely large, then significantly affecting it would be High 3-A as a feat.

Low 2-C would be when such a feat clearly affects not only the entire expanse of space, but every moment of time as well. From there, the rest of tier 2 encompasses any greater number of spacetime continua, up to a countably infinite amount at 2-A.

Ok thank you guys for the input I understand now completely.

 

[My_area]

What's the distinction between universes and space-time continuums that the tiering system makes is it timelines or something?

Difference between universe and space and time continum is that within the context of tiering system in this wiki,if universe is stated then we assume 3D spatial dimension for universe or in others words space of a universe which destroying it is just 3-A.Space and time continum is universe in its totality which is 3 spatial dimension(space) combined with 1 temporal dimension(time) into order to make 4D space and time continum which destroying it requires energy which exceeds even infinite joules entering into territory of something which cant be measured using our technology

But space and time continum is same as timeline so yeah

If it is timelines why is destroying, creating, or affecting a timeline of one universe a better feat than affecting infinite universes?

By infinite universes I assume infinite 3D spaces of universe? That is because more energy is required to destroy 4D space and time continum which has additional dimension in comparison to infinite 3D spaces which are just 3D spaces hence creating/destroying or affecting timeline of 1 universe is Low 2-C which is superior than destroying infinite physical size of universe which is High 3-A

If you want to be more technical that is because timeline contains uncountable infinite snapshots of 3D universes which by destroying it would he uncountable infinite times superior to destroying just infinite spaces of universe hence Low 2-C is superior to High 3-A.This reasoning is recently used to explain why Low 2-C is superior to High 3-A in this wiki.

Sorry if I sound dumb just kind of confused about how the tiering works

Thats understandable because we all started from being confused as to how tiering system work,even me which took years to actually properly comprehend how most of tiering system works.I still dont understand 100% of how our tiering system work even now so dont worry about sounding "dumb" which you aren't obviously.

 

[Danny1112]

Difference between universe and space and time continum is that within the context of tiering system in this wiki,if universe is stated then we assume 3D spatial dimension for universe or in others words space of a universe which destroying it is just 3-A.Space and time continum is universe in its totality which is 3 spatial dimension(space) combined with 1 temporal dimension(time) into order to make 4D space and time continum which destroying it requires energy which exceeds even infinite joules entering into territory of something which cant be measured using our technology

But space and time continum is same as timeline so yeah

By infinite universes I assume infinite 3D spaces of universe? That is because more energy is required to destroy 4D space and time continum which has additional dimension in comparison to infinite 3D spaces which are just 3D spaces hence creating/destroying or affecting timeline of 1 universe is Low 2-C which is superior than destroying infinite physical size of universe which is High 3-A

If you want to be more technical that is because timeline contains uncountable infinite snapshots of 3D universes which by destroying it would he uncountable infinite times superior to destroying just infinite spaces of universe hence Low 2-C is superior to High 3-A.This reasoning is recently used to explain why Low 2-C is superior to High 3-A in this wiki.

Thats understandable because we all started from being confused as to how tiering system work,even me which took years to actually properly comprehend how most of tiering system works.I still dont understand 100% of how our tiering system work even now so dont worry about sounding "dumb" which you aren't obviously.

Could another way of saying that the tier difference between high 3A and low 2C be an uncountable stack of infinite universes? Like saying an "Infinite universe" is just but "1 infinite universe" and a Space-time Continuum is "Too large to count stacks of infinite universes"

 

[KingPin0422]

I think that a better way to illustrate the distinction between High 3-A and Low 2-C is to compare it to the difference between aleph-null and aleph-one. Aleph-null is already a regular strong limit cardinal, i.e., it cannot be reached by a finite union of finite sets, nor can it be reached by power sets of finite sets. In a sense, it is like an inaccessible cardinal, although an inaccessible cardinal requires being uncountable. Although aleph-one is not a limit cardinal in this case (it is defined as the power set of aleph-null if the generalized continuum hypothesis is used and is the successor of aleph-null), it is still regular because the union of any countable number of countable sets will be countable - thus, the difference between aleph-one and aleph-null is roughly equivalent to the difference between aleph-null and any finite number.

The logic I am using here is very similar to how 1-A hierarchies are defined: each level of 1-A exceeds the previous level to the same degree that said level exceeds everything before it. In other words, to a baseline 1-A, there is effectively no distinction between Low 1-A and 11-C. This is why you will often hear people say that going up even one level of 1-A requires repeating the entire system before it all over again. Similar reasoning can be applied to Low 2-C in that it recognizes no difference in strength between 10-C and High 3-A, as both would be equally irrelevant to its scale.

 

[My_area]

Could another way of saying that the tier difference between high 3A and low 2C be an uncountable stack of infinite universes? Like saying an "Infinite universe" is just but "1 infinite universe" and a Space-time Continuum is "Too large to count stacks of infinite universes"

Yes you can say that gap between High 3-A and Low 2-C is that of uncountable infinity and that space and time continuum ie timeline is essentially too large to reach just by stacking infinite number of universes alone.