- 9,982
- 10,821
If it's about standards then here.And where? I don't like to do it here and I don't usually move it to the wiki.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it's about standards then here.And where? I don't like to do it here and I don't usually move it to the wiki.
Yeah, well, then I'd rather put it on the message wall.If it's about standards then here.
I posted it on your message wall. I'd like to delete the screenshot if you don't mindIf it's about standards then here.
If by any chance; mind sending an evidence of Ultima denying this if you don't mind? Would appreciate it.Also "being different or more than countably infinite = uncountably infinite" was denied by DT and Ultima themselves.
I didn't get to read what u sent on my wall, it was deleted before I could read. but Agna answering few questions in a public server randomly is not a evidence nor a standard.I posted it on your message wall. I'd like to delete the screenshot if you don't mind
In the 2-A Q&A thread, saying that "an infinite structure containing an infinite low2-c structure can be low2-c", Executor supporting this, and DT and Ultima saying that this is not tier 1... KLOL also clarified this there (based on the information he received from them)If by any chance; mind sending an evidence of Ultima denying this?
Btw no He didn't reply on the server, I had discussed this a bit with him and I have a few more discussions and questions like this from DM.I didn't get to read what u sent on my wall, it was deleted before I could read. but Agna answering few questions in a public server randomly is not a evidence nor a standard.
How the **** did you come to this shitty conclusion?greater than 2A and low 2c considers
He got reported and officially warned. Please if you don't mind, don't process it.didn't you read all of what I commented that I sent earlier
stop talking rude karbit
Thanks for the warning, I edited the comment to make it less harshHe got reported and officially warned. Please if you don't mind, don't process it.
Dude, why are you talking like that Lmao, if someone report about you, it's gonna get out of hand.didn't you read all of what I commented that I sent earlier
stop talking rude karbit
I dont ******* said thatI it's not that you yourself said greater than 2A also did not meet the tier 1 requirements, don't forget you yourself said that in the previous thread don't try to avoid you, plus you spoke rudely to me
Yeah R>F is Qualitative transcendence. We Nerf down R>F transcendence to one lvl dimensional jump as we aren't sure just how high R>F scales due it's nature seemingly being far superior than dimensional jumps. But we are sure it's at least 1 level of higher infinite in least so that's just in lack of better option.
As for it being HDE, Ultima and DT have contrary opinion on it. As for Ultima it is HDE or any uncountable infinite sheer size unless stated otherwise but DT says otherwise on it. I'm in agreement with it being HDE but that doesn't really matter to this thread.
I guess you still don't want to understand. Nobody is saying that this is a qualitative superiority in the sense of 'existential' or 'size', bruh...Now you got the point after making me lose my brain cells on my wall? HDE standards has been changed as per DT's opinion. That's what I said previously but you just don't listen. Smh. As pain (who changed HDE standard) and I have said, existential QS don't get HDE by default. R>F and Uncountable infinite difference is QS but not HDE. They're just sheer size as per our current standards.
Now kneel.
This is exactly what I mean Lmao. being an uncountable infinite difference =/= an uncountable infinite difference in the sense of "size" or "existence".That's what he said though. he even specifically said it's not HDE but its still qualitatively superior in terms of infinite difference. that alone should have told you he is talking about power as he already said its not HDE where in HDE is mostly about sizes
idk man sounds like you're heavily misunderstanding what he is saying or assuming wrongly on what he said
I have not claimed otherwise. I refer to him because Reiner said that R>F is an uncountable infinite or qualitative superiority to "size" and "existence".yeah, you just agreed with him.
he said its not about HDE and when he's saying HDe he's talking about sizes
so of course him saying uncountable infinite difference later on isn't about sizes and you told him no he is wrong.
idk what you're trying to explain tbh
These are what Reiner said, in short, if you are qualitatively or uncountable infinite superior to the lower plane as "existential" or "size", you cannot get HDE, but these are the qualities that R>F contains. I don't know what he says now or I misunderstood him.Then that's going against our R>F page, which says it's a existential and uncountable infinite difference. Our standard gives it Qualitative superiority for it's size.
I was saying that as per recent changes made by DT in HDE page, we do not give existential QS HDE by default anymore. So even uncountable infinite difference in size or R>F that provide existential QS don't get HDE anymore. So yeah. That's the standard now.@Reiner is that what you said? because I didn't see that. not even in his wall
I looked at the page and it doesn't say anything about "being uncountable infinitely bigger does not give HDE" or something. That would be ridiculous because this is an example of a large size from what I said above, and it's the easiest way to earn HDE.I was saying that as per recent changes made by DT in HDE page, we do not give existential QS HDE by default anymore. So even uncountable infinite difference in size or R>F that provide existential QS don't get HDE anymore. So yeah. That's the standard now.
Yeah.But I could be wrong
The irony that you believe they may consider even looking at this thread.Broskis, I tagged Ultima and DT, unless people named DT and Ultima comment, y'all should not make anymore comments.
Or do I have to bring about an admin to lay down the law again?
@Sir_Ovens
Greater infinity =/= greater by an infinityI have great doubts about the qualitative superiority and the R>F, if someone answers me I would greatly appreciate it.
First: qualitative superiority could be achieved by being "infinitely larger" than x dimension, and therefore that dimension is infinitesimal to that infinitely larger dimension. Alright? And another thing, if the higher spatial dimensions are not automatically greater infinities than each other, where did the idea that extradimensional axes could give rise to greater infinities come from? Where can I read information about this? I want to learn it well.
Another thing, does the transcendence R>F between layers/dimensions make them infinitely greater than each other? According to me, this has nothing to do with size, but with the nature of dimensions/layers, so is it a form of qualitative transcendence, or is it just a form that is added apart?
And, last question: if in a verse it is mentioned that there are infinite dimensions, that they are explicitly about extra dimensional axes, but nevertheless, there is only evidence of qualitative superiority between 3 of those infinite dimensions, can this qualitative superiority also be applied to all other dimensions? I had heard that this is possible, if it is said that the qualitative superiority is by its nature of spatial dimension, but I want to be sure.
That's all. Sorry for so many questions, but I needed it. Have a nice day, afternoon or night
DT will come to me one day I'm sure. I mean, for answering this question.The irony that you believe they may consider even looking at this thread.
DT is crammed with cluttery, he hasn't responded to me either. Ppl need breaks tbh, he's likely not gonna respond to you.DT will come to me one day I'm sure. I mean, for answering this question.
I do not believe you. She'll come. Anyway gtg.DT is crammed with cluttery, he hasn't responded to me either. Ppl need breaks tbh, he's likely not gonna respond to you.
Doubtful.DT will come to me one day I'm sure. I mean, for answering this question.
Then former.Doubtful.
DT will come to me one day I'm sure.
Cya.I do not believe you. She'll come. Anyway gtg.
Pein and DT didn't talk about what we discussed in the revision, and frankly I think she's wrong. As I said, I don't care what Pein or anybody else says, because it wasn't discussed in the revision. At the very beginning pein opened the revision for R>F to give HDE and DT refused.Yeah.
Pain made the HDE revision, DT agreed with her revision, Pain agreed with me about the revision = I'm right about the revision = you're wrong.