that's crazy; it's almost like A(unknown)>B(4D temporal)
DB cosmology works differently. The universes are inherently 2-C aka 4D. A timeline encompasses every instance of the universe and transcends it hence Low 1-C. You can’t just say infinite time axis thus high 1-B.
I actually agree with this logic but unfortunately I dont think simply being stated to be transcendent is enough for the the Wiki
The entirety of this page here:
vsbattles.fandom.com
I think the nature that exists in saint seiya would give it more justification
I advise you to read all of my arguments as they address both
Dude I know what’s in that post hence why I’m OP crt makes no sense.The entirety of this page here:
Low 1-C Dragon Ball Timelines Explanation
Is contingent on perpendicular vectors qualifying for tier 1.
Isnt that the hard part though? Like establishing "side ways time" is the harder thing to do which you also admitted in the low 1-C Omega CRT so why bother with that?The entirety of this page here:
Low 1-C Dragon Ball Timelines Explanation
Is contingent on perpendicular vectors qualifying for tier 1.
You really oughta come up with every justification possible if you can then because the Wiki is quite strict in what it considers to be transcendent
Chours, I was noting that perpendicular time is accepted as higher d. Nothing more, nothing less.
He's trying to make a comparison in congruency.
He just explained how perpendicular vector works in case of db that Is not the case a single macrocosm has it's own time axis the timeline overarchs it with its higher time axis creating infinite 4d snapshots thus 5dThe entirety of this page here:
Low 1-C Dragon Ball Timelines Explanation
Is contingent on perpendicular vectors qualifying for tier 1.
Except the FAQ says that pretty directly
Yes, I am exactly saying an infinite dimensional vector space qualifies for tier 1,
Which is what I'm also saying
It only has to flow in a different direction, or be perpendicular to qualify
I am a staunch supporter of tier 1 DB, and as someone who understands both arguments in both contexts, I am trying to convey the fact Chours is wrong in his/her understanding of vector spaces.
Not really it also has to show overarching the lower time axis to qualify it as a higher time axis and to create infinite snapshots or being perpendicular this would just prove it is a different axis not higher
It doesn't have to be higher, the existence of an infinite amount of perpendicular temporal axex inherently creates a high 1-B structure.
yeah that seems overtly reductive lol I dont think its that simple
this argument is wrong;
I'm basically saying that it's the same thing and there's only like 2 or 1 differences
aka a infinite temporal vector space
No it has to show hierarchy to create infinite snapshots
do you know why 3D > 2D?
explanation; Let's say we have a space and that space is 3 dimenonsial, well what the hell makes it 3D? The 3 dimensions that it has(length width height) Those are 3 dimensions which (those are also directions)
The macrocosmo has infinite presents, aka infinite points in time
no it doesn't
if that was the case then hilbert spaces literally wouldn't be high 1-B
hold on, isn't being perpendicular the same as being a higher time axis or am I misunderstanding? From what i know if you can prove either it should qualify. Time axes that exist in parallel can fundamentally NOT be a higher temporal axes so it has to be perpendicular if its a higher axis right?
That’s how I understand it
yes, and that's the entire premise of DB's low 1-C and what this CRT attempts to prove but on an infinite scale.
If it's a perpendicular time axis that we know doesn't exist on the same time axis as the main time axis
doesn't there exist like 2 time axis which makes DB 5D
wouldn't this make every 2-A cosmology into high 1-B though?
