• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Serious High 1-B Question/Rant

Status
Not open for further replies.
ActuallySpaceMan42

ActuallySpaceMan42

4,474
3,021
Ok, so this is going to be an extremely long question/rant since I really never understood how this works in our tiering system and kind of seems like a loophole. (For these examples below assume dimensions have transcendence.)


So first of all there are two types of High 1-B Structures from what I am aware. The first is a structure that starts at zero dimensions and goes up to infinite dimensions and the second is a structure that has no start, it goes up into infinite dimensions as normal and goes down infinitely as well. For a normal High 1-B Structure, this is impossible as any dimension under the Infintieth Dimension would be Finite and therefore 1-B instead.

However, for a High 1-B Structure that is Infinite up and Down that means every dimension within it is technically High 1-B since Infinity/435345345 = Infinity.

Alright so for any further examples when I say High 1-B I'm talking about the latter example and they all contain one another.

Moving on let's say you have a High 1-B Structure (The Original Structure) and inside of one of those dimensions (Let's call it Dimension A) is another High 1-B Structure. Now Dimension A which contains and transcends a High 1-B Structure in and of itself is Low 1-A.

And the dimension above Dimension A (Dimension B) is 1-A as it contains and transcends Dimension A. So in total, this makes The Original Structure which was High 1-B, 1-A+, as this will continue up to infinity and 1-A+ is an infinite number of steps above 1-A.

Ok, so this is where things start to fall apart in my brain.

Going back to Dimension A as we are aware it has a High 1-B Structure (Structure A), so what if Structure A also had a High 1-B Structure within all of its dimensions?
Well according to what we just went over Structure A is 1-A+ as just one of its dimensions would be Low 1-A and the dimension above that would be 1-A, and the dimension above that would be another layer into 1-A all the way u to infinite layers which are 1-A+.

Ok so now Structure A is 1-A+, Dimension B transcends Structure A and encompasses it making it High 1-A and The Original Structure would be infinite layers into High 1-A.

So according to all of that if I'm correct, if I put YET ANOTHER High 1-B Structure within the High 1-B Structures of Structure A, The Original Structure would be Tier 0. Ok so what about verses that have recursions?

A High 1-B Structure containing Infinite High 1-B Structures on each of its layers of which there are Infinite layers. And furthermore, each of those High 1-B Structures dimensions contains Infinite High 1-B Structures, which follow the same rules infinitely. A recursion system like this should by all means reach ridiculously high into Tier 0, like unbelievably so.
 
Greatsage13th said:
Again, elaborate on why it containing a 1A+ structure from another hierarchy is different from being detached from a 1A+ structure. In simple terms, why is the latter high 1A but not the former?
Click to expand...
Because the basis of High 1-A is inaccessibility. You can have an aleph-omega^aleph-omega amount of 1-A transcendences and it would still just be higher into 1-A+

The gap between Alephs (the system 1-A is based on) and Inaccessibles is simply that big
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
Because the basis of High 1-A is inaccessibility. You can have an aleph-omega^aleph-omega amount of 1-A transcendences and it would still just be higher into 1-A+

The gap between Alephs (the system 1-A is based on) and Inaccessibles is simply that big
Click to expand...
Why is being detached from an infinite something not inaccessible?
 
But the 1-A+ Structure is at its limit. If it's Infinite Up and Down and something contains the entirety of its structure transcending it, then it's unreachable. Those Infinite 1-A Realms simply cannot reach it.
 
Greatsage13th said:
Isn't the basis of inaccessibility is that no matter how many stacks of infinities there are, it wouldn't go beyond or even reach it? Why isn't this the case?
Click to expand...
Yes? The issue is that the OP is assuming that stacking them will get you to Tier 0, which is not how it works as you and me already said.

ActuallySpaceMan said:
But the 1-A+ Structure is at its limit. If it's Infinite Up and Down and something contains the entirety of its structure transcending it, then it's unreachable. Those Infinite 1-A Realms simply cannot reach it.
Click to expand...
Uncountable Infinite layers of 1-A exist. The tier doesn't stop at infinite layers. Alephs go all the way to aleph-omega, aleph-omega^omega, and so on.
 
And that would still be 1-A+, just very high into it. There is literally no limit for how far alephs go. Inaccessibles are only reached via axioms stating that you reached it, so the quantity of uncountable infinite 1-A transcendences is irrelevant, unless the quantity itself is directly said to be [Insert name of an inaccessible cardinal here].
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
And that would still be 1-A+, just very high into it. There is literally no limit for how far alephs go. Inaccessibles are only reached via axioms stating that you reached it, so the quantity of uncountable infinite 1-A transcendences is irrelevant, unless the quantity itself is directly said to be [Insert name of an inaccessible cardinal here].
Click to expand...
I mean that could be the absolute limit of 1A+ from what I could see.
 
ShivaShakti said:
To become High 1-A, you would need to exceed all possible extensions of a 1-A+ Hierarchy.
Click to expand...
The verse that the op used for the basis of this question already has a force that filled every space and gap, as well as a further emphasis on that there is no gap that the force does not permeate through. So pretty much all extensions has been filled by the force already.
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
And that would still be 1-A+, just very high into it. There is literally no limit for how far alephs go. Inaccessibles are only reached via axioms stating that you reached it, so the quantity of uncountable infinite 1-A transcendences is irrelevant, unless the quantity itself is directly said to be [Insert name of an inaccessible cardinal here].
Click to expand...
But how would you know when to draw the line if there are R > F differences in play?

Like what's stopping a dimension that is part of a High 1-B Structure from transcending a 1-A+ Structure through R > F into High 1-A?
 
ActuallySpaceMan said:
But how would you know when to draw the line if there are R > F differences in play?

Like what's stopping a dimension that is part of a High 1-B Structure from transcending a 1-A+ Structure through R > F into High 1-A?
Click to expand...
Not sure what is your point here. R>F are default assumed to be one transcendence higher only. If the verse has enough context for a R>F being inaccessible itself then it is.

If it's just a stacked hierarchy of conventional R>F then it won't be.
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
Not sure what is your point here. R>F are default assumed to be one transcendence higher only. If the verse has enough context for a R>F being inaccessible itself then it is.

If it's just a stacked hierarchy of conventional R>F then it won't be.
Click to expand...
But that makes no sense?

By that logic verses that have High 1-A Hierarrchys arent High 1-A because they view a 1-A+ Hierarchy below them as fiction and it's just another stacked Hierarchy of "Conventional" R > F.

Why do we decide what conventional R > F can and cannot cross just because R > F had been used by a lesser Hierarchy that is clearly inferior?
 
If the 1-A+ hierarchy is already based on R>F differences then yes, it would be just higher into 1-A+ and those verses need a downgrade.

R>F over 2-A isn't 1-A or Low 1-A for that matter, its Low 1-C, i.e a single transcendence higher.
 
As an example to show that Im not crazy, SCP-3812 sees an entire infinite 1-A hierarchy (of R>F differences) as fiction and he is just higher into 1-A+, because his transcendence over the hierarchy is also based on R>F and would be thus under the same framework of logic.

If a 1-A+ hierarchy is based on dimensions only, and you see the entirety of it as fiction, then it would be High 1-A since you are operating on whole other framework of logic that is superior to it.
 
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
As an example to show that Im not crazy, SCP-3812 sees an entire infinite 1-A hierarchy (of R>F differences) as fiction and he is just higher into 1-A+, because his transcendence over the hierarchy is also based on R>F and would be thus under the same framework of logic.

If a 1-A+ hierarchy is based on dimensions only, and you see the entirety of it as fiction, then it would be High 1-A since you are operating on whole other framework of logic that is superior to it.
Click to expand...
Oh, I see.

So if one HIearchy uses Infintesimlizing, another used R > F, and another used Dimensional difference then those would be three different frameworks of logic and therefore being three separate hierarchies that can transcend one another?
 
ActuallySpaceMan said:
Oh, I see.

So if one HIearchy uses Infintesimlizing, another used R > F, and another used Dimensional difference then those would be three different frameworks of logic and therefore being three separate hierarchies that can transcend one another?
Click to expand...
Yes, but I'm pretty sure infinitesimal and dimension superiority would fall under the same umbrella.
 
It seems like you guys have come to a conclusion which is good, since I didn't want to participate anyways but I'll give some additional info for you guys.

1st of all in mathematics we have a thing called transfinite recursion which is used to satisfy and make newer sets with the L axiom (an axiom made to satisfy the continuum hypothesis) now why this is important to the subject is because we can use this concept on aleph omega, but bassically an aleph omega + 1 is bigger than the proper class of aleph omega (proper class is the range of sets) and a aleph omega + 2 is bigger than the proper class of aleph omega + 1 until you reach a recursive sequence called aleph omega^aleph omega which would be as big or bigger than the proper class of any aleph omega below with the use of L axiom.

(Then you can repeat this sequence and bassically would be smaller than a strongly limit cardinal that is not aleph-0 or aleph omega no matter what you do.)

But bassically you can conclude that there are bigger Alephs than alep-omega but below inaccessible yet still has an insane range of sets.
 
Last edited:
Cat said:
It seems like you guys have come to a conclusion which is good, since I didn't want to participate anyways but I'll give some additional info for you guys.

1st of all in mathematics we have a thing called transfinite recursion which is used to satisfy and make newer sets with the L axiom (an axiom made to satisfy the continuum hypothesis) now why this is important to the subject is because we can use this concept on aleph omega, but bassically an aleph omega + 1 is bigger than the proper class of aleph omega (proper class is the range of sets) and a aleph omega + 2 is bigger than the proper class of aleph omega + 1 until you reach a recursive sequence called aleph omega^aleph omega which would be as big or bigger than the proper class of any aleph omega below with the use of L axiom.

(Then you can repeat this sequence and bassically would be smaller than a strongly limit cardinal that is not aleph-0 or aleph omega no matter what you do.)

But bassically you can conclude that there are bigger Alephs than alep-omega but below inaccessible yet still has an insane range of sets.
Click to expand...
Nice
 
ActuallySpaceMan said:
Ok, so this is going to be an extremely long question/rant since I really never understood how this works in our tiering system and kind of seems like a loophole. (For these examples below assume dimensions have transcendence.)


So first of all there are two types of High 1-B Structures from what I am aware. The first is a structure that starts at zero dimensions and goes up to infinite dimensions and the second is a structure that has no start, it goes up into infinite dimensions as normal and goes down infinitely as well. For a normal High 1-B Structure, this is impossible as any dimension under the Infintieth Dimension would be Finite and therefore 1-B instead.

However, for a High 1-B Structure that is Infinite up and Down that means every dimension within it is technically High 1-B since Infinity/435345345 = Infinity.

Alright so for any further examples when I say High 1-B I'm talking about the latter example and they all contain one another.

Moving on let's say you have a High 1-B Structure (The Original Structure) and inside of one of those dimensions (Let's call it Dimension A) is another High 1-B Structure. Now Dimension A which contains and transcends a High 1-B Structure in and of itself is Low 1-A.

And the dimension above Dimension A (Dimension B) is 1-A as it contains and transcends Dimension A. So in total, this makes The Original Structure which was High 1-B, 1-A+, as this will continue up to infinity and 1-A+ is an infinite number of steps above 1-A.

Ok, so this is where things start to fall apart in my brain.

Going back to Dimension A as we are aware it has a High 1-B Structure (Structure A), so what if Structure A also had a High 1-B Structure within all of its dimensions?
Well according to what we just went over Structure A is 1-A+ as just one of its dimensions would be Low 1-A and the dimension above that would be 1-A, and the dimension above that would be another layer into 1-A all the way u to infinite layers which are 1-A+.

Ok so now Structure A is 1-A+, Dimension B transcends Structure A and encompasses it making it High 1-A and The Original Structure would be infinite layers into High 1-A.

So according to all of that if I'm correct, if I put YET ANOTHER High 1-B Structure within the High 1-B Structures of Structure A, The Original Structure would be Tier 0. Ok so what about verses that have recursions?

A High 1-B Structure containing Infinite High 1-B Structures on each of its layers of which there are Infinite layers. And furthermore, each of those High 1-B Structures dimensions contains Infinite High 1-B Structures, which follow the same rules infinitely. A recursion system like this should by all means reach ridiculously high into Tier 0, like unbelievably so.
Click to expand...
Read this and this is you confusing yourself

1. An open ended hierarchy is different from stacks of dimensions contained within themselves and fiction doesn’t normally treat it that way, for example I/0 verse is an open ended hierarchy verse and it is just treated as having a hierarchy that stretches infinitely upward and downward and has no true beginning which will be true for an open ended hierarchy.
For example let’s say you are currently standing on an infinite D plane among an open ended infinite dimension hierarchy.
Then you decide to start descending down, you will never reach the starting point, as that’s already infinity away from you, same goes for trying to go up, you will never reach the top.

2. Where you went wrong is assuming that each dimensions above contains all dimensions below, if it was not treated that way in the verse, i see no reason for why we should assume so, as that would be assuming that each lower dimensions in their totality is a set element of a higher dimension.
When rather it is just £ = {open ended hierarchy}
Where £ is the entire cosmology

Where as your take here is that £ is just an element of a set that contains infinite £, and the set is also contained by a higher one and so on.

So this £ = { entire open end hierarchy}
Is different from
¥ = {€ = {£ = {# = { $ .............. *infinitely}}}}
With each symbol being a set that contains infinite hierarchy.

I hope you understand but if you don’t let me know

Sorry I was on mobile so it was not easy to get good symbols to use
 
Pain_to12 said:
Read this and this is you confusing yourself

1. An open ended hierarchy is different from stacks of dimensions contained within themselves and fiction doesn’t normally treat it that way, for example I/0 verse is an open ended hierarchy verse and it is just treated as having a hierarchy that stretches infinitely upward and downward and has no true beginning which will be true for an open ended hierarchy.
For example let’s say you are currently standing on an infinite D plane among an open ended infinite dimension hierarchy.
Then you decide to start descending down, you will never reach the starting point, as that’s already infinity away from you, same goes for trying to go up, you will never reach the top.

2. Where you went wrong is assuming that each dimensions above contains all dimensions below, if it was not treated that way in the verse, i see no reason for why we should assume so, as that would be assuming that each lower dimensions in their totality is a set element of a higher dimension.
When rather it is just £ = {open ended hierarchy}
Where £ is the entire cosmology

Where as your take here is that £ is just an element of a set that contains infinite £, and the set is also contained by a higher one and so on.

So this £ = { entire open end hierarchy}
Is different from
¥ = {€ = {£ = {# = { $ .............. *infinitely}}}}
With each symbol being a set that contains infinite hierarchy.

I hope you understand but if you don’t let me know

Sorry I was on mobile so it was not easy to get good symbols to use
Click to expand...
I understand the first bit, but I'm a bit confused about the second bit can you explain it a bit further? Also in my example, I am going under the assumption that each structure is being contained in another.
 
Greatsage13th said:
Open ended hierarchy?
Click to expand...
Take a look at a perfect circle, it has no beginning and no end.
This is something similar to that circle ( not the same, just the concept is similar)
So an open end hierarchy has no starting point or end, as it is infinite in all sides
ActuallySpaceMan said:
I understand the first bit, but I'm a bit confused about the second bit can you explain it a bit further?
Click to expand...
I am assuming this is the part where I talked about sets and them containing each other?
Let us try using a close end hierarchy as an example, this time
and the most basic example i can use is the number system

For example,
if you are counting this way, Set A = {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8............ ∞}

it is different from counting this way
set B = {(1.11, 1.12, 1.13, 1.14, 1.15.............∞), (1.21, 1.22, 1.23,1.24, 1.25,.................∞)} up to lets say 100.11 e.t.c.}
In Set B, to reach the count of even just 2, we will have infinite stacked upon another infinite times basically uncountable infinite numbers.
where as Set A is just infinite numbers.
Your example is using something like set B i.e. there is an uncountable infinite number between 1.1 and 1.2 so that means 1.2 is uncountable infinite larger than 1.1.

which by your example you are wrong, as your example is assuming that the way the dimension hierarchy are numbered is Set B and not Set A.

so most of the time the way the open end hierarchy are treated in fiction is set A not set B.


And judging from the look of it I may have confused you more, I will add

this is the most basic example i can give of how fiction treats it

1 > 2 > 3 > 4 > 5> 6 > 7 > 8............... ∞.

and not like this

1{2{3{4{5{6{7{8...........∞}}}}}}}

ActuallySpaceMan said:
Also in my example, I am going under the assumption that each structure is being contained in another.
Click to expand...
Well that is not an assumption for us to make, if the verse was treated that way, then we will surely have the strongest verse on the wiki. but so far no verse is treated like your example and it was a bit exagerrated
 
Pain_to12 said:
Well that is not an assumption for us to make, if the verse was treated that way, then we will surely have the strongest verse on the wiki. but so far no verse is treated like your example and it was a bit exagerrated
Click to expand...
That's what I am saying (And actually I downplayed it in the example above). I sent you a DM since I don't want to image the clutter the thread.
 
Last edited:
Antvasima said:
Are any of you able to provide an explanation here?
Click to expand...
I believe the issue here is mostly about how an uncountable infinity can contain another infinity. You can have a High 1-B structure that contains other infinities.

Though in this case I'd propose that the High 1-B structure in question was likely just Low 1-A that contains different degrees of countably infinites or something.
 
Cat said:
By different degrees of countable infinities, do you mean things like odd, even, odd and even numbers?
Click to expand...
Basically there's theoretically different ways to reach an infinite number. Besides going up by one digit each time you can count only evens, only odds, square them, etc.

An uncountable infinity is one that is more or less beyond a humans ability to comprehend, since its a number do large you just can't imagine getting to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Continuum19
What Cosmological Tier Would This Structure Be?
Replies
14
Views
1K
Continuum19
Continuum19
JmikaelP
What tier belong these structures?
Replies
7
Views
683
JmikaelP
JmikaelP
ExSENNA
Question about 1 Tier and 1 Concept
Replies
9
Views
1K
ActuallySpaceMan42
ActuallySpaceMan42
Leoduckiscool
Is this enough for H1A or 0
Replies
30
Views
2K
Vietthai96
Vietthai96
Two questions on time axes and spacetimes
Replies
26
Views
2K
Astral_Trinity439
Astral_Trinity439
Back
Top