- 8,678
- 5,556
Yes, we should clarify things on the dimensions page.
-
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.
Simplified Definition for Dimensions
- Thread starter Momokamaru
- Start date
- 32,327
- 20,212
Yes. We should clarify that we use geometrical dimensions, not scientific m-theory dimensions, and make the explanation as simple as possible.Promestein said:
- 165,173
- 72,110
Well, we largely use geometrical definitions of dimensions, but also use scientific theories such as parallel universes along a 5D axis, 11D multiverses, and Hilbert space.
I am aware that geometry and science technically use different standards for dimensions, but as far as I understand, this is largely the way that the ACF originally structured their system, and the above mentioned concepts make convenient separations into different tiers.
I am definitely not willing to destroy our entire system with nothing better to replace it, and this sort of topic is technically extremely strongly prohibited by our regulations, as it is very dangerous for the sustained survival of our community.
I am aware that geometry and science technically use different standards for dimensions, but as far as I understand, this is largely the way that the ACF originally structured their system, and the above mentioned concepts make convenient separations into different tiers.
I am definitely not willing to destroy our entire system with nothing better to replace it, and this sort of topic is technically extremely strongly prohibited by our regulations, as it is very dangerous for the sustained survival of our community.
- 1,062
- 212
Factually, our dimension page isn't very clear...
- 32,327
- 20,212
@Antvasima
Nobody in this thread is criticizing our Tiering System. We are critizing the dimension page which isn't very good.
Nobody in this thread is criticizing our Tiering System. We are critizing the dimension page which isn't very good.
- 165,173
- 72,110
As for the Hausdorff dimension, this is a mathematical concept that DontTalk found for us, which follows a similar principle to the system that DarkLK explained to me about lower-dimensional objects always having a size of 0 in higher dimensions.
- 8,678
- 5,556
Can we focus on the issue at hand - the dimension page - instead of getting derailed about FTL stuff?
- 32,327
- 20,212
What might exist in real-life is "apparent FTL", which are regions of space where space-time is distorted enough to allow for a pseudo FTL speed.
- 32,327
- 20,212
Yes.Promestein said:
- 32,327
- 20,212
I don't think it'd be very good. Sera and Ven are the most correct here in saying that we should explain Geometrical Dimensions. I think that they can rewrite the page, and I can help them and make sure it follows our guidelines.Hat mchat said:
@Ant
Would you trust us with that?
- 1,092
- 919
Hat mchat is also correct. We should mention that the definition is loosely related to that of the scientific definition but we primarily use the geometric version.
- 32,327
- 20,212
Okay, Ant. Please be well.
- 32,327
- 20,212
@DontTalk
Yeah, you're right.
But what we mean is that dimensions as depicted in fiction and defined geometrically have nothing to do with how they are theorized to be in M-Theory.
Yeah, you're right.
But what we mean is that dimensions as depicted in fiction and defined geometrically have nothing to do with how they are theorized to be in M-Theory.
- 30,040
- 31,255
I'd say it depends if you're judging based on tiering or speed. The geometric definition; such as length, width, or height should be used regarding the tier, AP or durability. But the scientific definition of movement would be used regarding speed.
- 3,077
- 121
I don't think the second definition is used much in fiction so it would be an inadvisable restriction.
- 30,040
- 31,255
I mean, there are quite a lot of tier 2 characters who don't have Immeasurable speed. Examples are Shulk, Low 2-C and FTL+ Speed. And Seiya, 2-C and Sextillions of C. I also heard DarkAnine mentioned a 2-A character with normal human speed.
- 32,327
- 20,212
Well, yeah. But by 5D and onwards you kinda gain Immeasurable speed by default.
- 120
- 106
- Thread starter
- #69
This ain't about speed.
- 30,040
- 31,255
Well aware of that; 5 dimensional and beyond easily have immeasuable speed by default; immeasurable looking at the definition may range from 4D to infinite dimensions. 1-A and above have irrelevant speed. Just saying it's common for 4D characters to only have 3D speed.
But I agree with the OP regarding every other statistic; especially for the tier.
But I agree with the OP regarding every other statistic; especially for the tier.
- 2,512
- 261
@Matthew: They have nothing to do with units like kg or Joule, which are also sometimes referred to as dimensions.
Aside from that physics usually makes the same use of the term as math/geometry. They just don't consider those in regards to stuff like size, but about other things (like how fast fields get weaker over distance). In my understanding we just don't follow a physics model for stuff above High 3-A / Infinite Energy, but instead a model of ranking according to size, so that we can differentiate between tiers above that in an intuitive fashion and aren't stuck with infinite universe level as highest tier.
Same definitions, different models basically.
Aside from that physics usually makes the same use of the term as math/geometry. They just don't consider those in regards to stuff like size, but about other things (like how fast fields get weaker over distance). In my understanding we just don't follow a physics model for stuff above High 3-A / Infinite Energy, but instead a model of ranking according to size, so that we can differentiate between tiers above that in an intuitive fashion and aren't stuck with infinite universe level as highest tier.
Same definitions, different models basically.
- 165,173
- 72,110
As for immeasurable speed, we have changed the definition, so it now means transcending linear time, and has nothing to do with the number of spatial dimensions any more. However, we probably need to start a revision project for all of the pages that still use the old standard at some point.
- 8,088
- 1,541
Wow... DontTalk nailed it well.
- 165,173
- 72,110
@DontTalk
Do you think that there are parts of the dimension, Higher-Dimensional Manipulation, and Tiering System explanations that should be adjusted for greater clarity?
Do you think that there are parts of the dimension, Higher-Dimensional Manipulation, and Tiering System explanations that should be adjusted for greater clarity?
What type of dimension are we referring to? In most forms of media, comic books, cartoons etc., dimensions are described as a parallel universe or another plane of existence.
- 2,512
- 261
I think the Dimension and Higher-Dimensional Manipulation page do its job of explaining the concepts appropriately for the casual reader.
The Tiering system page specifies that we rank according to size in regards to higher dimensions, so that is fine as well.
Personally I think the pages are fine and I believe we didn't have all too many questions in regards of the scientific bits of the system lately.
That said many people here wrote that the pages aren't very good. I didnt quite understand what was the specific point of criticism from the thread, I think (there was a lot of off-topic talk inbetween).
As I understand one of the points was that the pages should be rewritten to explain geometrical dimensions, which is what they currently do as far as I am aware.
So is just specifically writing a seperate sentence that we rank in accordance to size for tiers above High 3-A the wish (in my opinion it is pretty clear from the pages that we do, but if someone thinks otherwise I don't see why not to add it), or something else?
The Tiering system page specifies that we rank according to size in regards to higher dimensions, so that is fine as well.
Personally I think the pages are fine and I believe we didn't have all too many questions in regards of the scientific bits of the system lately.
That said many people here wrote that the pages aren't very good. I didnt quite understand what was the specific point of criticism from the thread, I think (there was a lot of off-topic talk inbetween).
As I understand one of the points was that the pages should be rewritten to explain geometrical dimensions, which is what they currently do as far as I am aware.
So is just specifically writing a seperate sentence that we rank in accordance to size for tiers above High 3-A the wish (in my opinion it is pretty clear from the pages that we do, but if someone thinks otherwise I don't see why not to add it), or something else?
Similar threads
