• 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yet the interpretation that the word for "density" means "cardinality"(which makes 0 sense with the context of the story btw) supposedly comes from the author. You can't have your own cake and eat it too.

But I guess arguing about it is useless.
The word is also cardinality in Japanese. He didn't go like "oh yeah a car actually means a train" or make up different meanings for words. All of it is explained pretty clearly.

If you think arguing about this is useless then maybe try not to comment on verses you've admitted to dislike the writing of.
 
I mean if the author says something outside of the material about and it and what he said doesn't really fit in with how it was used in the story then it'd be a death of the author scenario or whatever is similar. Agreeing with Shuradou about WoG usage too.
However, this is not the case. Even if you make a claim and it is true, it will not be valid unless you can harmonise it with the OP. And there are no inconsistencies or contradictions here
 
The word is also cardinality in Japanese. He didn't go like "oh yeah a car actually means a train" or make up different meanings for words. All of it is explained pretty clearly.
Which makes 0 sense with the context of the story btw but pop off sure.

If you think arguing about this is useless then maybe try not to comment on verses you've admitted to dislike the writing of.
True. Instincts just take over whenever I see what I perceive to be intellectual dishonesty and misinformation.
 
Yet the interpretation that the word for "density" means "cardinality"(which makes 0 sense with the context of the story btw) supposedly comes from the author. You can't have your own cake and eat it too.

But I guess arguing about it is useless.
A word can have more than one meaning and even a word can have 16 meanings, so what can we do? We look at the context and ask the person who uses that word in which sense you used it and according to his answer we determine the meaning of the word. There is no such thing as "a word has 3 meanings, I say the meaning I want is correct, and what the person who says the word says is unimportant" as you do.
 
Nothing wrong with using WoG when the whole intent has been about set theory since it was written, he just confirms how it's interpreted.
Nothing in the blog implies that the intent is set theory, though. It consists of some loaded questions and a bunch of contradictory answers from an author who doesn't remember much of his own story and doesn't have a strong grasp of English. It doesn't really prove much.

Already addressed in the blog. It can be written as cardinality and that's how it's written - as him (the author) literally stating it.
And, as I mentioned before, it doesn't make any sense within the story to interpret it as literal cardinality when you take into account all of the context that was revealed later on of what and how 濃度 is supposed to be.

Not really, no. Sure, it's about traversing time, but it also is generally more so about what the Computer Gods are and what they can do. This doesn't affect anything.
It's just explaining the meaning behind all the buzzword mumbo-jumbo, hence 'And this means'. I don't understand what's difficult to comprehend about that.
They can be. They are Computer generated universes infinite in size. This also doesn't address anything
Yeah, they're infinitely vast pocket dimensions, cool. But how does that imply they can generate an infinite cardinal universes and things that are akin to fiction for them?

Anyway, it seems your only problem is about what the text says and how it should be interpreted. And thats addressed in the blog
That's not my problem, my problem is everything. If by 'addressed' you mean ignoring to the totality of context that was laid later on, then sure.

In the literal sense of the word, this is already said in the novel and the author supports this 2 times. Let's see what we have now.
Novel 1 says infinitely great cardinals
2. The author says that he uses set theory
3. The author once again states that he uses set theory
4. The author says that the word nodō means cardinal.
5 .this is what makes sense in context
And what do we have against it?
Your head canon assumptions.
The author may say that he does not remember everything, but what you say does not make any sense where it is already in the novel and the author supports it...
I'm just gonna ignore you since I can't comprehend 99% of what you say most of the time.

1- What the author is talking about here is the infinite cardinal line, that is, the section up to Aleph omega. This is supported by the verse itself.
Stuff that were never said in the verse but here we are.


2- I don't know on what basis you infer that expressions belonging to the PC gods are "buzzwords", but they certainly are not. The verse does not use any fancy language and the dream hierarchy and infinite hierarchies are mentioned a lot. Yes, what you say is also mentioned, but this does not affect theOP
none of these is related nor relevant to what I said ????.


3- If these are pocket dimensions lol you would have to downgraded the verse from the currently 1-A and H1-A tier but that will never happen
Jesse, What the **** Are You Talking About.
 
Which makes 0 sense with the context of the story btw but pop off sure.


True. Instincts just take over whenever I see what I perceive to be intellectual dishonesty and misinformation.
It's like saying that because bear is mentioned in a sentence you make, it is definitely called bear here, which would be brain death to ignore the use of the word bear in other meanings.
 
Which makes 0 sense with the context of the story btw but pop off sure.
It makes sense. Don't get where you're coming from. It's pretty clearly written in the sandbox. But Ig you do you.
True. Instincts just take over whenever I see what I perceive to be intellectual dishonesty and misinformation.
Sure, I would also be mad if a verse I dislike was being upgraded.

Anyway, you don't address anything properly in these threads so I guess there's no point in answering you since you stonewall things.
 
Last edited:
I'm just gonna ignore you since I can't comprehend 99% of what you say most of the time.
So you have literally presented nothing that refutes the block, in fact, and you have a nonsense by claiming that something that is in the novel does not exist, how do you decide which one makes sense in the context?
 
Nothing in the blog implies that the intent is set theory, though. It consists of some loaded questions and a bunch of contradictory answers from an author who doesn't remember much of his own story and doesn't have a strong grasp of English. It doesn't really prove much.
It pretty clearly is stated and implied. I guess when you don't have arguments you resort to "you're just wrong" without proper explanations. It's pretty clearly stated and explained.
And, as I mentioned before, it doesn't make any sense within the story to interpret it as literal cardinality when you take into account all of the context that was revealed later on of what and how 濃度 is supposed to be.
Nah, it still makes sense. It talks about what they are, what they can do and what they will do. The context is pretty clearly explained by the author. There are many quotes about him stating the Computer Gods can create set theory - as shown in the blog.
It's just explaining the meaning behind all the buzzword mumbo-jumbo, hence 'And this means'. I don't understand what's difficult to comprehend about that.
So, it's hard for you to comprehend the meaning being set theory structures being created? You do you I guess.
Yeah, they're infinitely vast pocket dimensions, cool. But how does that imply they can generate an infinite cardinal universes and things that are akin to fiction for them?
Already explained in the blog. If you need help that much, simply put, video games and stories have already been created in these spaces before. (V7 game and V6 book) so, they can have fictional stories created.
That's not my problem, my problem is everything. If by 'addressed' you mean ignoring to the totality of context that was laid later on, then sure.
I didn't. You just either 1. Don't understand 2. You're just being disingenuous. They can create set theory. They can create universes. Set Theory is computer generated world. All these simple things are clearly addressed.
I'm just gonna ignore you since I can't comprehend 99% of what you say most of the time.


Stuff that were never said in the verse but here we are.
It was said, and pretty clearly.
none of these is related nor relevant to what I said ????.
It is.
Jesse, What the **** Are You Talking About.
Lol
 
```He moved his left arm.“And what does it mean?” she asked.“If the world we lived in was fictional, then the afterlife is also fictional. I started to think about what differentiated the two worlds and the answer I found was the presence or absence of an external wall,” he explained. “The world of the living had an external wall, but this world does not. No matter which three-dimensional direction you move in, you will return to your starting point. You can continue forever, but the space is finite.”“I understand the concept, but what does it mean?""

I obviously agree duh I mean obviously akuto is tier 0, common knowledge. Common vsbw W.
 
Nothing in the blog implies that the intent is set theory, though. It consists of some loaded questions and a bunch of contradictory answers from an author who doesn't remember much of his own story and doesn't have a strong grasp of English. It doesn't really prove much.


And, as I mentioned before, it doesn't make any sense within the story to interpret it as literal cardinality when you take into account all of the context that was revealed later on of what and how 濃度 is supposed to be.


It's just explaining the meaning behind all the buzzword mumbo-jumbo, hence 'And this means'. I don't understand what's difficult to comprehend about that.

Yeah, they're infinitely vast pocket dimensions, cool. But how does that imply they can generate an infinite cardinal universes and things that are akin to fiction for them?


That's not my problem, my problem is everything. If by 'addressed' you mean ignoring to the totality of context that was laid later on, then sure.


I'm just gonna ignore you since I can't comprehend 99% of what you say most of the time.


Stuff that were never said in the verse but here we are.



none of these is related nor relevant to what I said ????.



Jesse, What the **** Are You Talking About.
His arguments are quite reasonable.
I disagree with op.

@DontTalkDT
 
I'm talking about you're bullshitting with this "pocket dimensions" bullshit.
I'm talking about the VPS, which is, in fact, pocket dimensions.
So you have literally presented nothing that refutes the block, in fact, and you have a nonsense by claiming that something that is in the novel does not exist, how do you decide which one makes sense in the context?
I can't refutes what I can't comprehend.

It pretty clearly is stated and implied. I guess when you don't have arguments you resort to "you're just wrong" without proper explanations. It's pretty clearly stated and explained.
I've already presented my reasoning. And, Ironically, your entire argument boils down to 'you're wrong' and 'already addressed' without doing much. Funny, innit.

Nah, it still makes sense. It talks about what they are, what they can do and what they will do. The context is pretty clearly explained by the author. There are many quotes about him stating the Computer Gods can create set theory - as shown in the blog.
1. At this point you're just twisting the context to fits your narrative

2. Already addressed that and we're going in a circle now.

3. Nothing in your blog post suggests that they can create set theory. In fact, the author explicitly, in his own English, says density in that statement, not cardinality. You can't cherry pick whichever meaning you prefer.


So, it's hard for you to comprehend the meaning being set theory structures being created? You do you I guess.
VPS is not a set theory structure, so yeah.


Already explained in the blog. If you need help that much, simply put, video games and stories have already been created in these spaces before. (V7 game and V6 book) so, they can have fictional stories created.
Again, its called that because it can be easily altered and essentially programmed to suit your preferences. That doesn't make it infinitely below you nor fictional. Not to mention that the DT's blog you cited itself disagrees with what you're saying.
I didn't. You just either 1. Don't understand 2. You're just being disingenuous. They can create set theory. They can create universes. Set Theory is computer generated world. All these simple things are clearly addressed
You did. If you didn't, why are you excluding the light and heavy nature shenanigans that are deeply related to 濃度 and how it relates to cardinality, thus making sense?

Yeah, they can create VPS, cool; nobody says otherwise. However, them being able to make Set Theory worlds or whatever is baseless, and the author didn't really say that either.

It was said, and pretty clearly
Show me some specific scans from the novels itself that explicitly and clearly show that? I'll be waiting. And don't just refer to the blog; provide the citation here.
Is it though, I never mentioned the dream stuff at all.

Anyway, I won't respond further, so if you want to save yourself some time, don't bother either. It's best to wait for input from the mods.
 
I'm talking about the VPS, which is, in fact, pocket dimensions.
They are, in fact, universes. If calling them pocket dimensions helps you feel better then sure go ahead I guess. Doesn't change the fact that what they create are stated to be universes in-verse and by the author.
I can't refutes what I can't comprehend.
It's really not that hard to understand him.
I've already presented my reasoning. And, Ironically, your entire argument boils down to 'you're wrong' and 'already addressed' without doing much. Funny, innit.
What's funny is you never pointing out how I'm wrong. I can't give in-deptg explanations when from the start you resort to "wrong because I said so"
1. At this point you're just twisting the context to fits your narrative
I'm not. Not only is the context provided by the author but the LN.
2. Already addressed that and we're going in a circle now.
Until you say something that's not "you're wrong" and give solid reasonings, going in circles will be what happens. It's up to you wether or not to keep going with "lmao wrong context. Wrong meaning."
3. Nothing in your blog post suggests that they can create set theory. In fact, the author explicitly, in his own English, says density in that statement, not cardinality. You can't cherry pick whichever meaning you prefer.
I didn't cherry pick. He quite clearly talks about about set theory. You can keep saying there are things there which aren't stated, but it's still not a valid argument. If you mean the part where the author mentioned infinite density, I also addressed it in the blog.
VPS is not a set theory structure, so yeah.
They are.
Again, its called that because it can be easily altered and essentially programmed to suit your preferences. That doesn't make it infinitely below you nor fictional. Not to mention that the DT's blog you cited itself disagrees with what you're saying.
Not really. You literally just admitted they can be programmed to preferences. Youre admitting they can be programmed to have fictional stories in them. And this still doesn't address rest of the quotes and evidence provided from the author about what they can do.
You did. If you didn't, why are you excluding the light and heavy nature shenanigans that are deeply related to 濃度 and how it relates to cardinality, thus making sense?
I didn't. When talking about set theory, it's referred to the computer gods. In fact, he even said (the author) that set theory has everything to do with Computer Gods.
Yeah, they can create VPS, cool; nobody says otherwise. However, them being able to make Set Theory worlds or whatever is baseless, and the author didn't really say that either.
It's not baseless. I already addressed this.
Show me some specific scans from the novels itself that explicitly and clearly show that? I'll be waiting. And don't just refer to the blog; provide the citation here.
Why should I cite things you should be able to read? Deadass either you're trolling, you skimmed the blog, or now you're lying.
Is it though, I never mentioned the dream stuff at all.
Yeah, it is relevant.
Anyway, I won't respond further, so if you want to save yourself some time, don't bother either. It's best to wait for input from the mods.
Alright, sure. Pretty much everyone realizes it's up to their vote. Btw, since you have a new roll, how far do your privileges extend when voting? I might have to bold your vote if it counts as staff.
 
There is either an ulterior motive to think that the context of a sentence that literally starts with the phrase "not infinity in a sequence of numbers" is not set theory, or the person who says it does not know what set theory is. I don't know what is more natural than a sentence starting with "not infinity in a string of numbers" ending with infinite cardinal infinity. I don't understand how it can make sense to you to choose a completely meaningless continuation such as "infinitely dense infinity" while talking about a mathematical infinity such as a string of numbers.
 
There is either an ulterior motive to think that the context of a sentence that literally starts with the phrase "not infinity in a sequence of numbers" is not set theory, or the person who says it does not know what set theory is. I don't know what is more natural than a sentence starting with "not infinity in a string of numbers" ending with infinite cardinal infinity. I don't understand how it can make sense to you to choose a completely meaningless continuation such as "infinitely dense infinity" while talking about a mathematical infinity such as a string of numbers.
Tbf, Nasuverse had a similar problem with this regarding " " representing absolute infinity in set theory but was never accepted because it wasn't explicitly mentioned in the verse bla bla. It makes no sense but it is what it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top