The Computer Gods upgrade (Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou)

[StorytellingDemonKing]

And thus, they can contemplate infinity. I don’t mean infinity in the numerical sense — they can contemplate infinitely dense infinities.

No infinite cardinals, that's inferred from author statements. Which is what's in question, I said using Twitter statements like that is unreliable because the author can switch his intent in different time frames arbitrarily.

It's bad enough yall try to infer set theory terms being equivocal to what he was intending to say even tho he says he didn't know what set theory was.

Then says he meant to use it in a set theoric sense.

No.

All of this is literally addressed in the blog. We literally had 2 translators confirm it can be cardinality. And the author literally says this part is about set theory. You cannot get more blatant then that.

Ah yes the passage of the story that mentions some infinity buzzwords and then immediately starts talking about time travel fuckery as if it's directly a conclusion derived from the former. I too remember the part of set theory which linked cardinals with time travel and last thursdayism.

It's not just random buzzwords when the translation confirms it's about set theory. And also the author backs up the interpretation. This is a non-argument. This only works if you assume time travel ties into set theory which it doesn't. I even specify how the universes they create are not just regular ones as stated by Boichiro. (And the author)

 

[AKUTO123]

Confirmed what? The author writing something he didn't know? Interesting.

I've seen enough here that the approved translation is criticized by people who don't know Japanese at all, and the absurdity of the comments as if the novel and the author are saying the same thing, as if we were using the words of the author who did not write in the novel. you are arguing. The author's words, which do not contradict and are consistent in the series, are accepted as the site, show a place where the author's words contradict the author in the novel, I will not write anything more on this crt

 

[Darksmash]

It's not just random buzzwords when the translation confirms it's about set theory. And also the author backs up the interpretation. This is a non-argument. This only works if you assume time travel ties into set theory which it doesn't. I even specify how the universes they create are not just regular ones as stated by Boichiro. (And the author)

That's not what we were talking about. You said the set theory thing is supported by the story, which is an absolutely false claim backed by nothing. Without the author's random twitter answers to loaded questions they are very much just complete buzzwords unsupported by the text before and after.

 

[Theoretical]

All of this is literally addressed in the blog. We literally had 2 translators confirm it can be cardinality. And the author literally says this part is about set theory. You cannot get more blatant then that.

Probably is I do not care for the translators at all? The author said he doesn't know what set theory was yet you're enforcing the idea that he wrote about set theory even tho at the specific time he was writing about it he didn't even know it?

I don't understand how it's not hard to see that this is a prime example of an author arbitrarily changing the intent behind his writing even when he says he meant to say set theory and the translators show that it refers to set theoric notions.

It wouldn't make sense for him to actually write about that, when he verbatim said he didn't know about it post-writing the novel.

 

[Tarang123]

It literally does give evidence. We even specifically got 2 translators to confirm that the novel mentions cardinality.

Yeah, and they said it CAN be like that. The question is whether it makes sense to translate it like that and it doesn’t at all. Using author statements from a guy who admits to being clueless about the subject is just such a strange approach

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Confirmed what? The author writing something he didn't know? Interesting.

He knows set theory exist and he still got it right. Better that he admits his knowledge in the matter is limited while getting the right answer which can be used here, rather than pretending to know something and be completely wrong on his explanation.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Ultima disagrees with some things or am I reading his post wrong?
Why is he in agree?

 

[Tarang123]

The issue is that without this Twitter shit, this upgrade would not have happened, meaning you can’t just say it works without it because it factually doesn’t. You cannot get that kind of interpretation from the work and call it set theory without that author statement. Don’t mask it as if the situation is anything else

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Ultima disagrees with some things or am I reading his post wrong?
Why is he in agree?

Because what he disagrees with is already accepted.

 

[Darksmash]

The author literally says his novel is not based on mathematics but metaphysics how tf are you pretending it's cardinality

 

[Tarang123]

He knows set theory exist and he still got it right. Better that he admits his knowledge in the matter is limited while getting the right answer which can be used here, rather than pretending to know something and be completely wrong on his explanation.

He doesn’t tho. He knows it’s a thing but he knows nothing about it so his word is the equivalent of asking some clueless guy about what happened in a movie. They might come up with something accurate but they know nothing about it for me to take it even remotely serious

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Probably is I do not care for the translators at all? The author said he doesn't know what set theory was yet you're enforcing the idea that he wrote about set theory even tho at the specific time he was writing about it he didn't even know it?

He said he's not knowleadgable in it. What matters is that he still wrote it correctly and the translation confirm so. His intent entire is correct and nothing wrong with what he wrote.

I don't understand how it's not hard to see that this is a prime example of an author arbitrarily changing the intent behind his writing even when he says he meant to say set theory and the translators show that it refers to set theoric notions.

This isn't even an argument. You're just now blatantly saying he didn't write about set theory, when he did. He just doesn't have complete understanding of it.

It wouldn't make sense for him to actually write about that, when he verbatim said he didn't know about it post-writing the novel.

And yet he still did and it's correctly written. You straight up don't have an argument. You're literally saying "lmao nah the author didn't wrote what in the novel". I'm just going to ignore you since this feels like a troll

 

[AKUTO123]

When the author sees set theory, he is not a man who does not know enough about set theory to write like "What is he eating?" He says that his knowledge of set theory is not super, but this does not mean that he completely understands set theory. which would be a quote that does not contradict the set theory they wrote in the novel and talks about cardinals greater than aleph null, in this case I will directly skip comments like "But the author doesn't know set theory," because it's not what the author knows, but what exactly is written in the novel and how it should be scaled. the one which.

 

[Theoretical]

I've seen enough here that the approved translation is criticized by people who don't know Japanese at all, and the absurdity of the comments as if the novel and the author are saying the same thing, as if we were using the words of the author who did not write in the novel. you are arguing. The author's words, which do not contradict and are consistent in the series, are accepted as the site, show a place where the author's words contradict the author in the novel, I will not write anything more on this crt

Nobody is criticizing the translation, the translations by other translators just doesn't matter lmao. That's the point.

The authors words are consistent? Depends on what's your criteria for consistency. Because for sure as hell allegedly writing about something yet post writing about it you say you didn't know about it doesn't seem like consistency, the density can be translated to cardinality does that change anything? I'm leaning towards it being density rather than cardinality because of the authors intent at that specific time frame not corresponding to the authors intent in another time frame.

We know this because the author just didn't know what this notion you're enforcing him to have written about when he was writing about the novel.

All of this stuff just comes way post him writing about and that's people negging him about clarifications for the novel.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

The author literally says his novel is not based on mathematics but metaphysics how tf are you pretending it's cardinality

Later half of the series is based on metaphysics. The Computer Gods are based on set theory and math. Dunno how such simple things are hard to understand tbh.

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

My take on it is that the author is essentially just saying "Believe what you want to believe" and the fact that a lot of stuff comes from loaded questions on twitter also definitely doesn't help this thread.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

My take on it is that the author is essentially just saying "Believe what you want to believe" and the fact that a lot of stuff comes from loaded questions on twitter also definitely doesn't help this thread.

My take on the whole counter arguments is "lmao the author didn't actually write what is written, even though he confirms the meaning several times, and every time the answer is consistent"

 

[Tarang123]

When the author sees set theory, he is not a man who does not know enough about set theory to write like "What is he eating?" He says that his knowledge of set theory is not super, but this does not mean that he completely understands set theory. which would be a quote that does not contradict the set theory they wrote in the novel and talks about cardinals greater than aleph null, in this case I will directly skip comments like "But the author doesn't know set theory," because it's not what the author knows, but what exactly is written in the novel and how it should be scaled. the one which.

He literally asked them to forgive him if it was completely wrong. He clearly doesn’t know a thing about it beyond the most basic stuff. If we’re trying to use author intent you have to use all of it and once you do this argument just falls apart. The novel doesn’t even suggest this very well anyway. Executor said it CAN be translated like that, not that it is the correct one. Context is absolutely necessary and anyone saying otherwise is the definition of a clown

 

[Tarang123]

My take on the whole counter arguments is "lmao the author didn't actually write what is written, even though he confirms the meaning several times, and every time the answer is consistent"

It’s not written

 

[Theoretical]

He said he's not knowleadgable in it. What matters is that he still wrote it correctly and the translation confirm so. His intent entire is correct and nothing wrong with what he wrote.

There's clear semantical distinction between what he said and what you're implying he said. This is just an attempt to make his word favor your interpretation.

He didn't say he is not knowleadgable he outright said he isn't familiar with it. That's synonymous with I don't ******* know it. Lmao

He just doesn't have complete understanding of it.

He doesn't know it at all.

And yet he still did and it's correctly written

Correctly written in what sense? You think infinite recursions of infinite densities necessarily correlates to set theory?

I'm just going to ignore you since this feels like a troll

The way in which the idea that doesn't exist Inverse is enforced to exist by fans? Yes. It's troll I agree with you.

He says that his knowledge of set theory is not super

I'm sorry sir but saying you're not familiar with something isn't you're not super knowledgeable on it. It typically means you don't know it.

Lol

When you're familiar with something you can know of something but not be that knowledgeable on it. Not familiar is quite literally the negation to the affirmation of "familiar". He just doesn't know it lol.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

He literally asked them to forgive him if it was completely wrong. He clearly doesn’t know a thing about it beyond the most basic stuff.

And the basic stuff is correct, and aligns with how we tier things. Infinite cardinals are stated. They are confirmed to be structures. And the answer to the computer gods set theory creation is always consistent.

If we’re trying to use author intent you have to use all of it and once you do this argument just falls apart. The novel doesn’t even suggest this very well anyway. Executor said it CAN be translated like that, not that it is the correct one. Context is absolutely necessary and anyone saying otherwise is the definition of a clown

The intent is shoved down our throats and you're denying it. At this point you don't have a single valid argument left.

 

[Darksmash]

Later half of the series is based on metaphysics. The Computer Gods are based on set theory and math. Dunno how such simple things are hard to understand tbh.

Except the author talks about the whole novel.

 

[AKUTO123]

He literally asked them to forgive him if it was completely wrong. He clearly doesn’t know a thing about it beyond the most basic stuff. If we’re trying to use author intent you have to use all of it and once you do this argument just falls apart. The novel doesn’t even suggest this very well anyway. Executor said it CAN be translated like that, not that it is the correct one. Context is absolutely necessary and anyone saying otherwise is the definition of a clown

What does it mean to you to say infinite cardinal infinity rather than infinity in a number sequence? mentioning that there is no infinity in a number sequence already gives us the signal about set theory, and then he says the infinity of infinite cardinals, don't you think the context here is sufficient and logical? Anyone who says this context is infinitely dense, infinitely more logical is trying to be a clown in my eyes, but anyway, I'll just wait for mods and admins to comment.

 

[Tarang123]

And the basic stuff is correct, and aligns with how we tier things. Infinite cardinals are stated. They are confirmed to be structures. And the answer to the computer gods set theory creation is always consistent.

The intent is shoved down our throats and you're denying it. At this point you don't have a single valid argument left.

It doesn’t say infinite cardinals. Again, context is key and I don’t think the context fits.

The intent doesn’t work if the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Besides who knows what the intent was when he first wrote it? We can’t know so we don’t use questionable evidence and instead solely focus on the work itself. The work is not nearly solid enough to say that it’s a good depiction of set theory.

TLDR; No

 

[Theoretical]

He knows set theory exist and he still got it right.

OH Ye if somebody asked me about set theory and I checked and I AM TOTALLY OBLIVIOUS TO FORMAL LANGUAGES I'D KNOW IT EXISTS BUT I'LL RESPOND WITH SORRY DON'T ASK ME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS I DON'T GET IT AT ALL.

Later half of the series is based on metaphysics

Idk if it's like metaphysics as in how fiction arbitrarily uses metaphysics or actual metaphysics

Infinite cardinals are stated

Reiteration of what has already been addressed.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

There's clear semantical distinction between what he said and what you're implying he said. This is just an attempt to make his word favor your interpretation.

He said the intent is set theory. He said it's when talking about The Computer Gods. He said he confused Density and cardinality, even though it's pretty cardinality is meant to be used.

You don't have an argument. The text and the author goes against you.

He didn't say he is not knowleadgable he outright said he isn't familiar with it. That's synonymous with I don't ******* know it. Lmao

Nah, he has the basic understanding or else he wouldn't even write cardinality.

He doesn't know it at all.

Has enough knowledge as proven.

Correctly written in what sense? You think infinite recursions of infinite densities necessarily correlates to set theory?

It's literally cardinality. It's an objective fact the author wrote about set theory here. You're just stonewalling with 0 arguments.

The way in which the idea that doesn't exist Inverse is enforced to exist by fans? Yes. It's troll I agree with you.

It's not forced. He himself said it's set theory. We didn't go "oh wow here he said Computer Gods create big number. Must be cardinality!"

He outright says it'd about set theory and cardinality.

I'm sorry sir but saying you're not familiar with something isn't you're not super knowledgeable on it. It typically means you don't know it.

Nah, not being familiar to a masters degree doesn't mean he gets things wrong.

 

[Tarang123]

What does it mean to you to say infinite cardinal infinity rather than infinity in a number sequence? mentioning that there is no infinity in a number sequence already gives us the signal about set theory, and then he says the infinity of infinite cardinals, don't you think the context here is sufficient and logical? Anyone who says this context is infinitely dense, infinitely more logical is trying to be a clown in my eyes, but anyway, I'll just wait for mods and admins to comment.

It doesn’t say infinite cardinal infinity or whatever. It can say that. Everything Executor said is that it could be translated like that. It is context driven though.

No I don’t because when you’re making an upgrade this extreme you need explicit evidence. This is not explicit evidence. Hell, calling it evidence would be doing you a favor lol

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

It doesn’t say infinite cardinals. Again, context is key and I don’t think the context fits.

The intent doesn’t work if the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Besides who knows what the intent was when he first wrote it? We can’t know so we don’t use questionable evidence and instead solely focus on the work itself. The work is not nearly solid enough to say that it’s a good depiction of set theory.

TLDR; No

Context and WoG goes against you. You don't have an argument left. It's not questionable when he clearly talks about set theory and it's clearly written.

 

[Tarang123]

He said the intent is set theory. He said it's when talking about The Computer Gods. He said he confused Density and cardinality, even though it's pretty cardinality is meant to be used.

You don't have an argument. The text and the author goes against you.

Nah, he has the basic understanding or else he wouldn't even write cardinality.

Has enough knowledge as proven.

It's literally cardinality. It's an objective fact the author wrote about set theory here. You're just stonewalling with 0 arguments.

It's not forced. He himself said it's set theory. We didn't go "oh wow here he said Computer Gods create big number. Must be cardinality!"

He outright says it'd about set theory and cardinality.

Nah, not being familiar to a masters degree doesn't mean he gets things wrong.

Nobody said anything about a master’s degree. He thought he might have gotten everything wrong. Braindead argument

 

[BestMGQScalerEver]

Context and WoG goes against you. You don't have an argument left. It's not questionable when he clearly talks about set theory and it's clearly written.

Seems like it's not so clearly written after all. Context also seems to be against YOU with how density has been used throughout the story.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Except the author talks about the whole novel.

Just because it's based on metaphysics doesn't mean it can't have set theory and mathematical side to it. It pretty clearly does.

 

[Theoretical]

there is no infinity in a number sequence already gives us the signal about set theory

Suppose we have density and density is just infinite
If we have some context on something being referred to as density^density.

I for one wouldn't take that as an immediate indication of set theory. It just show case a sense of difference in ontological magnitude.

 

[Theoretical]

It pretty clearly does.

Pretty clearly is a huge stretch.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Nobody said anything about a master’s degree. He thought he might have gotten everything wrong. Braindead argument

"Might have" he didn't when the translations confirmed its about cardinality + your own argument is genuinely brain dead when you think he accidentally forgot he wrote about cardinality in the novel even though he distinguished the very meaning of the kanji used lmao

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Suppose we have density and density is just infinite
If we have some context on something being referred to as density^density.

I for one wouldn't take that as an immediate indication of set theory. It just show case a sense of difference in ontological magnitude.

It's cardinality. Now you're just denying reality and what's literally written by the author and the original text.

 

[Georredannea15]

It doesn’t say infinite cardinals. Again, context is key and I don’t think the context fits.

The intent doesn’t work if the author doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Besides who knows what the intent was when he first wrote it? We can’t know so we don’t use questionable evidence and instead solely focus on the work itself. The work is not nearly solid enough to say that it’s a good depiction of set theory.

TLDR; No

You may think that the context is not appropriate, but the context used by the author is appropriate. Also, this sendox was translated by Executor and this context is accepted by Executor and Ultima.

 

[Theoretical]

Context and WoG goes against you

Brother wog quite literally doesn't matter rn.

 

[AKUTO123]

I really feel like I'm explaining 2+2 = 4 right now. Now we have a text that can be translated as infinite cardinals, the author says I used set theory and you completely deviate the subject and draw it to other things. The thing written in the novel is translated as a 1A+ structure. you say that the author did not know set theory, it is written there, the author's whole article is written now. Seriously, you're making too much of a point here and you're wasting the discussion for nothing.

 

[Theoretical]

but the context used by the author is appropriate

No its not, shit if I wrote Goku is 1,5 dimensional and that notion carries till the end of the novel and I write no he was actually 3D post novel writing which is a clear distinction between my intent when I wrote it and post writing does that mean.

"WoG is just appropriate"

Executor and Ultima.

And? Oh nvm I forgot this site does endorse the idea that someone with a greater influence is rigit regardless of the context or not.

That is actually why akuto has been high 1-A for this long in this wiki.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Brother wog quite literally doesn't matter rn.

It does. It quite clearly does indeed. You're trying to brush it off because the author in combination of what's written in Japanese goes against every opposition you might have.