The Computer Gods upgrade (Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou)

[StorytellingDemonKing]

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"

Completely not relevant and also not an example that fits.

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.

Some people are more knowleadgable on certain topics, yes.

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

As he should be, yeah.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

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.

Might add that what Executor said basically boiled down to "It can mean that, but isn't necessarily it. You need context to ascertain that it does mean cardinality." And the screenshot with the other translator was literally just them saying "If this is what the term means, then the translation changes to this." Ergo, their translation presupposes that the term used is indeed "cardinality."

So, I don't think the words of translators mean much here, no. And neither does mine, of course. I don't know the verse and am speaking pretty much entirely in terms of "If X, then Y."

As a matter of the fact one thing that baffles me a bit here is claims like this one:

The author's words are not what gives the rating, it is the context in the novel that gives the rating, and the author's words are used to have an idea of where to hit the translation of the context in question. Even without the author's words, what is already written in the novel already gives us this rating.

Which are pretty objectively untrue. The argument is about an ambiguous piece of text, and whether or not it refers to infinite cardinals depends entirely on the author's tweets. We should at least be honest about what we're proposing here, lol.

 

[The_Emperor4th]

Is there any other feats that explain about this "set theory" stuff in the verse in more detail apart from what is shown on the blog?

I’m talking about the novel itself, not the WOG or the Translation stuff.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Might add that what Executor said basically boiled down to "It can mean that, but isn't necessarily it. You need context to ascertain that it does mean cardinality." And the screenshot with the other translator was literally just them saying "If this is what the term means, then the translation changes to this." Ergo, their translation presupposes that the term used is indeed "cardinality."

So, I don't think the words of translators mean much here, no. And neither does mine, of course. I don't know the verse and am speaking pretty much entirely in terms of "If X, then Y."

I mean, it does mean that in math, Executor even explained it's meaning and how it cardinality when talking about math. In general, most things revolving around the computer Gods are about set theory and cardinality.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Is there any other feats that explain about this "set theory" stuff in the verse in more detail apart from what is shown on the blog?

I’m talking about the novel itself, not the WOG or the Translation stuff.

Only the Boichiro dialogue explaining their nature, the universes they create what they can do and what they want to do. It boils down to this and WoG clarification

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

I really feel like I'm explaining 2+2 = 4 right now.

That's different tho? Axioms from first order and second order logic suffice the fact that 2+2=4? S(0)=1 and The natural number successor of 2 is 3 and of 3 is 4. So obviously if you use operator of addition on 2-2 it deductively implies 4. The difference between this is that 2+2=4 is a deductively valid argument sufficed by axioms.

What you're using now isn't a deductive valid argument its a seductively invalid argument, the author wrote density it can be translated as cardinal. That however doesn't mean it is we know at that specific point in time when the author wrote the novel, HE DIDN'T KNOW SET THEORY. So he couldn't have written about what he didn't know so. Hence in that specific time frame t the authors intent wasn't SET THEORY AT ALL. That however changed ppst-writing the novel.

This is the problem with using the Twitter statements in this instance. The author can arbitrarily change his intent any time he wants. This is a perfect example of it.

Aren't wog not accepted if they don't correspond to the source material? Infinite(density)^infinite(density) is not a reference to set theory. Hence it's not consistency to what the author said as such adding on the internal contradictions of the change in intent the Twitter statements shouldn't be used at all because they don't correspond to the actual source material.

 

[Darksmash]

The author: I don't understand set theory and my novel isn't based on maths
The fans:

In general, most things revolving around the computer Gods are about set theory and cardinality.

 

[AKUTO123]

Might add that what Executor said basically boiled down to "It can mean that, but isn't necessarily it. You need context to ascertain that it does mean cardinality." And the screenshot with the other translator was literally just them saying "If this is what the term means, then the translation changes to this." Ergo, their translation presupposes that the term used is indeed "cardinality."

So, I don't think the words of translators mean much here, no. And neither does mine, of course. I don't know the verse and am speaking pretty much entirely in terms of "If X, then Y."

As a matter of the fact one thing that baffles me a bit here is claims like this one:



Which are pretty objectively untrue. The argument is about an ambiguous piece of text, and whether or not it refers to infinite cardinals depends entirely on the author's tweets. We should at least be honest about what we're proposing here, lol.

When the translation proposes 2 things, the author's saying set theory as infinite cardinals and infinite dense infinite which is more logical supports us seriously, but without this expression in the novel, the author's saying only set theory will certainly give us nothing. The author's words such as "the part using set theory" or "I wrote it thinking that set theory is infinite" help us to turn to which of the 2 possible translations. but also mentioning that what he is talking about "is not an infinity in a number sequence, the translation gives us the right context for the cardinals anyway. cardinal infinity "give me a pretty good rating.

 

[Barbar01]

this crt needs to be opened in the Staff Discussion section

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Also, just to add on, people who say this part (about cardinality) doesn't talk about set theory... it clearly does:

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

this crt needs to be opened in the Staff Discussion section

I didn't want to, but looks like I have no choice. Will ask this to be closed and create a new one in staff discussion.

 

[Darksmash]

Also, just to add on, people who say this part (about cardinality) doesn't talk about set theory... it clearly does:

??
The pic you posted is unrelated to what you said. Unless the japanese is what proves your point, in which case provide translations from a credible source.

Edit: oh

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

??
The pic you posted is unrelated to what you said. Unless the japanese is what proves your point, in which case provide translations from a credible source.

It's related and there are 2 pics. I updated it. It's about set theory and any other interpretation is cope tbh.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

This entire mathematical shit came post writing, the novel being influenced by metaphysics makes more sense than mathematics.

Considering the notion of "all possible worlds/stories" stems from logic and metaphysics.

 

[Akashachann]

You are keep saying the same thing like a parrot. Everyone has had their say. Just wait for the staff input

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

This entire mathematical shit came post writing, the novel being influenced by metaphysics makes more sense than mathematics.

Considering the notion of "all possible worlds/stories" stems from logic and metaphysics.

Post writing is complete head-canon on your part. How can it be post writing when it talks about cardinality in the original text? This seems like massive cope tbh.

 

[Fixxed]

Bruhh.. i just think this is some stuff that make up by our member (or some people that know tiering system)

I mean who will ask the author the very battleboarding question like that

And i think it like really push the author to answer the question the way like they want, even if the author himself say he doesnt understand about set theory

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

It's related and there are 2 pics. I updated it. It's about set theory and any other interpretation is cope tbh.

LOL, well this isn't going anywhere I've had my take on this I'm off

Post writing is complete head-canon on your part. How can it be post writing when it talks about cardinality in the original text? This seems like massive cope tbh.

Already said this beforehand and even Ultima said it "it can refer to cardinal" not it does and I said it doesn't make sense for it to refer to cardinals when at that specific time the author didn't know about set theory at all.

But k, ima text with some bitches I've had my say peace.

 

[Tarang123]

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.

Ultima doesn’t even agree with that tho, and Executor only said it could possibly be that

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Bruhh.. i just think this is some stuff that make up by our member (or some people that know tiering system)

I mean who will ask the author the very battleboarding question like that

And i think it like really push the author to answer the question the way like they want, even if the author himself say he doesnt understand about set theory

It's from someone (the questions) who is interested in the cosmology of the verse and to understand it better. The author even follows the Siperri dude and has solid answers for him.

 

[Darksmash]

to understand it better.

Suuuuuuuuuure.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

LOL, well this isn't going anywhere I've had my take on this I'm off

I'd also do that if I had no arguments besides saying the author didn't write what he write.

Already said this beforehand and even Ultima said it "it can refer to cardinal" not it does and I said it doesn't make sense for it to refer to cardinals when at that specific time the author didn't know about set theory at all.

But k, ima text with some bitches I've had my say peace.

It does make sense and it's very clearly stated. At this point I'm questioning your comprehension ability when the author states its about set theory, cardinality and how its applied with in-verse backing.

 

[DontTalkDT]

I guess one of the first things to decide is to which degree we wish to consider the twitter stuff. Hope some staff members are willing to weigh in on that.

It is inevitably important at multiple points IMO.

That starts with the translation.
Then whether or not infinitely many cardinals or infinite cardinals are meant.
Then whether the gods thinking about it relates to their creations in some way.
And perhaps even whether the "all possible stories" logic can in some way be applied to the cardinal statement otherwise.

I think many of those points would be rather difficult to push if we decide to not put weigh into the twitter stuff. (and if we do one still has to debate them)

 

[Fixxed]

It's from someone (the questions) who is interested in the cosmology of the verse and to understand it better. The author even follows the Siperri dude and has solid answers for him.

Hmhmhmh... welll... huh.....

 

[Tarang123]

When the translation proposes 2 things, the author's saying set theory as infinite cardinals and infinite dense infinite which is more logical supports us seriously, but without this expression in the novel, the author's saying only set theory will certainly give us nothing. The author's words such as "the part using set theory" or "I wrote it thinking that set theory is infinite" help us to turn to which of the 2 possible translations. but also mentioning that what he is talking about "is not an infinity in a number sequence, the translation gives us the right context for the cardinals anyway. cardinal infinity "give me a pretty good rating.

If he says that then we have to take in all other factors. Is it consistent with the verse’s context? Maybe. Is it consistent with his own words? No lmao

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Suuuuuuuuuure.

I mean yeah, the author even follow

I guess one of the first things to decide is to which degree we wish to consider the twitter stuff. Hope some staff members are willing to weigh in on that.

It is inevitably important at multiple points IMO.

That starts with the translation.
Then whether or not infinitely many cardinals or infinite cardinals are meant.
Then whether the gods thinking about it relates to their creations in some way.
And perhaps even whether the "all possible stories" logic can in some way be applied to the cardinal statement otherwise.

I think many of those points would be rather difficult to push if we decide to not put weigh into the twitter stuff. (and if we do one still has to debate them)

I think this thread should just be made into staff-only at this point.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

If he says that then we have to take in all other factors. Is it consistent with the verse’s context? Maybe. Is it consistent with his own words? No lmao

It literally is. These questions are useless you got here.

 

[Tarang123]

It literally is. These questions are useless you got here.

Man’s also said that math isn’t what he based the story off of. He based it on metaphysics, which has nothing to do with set theory to my knowledge

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Man’s also said that math isn’t what he based the story off of. He based it on metaphysics, which has nothing to do with set theory to my knowledge

Just because he based the story on metaphysics doesn't mean it can't have mathematical side to it - which it does.

 

[AKUTO123]

If he says that then we have to take in all other factors. Is it consistent with the verse’s context? Maybe. Is it consistent with his own words? No lmao

What is the inconsistent thing in volume 5, there is no inconsistent comment if there is no comment that says I did not use set theory, there are literally 2 comments about the event in this volume 5, both of which support each other. Please don't say sentences like "the author gave a contradictory response when talking about volume 13".

 

[Tarang123]

Just because he based the story on metaphysics doesn't mean it can't have mathematical side to it - which it does.

Bruh what? He’s literally saying the entire work is based on metaphysics not math.

 

[Tarang123]

What is the inconsistent thing in volume 5, there is no inconsistent comment if there is no comment that says I did not use set theory, there are literally 2 comments about the event in this volume 5, both of which support each other. Please don't say sentences like "the author gave a contradictory response when talking about volume 13".

First of all, be concise. Unless you want to win this argument solely by typing impossible to understand jargon, put your points concisely. I can barely understand what you’re trying to communicate here

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Bruh what? He’s literally saying the entire work is based on metaphysics not math.

He never said the entire work is based on it. Sure, the foundations are metaphysical with him answering metaphysical questions in the novel - still doesn't change the fact that he included set theory in it.

 

[AKUTO123]

Man’s also said that math isn’t what he based the story off of. He based it on metaphysics, which has nothing to do with set theory to my knowledge

also the author says afterlife metaphysics pre-afterlife PC gods math literally

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

First of all, be concise. Unless you want to win this argument solely by typing impossible to understand jargon, put your points concisely. I can barely understand what you’re trying to communicate here

It's actually pretty easy to understand him. So let's not ignore valid arguments.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

When the translation proposes 2 things, the author's saying set theory as infinite cardinals and infinite dense infinite which is more logical supports us seriously, but without this expression in the novel, the author's saying only set theory will certainly give us nothing. The author's words such as "the part using set theory" or "I wrote it thinking that set theory is infinite" help us to turn to which of the 2 possible translations. but also mentioning that what he is talking about "is not an infinity in a number sequence, the translation gives us the right context for the cardinals anyway. cardinal infinity "give me a pretty good rating.

I understood almost nothing of this post, but with regards to the bolded part: That tidbit of the statement doesn't exactly help you, no. In fact, all it does is make the statement pretty bizarre if you interpret it as talking about cardinality, since the text treats "Infinity in the sense of a numerical sequence" and "Infinitely-dense infinities" as being different, mutually exclusive things, which isn't exactly the case in set theory, mind you. Sequences of numbers are usually thought of as indexed by the naturals or the reals, but it makes sense to talk about a sequence of arbitrarily large cardinality. All you really need is an order relation.

 

[Larssx]

Damn too many messages
Make this a staff revision only

I guess one of the first things to decide is to which degree we wish to consider the twitter stuff. Hope some staff members are willing to weigh in on that.

It is inevitably important at multiple points IMO.

That starts with the translation.
Then whether or not infinitely many cardinals or infinite cardinals are meant.
Then whether the gods thinking about it relates to their creations in some way.
And perhaps even whether the "all possible stories" logic can in some way be applied to the cardinal statement otherwise.

I think many of those points would be rather difficult to push if we decide to not put weigh into the twitter stuff. (and if we do one still has to debate them)

Anyway, in this part, twitter thing should be accepted.
The reason is that this is already supported in the series and approved by the author.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

I understood almost nothing of this post, but with regards to the bolded part: That tidbit of the statement doesn't exactly help you, no. In fact, all it does is make the statement pretty bizarre if you interpret it as talking about cardinality, since the text treats "Infinity in the sense of a numerical sequence" and "Infinitely-dense infinities" as being different, mutually exclusive things, which isn't exactly the case in set theory, mind you. Sequences of numbers are usually thought of as indexed by the naturals or the reals, but it makes sense to talk about a sequence of arbitrarily large cardinality. All you really need is an order relation.

Not exactly. It more so backs up it being about cardinality. "It's not about infinity in a numerical sense" (paraphrasing) indicates it's about set theory. In fact, interpreting it as density makes even less sense than set theory.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

I guess one of the first things to decide is to which degree we wish to consider the twitter stuff. Hope some staff members are willing to weigh in on that.

I'm neutral on whether or not to put any weight into the Twitter stuff, but I'll say that it's one of those things where, the more I look at them, the worse they look, given the "This is not infinity in the sense of a numerical sequence" bit.

 

[AKUTO123]

I understood almost nothing of this post, but with regards to the bolded part: That tidbit of the statement doesn't exactly help you, no. In fact, all it does is make the statement pretty bizarre if you interpret it as talking about cardinality, since the text treats "Infinity in the sense of a numerical sequence" and "Infinitely-dense infinities" as being different, mutually exclusive things, which isn't exactly the case in set theory, mind you. Sequences of numbers are usually thought of as indexed by the naturals or the reals, but it makes sense to talk about a sequence of arbitrarily large cardinality. All you really need is an order relation.

What I'm trying to say is the infinity in a number sequence, this is Aleph null as the most basic infinity. but the author states that this is not such a simple infinity and that it is the infinity of infinite cardinals. What is the mistake on about seth teory in here