The Computer Gods upgrade (Ichiban Ushiro no Daimaou)

[StorytellingDemonKing]

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.

Nah, actually it backs up set theory. It's basically meant as "it's not just 1, 2, 3" but specifically about set theory and how infinite infinites can have infinites in them aka set theory. (Pretty poorly phrased on my part, probably, but hoping it makes sense just enough)

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

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.

Word?

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

Yeah No.

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Nah, actually it backs up set theory. It's basically meant as "it's not just 1, 2, 3" but specifically about set theory and how infinite infinites can have infinites in them aka

What in the Gods name does this even mean

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

What in the Gods name does this even mean

Basically, that the novel specifies it talks about set theory, rather than just plain numbers. That's why interpreting things as cardinality makes more sense rather than density.

 

[Tarang123]

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

That’s a weird way to interpret that tbh lol

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

That’s a weird way to interpret that tbh lol

Not really. It's pretty straight forward for the most part.

 

[Larssx]

Yeah No.

"No"?
Give me a reason
While the kanji used by the author can mean cardinality
In this volume, the author uses set theory
In fact, He used set theory directly for that scene (I guess Story telling sent this)
Why is not accepted about them?

 

[Tarang123]

Not really. It's pretty straight forward for the most part.

Do we have different definitions of straightforward?

 

[AKUTO123]

That’s a weird way to interpret that tbh lol

I've seen a lot of Japanese that start with infinity in a number sequence and explain larger infinities, I can link them all. First, they create a sequence of numbers, for example: :1,2,3... that goes to infinity. This Aleph is null. and then they start explaining the others and why it's bigger, I wondered what a weird interpretation.

 

[Tarang123]

"No"?
Give me a reason
While the kanji used by the author can mean cardinality
In this volume, the author uses set theory
In fact, He used set theory directly for that scene (I guess Story telling sent this)
Why is not accepted about them?

He also says that he made the work specifically with metaphysics in mind, not math, and that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Tel he author’s word is borderline unusable

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Gotta say that the volume of rapid-fire responses this thread is getting is starting to get bothersome. You all don't need to individually respond to whatever appears on the screen, especially if your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

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

Nah, actually it backs up set theory. It's basically meant as "it's not just 1, 2, 3" but specifically about set theory and how infinite infinites can have infinites in them aka set theory. (Pretty poorly phrased on my part, probably, but hoping it makes sense just enough)

The excerpt doesn't really say that. It mentions "a numerical sequence," and as I mentioned, sequences of numbers aren't inherently countable. If it said that it wasn't infinity in the sense of a countable number sequence, you'd certainly have a point, but then the statement isn't as specific as that, is it?

 

[Theoretical_Toxic19]

Basically, that the novel specifies it talks about set theory, rather than just plain numbers. That's why interpreting things as cardinality makes more sense rather than density.

Nooooooooooooooooopeeeee again D=Density
Infinity(D) ^infinity(D)
Density can make sense wdym, why do you think density doesn't make sense?

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Do we have different definitions of straightforward?

yours is pretty shit tbh

 

[Tarang123]

I've seen a lot of Japanese that start with infinity in a number sequence and explain larger infinities, I can link them all. First, they create a sequence of numbers, for example: :1,2,3... that goes to infinity. This Aleph is null. and then they start explaining the others and why it's bigger, I wondered what a weird interpretation.

It’s not saying it’s a bigger infinity

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Nooooooooooooooooopeeeee again D=Density
Infinity(D) ^infinity(D)
Density can make sense wdym, why do you think density doesn't make sense?

Because the author verbatim said its about set theory and the kanji used is meant as cardinality. You're just stonewalling at this point tbh.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

Gotta say that the volume of rapid-fire responses this thread is getting is starting to get bothersome. You all don't need to individually respond to whatever appears on the screen, especially if your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Should be made in a staff-only thread if that's the case. I mean this already has 3 pages lol

The excerpt doesn't really say that. It mentions "a numerical sequence," and as I mentioned, sequences of numbers aren't inherently countable. If it said that it wasn't infinity in the sense of a countable number sequence, you'd certainly have a point, but then the statement isn't as specific as that, is it?

Ngl this part is probably out of my depth. I stop at "it says infinite cardinals" so it's just infinite cardinals. Don't see what's needed more.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

He also says that he made the work specifically with metaphysics in mind, not math, and that he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Tel he author’s word is borderline unusable

Doesn't mean he didn't include set theory -he clearly did lmao now you're just saying a story can't have metaphysics if it has set theory and vice versa

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Should be made in a staff-only thread if that's the case. I mean this already has 3 pages lol

If you want this thread to be closed so that it can be remade, I'm fine with that. It's a shitshow as is.

 

[Tarang123]

Doesn't mean he didn't include set theory -he clearly did lmao now you're just saying a story can't have metaphysics if it has set theory and vice versa

He literally says “I am not familiar with set theory. Sorry. Metaphysics is the foundation upon which the worldview of the novel is built”

 

[AKUTO123]

Gotta say that the volume of rapid-fire responses this thread is getting is starting to get bothersome. You all don't need to individually respond to whatever appears on the screen, especially if your post adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.



The excerpt doesn't really say that. It mentions "a numerical sequence," and as I mentioned, sequences of numbers aren't inherently countable. If it said that it wasn't infinity in the sense of a countable number sequence, you'd certainly have a point, but then the statement isn't as specific as that, is it?

It does not say that "a number sequence is not infinite", it already says that the infinity mentioned is not infinite in a number sequence. Sorry if I misunderstood, but the author is not saying that sequences of numbers are finite.

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

If you want this thread to be closed so that it can be remade, I'm fine with that. It's a shitshow as is.

Actually, I asked ant. Though, can I close this with your permission and remake it in staff discussion?

 

[StorytellingDemonKing]

He literally says “I am not familiar with set theory. Sorry. Metaphysics is the foundation upon which the worldview of the novel is built”

Yeah, not familiar doesnt mean he completely doesn't understand it when it's mentioned it's not a simple numerical sequence, and that the story mentions cardinality. Being foundation doesn't mean everything is metaphysical or you're contradicting other parts of the story.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Actually, I asked ant. Though, can I close this with your permission and remake it in staff discussion?

I can close it myself. You've permission to remake it in the staff discussion board now, yes.