- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #41
Would go to High 1-B+
-
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.
The Dread Tiering System Revisions
- Thread starter Ultima_Reality
- Start date
- 11,963
- 18,910
Like I said, I’m very much fine with Option 1I would greatly appreciate if other staff members are willing to consider accepting option 1 please, as it would cause much less drastic changes in the areas where they are not actually necessary.
- 10,530
- 11,671
I'm ok with option 1 as well, I suppose.
- 30,349
- 32,135
I don't mind switching to vote for option 1 as that was my close 2nd choice.
- 19,452
- 10,082
so to double check, what exactly would Low 1-A be in Option 2 or 3, or is that tier gonna be nuked if we choose either of those two options?
- 11,963
- 18,910
Getting nuked methinks
- 165,635
- 73,316
Thank you very much for your support.
- 165,635
- 73,316
My apologies for if I am saying something stupid, but would it be possible to use a combined solution of Low 1-C to High 1-B remaining the same, as in option 1, but also using High 1-B+ = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions; Low 1-A = Spaces corresponding to inaccessible cardinals and up; and Low 1-A+ = Sum total of all ordinary quantitative structures in mathematics. The Universe of Sets; or something similar for the sake of greater distinction, or am I just being mathematically illiterate here?
- 15,038
- 12,769
In terms of the options, I don't care. The differences between them are all marginal. Options 2/3 are marginally better functionally (mainly owing to the 5-D split), and Option 1 is marginally easier in terms of application (only marginally since, regardless of our choice, we would NEED to re-evaluate every tier 1 series).
I'll have a look at the page rewrites when I have more time.
I'll have a look at the page rewrites when I have more time.
Last edited:
- 165,635
- 73,316
We can also combine these solutions, if Ultima and the rest of our bureaucrats and administrators think that it is a good idea.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #53
Not too sure about that, thinking of it now. Genuinely don't know of any characters who scale specifically to an inaccessible cardinal (Remember, we only had characters at that level before because we equated metaphysical layers to dimensions).
Plus, in a less significant note, I think it'd make for worse categorizing, since Low 1-A is supposed to be "beyond all dimensional spaces but not quite qualitative yet," while inaccessibles are included in the category of things the 1-A range is meant to surpass.
- 165,635
- 73,316
Okay. Thank you for your reply. So would any of my suggestions in my last preceding post in this thread be a good idea to apply?
https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-dread-tiering-system-revisions.168871/post-6584328
https://vsbattles.com/threads/the-dread-tiering-system-revisions.168871/post-6584328
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #55
I certainly wouldn't mind making 5-D into its own tier once more, yeah. I suppose we can apply that part of Option 2 if we like.
- 165,635
- 73,316
Okay, so do you think that something like this would be a good solution then?
Low 1-C = 5-D (The most abundant category. Merits its own specific tier.)
1-C = 6-D to 9-D (Rare. Can all be shoved down into levels of a single tier.)
High 1-C = 10-D to 11-D
1-B to High 1-B remaining the same.
High 1-B+ = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions.
Low 1-A = Spaces corresponding to inaccessible cardinals and upwards
Or:
Low 1-A = The sum total of all ordinary quantitative structures in mathematics. The Universe of Sets.
Low 1-C = 5-D (The most abundant category. Merits its own specific tier.)
1-C = 6-D to 9-D (Rare. Can all be shoved down into levels of a single tier.)
High 1-C = 10-D to 11-D
1-B to High 1-B remaining the same.
High 1-B+ = Spaces with uncountably infinite dimensions.
Low 1-A = Spaces corresponding to inaccessible cardinals and upwards
Or:
Low 1-A = The sum total of all ordinary quantitative structures in mathematics. The Universe of Sets.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
Can't we extend High 1-C to cover 10-D to 26-D to better correspond to the different types of string theory if we really are moving the tiers around?
- 165,635
- 73,316
I suppose that might be a good idea, although in that case, should we rename our "Complex Multiverse level" tiers with "String Theory Multiverse level" instead, or would that be awkward, inappropriate, and unnecessary?
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
Currently, Low 1-C is Low Complex Multiverse level, 1-C is Complex Multiverse level, and High 1-C is High Complex Multiverse level. If we were to rearrange these three tiers to have Low 1-C for 5-D, 1-C for 6-D to 9-D, and High 1-C to 10-D to 26-D like I suggested, only High 1-C would correspond to anything in string theory, so that name would only suit it, and we would have to figure out different names for the other two tiers if we wanted to rename them. Do you have any suggestions?
- 15,038
- 12,769
This generally seems like a bad idea, because string theory's compactified dimensions are completely irrelevant for tiering. I think it'd be quite misleading.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #61
Make Low 1-A into the Universe of Sets and we're good to go, I believe.
Anyway: I don't think expanding High 1-C is a priority issue right now. It wouldn't serve any practical purpose whatsoever for the foreseeable future whereas transferring 6-D to 1-C does. Ontop of what Agnaa said.
IdiosyncraticLawyer
Username OnlyVS Battles
Joke Battles
Administrator
Content Moderator
Translation Helper
- 2,974
- 3,499
I don't see how it's irrelevant for splitting the tiers when a lot of verses use string theory as a basis for the numbers of dimensions in their cosmologies.
If you don't think it's a priority, I don't feel strongly enough about this to have to do it right now; it can be left for later.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #63
I disagree with the suggestion itself, but either way this isn't the place to discuss it.
- 7,538
- 14,019
Eh, this is more a symptom of people being too eager to take a scan that mentions n dimensions and immediately scale the cosmology to that even when there's no evidence of their size being universal. I don't think we should basically validate that practice by naming a tier after a cosmological theory doesn't actually meet our standards.
- 15,038
- 12,769
Using string theory as that basis would not confer any tier.
There's other issues with such a separation; since no series can derive its tier in that way, such a tier would be relatively sparse. 1-B currently has 93 characters. When R>F knocks some of them to 1-A, it will have even fewer. If we rule out series with more than 26 dimensions, that number will shrink even more.
I think such a change is bad on every level.
- 7,036
- 4,388
@Ultima_Reality
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your proposing Low 1-A be basically the highest possible mathematical possibility in choice 1, while proposing Low 1-A be for things that are above dimensions but not qualitatively in general, correct? How do these two things compare?
Also, yeah. String theory only grants Tier 1 is very specific circumstances and is mostly completely irrelevant to our tiers in any other way. It just get unnecessary focus because its the thing writers who don't know much about dimensions will most likely reference, so people on this wiki will constantly try and use it to upgrade their favourite series. We shouldn't be given it any more focus.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but your proposing Low 1-A be basically the highest possible mathematical possibility in choice 1, while proposing Low 1-A be for things that are above dimensions but not qualitatively in general, correct? How do these two things compare?
Also, yeah. String theory only grants Tier 1 is very specific circumstances and is mostly completely irrelevant to our tiers in any other way. It just get unnecessary focus because its the thing writers who don't know much about dimensions will most likely reference, so people on this wiki will constantly try and use it to upgrade their favourite series. We shouldn't be given it any more focus.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #67
They are the same, largely. Low 1-A is "above dimensions," but just not really in the same sense as 1-A, which is in fact above quantitative differences in general.
- 7,036
- 4,388
Honestly, if Option 1 includes moving 6D to 1-C then I'm fine with changing to Option 1. The tiers between 5D and infinite dimensional will probably always seem kinda of messy, arbitrary, and mostly empty regardless of what we do. So while I kind of would like us to do something with them I don't really care too much if we just leave them as is.
- 165,635
- 73,316
Okay. Never mind then. Thank you for your input.
Okay, but are you absolutely certain that we should not have any tier in-between the beginning of uncountable infinity and the Universe of Sets, which, as I think Everything12 said, is the highest mathematical possibility, unless I have misunderstood? It seems unwise to not provide at least some measure of distinction in case new fictions with high-level mathematics are introduced to our wiki.
Yes. Never mind (as I said above).
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #70
I don't think that is needed, no, given how sparse such characters are. If, somehow, they start becoming numerous in the future, I think we can go back and have a discussion on whether to make more sub-divisions, but I doubt that will happen, and as is, making such divisions will just result in a bunch of tiers becoming ghost-towns.
- 7,036
- 4,388
We could also just have it be uncountable infinity and infinities beyond that, it's not likely this will ever be a problem that we ever have to focus on.
- 30,349
- 32,135
Think that's the perfect middle between Options 1 and 2 yes.
- 7,036
- 4,388
I think High 1-B+ Just being a number of dimensions greater than countable infinity is better and a easier way of explaining Low 1-A is basically just the peak one can be quantitatively.
- 165,635
- 73,316
Okay. I suppose that seems reasonable.
- 19,452
- 10,082
I’m ok with either option 2 or 3
- 7,017
- 6,840
Will read into when available.
- 165,635
- 73,316
@Ultima_Reality
Should you add our modified solution as "Option 4" in your first post in this thread?
Should you add our modified solution as "Option 4" in your first post in this thread?
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #78
I suppose that's a good idea to avoid confusion.
- 5,535
- 12,951
- Thread starter
- #79
Done so.
Similar threads
- Locked
