• 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 god emperor of mankind VS Yaldabaoth

There is no 1-B version for Yaldabaoth though. Now, if you'd like to make a content revison thread, go ahead.
 
Yal is being upgraded as we speak. I thought that only the 26D thing was accepted tho
 
Yal has the feat of destroying all dimensions, space, and time just by existing. Though i do wonder why you ent straight to the Eprah whn Nurgle wouldve been a more fitting opponent
 
To be perfectly honest, Isabel would be a much, MUCH more fitting opponent for the Emperor...plus the thought of him entering the battlefield and seeing that his opponent is a hyperactive young girl in pink high-tops with a corgi by her side is pretty funny
 
Yal is uncountable dimensions

GEOM is uncountable dimensions

k. We don't know, so let's just assume for the sake of the battle they're the same
 
Kaltias said:
No? It makes them more countles dimensional.
Problem is, Warhammer = too big to be defined by language. You can define a googol with human language (10^100).

SCP= Countless. Billions are already enough to be "countless".
Click to expand...

The problem is language can be used to define literally any number. That's why there is no smallest number undefinable by language. You need to have a rigorous system with concrete unchangable rules, and with a character limit, to have a smallest number undefinable by that system.
 
I mean, i definitely don't know the name of 985676543645 x 10^2435. But i know the name of 10^100.

Point is, "Number so big that i don't know how to define it" is much bigger than "Number so big that i lost count".
 
Kaltias said:
I mean, i definitely don't know the name of 985676543645 x 10^2435. But i know the name of 10^100.
Point is, "Number so big that i don't know how to define it" is much bigger than "Number so big that i lost count".
Click to expand...

You don't know the name of 299792457, but you do know the name of 299792458 since that's the speed of light in seconds.

You're moving the definition from "Number so big that the average person won't be able to remember it if they have no reason to" with "Number so big that it cannot be described by language", with the latter being what the actual claim is, and which is literally impossible.

And there's also the complication that you're moving into with "that I don't know how to define it" and "that I lost count", when it's now relying on the speaker's ability to count or define numbers. Which then gets into weird territory like, what kind of feat does Yaldabaoth have in counting numbers?

EDIT: My overall point being, I don't think those two statements could be compared to say that one's larger than the other, as they're both vague statements without a well defined finite upper or lower bound. You can't make an argument that either of those statements implies a number that's at least X, for an X outside of numbers humans have counted to before.
 
I know the name of both tho. But you can bet that I would lose count if I was counting from 1 to 299 792 457.

Because that's the accepted lowball. And it's not impossible. It's just astronomically big. There is a point where you stop knowing the name of a number, but you can obviously still write the number itself.

I think that you are overthinking it a bit. Especially because Yal isn't the one who stated that the vectors are uncountable anyway
 
Of course, I'm fine with there being an accepted lowball of it, something along the lines of "bigger than any finite number given for the number of dimensions for any other verse".

My problem comes when you try to compare two extremely vague statements of size to say which one is bigger, then use that to decide a battle.

"I mean, it's not remotely close to impossible, but OK."

It is completely impossible. Even if I just say "Oh? It's just one plus one plus one..." I will eventually be able to describe any finite number using language. And on top of that, humans have developed ways of describing a huge assortment of infinite numbers. There is not and cannot be a number indescribable by language.
 
That's kinda what you have to do in vs fights tho.

Using that logic, "countless" doesn't exist because one can keep counting forever if they really want to
 
Agnaa said:
It is completely impossible. Even if I just say "Oh? It's just one plus one plus one..." I will eventually be able to describe any finite number using language. And on top of that, humans have developed ways of describing a huge assortment of infinite numbers. There is not and cannot be a number indescribable by language.
Click to expand...
This is not remotely true. You are assuming there will not be any point whatsoever at which the human brain cannot comprehend a number to put it into words. This is pretty clearly false.

There are theoretically infinite numbers. You cannot say with complete honesty that we can actually define all of these numbers in terms of our language. By its very limited nature, we cannot do so. Humans being able to describe large numbers does not mean humans can describe all numbers. It's like if I said, "I can run four miles. Therefore, I can run any number of miles." The fact I can run four miles shows that I can run four miles, not that I can run 10^100 miles. I have a limit. Just like human language does.
 
I know that we have to use it in battles, and I'm fine with using it, but not with comparing two nebulous concepts of large numbers that don't have an upper or lower bound.

"You are assuming there will not be any point whatsoever at which the human brain cannot comprehend a number to put it into words." For comprehension, yes there is a point, but that point is actually very low, by looking at something we can easily tell the difference between 1 thing and 2 things, but not 1,024 things and 1,025 things without breaking it down into smaller numbers that we can manage.

However, when describing with words, there is absolutely no limit, because our language is extendable enough to be able to describe any finite number.

"You cannot say with complete honesty that we can actually define all of these numbers in terms of our language." We certainly can. Like I said earlier with the "one plus one plus one..." example. That "plus one" can be repeated once for every finite number, and list out any finite number.

"By its very limited nature we cannot do so." It's the complete opposite, because of how unrestricted language is, we can describe any number. I know this, because it was a problem for people trying to find the largest non-trivial description of a number (i.e. you can't take someone else's number and just say "plus one", you need to bring a new concept to the table). You can read here for more details of why this can't be done with English, and a more restrictive way of describing numbers is needed http://googology.wikia.com/wiki/Rayo%27s_number#Explanation_2

"Humans being able to describe large numbers does not mean humans can describe all numbers." Yes, but the way humans use to describe large numbers having no finite limit means that humans can describe all finite numbers.

If someone can run any finite number of miles, then by definition they can run any number of miles given enough time.

Human language is too malleable to have a limit for finite numbers.
 
  • "For comprehension, yes there is a point, but that point is actually very low, by looking at something we can easily tell the difference between 1 thing and 2 things, but not 1,024 things and 1,025 things without breaking it down into smaller numbers that we can manage."
You just described why "countless" is less impressive than "too big to be properly expressed with language", in your own comment.

  • "However, when describing with words, there is absolutely no limit, because our language is extendable enough to be able to describe any finite number."
This is where you're getting it mixed up. There are theoretically infinite numbers, not finite numbers. That is why you cannot put them all into language. But if you believe that all numbers can be defined, go ask anyone on the planet to provide you with all numbers. Have them plug it into a supercomputer, if you want. I can guarantee you aren't going to be given every possible number, even if it is only whole numbers.

  • "We certainly can. Like I said earlier with the "one plus one plus one..." example. That "plus one" can be repeated once for every finite number, and list out any finite number."
Except this is not true. Even if we were to give the whole human race the task of finding "the largest possible number" and expressing it properly in words, I can tell you with complete certainty our sun would die before such a goal made remotely any progress.

  • "It's the complete opposite, because of how unrestricted language is, we can describe any number. I know this, because it was a problem for people trying to find the largest non-trivial description of a number (i.e. you can't take someone else's number and just say "plus one", you need to bring a new concept to the table). You can read here for more details of why this can't be done with English, and a more restrictive way of describing numbers is needed "
You realize that even within FOST, there are an infinite number of numerical variables, right? You're still not showing we can define all of them.

  • "Yes, but the way humans use to describe large numbers having no finite limit means that humans can describe all finite numbers."
Please express to me the largest finite number that exists and could possibly exist conceptually. Then describe each number that is the square root of that number.

  • "If someone can run any finite number of miles, then by definition they can run any number of miles given enough time."
Except no one ran "any finite number of miles", that was the point. I said I ran four, then used that as justification for saying I could run any number. This is the same as saying that because we can define big numbers, we can define all numbers.

  • "Human language is too malleable to have a limit for finite numbers."
It's too bad there isn't a finite amount of numbers, then.


@SITHISIT

Infinity itself is a concept, not a number, while the quote itself still seemed to imply some sort of tangible value.
 
"But if you believe that all numbers can be defined, go ask anyone on the planet to provide you with all numbers. Have them plug it into a supercomputer, if you want."

Sure, just give me infinite time, or a computer with no limit on processing speed.

"Except this is not true. Even if we were to give the whole human race the task of finding "the largest possible number" and expressing it properly in words, I can tell you with complete certainty our sun would die before such a goal made remotely any progress."

I'd agree with that, but that's assuming finite time.

"You realize that even within FOST, there are an infinite number of numerical variables, right? You're still not showing we can define all of them."

I've presented arguments for how we can define every finite number. Could you please tell me why that argument's wrong before you tell me to come up with another argument?

"Please express to me the largest finite number that exists and could possibly exist conceptually. Then describe each number that is the square root of that number."

The problem is there is no largest finite number that exists and could possibly exist conceptually. HOWEVER, we can still describe any finite number.

"Except no one ran "any finite number of miles", that was the point. I said I ran four, then used that as justification for saying I could run any number. This is the same as saying that because we can define big numbers, we can define all numbers.

Cool strawman I guess? I'm not saying that because we can define big numbers, we can define all numbers. I'm saying that because for every number we can define, we can define the successor to that number, we can define any finite number. (Please respond to this exact sentence in your response, it's the crux of my argument and the only part of this post that isn't just splitting hairs)
 
  • "I'm saying that because for every number we can define, we can define the successor to that number, we can define any finite number."
If this is most important to you, I will respond to it first. The problem with this line of thinking is that while on a simplified, lower level something like this could work (ex: we can define 1,002 because we can define 1,001), it does not actually work when applied to a much larger level. You could go on and on and on as long as you like, but by the very nature of there being infinite numbers, there will be numbers you will never reach, nor could you hope to reach. Yet those numbers are still themselves finite. Even if given "an infinite amount of time", you would still be unable to define the "largest possible number", because no matter how many numbers you could comprehend, there are always an endless number more.

  • "Sure, just give me infinite time, or a computer with no limit on processing speed."
See above. The shortened version is basically even if you had infinite time, you could not count to the largest possible number, because there are an infinite amount of numbers. However, the number itself is still finite.

  • "I've presented arguments for how we can define every finite number. Could you please tell me why that argument's wrong before you tell me to come up with another argument?"
Same as above.

  • "The problem is there is no largest finite number that exists and could possibly exist conceptually. HOWEVER, we can still describe any finite number."
I think you're getting it, here. We cannot conceptualize a "largest finite number" because there are an endless amount of finite numbers that remain finite. Even if given an infinite amount of time, one would never reach such a number, yet the number itself would not be "infinity"; it would have an actual value, but beyond one we can accurately describe.
 
"it does not actually work when applied to a much larger level"

What number does it break down at?

"there will be numbers you will never reach, nor could you hope to reach"

If you're counting a number every second, those will just take as many seconds to reach as its size is.

"you would still be unable to define the "largest possible number", because no matter how many numbers you could comprehend, there are always an endless number more. "

I agree that you will never be able to define the "largest possible number", however, I think there is no smallest number that we couldn't define, if that makes any sense.

For whatever N the number of dimensions in the Warhammer universe is, if we count one number every second, it will only take us N seconds to describe that number in English. Sqrt(n) time if we count to the square root of it then say "squared" at the end, and so on. This will take nowhere close to infinite time, and will be finished in finite time, however, there will still be infinitely more larger numbers.

It seems like you're treating the statement on the number of dimensions to mean "The biggest number which isn't infinity" which isn't a number that exists. The same way that "The smallest number it's impossible to count to" doesn't exist. I can't see a way to put those statements on different levels to say that one's bigger than the other, since neither of them actually gives a concrete lower or upper bound to a number.
 
Discussions involving massive numbers usually turn into this. I definitely agree with Azzy here. Even 1x10^9999999999^99999999999999^99999999999999999^9999999999999999^99999999999 is nothing, although it is already utterly incomprehensible.
 
Assaltwaffle said:
Discussions involving massive numbers usually turn into this. I definitely agree with Azzy here. Even 1x10^9999999999^99999999999999^99999999999999999^9999999999999999^99999999999 is nothing, although it is already utter incomprehensible.
Click to expand...

I agree that that number is utterly small compared to the infinitely many numbers that exist, but I don't think we could ever compare two "somewhere between big and infinity" statements to say which one is bigger.

There are no indescribable numbers, but there are infinitely many numbers that will never be described.

Will/have never is a very different statement of possibility than can never.

It's not like the number of dimensions in warhammer is constantly jumping around as soon as we define it, but there are still infinitely many numbers bigger than the number of dimensions, and only a finite number of numbers smaller than the number of dimensions. In the same vein, we could just keep on counting for longer to reach the number of dimensions in SCPverse.
 
  • "What number does it break down at?"
Can't be properly defined, either. Because no matter what the biggest number we can describe is, there will be a number that is bigger.

  • "If you're counting a number every second, those will just take as many seconds to reach as its size is."
Notice the fact you could also not describe said number in seconds. What it's being counted in doesn't change this.

  • "I agree that you will never be able to define the "largest possible number", however, I think there is no smallest number that we couldn't define, if that makes any sense."
Do you mean including negative numbers? Or only positive ones? Because if it's the latter, assuming the number must have a positive value (so not 0), this is correct, because a number between 1 and 0 could get smaller and smaller, always getting closer to 0 but never reaching it.

  • "For whatever N the number of dimensions in the Warhammer universe is, if we count one number every second, it will only take us N seconds to describe that number in English. Sqrt(n) time if we count to the square root of it then say "squared" at the end, and so on. This will take nowhere close to infinite time, and will be finished in finite time, however, there will still be infinitely more larger numbers."
Yes. That is the entire point. Though this comparison doesn't work in context, since by its very nature, if we assume we can define N, then it is not actually N, as N's value is described as being impossible to define with language.

  • "It seems like you're treating the statement on the number of dimensions to mean "The biggest number which isn't infinity" which isn't a number that exists. The same way that "The smallest number it's impossible to count to" doesn't exist. I can't see a way to put those statements on different levels to say that one's bigger than the other, since neither of them actually gives a concrete lower or upper bound to a number."
This was strictly about how being able to define all numbers is false, not the dimensions themselves. But going back to that, I'm going to put it like this.

Say one character is said to move faster than the speed of light. Then say there's another character who is said to move at least a thousand times faster than the speed of light. We do not know the exact value of either, nor could we say for sure who is faster, but we can say which statement is more impressive and which is most likely faster. Going by the first character's statement, we have a low end of just above the speed of light. Going by the second character's statement, our low end is just above 1000 times the speed of light. The lowest possible speed for the second character is far greater than the lowest possible speed for the first, thus when we assume low ends, the second character is faster.

You could say, "Well the first character could be faster than the second". Sure. Anything could be anything. But there's no proof of this, nor is there anything to suggest this. Thus why we don't assume so. It's the same reason we don't assume characters who are "At least 6-B" and haven't shown their limit aren't on the same level as someone who is "At least 3-A" and hasn't shown their limit.

In this case, the lowest end of "countless", which is just above the amount of numbers you can adequately keep track of and count, is far less than the lowest end of "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words".
 
Since I think this is the important part I'll lead with this.

I fully agree with your point about characters moving faster than the speed of light, and that's what I want to do here, but I think these statements are too vague to put one's lower bound over another's.

"In this case, the lowest end of "countless", which is just above the amount of numbers you can adequately keep track of and count, is far less than the lowest end of "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words"."

The problem is, who are we saying is keeping track and counting? If it's the average person, then the average person probably wouldn't be able to accurately put into words how many trees are in a forest.

The reason this matters is because omniscient beings won't be able to lose track, and eternal beings will always be able to keep counting.

Then there's my other problems with the statement "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words". Firstly, you could say it's greater than twelve and that's putting it into words. Secondly, saying that it's "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words" is putting it into words.

"Yes. That is the entire point. Though this comparison doesn't work in context, since by its very nature, if we assume we can define N, then it is not actually N, as N's value is described as being impossible to define with language."

That's the problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berry_paradox English is malleable enough to be able to describe a number that's impossible to describe using English, which then makes the number possible to describe using English. It's a paradox.
 
Kaltias said:
I mean, i definitely don't know the name of 985676543645 x 10^2435. But i know the name of 10^100.

Point is, "Number so big that i don't know how to define it" is much bigger than "Number so big that i lost count".
Click to expand...
Are you familiar with the term "googolduplex"? its 10^10^10^100 (10^googolplex, a googolplex is 10^googol).

Go figure.
 
  • "The problem is, who are we saying is keeping track and counting?"
In neither case is it an omniscient being. However, in the SCP case, it is a normal person. In the 40k case, it is a cybernetically modified human granted untold knowledge by a being as old as the universe.

  • "Then there's my other problems with the statement "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words". Firstly, you could say it's greater than twelve and that's putting it into words. Secondly, saying that it's "a number so large we cannot properly put it into words" is putting it into words."
  • "English is malleable enough to be able to describe a number that's impossible to describe using English, which then makes the number possible to describe using English. It's a paradox."
It's not that simple, as the paradox both does and does not describe said number, but I'll get into another explanation. The problem with using the Berry Paradox in this way is that it is based almost entirely on lack of specificity. I could say "a thing that can't be communicated". While I have communicated/have not communicated said thing simultaneously, nothing was actually defined with anything meaningful. This could be an endless number of things. "greater than twelve" refers to an endless string of numbers, but does not define anything. There is no exact meaning, as it is as vague as possible.

Saying "a number bigger than twelve" does not hold any value on its own, as it is applied to no specific number. This being subject to the Berry Paradox relies entirely on "definable" being as vague as possible, and when you take that away, its use here falls apart. Semyon says the value "cannot be defined", and if "greater than twelve" is as close as can be gotten, he's correct, since that described an endless amount of numbers, but does not define any exact one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

AbaddonTheDisappointment
Battle for Strongest 8-B (The Emperor of Mankind vs Caliborn)
2
Replies
55
Views
3K
deonment
deonment
Hastur451
God who Controls vs English Teacher
Replies
5
Views
529
Hastur451
Hastur451
AmogusSusfunni
Two Extremely similar 11-A civilizations fight each other (SCP-6011-1 vs. Flatland) (GRACE)
Replies
15
Views
1K
AmogusSusfunni
AmogusSusfunni
TegamiBachi25
An edge lord fights another edge lord (SCP 076 vs Albert Wesker
Replies
24
Views
2K
TegamiBachi25
TegamiBachi25
Robo432343
Saint Emperor vs Uriel
Replies
4
Views
743
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top