PrinceofPein
Username Only- 9,053
- 5,983
- Thread starter
- #121
there are no staff disagreement on it, as far as i am aware3rd point (branching timeline) will likely be on hold as there are different opinions on it,
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
there are no staff disagreement on it, as far as i am aware3rd point (branching timeline) will likely be on hold as there are different opinions on it,
I have asked again.Well, it is Friday already, so bump
Still waiting on Ultima and DontTalkDT to weigh in unfortunately.What are the staff conclusions here so far?
What are the staff conclusions here so far?
@DontTalkDT @Ultima_RealityStill waiting on Ultima and DontTalkDT to weigh in unfortunately.
(@Dereck03 gave me permission to speak here)3. Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B. Under this definition, timelines that branch off of each other are not, by default, separate spacetimes. Such timelines clearly share not just a single point, but an entire interval of time, that being the timeline that existed before the moment at which they diverged., which would mean branching timelines will not qualify for higher levels of tier 2, as those branches are not big enough to qualify for tier 2 to begin with.
That means I can take the same space twice, leave out one point out of one of the two and now the two spaces fulfil the definition. Despite sharing all points except exactly one. How is that separate?Two space-time continuums, A and B, are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there exists at least one point in space and time for each space-time continuum that is not contained within their intersection.
Nope, the definition mentions that there are at least two distinct points, each in every space-time, which are not in the intersection, those then construct an uncountable interval. In your example, they wouldn't be considered separate, since there is no such interval.That means I can take the same space twice, leave out one point out of one of the two and now the two spaces fulfil the definition. Despite sharing all points except exactly one. How is that separate?
The key idea here is that “separate” refers to the intersection of the two space-time continuums. The intersection of two sets is the set of elements that are common to both sets.That means I can take the same space twice, leave out one point out of one of the two and now the two spaces fulfil the definition. Despite sharing all points except exactly one. How is that separate?
I assume you mean that there existNope, the definition mentions that there are at least two distinct points, each in every space-time, which are not in the intersection
So is that they construct an interval a requirement or a consequence of the above condition? How do they construct it?those then construct an uncountable interval. In your example, they wouldn't be considered separate, since there is no such interval.
Problem is that that does not follow from the definition as it is given. I admit I have to adjust slightly. If there is supposed to be one point in each not contained in the intersection, then you have to exclude 2 points instead. Say A are the real numbers without 0 and B are the real numbers without 1. 0 and 1 are both not in the intersection. But everything except 0 and 1 is.The key idea here is that “separate” refers to the intersection of the two space-time continuums. The intersection of two sets is the set of elements that are common to both sets.
Going to your question, where two space-time continuums share all points except for one, their intersection would consist of all points except for that one point. Therefore, they would not be considered separate according to the definition given in the statement you provided.
For branching timeline it depends on whether they are destroyed due to causality or directly. Like, if you destroy the past, before the timelines branch out, and they disappear because that's how time works (i.e. you time paradox them) that is 3-A or Low 2-C.@DontTalkDT can you give any input regarding how branching timelines work? One of the arguments in this thread is that branching timelines should be only Low 2-C at best because they all stem from the same timeline, where as with parallel timelines would qualify for beyond Low 2-C as they have their own separate past and futures. I gave a response to this argument here, so any input would be appreciated.
Yup, the A ⊖ B term is the symmetric difference, which provides an abbreviation for that.I assume you mean that there exist? Providing A and B are our timelines (i.e. 4D (sub)-manifolds).
Both. This can happen if and only if they construct an interval. They construct it via the fact that there are two distinct points in time, and given any two of those there are uncountably many in between which then form a bounded open interval.So is that they construct an interval a requirement or a consequence of the above condition? How do they construct it?
Because that would make things more complicated while this one gives a generalization of the previous, for example consider the trivial case where there is exactly one point in time in their intersection, by this definition they wouldn't be considered separate timelines despite the interval having domain over all of R⁺\{T}, while the other definition would say that since there exists an uncountable open interval (and one with a quite large domain in this case), the timelines can be considered spatio-temporally separate (additionally, in the other example you made, using the other definition, the domain of the interval would be exactly the singleton {T} which would return an empty interval).Why not just say that the timelines are separate if they are disjoint, i.e. the intersection is empty? (each timeline being defined as all of 3D space + time, of course)
Problem is that that does not follow from the definition as it is given. I admit I have to adjust slightly. If there is supposed to be one point in each not contained in the intersection, then you have to exclude 2 points instead. Say A are the real numbers without 0 and B are the real numbers without 1. 0 and 1 are both not in the intersection. But everything except 0 and 1 is.
Your definition only applies to the case where A and B are completely disjoint and do not overlap in space and time. This definition would be simpler and may be easier to understand, but it would also be more restrictive, as it would exclude scenarios where space-time continuums may overlap in some points in space and time but are still considered separate.This definition is inclusive of branching timelines and other scenarios where space-time continuums may overlap partially in time and space, as long as they are not subsets of one another. - it is in the sandbox
Unless you're proving an obvious tautology it's definitely not simultaneously assumption and result?Yup, the A ⊖ B term is the symmetric difference, which provides an abbreviation for that.
Both. This can happen if and only if they construct an interval. They construct it via the fact that there are two distinct points in time, and given any two of those there are uncountably many in between which then form a bounded open interval.
Can't really follow what you're trying to say here. Is the domain of an interval the interval itself or do you think of something else?Because that would make things more complicated while this one gives a generalization of the previous, for example consider the trivial case where there is exactly one point in time in their intersection, by this definition they wouldn't be considered separate timelines despite the interval having domain over all of R⁺\{T}, while the other definition would say that since there exists an uncountable open interval (and one with a quite large domain in this case), the timelines can be considered spatio-temporally separate (additionally, in the other example you made, using the other definition, the domain of the interval would be exactly the singleton {T} which would return an empty interval).
Why do we want to treat cases of overlapping timelines as them being separate? This is about the "are the multiverse level" thing, isn't it? Well, I can agree with the idea that branching timelines can be 2-C. Calling them separate is probably making things rather confusing, though. 'cause they are not really separate.Your definition only applies to the case where A and B are completely disjoint and do not overlap in space and time. This definition would be simpler and may be easier to understand, but it would also be more restrictive, as it would exclude scenarios where space-time continuums may overlap in some points in space and time but are still considered separate.
While ours includes the case where A and B may overlap partially in space-time, as long as they are not subsets of one another.
However, it is also possible to consider scenarios where space-time continuums may overlap in some points in space and time but are still considered separate. This might be the case, for example, in scenarios involving branching timelines, where a single timeline branches off into two or more separate timelines that may intersect at some points in the past but diverge and become separate in the future.Why do we want to treat cases of overlapping timelines as them being separate? This is about the "are the multiverse level" thing, isn't it? Calling them separate is probably making things rather confusing, though. 'cause they are not really separate.
Two distinct points construct a non-empty interval and every non-empty interval must be constructed by two distinct points, else it would be empty.Unless you're proving an obvious tautology it's definitely not simultaneously assumption and result?
Sure, though i'm currently on mobile and it's almost 4 A.M, so i'll do it when i wake up.Anway, if we're talking math, can you write everything down as mathematical theorem. With separate claim and proof in fully mathematical formulation? Would make it much clearer what is meant.
The domain of an interval is the subset of R containing all possible values of the interval. And for the second question, that's pretty much it, even though their intersection could contain a closed interval.Can't really follow what you're trying to say here. Is the domain of an interval the interval itself or do you think of something else?
If I had to guess, what you're trying to say is that two timelines are separate if their intersection contains no open interval? (or, to put it into a formulation that applies to 4D, no open ball) Is that the idea?
The definition i proposed also leaves out the 2 Planck seconds case, in fact the interval would be a closed, discontinuous one.I think a more fitting definition is: Destruction of intersecting timelines qualifies as 2-C if and only if each timeline, without the parts that intersect with the other, is still of large 4-dimensional size. (Large in the sense of criteria "A)" in the Tiering System description of Low 2-C)
This includes branching timelines, but leaves out things like a timeline which only branches out for 2 Planck seconds before fusing back together.
Given, what "large" means in a time sense if of course hard to tell. Roughly one could say that they have to be separate for at least a long time. (or one could go stricter and say "for a presumably infinite time", as is the case for branching timelines)
A countable infinity cannot be larger than another countable infinity, so at the end of the day, a single timeline will still be the same size a branching timeline with thousands or even quadrillions of branches with each branches extending to infinity. In fact even if the branches are infinite, they would still be of the same size as single timeline which also extends infintely.To an extent yes given the fact that assuming destroying one branch which nukes the infinite past leaves all the remaining branching timelines as having a defined beginning when the branch started to begin with, if the timelines continue infinitely there should be no reason to assume they can't individually be Low 2-C when they go on infinitely, and in the case of geometry on how rays and lines are treated they're the same immeasurable length. This sounds like the logic applies here since the branching timelines can still expand infinitely to the same extent as a singular parallel timeline that extends both ways.
I know it sounds odd, but yes.@Pain_to12 I'm a bit lost on your response, so nuking any of the branches would qualify as Low 2-C, but when it comes to nuking all of the branches it only stays at Low 2-C because of the fact they share the same point in space-time, where parallel timelines aren't connected which makes nuking the timelines far more impressive? Is that right?
You have to argue against that, again destruction of infinite branches is still the same as the destruction of a single timeline which is infinite.@Theglassman12 I don't agree with the destruction of all infinite branches remains as low 2-C, this is roughly only in her definition's flaw which is already addressed in my post.
He is questioning and also answering/clarifying.But I will wait till DT responds to my points because it sounds he is having a bad time understanding the term of “separate”.
+ I am at my mobile which will gives me disadvantage already.
@Pain_to12 DT is not answering, rather questioning. Also, I hope you did not ignore the main premise of mine and sen in this post.
Preferably, read the sandbox I made.
I am not sure how to put this but infinity * infinity, is still infinity.@Pain_to12 But if they're the same size but different branches shouldn't they logistically qualify for a higher tier tho? Assuming those branches don't get nuked out of existence due to time paradox and they exist as their own timelines that should qualify for higher than Low 2-C.
A timeline is a 4-D structure and a timeline extends infinitely.I will respond to those points tomorrow (I am also late at night; 4:15 am), but reminding you, the size of 4D structure is not infinite in low 2-C wiki definition, if they are infinite, this is 2-A. This is the flaws in your definition.
The only reason we ignore this fact that in fiction, they don't consider the size of 4-D structure to be assumed as infinite, but in physics it is.
You can't be logically speaking that destruction of all branches which are supposed to be separate (the other flaw in your definition) is also low 2-C.
First these branches are not truly separate and still share the same space and time if traced back.Hell? Even DT agreed that two branches are 2-C, and now you are saying a full destruction is low 2-C? What are you trying to say to @Theglassman12?
Alright, I will waitAt this moment, you are not nerfing, but also using flaws intentionally. Again, this is are not even my main points, and I still did not clarify them in better form.
I will address the points tmr