Tier 2 requirements and examples - Part 2

[PrinceofPein]

3rd point (branching timeline) will likely be on hold as there are different opinions on it,

there are no staff disagreement on it, as far as i am aware

 

[Antvasima]

Well, it is Friday already, so bump

I have asked again.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

I still am tied up doing RL stuff, but I still recall taking issues with some people being too strict with what qualifies as Low 2-C or 2-C as opposed to 3-A. But so far, KLOL and I believe ImmortalDread iirc make sense to me.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Happy New Year Bump

 

[Antvasima]

@AKM sama @DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @SomebodyData @Celestial_Pegasus @Wokistan @Ultima_Reality @Mr._Bambu @Elizhaa @Qawsedf234 @ByAsura @Sir_Ovens @Damage3245 @Starter_Pack @Abstractions @LordGriffin1000 @Colonel_Krukov @SamanPatou @GyroNutz

Your help would be appreciated here.

 

[Theglassman12]

I wanna know if this remotely got refuted in regards to branching timelines not counting for anything beyond Low 2-C because I'm curious. Assuming a branching timeline had one timeline get nuked which extends infinitely to the past, those other branching timelines would have an endpoint at where the branching started off to begin with.

For comparison sake I'm using some basic geometry examples to better explain this. For the most part there's 3 different versions of a "line" that can be drawn/used in the study, Line Segments, Rays and Lines, but I'm focusing on the latter two. Rays have an endpoint but it extends infinitely across one direction, where as for lines they have no endpoint and they extend infinitely across 2 directions, now on face value this might show the rays as being inferior in length per say as a line since the former goes one direction, while the other goes 2, however in the context of math and you can find this in any website or any video or any textbook regarding how they work, Rays and Lines both extend infinitely and have no measured length in the first place.

So say for instance the lines above are connected to one line from the left side, you nuke the top line alongside the left side as that's one timeline, the one pointing down and the one pointing right would have an endpoint as a result from nuking the timeline, however they still extend infinitely to whatever direction they're going, and again going off how lines and rays are treated they're the same infinitely expanding length that cannot be measured. How exactly would Branching timelines be automatically downgraded to being Low 2-C at best when those other branching timelines still extend infintely across whatever future they have and would still be treated the same length as a line going two sides, or in this case a parallel timeline going infinitely across in the past and future?

 

[ImmortalDread]

It sounds like you are asking about the concept of branching timelines in the context of character or object power levels in fiction, and whether the existence of branching timelines would necessarily downgrade the power level of a character or object to Low 2-C. Is that correct? (If not, I beg for correction)

To answer your question, it is important to consider the specific definition and criteria that are being used to determine power levels in a given fictional setting. In our definition:

• A character or object is considered to be Low 2-C if they are capable of significantly affecting, creating, or destroying an area of space that is qualitatively larger than an infinitely-sized 3-dimensional space. This could include, for example, the space-time continuum of a universal scale, or a higher-dimensional “bulk” space which embeds lower-dimensional spaces as subsets.

In the context of branching timelines, it is possible that the existence of multiple timelines could be interpreted as multiple, distinct areas of space, each with their own past, present, and future. In this case, the power level of a character or object that is capable of altering, creating, or destroying one of these timelines could potentially be considered Low 2-C. However, it is also possible that the concept of branching timelines could be interpreted in a way that does not necessarily involve the creation or destruction of multiple, distinct areas of space.

In this case, it may be more difficult to definitively determine the power level of a character or object based on their ability to impact branching timelines alone.

It is possible that a character or object with this level of power could potentially affect multiple branching timelines, depending on the specific details of the setting and the nature of the ability in question.

Without further context on the specific setting in which the “low 2-C” category is being used, it is disputing to determine how it might relate to the concept of branching timelines. It is likely that the application of this category would vary on a case-by-case basis, rather than being based on a universal definition.

 

[Theglassman12]

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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

It looks like you are advising that the power level of a character or object that is capable of affecting branching timelines should not be automatically downgraded to Low 2-C (CASE-TO-CASE BASIS) even if one of the timelines is destroyed, as long as the remaining timelines continue to extend infinitely into the past and future.

It is possible to construe the concept of branching timelines in this way, and to consider the power level of a character or object based on their ability to modify multiple, infinitely-extending timelines.

However, it is also important to consider the specific criteria and definitions that are being used to determine power levels in a given fictional setting:

• If the concept of branching timelines is interpreted as involving multiple, distinct areas of space, then it is possible that the power level of a character or object that is able to impact these timelines could be considered Low 2-C based on this definition.
• However, if the concept of branching timelines is interpreted in a way that does not involve the creation or destruction of multiple, distinct areas of space, then it may be more difficult to definitively determine the power level of a character or object based on their ability to influence branching timelines alone.

 

[Theglassman12]

Not extend infinitely to the past and future, just the future it's infinitely expanding to. The past wouldn't even expand infinitely as it has an end point

 

[Reiner04]

I think glassman is not talking about character but the 2A structure, as long as all the branches are infinite in future which they're by default in our standards, they should be low 2C individually and 2B in totality of the tree, unless it is specified in the verse that affecting main timeline will affect all other.

 

[Elizhaa]

Honestly, I think this jugment should be on a case-by-case basis like others such as KLOL506.

 

[ImmortalDread]

I will give my input a bit in detailed form later this day. As well as someone from my friends want to explain this from mathematical view as the OP's definition is a bit flawed.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

 

[KLOL506]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

Still waiting on Ultima and DontTalkDT to weigh in unfortunately.

 

[Antvasima]

What are the staff conclusions here so far?

Still waiting on Ultima and DontTalkDT to weigh in unfortunately.

@DontTalkDT @Ultima_Reality

We still need your help here.

 

[PrinceofPein]

I will address @Theglassman12 concerns when I am on PC in some hours, the concerns are valid ngl

 

[Antvasima]

Okay. Thank you for helping out.

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Yeah, I'm inclined to believe destroying branching timelines containing 2 or more timelines is 2-C.

 

[sen_]

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.

(@Dereck03 gave me permission to speak here)
So, about this one, i find the definition "Two universes are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there are no points in space or time that are in both A and B." faulty, because this is not the base case, rather the most extreme case, what you are proposing is equivalent to:
"Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if their intersection is empty."
Now, the issue is that the intersection doesn't need to be empty, the only requirement would be that A is not a subset of B, or in other words:
"Two universes A and B are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there exists at least one point in time and space for each one of them which is not in their intersection." But of course this definition alone doesn't prove its correctness, so i will elaborate more on why this works better:

• This includes your definition, in fact if the intersection is empty, by definition, there exists no point in their intersection.
• It can be proved that the branching timelines in question would be big enough to qualify (i will do so after this list).
• Them sharing an interval of time won't change anything under this definition (is a lemma of my previous statement).
• It is coherent in terms of them being spatio-temporally separate, in fact if A is not a subset of B, then A is not equal to B (the axiom of extensionality is a stronger version of the subset relation), and there is a non-empty interval of points which is not in their intersection.
  

Now, i will also show that the branching timelines (and those in general) would indeed be big enough (the proof is a little bit technical but bear with me):
Property(I). Every non-empty open interval of R is uncountable and is in bijection with R itself.
Property(II). Since (I) holds, it follows immediately that given any two points there are uncountably many of them in between.
Lemma(III). (∃x,y ∈ A ⊖ B : x ∈ A ∧ y ∈ B ) ⇒ (∃(x,y) : (x,y) ⊆ A ⊖ B) (translated: if there exist some points in time which are elements of the universes A and B, but not their intersection, then there exists a non-empty open interval of points in time which is a subset of either A or B but not their intersection).
Corollary(IV). By (I), (II) and (III), whenever my definition holds there has to exist an interval of points in time which is as large as an entire timeline.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is definition that most of the fiction cases rather use it except @Pain_to12's one which is extremely and also invariable.

• Two universes, A and B, are spatio-temporally separate if and only if there exists at least one point in space and time for each universe that is not contained within their intersection.

It is sufficient for two universes, A and B, to be spatio-temporally separate if A is not a subset of B or vice versa. In other words, A and B must occupy distinct spatial and temporal locations and not be contained within one another in order for them to be considered separate universes.

It can be shown that in cases where this definition holds, there must exist a large interval of points in time that is a subset of either A or B but not their intersection.

This interval is as large as an entire timeline and is uncountable in size.

This definition is inclusive of branching timelines and other scenarios where universes may overlap in time and space,
as long as they are not subsets of one another.

It is my suggestion that a page (I am working on it) be created to clarify the concept of spatio-temporal separation, as well as the perspective of VSBW's standards on this topic. This page could serve as a useful resource for understanding the requirements for universes to be considered spatio-temporally separate, as well as the implications of this concept within the VSBW community.

It can also be added in tiering system FAQ.

Note for visitors:
Universes = space-time continuums (low 2-C)

 

[DontTalkDT]

I have no idea what you guys are debating and why but

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.

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?

 

[sen_]

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?

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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

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.

 

[Theglassman12]

@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.

 

[Iamunanimousinthat]

Question: Why are timelines being interpreted as being literally branch shaped? Timelines themselves are human interpretation and metaphors for the flow of time. It comes across as being extremely pedantic.

 

[DontTalkDT]

Nope, the definition mentions that there are at least two distinct points, each in every space-time, which are not in the intersection

I assume you mean that there exist

? Providing A and B are our timelines (i.e. 4D (sub)-manifolds).

those then construct an uncountable interval. In your example, they wouldn't be considered separate, since there is no such interval.

So is that they construct an interval a requirement or a consequence of the above condition? How do they construct it?

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.

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.

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)

@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.

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.
If you destroy them directly via a big explosion throughout spacetime and engulf them all it should qualify as multiversal as usual. Like, we assume time runs infinitely and might have a start (like the big bang). In that case, say you have a timeline that branches into 3. Delete the past of the three timelines starting at a point in time after they branched out (prevent that the rest of them is deleted for causality reasons). Now move the remains into the past to time 0. What you have constructed is essentially identical to 3 regular timelines and all you did was delete some parts and shift the timelines around.
Y'know, somewhat like this:


Since time never ends (presumably) deleting a bit at the start makes no difference.

 

[Theglassman12]

So yeah, technically speaking nuking one branching timeline that retroactively destroys the entire past and leaves the remaining branches would still leave the remaining branches that extends infinitely as beyond Low 2-C, which just further cements my opinion that how we treat branching timelines as just a case by case basis.

 

[sen_]

I assume you mean that there exist

? Providing A and B are our timelines (i.e. 4D (sub)-manifolds).

Yup, the A ⊖ B term is the symmetric difference, which provides an abbreviation for that.

So is that they construct an interval a requirement or a consequence of the above condition? How do they construct it?

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.

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)

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).

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

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

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.

 

[DontTalkDT]

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.

Unless you're proving an obvious tautology it's definitely not simultaneously assumption and result?

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

Anyway, assuming we want to do it for the sake of clarifying which cases of intersecting timelines are 2-C, the definition still seems unsuited to do so IMO. Sharing all but two infinitesimal points should not be sufficient to qualify. Sharing all but a very small 4D ball should neither, in my opinion.

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)

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

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.

The definition of spatio-temporal separation provided in the initial statement is intended to be inclusive of these scenarios. It allows for the possibility of space-time continuums overlapping in space and time, as long as they are not subsets of one another.

That being said, it is important to keep in mind that overlapping space-time continuums are not truly separate in the sense that they share some points in space and time. It is merely a useful abstraction to consider them as separate universes in certain contexts.

By treating them as “separate”, we can consider them independently and make predictions about their behavior without having to worry about the complications that might arise from their overlap.

If you feel uncomfortable with the term, we can change it to “independent”.

 

[sen_]

Unless you're proving an obvious tautology it's definitely not simultaneously assumption and result?

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.

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.

Sure, though i'm currently on mobile and it's almost 4 A.M, so i'll do it when i wake up.

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 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.

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)

The definition i proposed also leaves out the 2 Planck seconds case, in fact the interval would be a closed, discontinuous one.

 

[PrinceofPein]

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.

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.
Anyway, the reason why I said you concerns are valid is because under what I have said above, any of those branches destruction in its entirety, would also be a low 2-C destruction. we can certainly give out exceptions for when destruction of those branches can be tier 2.
I will write something out later

That said. @sen_ @ImmortalDread DT is answering you guys already, but I will say this, as long as two timelines share the same time/space at one point or another, they are not spatio-temporally separated. As both their space and time can be traced back to one-another, but @sen_ argument is that they can still be large enough as a single timeline which does not branch? yes sure they can, I replied Glassman with the simplified reason.

 

[Theglassman12]

@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?

 

[ImmortalDread]

@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.

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.

 

[PrinceofPein]

@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?

I know it sounds odd, but yes.
No matter as long as they are infinite they are of the same size.
The only exception will be if the branches are subsets of the main timeline(body of the tree)

@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.

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.
What is your argument against it exactly and how is that wrong or flawed?

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.

He is questioning and also answering/clarifying.
Also I did not ignore the main premise.
The main premise of Sen_ is that, these branches can be as large as a single timeline, and which is something I already said and agree with also. It is just the those two branches are spatiotemporally separated part that I don't agree with as that is wrong.

 

[Theglassman12]

@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.

 

[ImmortalDread]

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.

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?

At 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

 

[PrinceofPein]

@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.

I am not sure how to put this but infinity * infinity, is still infinity.
So their destruction will still be of the same size as a single infinity. I.e. a single infinite timeline.
But not to worry, I am working on a post on when the destructions can be classified as higher, since it really does depend on the mode of destruction imo.
I mean standards for when destruction of branching timelines are higher and wjen they are not

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.

A timeline is a 4-D structure and a timeline extends infinitely.
Infinite of those timelines is what happening 2-A, and not a single one.

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.

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?

First these branches are not truly separate and still share the same space and time if traced back.
Secondly, you need to actually refute the point and not just say they are wrong or flawed, without saying why won't make the wrong.
Again why is 5 infinities bigger than one infinity in this case?

At 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

Alright, I will wait