Tier 2 Requirements and Examples Revision

[Guacamolefletcher]

Whereas blowing up just a small portion of time means you're destroying a countably infinite number of snapshots of said physical universe, which is still unquantifiably higher than normal infinite 3-D space High 3-A is. Though the latter part is a subject of debate, the snapshot parts are sort of set in stone here, but they're not really required, they're just an example of what happens when you destroy all of space and time itself (AKA blowing up all of the past, present and future).

This is incoherent in my opinion. The cardinality of the number of real numbers between 1 and 0 is STILL uncountably infinite. If I destroy a timeline only one second long, it's still an uncountable infinity.

 

[Reiner04]

This is incoherent in my opinion. The cardinality of the number of real numbers between 1 and 0 is STILL uncountably infinite. If I destroy a timeline only one second long, it's still an uncountable infinity.

As klol said time related stuff will be discussed in the next fresh thread. This thread is only to deal with tier 3.

 

[KLOL506]

This is incoherent in my opinion. The cardinality of the number of real numbers between 1 and 0 is STILL uncountably infinite. If I destroy a timeline only one second long, it's still an uncountable infinity.

As I said, right now it's a mess. It is subject to change in the next thread.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

can

As I said, right now it's a mess. It is subject to change in the next thread.

can you send me the thread pls?

 

[Reiner04]

can

can you send me the thread pls?

Thread will be created after this thread will be done by firestorm. It doesn't exist yet. If you have any questions left regarding upcoming thread you can ask firestorm or other mods on their wall.

 

[KLOL506]

can

can you send me the thread pls?

It hasn't been made yet bruh.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

This is incoherent in my opinion. The cardinality of the number of real numbers between 1 and 0 is STILL uncountably infinite. If I destroy a timeline only one second long, it's still an uncountable infinity.

Again not the thread for this.

 

[KingPin0422]

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space. More generally, those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass or significantly affecting an infinite 3-D space, such as an infinite number of finite 3-D universes or pocket dimensions or a single infinite 3-D universe or pocket dimension, without affecting any higher dimensions such as time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D spaces, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

 

[Reiner04]

Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier.

Hey @KingPin0422 I didn't realised it before but when I read the current tiering system once again when posted yesterday here I came to find that this line I quoted above to has been changed to "Large number of infinite 3D spaces unless casually closed by seprate spacetime continuum", It seemed bit off to me, as universes that are seprated by seprate spacetime continuum's are 4d not 3d. So when we are saying that they're 3D spaces doesn't it mean they will be tier 3 inherently? Then there will be no use adding "unless they are separate spacetime continuum", it's like saying "finite universes will always be 3a unless infinite", I mean by saying finite here we already have limited it to 3a what's the point in saying "unless infinite"? It should be like "any sized universe will only be 3a unless infinite". So should it let be same as current wording we have in tiering system or adding "3D" is better?

 

[Reiner04]

I guess current wording of the line "large numbers of universes unless casually closed from one another by seprate spacetime continuum or existence" is fine because it gives us sense that volumetric structure of the universes is yet to decide and after confirming that if they are separate spacetime continuum or not, it will be clear that in which tier they fall.

Context is clear in both Firestorm's and yours version but just I find current wording of that sentence better, After this little change I think tier 3 can be finalised to be applied on the wiki page.

 

[Antvasima]

@Antvasima

May you unlock the page?

Tiering System

The following is a comprehensive overview of the hierarchical system which this wiki utilizes in order to properly categorize and index fictional characters, entities, and objects based on the scale of their feats, and the varying scopes which they can affect or create/destroy. However, it...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Have you merged together the two drafts already, or is the one that KingPin0422 wrote acceptable?

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space. More generally, those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass or significantly affecting an infinite 3-D space, such as an infinite number of finite 3-D universes or pocket dimensions or a single infinite 3-D universe or pocket dimension, without affecting any higher dimensions such as time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D spaces, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

Also, which staff members have supported this change so far?

 

[PrinceofPein]

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space. More generally, those who can significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or pocket dimension of comparable size without also affecting time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass or significantly affecting an infinite 3-D space, such as an infinite number of finite 3-D universes or pocket dimensions or a single infinite 3-D universe or pocket dimension, without affecting any higher dimensions such as time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D spaces, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

This looks good to me

 

[Reiner04]

Also, which staff members have supported this change so far?

Ultima, qwasad, klol, pain has accepted both versions (kingpin's and Firestorm's), kingpin only just added requested statement that was present in the Firestorm's version, which was accepted as well by mentioned staff members, So ig it's fine.

 

[Antvasima]

Have you merged together the two drafts already, or is the one that KingPin0422 wrote acceptable?

Also, which staff members have supported this change so far?

@Firestorm808

 

[Firestorm808]

@Firestorm808

Here is the merged draft:

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

So far, KLOL506 and KingPin0422 (Retired) have agreed to the new draft.

 

[Reiner04]

Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence,

Are we sure that 3D going to be added in this particular line? As universes that are seprated by seprate spacetime are 4d. We shouldn't pre determine it to be 3d when we are already proceeding to describe it.
Even ultima has described that 3d universe and 4d universe are different inherently. 3d universes can never be a seprate spacetime continuum's, so this line is either wrong or is entirely off/odd.

Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier.

This line would be more accurate, tbh will make more sense, from our current tiering system. I'll suggest to look over it once again @KLOL506 @KingPin0422

 

[PrinceofPein]

a finite 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

The finite in this is not necessary, since we already have "Of comparable size" in reference to the previous "finitie 3-D space"

 

[Aachintya31]

When is this gonna be complete, it's been over a year and it's only half way through.

 

[KingPin0422]

Hey @KingPin0422 I didn't realised it before but when I read the current tiering system once again when posted yesterday here I came to find that this line I quoted above to has been changed to "Large number of infinite 3D spaces unless casually closed by seprate spacetime continuum", It seemed bit off to me, as universes that are seprated by seprate spacetime continuum's are 4d not 3d. So when we are saying that they're 3D spaces doesn't it mean they will be tier 3 inherently? Then there will be no use adding "unless they are separate spacetime continuum", it's like saying "finite universes will always be 3a unless infinite", I mean by saying finite here we already have limited it to 3a what's the point in saying "unless infinite"? It should be like "any sized universe will only be 3a unless infinite". So should it let be same as current wording we have in tiering system or adding "3D" is better?

I wanted to use a term that could encapsulate both "universe" and "pocket dimension" in one, for which I thought "space" was best. As for why 3-D specifically, Ultima and other experts have directly told me that infinite spaces which are spatially 4-D or more qualify for tiers above High 3-A, so I feel like we should specify that infinite spaces are High 3-A if and only if they are 3-D.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is the merged draft:

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

So far, KLOL506 and KingPin0422 (Retired) have agreed to the new draft.

Thank you.

I think that seems to make sense, but you should probably add the intended 3-A and High 3-A tiers as well.

Can somebody list all of the other staff members who have responded to this thread please? It seems best if I send a notification message to them in order to make certain.

 

[Reiner04]

I wanted to use a term that could encapsulate both "universe" and "pocket dimension" in one, for which I thought "space" was best. As for why 3-D specifically, Ultima and other experts have directly told me that infinite spaces which are spatially 4-D or more qualify for tiers above High 3-A, so I feel like we should specify that infinite spaces are High 3-A if and only if they are 3-D.

Uh, oke, that was fine decision, but for that part/line I think we should let the dimensionality of the universe unknown/not mentioned as 3D because we are proceeding to say that "unless they are separate spacetime" which will be the case only if their dimensionality is yet to decide. "they will be high 3a if and only if 3D" as well inherently states that there is need for dimensionality to be in question.

 

[Reiner04]

Can somebody list all of the other staff members who have responded to this thread please? It seems best if I send a notification message to them in order to make certain

Agnaa, efficiente, DarkDragonMedeus, Qawsedf234, ultima, donttalkdt, Nehz_XZX.

 

[Antvasima]

Here is the merged draft:

3-A: Universe level​

Characters who can create or destroy all celestial bodies within a finite 3-D space at least equivalent in size to the observable universe via an omnidirectional explosion that covers the entire space, alternately create or significantly affect[1] a 3-D universe or a pocket dimension of comparable size, which does not involve the destruction and/or creation of space-time.

High 3-A: High Universe level​

Characters who demonstrate an infinite amount of energy on a 3-D scale, such as creating or destroying infinite mass, or those who can affect an infinite 3-D space. This extends to an infinite number of finite or infinite-sized 3-D universes or pocket dimensions when not accounting for higher dimensions or time. Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier. Being “infinitely” stronger than this level, unless uncountably so, does not qualify for any higher tier.

So far, KLOL506 and KingPin0422 (Retired) have agreed to the new draft.

@DontTalkDT @DarkDragonMedeus @Qawsedf234 @Agnaa @Eficiente @Ultima_Reality @Nehz_XZX

Does this draft seem acceptable to you?

 

[DarkDragonMedeus]

Looks okay

 

[KingPin0422]

Uh, oke, that was fine decision, but for that part/line I think we should let the dimensionality of the universe unknown/not mentioned as 3D because we are proceeding to say that "unless they are separate spacetime" which will be the case only if their dimensionality is yet to decide. "they will be high 3a if and only if 3D" as well inherently states that there is need for dimensionality to be in question.

To be more specific, one can say that lower-D stuff (mainly 2-D and 1-D) at an infinite scale is also High 3-A if there's no reason to think that infinite 2-D things are beneath finite 3-D things just because they're lower-dimensional. That's something I do wanna touch on as I feel that how we treat lower-D doesn't line up with how we treat higher-D, but I won't voice it here if the staff don't want me to.

 

[Guacamolefletcher]

To be more specific, one can say that lower-D stuff (mainly 2-D and 1-D) at an infinite scale is also High 3-A if there's no reason to think that infinite 2-D things are beneath finite 3-D things just because they're lower-dimensional. That's something I do wanna touch on as I feel that how we treat lower-D doesn't line up with how we treat higher-D, but I won't voice it here if the staff don't want me to.

wwhat? they're literally, literally dimensionally lower. An aleph 0 sized plane is smaller than a 1 by 1 by 1 cm cube, literally, no matter how you cut the mustard . A 2d thing would have area, and an aleph 0 sized one would have infinite area. Any area is literally inaccessibly smaller than any finite volume.

 

[Reiner04]

To be more specific, one can say that lower-D stuff (mainly 2-D and 1-D) at an infinite scale is also High 3-A if there's no reason to think that infinite 2-D things are beneath finite 3-D things just because they're lower-dimensional. That's something I do wanna touch on as I feel that how we treat lower-D doesn't line up with how we treat higher-D, but I won't voice it here if the staff don't want me to.

Infinite amount of 2d will as well will be 2d or infinite amount of 3d will as well will be 3d, unless uncountably or so, but not that it's important.
What's the matter is large numbers of infinite 3d universes can never be a seprate spacetime continuum because spacetime continuum is infact 4D, So our current tiering system definition for this line is accurately better than what we have decided to change it to.

Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence, only count for a higher level of this tier.

This line shouldn't be changed from our current definition.
And I read the thread but now one voiced for this to be changed, I think this change is caused by misunderstanding and staff members need to look over this matter because it's just one line and w/o comparing it with our current definition it'll be hard to realise that it's wrong. Afterall I myself as well didn't realised it unless I saw the current definition.

 

[Antvasima]

I asked DontTalk and Ultima to comment here via private messages.

 

[Reiner04]

Large numbers of infinite universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence,

Large numbers of infinite 3-D universes, unless causally closed from one another by a separate spacetime or existence,

Only thing that has been mostly left debatable is, which of the following 2 lines above seems more reliable to use.

In 1st one dimensionality of the universes has kept in question because we are proceeding to say that they will only qualify for higher tier if they are separate spacetime continuum or existence. Dimensionality of the universes is not predetermined and has been kept in question.

In 2nd One, it says that Large number of infinite 3D universes can be casually closed from one another by seprate spacetime continuum which shouldn't be the case as 3D universes cannot be 4D and so cannot be separate spacetime continuum. So predefining universes as 3D is eliminating the sole reason for this line to exist in high 3a.

 

[PrinceofPein]

Yeah I dont see the point of the 3-D universes, unless they want to add space behnd it

 

[Reiner04]

Yeah I dont see the point of the 3-D universes, unless they want to add space behnd it

We have been sharing same thoughts from few recent encounters, indeed I wasn't wrong to choose you as a soon to be staff.

 

[Reiner04]

only count for a higher level of this tier

Also after thinking a while, this line should be changed as well, as large number of infinite universes are no bigger than single infinite universe, so if structure itself is not larger then how comes it counted as higher level of this tier? It'll be just high 3a there is no further expansion of such structures possible. Continuum Hypothesis remember?

Unlike high 3a characters whose power can vary within given tier.

if someone thinks I am nitpicking then think yourself, how come we are giving same sized structure different levels within same tier? This line is entirely wrong and misleading I can guarantee it.

Coming to the next problem
Is it even possible to be "infinitely" or "any" times more powerful than high 3a characters while still being in the same tier? Again as per continuum hypothesis anything greater than aleph0 will be aleph1 in very least. So In terms of producing energy it will always be infinite. The energy they're producing is infinite, it cannot be any higher, they can be physically strong but that's it. They will only vary on this level if they have advantages of hax or different physical capabilities that doesn't account or has anything to do with this tier at all.

 

[PrinceofPein]

if someone thinks I am nitpicking then think yourself, how come we are giving same sized structure different levels within same tier? This line is entirely wrong and misleading I can guarantee it.

Yes it is nitpicking and it's not misleading
As fiction does not always treat it that way.

Put it this way, you are so powerful you can destroy 0.00000001% of an infinite space, that's still infinite.
And someone else can destroy 1% of that space which is still infinite, but the person would technically be millions of times stronger than you are even though you both have infinite attack power.

So yes in fiction there can be higher levels of High 3-A

 

[PrinceofPein]

Anyway if Ultima and DT won't reply here
The changes should be applied, this has gone on a long time.
At least we can start the tier 2 thread

 

[ImmortalDread]

Yes it is nitpicking and it's not misleading
As fiction does not always treat it that way.

Put it this way, you are so powerful you can destroy 0.00000001% of an infinite space, that's still infinite.
And someone else can destroy 1% of that space which is still infinite, but the person would technically be millions of times stronger than you are even though you both have infinite attack power.

So yes in fiction there can be higher levels of High 3-A

Hence, “higher” exists, lol. I thought it is self-explanatory.

 

[Reiner04]

Yes it is nitpicking and it's not misleading
As fiction does not always treat it that way.

Put it this way, you are so powerful you can destroy 0.00000001% of an infinite space, that's still infinite.
And someone else can destroy 1% of that space which is still infinite, but the person would technically be millions of times stronger than you are even though you both have infinite attack power.

So yes in fiction there can be higher levels of High 3-A

One word “impossible”, there is no such thing as different sizes of aleph 0 structures.
The only debatable tier that has been Compromised for "fiction logic" is tier 2, tier 3 is purely based of logic and no fiction goes against it, logically, you can try thinking name one.

We even treat destroying infinite number of infinite multiverses same as destroying infinite multiverse. We only goes with “fiction logic” when we have no choice, as a last resort.

 

[Reiner04]

And someone else can destroy 1% of that space which is still infinite, but the person would technically be millions of times stronger than you are even though you both have infinite attack power

And it's about structure not character.
Character is a different topic all of the topic is not needed to be discussed together as it will just mess up everything. Our current tiering system says large numbers of infinite universes is greater than infinite universe. It breaks the continuum hypothesis on which our all of tiering system is based.

Large numbers of infinite 3-D spaces, unless causally closed from one another by separate spacetime continuums, only count for a higher level of this tier

 

[PrinceofPein]

One word “impossible”, there is no such thing as different sizes of aleph 0 structures.
The only debatable tier that has been Compromised for "fiction logic" is tier 2, tier 3 is purely based of logic and no fiction goes against it, logically, you can try thinking name one.

Yes its a xianxia novel, able to absorb a single infinite world but cannot absorb another cause well he is not strong enough.
Thats a difference in 3-A.
i will do you one better and add another example..
A will eternal, two different worlds both infinite, one is larger than another, Bai xaichun can destroy one and can do jack shit to the other.

So yes fiction does these things.
and aside that if i was 4D, i can divide up an infinite 3D structure.

We even treat destroying infinite number of infinite multiverses same as destroying infinite multiverse. We only goes with “fiction logic” when we have no choice, as a last resort.

Nah I don't think so, as there are higher levels of 2-A also and above baseline 2-A. I think what you meant is they are the same tier, but one when looked at is better than another.

And it's about structure not character.
Character is a different topic all of the topic is not needed to be discussed together as it will just mess up everything. Our current tiering system says large numbers of infinite universes is greater than infinite universe. It breaks the continuum hypothesis on which our all of tiering system is based.

Based on is not the same 1:1, we allow for fiction here too and characters and vs wiki goes hand in hand.
And I don't see where you are seeing, only tier 2 is based on fiction, everything below too make room for fiction and above, cause this is a fiction indexing site, not a physics or maths class.

So yes the quote is fine as it is, there are higher levels of High 3-A.

 

[Reiner04]

Yes its a xianxia novel, able to absorb a single infinite world but cannot absorb another cause well he is not strong enough.
Thats a difference in 3-A.

Does this character even have a profile? You know there are millions of novels at the moment including my own novel and I myself broke logics in them and wrote PIS, our tiering system is not based of PIS.

A will eternal, two different worlds both infinite, one is larger than another, Bai xaichun can destroy one and can do jack shit to the other.

One is high 3a and another is L2C then.

Nah I don't think so, as there are higher levels of 2-A also and above baseline 2-A. I think what you meant is they are the same tier, but one when looked at is better than another.

Read it then, a quote from FAQ Says :-

The reason is that the total amount of universes contained in a collection of multiple infinitely-sized multiverses (even one consisting of infinitely many of them) is in fact equal to the amount of universes contained in a single one of the multiverses

Infinite amount of infinite multiverses = single one of them, multiverse containing infinite universes.

Based on is not the same 1:1, we allow for fiction here too and characters and vs wiki goes hand in hand.
And I don't see where you are seeing, only tier 2 is based on fiction, everything below too make room for fiction and above, cause this is a fiction indexing site, not a physics or maths class.

Based on FAQ answer above as this is the same case, it's 1:1 size, aleph 0 will always be aleph 0 there is no devisions possible because of continuum hypothesis, just say it to ultima that aleph 0 can have different sizes, like even numbers is smaller than natural numbers, he'll remove himself from existence.

 

[Reiner04]

Also as I said, current topic is structure not character.

One thing more, this thread is concerning tiering system itself, it's not a debate but a discussion on which our entire forum/wiki is based, so knowledgeable members/staff members shouldn't just be judge at the end (because it'll cause them not knowing the current arguements) but also a Part of this discussion as well. I suppose.