Tiering System Dimensions and Mathematics Revision

[CosmicWreck]

Sorry for the click bait title, this is not actually the replacement of the tiering system that so many have requested for.

It's merely the revision of our current tiering system.

When I was in the midst of revising my favorite franchises I came to a truly horrible conclusion.

The tiering system is almost impossible to use as a frame of reference when dealing with fiction, especially when dealing with the most powerful of franchises since it contradicts both itself and the mathematics it uses.

I explain my musings here.

A New Way of Reviewing High and Low Level Feats

vsbattles.fandom.com

It's a long read so of course I made a summary to explain as to what would occur if the changes to the tiering system were to be made according to my accepted proposals.

In summary​

1. Rate higher dimensional, as well as lower dimensional characters to the characters or constructs they can manipulate or are superior to instead of the level of existence they are at unless they can manipulate, or significantly affect the universally large worlds of said levels of existences.
2. Relate characters as being either, in terms of plot relevance, weaker or superior to lower or higher dimensional constructs to tier 1 or tier 11 unless they dimensional superiority doesn't exist or is contradicted, in which joules will be allowed to be used instead.
3. Make 2-A a more variable tier according to plot relevance and the use of the extensions of ordinals as an example of mathematical superiority.
4. Decrease the use of NLF either via discarding conceptually transcendent entities as attack potency relevant entirely, rate them as being beyond the number of dimensions or relevant AP tier-able concepts shown, or relate them to real life terminologies. I would prefer the second option, as the last can quickly become No-Limits-Fallacious.
5. Specify an infinite hierarchy of baseline transcendence is used for High 1-B, a second hierarchy for 1-A+ and a third hierarchy for High 1-A where the mathematical models should be aleph 1, 2 and 3 respectively instead of employing the use of Large cardinals. Tier 0 should also have a mathematical equivalent from where it starts. That is, Mahlo cardinals for the old system. Aleph 4 for my proposed new one. Alternatively we can separate Tier 0 into subcategories such that aleph omega, large cardinals and Mahlo cardinals or above are still used (Tier 0-C, Tier 0-B, Tier 0-A respectively). Of course, High 1-A would become between aleph 3 and aleph omega which would result in a downgrade for most of the tier 0 characters on this wiki. This would take a larger amount of work so I don't propose the alternative.
6. Durability is to be treated as a much more variable aspect where it denotes the maximum amount of damage a character can tank and still continue to fight, and not the designation of pseudo-invulnerability it would be depicted as if they followed real life energy values or a few incredibly durable entities such as Thanos.
7. Update the tiering system to give a more accurate and concrete mathematical example of tier 0.

Agreed upon resulting changes to the tiering system in accordance to the summary​

1. The tiering of higher beings stay the same, except a note is to be given that they aren't capable of controlling their worlds to their full capacities in regards to higher and beyond dimensional entities.
2. Contested and debunked.
3. Make a note that cosmological constructs that contain more stuff than a countable amount of universes is enough for a jump to Low 1-C in the FAQ. Alternatively treat countably infinite verses as Omega as a baseline, and use ordinals to compare them when speaking about larger collections of universes.
4. Decrease the use of NLF via rating them according to real life theoretical constructs and their limitations (for example, mathematical verses aren't tier 0 by default because ZFC doesn't normally accept the existence of large cardinals without an additional axiom). Alternatively, whenever stated to being beyond the concept of an AP applicable object one is rated beyond the amount of that concept (such as dimensions) shown.
5. Debunked.
6. Make a Feats section on the relevant profiles to indicate the degrees of durability and other statistics that aren't suited to being in the relevant categories under normal situations.
7. Undecided.

Agreements to proposed changes where (/) indicates options (whether the first or an alternative)​

users support​

1. Agnaa
2. N/A
3. Oblivion_Of_The_Endless/Agnaa
4. Ultima_Reality/Agnaa
5. N/A
6. Agnaa
7. N/A

Disagreements to proposed changes where (/) indicates, whether the first or an alternative, options users support​

1. 0
2. N/A
3. 0/Oblivion_Of_The_Endless
4. 0/0
5. N/A
6. 0
7. N/A

 

[Cat275]

Tier 0 should also have a mathematical equivalent from where it starts. That is, Mahlo cardinals for the old system. Aleph 4 for my proposed new one.

Is this because transcending an aleph 3 by r>f wouldn't create an aleph 4 because an r>f is considered to be aleph 1 snapshots here and therefore doesn't create a aleph 3^aleph 3=aleph 4 with this satisfying as a power set for aleph 3?

 

[Agnaa]

First thing's first, please remove the tier categories you added to your blog post. Those are only for use on profiles.

For now I'll respond to your summary list. But if you think it's important, I could read the blog post as well.

1. I agree with this. I think we've often played a bit fast and loose with this sorta thing. Treating characters who are beyond a 1-A+ hierarchy as High 1-A, even though they can't manipulate High 1-A realms, only 1-A+ ones. This would mostly just be a matter of separating durability and AP. Although, there are many cases where a change wouldn't need to be made; this is mostly applicable for reality-fiction characters, and character who transcend realms, not so much for higher-dimensional characters.
2. I don't really understand what you're saying here. Do you think that a small-scale 8-D character with no indication of a dimensional superiority existing should be given a tier 1 rating? Because if so, I'd disagree.
3. idk if this is necessary, tier 2 is already separated way more than any other higher-D tiers, idk if it needs more separation. And, even if this were to occur, it's likely to be quickly overturned, as some users are planning a much larger revision for tier 2.
4. This is already something we should be doing. Any examples to the contrary are slip-ups that go against our standards, imo.
5. The decision of how large to consider each transcendence within a tier to be is arbitrary. This has been known since the current system was implemented. What you suggest would technically work, but would needlessly inflate the tiers of mathematics-based verses massively, and confers no real explanatory/consistency advantage. We treat transcendences within new hierarchies as encompassing the old hierarchies, as that's part of the definition for these hierarchies in the first place, but how far encompassing those equalisations should be is arbitrary.
6. This is kind of a thing on a handful of profiles. One of the verses I work on has a character at 9-A for getting demolished by an attack but still having their bones/organs intact. People don't scale to 9-A for damaging that character unless they break their bones or rupture their organs. But I would like to see it be more widespread.
7. This could be done, but also doesn't seem super necessary.

 

[CosmicWreck]

Is this because transcending an aleph 3 by r>f wouldn't create an aleph 4 because an r>f is considered to be aleph 1 snapshots here and therefore doesn't create a aleph 3^aleph 3=aleph 4 with this satisfying as a power set?

Pretty much yeah. Baseline transcendence would stop meaning anything on the level the current aleph since we already note the transcending of infinite hierachies as the equivalent of moving onto the next aleph. It's for this reason that the current definition of High 1-A is unreachable to most fictional cosmic framework, especially the ones we currently rate on this wiki.

 

[CosmicWreck]

First thing's first, please remove the tier categories you added to your blog post. Those are only for use on profiles.

For now I'll respond to your summary list. But if you think it's important, I could read the blog post as well.

I believe reading the blog is very important actually, I honestly just wrote the summary so when people read the blog they can note the most relevant arguments and ignore all the fluff that's there more for presentation purposes. I typed it not expecting (or even desiring) people to read all of it, but simply a skimming of the most relevant points are essential in my opinion.

Also, the blog exists so I don't have to repeat myself

1. I agree with this. I think we've often played a bit fast and loose with this sorta thing. Treating characters who are beyond a 1-A+ hierarchy as High 1-A, even though they can't manipulate High 1-A realms, only 1-A+ ones. This would mostly just be a matter of separating durability and AP. Although, there are many cases where a change wouldn't need to be made; this is mostly applicable for reality-fiction characters, and character who transcend realms, not so much for higher-dimensional characters.

I don't agree. As I pointed out on the blog, in fictions with Reality>Fiction transcendence there are almost always constraints in the extent of their abilities such that comparing them with other higher dimensional manipulators doesn't work.

1. I don't really understand what you're saying here. Do you think that a small-scale 8-D character with no indication of a dimensional superiority existing should be given a tier 1 rating? Because if so, I'd disagree.

I apologize, I knew I didn't word this properly but I didn't really know how to word this better. Basically, this hinges on the idea I introduced that plot relevance mostly dwarfs any other possible method of comparison. As such, since most higher dimensional constructs are usually depicted as being superior to the previous ones, then the argument that lower dimensional constructs (that is 2D<3D) can produce comparable or higher degrees of energy becomes null and void.

Of course, this is not always the case, in which case joules (that is, the normal tiers 11-A to tier 3) can be used.

1. idk if this is necessary, tier 2 is already separated way more than any other higher-D tiers, idk if it needs more separation. And, even if this were to occur, it's likely to be quickly overturned, as some users are planning a much larger revision for tier 2.

I read that thread and to my knowledge this wasn't brought up in any way. That thread is more to do with the fact that time-space is not always destroyed even if multiple universes are involved. This has no bearing on tier 2 as a whole, also, but rather tier 2-A specifically. Regardless, this proposal doesn't contradict anything.

1. This is already something we should be doing. Any examples to the contrary are slip-ups that go against our standards, imo.

Usually I would agree with you but there are three examples of this occurring on this wikia, three of which are incredibly popular franchises. Even excluding that there are numerous instances where other staff members that have been insisting that it's a site standard. Regardless if this isn't the case it should be noted somewhere so the uses of these arguments will be viewed as the fallacies they should be, imo.

1. The decision of how large to consider each transcendence within a tier to be is arbitrary. This has been known since the current system was implemented. What you suggest would technically work, but would needlessly inflate the tiers of mathematics-based verses massively, and confers no real explanatory/consistency advantage. We treat transcendences within new hierarchies as encompassing the old hierarchies, as that's part of the definition for these hierarchies in the first place, but how far encompassing those equalisations should be is arbitrary.

I disagree entirely. Currently, we already inflate the tiers beyond what would mathematically make sense, since Aleph 3 is currently treated as being acquired by simply transcending a single level of aleph 2's baseline reality. How we treat the characters now, they aren't just transcending by one level anymore. They're transcending entire powersets or, as we would say, entire hierarchies.

To treat them otherwise equal would be simply incorrect.

Also, It's not even a problem of being arbitrary really. It's just plain wrong. We wouldn't treat a single infinite hierarchy of woodin cardinals to be High 1-B, for example, simpy because there's a single hierarchy of it.

1. This is kind of a thing on a handful of profiles. One of the verses I work on has a character at 9-A for getting demolished by an attack but still having their bones/organs intact. People don't scale to 9-A for damaging that character unless they break their bones or rupture their organs. But I would like to see it be more widespread.

Yes...absolutely brilliant.

We can even go further and say that even killing them by a plurality of attacks wouldn't be enough for them to scale, as a "death by a thousand cuts" thing depicted in most fictions, which I found to be most prevalent to a plethora of franchises, including games and comics which lets us handle them more sharply without relying on the old arguments of "it's game mechanics" or "Plot induced stupidity".

1. This could be done, but also doesn't seem super necessary.

We've already done it. It's just for the tiering system to be updated so new users don't have to look through a thousand threads to find out where and why we've decided Mahlo cardinals (or whatever we decide) are the baseline point (or for people who don't usually deal with these kinds of threads).

 

[Agnaa]

I believe reading the blog is very important actually

Well ****. I'll try to get to that later then. If there's anything I say which you think your blog answers, feel free to ignore it for the time being.

I don't agree. As I pointed out on the blog, in fictions with Reality>Fiction transcendence there are almost always constraints in the extent of their abilities such that comparing them with other higher dimensional manipulators doesn't work.

I think there's quite a few things in fiction that are difficult to compare, but I don't think that's cause for giving up. We deal with that through some amount of arbitrary equalisation (realms that encompass lower ones = large higher dimensions = reality fiction differences), but we could do with more care, in line with what I said in my last post.

I apologize, I knew I didn't word this properly but I didn't really know how to word this better. Basically, this hinges on the idea I introduced that plot relevance mostly dwarfs any other possible method of comparison. As such, since most higher dimensional constructs are usually depicted as being superior to the previous ones, then the argument that lower dimensional constructs (that is 2D<3D) can produce comparable or higher degrees of energy becomes null and void.

I think I understand this until I reach the last sentence, where I get completely lost. I think I'll need to read the blog for this one.

I read that thread and to my knowledge this wasn't brought up in any way. That thread is more to do with the fact that time-space is not always destroyed even if multiple universes are involved. This has no bearing on tier 2 as a whole, also, but rather tier 2-A specifically. Regardless, this proposal doesn't contradict anything.

I'm talking about a different revision. One of the suggestions involves redefining everything in tier 2, in this sort of way (note that there are different similar suggestions floating around):

1. 2-C (or Low 2-C): Finite spacetime/spacetime interval (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
2. High 2-C (or 2-C): Multiple finite spacetimes/intervals but not a whole infinite continuum/infinite 4-D area (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
3. 2-B: An entire infinite spacetime continuum or infinite 4-D space.
4. 2-A: 4-D spacetime continuums separated by a 5-D interval (not everyone agrees with this suggestion; an alternate one would be to return infinite 5-D here).

I don't see a great space for your 2-A suggestion in here, especially since this overhaul of the tiers aims to eliminate the arbitrary timeline-counting, due to any amount of infinite 4-D space having the same size.

Regardless if this isn't the case it should be noted somewhere so the uses of these arguments will be viewed as the fallacies they should be, imo.

I'm not sure where "conceptually transcendent entities should only be considered to be one hierarchy higher, and not tier 0 by default" would get placed. But if there is a good place, I'd be happy to put something like that there.

I disagree entirely. Currently, we already inflate the tiers beyond what would mathematically make sense, since Aleph 3 is currently treated as being acquired by simply transcending a single level of aleph 2's baseline reality. How we treat the characters now, they aren't just transcending by one level anymore. They're transcending entire powersets or, as we would say, entire hierarchies.

Yes but the important point is that 1-A hierarchies are new hierarchies, where even a single step in it completely encompasses the rest of the verse/tiering system that comes before it. If one step takes you from a size of 0 (nothing) or 1 (a single point) to a realm beyond R^R (uncountably infinite points in uncountably infinite dimensions), then would you really expect the second step in that hierarchy to just be R^R * omega (or * R or * R^R)? It doesn't seem weird for each step to be equivalent to adding another ^R to the end of the chain, equivalent to incrementing the aleph number by +1. Yeah, this has each step go over entire hierarchies, since the first step already went over entire hierarchies; the next ones should continue that trend. Even though this involves the absolute gap increasing, every step still involves an increasing absolute gap lower on in tier 1.

Also, It's not even a problem of being arbitrary really. It's just plain wrong. We wouldn't treat a single infinite hierarchy of woodin cardinals to be High 1-B, for example, simpy because there's a single hierarchy of it.

Yeah, but that's not something we'd currently do. We'd rate it as being Tier 0 due to having an absolute size that large.

We've already done it. It's just for the tiering system to be updated so new users don't have to look through a thousand threads to find out where and why we've decided Mahlo cardinals (or whatever we decide) are the baseline point (or for people who don't usually deal with these kinds of threads).

I know that we've already kinda done it, but we've never concretely decided on it, since it's almost never useful. idk if the tiering system page is the best place for it, I think it might belong more in the FAQ.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Huh. Second Tiering System objection I've seen this month, gotta start asking for nickels in case those turn into a trend, I guess.

In any case: This is my provisional answer. You can probably expect a more detailed one coming later on (After I deal with some stuff on my backlog), but I feel this summarizes my thoughts decently enough.

Rate higher dimensional, as well as lower dimensional characters to the characters or constructs they can manipulate or are superior to instead of the level of existence they are at unless they can manipulate, or significantly affect the universally large worlds of said levels of existences.

I don't think this issue is solvable solely through this manner, specifically. Tier 2 has always been a bit of an anomaly in this regard because the way it's structured is predicated on the notion of "Fiction often doesn't treat all localized spacetime destruction feats as necessarily superior to blowing up a universe, so we shouldn't treat this way, either." That much, however, can be contested, and I don't think incorporating smaller-scale spacetime continuums into the Tiering System is something impossible to accomplish, as I've already expressed in other threads (Agnaa once suggested that we make such feats High 3-A, for instance)

Relate characters as being either, in terms of plot relevance, weaker or superior to lower or higher dimensional constructs to tier 1 or tier 11 unless they dimensional superiority doesn't exist or is contradicted, in which joules will be allowed to be used instead.

Make 2-A a more variable tier according to plot relevance and the use of the extensions of ordinals as an example of mathematical superiority.

I don't understand these points.

Decrease the use of NLF either via discarding conceptually transcendent entities as attack potency relevant entirely, rate them as being beyond the number of dimensions or relevant AP tier-able concepts shown, or relate them to real life terminologies. I would prefer the second option, as the last can quickly become No-Limits-Fallacious.

For this, I'll just refer to the corresponding part of your blog:

The current tiering system allows the use of no limits fallacies: More specifically it allows the use of the ideas of being beyond mathematics, as well as beyond the concepts of dimensions, both of which are no longer suited for the current tiering system as even a single space-time continuum can encompass that of the large cardinals. This would make such statements beyond not only their current ratings (1-A and High 1-A) but well into the rating of tier 0. Similar statements, such as Ayin or being unable to be described by language is defunct for similar reasons. Further, even being beyond the framework of something is a no limits fallacy. This is because this can be continued infinitely. For example, to be beyond the dimensional framework one would have to be 1-A. However, to be beyond the aleph framework one would have to be straight up High 1-A since large cardinals are beyond the normal constraints of ZFC. If it is beyond the framework of large cardinals it would have to be beyond even the usual extents of what we consider to be strong tier 0 characters. This would presumably continue and last forever.

Anyway: Yeah, I agree that taking such feats to the highest possible degree would involve them scaling notably far into the Tiering System, to the point of boundlessness, in fact. I don't think this is an issue, though: In my view, it's perfectly doable to restrict such statements to the least possible point in which a reasonable rating for them would be found, since exceeding one logical framework obviously doesn't necessarily mean you would have to transcend all of them in succession.

For example, let's compare two different formal systems: ZFC + "There exists a proper class of inaccessible cardinals" and ZFC + "There exists no inaccessible cardinal." In the former framework, the least of all inaccessibles would be larger than all of the sets present in the latter, and could, in fact, be seen as behaving like a proper class in relation to it; an object that's far too large to be a set. This being just an extension of something which occurs at lower scales, as well: In a set theory that lacks the Axiom of Infinity, the natural numbers would be the ordinals populating its universe of sets, and ω, the smallest infinite ordinal (Which exists as a simple set in a broader universe), would be the proper class of all sets.

Of course, that's assuming proper classes are even objects present in our domain of discourse. In more standard frameworks, like ZFC, proper classes aren't formally defined, and so the idea of "the collection of all sets" is just something far, far too large to be considered as just another toy to play around with.

That way, we pretty much preserve the mathematical backdrop of the Tiering System while finding a fairly reasonable way to take into account that sort of feat.

Specify an infinite hierarchy of baseline transcendence is used for High 1-B, a second hierarchy for 1-A+ and a third hierarchy for High 1-A where the mathematical models should be aleph 1, 2 and 3 respectively instead of employing the use of Large cardinals. Tier 0 should also have a mathematical equivalent from where it starts. That is, Mahlo cardinals for the old system. Aleph 4 for my proposed new one.

Eh, no. Once you hit the High 1-B scale, the smallest possible difference in size you can have in there is a jump to the next cardinality. For instance, R^ω+1 isn't a larger number of dimensions than R^ω, and neither is R^ω+2, nor R^ω+3, and so on and so forth. To actually increase the size of the space, you'd have to add in uncountably-many dimensions (Under that kind of notation, R^ω1), and the same applies to every level on that tier.

It's the same principle as with how, once you reach 2-A, adding in countable numbers of universes won't get you anywhere. You'd need uncountably-many universes to breach into Low 1-C.

 

[Agnaa]

Alright, reading through the blog and responding to points from it.

The current system is inconsistent: The extent of damage tier 1 and tier 11 entities are able to cause is limited in comparison to tier 2 entities (that is, the objects they manipulate, though higher dimensional, are at times not of universal size) despite all of them using similar dimensional constructs that the tiering system uses as well as being rated in the same way.

I don't know if that's an inconsistency. The idea is that their size is, I guess, "expanded" or "shrunken" by infinite amounts, such that it doesn't matter whether the original construct is 1 m^3 or 1e70 m^3. Although some contradictions do still exist (small-scale temporal 4-D not counting, tier 11 being defined in terms of R^N despite R^1 being larger than any finite joule value) that we'd hope to stamp out.

The tiering system is not accurate: It fails to take into consideration the fact that due to different physical laws higher dimensional constructs are not inherently superior to lower ones due to less mass being visualized in real life theoretical constructs even when they are of universal size.

This only happens in cases where higher-dimensional objects have 3-D slices of infinitesimal mass; something which is contradicted in most demonstrations of higher-dimensions in fiction. This also isn't the case when the higher-dimensional objects are infinitely large (infinite joules are infinite joules either way, so the only measuring stick we have is the region of space affected, which is higher for infinite space with 4 dimensions than it is for infinite space with 3 dimensions) or which involve temporal dimensions (as temporal dimensions refer to a copy of the 3-D universe which has finite mass, and any interval of that temporal dimension has uncountably infinite snapshots of this).

There is also the fact that dimensions are theoretical constructs in themselves and thus “accuracy” only exists as a concept when speaking about one certain dimensional diagram out of a variety of others. For example, geometric and coordinate dimensions are not the same as topological dimensions.

I'm not sure what impact this has on tiering, and I'm not 100% sure what the distinction is, but I have two ideas and I think at least one of them is correct. For the first idea, I believe we're currently using geometric and coordinate dimensions, which in practice simply means stricter standards. For the second idea, toplogical dimensions, if they tie into the dimensionality of fractals, are rare enough for them to not be our default assumption, but we probably should recognise them when they pop up and not count them.

Finally, there’s also the fact that mass and energy are dimensionless concepts so the idea that 2 dimensional beings necessarily create less than 0 joules of energy is false.

We do not have this assumption; they have to be existentially inferior to be considered to create less than 0 joules of energy, which is kind of a given with the definition of "existentially inferior".

The current tiering system is inefficient: the degree of understanding of high concept maths and physics needed to apply the current tiering system properly when dealing with higher or lower dimensional powered characters is difficult to reach.

I think that there is a concern with the amount of knowledge needed to evaluate higher/lower-dimensional powered verses, but I don't think this is the root cause. You don't need a significant understanding of high concept maths and physics to evaluate any verses which don't invoke those themselves. You just need intimate knowledge of a web of standards on what we consider suitable evidence, and what we don't. That's why there are some people who can evaluate 11/2-0 threads but not changes to the tiering system, and it's why there are some people who can evaluate changes to the tiering system but not tier 11/2-0 threads (such as myself).

And fwiw, I don't think there's any great fix to this sort of thing. The only idea I have would be listing all the precedent somewhere, but it'd be difficult to make that exhaustive.

The current tiering system is counter-intuitive: It basically requires new users to read dozens of articles to even begin to comprehend the nature of higher and lower dimensional entities as well as dozens more to understand how they in turn relate to mathematics as a concept.

I don't think you need that much knowledge for a practical understanding. I could pen a good enough explanation pretty quickly.

1. Low 2-C: One timeline.
2. 2-C: 2-1000 timelines.
3. 2-B: 1001 or any higher finite number of timelines.
4. 2-A: An infinite number of timelines.
5. Low 1-C: One to two qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
6. 1-C: Three to five qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
7. High 1-C: Six to seven qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
8. 1-B: Eight or any higher finite number of qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
9. High 1-B: An infinite number of qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
10. Low 1-A: An uncountably infinite number of qualitative superiorities over something in tier 2.
11. 1-A: A new hierarchy of infinite superiority; doing something different than the increases in the rest of tier 1, such that going from the bottom to one step up in this hierarchy encompasses everything from 11-C to Low 1-A.
12. 1-A+: Infinite steps in that new hierarchy.
13. High 1-A: A new hierarchy that sees 1-A the same way 1-A saw everything below it.
14. 0: A new hierarchy that sees High 1-A the same way High 1-A saw 1-A.

What's a qualitative superiority? Any significantly beyond-infinite increase in power. Seeing something as fiction, being a higher level of reality, or being uncountably infinitely stronger.

What's uncountable infinity? An uncountable infinity is any infinity larger than the lowest infinity, called countable infinity. This is difficult to reach without an explicit statement, since neither infinity + infinity, nor infinity * infinity gets you anything larger than just countable infinity.

More importantly its use of theoretical concepts also make it questionable as a system since there’s little proof that the story would necessarily follow this interpretation of dimensional theory.

It doesn't have to, this is just a measuring stick.

For example, adding infinite universes to an already infinite cosmology will mathematically still be the same as any other cosmology.

That's something we already follow under our current system, unless the series itself explicitly contradicts that.

The current tiering system allows the use of no limits fallacies: More specifically it allows the use of the ideas of being beyond mathematics, as well as beyond the concepts of dimensions, both of which are no longer suited for the current tiering system as even a single space-time continuum can encompass that of the large cardinals. This would make such statements beyond not only their current ratings (1-A and High 1-A) but well into the rating of tier 0. Similar statements, such as Ayin or being unable to be described by language is defunct for similar reasons. Further, even being beyond the framework of something is a no limits fallacy. This is because this can be continued infinitely. For example, to be beyond the dimensional framework one would have to be 1-A. However, to be beyond the aleph framework one would have to be straight up High 1-A since large cardinals are beyond the normal constraints of ZFC. If it is beyond the framework of large cardinals it would have to be beyond even the usual extents of what we consider to be strong tier 0 characters. This would presumably continue and last forever.

It doesn't allow the use of these; we had a thread where the consensus was to reject this idea. While some argued that such statements should place characters at tier 0, we agreed that we'd lowball those sorts of things by only putting those characters beyond the cosmological constructs shown in the setting. Even if we know that the number 30 exists, a character being "beyond all possible dimensions of space and time" doesn't mean they're beyond 30 dimensions of space and time if only 4 exist in the setting; it's possible that 4 dimensions of space and time are all that can exist in the setting. That's the sort of thing we go by, which tends to keep these statements under control.

The tiering system does not follow the mathematical foundation it’s built on: High 1-A is based on the complete transcendence of any 1-A+ hierachies. This is contradictory to the decision to make High 1-A be beyond the equivalent of two infinite hierarchies which is not nearly enough for even the most basic of large cardinals. Tier 0 is similarly contradictory where they are still in the use of standard infinite hierarchies.

Those transcended hierarchies are assumed to be able to continue for long enough to make that work.

It’s in the current belief that 1-A characters are the equivalent to aleph 3, however I heavily disagree with this. One to infinite dimensions are all equivalent to aleph 1.

Yeah, 11-B to High 1-B is technically aleph 1.

To be uncountable infinite compared to this (thus, aleph 2) one needs a single baseline transcendence above any extension of this hierarchy.

I don't properly understand what you're saying here.

However, these degrees of transcendence are still on the same level of aleph 2 and thus would need, once again, an entire hierarchy of this baseline transcendence to similarly fill it up. Hence, the current 1-A+ is actually higher levels of aleph 2 and High 1-A is actually aleph 3.

I hope that I sufficiently addressed this with my last post.

To make matters worse this gets complicated when you add layers to it. When even a single layer is equivalent to an uncountable number of dimensions, for example (as when SCP used to rely on the S&C Plastics hub for the number of dimensions they transcend), then there would be an uncountable number of dimensions on the next, higher level. This was treated as just a higher levels of 1-A, however it’s real treatment should have been that of 1-A+

Why should it have been treated as 1-A+? Those uncountable number of dimensions were miniscule compared to the 1-A jumps in power, becoming utterly irrelevant almost immediately.

If there are two hierarchies A and B. A has uncountably infinite layers. B has 4 layers, but each layer of B contains another hierarchy of A within it. Those increases of A are so dwarfed by even single steps in B; we do not consider them as effectively adding uncountably infinite layers of B, since their jumps are known to be smaller.

on another note there is still no concrete example of a tier 0 construct despite long since deciding Mahlo cardinals are the smallest cardinals to be rated at this level and as such, the tiering system is currently outdated.

I don't see why this is relevant.

The current tiering system is not user-friendly as an indexing site: Vsbattles wiki was created to produce a reasonable platform by which to compare the power of multiple fictional characters across continuities. However, by using high concept mathematics and higher infinities, it becomes very difficult to match the way space-time continuums are treated by this site with the portrayals in fiction.

Ultimately I prefer the accuracy and ability to be fine-grained over being user-friendly. The way some other websites lump everything above multiversal as "nigh-omnipotent" or "omnipotent" may be easier for people to grasp, but loses so much detail that I don't like it.

For example, characters who can make space-time continuums of smaller sizes aren’t usually treated as being able to destroy the universe, much less be able to produce the infinite levels of power they should have logically been able to produce.

This is something I'd like to be tackled more properly. But currently, the answer is "Fiction usually doesn't treat them as having that level of power, so we'd defer to that over what our tiering system would otherwise say", which is something that almost every battleboarder would say in at least some circumstances (at least, if you replace "tiering system" with "reality").

Further, although uncountable infinity is a good reference point from a mathematical point of view for the differences between dimensions, it’s not prevalent or indicative in any fictional cosmology.

I don't think that's an issue since we equalise a lot of stuff to it.

The current tiering system is not reflective of fiction when comparing durability: In fiction, even depicted city level busters are hurt by things that shouldn’t have been able to hurt them, such as running into tree branches at high speeds. Treating them all like outliers when they are rarely depicted as being invulnerable to much more powerful attacks. As such this would indicate a higher range of damage a character is able to survive, and not the pseudo invulnerability it is often treated as.

A lot of this stuff can't be waved away as an outlier. If they get a bruise from someone whose punch destroys continents, as well as from getting knocked into a tree without even destroying it, I don't think you can argue that as a range of damage. For this to work, we'd essentially have to rate characters as having different dura for different levels of harm (wall level staggers them, small building level makes them bleed, city block level breaks their bones, town level vaporizes a body part). While I support that, it doesn't quite sound like you're arguing that.

The current tiering system is exaggerated: This is in the sense that Mahlo cardinals, the baseline for tier 0, is far superior to a normal inaccessible cardinal than the difference a single inaccessibility.

Perhaps. Probably because "0 = Mahlo" was never formally accepted, and was just the interpretation of some people on Discord that eventually got passed around by word of mouth enough to be used in a revision.

Instead of using our tiering system as the guide to how we rate characters why don’t we review them based on the narrative significance of their feats more prominently than anything else. As such we would be rating the characters based on what they would have done and how the story considered it’s significance instead of what the feats are supposed to be based on an inherently faulty tiering system without foregoing the current conventional tiering system entirely.

I don't understand what this means.

Solution 1

I'm not sure if I understand this. In as much as I do, I think I'd give in the same response as I gave in my first post under my first bullet point.

Solution 2

This is what's already done.

Solution 3

I don't think this actually changes much.

4. By rating the characters by their cosmological feats of narrative significance there would be much less need to research the underlying reasons for these ratings unless they desire to since, as there is more focus on the destruction feat performed by the characters, there is less need to go into the theory of it.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here, so I don't understand how it would help.

The tiering system more inclined to the plot relevance also sees a greater addition to an infinite number of universes as narratively significant and hence instead of infinity+2=infinity the formula omega+2= omega+2 where ordered ordinals are larger (despite the mathematical insurance that this is not necessarily the case).

"Larger" implies a notion of size. Order =/= size, so idk why we'd assume that without the verse itself assuming that.

Solution 5

I've responded to this to my satisfaction earlier in this thread.

Solutions 6 and 7

I disagree, for reasons I provided earlier.

Solution 8

I agree, to the extent I did in my first post under my first bullet point.

Solution 9

I don't fully understand what you're suggesting here.

Solution 10

I have responded to that thread's suggestion on my message wall.

Overall I don't know if this was too elucidating. It introduced some points you didn't bring up in the summary, and some you did, but it didn't really feel like necessary reading to understand the OP, for me, as someone who has discussed most of these exact points before.

 

[ShivaShakti]

What exactly do you mean by "narrative pertinence"?

 

[CosmicWreck]

I don't agree. As I pointed out on the blog, in fictions with Reality>Fiction transcendence there are almost always constraints in the extent of their abilities such that comparing them with other higher dimensional manipulators doesn't work.

I think there's quite a few things in fiction that are difficult to compare, but I don't think that's cause for giving up. We deal with that through some amount of arbitrary equalisation (realms that encompass lower ones = large higher dimensions = reality fiction differences), but we could do with more care, in line with what I said in my last post.

It's not giving up. (Also, I hope you guys don't mind sharing this conversational space for a bit. I kind of feel like both of your points can be solved using the following argument.)

As explained below....

I don't think this issue is solvable solely through this manner, specifically. Tier 2 has always been a bit of an anomaly in this regard because the way it's structured is predicated on the notion of "Fiction often doesn't treat all localized spacetime destruction feats as necessarily superior to blowing up a universe, so we shouldn't treat this way, either." That much, however, can be contested, and I don't think incorporating smaller-scale spacetime continuums into the Tiering System is something impossible to accomplish, as I've already expressed in other threads (Agnaa once suggested that we make such feats High 3-A, for instance) [Ultima_Reality]

Take SCP for instance. The higher up you go (in terms of narrative) dimensions, the less power you have over your own universe. Umineko also has a similar issue where Bernkastel was not threatened at all by William despite him being on the same plane of existence to him. Despite the two of them being on the same plane of existence due to her avatar, William was still no match for the gameboard master. In fact, in fiction, reality warping these higher R>F layers is always deemed as more impressive than simply being in them, and as such they should be condemned for the same reason tier 2 (particularly tier Low 2-C characters) are. Hence, equalization shouldn't be used to bridge the gap Agna. You're comparing a programmer with a reality warper. There is no comparison, so putting them in the same tier becomes kind of questionable.

Also, I don't think making all such feats High 3-A would help anything. As I stated in the blog fiction doesn't "usually" treat smaller space-time continuum users as universe busters so it kind of fails the plot relevance test that I would use when reviewing said feats.

We're also an indexing site. Why are we focusing so much on equalization anyway. Equalization is a concept vs debaters came up with to match the unique settings and background information to allow characters from different systems to interact.

For example, if someone has soul manipulation, then the antagonistic character must have a soul any less explicitly stated otherwise.

Destruction and superiority are not unique circumstances.

It makes a lot more sense to rate the characters on what they can actually do than to what we think they should be able to do and such things like mathematics should just be used as a, as Agnaa pointed out, a type of measure. In conclusion it doesn't really make any sense to make a tiering system even more mathematical if it doesn't work as an overall system capable of comparing most fictional depictions.

I apologize, I knew I didn't word this properly but I didn't really know how to word this better. Basically, this hinges on the idea I introduced that plot relevance mostly dwarfs any other possible method of comparison. As such, since most higher dimensional constructs are usually depicted as being superior to the previous ones, then the argument that lower dimensional constructs (that is 2D<3D) can produce comparable or higher degrees of energy becomes null and void.

I think I understand this until I reach the last sentence, where I get completely lost. I think I'll need to read the blog for this one.

Dang, I think I worded it better here than the blog too.

How about this, fictional depiction= higher dimensional object > universal space-time continuum (Umineko, a last while boss appears): dimensional theory can be used.

fictional depiction= higher dimensional object not superior to space time-continuum (Rick and Morty, some Marvel cinematic and some superhero comics among others): Rate it as any other 3-D character with higher dimensional hax (thus calculable via joules)

I read that thread and to my knowledge this wasn't brought up in any way. That thread is more to do with the fact that time-space is not always destroyed even if multiple universes are involved. This has no bearing on tier 2 as a whole, also, but rather tier 2-A specifically. Regardless, this proposal doesn't contradict anything.

I'm talking about a different revision. One of the suggestions involves redefining everything in tier 2, in this sort of way (note that there are different similar suggestions floating around):

1. 2-C (or Low 2-C): Finite spacetime/spacetime interval (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
2. High 2-C (or 2-C): Multiple finite spacetimes/intervals but not a whole infinite continuum/infinite 4-D area (only if time is involved; finite 4-D space does not count).
3. 2-B: An entire infinite spacetime continuum or infinite 4-D space.
4. 2-A: 4-D spacetime continuums separated by a 5-D interval (not everyone agrees with this suggestion; an alternate one would be to return infinite 5-D here).

I don't see a great space for your 2-A suggestion in here, especially since this overhaul of the tiers aims to eliminate the arbitrary timeline-counting, due to any amount of infinite 4-D space having the same size.

Oh, yeah, fair. Sorry, I had no idea that was going on.

Regardless if this isn't the case it should be noted somewhere so the uses of these arguments will be viewed as the fallacies they should be, imo.

I'm not sure where "conceptually transcendent entities should only be considered to be one hierarchy higher, and not tier 0 by default" would get placed. But if there is a good place, I'd be happy to put something like that there.

Hell yeah.

I know that we've already kinda done it, but we've never concretely decided on it, since it's almost never useful. idk if the tiering system page is the best place for it, I think it might belong more in the FAQ.

Fair.

Huh. Second Tiering System objection I've seen this month, gotta start asking for nickels in case those turn into a trend, I guess.

It's not "just" a tier system objection. I'm obviously trying to operate within the same confines of the tiering system. The title is just a clickbait/joke.

I don't understand these points.

Calculations should only be used if higher dimensional characters aren't depicted as being superior to sizable space-time continuums for the first point.

We currently rate 2-A characters the same mathematically despite some, such as DC universe for example, having more than an infinite amount of universes. I propose we use Omega+n as ordinal extensions and treat them to be greater (though as Agna pointed out I'm not sure what this would look like under the new tier 2 revision).

Anyway: Yeah, I agree that taking such feats to the highest possible degree would involve them scaling notably far into the Tiering System, to the point of boundlessness, in fact. I don't think this is an issue, though: In my view, it's perfectly doable to restrict such statements to the least possible point in which a reasonable rating for them would be found, since exceeding one logical framework obviously doesn't necessarily mean you would have to transcend all of them in succession.

For example, let's compare two different formal systems: ZFC + "There exists a proper class of inaccessible cardinals" and ZFC + "There exists no inaccessible cardinal." In the former framework, the least of all inaccessibles would be larger than all of the sets present in the latter, and could, in fact, be seen as behaving like a proper class in relation to it; an object that's far too large to be a set. This being just an extension of something which occurs at lower scales, as well: In a set theory that lacks the Axiom of Infinity, the natural numbers would be the ordinals populating its universe of sets, and ω, the smallest infinite ordinal (Which exists as a simple set in a broader universe), would be the proper class of all sets.

Of course, that's assuming proper classes are even objects present in our domain of discourse. In more standard frameworks, like ZFC, proper classes aren't formally defined, and so the idea of "the collection of all sets" is just something far, far too large to be considered as just another toy to play around with.

That way, we pretty much preserve the mathematical backdrop of the Tiering System while finding a fairly reasonable way to take into account that sort of feat.

So you've chosen option 5c. We basically choose theoretical systems in which to adhere to. If you guys think this is the best way to go, sure, as long as the necessary theoretical constructs and reasoning are recorded somewhere I guess.

Eh, no. Once you hit the High 1-B scale, the smallest possible difference in size you can have in there is a jump to the next cardinality. For instance, R^ω+1 isn't a larger number of dimensions than R^ω, and neither is R^ω+2, nor R^ω+3, and so on and so forth. To actually increase the size of the space, you'd have to add in uncountably-many dimensions (Under that kind of notation, R^ω1), and the same applies to every level on that tier.

It's the same principle as with how, once you reach 2-A, adding in countable numbers of universes won't get you anywhere. You'd need uncountably-many universes to breach into Low 1-C.

Yes but the important point is that 1-A hierarchies are new hierarchies, where even a single step in it completely encompasses the rest of the verse/tiering system that comes before it. If one step takes you from a size of 0 (nothing) or 1 (a single point) to a realm beyond R^R (uncountably infinite points in uncountably infinite dimensions), then would you really expect the second step in that hierarchy to just be R^R * omega (or * R or * R^R)? It doesn't seem weird for each step to be equivalent to adding another ^R to the end of the chain, equivalent to incrementing the aleph number by +1. Yeah, this has each step go over entire hierarchies, since the first step already went over entire hierarchies; the next ones should continue that trend. Even though this involves the absolute gap increasing, every step still involves an increasing absolute gap lower on in tier 1.

Hm, I get it. You guys are saying using the same dimensional framework = to aleph 1 is wrong because at that level dimensions have already become irrelevant....

Alright, reading through the blog and responding to points from it.

The current system is inconsistent: The extent of damage tier 1 and tier 11 entities are able to cause is limited in comparison to tier 2 entities (that is, the objects they manipulate, though higher dimensional, are at times not of universal size) despite all of them using similar dimensional constructs that the tiering system uses as well as being rated in the same way.

I don't know if that's an inconsistency. The idea is that their size is, I guess, "expanded" or "shrunken" by infinite amounts, such that it doesn't matter whether the original construct is 1 m^3 or 1e70 m^3. Although some contradictions do still exist (small-scale temporal 4-D not counting, tier 11 being defined in terms of R^N despite R^1 being larger than any finite joule value) that we'd hope to stamp out.

I was basically saying that just as less than universal sized 4-dimensional constructs aren't relegated to being of universal+, higher and lower dimensional constructs should scale to their prior tiers since fiction doesn't liken small and universal constructs either.

The current tiering system allows the use of no limits fallacies: More specifically it allows the use of the ideas of being beyond mathematics, as well as beyond the concepts of dimensions, both of which are no longer suited for the current tiering system as even a single space-time continuum can encompass that of the large cardinals. This would make such statements beyond not only their current ratings (1-A and High 1-A) but well into the rating of tier 0. Similar statements, such as Ayin or being unable to be described by language is defunct for similar reasons. Further, even being beyond the framework of something is a no limits fallacy. This is because this can be continued infinitely. For example, to be beyond the dimensional framework one would have to be 1-A. However, to be beyond the aleph framework one would have to be straight up High 1-A since large cardinals are beyond the normal constraints of ZFC. If it is beyond the framework of large cardinals it would have to be beyond even the usual extents of what we consider to be strong tier 0 characters. This would presumably continue and last forever.

It doesn't allow the use of these; we had a thread where the consensus was to reject this idea. While some argued that such statements should place characters at tier 0, we agreed that we'd lowball those sorts of things by only putting those characters beyond the cosmological constructs shown in the setting.

True. This is just to make this kind of thing official though, since even after this no one has gone on to downgrade the relevant verses, so even if it was stated in the thread it's still not a "site standard" so to speak, as a lot of the staff and other users continue to operate under the use of this same logic.

The tiering system does not follow the mathematical foundation it’s built on: High 1-A is based on the complete transcendence of any 1-A+ hierachies. This is contradictory to the decision to make High 1-A be beyond the equivalent of two infinite hierarchies which is not nearly enough for even the most basic of large cardinals. Tier 0 is similarly contradictory where they are still in the use of standard infinite hierarchies.

Those transcended hierarchies are assumed to be able to continue for long enough to make that work.

Then this needs to be stated somewhere to be honest. It was highly contested in a recent thread.

The current tiering system is not reflective of fiction when comparing durability: In fiction, even depicted city level busters are hurt by things that shouldn’t have been able to hurt them, such as running into tree branches at high speeds. Treating them all like outliers when they are rarely depicted as being invulnerable to much more powerful attacks. As such this would indicate a higher range of damage a character is able to survive, and not the pseudo invulnerability it is often treated as.

A lot of this stuff can't be waved away as an outlier. If they get a bruise from someone whose punch destroys continents, as well as from getting knocked into a tree without even destroying it, I don't think you can argue that as a range of damage. For this to work, we'd essentially have to rate characters as having different dura for different levels of harm (wall level staggers them, small building level makes them bleed, city block level breaks their bones, town level vaporizes a body part). While I support that, it doesn't quite sound like you're arguing that.

Solution 9

I don't fully understand what you're suggesting here.

Durability is to be treated subjectively. It's no longer that you are harmed by something, or even killed by something, but rather the plot relevance of how you were damaged. This allows a flexibility in ratings that we currently do not have.

For example, take our Megaman X profiles. Basically, we currently scale all the enemies to X and Zero despite having their own feats because they are capable of killing them. However, this doesn't really make sense since due to game mechanics X's durability doesn't work like that. It can be argued that instead of everyone being on X's level, X can survive multiple tier 4 attacks, but he can also be injured by tier 5 attacks. Simply being killed is not enough to say that they're on that level.

Similarly in a cutscene Dante was beaten and impaled by an infinitely less Nero. Of course no one would say DMC 4 Nero is tier 1 going by plot relevance since Dante's durability simply doesn't work like some kind of pseudo invulnerability. Nonetheless Dante was still completely unfazed by everything Nero did to him.

Alice in Shin Megami Tensei was hurt by a human, and yet in that same story she can contend with characters who, still in that same story, can battle with people who fought entities of a higher dimensional origin.

Saitama was "scratched" by a much weaker Garou despite previously being hurt but of course, Garou only thus scale above every other character in the verse. According to Narrative significance Garou still needed to bring out Saitama's full potential.

We can thus say something like "Durability is the maximum degree of damage one is able to withstand at once before they are no longer able to fight" rather than the assumption X character needs to dish out "this level of power to even hurt him given his maximum durability" thus ignoring all of his anti-feats and the use of a wide range of perfectly viable calculations that we currently do for a lot of profiles.

The current tiering system is exaggerated: This is in the sense that Mahlo cardinals, the baseline for tier 0, is far superior to a normal inaccessible cardinal than the difference a single inaccessibility.

Perhaps. Probably because "0 = Mahlo" was never formally accepted, and was just the interpretation of some people on Discord that eventually got passed around by word of mouth enough to be used in a revision.

Instead of using our tiering system as the guide to how we rate characters why don’t we review them based on the narrative significance of their feats more prominently than anything else. As such we would be rating the characters based on what they would have done and how the story considered it’s significance instead of what the feats are supposed to be based on an inherently faulty tiering system without foregoing the current conventional tiering system entirely.

I don't understand what this means.

Basically, when reviewing a higher dimensional (or any character, really) it's Plot relevance or what the stories indicate>mathematical comparisons such as what the tiering system consists of>Word of God> Calcs> Visual depictions (for example, the sky going dark could have a plethora of reasons) in order of importance in which we used to compare characters.

Solution 1

I'm not sure if I understand this. In as much as I do, I think I'd give in the same response as I gave in my first post under my first bullet point.

Fair, though what do you say about my new argument about reality>fiction interaction?

4. By rating the characters by their cosmological feats of narrative significance there would be much less need to research the underlying reasons for these ratings unless they desire to since, as there is more focus on the destruction feat performed by the characters, there is less need to go into the theory of it.

I don't understand what you're suggesting here, so I don't understand how it would help.

I'm suggesting that infinite universe cosmologies that have added or a greater number of universes to it aren't considered the same as baseline infinite universes.

The tiering system more inclined to the plot relevance also sees a greater addition to an infinite number of universes as narratively significant and hence instead of infinity+2=infinity the formula omega+2= omega+2 where ordered ordinals are larger (despite the mathematical insurance that this is not necessarily the case).

"Larger" implies a notion of size. Order =/= size, so idk why we'd assume that without the verse itself assuming that.

I thought ordering was a way to reach higher infinities and thus Omega+2 is greater than omega. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, yes this is strictly for the cases of verses that state that their infinite 4-D cosmologies are increasing in size.

Solution 8

I agree, to the extent I did in my first post under my first bullet point.

Responded to this.

Overall I don't know if this was too elucidating. It introduced some points you didn't bring up in the summary, and some you did, but it didn't really feel like necessary reading to understand the OP, for me, as someone who has discussed most of these exact points before.

Sorry to hear that. I'll try to be more elaborate whenever I decide to make a new blog. I appreciate you taking the time out to help me with this nonetheless.

What exactly do you mean by "narrative pertinence"?

Basically whether something makes sense according to the story. I made a list of examples above.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

I thought ordering was a way to reach higher infinities and thus Omega+2 is greater than omega. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, yes this is strictly for the cases of verses that state that their infinite 4-D cosmologies are increasing in size.

Ordinals do not impact on cardinality/size of infinite sets.

 

[ShivaShakti]

It is folly to refuse to index something simply because it is not "pertinent" to the narrative. If an entity is objectively within a certain tier due to the information granted, then it is that tier.

 

[CosmicWreck]

Ordinals do not impact on cardinality/size of infinite sets.

This has nothing to do with cardinality. My argument is that ordinals are extensions of the countable infinity and can be used to show their own hierarchy.

A finite set can be enumerated by successively labeling each element with the least natural number that has not been previously used. To extend this process to various infinite sets, ordinal numbers are defined more generally as linearly ordered labels that include the natural numbers and have the property that every set of ordinals has a least element (this is needed for giving a meaning to "the least unused element").[2] This more general definition allows us to define an ordinal number ω {\displaystyle \omega }

that is greater than every natural number, along with ordinal numbers ω + 1 {\displaystyle \omega +1}

, ω + 2 {\displaystyle \omega +2}

, etc., which are even greater than ω {\displaystyle \omega }

.

And as such it doesn't make sense to say that every Low 1-C verse is the same.

Furthermore, even ignoring the semantics of mathematical import, if the narrative states that there is a greater than infinite collection of universes then it doesn't really make sense to say that they are the same.

It is folly to refuse to index something simply because it is not "pertinent" to the narrative. If an entity is objectively within a certain tier due to the information granted, then it is that tier.

That's good? I'm not sure how this relates to my blog at all. Plot relevance is supposed to be a more holistic experience than the system we use now, where a single feat is chosen out of a dozen others. Please be more specific if you're referring to my post. There are a lot of bases covered that such a vague statement seems inherently confusing.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

My argument is that ordinals are extensions of the countable infinity and can be used to show their own hierarchy.

And those extensions are not actually bigger than countable infinity itself, since they are ordinals. Their purpose is ordering only. They do not influence the size of something in the grand scheme of things.

Take for example, Epsilon-Zero, which is basically (((((Omega)^Omega)^Omega)^Omega)^Omega)^Omega)......yet, it is still a countable infinite set

if the narrative states that there is a greater than infinite collection of universes then it doesn't really make sense to say that they are the same.

If a verse states there is a structure bigger than one that is equal to infinite universes then that verse just straight up gets Low 1-C. This is already how it works in the wiki. Case in point.

 

[Cat275]

This has nothing to do with cardinality. My argument is that ordinals are extensions of the countable infinity and can be used to show their own hierarchy.

The increasing cardinality of ordinals only apply once it reaches omega^omega, but while a ordinal is only omega+1 and etc it would still have the same cardinality of omega.

(Unless if we go by cardinal terms and use aleph omega + 1)

Though this is a interesting way to look at the volume of certain characters.

 

[Oblivion_Of_The_Endless]

The increasing cardinality of ordinals only apply once it reaches omega^omega

Considering how they are ordinals and Epsilon-zero is a thing, I'm sure it wouldn't increase, unless the continuum hypothesis overrides this.

 

[KLOL506]

Similarly in a cutscene Dante was beaten and impaled by an infinitely less Nero. Of course no one would say DMC 4 Nero is tier 1 going by plot relevance since Dante's durability simply doesn't work like some kind of pseudo invulnerability. Nonetheless Dante was still completely unfazed by everything Nero did to him.

There's actually a problem with this.

Dante can actively hold back on his durability as per the novel, but the more Demon Juice he decides to pump up, the more durable he becomes and the more resistant he gets to bladed weaponry. Scans.

Basically, he can choose to no-sell the attack or let it through and still be above Nero's weight class by magnitudes. So this be a poor example to use.

 

[Cat275]

Considering how they are ordinals and Epsilon-zero is a thing, I'm sure it wouldn't increase, unless the continuum hypothesis overrides this.

Ah I just read this again and no it actually does increase, the omega order goes like this:

Omega, omega + n, omega * n + 1, epsilon,,,, with omega^omega being greater than all of this.

(Since all of the ordered pairs here excluding omega^omega are technically already on a one to one correspondence to each other.)

A omega^omega is considered as the smallest uncountable infinite ordinal.

While a omega is considered as the smallest countable infinite ordinal.

Continuum hypothesis can still technically work on ordinals.

Edit:codes for the latex won't work here so decided not to quote something.

 

[Agnaa]

You're comparing a programmer with a reality warper. There is no comparison, so putting them in the same tier becomes kind of questionable.

That's why I didn't suggest putting them in the same tier. The programmer would have durability of that tier, and AP of the tier below, while the reality warper would have both AP and durability of that tier. I think that's a fitting resolution.

Also, I don't think making all such feats High 3-A would help anything. As I stated in the blog fiction doesn't "usually" treat smaller space-time continuum users as universe busters so it kind of fails the plot relevance test that I would use when reviewing said feats.

If you don't want to do that, we could continue doing what we do now, and just rate them by their 3-D size, despite being space-time continuums, and only bump them up to Low 2-C when they're universe-sized.

We're also an indexing site. Why are we focusing so much on equalization anyway. Equalization is a concept vs debaters came up with to match the unique settings and background information to allow characters from different systems to interact.

Because when we're indexing different verses we have to equalise some things to compare them.

It makes a lot more sense to rate the characters on what they can actually do than to what we think they should be able to do and such things like mathematics should just be used as a, as Agnaa pointed out, a type of measure. In conclusion it doesn't really make any sense to make a tiering system even more mathematical if it doesn't work as an overall system capable of comparing most fictional depictions.

That's what we hopefully end up doing.

How about this, fictional depiction= higher dimensional object > universal space-time continuum (Umineko, a last while boss appears): dimensional theory can be used.

fictional depiction= higher dimensional object not superior to space time-continuum (Rick and Morty, some Marvel cinematic and some superhero comics among others): Rate it as any other 3-D character with higher dimensional hax (thus calculable via joules)

I was basically saying that just as less than universal sized 4-dimensional constructs aren't relegated to being of universal+, higher and lower dimensional constructs should scale to their prior tiers since fiction doesn't liken small and universal constructs either.

Basically, when reviewing a higher dimensional (or any character, really) it's Plot relevance or what the stories indicate>mathematical comparisons such as what the tiering system consists of>Word of God> Calcs> Visual depictions (for example, the sky going dark could have a plethora of reasons) in order of importance in which we used to compare characters.

Yeah, that's what we do (well, not the exact hierarchy you list there). Although we can let verses qualify if the information they provide is ambiguous/agnostic, if the higher dimensional object is infinitely large, has temporal dimensions, or has infinitely many dimensions.

Hm, I get it. You guys are saying using the same dimensional framework = to aleph 1 is wrong because at that level dimensions have already become irrelevant....

Spot-on!

True. This is just to make this kind of thing official though, since even after this no one has gone on to downgrade the relevant verses, so even if it was stated in the thread it's still not a "site standard" so to speak, as a lot of the staff and other users continue to operate under the use of this same logic.

Then this needs to be stated somewhere to be honest. It was highly contested in a recent thread.

Fair, I'd be happy to codify these somewhere.

Durability is to be treated subjectively. It's no longer that you are harmed by something, or even killed by something, but rather the plot relevance of how you were damaged.

We use this to some extent in our interpretation of what's an outlier. A fodder enemy damaging a main character is more likely to be seen as an outlier than an injury the main character sustains in a plot-vital event.

We can thus say something like "Durability is the maximum degree of damage one is able to withstand at once before they are no longer able to fight" rather than the assumption X character needs to dish out "this level of power to even hurt him given his maximum durability" thus ignoring all of his anti-feats and the use of a wide range of perfectly viable calculations that we currently do for a lot of profiles.

This seems, to some extent, quite tricky to implement. Some characters have their only durability feat being no-selling a strong attack, so we can't really say "Anything slightly higher than that and they won't be able to fight". And for some more extreme cases, especially when the tiers get higher, things seem more like anti-feats than they do different levels of durability.

I'm concerned that the site handwaves anti-feats even if on a close inspection they end up being more consistent than the higher ends. And I would like more pages to recognise different levels of durability in some situations. But I'd put "amount of damage sustained" as chief, rather than some subjective plot relevance stuff.

I thought ordering was a way to reach higher infinities and thus Omega+2 is greater than omega. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, yes this is strictly for the cases of verses that state that their infinite 4-D cosmologies are increasing in size.

If it's strictly for verses where adding one universe to an infinite amount of universes makes the multiverse bigger, I'm fine with using ordinals, since it's the best tool we've got.

Dante can actively hold back on his durability as per the novel, but the more Demon Juice he decides to pump up, the more durable he becomes and the more resistant he gets to bladed weaponry. Scans.

Basically, he can choose to no-sell the attack or let it through and still be above Nero's weight class by magnitudes. So this be a poor example to use.

I don't see that listed on his profile's durability section, and I reckon it should be.

 

[KLOL506]

Dante can actively hold back on his durability as per the novel, but the more Demon Juice he decides to pump up, the more durable he becomes and the more resistant he gets to bladed weaponry. Scans.

Basically, he can choose to no-sell the attack or let it through and still be above Nero's weight class by magnitudes. So this be a poor example to use.

I don't see that listed on his profile's durability section, and I reckon it should be.

It's part of the important verse blogs, Demonic Energy.

 

[Agnaa]

It's part of the important verse blogs, Demonic Energy.

I still think varying AP/Dura belongs on profiles, not just their high-end, even if they usually make it higher.

If you disagree, then whateva.

 

[KLOL506]

I still think varying AP/Dura belongs on profiles, not just their high-end, even if they usually make it higher.

If you disagree, then whateva.

Honestly, I do not see why he should. Just because he allows himself to get hurt doesn't mean he's nerfing himself to be one-shot by other foes that are actually worthy enough to fight on equal grounds with him, like his own twin brother Vergil, the Demon Kings Pluto, Mundus and Argosax, etc. There's no implication in the plot of DMC at all that just because he allows himself to be pierced by sharp pointy weapons that he suddenly drops off in all stats. In fact, it's quite the opposite, it explicitly states he's holding back.

An even bigger problem in this regard is Marvel characters, because they legit do not have any explanation for actually lowering their durability or fighting power in-verse, because there's no need for them. And yet they have a "High 6-C when holding back" key and a "3-C when not holding back" key because some people wanted the other characters to scale to the heralds despite there also being no basis for that within the stories themselves. Basically, Thor would be 3-C flat out, and other people would ONLY SCALE IF THOR HIMSELF WAS SERIOUS ABOUT FIGHTING THEM TO THE DEATH, otherwise, no scaling.

Unless you wanna go the route of having all characters on this site be 9-B because they have more consistent showings on that level, or 9-C because everyone gets consistently damaged by bullets and knives and swords. That'd go swell with everyone I bet.

 

[Agnaa]

Honestly, I do not see why he should. Just because he allows himself to get hurt doesn't mean he's nerfing himself to be one-shot by other foes that are actually worthy enough to fight on equal grounds with him, like his own twin brother Vergil, the Demon Kings Pluto, Mundus and Argosax, etc.

It could come up at times. An opponent could mind-manip him, making him lower his durability to the point where the opponent can kill him. From your description (and the blog's) it sounds like he's weaker without it, but can increase his durability with more Demon Energy. So if the opponent can power null the use of Demon Energy for stat amp, they could end up one-shotting.

An even bigger problem in this regard is Marvel characters, because they legit do not have any explanation for actually lowering their durability or fighting power in-verse

Here's an example of a page that has "Varies" durability due to purposefully lowering her durability at times, without an explanation of the mechanism (while she does have powers that could do that, we're not told that she does it that way).

 

[KLOL506]

Honestly, I do not see why he should. Just because he allows himself to get hurt doesn't mean he's nerfing himself to be one-shot by other foes that are actually worthy enough to fight on equal grounds with him, like his own twin brother Vergil, the Demon Kings Pluto, Mundus and Argosax, etc.

It could come up at times. An opponent could mind-manip him, making him lower his durability to the point where the opponent can kill him. From your description (and the blog's) it sounds like he's weaker without it, but can increase his durability with more Demon Energy. So if the opponent can power null the use of Demon Energy for stat amp, they could end up one-shotting.

You might wanna read the DMC Demon Physiology page to know why that ain't happening by a long shot (Not that anyone hasn't tried it in-verse, they did plenty via power nulling in the case of Chen and Stat Reduction with Gilver, but both failed gloriously, because Dante clapped back with Reactive Evolution). But this ain't a Vs battles thread so I'll leave it at that.

However, that alone is not good enough reasoning to give him a Varies tier just because of a potential possibility that he can be power nulled or mind manip'd (Mind manipulating a guy with High-Godly regen is a new one).

An even bigger problem in this regard is Marvel characters, because they legit do not have any explanation for actually lowering their durability or fighting power in-verse

Here's an example of a page that has "Varies" durability due to purposefully lowering her durability at times, without an explanation of the mechanism (while she does have powers that could do that, we're not told that she does it that way).

None of that is a thing in Marvel tho, other than the whole "holds himself back so as to not kill his opponents".

 

[GilverTheProtoAngelo]

Honestly, I do not see why he should. Just because he allows himself to get hurt doesn't mean he's nerfing himself to be one-shot by other foes that are actually worthy enough to fight on equal grounds with him, like his own twin brother Vergil, the Demon Kings Pluto, Mundus and Argosax, etc.

It could come up at times. An opponent could mind-manip him, making him lower his durability to the point where the opponent can kill him. From your description (and the blog's) it sounds like he's weaker without it, but can increase his durability with more Demon Energy. So if the opponent can power null the use of Demon Energy for stat amp, they could end up one-shotting.

This applies to every character in fiction though. Just because some random character can throw power null or statistics reduction to weaken you doesn't mean you need a varies tier. This is case for every character in fiction.

For Dante's case, he has been actually power nulled before, turning him average human.
But same can happen to any character in fiction... Superman can be weakened with Krypotonite.. do we start giving a varies tier for it too??

 

[Agnaa]

@KLOL Taking that to your wall since it's getting too in the weeds for a general thread like this.

This applies to every character in fiction though. Just because some random character can throw power null or statistics reduction to weaken you doesn't mean you need a varies tier. This is case for every character in fiction.

That isn't the case for every character in fiction. A lot of characters have their strength in natural ways, so there's no reason to believe that power null would reduce them to a lower state. Statistics Reduction of course would, but the potency of that depends on the user of stat reduction, so it would go on their profile instead.

But same can to any character in fiction... Superman can be weakened with Krypotonite.. do we start giving a varies tier for it too??

Not a varies, but "X when affected by Kryptonite" or smth might be fine. The only concern with that is that it's only really relevant within that verse, sounds like the DMC stuff would be far more justified.

 

[KLOL506]

@KLOL Taking that to your wall since it's getting too in the weeds for a general thread like this.

This applies to every character in fiction though. Just because some random character can throw power null or statistics reduction to weaken you doesn't mean you need a varies tier. This is case for every character in fiction.

That isn't the case for every character in fiction. A lot of characters have their strength in natural ways, so there's no reason to believe that power null would reduce them to a lower state. Statistics Reduction of course would, but the potency of that depends on the user of stat reduction, so it would go on their profile instead.

But same can to any character in fiction... Superman can be weakened with Krypotonite.. do we start giving a varies tier for it too??

Not a varies, but "X when affected by Kryptonite" or smth might be fine. The only concern with that is that it's only really relevant within that verse, sounds like the DMC stuff would be far more justified.

That's like asking for giving a tier to people getting weakened by a cold temporarily.

Lethal diseases that will kill them over time like in Jane Foster's case is one thing, but this, this ain't it bruv.

 

[Darksmash]

Tbh about the 5th point I sort of do think the current system is kinda wacky. 1-B layers operate on powers of aleph 1 just because of real coordinate space even if said layers have nothing to do with spatial dimensions. I think 1-A should either operate on a similar multiplication system on a higher aleph or the 1-B layers that aren't explicitly spatial dimensions should directly be equated to higher alephs.

 

[CosmicWreck]

And those extensions are not actually bigger than countable infinity itself

Er...I never said that they are.

If a verse states there is a structure bigger than one that is equal to infinite universes then that verse just straight up gets Low 1-C. This is already how it works in the wiki. Case in point.

Fair. I didn't know that. Thank you for informing me.

Of course, considering I'm trying to change how the tiering system of this wiki works, it wouldn't be enough for Low 1-C anymore.

The increasing cardinality of ordinals only apply once it reaches omega^omega

Ah I just read this again and no it actually does increase, the omega order goes like this:

Omega, omega + n, omega * n + 1, epsilon,,,, with omega^omega being greater than all of this.

(Since all of the ordered pairs here excluding omega^omega are technically already on a one to one correspondence to each other.)

A omega^omega is considered as the smallest uncountable infinite ordinal.

You are incorrect, or at least by the metrics of every mathematician and site I've seen. First of all, epsilon nought is far bigger than Omega^Omega. Also, you should specify which epsilon you mean because there are an uncountable number of them (still bigger than Omega^Omega though).

Omega^Omega is not an uncountable infinite ordinal since you can still map it with Omega. Omega 1 is what is the first uncountable ordinal.

There's actually a problem with this.

Dante can actively hold back on his durability as per the novel, but the more Demon Juice he decides to pump up, the more durable he becomes and the more resistant he gets to bladed weaponry. Scans.

Basically, he can choose to no-sell the attack or let it through and still be above Nero's weight class by magnitudes. So this be a poor example to use.

Fair, but it's just that: a single example out of a handful of others. Alice that is an eldritch abomination? Saitama who is a normal dude? X who is a robot (albeit a robot with a plethora of upgrades)? It doesn't really make much sense to point out a single moment where the argument doesn't apply to disprove everything when there is such a wide variety of samples to take into consideration.

Regardless durability in fiction does not normally operate as invincibility to lesser attack potency attacks, and to treat this as the case in vsbattle threads and when revising characters doesn't logically make sense as an indexing site.

I thank you for the correction though.

You're comparing a programmer with a reality warper. There is no comparison, so putting them in the same tier becomes kind of questionable.

That's why I didn't suggest putting them in the same tier. The programmer would have durability of that tier, and AP of the tier below, while the reality warper would have both AP and durability of that tier. I think that's a fitting resolution.

Simply have an "At least insert lower level here" since as you know "At least" can be used when a character is depicted as being superior to normal categories of that character without moving to a higher level (like basically this guy).

So which of these options do you prefer sir?

1. Inhabitant of a higher world that can dream the whole of reality into existence = "Universe Level+" AP, "Universe level+" durability (According to what was shown, higher dimensions are treated as hax)
2. Inhabitant of higher world that can dream the whole of reality into existence = "Universe Level+" AP, "At Least Multiverse level+" durability (According to what was shown+equalization according to what our tiering system, as no 4D object should logically be able to injure them)
3. Inhabitant of higher world that can dream the whole of reality into existence = At Least "Universe Level+" AP, "Low 1-C" durability (Equalization used, range dependent)

Option 2 makes more sense to me, as 1 is too subjective, and thus restrictive and Option 3, the one you seem to be rooting for kind of makes the changes to the tiering system pointless as we are still placing two extraordinarily varying characters on the same playing field even if it's only in the the realm of durability.

Also, I don't think making all such feats High 3-A would help anything. As I stated in the blog fiction doesn't "usually" treat smaller space-time continuum users as universe busters so it kind of fails the plot relevance test that I would use when reviewing said feats.

If you don't want to do that, we could continue doing what we do now, and just rate them by their 3-D size, despite being space-time continuums, and only bump them up to Low 2-C when they're universe-sized.

That would be what I prefer yes.

Yeah, that's what we do (well, not the exact hierarchy you list there). Although we can let verses qualify if the information they provide is ambiguous/agnostic, if the higher dimensional object is infinitely large, has temporal dimensions, or has infinitely many dimensions.

Right, most of the hierarchy isn't important and changes from verse to verse (Marvel/DC word of god, for example, are questionable compared to One's own). I do insist plot significance should be considered greatest though.

If the changes are accepted (well, obviously the ones that haven't been debunked) I was hoping that we could apply the blog somewhere so future individuals who desire to create a profile can use it as a base.

Durability is to be treated subjectively. It's no longer that you are harmed by something, or even killed by something, but rather the plot relevance of how you were damaged.

We use this to some extent in our interpretation of what's an outlier. A fodder enemy damaging a main character is more likely to be seen as an outlier than an injury the main character sustains in a plot-vital event.

That's not the same thing to what I'm arguing for, I don't think. A character almost dying from a nuclear warhead to the face would be an outlier if they later, or earlier, survived the explosion of a planet point blank even if barely. A character almost dying from a planetary explosion however wouldn't contradict them being hurt by a nuclear warhead by an unquantifiable but much less severe degree.

We can thus say something like "Durability is the maximum degree of damage one is able to withstand at once before they are no longer able to fight" rather than the assumption X character needs to dish out "this level of power to even hurt him given his maximum durability" thus ignoring all of his anti-feats and the use of a wide range of perfectly viable calculations that we currently do for a lot of profiles.

This seems, to some extent, quite tricky to implement. Some characters have their only durability feat being no-selling a strong attack, so we can't really say "Anything slightly higher than that and they won't be able to fight".

Then put an "At least" by their durability to indicate they are higher than the usual individual of their tier, which we already do.

And for some more extreme cases, especially when the tiers get higher, things seem more like anti-feats than they do different levels of durability.

My argument is, due to plot relevance, as long as it's not a contradiction (in the sense that they already no-sell much stronger attack) then it's not really a problem.

I'm concerned that the site handwaves anti-feats even if on a close inspection they end up being more consistent than the higher ends. And I would like more pages to recognise different levels of durability in some situations. But I'd put "amount of damage sustained" as chief, rather than some subjective plot relevance stuff.

Two things wrong with this. As stated before in the blog we already use plot relevance as a reasoning behind our profiles. This is not to get plot relevance usage "accepted". This is to make this kind of argument an integral part of the way we do things since as an indexing site plot relevance is something we should take into consideration first and foremost, as a recording or analysis of what actually happens.

Also, it's not anymore subjective than anything else we already do. Plot relevance is a universal concept that every piece of fiction employs which already makes it more overarching than our rules that govern FTL and Black holes in fiction that changes from verse to verse, if they exist at all, not to mention it already takes the things you worry about, such as different levels of durability, into consideration simply by default.

The only reason why I don't think it's necessary to go out of our way to portray the levels of durability is because they can quite easily be noted in the feats section, a very important section that almost every profile ignores, seemingly preferring to cram them in every other category regardless of how relevant they are to the actual rating.

 

[Cat275]

Er...I never said that they are.

Fair. I didn't know that.

Of course, considering I'm trying to change how the tiering system of this wiki works, it wouldn't be enough for Low 1-C anymore.



You are incorrect, or at least by the metrics of every mathematician and site I've seen. First of all, epsilon nought is far bigger than Omega^Omega.

Hmm? I would agree if we go into the idea of aleph epsilon but simply adding and multiplying omega will only reach through epsilon with the same size.

Which to quote the one to one correspondence of Omega's:

Each ordinal associates with one cardinal, its cardinality. If there is a bijection between two ordinals (e.g. ω = 1 + ω and ω + 1 > ω), then they associate with the same cardinal. Any well-ordered set having an ordinal as its order-type has the same cardinality as that ordinal. The least ordinal associated with a given cardinal is called the initial ordinal of that cardinal. Every finite ordinal (natural number) is initial, and no other ordinal associates with its cardinal. But most infinite ordinals are not initial, as many infinite ordinals associate with the same cardinal.

Also, you should specify which epsilon you mean because there are an uncountable number of them (still bigger than Omega^Omega though).

I'm talking about the countable epsilons.
(Epsilons that are used to denote many notations of the countable ordinal omega.)

Omega^Omega is not an uncountable infinite ordinal since you can still map it with Omega. Omega 1 is what is the first uncountable ordinal.

That's literally what omega^omega is though. ;-;

(Also continuum hypothesis is another proof if we assume it is true that is.)

 

[HammerStrikes219]

If you don't want to do that, we could continue doing what we do now, and just rate them by their 3-D size, despite being space-time continuums, and only bump them up to Low 2-C when they're universe-sized.

This is also taken into account on theory of general relativity by Albert Einstein and this part here.

https://vsbattles.com/posts/4883070/

 

[CosmicWreck]

Hmm? I would agree if we go into the idea of aleph epsilon but simply adding and multiplying omega will only reach through epsilon with the same size.

If Epsilon nought is equal to a set of Omega^Omega ad infinitum, how can Omega^Omega be bigger?

That's literally what omega^omega is though. ;-;

Nope, Omega 1 has the same cardinality of 2^Omega which is greater than Omega^Omega because the 2 cannot form a map correspondence to Omega.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

In regards to Tier 2 stuff and only that, I also have to say we usually do the case by case approach when it comes to feats that does involves smaller pocket dimensions and so on and so forth.

The assumption though for it being High 3A requires proof from the respective fictional verse to begin with and the fact it involves infinite spatial dimension (Infinite 3D) which more or less can not been implied, but outright stated and mention in my opinion as well being affected.


There shouldn’t been a shortcut to having Tier High 3A to begin with especially given certain interpretations isn’t backed up by what we (readers) have observe in visual medium.

 

[Cat275]

If Epsilon nought is equal to a set of Omega^Omega ad infinitum, how can Omega^Omega be bigger?

The 1st epsilon nought is used when there is to many * or + of a omega, it's not used for ^ cases as this already maps a new cardinal and satisfied a power set for omega, assuming the continuum hypothesis is true.

Nope, Omega 1 has the same cardinality of 2^Omega which is greater than Omega^Omega because the 2 cannot form a map correspondence to Omega.

Omega^Omega is equivalent to a 2^Omega how can you not confuse them..?

 

[Agnaa]

So which of these options do you prefer sir?

I prefer Option 3.

Option 2 makes more sense to me, as 1 is too subjective, and thus restrictive and Option 3, the one you seem to be rooting for kind of makes the changes to the tiering system pointless as we are still placing two extraordinarily varying characters on the same playing field even if it's only in the the realm of durability.

It puts them on the same playing field because they kind of are. An infinitely large 5-D character and a human-sized 5-D character would both (if their 5-D-ness qualifies for this) be unable to be harmed by 4-D attacks. Sure, there would be a huge gap between them, but that'd be inevitable unless we split up each of those higher tiers further, which doesn't seem likely, given that they already merge multiple dimensions together.

(Please note that I use "dimensions", "4-D", and "5-D" as shorthand for "layers of qualitative superiority", "one such layer", and "two such layers" respectively)

That's not the same thing to what I'm arguing for, I don't think. A character almost dying from a nuclear warhead to the face would be an outlier if they later, or earlier, survived the explosion of a planet point blank even if barely. A character almost dying from a planetary explosion however wouldn't contradict them being hurt by a nuclear warhead by an unquantifiable but much less severe degree.

Sure, but I tried to cover that part elsewhere, and just focus on the plot relevant stuff here. In the first case you outlined, we may decide which case to take as our main interpretation based on which was more plot-relevant. If they happened to almost die to a nuke in a single cutaway shot, but them barely surviving the planet explosion was vital to the climax of the series, or if the reverse happened.

Then put an "At least" by their durability to indicate they are higher than the usual individual of their tier, which we already do.

Fair.

My argument is, due to plot relevance, as long as it's not a contradiction (in the sense that they already no-sell much stronger attack) then it's not really a problem.

Ye, I was just saying that they're more likely to be contradictions higher up, imo.

Two things wrong with this. As stated before in the blog we already use plot relevance as a reasoning behind our profiles. This is not to get plot relevance usage "accepted". This is to make this kind of argument an integral part of the way we do things since as an indexing site plot relevance is something we should take into consideration first and foremost, as a recording or analysis of what actually happens.

To me, plot relevance feels like more of a tie breaker, if other ways of reaching conclusions contradict each other. To the point where I find it hard to fathom what it would mean to put plot relevance above other sources of information.

The only reason why I don't think it's necessary to go out of our way to portray the levels of durability is because they can quite easily be noted in the feats section, a very important section that almost every profile ignores, seemingly preferring to cram them in every other category regardless of how relevant they are to the actual rating.

100% agree here, I would like to include a feats section in every profile I make, from now on.

This is also taken into account on theory of general relativity by Albert Einstein and this part here. https://vsbattles.com/posts/4883070/

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and that post you linked seems irrelevant.

The 1st epsilon nought is used when there is to many * or + of a omega, it's not used for ^ cases as this already maps a new cardinal and satisfied a power set for omega, assuming the continuum hypothesis is true.

Be careful, it sounds like you may be applying cardinal arithmetic to ordinals. I'm not sure which one of you is right or wrong since I **** up this omega stuff constantly, but that's because of how easy it is to **** up. 2 omega is different from omega 2.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

This is also taken into account on theory of general relativity by Albert Einstein and this part here. https://vsbattles.com/posts/4883070/

I have no idea what you are trying to say here, and that post you linked seems irrelevant.

It is about a physics method when it comes to theoretical physics.

The fact you haven’t read the link about it is kinda concerning though especially when there are sources about it.

“

In theoretical physics, compactification means changing a theory with respect to one of its space-time dimensions. Instead of having a theory with this dimension being infinite, one changes the theory so that this dimension has a finite length, and may also be periodic.”

This is also covered in a YouTube video as well .

 

[Agnaa]

I know what compactification is, I just have no idea what it has to do with whether we should rate small-scale space-time feats at their 3-D size, High 3-A, or Low 2-C. There aren't any compactified dimensions involved in feats like that.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I know what compactification is, I just have no idea what it has to do with whether we should rate small-scale space-time feats at their 3-D size, High 3-A, or Low 2-C. There aren't any compactified dimensions involved in feats like that.

It will make sense to use the theory of general relativity as space and time are considered explicitly interconnected in specific areas IIRC.

So time being tied to 3D does make sense.

Even if we ignore the theory of general relativity, there are multiverse theories that involved space and time in general.

However, my research regarding the multiverse theories is kinda stalled on account of me being lazy.

Also I will to see if compactifaction, does in fact, apply on 4 dimensional objects and lower dimensions as there is a certain viewpoint of treating time as finite.

Edit: There is also dimensional reduction.

 

[Agnaa]

I don't see the relevance of those.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I don't see the relevance of those.

It does involve Tier 2 as a whole correct? Well, not that it matter since I thought we also have address certain things behind Tier 2 since one can make the interpretation that compactification does involves pocket dimensions as well and also I can not see how we can exclude pocket dimensions in this case and pocket reality as well.