- 1,322
- 94
I know that an inaccessible is, and I also know aleph-1 is not weakly inaccessible. What I am confused by is how can a character by strongly inaccessible? Characters are not numbers
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
^Antvasima said:It may be best if non-staff stop commenting here, unless they received special permission, as we need to try to make some progress.
Timelords on steroids basicallyJockey-1337 said:I wonder how powerful Downstreamers will be after the revision. The Manifold is uncountably infinite and contains all mathematically possible stuff.
They would be aleph-three IIRC given all topological formalisms is aleph-three, so 1-A?Jockey-1337 said:Outerversal or not?
Well, the staff need to decide which system that we should use.Antvasima said:So to summarise the alternatives here, if I have understood them correctly, should we go with this:
1-A: Finite outerversal hierarchy
1-A+: Infinite outerversal hierarchy
High 1-A: Immeasurably transcends any infinite outerversal hierarchies
0: Boundless (Transcends High 1-A by the same degree it transcends Low 1-A)
Or this:
1-A: Finite outerversal hierarchy
High 1-A: Infinite outerversal hierarchy
0: Immeasurably transcends any infinite outerversal hierarchies
Or this:
1-A: Finite and infinite outerversal hierarchies
High 1-A: Immeasurably transcends any infinite outerversal hierarchies
Ultima Reality said:So, after having a small talk with Agnaa and looking at Matt's posts, I noticed that the quantity of characters present in some of the proposed subtiers of 1-A may actually bear some weight on which Option is the most effective, since there is not exactly a point in making obscure tiers that only a few characters would occupy.
I am honestly not really sure if this is a good idea, myself, but what do you all think of first analyzing the characters which may qualify for the higher-ends of the new system, and then deciding on which Option is more optimal?
Is that assuming we are having a tier for countably dimensional characters or not? Asking given the main part of my comment above.Agnaa said:snip
I think my reasons for starting outerversal at R^R^R are independent of that question. They'd apply whether we had a tier for countably infinite characters or not.DontTalkDT said:Is that assuming we are having a tier for countably dimensional characters or not? Asking given the main part of my comment above.
As far as I recall, that is only if you adopt the usual notion of a basis (the Hamel Basis, specifically), which indeed doesn't really allow for such a thing as an infinite-dimensional space with countable dimension, but there are other notions which do allow for the construction of such spaces, such as the Schauder Basis, for example.DontTalkDT said:There are no countably infinite dimensional banach spaces and hence also no Hilbert spaces of that dimension. In particular has the R^N not countably infinite dimensions. So how much sense does it make in the proposed system to even have countably infinite dimensional tier?
That is true, but a real coordinate space always has a standard topology defined on its structure anyways, as do most mathematical spaces, hence what makes it a Topological Manifold.DontTalkDT said:I'm curious to see proof of that, since you don't even have to define a topology on a real coordinate space.
Other way around one can also give a real coordinate space a not second-countable topology (E.g. the discrete topology
Yeah, when I wrote the comment, I was mostly focusing on the part regarding a metrizable space being necessarily Hausdorff, while it satisfying 2nd Countability was more due to that property's natural relation to Topological Manifolds in the first place. Should've given more emphasis to the former in this context, my bad.DontTalkDT said:For a start, there are metrizable topologies that are not second-countable. E.g. the discrete topology on the real numbers is metrizable with the metric belonging to it being the discrete metric.
That aside if a space topological space is metrizable is completely independent of its dimensions. The discrete topology is metrizable on any space, regardless of dimension or cardinality
Is it? As far as I am aware, you can't have a countable base on an uncountable set under a trivial topology, as the only possible base the generated topological space could have would be the very set upon which it is defined, which in this case clearly eliminates the possibility of it being countable.DontTalkDT said:Wrong. Counter-example: The trivial Topology is second-countable on every set.
"Transcending math" is like, reeeeeeally vague and nebulous when it comes to tiering, as nothing can be practically defined as being truly beyond it under a fictional context. At most, you would have to quantify that based on how far mathematics extends in the verse itself.JackJoyce said:What tier is transcending the platonic concept of math?
1-A, as you transcend a platonic concept.JackJoyce said:What tier is transcending the platonic concept of math?
How so? Especially if the verse explicitly mentions that math is irrelevant in a outerversal contextUltima Reality said:"Transcending math" is like, reeeeeeally vague and nebulous when it comes to tiering, as nothing can be practically defined as being truly beyond it under a fictional context. At most, you would have to quantify that based on how far mathematics extends in the verse itself.
In regards to the edit you made to the last point I can just say that it was only meant as counter example, not as a suggestion for what to use. The point is that second countable topologies exist regardless of cardinality, meaning that we can't exclude there being suitable topologies due to that criteria at least.Ultima Reality said:@DontTalk
Uh, you should probably read the edits I made to my post yesterday, mainly regarding the last point I made. That should clear up some confusion I hope :T