• This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.

    For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here.
  • We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.

    Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.

    Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page.
  • Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.

Timeless Voids Standards Issues (Staff only)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Antvasima said:
@Kukui
The problem is that it has almost always been applied despite that it doesn't fit with any other feats or context for the franchises.
Click to expand...
But thats the thing Ant. Timeless void based speed feats shouldn't be abirtarily applied just as soon as a character or verse performs one. If its not consistent and is just being applied for 0 reason, I obviously agree that is a huge no. It obviously has to be consistent and not some kind of an outlier compared to their other speed feats.

My perspective of this revision was that timeless void feats in general shouldnt count as speed feats. THAT is what I disagree with. They should count, but only if they are actually consistent and dont cause issues with scaling.
 
Tyri456 said:
Seems that all the staff members have a conclusion that is the same tho.
Click to expand...
Their conclusion is basically "It doesn't count no matter what unless the verse specifically says it's infinite" which is basically no different from just a verse saying they have infinite speed and therefore would STILL make the timeless void page pointless
 
"It doesn't count no matter what unless the verse specifically says it's infinite"

Idk about the others, but I never agreed to that.
 
What needs to happen basically is infinite speed specifies the importance of distance rather than time. Crossing an infinite distance in record time. Traveling voids only grant infinite speed if it's infinite in distance. Nonexistent time is undefinable as explained many times by now. True timeless void feats (the real ones, btw) might get bumped to immeasurable since movement that transcends history is a superior feat to movement across history (and the latter is immeasurable already), anyone who's ever crossed a High 3-A+ space through travel speed would get infinite speed, etc.
 
What do other staff members here think about Sera's suggestion?
 
Okay, I do pardon my response being so long, but this thread has progressed a great deal. I have asked a few of the collegiate level teachers at my school and some of the students at that level to gained a more comprehensive understanding of this subject to make sure I wasn't going in blind. Additionally, I had Band practice so that kind of took away like two hours of my time. I'm going to be more directly quoting to give responses to people like Yumi-ta and Antoniofer.

"The point was that, that all void can be different, sure, you can say that "type x voids are those wher ethe character needs infinite speed", but that do not change anything, those places where IS is not a requeriment then simply they wouldn't qualify as such. This is supposed to be accurate, if the stats of a verse depends of how we modify rules (create a rule and then characters sundely have infinite strength, or remove it an sundely they do not have infinite speed), then something must be wrong.

Author not acknowledging gravity (without justification) is "stupidity", authors not being consistent with what they write themself is "stupidity", author making a character being unharmed by being in the sun but in other instance they are harmed by furnace's fires (without justification) is "stupidity"; but now, author not making characters granting IS by doing something in a timeless void, why would they be stupid? by not knowing our rules and standards? That is not a immutable real physical law. That doesn't mean that character aren't allowed the break the physical rules, that happens a lot, being ftl may break the physical laws (although, in other theories it may be different), but going ftl is actually despicted as a speed feat within the verse, being consistent or not is another issue."

True Voids wouldn't be different, they would share the exact same type of properties logically and ideally with how the system works. I'm not sure how you got the idea that the concept of zero time would somehow vary when something like the aging is just further supporting it. No, what you're doing is unironically worse than how you're trying to portray timeless voids. You're trying to apply that every verse is going to have a dumb explanation and assuming that is the reason for almost every case. You can't do that because it's a stupid generalization and would have about as much merit as me saying that every Tier 2 has Space-Time Manipulation just because a good amount of them do. Once again, you might as well be like Unanimous where you're giving anyone who can move in a timeless void passive Logic Manipulation and Reactive Evolution. This isn't a bad conclusion because it's logical in the math and the premise, it's not making unwarranted assumptions about the context.

Yes, it's more directly stupidity in just the fact they aren't acknowledging timeless void properties. It doesn't have to be manifested in our real world for us to just have an idea of how it would work given we know the relation of time. You would be calling the entire site stupid otherwise and all of the research put into this topic by other members like DontTalk. Authors create stuff they don't how it functions all of the time. Demonbane is one of the best examples of this to where it has infinite dimensional planes from the context, but the creator obviously didn't have that sort of understanding. The idea of time is a law, the timeless void, as a hypothetical, stems from that idea and how its relations works. Are you really implying that characters are just breaking the laws of a timeless void and moving at finite speeds? First of all, FTL stuff realistically is only breaking something certain laws like causality, it's not ignoring them in general so that's an association fallacy. Secondly, you're asserting such a baseless assumption of how it would work that it's not backed up by any sort of reasoning.

"You do realize the DeLorean is outright stated to only be 82 miles per hour. But I agree with Sera that moving in a Timeless void isn't Infinite speed by default similar to how Time travel doesn't automatically warrant Immeasurable speed. Plus, characters could have Infinite or Immeasurable travel speed but lack the combat speed on that level." What Sera agreed on was that we wouldn't define it as automatically consistent. Time Travel and the Immeasurable problem aren't comparable to the idea of how a timeless void would operate. One is the problem to discerning an ability or a speed feat versus the other being on if it's consistent or not when it means the standards. Lacking combat speed and such doesn't change anything because this is about if timeless voids can give you Infinite speed PERIOD.

"Speed is defined as the amount of distance crossed per time passed. That's why all speed measurements are read like "meters per second" or "kilometers per hour". Why are you measuring speed in a literal timeless place of arbitrary if not nonexistent distances? Division by 0 is not infinity. The result is not even a number.

Depending on how you interpret it, movement in a place without time (and likely no space as well) is indefinable or immeasurable in the literal sense. There are no variables. It cannot be measured. It is not definable, so what's the deal with you guys trying to define it? You are lying to people."

I would recommend not saying that we are "lying to people". This would imply that there is some sort of purposeful intent to mislead people on something you're declaring a falsehood when it could just be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation? This goes for the comment where Sera mentioned this as well, nobody is "lying" here so that's poor word choice.

Anyway, this is only half true, meaning partially correct. If you're looking at it from an algebraic perspective, you would be right that 1/0 isn't infinity, it would be undefined. You would need a collegiate level of mathemathics to have learned this concept though, but what you are saying is completely false when using Calculus. The idea I'm talking about is called a limit. Pulling directly from Khan Academy and Socratic, you can have 1/0=infinity. As you do the function of 1/x=y, the function continually yields larger results for a "y" value in correlation with the smaller increments you go for the "x" value. And as we explained earlier, your theoretical yield for zero movement already should dwarf finite movement because it's physically impossible to replicate with any sort of finite speed. Want to be an Invisible Dragon and "Ran for about 8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888777777777777777777778 light years in 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds in the Universe"? Nice speed feat, but your speed is still quantifiable.

Do you know why division by zero is called undefined? It's because division in of itself is a function meant to express practical splitting into equally small parts. If there are 8 slices of pizza, but I want pizza a large amount along with Jake, Shelley, and Winston (4 people overall), we do 8/4=2. This is pretty straightforward. However, what if you want to split with 0 people? Well it doesn't make sense in terms of the equation. Multiplying by zero doesn't make since either because 8*0 means we're not multiplying at all, hence zero. We can't make the equation work algebraically because the system just can't give us what it wants as a logical function. Undefined is the result as it cannot be expressed or solved in the system. I'd like to note that Algebra similarly can't express an infinite expression as well. So when we come to this point, all that means is that Alegbra cannot provide the answer that Calculus can. Your conclusion that it wouldn't be infinite because of that is automatically debunked when you consider this and unusable unless you prefer a broken system over something that can give us the idea of the expression and that would actually make timeless void feats unquantifiable despite the constant explanations showing why they are.

Also, I agree with the idea that obviously not moving any distance isn't able to be used for the feat, but that's not under every circumstance universally (meaning you can't use that to invalidate every single example). I'm sorry I made a legitimate text wall for this one person's response, but the points are the exact same thing as what was made by others like Unanimous and Tsar, when I covered this but it somehow didn't go through and got ignored. Hopefully this actually breaks down the idea for threadgoers. This also applies to what Pritti said as well @Sera because Yumi and Pritti were both ignorant to this circumstance.

"What needs to happen basically is infinite speed specifies the importance of distance rather than time. Crossing an infinite distance in record time. Traveling voids only grant infinite speed if it's infinite in distance. Nonexistent time is undefinable as explained many times by now. True timeless void feats (the real ones, btw) might get bumped to immeasurable since movement that transcends history is a superior feat to movement across history (and the latter is immeasurable already), anyone who's ever crossed a High 3-A+ space through travel speed would get infinite speed, etc."

I don't agree with this at all. Distance and time are both important variables when it comes to speed, which I've basically described entirely above how the lack of time passage would contribute to the rating. At that point, being a timeless void is completely irrelevant because you're just trying to change it to being infinite in size which would apply for ANY realm. The only thing that would even be unique you're offering up is the idea it might be Immeasurable at the absolute peak. It should be how we originally agreed on the topic, which was that it can be used as infinite speed feat, but we need to actually evaluate how consistent it is.

This is just to address some of the other claims as well:

"A place without time isn't zero time, it's undefinable which means we don't use t as zero for the speed equation"

This is blatantly wrong for the most obvious of reasons. Using Merriam Webster, zero is defined as, "the arithmetical symbol 0 or 0╠© denoting the absence of all magnitude or quantity". If there isn't any sort of quantity of time passing or existing, the value would be zero as it means the timeframe for something to happen doesn't exist. It being "undefinable" is incorrect as the value would just be a nonexistent value, which is what zero is which is literally nothing. I'm not sure how this idea even came to fruition.

"Infinite speed is always applied even if it's not consistent"

This is NOT an issue for timeless voids specifically, that's a problem with how people are trying to apply something that was never the way it is. The feat itself would be guaranteed infinite under the certain circumstances, but the way people are applying it for its consistency is a different topic. The system never claimed it, the people are just saying it did.

This is my last comment for today. I'm going to sleep and I'm going to hope we're not going to have to repeat the same point for the gazillionth time.
 
I'm really not sure about True voids being Immeasurable, but the crossing infinite distances or doing infinite number of actions within a finite amount of time being more Infinite sounds more reasonable. Her latest post seemed to imply Immeasurable being a suggestion for some timeless voids that I'm iffy on.
 
I can't really read through this entire thread, but, assuming that moving in 0 time does get accepted as infinite on account of Ploz's post I have the following things to say

Often when a character enters a timeless void, he is able to move not because of his own inherent ability, but because the logical consequences of being in such a place is ignored for the sake of telling a story the audience can understand. Can't exactly create a narrative, if the very concept of progression doesn't exist

To grant an infinite speed rating, what we have to do is make sure that this isn't the case. The verse doesn't have to explicitly say infinite speed is required, but there should be evidence that normal movement is impossible in the void and that those who are seen to move, have special characteristics that specifically make them exempt from this. That much should be the minimum
 
Us ignoring author intent is mostly us ignoring contradictions and giving weight to what happens in-universe. This is more akin to ignoring outliers or PIS, something that technically happens, but isn't legitimate and only happens because of plot reasons

It's also similar to how we don't always the word "dimension" to have its geometric meaning and consider speed separate from AP by default, because they are trends in fictions which we have to be careful of when assigning our ratings
 
This is getting annoying. I never said time was irrelevant or not as important in a speed feat. I said without any known distance traveled, the amount if time leaves an ambigous result regardless. It's basic freaking algebra. How can we figure out S if we don't know D? Let alone T = 0. Combine this with what the fact that one's own speed is never supposed to be conditional, and timeless voids are an abhorrent way to claim "infinite speed".
 
Do you know why division by zero is called undefined? It's because division in of itself is a function meant to express practical splitting into equally small parts. If there are 8 slices of pizza, but I want pizza a large amount along with Jake, Shelley, and Winston (4 people overall), we do 8/4=2. This is pretty straightforward. However, what if you want to split with 0 people? Well it doesn't make sense in terms of the equation. Multiplying by zero doesn't make since either because 8*0 means we're not multiplying at all, hence zero. We can't make the equation work algebraically because the system just can't give us what it wants as a logical function. Undefined is the result as it cannot be expressed or solved in the system. I'd like to note that Algebra similarly can't express an infinite expression as well. So when we come to this point, all that means is that Alegbra cannot provide the answer that Calculus can. Your conclusion that it wouldn't be infinite because of that is automatically debunked when you consider this and unusable unless you prefer a broken system over something that can give us the idea of the expression and that would actually make timeless void feats unquantifiable despite the constant explanations showing why they are.

You don't even explain how division by 0 = infinity. If S=D/T and you are claiming that S=Infinity, given that T=0 you're suggesting and boldly claiming that any number divided by zero is infinite. That is not true, so yes you people are lying as you don't even have any evidence on the page, not algebra or calculus.
 
"Calculus"

>Never mind that our system isn't based on calculus for good reasons. It's based on algebra (speed), geometry (range and large size), and ordinals (Tier 1 and beyond).

>Every speed is based on an algebraic equation except infinite for some reason. Infinite is special.

>Pritti is ignorant to the circumstance despite never having her FTL analogy debunked (because the galactic distance argument didn't cut it).

How about we stop trying to validate timeless voids before I prove why they shouldn't be used at all? I'm trying to compromise here and trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Please, stop.
 
Yumi-tan said:
You don't even explain how division by 0 = infinity. If S=D/T and you are claiming that S=Infinity, given that T=0 you're suggesting and boldly claiming that any number divided by zero is infinite. That is not true, so yes you people are lying as you don't even have any evidence on the page, not algebra or calculus.
Click to expand...
Don't assume that people are lying when they could just be wrong. Partly because negative time is an even bigger can of worms, and without that the line does tend to infinity.
 
I agree with Pritti. Yumi didn't say Ploz or Kukui is lying, but the site as a whole is boldly claiming something without evidence, and that is certainly in the same playing field as lying. Whether you are just "wrong" or not. The lack of evidence to prove these claims despite the site having evidence for its other claims everywhere else (especially for speed), is disappointing coming from a site that wants accuracy.
 
I'm....gonna unsubscribe from this for the time being. Lemme know if any meaningful development happens.
 
DarkDragonMedeus said:
I'm really not sure about True voids being Immeasurable, but the crossing infinite distances or doing infinite number of actions within a finite amount of time being more Infinite sounds more reasonable. Her latest post seemed to imply Immeasurable being a suggestion for some timeless voids that I'm iffy on.
Click to expand...
Andytrenom said:
Often when a character enters a timeless void, he is able to move not because of his own inherent ability, but because the logical consequences of being in such a place is ignored for the sake of telling a story the audience can understand. Can't exactly create a narrative, if the very concept of progression doesn't exist.

To grant an infinite speed rating, what we have to do is make sure that this isn't the case. The verse doesn't have to explicitly say infinite speed is required, but there should be evidence that normal movement is impossible in the void and that those who are seen to move, have special characteristics that specifically make them exempt from this. That much should be the minimum.
Click to expand...
Anyway, I agree with this.
 
Sera EX said:
This is getting annoying. I never said time was irrelevant or not as important in a speed feat. I said without any known distance traveled, the amount if time leaves an ambiguous result regardless. It's basic freaking algebra. How can we figure out S if we don't know D? Let alone T = 0. Combine this with what the fact that one's own speed is never supposed to be conditional, and timeless voids are an abhorrent way to claim "infinite speed".
Click to expand...
D can usually be measured.
 
@Ant

No one's assuming bad faith. And we won't get anywhere this way anyway since timeless voids are inherently flawed yet staff and non-staff want to keep using them for lord knows why.

@GoP

Exactly, and what about in cases when it's not? I've never seen a speed calc for example, where no one knew the distance but claimed a result anyway.
 
@Ant

I hate to say it but you might have to get rid of timeless voids as a whole anyway. Infinite speed should be where distance is ignored or trivialized. That's what instantaneous movement means. Think instant transmission through physical speed.

There's plenty of feats like that which get called "unknown" or "unquantifiable" in favor the controversial and inherently flawed timeless void take. Speed that requires a certain place to achieve isn't speed, ask any car manufacturer that got the Guinness World Record for highest top speed. Never do they accept the top speed if it was achieved under certain conditions, there's a reason for that.
 
Well, we either need to follow Andy's much stricter than currently suggestion or get rid of using the voids entirely, as Sera and Venom say.

In any case, we still need to write the new instructions in the old page.
 
I don't want to get rid of them entirely, I am trying to compromise here but that doesn't seem to be getting through for some reason.
 
Not providing evidence wouldn't even mean you're lying, that just means you wouldn't be able to confirm or deny anything.

Also, I DID provide links to what I said regarding my Calculus portion.

The idea I'm talking about is called a limit. Pulling directly from Khan Academy and Socratic, you can have 1/0=infinity. As you do the function of 1/x=y"

I gave you two sources which were hyperlinked (can't exactly copy since I'm on mobile so just CTRL+F) one of which is even being enforced in some curriculums for how accurate it is (Khan Academy). Do you really want me to provide a link explaining how division is a function when we all know this? Do you want me to provide a link showing why division by zero is undefined in Algebra even though this is the stance you're literally arguing? I gave evidence for what's relevant to the subject, the only other things I responded too were a discussion of hypotheticals which doesn't even relate to the mathematical portion.
 
Pardon Yumi's bluntness and my own lack of better articulation. I shouldn't have snapped after being called ignorant, though it is a berserk button for me tbh, since I study hard, especially in the field of mathematics for a hundred hours a week.

Allow me to explain myself better.

The reason why S=D/T when T=0 is infinite is because time is a factor. That's what instantaneous movement suggests. Crossing any distance in zero time means you are moving at infinite speed. However, time is not a factor in a timeless void, they are described as transcending/beyond outside or beyond time for a reason. T thus = N/A. This is why I always say N/A =/= 0. Don't you guys remember when people were trying to argue about timeless voids being 1-A for a similar reason?

Timeless voids shouldn't be used because time is not a factor. Speed is hence undefined or even irrelevant there. We don't even know the causative relationship between things within a timeless void, since time is in many ways a measurement of change. We also don't know the distance of these voids in most cases. So D = undefined and T = nonexistent. S cannot be infinite under these conditions, the parameters are either ill-defined or simply don't exist.

To reiterate: Nonexistent time =/= Zero time. S=D/0=Infinite is only relevant within time. Plus, add DarkLK's quote on top of that "just because you can swim in water doesn't mean you can swim on land" and keeping in mind that we don't grant FTL to people being in places without light or where light cannot exist and you have more than enough reasons to not treat timeless voids as granting infinite speed.

If I have to draw a dang graph to illustrate why it's possible with the math to prove it, so be it.
 
I gave a link that literally explains that exact topic to understand with Khan Academy and one with Socratic showing the process, what do you even mean "you didn't explain"? I linked it because the actual video explains it better than I ever could. Yes, because they geographically would be zero at this point. The concept isn't going to change on you just because you change 1/x to 2/x. If you make 0.1 x for both of them, 1/x gives 10 while 2/x gives 20. You're not changing the concept of the equation by just replacing the distance. And I have a link directly proving this concept so it's not a bold assumption at all. The only thing bold would be you assuming that what I said was wrong without any sort of evidence and ignoring the links I posted. So please tell me how I'm lying if I'm going off the educational source. Are you saying that an educational source is wrong without any sort of evidence? This is my problem.
 
Timeless voids shouldn't be used because time is not a factor. Speed is hence undefined or even irrelevant there. We don't even know the causative relationship between things within a timeless void, since time is in many ways a measurement of change. We also don't know the distance of these voids in most cases. So D = undefined and T = nonexistent. S cannot be infinite under these conditions, the parameters are either ill-defined or simply don't exist.

This is essentially the point we're trying to get across.
 
After reading Pritti's post, I think I'm fine with Timeless void feats being scrapped in general. Movement in zero time is still infinite, so that doesn't contradict Ploz's calculus explanation, but if time isn't even part of the equation (literally) then that's a different story
 
I mean, I literally quoted her "NA =/= 0" from the start. It was ignored >:/

It's also the reason why I said Ploz has good point in his argument, but he needs to approachable it from another angle to see Pritti's point. It was never about division by zero (that was Yumi's completely separate argument), it was about a lack of variables or one variable being nonexistent entirely. You can't figure out Speed with no time, you can figure it out with zero time. Timeless voids however, are no time.
 
Sera Ex wrote'

Why wouldn't we use Calculus? What "good reasons" are there? Calculus literally takes from two of the things you mentioned as well.

Yes, because I literally explained the algebraic equations don't define and cannot express infinite expressions. You're literally trying to say you would rather use something that outright can't provide an answer versus something that can. WHY are we going down that route?

Because the FTL Point isn't even technically wrong if the situation stems from you outrunning the speed of light to where the light can't effectively reach your eyes because you're at a relative speed to the photons. I literally mentioned something like that earlier when I made an analogy. Infinite is a special case because it's literally in the territory where you start breaking equations and reach limits to what our math can provide. It's not remotely comparable to FTL travel, my galactic travel argument was being provided in a different context as well when talking about not scaling to weapons or something that can transport you.

I'm wanting to hear an explanation of why they can't be used at all if I've produced the sources that show they are feasible and can be used.

I'm going to have wait another good amount of hours again to reply because of school. I'll reply when I get the time which will be some time later today.
 
Because if we did, we'd end up having to use a different version of infinity that might contradict or complicate the rest of our system, not all branches of math use the same line of thought, etc. things like that.
 
So what I'm getting at from these last few messages, moving in a timeless void would just be relegated to Immeasurable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Theglassman12
  • Locked
Fighting game standards
Replies
29
Views
2K
Theglassman12
Theglassman12
DarkGrath
Proposal for Site/Forum Image Standards Revision
3 4 5
Replies
175
Views
9K
CloverDragon03
CloverDragon03
H3110l12345I20
Adding Standards for Scaling Real World Animals.
Replies
23
Views
1K
H3110l12345I20
H3110l12345I20
LordGriffin1000
  • Locked
Human Statistics Scaling Standards in Fiction (Staff Only)
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
LordGriffin1000
LordGriffin1000
Saikou_The_Lewd_King
Touhou - Infinite Speed issues
3 4 5
Replies
161
Views
11K
Quibster
Quibster
Back
Top