What's an "insignificant" dimension?

[DavidTPPM]

I can't find a proper explanation anywhere on the site and the entire concept sounds completely self contradictory.

To my understanding a 4 dimensional space is uncountably infinitely bigger than a 3 dimensional space, making the difference between a finite and an infinite higher dimensional space infinitesimal. In other words the difference between a finite 4D space and a 3D universe is basically the same as between an infinite 4D space and a 3D universe.
Even if you want to say that infinite 4D is obviously above finite 4D, finite 4D should still be uncountably infinitely above infinite 3D. The FAQ says

So my question is what exactly is an "insignificant higher dimension" and what's the logic behind it? Also how does it affect scaling and how does a dimension qualify as significant or insignificant?

 

[SweetDao]

So my question is what exactly is an "insignificant higher dimension" and what's the logic behind it? Also how does it affect scaling and how does a dimension qualify as significant or insignificant?

Take a space-time continuum. The physical part of the universe it embodies is obviously inside a 3D space, and the temporal part adds enough replication (slices of said universe at each moment of time) to make said space-time continuum 4D. (Low 2-C).

Now, try to do so with two space-time continuums within the same cosmology. Obviously, there is a problem, because if those space-times are different and not superimposed on each other, it means they are separate one way or another, hence we assume it exists in an "insignificant 5D space". Which, in this case, translate in "such a space needs to exist for those universes to be separate, but since we don't know it's size, nor any mention of it truly existing is present within the cosmology, it is unscalable".

For it to be significant, you would have the text itself to acknowledge the existence of it, I'd say. Like "yeah, there is a void in between each universe (space-time) that encompass every universe and is infinite in size, blablabla".

I'm not 100% certain of my explanation, but that should be the rough idea.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Take a space-time continuum. The physical part of the universe it embodies is obviously inside a 3D space, and the temporal part adds enough replication (slices of said universe at each moment of time) to make said space-time continuum 4D. (Low 2-C).

Now, try to do so with two space-time continuums within the same cosmology. Obviously, there is a problem, because if those space-times are different and not superimposed on each other, it means they are separate one way or another, hence we assume it exists in an "insignificant 5D space". Which, in this case, translate in "such a space needs to exist for those universes to be separate, but since we don't know it's size, nor any mention of it truly existing is present within the cosmology, it is unscalable".

For it to be significant, you would have the text itself to acknowledge the existence of it, I'd say. Like "yeah, there is a void in between each universe (space-time) that encompass every universe and is infinite in size, blablabla".

I'm not 100% certain of my explanation, but that should be the rough idea.

Ooooh okay that would make sense I guess, if that's truly the case.

So if I understand it correctly, when a higher dimensional space is mentioned to exist to separate 2 universes, allow travel in between them, or something of that sort, it would be "significant".

But if there isn't any statement about that space even existing and is only assumed to exist in order for the cosmology to logically work, it's assumed to be too insignificant to be scaled.

 

[SweetDao]

So if I understand it correctly, when a higher dimensional space is mentioned to exist to separate 2 universes, allow travel in between them, or something of that sort, it would be "significant".

Depends on how they "travel" in between them. Like, dimensional travel is a thing, so maybe they just "jump from one universe to another". If it's truly like, they go outside the universe, fly into a void, then enter another one, it's at least acknowledging the existence of the space. If I'm not wrong, you'd need it to be infinite in size too for a possible Low 1-C rating.

The point is, not every tier 2 cosmology are necessarily Low 1-C just because they have a finite or infinite multiverse inside of them, since the "space" that contain them would still need to be shown, well, existing and being of certain properties. I can redirect you to this sandbox I made, the information concerning "The Void" is more or less what's needed to be accepted as Low 1-C.

But if there isn't any statement about that space even existing and is only assumed to exist in order for the cosmology to logically work, it's assumed to be too insignificant to be scaled.

Exactly!

 

[DavidTPPM]

If I'm not wrong, you'd need it to be infinite in size too for a possible Low 1-C rating.

Yeah I heard that somewhere but that's kinda what I didn't understand. Both an infinite 4th spatial dimension and a finite 4th spatial would be uncountably infinitely bigger than an infinite 3D universe.

So while an infinite one would obviously scale higher, the space being finite should logically not be a defeater.

 

[SweetDao]

So while an infinite one would obviously scale higher, the space being finite should logically not be a defeater.

I think it's related to the destructive potency of the cosmology? I'm not as certain as the explanation I gave above, though.

Like, basically, if said space isn't infinite but still technically "5D" for example, it wouldn't make your AP 5D as a result, just an unknown amount above baseline 4D? Destroying this space wouldn't mean destroying the entire dimensional axis, I think that's the reasoning.

 

[Livinmeme]

A miserable pile of geometry, but enough talk. Have at you.

 

[DavidTPPM]

I think it's related to the destructive potency of the cosmology? I'm not as certain as the explanation I gave above, though.

Like, basically, if said space isn't infinite but still technically "5D" for example, it wouldn't make your AP 5D as a result, just an unknown amount above baseline 4D? Destroying this space wouldn't mean destroying the entire dimensional axis, I think that's the reasoning.

I don’t know, maybe…? The difference between any real 5D space and a 4D space should be uncountably infinite. And stacking another countable infinity on that only make an infinitesimal difference. Basically like doing infinity+1.

But like I said I have no idea what the wiki standards for this are or even if I'm actually 100% right so who knows

 

[Digital_Franz]

I can't find a proper explanation anywhere on the site and the entire concept sounds completely self contradictory.

To my understanding a 4 dimensional space is uncountably infinitely bigger than a 3 dimensional space, making the difference between a finite and an infinite higher dimensional space infinitesimal. In other words the difference between a finite 4D space and a 3D universe is basically the same as between an infinite 4D space and a 3D universe.
Even if you want to say that infinite 4D is obviously above finite 4D, finite 4D should still be uncountably infinitely above infinite 3D. The FAQ says

So my question is what exactly is an "insignificant higher dimension" and what's the logic behind it? Also how does it affect scaling and how does a dimension qualify as significant or insignificant?

What is called an "insignificant" dimension is actually a dimension that is not significantly large on its extra axis to receive a Tier jump. For example, a Multiverse that contains space-time continuums does not need to be significantly large on its 5th axis to contain these space-time continuums and the space between universes will therefore be "insignificant" 5-D. Anyway, if I want to explain this properly I would have to go on so much and I don't have time. I advise you to read this post if you haven't already, because it will help you enough.

 

[DavidTPPM]

What is called an "insignificant" dimension is actually a dimension that is not significantly large on its extra axis to receive a Tier jump. For example, a Multiverse that contains space-time continuums does not need to be significantly large on its 5th axis to contain these space-time continuums and the space between universes will therefore be "insignificant" 5-D. Anyway, if I want to explain this properly I would have to go on so much and I don't have time. I advise you to read this post if you haven't already, because it will help you enough.

Thanks but that just made me more confused.
The comment really just makes it sound like we're forcibly gatekeeping ratings behind made up concepts and doesn't really answer my follow up questions

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Thanks but that just made me more confused.
The comment really just makes it sound like we're forcibly gatekeeping ratings behind made up concepts and doesn't really answer my follow up questions

Let’s see here, our tiering system is basically build up from the foundations of theoretical science, philosophy, and mathematics mixed in there all in one.

Philosophy was technically made up from people who are thinkers of their time and so on as well as the fact we got Meta Physics involved.

Also, multiverse theories are a thing too in science

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I just gonna use this video as a example here

 

[Digital_Franz]

Thanks but that just made me more confused.
The comment really just makes it sound like we're forcibly gatekeeping ratings behind made up concepts and doesn't really answer my follow up questions

Yeah that's pretty much the point otherwise all Tier 2 would be mixed into Tier Low 1-C and frankly...

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Yeah that's pretty much the point otherwise all Tier 2 would be mixed into Tier Low 1-C and frankly...

I agree as I don’t see how mixing all of Tier 2 with Tier Low 1C will do well given the multiverse theories that exist out there.


Beside, it will been counterproductive as well

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

It's more so that even if there is a quantifiable value for 5D space if it doesn't meet the size criteria (universal in size in that dimension or infinite)
it doesn't grant a tier

yes a 5D space would still be a lot and higher than any 4D infinite space

Tier 2 is like a really weird place because normally
a single universe already possesses infinite 4D because of the timeline being infinite already
and an infinite multiverse is literally an infinite set of infinite time
theoretically this could mean it is 5D or low 1-C

Except we know that even just a single 1 measure of 5D space (insignificant because not universal in size nor infinite) can already house an infinite amount of universes which are infinite in 4D already.

Qawsedf234

vsbattles.com

then comes the question again. is it of significant size to be granted a tier? which is no
so there lies 2-A and low 1-C's difference.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

a single universe already possesses infinite 4D because of the timeline being infinite already

Hmmm, there is the Many Worlds Interpretation, parallel universes, and so on.

Regardless though, it is what allowed Tier 2C to 2a to exist as well as the container is what allowed the infinite or finite amount of universes as they are treated as being theorized to universes being separated by not just time, but space as well.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

i don't know what you mean

However, a regular universe is infinite in 4D because the timeline is already infinite, regardless of whether it branches or exists alone.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Yeah that's pretty much the point otherwise all Tier 2 would be mixed into Tier Low 1-C

Why?

It's more so that even if there is a quantifiable value for 5D space if it doesn't meet the size criteria (universal in size in that dimension or infinite)
it doesn't grant a tier

Okay but why? A non universal 5D spacetime is still uncountably infinitely larger than an infinite 4D. It not granting a tier doesn't make any sense right?

yes a 5D space would still be a lot and higher than any 4D infinite space

So even "insignificant 5D" should still grant at least 2-A values.

then comes the question again. is it of significant size to be granted a tier? which is no
so there lies 2-A and low 1-C's difference.

What's a "significant size" here? What's insignificant size?

If you had a box which is infinitely wide and long but is only 5 meters tall that box would have effectively the same volume as a box with infinite height. So how can a 5D space that contains 4D spacetime continuums have not only less volume than an "infinite" one but also straight up not even be in the same set of uncountable infinity?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Why?

The energy.

Okay but why? A non universal 5D spacetime is still uncountably infinitely larger than an infinite 4D. It not granting a tier doesn't make any sense right?

Not really. The size mentioned is not the size of the structure but the length of the 5th axis. Take a line that extends to infinity. You have a 1-D object. Now suppose that in your 2-D coordinate system, the y-axis is just 1 cm long and the x-axis is infinite. It's as big as the 1-D line on the x-axis but not so much on the y-axis. Do you see the point? The axis is very insignificant in this case.

So even "insignificant 5D" should still grant at least 2-A values.

No. It depends on the number of structures inside. It goes from 2-C to 2-A.

What's a "significant size" here? What's insignificant size?

The length of the axes.

 

[DavidTPPM]

The energy.

Why?

Not really. The size mentioned is not the size of the structure but the length of the 5th axis. Take a line that extends to infinity. You have a 1-D object. Now suppose that in your 2-D coordinate system, the y-axis is just 1 cm long and the x-axis is infinite. It's as big as the 1-D line on the x-axis but not so much on the y-axis. Do you see the point? The axis is very insignificant in this case.

It's very much not insignificant. The Y axis is large enough for this 2D structure to contain an uncountably infinite amount of infinite 1D lines.

Furthermore if we were to calculate the volume of this 2D space it would be (infinite cm * 1cm) = infinite cm². So the volume is the same regardless of whether the y axis is finite or infinite.

No. It depends on the number of structures inside. It goes from 2-C to 2-A.

Why? Even an infinite amount of 4D spacetime continuums in the 5D spacetime would be less than infinitesimal compared to the full size of the entire 5D structure.

The length of the axes.

What length is significant and why? What decides the significance?

 

[SweetDao]

What length is significant and why? What decides the significance?

I assume what he means is that to get a 5D space, you need "RxRxRxRxR" or "R^5", if you have anything less than this it's not valid even if "one centimeter in the 5D space is still technically bigger than everything below it".

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Okay but why? A non universal 5D spacetime is still uncountably infinitely larger than an infinite 4D. It not granting a tier doesn't make any sense right?

it is but it's a standard so people don't just jump tiers. especially string dimensions which are often really small even though they are at such level.

it would ridiculously amp certain verses just by a mere mention of string theory without expanding on it.

especially with how fiction often times treats dimensions sometimes they are not treated in a power scaling sense that involves uncountable infinities or such to rate them as such would be misrepresenting verses. There's also the reason why non-universal higher dimensional entities are given unknown ratings unless they are shown feats to warrant things outside their sizes

it would also mean that time would be low 2-C regardless of whether or not their future extends infinitely which makes some tiering incoherence in the sense that destroying 5 seconds of time would become equivalent to destroying an entire timeline with infinitely extending future which is completely false and illogical

So even "insignificant 5D" should still grant at least 2-A values.

correct

Furthermore if we were to calculate the volume of this 2D space it would be (infinite cm * 1cm) = infinite cm². So the volume is the same regardless of whether the y axis is finite or infinite.

that's for calculating the volume. which isn't exactly a good measure of mass or energy or any other things.
a container having nothing is not worth destroying unless you destroy the container itself

 

[Rikimarox2]

I assume what he means is that to get a 5D space, you need "RxRxRxRxR" or "R^5", if you have anything less than this it's not valid even if "one centimeter in the 5D space is still technically bigger than everything below it".

Don't remember much from Linear Algebra, but wouldn't the fact that there's "one centimeter" in the 5-D space already confirm that it's an R^5? And regardless of its actual size, that "1cm" already contains the previous four vectors, an uncountable infinite times, no?

Granted, I could just be smoking crack since I'm going purely off of memory of Linear Algebra and Discrete Math, and for context, my memory isn't that good.

 

[Digital_Franz]

Why?

Technically, the energy to destroy a Low 2-C structure and above is infinite. Read this thread.

It's very much not insignificant. The Y axis is large enough for this 2D structure to contain an uncountably infinite amount of infinite 1D lines.

Assuming that it's significantly large.

Furthermore if we were to calculate the volume of this 2D space it would be (infinite cm * 1cm) = infinite cm². So the volume is the same regardless of whether the y axis is finite or infinite.

Hmm.

Why? Even an infinite amount of 4D spacetime continuums in the 5D spacetime would be less than infinitesimal compared to the full size of the entire 5D structure.

Not really.

What length is significant and why? What decides the significance?

Generally if you can prove that the 5th axis is infinite then you will get Low 1-C otherwise nothing.

 

[DavidTPPM]

it is but it's a standard so people don't just jump tiers. especially string dimensions which are often really small even though they are at such level.

it would ridiculously amp certain verses just by a mere mention of string theory without expanding on it.

I don’t really know anything about string theory ngl.

especially with how fiction often times treats dimensions sometimes they are not treated in a power scaling sense that involves uncountable infinities or such to rate them as such would be misrepresenting verses. There's also the reason why non-universal higher dimensional entities are given unknown ratings unless they are shown feats to warrant things outside their sizes

Now this I don't get. How can a 3D being move without outputting energy uncountably infinitely higher than a 2D being?

it would also mean that time would be low 2-C regardless of whether or not their future extends infinitely which makes some tiering incoherence in the sense that destroying 5 seconds of time would become equivalent to destroying an entire timeline with infinitely extending future which is completely false and illogical

Uhh I mean not really. Yeah when you compare a higher dimensional structure to a lower dimensional one, a single infinity is inconsequential.
But when comparing 2 different higher dimensional structures that infinity would suddenly be very much relevant.

To a 2D being the difference between a 3D ant and a neutron star is irrelevant because both are uncountably infinitely bigger than them, but to a 3D being the difference is enormous because it's no longer working with uncountable infinities.

correct

that's for calculating the volume. which isn't exactly a good measure of mass or energy or any other things.

Why not?

a container having nothing is not worth destroying unless you destroy the container itself

So destroying a 5D container itself should be low 1-C right? Like if there is a 5D container containing 2 parallel 4D spacetime continuums separated by a 4th dimension of space, and you destroy the entire container it is L1-C right?

 

[Digital_Franz]

Don't remember much from Linear Algebra, but wouldn't the fact that there's "one centimeter" in the 5-D space already confirm that it's an R^5? And regardless of its actual size, that "1cm" already contains the previous four vectors, an uncountable infinite times, no?

Granted, I could just be smoking crack since I'm going purely off of memory of Linear Algebra and Discrete Math.

Not really. We are in fiction. Often time can contain only one 3-D point while we basically conceive of it as being able to contain an uncountable infinite number of 3-D points.

 

[DavidTPPM]

Technically, the energy to destroy a Low 2-C structure and above is infinite. Read this thread.

I understand that. But why would it mean all T2s would get mixed into l1c.

Assuming that it's significantly large.

But what does that mean?

Not really.

Wdym? Why not?

Generally if you can prove that the 5th axis is infinite then you will get Low 1-C otherwise nothing.

But why would you need that? That's what I don't get. The difference between an infinite and finite distance is inconsequential when talking about uncountable infinities.
Both a dimension with infinite 5th direction and a finite 5th direction would be uncountably infinitely bigger than a space without any 5th direction.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

So destroying a 5D container itself should be low 1-C right? Like if there is a 5D container containing 2 parallel 4D spacetime continuums separated by a 4th dimension of space, and you destroy the entire container it is L1-C right?

like we have no idea how much of 5D space were occupied by 2 parallel 4D spacetime
and we know even a single slice of such is already too big for it
for all we know it uses an infinitesimal amount of 5D space which is considered sometimes as non-measurable or in a sense has nearly no value in terms of 5D
so a container that contains only 2 4D spacetime cannot be considered as infinitely uncountable to those 2 4D spacetime due to the fact that it can only contain 2 4D spacetime
its like stacking something that has 0 value in a 5D space

 

[Livinmeme]

it would ridiculously amp certain verses just by a mere mention of string theory without expanding on it.

Sonic is 6-D because pararel lines, do you know where we are?

 

[DavidTPPM]

like we have no idea how much of 5D space were occupied by 2 parallel 4D spacetime
and we know even a single slice of such is already too big for it
for all we know it uses an infinitesimal amount of 5D space which is considered sometimes as non-measurable or in a sense has nearly no value in terms of 5D
so a container that contains only 2 4D spacetime cannot be considered as infinitely uncountable to those 2 4D spacetime due to the fact that it can only contain 2 4D spacetime
its like stacking something that has 0 value in a 5D space

But then that 5D spacetime would still be uncountably infinitely bigger than a 4D spacetime. Even if it's full of essentially nothingness, the spacetime itself (the whole container) would still be an uncountably infinitely bigger.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

But then that 5D spacetime would still be uncountably infinitely bigger than a 4D spacetime. Even if it's full of essentially nothingness, the spacetime itself (the whole container) would still be an uncountably infinitely bigger.

its not uncountably infinite in that case anymore

also I don't think you understand what it means to be uncountably infinite.

There is a difference between uncountable infinite and Set theory Aleph 0 and Aleph 1

 

[DavidTPPM]

its not uncountably infinite in that case anymore

Why not?

also I don't think you understand what it means to be uncountably infinite.

Why?

 

[Digital_Franz]

I understand that. But why would it mean all T2s would get mixed into l1c.

Tier 2 allows for a split on the number of space-time continuums destroyed. Without it, the universe's autojr space which is insignificant 5-D considered as you want would place all Tier 2 characters in Low 1-C because that space is affected.

But what does that mean?

Wdym? Why not?

The gap between the universes is not known.

But why would you need that? That's what I don't get. The difference between an infinite and finite distance is inconsequential when talking about uncountable infinities.
Both a dimension with infinite 5th direction and a finite 5th direction would be uncountably infinitely bigger than a space without any 5th direction.

You need this to show that it is significantly broad.

 

[SweetDao]

Don't remember much from Linear Algebra, but wouldn't the fact that there's "one centimeter" in the 5-D space already confirm that it's an R^5? And regardless of its actual size, that "1cm" already contains the previous four vectors, an uncountable infinite times, no?

You're right, at least, that how it's supposed to work.

Thing is, if we know that by default the new dimensional axis doesn't equal to "R" but something else, the most logical outcome is for it to be equal to "N". Obviously, such a space shouldn't be able to exist but eh, idk.

 

[Digital_Franz]

But then that 5D spacetime would still be uncountably infinitely bigger than a 4D spacetime. Even if it's full of essentially nothingness, the spacetime itself (the whole container) would still be an uncountably infinitely bigger.

Not really, no.

 

[TheGreatJedi13]

Why?

when a 4D object is uncountably infinite it doesn't become 5D. it just goes on and on in an uncountable manner that they are considered infinitely going without end
for the most case this is often assumed aleph 1 (but it is not the entire thing about uncountable infinite is that it just keeps going even if you list down all possible numbers its basically a infinite that will remain infinite even if you add more sets and such)

regular infinite is aleph 0
and an infinite set of aleph 0 is aleph 1

Aleph 1 is basically an infinite amount of set of Aleph 0
which makes aleph 0 a smaller infinite and aleph 1 the bigger infinite.
Read more....

Set Theory Explanation Page

The following is an explanation of the upper bounds of this wiki's Tiering System, namely the parts encompassed by Low 1-A and above, although the concepts presented here do have great influence on the functionings of much lower tiers. For information on the primary measuring stick used to...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You're right, at least, that how it's supposed to work.

Thing is, if we know that by default the new dimensional axis doesn't equal to "R" but something else, the most logical outcome is for it to be equal to "N". Obviously, such a space shouldn't be able to exist but eh, idk.

It is more theoretical as well because that is not set in stone rather than just using pure mathematics for this I think

 

[DavidTPPM]

Tier 2 allows for a split on the number of space-time continuums destroyed. Without it, the universe's autojr space which is insignificant 5-D considered as you want would place all Tier 2 characters in Low 1-C because that space is affected.

What? Autojr space?

The gap between the universes is not known.

You need this to show that it is significantly broad.

What does that even mean?
Istg my main question was "what's considered significant" and people keep telling me something needs prove of being significant without anyone actually telling me what's considered significant and why

 

[HammerStrikes219]

What? Autojr space?

What does that even mean?
Istg my main question was "what's considered significant" and people keep telling me something needs prove of being significant without anyone actually telling me what's considered significant and why

Your question is “What is an insignificant dimension?” which in this case, mean dimensions of smaller size. Not sure why this requires a overly complicated answer being used here tbh

 

[Napoleondevious]

What? Autojr space?

What does that even mean?
Istg my main question was "what's considered significant" and people keep telling me something needs prove of being significant without anyone actually telling me what's considered significant and why

by significant i think it means not infinitesimal, two 2 dimensional spaces stacked on each other make it an insingificant 3D space (as it is still infinitesimal), youd need uncountably many of them to make it non infinitesimal iirc
this is why uncountable STC scale to low 1C because stacking them up will fill this gap to overcome this insingificance

you can say 0D space is extended infinitesimally/insignificantly in all possible dimensions i think, if it helps you understand