Why is the higher dimension Endless not High 1B?

[Yzxke789]

I don't know the value between endless and Infinity. But I'm wondering why Endless Dimension isn't High 1-B.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Wait, it got patched? To my knowledge, it is still high 1-B if the context is proven in that way.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I personally always seen things such as "countless", "endless", "limitless" as an "at least + possibly.

So for "countless" universes, it would be "At least 2-B, possibly 2-A".
Or for dimensions: "At least 1-B, possibly High 1-B"

I see it this way, because you cannot really tell the author's intent a lot of the time. They could use those words synonymously for "infinity", as those are synonyms for infinite.
Endless = without an end.
Limitless = without a limit.
Countless = unable to be counted.

In endless/limitless' cases, slapping a finite value on them would imply that there IS an end and/or limit, despite the definition of both.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Or synonyms with "so many to count" and will end up with solid 2-B.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

And in most cases, I am pretty sure the author intends to use them in an infinite sense.
As a lot of people associate things that have no end/limit as infinite, and authors shouldn't be an exception to associating "no end/limit" as infinite.

Which that should be a big part of it: "intent". Did the author mean to use it in a very large (but finite sense), or in an infinite sense? (As they can be used both ways)
It's almost impossible to know if it is vaguely used.

Hence the "possibly" to make up for the uncertainty of the intent. Though again, most people still associate no end/limit as infinite, as a finite value has an end/limit.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But why are we taking author's intention into relevance of our understanding? Doing it can lead to various interpretations.

Countless first definition is “too many to count”, and then in contextual instances, it could be synonymously with “infinite” or anything else.

When examining this within a mathematical framework, a countless number can always be treated as finite, particularly in rare cases where it exhibits an infinitely increasing pattern.

I would not give it a possibly rating at all. We have 2B tier for this reason, in fact, it could arguably belong to the 2-C tier, with a possibility of being even higher, around 2-B.

You are simply equating it to "possibly 2-A" solely because authors often convey the notion of “infinite” is a presumption. I don't think it's entirely wrong, we can expand any statements to its maximum interpretation, but we have no obligations for this. You still did not even take into consideration that maybe the whole statement is also metaphorical? For example, an author might describe a mountain range as stretching endlessly, but this doesn't necessarily mean the range is infinite—it's just a way of emphasizing its vastness.

Authors frequently employ literary techniques such as hyperbole, metaphor, and symbolism to enrich their writing. Determining the author's intent is a complex undertaking that involves more than assuming specific words or concepts are always intended to be infinite. Caution is advised against making such assumptions unless the context explicitly conveys the concept of infinity.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

But why are we taking author's intention into relevance of our understanding? Doing it can lead to various interpretations.

Countless first definition is “too many to count”, and then in contextual instances, it could be synonymously with “infinite” or anything else.

When examining this within a mathematical framework, a countless number can always be treated as finite, particularly in rare cases where it exhibits an infinitely increasing pattern.

I would not give it a possibly rating at all. We have 2B tier for this reason, in fact, it could arguably belong to the 2-C tier, with a possibility of being even higher, around 2-B.

You are simply equating it to "possibly 2-A" solely because authors often convey the notion of “infinite” is a presumption. I don't think it's entirely wrong, we can expand any statements to its maximum interpretation, but we have no obligations for this. You still did not even take into consideration that maybe the whole statement is also metaphorical? For example, an author might describe a mountain range as stretching endlessly, but this doesn't necessarily mean the range is infinite—it's just a way of emphasizing its vastness.

Authors frequently employ literary techniques such as hyperbole, metaphor, and symbolism to enrich their writing. Determining the author's intent is a complex undertaking that involves more than assuming specific words or concepts are always intended to be infinite. Caution is advised against making such assumptions unless the context explicitly conveys the concept of infinity.

Context still matters, yes.
An "endless" mountain would still be finite.

But if talking about a the size of a realm or number of universes, then things get more ambiguous, as then it could be intended as infinite or finite.

But in vague causes, it would be pretty much impossible to tell if they intend it to be infinite or finite; where they just call it "endless" or "limitless" without more context. It could be interpreted either way due to the lack of information.

 

[ImmortalDread]

Ya, so we simply assume at its minimum, not at its maximum – my main point. We don't simply over-excessively interpret something when the context itself conveys something else or simply is not supported by available sources.

It is like, reading between lines. But I suppose, you got my point.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

Ya, so we simply assume at its minimum, not at its maximum – my main point. We don't simply over-excessively interpret something when the context itself conveys something else or simply is not supported by available sources.

It is like, reading between lines. But I suppose, you got my point.

Which I say "possibly". Not even "likely", but only "possibly".

It's impossible to determine the intent in vague cases, but they could intend it as infinite...we just don't know.

I'm not saying it IS infinite, but there is a possibility of it being so due to the lack of context involved in how they use it.

Endless/limitless/countless are words that can have a double-meaning. They can be used to describe a very large (finite) number, or they can straight-up be infinity. And without context, it's kinda a Schrodinger's Cat situation; in a state of being both finite/infinite until the intended usage of them is revealed.

 

[ImmortalDread]

But again, we are being in circles, why do we assume their intentions in the first place. Let's just, focus on the material first? I don't think we need to give it possibly, if the tier 2-B already does the job. It is exactly where I remember DT purposed the same idea and all staff members reject it.

Like, if anything, I think we created the tier for this reason.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

I don't like assumpting intentions, as I don't know what is going through the author's head when writing.

I don't know if they mean it as finite or infinite. The possibility of both exist, so why assume it is only the minimum when there is an equal probability of it very well being the maximum?

 

[ImmortalDread]

Oh, but like, we can also do an argument and assume that they also meant uncountable infinite? Right? It's not wrong.

You may see the issue I am trying to clear up.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

What level of infinity they use is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

The subject is the intent on if they mean it as finite or infinite due to the ambiguity of the words they use. The level of infinity is irrelevant in this.


How are ambiguous cases dealt with, and why are they dealt that way?

Both have a probability of being correct, so why only assume one is while both are just as probabilistic as each other?
Vague usages of "endless"/"limitless" fall under this ambiguity due to their double-meanings without more context.

Both have a probability of being the correct interpretation, so why only list one of them if both have a probability of being correct?

 

[BasedNecoScaler69]

endless / limitless should at least be a possibly infinite, because infinity does not have an end. For countless it could just be a very large finite amount, so 2-B is fine without context

 

[ImmortalDread]

What level of infinity they use is irrelevant to what I am talking about.

It is, since you are simply over interpreting something because of “possibility”. I'm saying, this one can be possible.

The subject is the intent on if they mean it as finite or infinite due to the ambiguity of the words they use. The level of infinity is irrelevant in this.

And what I am saying is, it's irrelevant to our scaling. We scale based on our understanding, not what the author wanted.

Both have a probability of being correct, so why only assume one is while both are just as probabilistic as each other?

Because one has fewer assumptions, and others requires more evidence to be literal. That's where “lowball and highball” comes.

Vague usages of "endless"/"limitless" fall under this ambiguity due to their double-meanings without more context.

I am not arguing for those two. I am arguing for countless.

Both have a probability of being the correct interpretation, so why only list one of them if both have a probability of being correct?

Refer to my rest of my post.

endless / limitless should at least be a possibly infinite, because infinity does not have an end. For countless it could just be a very large finite amount, so 2-B is fine without context

I second this.

 

[Deagonx]

The existence of a possibility isn't, by itself, a great reason to have a "possibly" rating. There needs to be at least a decent basis for it. I don't think words like "countless" or "endless" meet that threshold given how commonly they're used hyperbolically.

 

[ImmortalDread]

This is what I meant. We can simply list many possibilities as much as what we want, and there won't be wrong or right since you are putting it under "author's intent" while determining his intention is itself irrelevant to the scaling.

It is again, reading between lines and overextending the interpretation of said context beyond its scope.

 

[Furudo_Erika]

endless / limitless should at least be a possibly infinite, because infinity does not have an end. For countless it could just be a very large finite amount, so 2-B is fine without context

I would say things that are described as "seemingly limitless/endless" wouldn't have the "possibly infinite".

Since they are defining how it looks to them rather than what it is. It's more subjective than if something like "is endless/limitless" was used, as then they are moseso listing it as a factual statement than a viewpoint.

Same thing with "seemingly infinite". It doesn't mean it is actually infinite.