• 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.

Yogiri, 1-A possibly high 1-A

Status
Not open for further replies.
Georredannea15 said:
Where? I didn't see it in the OP

No, Twitter or anywhere else doesn't matter. The question asked was asked in a guiding manner to the author. The author is stuck in a "yes - no" dichotomy.
But the worst thing is that he answered the question in a very different way than was asked.
Click to expand...
Ngl, entire novel seems flowery to me, so they shouldn't even be planetary imo 🎭
 
Reiner said:
.
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything for 1-A here, it just says that universes can be other people's(Here I think he was talking about someone, but I forgot who he was talking about) . "dreams" it's just an R>F. I'll read it again to be sure, but I still disagree until then.
 
Georredannea15 said:
I didn't see anything for 1-A here, it just says that universes can be other people's(Here I think he was talking about someone, but I forgot who he was talking about) . "dreams" it's just an R>F. I'll read it again to be sure, but I still disagree until then.
Click to expand...
It's simply talking about Type 4 multiverse, which as per what author described in QnA seems to be related.
 
The QnA is official QnA that author have decided to answer.

Fujitaka-san have all the freedom to ignore the question all together, he did this all the time to people asking question to him in twitter. But for this one instance he decided to answer this question and add it to his official QnA.

究極集合
Translate: Ultimate Set that correlate with type 4.

You can look at Elizhaa post below:
Elizhaa said:
Ultimate Ensemble at its Lowest is Low 1-A; from the past threads like for The Downstreamers. Updated: As it stands, we currently rate this type of structure at Low 1-A to 1-A, as seen from this profile, and this thread. it can range from Low 1-A to Tier 0 with enough context.

I could see 1-A being valid from stacking dimensions being unreachable to Yogiri; existing outside the concept of dimensions should be tier 1-A. There was supporting evidence UEG can destroy everything, which would include the Ultimate Set of Worlds or Ultimate Ensemble of worlds being just a dream to Yogiri.
High 1-A for ultimate ensemble needs way more context on advanced mathematics.
Click to expand...
 
Georredannea15 said:
I read it and frankly I didn't see the Type 4 multiverse. I feel like you're trolling me right now 🥶😱
Click to expand...
Level IV: Ultimate ensemble
Edit
The ultimate mathematical universe hypothesis is Tegmark's own hypothesis.[67]

This level considers all universes to be equally real which can be described by different mathematical structures.

Tegmark writes:
Abstract mathematics is so general that any Theory Of Everything (TOE) which is definable in purely formal terms (independent of vague human terminology) is also a mathematical structure. For instance, a TOE involving a set of different types of entities (denoted by words, say) and relations between them (denoted by additional words) is nothing but what mathematicians call a set-theoretical model, and one can generally find a formal system that it is a model of.

He argues that this "implies that any conceivable parallel universe theory can be described at Level IV" and "subsumes all other ensembles, therefore brings closure to the hierarchy of multiverses, and there cannot be, say, a Level V."[30]
Click to expand...
 
Disagree

The question looks like a Battleboarding one

Also, in the section used for supporting evidence, there is nothing but "The World of Ultimate Set". There is no mention of anything else mathematical (which makes it impossible to determine whether that text was used in a mathematical sense or not). So just saying "究極集合世界" is not enough. We also know that authors use terms for different things. So you need something to support that the author used it in that sense. Which the OP doesn't seem to have any such supporting evidence for that.
 
I've changed my mind, I disagree. "Ultimate set "There doesn't seem to be any statement or context that supports this other than his statement.

It's like taking these word of "transcendence" as qualitative transcendence without any context.

Or just because it says "boundless" in an statment , without any extra context or statment, it's like scaling that statment to Tier 0...
 
Last edited:
Do you guys know that dimensions in Instant Death are perfectly described as mathematical structure, and “universes” would already be Low 1-C if not for the fact that they don’t have statements of infinite superiority between spatial dimensions.

Literally, the mathematics of dimensions follows
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Mizuki67
  • Locked
Simple Addition for Rimuru
Replies
4
Views
2K
Excellence616
Excellence616
William_Joee
Doraemon 2-B Attack Potency Upgrade
Replies
37
Views
2K
William_Joee
William_Joee
SweetDao
  • Locked
Yogurt NEP changes, possible removal (Instant Death)
2
Replies
75
Views
6K
Planck69
Planck69
Yzxke789
  • Locked
Akashic Records of the Bastard Magical update Instructor
Replies
9
Views
2K
Yzxke789
Yzxke789
Non physical interaction for Lenen characters
Replies
33
Views
2K
Steve1775
Back
Top