Before you ask, this is NOT limited to just numbers. "Numbers" is being used as an example for this.
Concept dimensions[]
Not to be confused with dimensional concepts.
Concept dimensions are a way of measuring concepts by their effectiveness & their definition. 1-Concept-Dimension (or 1CD in short) concepts are concepts with a weak definition & don't have much effect on progressively stronger numbers/entries. 2CD concepts are similar to 1CD concepts albeit more effective, more defined, and can encompass a greater range than how far 1CD concepts can go. This principle applies to future concept dimensions although the concepts' coverage is dependant on the definition and is therefore not consistent.
Concepts will be "ranked" based on these three components: Scaling, Complexity, and Power/strength/effectiveness/etc.
1CD Concepts[]
- Usually have 1D scaling (linear to its effectiveness)
- Are straightforward (level 1 complexity)
- Weak (relative to the number/entry it is applied to + the strength)
2CD Concepts[]
- Usually have 2D scaling (second-layer effectiveness, aka exponential scaling)
- Level 2 complexity
- Mild (same as 1CD.3, but stronger)
3CD Concepts[]
- Usually have 3D scaling (tetrational scaling [third-layer effectiveness])
- Level 3 complexity
- Strong (same as 2CD.3, but you get the idea)
4CD Concepts[]
- nth-D scaling (true definition can lead to absolute effectiveness)
- Level 4+ complexity
- Immense+ (based on conceptual power, starting from 3CD.3)
5CD Concepts (semi-joke)[]
- nth-D^2 scaling (true self-defining nature)
- Level Infinite+ complexity (Impossible)
- Infinite (Spans everywhere and anywhere and you'll probably know how this story goes)
More complexity does not necessarily mean more info is required to get that complex.
How does a concept reach these concept dimensions? Well, it depends on what the concept is ranked in each of the three listed above per concept dimension. If it fulfills the three at a minimum of having 2D scaling, L2 complexity, and is mild, it is a true 2CD concept. Otherwise, a concept that has 1D scaling, L2 complexity, and is high weak, will be a 1CD concept (albeit a high 1CD concept) until all three are equal or greater than the requirements listed above. There's no inbetween as well.
Note: 2CD concepts supersede 1CD concepts, 3CD concepts supersede 2CD concepts, and so on and so forth. If you know what that means, then good for you ig.
Note 2: To prevent an overload of increasingly difficult concepts, a 1CD concept can beat a 2CD concept and so on as such, although it may be challlenging for some.
Concept dimensions in numbers[]
With the basics out of the way, let's apply concept dimensions to numbers (or, to entries if you wanna put it that way).
Numbers can use any concept in the given concept dimension without limit. However, the way numbers utilize said concepts is dependent on how the concepts are used and whether or not they conflict with one another. As said before, higher concept dimension concepts supersede lower concept dimension concepts, meaning if a number uses a 2CD concept, then any 1CD concept are cancelled out, even 1CD concepts that resist supersede.
1CD numbers can use multiple 1CD concepts to achieve the value of a 2CD number, though it isn't a true 2CD number and the range is VERY limited depending on the concepts being used at hand. What concepts are being used can determine how strong a number is & how hard it is to surpass said number.
To prevent consistenly more difficult numbers to uprise, 1CD numbers can surpass 2CD numbers, 2CD numbers can surpass 3CD numbers, and so on, although it'll be difficult. If that is proven to be impossible however, then I don't know what to say or how to compensate for that.
The below aren't requirements, but estimates to determine the value of a number/entry (and it's not an ordinary value like you'd expect). And, as said before, all three must be met for one to be a true CD number to said concept dimension, yet that isn't necessarily a restriction to numbers/entries.
1CD numbers[]
- Simple to make (doesn't take long to produce)
- Uses at least 1CD concepts
- Weak definition (similar to CD concepts)
2CD numbers[]
- Hard to make (aka more complex)
- Uses at least 2CD concepts
- Mild definition (aka strong definition against 1CD numbers that makes it a possible 2CD number)
3CD numbers[]
- Level 3 complexity
- Uses at least 3CD concepts
- Strong definition (aka strong definition against 1-2CD numbers)
4CD numbers[]
- Level 4+ complexity
- Uses at least 4CD concepts
- Immense+ definition (aka strong+ definition against 1-3CD & other 4CD numbers)
5CD numbers (semi-joke)[]
- Level Infinite+ complexity
- Uses at least 5CD concepts
- Infinite-level definition (aka immense+ definition against 1-4CD & other 5CD numbers & self-contains itself forward [aka beneficially])
Note: Numbers may be "ranked" separately like this: 3CD.1, 2CD.2, 1CD.3, where this hypothetical CD number is very complex (level 3), uses at the bare minimum, 2CD concepts, and has a weak definition. This CD number would be a true 1CD number, but not a true 2CD or true 3CD number. (Also, 2CD numbers don't supersede 1CD numbers, etc.)
I might find a better way to "rank" CD numbers, but this is all I have in the meantime.
There is currently nothing beyond the fifth concept dimension and as such any attempts to exceed the fifth concept dimension will be ignored/set to the first concept dimension. Plus, the fifth concept dimension is nearly impossible to reach if we're being truthful about this (originally a joke concept dimension to show absurdness), or maybe that's just me and it really is impossible, but I'm not sure yet.
Note: Concepts and numbers/entries "ranked" with concept dimensions are still the same concepts and numbers/entries before being "ranked" with concept dimensions.
Oh, this is poot's first attempt at creating something different for stuff idk, just a version 1.2.1.
Changelog[]
- Version 1.2.1
- Updated the version number at the very end
- Version 1.2
- Changed some stuff with CD number estimates + a note
- Version 1.1
- Weak/strong "definition" for CD number estimates
- A note at the end
- Version 1.0.2
- "at least" for CD number estimates
- Version 1.0.1
- Removed display title
- Version 1
- Initial creation