This is supposed to be mostly a light hearted, comedic mix of things that combine into a reincarnation story. Serious things and events do happen, just not all the time though (You'll understand the style of humour after a few chapters, also does get slowly more serious over time).
The Levelling system is purposely basic and shouldn't give the reader a migraine trying to figure it out. Potential is huge, just will take some time for MC to fully optimize it.
If you're into TV, movies, video games and stuff like that, then you'll probably enjoy the MC's playful personality. If not, you'll still be good but might miss out on one or two things (MC is also really self-aware about her actions).
The MC can be seen as a stupid and blunt at times, it's mostly down to the fact she's very carefree about a lot of things and likes to mess about a lot (Her personality starts to develop to be a lot better and less stupid in volume 2).
Romance will happen, just not for a little while (Also volume 2 is the beginning of it's not that long). When it does, the MC is straight (Technically incorrect but MC likes women so 'yuri' then).
Also, there is smut but the proper 18+ stuff is ALWAYS marked as such and takes 100 chapters to kick in, it should remain rare and be skippable as well for any who don't want to read it.
Last thing, if you like long chapters, then you'll like this. Average 2400-3200 but I try for around 3000.
________________________________________
---Thanks for reading and hopefully you enjoy---
the MC is straight (
So are circles...
Thanks for the chapter
That's a common misconception that calculus students have. Circles don't actually have straight lines in them; what you are calculating is usually the tangent being made infinitely small. Although I suppose it depends on your definitions, it is important to know what is going on, and then you can define what a straight/curved line is however you want.
@Deipnosophist it depends on your point of reference, but technically you can draw a straight circle using a globe.
Having said that, I'm fully aware of the infinitesimally small curvature in circles, I was mostly attempting to make a joke based on the claim that the Mc( a female) is attracted to women(other females) yet the author claimed said Mc is straight(female/ male attracted to the other and vice versa), so I compared how straight the Mc is to the fact that a circle is technically straight and yet isn't straight at all.
@Tunefullcobra, I figured. I thought it would be nice to point out, though. And about curves, is it the line itself that's curved or the space around it? In lieu of gravity, if you were to throw an object straight up, the theory of relativity states that it is actually moving in a straight line relative to itself, henceforth, isn't a circle, simply a straight line bent by the space around it? Do not take my criticisms seriously, for –as I stated before– it lies in your definitions of straightness.
@Deipnosophist, to clarify, the object falls down after, which I must state due to my previously incomplete wording.
Oh, and I just realized I made a pun! How comical of me "it lies in your definitions of straightness." I suppose that can also be applied to the original thesis, can it not?
@Deipnosophist actually according to the theory of relativity, the ball wouldn't be moving at all relative to itself, but would be moving in a straight line relative to the position it was in less than a second ago.
But I think I understand what you meant and thank you for such.
@Tunefullcobra, you are right; after all, moving relative to yourself is contradictory in nature. What I was trying to say was initial velocity. Thank you for pointing this out.
@Deipnosophist Why the f*ck are you bringing that accursed math here. I'm reading this sh*t in calc to get away from it.
@Tunefullcobra urg... I think the formulation is something like "for any object in motion there is an inertial reference frame where it is at rest in space while moving in a straight line through time" ... straight lines in space are complicated.
Why is this entire thread just f*cking great TwT
@Kaithar straight lines in space can be very complicated or very simplified depending on your frame of reference, for example if a 3D object moved along the z axiz it would disappear from the point of view of a 2D creature that used to be able to see it along its x and y axis', without seemingly having moved, yet we 3D creatures know it just moved along a different dimension unavailable to that 2D creature.
@Tunefullcobra which is basically how I construct my mental images of 4D nets, since our brains really aren't designed to process in 4 orthogonal axis. To be completely honest, humans actually operate as 2D creatures, we have depth of field but it's very much faked since we're just perceiving things like layer stacking and parallax. What we end up with is a 2D field of view with a depth as a separate data source, even when we make a conscious effort to mentally picture a structure in 3D we generally stick with 2D perspective images for the visual aspect.
I said that straight lines in space are complicated cause I still can't fully wrap my head around the kind of calculus needed to understand the math of GR... it's some really nasty stuff and of no practical use to me.
@Kaithar, your brain can comprehend the fourth dimension! You can imagine it as how a cube changes through time, then pretend that all of these existences occur simultaneously. For example, if a cube moves upwards in the same way that a square moves upwards through time into a cube, then you can trace the "line through time" of the individual points, creating a skeleton of the fourth-dimensional object. Then the process is as simple as calculating each of the cubes that occur. This may be confusing, considering that this seems to create an infinite area because there are infinite cubes; however, one must consider that a cube has an infinite number of slices as well, yet has finite volume.
While I won't bore you with the particulars, a fun thing to do in your head —although sketching on paper is an alternative— is to seek a method to transform a cube into a square pyramid. How would one go about such a transformation? A hint is that as two points approach each other, they can combine into one point and vice-versa. Feel free to leave a comment with your solution(use the spoiler tag, please). And a last-minute clarification, I am asking for the "line through time" of the transformation. If you were to label the shape, what would it look like?
As to volume: just as you can have an infinite amount of second-dimensional water in a third-dimensional shape —as there is an infinite quantity of slices— you can also hold an infinite amount of third-dimensional water in a fourth-dimensional shape. Thus you must consider the water as fourth dimensional as well. Since the size of water is relative in all instances, it is important to keep in mind that if the water is longer in one direction, the side will be shorter, so you should endeavor to make the water uniform in length (at least having the understanding of such is important towards comprehension, whether you consider this in practice is less important).
As to practical use: you can create predictions for how things change over time. There is more, yet that is likely the simplest. And it's fun to do.
Keep in mind: all of the observations we made about the fourth dimension also apply to greater and lesser dimensions of reference.
Please reply to this message if you need me to clarify or if you are inclined to make any corrections. I believe I covered everything important, but additions would be appreciated if I forget anything.
Funnily enough it's actually pretty easy to draw a representation of what a 4th dimensional cube, or tesseract, would look like.
Start by placing a dot on paper, this is a 0D object, then place another dot and connect them with a line, now it's a 1D object, now draw another line and connect the ends of the lines, so the end on the left side of one line connects to the corresponding end on the other line. Now you have a 2D object, or square, draw another square and connect the points the same as before, this is a 3D object, called a cube. Draw another cube and connect the points as before and you now have a 4D shape representation drawn in 2D space.
@Deipnosophist I get what you're doing, since a cube is the intersection of a 3D space across a hypercube, and encoding an additional dimension using a timeline isn't unheard of, but that is absolutely not a fourth spacial dimension. What you have is a 3 spacial dimension tomographic system like is used in 2D for medical imaging.
Nor is it infinite volume, you seem to have miscombined some math concepts.
In mathematical space any finite continuous region can be subdivided into an infinite number of regions, but each of those regions occupies an infinitesimal amount of space. The key here is that infinitesimal is defined as being closer to zero than any other number while not being zero, so adding an infinite number of infinitesimals shouldn't result in an infinity. You're dealing with "y approaches infinity as x approaches 0" here, and they're not meant to be applied literally.
In a physical space a finite continuous region has a finite maximum number of subdivisions, even if you have some hypothetical method of slicing into sections smaller than subatomic, because eventually you hit the Planck length and past that there be dragons. Since the Planck length is finite and well defined, the result of dividing any physical volume into Planck length pieces will result in a finite number of slices. This is why you have to be careful when applying the kind of math where cows are spherical.
As for your shape, it's rather difficult to describe what it would look like since you don't specify the perspective of the viewer or light source, but it sounds like you have something that would behave similarly to a crystal of the tetragonal variety... maybe tetragonal pyramidal class. Not really my area of expertise.
Remember that we do not have 4 spacial dimensions to work with in reality, spacetime is 3 spacial and 1 temporal, which isn't quite the same even if some of the math looks the same.
@Tunefullcobra What you're describing, specifically, is a 2D projection of a 4D shape. It's a nice representation, especially with perspective applied to it, but it's fundamentally a transformation to represent a particular view point in a lower number of dimensions. When we draw something with an x,y,z axis we're making an agreement that those 3 lines represent lines that are mutually-perpendicular, something physically impossible in 2 dimensional space. Adding a fourth line doesn't make the lack of perpendicular axis go away.
@Kaithar I literally wrote that it was, and I quote, "a 4D shape representation drawn in 2D space" at the end of my comment.
I'm fully aware that it's not actually 4D or mathematically correct or really correct in most senses, but it is a pretty good visual aid if you draw it correctly, which is what most people need to understand something; "seeing is believing" after all.
@Tunefullcobra right, but my point is that a projection isn't the same as actually processing with a 4th spacial axis, the thing I specifically said humans aren't designed to do. We don't really even perceive the world in Cartesian terms, our visual perception is mostly based on arc sizes and polar vectors, that's why perspective and parallax are a thing.
@Kaithar The only reason we use time is for intuition. As I stated at some point, they all exist simultaneously; I believe it is still possible for most people to visualize this in their minds, but since I am autistic and have different neural chemistry than others, I cannot guarantee this.
I also did not claim that the volume was infinite, just that it must be measured with 4-d units, just as we use 3d units for a cube and 2d units for a square; if we used 2d units for a cube, then you would have an infinite amount of units because it would have no reference, but the cube wouldn't have infinite length.
As for perspective, since we are simulating the whole thing in our head and not a projection of the whole thing, a perspective would not make sense here.
Your reasoning is not wrong, but I believe that you have misunderstood some of my claims.
@Deipnosophist put that straight line up to a black hole is it straight now?
@DerpSwarm yes, and no.
@Tunefullcobra yet it is not because being straight is all about "Perspective"
@Deipnosophist My point is, though, that these aren't really ways to process in 4D, just ways to down-convert to a number of dimensions we can handle. That's inherently different.
You can't measure volume with 2d units. Like, at all. You can measure cross-sectional area, but a cross-section has basically no volume. To have volume it has to have thickness, to have thickness it has to be a 3d object. Now you're into the realm of effectively dividing by zero, which is a headache.
Perspective... that might just be a side-effect of how my neurospicy operates, but even while mentally simulating an object in 3D or 4D space I still have to generate the visual representation as something my image processing can, well, process. I don't have perspective distortion on it, but I can't see it any way other than what my eyes are meant to handle.
@Kaithar @Tunefullcobra I’m gonna be honest, I stopped reading this conversation about 3/4 the way in cause I’m a lazy bastard, but I will give my opinion… Absolutely NOTHING is how we define it, we may see it that way, but others might not, it’s all about perspective… we might see colors but others might just see wavy lines, inanimate things could be perceived animate by other beings, it’s really just defined as simply as possible in two phrases “It’s all about perspective and everything is not what is seems” you get where I’m going?
@Kaithar @Tunefullcobra Also, this applies to all concepts, even philosophical. EVERY GOD DAMN THING IS BASED ON PERCEPTION
@Mr.GrimDeathReaper I happen to be a lazy bastard myself, but I did read your whole comment; enough to tldr it for people such as yourself.
Tldr of the above comment: everything is relative.
@Tunefullcobra Exactly my fellow bastard, exactly
@Mr.GrimDeathReaper there's actually specific terms for what you're describing: Subjective Reality and Subjective Perception. The former, as I understand the definition, being things that exist purely through the experiencing of them ("this red block isn't actually red, I only experience it as being red because the reflected light is red... without light and sight the red doesn't exist") while the latter is things where two people experiencing the same thing perceive it differently due to not being the same person ("I think this looks red, you think this looks orange, but we're seeing the same thing, so is it a difference in how our biology receives that light, how we interpret it, or how we name it?")
That's a whole new kettle of worms though. That's like a kettle of fish, only there's more of them packed in and they're way harder to keep a grip on.
@Kaithar That last analogy is a little wierd but yeah, I didn’t even know that existed… damn, the things that I think of when I get bored and am feeling philosophical, like the word “nothing” it’s a bloody fake, if we describe something as nothing, it would not be “ “ since it’s describable, If it was truly nothing than you wouldn’t be able to even comprehend it, let alone say it. A something where absolutely “ “ exists
I think we can appreciate the fact that the above discussion resulted out of a joke.
@CrimsonMonarch the best discussions are the spontaneous ones.
@Tunefullcobra True
How the hell did you manage to get to a mathematical and philosophical debate over the definition of 'straight yuri'
@Brick_Turtle spontaneity
@Brick_Turtle the real question is... Why shouldn't we? And, why didn't you?
@Mr.GrimDeathReaper
I stopped reading when it got philosphical, my brain can't keep up with that lol
@Brick_Turtle eventually, you will enter a state of mind and you will, it happens eventually
@Tunefullcobra But then its not straight, again, it only bends on the Z-axis still making it curved.
@Deaththekid1999 if I'm correct about what you're talking about, my response is an equatorial line that only changes along two dimensions, in this case you can draw a straight line around the globe that from the poles perspective(North or South) is a circle.
(assume you have a compass that always points perfectly to the north pole, no obstacles or problems walking on water, and ignore the fact that you'd probably die before actually completing this thought experiment below)
If you walk around the earth in a straight line, you'll be able to reach the point you started at, but we know that you didn't walk in a straight line as the line you just walked is also a circle, but from your perspective you walked in a 100% straight line and never turned once. So you perceive that you walked straight, but a satellite recording you from geosynchronous orbit perceives you to have moved around the earth in a circle. Effectively you walked in a circle by walking a straight line.
This comment made my day.
@Tunefullcobra So it wasn't a Straight line, It wouldnlt have been straight anyway, cuz mountains, so It would be curved on the Y-axis, Excluding the Impossible Flat earth. You would never be able to Circumnavigate the world going in a Straight line, Since no matter How you Walk the Line when Viewed from a Different Axis, it would never be straight.
So, inconclusion Walking in a Straight line is... Impossible.
@Deaththekid1999 Technically, if you reached the end of everything, or if the universe is expanding, catch up to it. You’ve walked in a straight line
@Mr.GrimDeathReaper Even then Humans cant walk in a straight line, Now You may think you can. And just by looking from your POV, it appears you are walking straight however, you are actually walking in a zigzag pattern, due to how the human body 1 leg is slightly longer than the other leading you to wobble, not on a level you can notice, but the wobble is there.
@Deaththekid1999 "compass that always points North, no obstacles or problems walking on water" believe me, I'm aware of the impossibility of the scenario, which is why I added caveats to actually make it possible. Please actually read what I wrote before commenting on it.
@Deaththekid1999 as @Tunefullcobra said, but it’s a theoretical, there’s no way we can walk straight. But what if is the grand question
@Deipnosophist Dude… I’ve never seen a more 🤓 moment in my life… ‘calculus’ and shit… I did school and all but I despise math with all of my being and refuse to even look at calculus… and then you kept on going? Like damn after the first reply I thought you were doing a goofy joke but then you kept going full on 🤓 seeing nothing wrong with it as if the original comment wasn’t just a joke about a characters sexuality… im scrolling and reading as I’m typing and I can’t stop laughing man! HOLY sh*t THERES OTHER PEOPLE NERDING!
@CrimsonMonarch Fr! I was so caught off guard and I couldn’t stop laughing… the sheer bizarreness of finding a discussion about lines and calculus and other math sh*t in the first chapter of a fanfic broke me
@Mr.GrimDeathReaper We walk in a wibbly line… like a ramen noodle
@UwUber I don't understand why you're upset. Could you elaborate? Thank you
@Deipnosophist clearly you didn't read what he wrote as he's definitely not upset, traumatized by calculus maybe, but definitely not upset.
@Tunefullcobra I read this "Like damn after the first reply I thought you were doing a goofy joke but then you kept going full on [sic] 🤓 seeing nothing wrong with it as if the original comment wasn’t just a joke about a characters [sic] sexuality" as an insult, but after asking ChatGPT, I realize that I am wrong. Thank you for bringing my attention to this
@Tunefullcobra Mhm 100% this… I f*cking hate math and calculus just terrifies me… it makes me feel like Læffy… that guy who’s in the fetal position hugging a rifle in the corner of a shower room completely naked… just screaming…
@Deipnosophist I think, that that is only true, when you use euclidian geometry.
@Elaneth I didn't think about that. Yeah, you're right