Rinoa

[champagne supernova]

Serapy, Vost's theory doesn't hold. I disproved it with the use of mathematics and statistics.

No, on paper, you did not disprove his theory at all. You need real and strong-suggestive evidence to do so. The reason why you have claimed that his theory is incorrect is because you have interpreted relevant things the different way. Like what Squall said, people fight with each other because they have different views; this is exactly what happening in this thread.

By the way, most things in the Final Fantasy universe are quite different compared to our very reality; such as the way how mathematics and physics are used in between FF8 and our reality and so on.

Um, how exactly is the mathematical system different to the normal mathematical system? As far as I recall, 2 follows 1, and 3 follows 2, etc etc. And 2 > 1, therefore there is ordinality. Hence, if I drew 7 Ultima, and then the next time, I drew 5 Ultimas, I drew 2 less Ultimas. The first time meant I could cast it 7 times, the second 5, and the difference was -2. All of these numbers have a significant meaning. Therefore, there is a cardinal number system. The moment you have a cardinal number system, most (if not all) mathematical laws hold (like addition, subtraction, multiplication, logs, antilogs, calculus).

So, mathematics is definitely very close, if not identical to our mathematics.

Why don't you prove that Rinoa is indeed not Ultimecia? On paper, you will get the same answer, regardless of whether or not you may think that R!=U sounds better.

Okay. A sorceress has a normal human lifespan. Rinoa is a sorceress. Therefore, Rinoa has a normal lifespan. The maximum of a normal lifespan is realistically 100. Therefore Rinoa's life constraint is:
X+Y <= 100 (where X is how long she has lived, and Y is the amount of years she will live in the future).
X = 17 (read the game manual).
Therefore Y <= 83.

The distance between the beginning of the game and Ultimecia's time is
Z = B - A, where Z is the distance, B the year of Ultimecia and A the year of the beginning of the game.
Ultimecia lives many generations in the future. A generation is generally considered 30 years. So Z >= 30M, where M is how you define many. Personally, I'd say 10 is many, although from the most minimal point of view, 5 would do.

Therefore, Z >= 30 x 5
Z >= 150

But for Rinoa to be Ultimecia, she must be able to at least live until Ultimecia's time, i.e. Y > Z.
But the maximum of Y is 113 and the minimum of Z is 150, and therefore Y > Z can never hold.

Therefore Rinoa <> Ultimecia (sorry, no unequal sign available).

As much as you can argue on factual arguments and still get very likely or very unlikely conclusions from them, you cannot argue against maths. It holds - always. So, you cannot use Vost's argument as an example about why R=U, because it is fundamentally flawed.

Oh-- Actually, in simple Maths; you do need evidence to make the result mathematically correct. Your post came from your speculation, that's pretty much it. As far as things goes, speculations don't work that well in Maths because they are so random. In this case, there's no evidence to fully disprove or prove R=U and R!=U. It's all open to interpretation.

No, in this case it is important to point out that the alternative timeline cannot exist, because it is not possible. How does my post come from speculation? Please highlight the speculative elements of my post. And mathematics is not random.

And the flaw is inherent in all R=U arguments. Rinoa cannot exist in Ultimecia's time. The argument had its merits, until Square-Enix explicitly stated that sorceress' have normal human life spans. That is a fundamental flaw, and Vost's argument to try negate this flaw is itself fundamentally flawed.

No. There's nothing in thier statement that is aimed at Rinoa or even Ultimecia. Still not enough, and you know that there are additional methods to get into the certain timeline.

Actually, as far as I'm aware, there aren't any methods to get into a timeline that infinitely loops. If you could, it would badly mess up with the circle of events, and would mess up the loop and quite possibly tear open the fabric of space and time. But the loop that we play through seems quite perfect, and the fabric of time & space is still intact. But if you have any theories on how to get into a certain timeline, please let us all know.

So, when an idea is shown to be fundamentally flawed, it is very lucky to have it written down as very unlikely in the FAQ.

Actually, R!=U has its faults as well. So, in that simple logic, declaring R=U as 'highly unlikely' with no mention of R!=U is more like flawed.

R<>U is not fundamentally flawed. I just proved it above. R=U is fundamentally flawed, as I proved previously. Therefore, something that is fundamentally flawed cannot be considered at all when the alternative is fundamentally flawless.

I concur.