Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-45051074-20200620005016/@comment-38952966-20200627231412

The reason I say your definition is arbitrary is because you define it solely based on how you think it should be defined, rather than any definition given in the series. No one in universe provides any distinguishing factors between the two terms, so what makes your definition any more accurate than another?

You're trying to use mathematics to prove the limitations of a metaphysical ability, and that is inherently doomed to fail. RtZ isn't something that has a quantifiable scale to compare with infinite.

To return to zero is to return to a state prior to its existence. If there is a point prior to its existence, then RtZ should work. This does not require an ending, only a traceable beginning, nor does the act of RtZ qualify as an ending; it's literally the exact opposite. Returning to a state prior to X's existence is drastically different from X ending.