A Cursed Technique based on Pure Reason

Preface: I wondered how a technique based on the philosophical concept of Reason (Objective, logical and precise knowledge) would turn out to be. IT'S A VERY LONG READ! Enjoy!

Cursed Technique Denomination: Axiomatic Postulation (公理的仮定 - Kōri-teki katei)

Description:

**1.**This cursed technique, similarly to Hakari's Idle Death Gambling and Higuruma's Deadly Sentencing, is domain-based, meaning it's inherently imbued with a domain to actually be applied first thing.

Domain Expansion Denomination: Incarceration of Pure Reason (純粋理性の投獄 - Junsui risei no tōgoku)

1. As mentioned in the Preface, it's based on Philosophical Reason. The explanation for the domain's name is simple and very Straightforward: By "incercaration" we understand something that's trapped or confined inside a place, often a small one, first premise of Domain Expansions themselves. Second, the "Pure Reason" part is a simple direct allusion to the concept itself.
There's no alteration of the physical space in whatsoever way, simply being placed a barrier with the veil-like effect, also alluding to the theoretical and not physical application of Pure reason.

1. Introduction: The cursed technique's embodies the sure-hit effect of domain's through it's direct extension of logical deduction. On a very quick summary, logical deduction ensures the absolute rigor of it's arguments/ideas through a chain of premisses to reach the arguments, where it's impossible, once the premisses are true, the conclusion to be false. The certainty also comes from starting from general to particular cases.
2. Skills and Abilities: - The sure-hit effects comes from a chain of events. The user chooses a chain of events related to a physical truth, where he lays the first axioms and is also thus not immune from the sure-hit effect. Basically, self-evident truths that are simple (see them as the "rules of the game"). For example, the user says the chain of events will be related to the physical height of every being inside the domain, in ascending order.

Then, a letter is abiden as the proposition for every entity. For example the tallest person or being will be denominated as 'A', following the alphabetic order until the last entity is given a letter.

• Postulates: In geometry, there's little to no difference between axioms and postulates, but I'll treat postulates here as the consequences of the axioms, for the sake of fiction. Whereas the axioms must necessarily be simple and true, the postulates simply need to be valid, and this will have a big impact later, and it'll give the freedom to the user.

- Now, as A is the origin and core of the chain of events, the proposition where every axiom and postulate will be deduced from, every other entity (B,C,D,...) refers A, by definition. This means every other entity is simply a concept of A.

So B = Conc(A). It's a first degree concept of A. And it imples a subjacent equivalence in the essence of A and B (in this chain, the height of the entities, respectively), not supporting disparities in their attributes. B inherently refers A, unless a non-conceptual variant (basically, a limit) distinct from B is explicitly delimited.

For example: Conc^-1(B) = Uncon(B) = A (The inverse of Conc() and Uncon() are logically equivalent)

• Concept of Degree: In the given example, B is a concept from the entity A, the core of the chain of events. This is a first degree relation between two entities. Every entity can be reduced to a concept, necessarily related to others through a scale of degrees.

Therefore, A is a conceptual integral of B:

Conc(Conc(A)) = Conc^2(A) = B. This is a second degree relation.

• Summary: With simple math, you can see that C is a second degree concept of A, and A's relation to C is the square of C's relation to A, as a conceptual integral, therefore four. Also, it applies to every entity, so C will have a first degree relation with B, and the inverse it's square. It's simple math you can apply to every entity.
• Important Note: As an extension of logical deduction, every postulate must be laid upon the foundation built by the axioms. Meaning if a postulate does not respect every axioms and every anterior postulate, it cannot be applied. Also, if the user wants to alter any prior postulate or axiom, he must undo the postulates that are posterior to the one to be removed, or undo the whole chain of events.

I said that the fact that the axioms were true and the postulates simply needed to be valid is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: The fact they need to be valid means they only need to obey a structure, and they can have any content the user desires, giving freedom to manipulate every aspect of the physical reality within the domain, within the limits of the devised logical chain.

Possible Establishment of Binding Vows: There are two possible binding vows within this technique, which directly affects the barrier:

1. The user gives up on the possibility to fight within the barrier, not stopping to be affected by the postulates or axioms, becoming a simple spectator that can still be harmed by others, in exchange to introduce some logical inconsistencies in his favor, within the content of the postulates.
2. The user gives up the same latter possibility, but now extending the ray of the barrier to 1 mile.

• Practical Example: Let's suppose the user, which is very strong physically expands a barrier with him, Itadori and Megumi inside, devising a chain that has the physical prowess of it's entities in descending order as it's core, making these the first axioms:

Megumi Fushiguro -> A

User -> B

Itadori Yuji -> C

If the user says that the first degree concept related to A, including A, are to be physically impossible to get near to A's second degree concept, C, in a 500 meter radius, then it means Itadori Yuji and User are physically unable to reach Megumi within that radius.

The opposite also would work: Every conceptual integral of A, therefore, B, including A, are to be physically unable to reach A's second degree concept, C.

Since I mentioned that C's relation to A is a second degree one, it's the logical equivalent of the conceptual integral of B, A:

C =Conc(Conc(A)) -> Conceptual derivate of A, second degree.
B = Conc(Conc(A)) -> Inverse process of concept, conceptual integral

Quick Note: All this process here is simply made in the mind of the user, so it requires a lot of mental organization and intelligence to be used, specially as larger chains are formed.

TDLR: Mental Gymnastics.

Anyways, I hope y'all enjoyed it!