- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #361
This was jason against using “assigned a value (the multipler)” to a graph of exponential growth and stuff.
Honestly this is not even debunking his point at all.
Last edited:
-
This forum is strictly intended to be used by members of the VS Battles wiki. Please only register if you have an autoconfirmed account there, as otherwise your registration will be rejected. If you have already registered once, do not do so again, and contact Antvasima if you encounter any problems.
For instructions regarding the exact procedure to sign up to this forum, please click here. -
We need Patreon donations for this forum to have all of its running costs financially secured.
Community members who help us out will receive badges that give them several different benefits, including the removal of all advertisements in this forum, but donations from non-members are also extremely appreciated.
Please click here for further information, or here to directly visit our Patreon donations page. -
Please click here for information about a large petition to help children in need.
Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation
- Thread starter HammerStrikes219
- Start date
- Status
Honestly this is not even debunking his point at all.
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
If this isn't proven beyond reasonable doubt, I'll disagree with the CRT.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #363
This also said by the one who made the calc.
@Qawsedf234 Apologies for the mention, that is help hammering that point in.
- 13,902
- 5,395
Mainly cause there’s nothing else that it could be, and any other value than 0 wouldn’t be practical
And it’s also consistent with the fact that they never touch the bottom and technically never should, so there wouldn’t be any utility in changing it other than for the purpose of screwing over the multiplier, which somehow I doubt was the priority of one
The zero being replaced with a different value would only be necessary if there were units in the graph that they couldn’t fit, but there are no units in the first place, so it would have to be a completely useless move on their part. Not to mention that if the multiplier was truly so minuscule then Saitama wouldn’t have been able to fodderize Garou to a serious sneeze, within the timeframe of a SINGLE PUNCH
In other words it’s 99.9% unlikely, and it would be pointless for it to be that way
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #365
I like to note that the “multipler” being used is the exponential growth over time. That was shown in the scans I have provided.
- 13,802
- 14,352
@Qawsedf234 does mention the point maybe I am not very good in explaining.
(My alternative (about using CSRC in comparison) lies on comparing two points on the lines in the chart without assuming the "origin" of the chart to be zero. Which is told to be invalid since the chart never mention any CSRC in the chart.
Which brings back the "very solid point regarding the lack of a properly defined Y-axis".)
Since my method in calibrating the Y axis is invalid, I have to oppose the current use of the chart for assigning the exponential growth values.
My opinion counts as one vote.
You are free to determine what to agree with me or not.
(My alternative (about using CSRC in comparison) lies on comparing two points on the lines in the chart without assuming the "origin" of the chart to be zero. Which is told to be invalid since the chart never mention any CSRC in the chart.
Which brings back the "very solid point regarding the lack of a properly defined Y-axis".)
Since my method in calibrating the Y axis is invalid, I have to oppose the current use of the chart for assigning the exponential growth values.
My opinion counts as one vote.
You are free to determine what to agree with me or not.
- 13,902
- 5,395
The only potential problem with the y axis is non linear growth, but that would entirely defeat the idea that it was exponential, which it was stated to be exponential
- 19,780
- 16,193
The dots kn the graph only reference the Io fight from my understanding. Since it's showing Garou infinitely copying Saitama but Saitama's AD just rapidly pulling past him by the time the next punch is thrown. The graph at the bare minimum would start at the Serious Punch^2, if not slightly higher.
- 7,897
- 3,856
If you wanted with the route of assigning feats to dots, it would've been better to place the first dot at the level of Cosmic Garou's original baseline which is 5-A possibly High 4-C even though that still doesn't make sense given the first dot being Serious Punch Squared makes more sense going by the fight's sequence.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #370
Except here is the thing . The graph only appears after Serious Punch^2 because the Io fight came after that feat in question.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #371
Saitama mentioned he will gone to full power after the Serious Punch Squared.
- 13,902
- 5,395
This is the exact moment Saitama
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #373
And the graph is comparing Garou’s Growth to Saitama’s growth. We showned two lines on the graph for comparison between Garou and Saitama. Do not forget that.
- 13,902
- 5,395
This perfectly summarized why you probably haven’t caught up with the 4 pages of argument
Anyways it’s not assuming a starting point when it’s extremely explicitly stated that it started with the upsurge of emotions, something that only happened either during or after the sp^2
and nobody is assuming units to begin with, which is proof that you probably haven’t even looked at the god damn calc in the original post, when the entire point is that the units aren’t NECESSARY. Because it’s a multiplier it can start from any point it wants, in this case it’s the serious punch^2.
TL;DR
No
- 13,902
- 5,395
Well it’s a good thing we don’t care about troll votes like yours
- 2,253
- 387
"Fodder until proven cracked"
- 15,001
- 12,631
Yes, we have higher burdens of proof for higher ratings, and for things that increase ratings further. That's why our standards on 10x multipliers and 10,000x multipliers are different. The exact same statement with just the number swapped out may qualify for the former but not the latter. This exists everywhere, for proving potent abilities, high tiers, and so on.
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
That's factually incorrect. The baseline can be literally n-1 Joules and would still be an exponential graph.
Oh my god, I can't believe I dared to agree with this.
No, this does not work in NO WAY. We need two things for a graph to be MEASURABLE.
1) A KNOWN starting point
2) A KNOWN reference of progress.
We only have one or the other.
If you assume SP^2 is the starting point, we have no idea of the rate of growth. And no, before anyone under the capacity of seeing the problem says it: It isn't a straight multiplicative via pixelscaling. Please refer to my initial comment on page three.
If you assume SP^2 is the reference - Well, too bad! We don't know the initial point, so we don't truly know the rate of growth! You cannot assume the starting point is 0, because the two lines of the graph (the vertical and horizontal ones used as base) may be shifted around to a starting point of interest, thus there is literally no reason to assume it's zero, or one. It can be the energy level -1 for all we know, the graph would still work exponentially (but exponential to 0x, 0y)
Either way this does not work. God damn it.
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
You guys derailed into weird tangents that in no way have concrete proof of the initial point being remotely measurable. It was pointless, meaningless.
Even when I prompt you to answer "what's the evidence for it", you reply with the very ignorant "it must be", which just shows your basic lack of understanding on algebra.
Sigh, how did I not see this?
GodlyCharmander
He/Him- 5,744
- 4,996
Now this makes sense. 0, 0 cannot be assumed to be equal to 0 joules, because "0" isn't the standard initial value for a graph, any real number is, thus, it's truly impossible to measure up.
- 10,333
- 8,734
I don't see why you being called to become a staff member has any importance tbh, if you turned them dowm, there is no reason for your vote to count with the same equivalence as of a member who accepted the staff position. If you do not want to become a staff, okay, great for you, but that can't make you capable of having the same capabilities as one just because you have "based opinions"
- 13,902
- 5,395
Wow what a turnaround
Before I deal with this later I’m just gonna need some clarification on what you mean by starting point and reference of progress, that’s all.
- 13,902
- 5,395
I took algebra bro, and simplifying what I said to “it must be” is just you being obtuse as **** and not actually responding to my points
- 19,780
- 16,193
Actually we do here. Because Saitama's bar and Garou's bar overlap at the start. The only time that happened is after Garou mimicked a serious Saitama.
- 165,569
- 73,125
Well, we intend to make Agnaa into a staff member quite soon anyway.
- 4,784
- 4,358
Sorry but why does agnaa and being a staff member relate to the thread again?(Not to be rude or anything)
- 165,569
- 73,125
Well, others seem to have a problem with that his vote was counted, but they do actually have a good point. We tend to let honorary staff participate in staff threads, but not to give them official evaluation rights, so never mind from me then.
- 13,902
- 5,395
Oh good point
I was just going off the upsurge of emotions thing, but yeah cosmic garou was never able to overlap with him before the serious punch^2 and was only relative to a casual Saitama via consecutive normal punches
So it’s completely impossible that it doesn’t start at the sp^2
- 10,333
- 8,734
His vote is being considered equal to that of a staff member
It is considerably unfair, however, if it's getting in the way of the debate, whatever
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #392
It is if we intend to derail this horribly as we don’t have any rulings and precedent for these particular circumstances and before you say otherwise, I legit don’t recall a official ruling regarding voting specifically.
- 15,001
- 12,631
They don't completely overlap; Saitama's is always slightly higher, it looks like Garou wasn't able to copy Saitama's initial strength for quite a while, given the dots that are indicating when Garou copied Saitama's power.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #395
Regarding Crimson’s stance, they didn’t actually explain why they agreed with regular members’s points or they actually agree with the points as the back and forth between regular members is rather confusing as their entire points hinge on the multipliers calculated from the graph. i will put them in unclear since I not sure on that one.
- 19,780
- 16,193
While that's true, it still fits my original point. The only time Garou is ever that close to Saitama is after he copied his serious strength. So the dots are only referring to them at or after the Serious Punch Clash.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #397
It will been after the serious punch squared.
EDIT: It is clearly not Y=0 though that is for sure.
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #398
Made some corrections and added my thoughts on this matter as well
- 13,902
- 5,395
Meh, it’s quite negligible
if anything it’s just a minor inconsistency, since regardless of the graph’s system garou still should’ve been equal to Saitama
even going by the first point where it perfectly lines up with Saitama’s peak, the multiplier is virtually unchanged due to how minor it is
But you’re still correct, I’ll look into it a little more later
- 4,134
- 1,388
- Thread starter
- #400
Again, Agnaa was arguing for the multipler is not useable due to the fact they never directly stated the multiplers in question.
I see too many ppl insisting on that being accepted when it is not the case.
- Status
