Demon Slayer: Minor Calculations Removal

[FelpeXDopZ]

Introduction​

There are two calculations that are currently on the verse page and in some of the characters' profiles that have some blatant errors we'll explain here, and as such they should be removed from both, profiles and verse page. Currently none of these calculations are being used to scale any characters, so this potential removal shouldn't affect the current scaling chains.​

Spoiler: Kyojuro's 9th form

Kyojuro's 9th form​

This is a calculation I made some time ago which has various issues. The first one is that the manga is no longer the primary canon for the Mugen Train Arc, but the movie is, as it was decided in this CRT, and the feat in the movie has the following major differences when compared to the manga:​

• The anime shows no trench being made as Kyojuro moves.​
• The explosion is much smaller.​

Although the anime adaptation of the MTA being main canon could be contested due to new standards, the calculation still has other problems and raises some contradictions to the manga itself:​

• The calculation makes use of an outdated overpressure value for the shockwave.​
• The calculated distance for Kyojuro’s movement is inconsistent across other scenes.​

Therefore, the calculation should be removed from the characters' profiles and verse page.
​

Agree (2/2): @Floxy178 and @Mr. Bambu.
Disagree (0/0):
Neutral (0/0):

Spoiler: Nakime shakes the Infinity Castle

Nakime shakes the Infinity Castle​

This calculation basically makes use of a formula that was derived to calculate the seismic energy from the radiated waves caused by an earthquake, however, for this to make sense the shaken area should be solid ground as it is in real life, but that's not the case, the Infinity Castle is a collection of buildings and it's unknown whether these are actually built over real ground or not. Shaking a bunch of buildings is not equivalent to shaking solid stable ground.
Thus, the calculation should be removed from the verse page and characters' profiles as well.​

Agree (2/2): @Floxy178 and @Mr. Bambu.
Disagree (0/0):
Neutral (0/0):

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Do we have reason to believe the infinity castle is not on ground? I'm not familiar with the verse and don't recall the context of the feat (perhaps obviously; I don't even remember the calc itself).

 

[FelpeXDopZ]

Do we have reason to believe the infinity castle is not on ground? I'm not familiar with the verse and don't recall the context of the feat (perhaps obviously; I don't even remember the calc itself).

I think there are some, yes. To begin with, the Infinity Castle is quite literally a different dimension, there also is no set up and down, gravity constantly shifts inside the castle; and finally there are no showings of actual solid ground inside the castle, we never really get to see the buildings standing on real ground.

 

[Floxy178]

OP makes sense to me.

 

[FelpeXDopZ]

OP makes sense to me.

Thanks for the evaluation!

 

[Mr. Bambu]

I think there are some, yes. To begin with, the Infinity Castle is quite literally a different dimension, there also is no set up and down, gravity constantly shifts inside the castle; and finally there are no showings of actual solid ground inside the castle, we never really get to see the buildings standing on real ground.

Hesitantly will sign off, though I would have wished for more contribution. If it's a different dimension that's magical, and we are never shown the outside, then it'll do.

The first calc is obviously fine to discredit, so, I approve of the thread as a whole.

 

[FelpeXDopZ]

though I would have wished for more contribution

My bad then, I thought that was enough, I didn't want to bother you with a wall of text so I tried keeping it short.

If it's a different dimension that's magical, and we are never shown the outside, then it'll do.

I think that's pretty much the case, yeah.

The first calc is obviously fine to discredit, so, I approve of the thread as a whole.

Thanks!


Are two votes enough to close the thread? Also, do we have to wait a certain amount of time before it can be closed (as it happens with CRTs)?

 

[Mr. Bambu]

My bad then, I thought that was enough, I didn't want to bother you with a wall of text so I tried keeping it short.

No, I mean I would have liked more people to contribute. More voices agreeing means it's less likely that a point is being misconstrued, or misinterpreted. You didn't do anything wrong buddy.

Are two votes enough to close the thread? Also, do we have to wait a certain amount of time before it can be closed (as it happens with CRTs)?

Yessir, although, are any statistics changing as a result of this? If so, this would require a CRT to establish new ratings. I would gladly show up to said CRT if you need it, since I contributed here.

 

[FelpeXDopZ]

No, I mean I would have liked more people to contribute. More voices agreeing means it's less likely that a point is being misconstrued, or misinterpreted. You didn't do anything wrong buddy.

Oh I see. If it's of any help, the author of the second calc (@Xaropadob3ta) liked the thread, and so did @Epyriel, who's a knowledgeable member and verse supporter. Although I could try contacting some other knowledgeable members and see if they want to give any input on this if you prefer.

Yessir

Thanks again!

are any statistics changing as a result of this?

Not really as far as I'm concerned, I also asked a few other knowledgeable members if any characters were being scaled to any of these calcs and they said no, so I guess no CRT would be needed afterwards.

 

[Mr. Bambu]

Alrighty. I'll close this up.