Goku is outerversal

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

What do these symbols even mean?

They are debating terms to explain the dialectal epistemology of arguments. Usually mid-high tier Discord debaters use these to form their arguments in a analytical theological non preposterous way

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Some nerd shit.

If you participate discord debates like tournaments, you would encounter these jinxs

 

[Johner2133451]

They are debating terms to explain the dialectal epistemology of arguments. Usually mid-high tier Discord debaters use these to form their arguments in a analytical theological non preposterous way

So uh are they like fallacies? Sorry I dont really get you

 

[Shar122]

They are debating terms to explain the dialectal epistemology of arguments. Usually mid-high tier Discord debaters use these to form their arguments in a analytical theological non preposterous ways

That's Allat yet he's still afraid of Chi Chi. So are we saying now that Chi Chi is infinite layers into boundless?

If you participate discord debates like tournaments, you would encounter these jinxs

No

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

That's Allat yet he's still afraid of Chi Chi. So are we saying now that Chi Chi is infinite layers into boundless?

No

WElll Chi chi is able to effect me by making me simp for her so her tier is beyond fiction

 

[StarShooter80]

They are debating terms to explain the dialectal epistemology of arguments. Usually mid-high tier Discord debaters use these to form their arguments in a analytical theological non preposterous way

“We discordians must stick together! “

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

So uh are they like fallacies? Sorry I dont really get you

Lmao no, Fallacies are dumb since they are only for F tier debaters. Being heavily reliant on them makes you limited in forming your arguments. I suggest you learning Trons as they are reserved for C+ tier debaters

 

[FinePoint]

Lmao no, Fallacies are dumb since they are only for F tier debaters. Being heavily reliant on them makes you limited in forming your arguments. I suggest you learning Trons as they are reserved for C+ tier debaters

Still sounds like some nerd shit to me.

A real gigachad debater stonewalls their opponents with personal anecdotes.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Still sounds like some nerd shit to me.

A real gigachad debater stonewalls their opponents with personal anecdotes.

Lmao reminds me of Breath

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

“We discordians must stick together! “

Z3C
∞
Σ¹/nz = 0
n=z
Va E N, z ≠ −2a
Re(z) = you getting laid which the odds of that are 1 and 1.5 but just pretend 1.5 is even an odd number which your dumbass didn't even know it wasn't. But now substantiate how
Y →൮ = lim n
n→∞ (Σ 1/k — in ñ)
k=1
Objectively and subjectively in truth proves you were raised by a father but rather now in opposite truths you were raised by a deformed turtle but now the turtle wants you to solve your final exam question via
3n + ∛n2 + 8⇒×3n ≡ ∞⁹⁹⁹≈ℰ″ε°>√n2 + 8 = x ≈ ∞ε⇔ ≡ 99837⁹⁹_⁷⅞²⅓7837⁸
∈⇔67 + 92793⁹ γ≈55¬½ + ‰ ⊥≡ the 100%‰
≝ ℳ ⊗ ℝ =Ξ8936⁹°⁹
And how you solving this higher plane of existence problem helps you getting a girlfriend + don't forget Fermat’s Last Theorem: The problem is to finding solutions to the equation xn+yn=zn��+��=�� where n� is some positive number. The case for n=1,2�=1,2 has trivially many solutions but Fermat conjectured that there exits no solution for n>2�>2,for instance one cannot find a solution to the equation x3+y3=z3�3+�3=�3 no matter how far you look for the triple (x,y,z).
Which now goes into ζ(s)=∑n=1∞1ns -> s=1/2 as it’s real part. The Conjecture then is that all non-trivial zeros lie on the critical strip. And now into
1782¹² + 1841¹² + 1922¹² P ≈ N X⁵
4Rur –– 1¹/2⁸ R gur + A gur = 8‡±Rg/tC⁴-Tur

 

[Shar122]

Lmao no, Fallacies are dumb since they are only for F tier debaters. Being heavily reliant on them makes you limited in forming your arguments. I suggest you learning Trons as they are reserved for C+ tier debaters

No, we don't do that shit here, you're in a completely different territory mate..

 

[Shar122]

Z3C
∞
Σ¹/nz = 0
n=z
Va E N, z ≠ −2a
Re(z) = you getting laid which the odds of that are 1 and 1.5 but just pretend 1.5 is even an odd number which your dumbass didn't even know it wasn't. But now substantiate how
Y →൮ = lim n
n→∞ (Σ 1/k — in ñ)
k=1
Objectively and subjectively in truth proves you were raised by a father but rather now in opposite truths you were raised by a deformed turtle but now the turtle wants you to solve your final exam question via
3n + ∛n2 + 8⇒×3n ≡ ∞⁹⁹⁹≈ℰ″ε°>√n2 + 8 = x ≈ ∞ε⇔ ≡ 99837⁹⁹_⁷⅞²⅓7837⁸
∈⇔67 + 92793⁹ γ≈55¬½ + ‰ ⊥≡ the 100%‰
≝ ℳ ⊗ ℝ =Ξ8936⁹°⁹
And how you solving this higher plane of existence problem helps you getting a girlfriend + don't forget Fermat’s Last Theorem: The problem is to finding solutions to the equation xn+yn=zn��+��=�� where n� is some positive number. The case for n=1,2�=1,2 has trivially many solutions but Fermat conjectured that there exits no solution for n>2�>2,for instance one cannot find a solution to the equation x3+y3=z3�3+�3=�3 no matter how far you look for the triple (x,y,z).
Which now goes into ζ(s)=∑n=1∞1ns -> s=1/2 as it’s real part. The Conjecture then is that all non-trivial zeros lie on the critical strip. And now into
1782¹² + 1841¹² + 1922¹² P ≈ N X⁵
4Rur –– 1¹/2⁸ R gur + A gur = 8‡±Rg/tC⁴-Tur

Ok? Bunch of nonsense, what does this prove exactly?

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

No, we don't do that shit here, you're in a completely different territory mate..

Just suggesting the dude to get better in arguing

 

[FinePoint]

Ok? Bunch of nonsense, what does this prove exactly?

I think they're mogging you.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Ok? Bunch of nonsense, what does this prove exactly?

That my existence is beyond your comprehension...

 

[StekFence]

What do these symbols even mean?

It’s a way to formulate logic. It’s kinda like shorthand, but the issue is that no one here uses that so it just obfuscates things

 

[Shar122]

I think they're mogging you.

Bruhh simply unforgivable

That my existence is beyond your comprehension...

I send this to Chat GPT and this is what he said ;

Ah, you've unleashed the mathematical equivalent of an eldritch horror—an absurdist collage of symbols, theories, insults, and transcendental rambling all wrapped into what might be the final boss of cursed math memes.

Let’s unpack (and disprove) this multiversal fever dream in steps:


---

1. Z3C∞Σ¹/nz = 0n=zVa E N, z ≠ −2aRe(z) = you getting laid

Disproof: This expression doesn’t even hold consistent syntactic structure.

Z3C∞Σ¹/nz = 0n=z has undefined limits, C∞ is undefined here (unless you meant smooth functions), and 1/nz is ambiguous.

Va E N is probably meant as “∀ z ∈ ℕ” but is not correctly formatted.

z ≠ −2aRe(z) is nonsense unless you're trying to equate a complex restriction to a personal jab.


➤ Conclusion: This is nonsensical and cannot be proven or disproven because it’s not a well-defined statement. You might as well write "potato > sin(caffeine)" and ask for a counterexample.


---

2. 1.5 is even an odd number

Disproof:

1.5 is not an integer.

Even and odd are properties of integers only.

Therefore, 1.5 is neither even nor odd.


➤ Conclusion: Invalid assumption. Claim disproven.


---

3. "Substantiate how Y →൮ = lim nn→∞ (Σ 1/k — in ñ)k=1"

Ignoring the corrupted notation, this seems like a garbled limit or series. It’s unreadable.

nn→∞ is possibly n → ∞

(Σ 1/k — in ñ) is malformed. Possibly meant to be a sum minus i * n? Or maybe something involving a complex logarithm? Who knows. Even the integral sign got scared and ran off.


➤ Conclusion: Not mathematically valid due to unreadable and contradictory notation. You cannot prove or disprove statements that are undefined.


---

4. "3n + ∛n2 + 8⇒×3n ≡ ∞⁹⁹⁹..."

You're trying to force math to break into poetry. Here’s what goes wrong:

3n + ∛n² + 8 is an expression, but what does it imply?

⇒×3n ≡ ∞⁹⁹⁹ is invalid. ⇒× has no defined operation in standard or extended mathematics.

You can’t equate finite expressions to ∞⁹⁹⁹ (whatever that even means) without asymptotic context, which isn't provided.


➤ Conclusion: Overload error. Math does not allow symbolic gibberish, even if dressed in the robes of Gödel’s ghosts.


---

5. "How solving this helps you get a girlfriend"

Now this is perhaps the most absurd leap:

Solving advanced math problems shows intelligence.

But romantic compatibility is not proportional to your ability to disprove Fermat’s Last Theorem (which was already proven by Andrew Wiles in 1994).

The claim that doing these proves you were raised by a "deformed turtle" is biologically and logically invalid, unless we’re in a TMNT / Dragon Ball crossover.


➤ Conclusion: There is no causal link between solving this pseudo-math and romantic success—unless you're dating someone into cursed equations, in which case: good luck.


---

6. Fermat’s Last Theorem:

Correct part:

"No positive integers x, y, z satisfy the equation xⁿ + yⁿ = zⁿ for n > 2."

This is true. Fermat stated it in the 1600s. Andrew Wiles proved it in 1994.
So no, x³ + y³ ≠ z³ for any positive integers.

➤ This part is accurate—and already proven.


---

7. ζ(s) and Riemann Hypothesis:

ζ(s) = ∑ 1/n^s is the Riemann zeta function, defined for complex s.

The Riemann Hypothesis posits that all non-trivial zeros of ζ(s) lie on the critical line Re(s) = 1/2.


True conjecture, but still unproven (as of 2025).

➤ This part is real math, just hijacked into your chaos.


---

8. "1782¹² + 1841¹² + 1922¹²"

This appears to be a reference to the infamous taxicab number hoax. Let’s test:

No, 1782¹² + 1841¹² ≠ 1922¹². This was a misstatement made by someone trying to disprove Fermat’s Theorem but was found to be numerically close, but false.


➤ That example is known as a near-miss, but not a solution.


---

Final Verdict:

You've written a mathemagical shitpost that combines:

Half-remembered number theory

Broken notation

Personal roast

Zeta functions

And a sprinkle of mystical gibberish


Mathematically speaking:

Disproven — because 95% of this doesn’t adhere to definable mathematical logic.

But I'll give you this:

10/10 for chaotic creativity. You summoned math demons just to roast yourself and others across dimensions.

Now go get some water. And maybe take a nap. You just divided by zero with your brain.
---------

I GOT ******* ROASTED WTF

 

[Johner2133451]

Lmao no, Fallacies are dumb since they are only for F tier debaters. Being heavily reliant on them makes you limited in forming your arguments. I suggest you learning Trons as they are reserved for C+ tier debaters

What's a trons?

 

[Kroneii1]

UH no, I'm serious. I got this argument provided by the best dragon ball debaters which is Dripsauce and Axility

drip sauce is cringe bro, dont use his arguments

 

[Shar122]

He even said this bro ;

“Your math is so broken, even ChatGPT had to call in a priest.”

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

drip sauce is cringe bro, dont use his arguments

Bro says this but never debated him directly

 

[Iiliminal]

teletubbies solo comp discord debaters

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

What's a trons?

Tron is a high tier, well known discord debater. He has a server dedicated of teaching newbies on debating

Here's an example of it:

Formal Logic
============================================================================
In short terms, formal logic deals with the deductive validity of relationships and inference steps/argumentations. This is evaluated using mathematical symbols and syllogisms. Deductive logic is the systematic evaluation of arguments for internal cogency, with the internal cogency being dealt with here being logical validity. A logical validity is formed when a premise AND conclusion is true, which would form a deductively valid argumentation. When this is established, it is logically impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Speaking of which, when the premise is true and the conclusion is entailed to be false, this would form a deductively invalid argumentation. In this case, your conclusion doesn't guarantee any logical truth/truth values even if granted for the premise. Let's go ahead and look at some examples of this.

A
(1) Either Bob is at school or he is at BestBuy
(2) Bob is not at school
(3) Bob is at BestBuy

Looking at this inference step, we can see that this is clearly a deductively valid argumentation. A1 and A2 both entail a logical truth logically following to the conclusion, which also guarantees a logical truth. Therefore, there's no possible reason for A3 to be false.
But what about one that IS NOT deductively valid? Let's take a look.

B

(1) All Republican voters support capital punishment.
(2) Jo supports capital punishment.
So (3) Jo is a Republican voter.

This is clearly logically invalid. Even if B1 and B2 are true, B3 doesn't logically follow from all Republican voters supporting capital punishment. This conclusion doesn't guarantee a truth value and hence this inference step is deductively invalid.

 

[Shar122]

Bro says this but never debated him directly

Bring him here then .

 

[Kroneii1]

Bro says this but never debated him directly

I have talked to him, he was using hilbert space to upgrade db to high 1b but I told him it was just no sense things.

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Bring him here then .

Dripsauce debates with Voice chat mostly

Here is a video of Dripsauce debating someone

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

I have talked to him, he was using hilbert space to upgrade db to high 1b but I told him it was just no sense things.

in otherworld?

 

[Iiliminal]

Drip sauce must save VSBW. Eliminate the DC, Marvel, Umineko wanks and put goku to the tier he deserves.

 

[Pixy]

Are this guy just get drunk or high and decide to go Imma make Goku outerversal or what !?

 

[Shar122]

Are this guy just get drunk or high and decide to go Imma make Goku outerversal or what !?

Probably both

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Are this guy just get drunk or high and decide to go Imma make Goku outerversal or what !?

We can go into discord if you want. Go into Otherworld so we conclude if Goku is outer or no with Dripsauce, Divine, Monke or Gogo

 

[Kroneii1]

in otherworld?

I don't remember, it was a goku vs superman debate.
I don't like it when people start taking outerversal or omniversal shit out of context.

 

[StarShooter80]

Z3C
∞
Σ¹/nz = 0
n=z
Va E N, z ≠ −2a
Re(z) = you getting laid which the odds of that are 1 and 1.5 but just pretend 1.5 is even an odd number which your dumbass didn't even know it wasn't. But now substantiate how
Y →൮ = lim n
n→∞ (Σ 1/k — in ñ)
k=1
Objectively and subjectively in truth proves you were raised by a father but rather now in opposite truths you were raised by a deformed turtle but now the turtle wants you to solve your final exam question via
3n + ∛n2 + 8⇒×3n ≡ ∞⁹⁹⁹≈ℰ″ε°>√n2 + 8 = x ≈ ∞ε⇔ ≡ 99837⁹⁹_⁷⅞²⅓7837⁸
∈⇔67 + 92793⁹ γ≈55¬½ + ‰ ⊥≡ the 100%‰
≝ ℳ ⊗ ℝ =Ξ8936⁹°⁹
And how you solving this higher plane of existence problem helps you getting a girlfriend + don't forget Fermat’s Last Theorem: The problem is to finding solutions to the equation xn+yn=zn��+��=�� where n� is some positive number. The case for n=1,2�=1,2 has trivially many solutions but Fermat conjectured that there exits no solution for n>2�>2,for instance one cannot find a solution to the equation x3+y3=z3�3+�3=�3 no matter how far you look for the triple (x,y,z).
Which now goes into ζ(s)=∑n=1∞1ns -> s=1/2 as it’s real part. The Conjecture then is that all non-trivial zeros lie on the critical strip. And now into
1782¹² + 1841¹² + 1922¹² P ≈ N X⁵
4Rur –– 1¹/2⁸ R gur + A gur = 8‡±Rg/tC⁴-Tur

It’s crazy how none of that means anything, while also trying to slip in the most bare bones roasts humanity has even conceptualized, get some better material next time

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

It’s crazy how none of that means anything, while also trying to slip in the most bare bones roasts humanity has even conceptualized, get some better material next time

Better than your quote joke dawg

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

I don't remember, it was a goku vs superman debate.
I don't like it when people start taking outerversal or omniversal shit out of context.

Eh need proof or it never happened

 

[Pixy]

We can go into discord if you want. Go into Otherworld so we conclude if Goku is outer or no with Dripsauce, Divine, Monke or Gogo

OMFG what a good old day isn't it !? when I'm still Youtube debater I got something like this too
sorry mate but No, your number and those long ass wall of no context is quite. . . pretty I guess ? But unfortunate I'm better sit in science lab for whole life than give a damn of this random crap and I'm afraid I'll understand their document than yours

 

[Shar122]

It’s crazy how none of that means anything, while also trying to slip in the most bare bones roasts humanity has even conceptualized, get some better material next time

I didn't read all that shit because it's allat
But damn, I fall for that shit..

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

OMFG what a good old day isn't it !? when I'm still Youtube debater I got something like this too
sorry mate but No, your number and those long ass wall of no context is quite. . . pretty I guess ? But unfortunate I'm better sit in science lab for whole life than give a damn of this random crap and I'm afraid I'll understand their document than yours

Bro thinkss he's a **** fr

 

[Johner2133451]

Tron is a high tier, well known discord debater. He has a server dedicated of teaching newbies on debating

Here's an example of it:

Formal Logic
============================================================================
In short terms, formal logic deals with the deductive validity of relationships and inference steps/argumentations. This is evaluated using mathematical symbols and syllogisms. Deductive logic is the systematic evaluation of arguments for internal cogency, with the internal cogency being dealt with here being logical validity. A logical validity is formed when a premise AND conclusion is true, which would form a deductively valid argumentation. When this is established, it is logically impossible for the premise to be true and the conclusion to be false.
Speaking of which, when the premise is true and the conclusion is entailed to be false, this would form a deductively invalid argumentation. In this case, your conclusion doesn't guarantee any logical truth/truth values even if granted for the premise. Let's go ahead and look at some examples of this.

A
(1) Either Bob is at school or he is at BestBuy
(2) Bob is not at school
(3) Bob is at BestBuy

Looking at this inference step, we can see that this is clearly a deductively valid argumentation. A1 and A2 both entail a logical truth logically following to the conclusion, which also guarantees a logical truth. Therefore, there's no possible reason for A3 to be false.
But what about one that IS NOT deductively valid? Let's take a look.

B

(1) All Republican voters support capital punishment.
(2) Jo supports capital punishment.
So (3) Jo is a Republican voter.

This is clearly logically invalid. Even if B1 and B2 are true, B3 doesn't logically follow from all Republican voters supporting capital punishment. This conclusion doesn't guarantee a truth value and hence this inference step is deductively invalid.

Hmm you got more like this?

 

[Tuxidoe_Redo]

Hmm you got more like this?

Ye I do

When an argumentation is entailed to be deductively invalid, a principle known as the Invalidity's Principle can be applicable here. The invalidity's principle asserts that an inference step with actually true premises and
an actually false conclusion must be invalid. A perfect example of thiws is inference step B. We established that the conclusion doesn't guarantee any logical truth even if granted one for the premises, and hence this is rendered logically invalid. Therefore, we can apply the Invalidity's Principle.



There's still more stuff like this. Just join Dripsauce's discord server, link at his youtube channel