• 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.

Maou Gakuin Discussion Thread

EldemadeDityjon said:
Non Smurf matches may be stomp. Most of them
Click to expand...

rogue-one-verge-of-greatness.gif
 
Mafuuu said:
Okeeeey, but I don't know why destroy source got CM1, and about Information Manipulaton, I don't know why it got IM2?
Click to expand...
The source stuff I will leave for @Dereck03 and @Tatsumi504 to explain, but the IM2 is because at the core of every spell there is a theoretical formula and a practical formula (which, despite being just formulas and theories, they influence reality) which acts as the blueprint and foundation of a spell's existence and function, and supported by the fact that altering this theory/formula fundamentally changes how the spell functions as well.
 
Last edited:
Oblivion_Of_The_Endless said:
The source stuff I will leave for @Dereck03 and @Tatsumi504 to explain, but the IM2 is because at the core of every spell there is a theoretical formula and a practical formula (which, despite being just formulas and theories, they influence reality) which acts as the blueprint and foundation of a spell's existence and function, and supported by the fact that altering this theory/formula fundamentally changes how the spell functions as well.
Click to expand...
So, if according to your explanation, that means magic also gets Reality Warping, right?
 
Seriously returned to the argument that "you need to affect (universal) reality to be CM type 1/2"? That's why we need input from a team member who is really knowledgeable about CM.
 
Last edited:
Dog3352 said:
Seriously returned to the argument that "you need to affect (universal) reality to be CM type 1/2"? That's why we need input from a team member who is really knowledgeable about CM.
Click to expand...
That's basically the explanation. The conceptual manipulation page implies this. Or at least says it shouldn't be specific.
 
Georredannea15 said:
That's basically the explanation. The conceptual manipulation page implies this. Or at least says it shouldn't be specific.
Click to expand...
In the explanation it clearly says things like "in your area of influence", see the font demotion thread for CM type 3 (the last 2 pages), not only did I send several proofs that this is not necessary (universal AoE), but we have confirmation from someone with good knowledge about CM on the last page (Apart from the last CM review thread where the team agrees that it is not necessary to affect all of reality on a universal level).
 
Georredannea15 said:
That's basically the explanation. The conceptual manipulation page implies this. Or at least says it shouldn't be specific.
Click to expand...

Scroll down a little on the fourth page, and you will see my comment (in the comment, I put the team agreeing that it is not necessary to affect reality at a universal level to be CM type 1. IT WAS necessary to affect reality at a universal level to be CM type 1, but after the revision is no longer needed) along with the CRT link of the CM revision, not counting other proofs like the changes made to the explanation, where they take explanations like "governs all reality" to "governs all reality within its area of influence", specifying only the area that the concept governs, not all of universal reality.
And on the last page (fifth page) we have confirmation from an member experienced in CM that to be CM type 1 it is not necessary to affect all of universal reality.
 
Last edited:
Tatsumi504 said:
It doesn't, that's the explanation you believe. DT has denied this. There's a reason why "sphere of influence" is used in the definition
Click to expand...
You realize that the so-called "sphere of influence" here is actually all resources, so the concept should include and affect all resources, right? However, in MG, each individual's resource is "private" and "unique". So, this does not mean that one source(concept) will affect all other sources(concepts). It only affects a reality of the person.

Just as the concept of "circle" encompasses all circular structures within "sphere of influence". This is an example of Type 1/2. But if this concept of "circle" affects only the circle it is in and not all other circular structures in its sphere of influence , then it is a Type 3 concept.(So a spesific concept)
 
Georredannea15 said:
You realize that the so-called "sphere of influence" here is actually all resources, so the concept should include and affect all resources, right? However, in MG, each individual's resource is "private" and "unique". So, this does not mean that one source(concept) will affect all other sources(concepts). It only affects a reality of the person.

Just as the concept of "circle" encompasses all circular structures within "sphere of influence". This is an example of Type 1/2. But if this concept of "circle" affects only the circle it is in and not all other circular structures in its sphere of influence , then it is a Type 3 concept.(So a spesific concept)
Click to expand...
Normally I would think "I'm tired of explaining this over and over again" and not say anything, but I think it's best to explain.

With "area of influence", the explanation means what the concept governs, which could be objects or the like (for example: The circle concept governs soccer balls, basketballs, or anything that circles).

What makes a CM type 1/2, is the fact that it governs over more than one aspect or object, just as the concept of circle governs over any circular object, the concept of source governs everything about the individual (body, mind, soul, etc), both govern everything within their area of influence.

You can try to read my explanation about CM type 1/2 on page 4 which is in my previous comment (with proof of what I said).

And here is an explanation from an member experienced in CM that confirms what I said:

I will try to explain this in simpler terms. Feel free to ask if there is anything confusing.

Think of "all of reality" (as in, literally everything, on any possible level) as a giant set. Now think of any particular element of reality (such as a person) as a small subset of that set. If reality is one massive circle, a person is a smaller circle contained inside that giant circle.

To qualify for Type 2, that concept must abstractly define that smaller circle such that, if the concept did not exist, the smaller circle would entirely ease to exist within the larger circle. The concept is so inexorably tied to everything related to the tangible existence of that person that, should the concept disappear, the tangible existence in all forms would too.

This is what "all reality within their area of influence" on the CM page refers to. Not necessarily the whole of reality, but the whole of that subset of reality - the "area of influence" for the concept.

In the case of sources, the "area of influence" is the person whom the source conceptualizes. So, if the source was a Type 2 Concept, removing the source would mean all elements of the subset that defines "the person" in all of reality would disappear with it. The subset of reality that contains all tangible aspects of their existence in all forms would disappear; the smaller circle would no longer exist within the larger circle.

The reason the provided evidence does not qualify for Type 2 is because it has not thoroughly proven this. It gets close enough to proving it that, as I've mentioned before, I'd be willing to hear out more quotes if they can be provided. But the exact influence the source has over the existence of the person is too vague within the given sources to prove that this truly applies to "all of reality within its area of influence" - for example, it hasn't been proven that the past existence of the person (which would be considered a part of "all of reality within its area of influence") is erased when the source is, meaning we do not know whether it has total precedence over the subset. Ergo, it only qualifies for Type 3 under the given evidence.
 
Last edited:
Using Dark's explanation, fonts are obviously a concept type 1/2.

The source and "greater circle" of Dark's explanation, the "subsets" of Dark's explanation (the aspects or such that the concept governs) would be the body, mind and soul.
If the larger circle (Source/Concept type 1/2) is destroyed, the smaller circle (Subset in the explanation of Dark. Body, mind and soul in MGK) will also be destroyed, because the larger circle (Source/Concept type 1/2 ) governs the smaller circle (subset in Dark's explanation. Body, mind and soul in MGK) and is more fundamental than it.
 
Georredannea15 said:
You realize that the so-called "sphere of influence" here is actually all resources, so the concept should include and affect all resources, right? However, in MG, each individual's resource is "private" and "unique". So, this does not mean that one source(concept) will affect all other sources(concepts). It only affects a reality of the person.

Just as the concept of "circle" encompasses all circular structures within "sphere of influence". This is an example of Type 1/2. But if this concept of "circle" affects only the circle it is in and not all other circular structures in its sphere of influence , then it is a Type 3 concept.(So a spesific concept)
Click to expand...
Which of course makes you wrong. This has been confirmed by DT, the one who authored the page. "Sphere of Influence" is what the object governs.

The concept of Anos will only encompass Anos as that is its sphere of influence.
 
Dog3352 said:
Normally I would think "I'm tired of explaining this over and over again" and not say anything, but I think it's best to explain.

With "area of influence", the explanation means what the concept governs, which could be objects or the like (for example: The circle concept governs soccer balls, basketballs, or anything that circles).

What makes a CM type 1/2, is the fact that it governs over more than one aspect or object, just as the concept of circle governs over any circular object, the concept of source governs everything about the individual (body, mind, soul, etc), both govern everything within their area of influence.
Click to expand...
NO! There is a difference between the concept within the person managing the resource and that concept managing "all resources". The resource manages only one person here. In order to be type 1/2, this concept must include "all resources".

For example;
The destruction of this concept (source) should affect all other resources (concepts) because Type 1/2 concepts include all of them. In the verse, the source of the person affects only the person, it does not affect other sources and other people.
Dog3352 said:
You can try to read my explanation about CM type 1/2 on page 4 which is in my previous comment (with proof of what I said).

And here is an explanation from an member experienced in CM that confirms what I said:

I will try to explain this in simpler terms. Feel free to ask if there is anything confusing.

Think of "all of reality" (as in, literally everything, on any possible level) as a giant set. Now think of any particular element of reality (such as a person) as a small subset of that set. If reality is one massive circle, a person is a smaller circle contained inside that giant circle.

To qualify for Type 2, that concept must abstractly define that smaller circle such that, if the concept did not exist, the smaller circle would entirely ease to exist within the larger circle. The concept is so inexorably tied to everything related to the tangible existence of that person that, should the concept disappear, the tangible existence in all forms would too.

This is what "all reality within their area of influence" on the CM page refers to. Not necessarily the whole of reality, but the whole of that subset of reality - the "area of influence" for the concept.

In the case of sources, the "area of influence" is the person whom the source conceptualizes. So, if the source was a Type 2 Concept, removing the source would mean all elements of the subset that defines "the person" in all of reality would disappear with it. The subset of reality that contains all tangible aspects of their existence in all forms would disappear; the smaller circle would no longer exist within the larger circle.

The reason the provided evidence does not qualify for Type 2 is because it has not thoroughly proven this. It gets close enough to proving it that, as I've mentioned before, I'd be willing to hear out more quotes if they can be provided. But the exact influence the source has over the existence of the person is too vague within the given sources to prove that this truly applies to "all of reality within its area of influence" - for example, it hasn't been proven that the past existence of the person (which would be considered a part of "all of reality within its area of influence") is erased when the source is, meaning we do not know whether it has total precedence over the subset. Ergo, it only qualifies for Type 3 under the given evidence.
Click to expand...
It would be much healthier to talk about this with DT, because 2 staff had previously rejected Type 1/2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Blackdragonq1
Question about MGF
Replies
4
Views
921
Blackdragonq1
Blackdragonq1
BestMGQScalerEver
General Web Novel Discussion Thread
Replies
19
Views
1K
Digital_Franz
Digital_Franz
Azathoth
Sword saint "rick"(instandeath) vs demon lord "Anos"(maou gakuin)
Replies
7
Views
3K
Samael_010
Samael_010
Sans2345
Vita Carnis General Discussion Thread
Replies
1
Views
630
Foxthefox1000
Foxthefox1000
Dereck03
Anos' Name Change
Replies
21
Views
3K
Verrel966
Verrel966
Back
Top