• 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.

Quite abandoned.

There is no limit.
No matter how you logically justify it, the author can just say another character is stronger.
 
I mean cool and all but you can try searching what trivialism is, to understand the gist of what im saying.
I did, but I have no idea how it applies to a character.
Not that it could change my answer.
 
We can apply cataphysics yes? I think we could apply this in a verse but not a character.

The case here is that it would be the weakest and strongest verse possible.

I'll respect your opinion though.
Well, the problem is that fiction defies all logic, whether it be real or theoretical.

You can make a verse by all this description, but then release chapter 2 and create a character that's you say is infinitely above it anyways, and you don't have to explain it, it must just be accepted as true.

By scaling in this way, there is no limit. Someone could always copy your justification and then add "But this guy is stronger."
 
That would defy trivialism, just think of it as acau 5 paradoxes and other abillities that would get removed when certain paradoxes places in this case.

The case here is that you can yet you actually can't be beyond the logic of trivialism otherwise this is not trivialism.

We have something called inconsistencies in set theory yes? We could use that...
The fact that it defies some logic does not matter, that is my point.
A principal can exist within a smaller scale but still be exceeded by a larger one.
 
Back
Top