• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZillertheBucko said:
Ok so essentially
We know the starting point of the x axis is no earlier than the sp^2 due to an upsurge in emotions, and Garou being relative with Saitama even if not perfectly aligned
And we can conclude that the y starts at 0, due to the fact that it has no units for that to be worth doing for the graph, and 58 times multiplier is the most consistent regardless
basically, I don’t see any reason to disagree at this point regarding those two issues
Click to expand...
Why even assign the starting point for X at the Serious Punch Squared when it is clear after he say he will go full power
 
You just trying to assume we can get totally get 58x from a graph which it is not even official and kinda hurts it even more.
 
And we can conclude that the y starts at 0, due to the fact that it has no units for that to be worth doing for the graph

The point of having the y-axis start above 0 isn't due to having units, it's due to making it easier to see changes in the data if there's a large gap between the relevant values of y and y=0.

Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
 
Agnaa said:
And we can conclude that the y starts at 0, due to the fact that it has no units for that to be worth doing for the graph

The point of having the y-axis start above 0 isn't due to having units, it's due to making it easier to see changes in the data if there's a large gap between the relevant values of y and y=0.

Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
Click to expand...
Honestly, we have little to go by other than just using a graph and guesstimating the multiplier and extrapolate it from that graph. There is not even any statements about it outside of just exponential growth
 
Agnaa said:
And we can conclude that the y starts at 0, due to the fact that it has no units for that to be worth doing for the graph

The point of having the y-axis start above 0 isn't due to having units, it's due to making it easier to see changes in the data if there's a large gap between the relevant values of y and y=0.

Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
Click to expand...
Still unreasonable
throughout the moments in which Garou questions about Saitama’s AD, every time he copies him he’s completely unable to damage him, and is on the verge of being one shot killed by him
if the growth was “decently below 58 times” he wouldn’t have been fodderized over and over and over again by Saitama in any capacity
as such, I continue to hold that Saitama got no less than 58 times stronger by the end of the fight
 
ZillertheBucko said:
Still unreasonable
throughout the moments in which Garou questions about Saitama’s AD, every time he copies him he’s completely unable to damage him, and is on the verge of being one shot killed by him
if the growth was “decently below 58 times” he wouldn’t have been fodderized over and over and over again by Saitama in any capacity
as such, I continue to hold that Saitama got no less than 58 times stronger by the end of the fight
Click to expand...
Even though you are arguing that it starts by 58x when it obviously not the case as we can still see Garou getting thrash and thrash while Saitama’s exponential growth grows before the chart so yeah.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
Still unreasonable
throughout the moments in which Garou questions about Saitama’s AD, every time he copies him he’s completely unable to damage him, and is on the verge of being one shot killed by him
if the growth was “decently below 58 times” he wouldn’t have been fodderized over and over and over again by Saitama in any capacity
as such, I continue to hold that Saitama got no less than 58 times stronger by the end of the fight
Click to expand...
Different verses hold different thresholds for when someone would get one-shot by something. Sometimes 2x will turn a stomp around, sometimes 100x won't. That's why we don't have a universal standard multiplier for one-shotting or being unharmed, and that's why I don't find this post of yours convincing.
 
Antvasima said:
Well, I personally think that Qawsedf234 seems to make sense here, and that the comparison seems quite blatant, especially if the growth was calculated in a linear manner despite being stated to be exponential, so if anything that would be a very low estimation.

However, I am not the best person to ask here.

@Executor_N0 @Jasonsith @Therefir @Wokistan @Armorchompy @Migue79

What do you think?
Click to expand...
That was before @Qawsedf234 say he was neutral though. @Qawsedf234 say it twice so
 
Damage3245 said:
Hmm... Looking over the posts, it does seem hard to assign a specific point in the graph to the moment where they performed their Serious Punch Squared.

Assuming it was the earliest plotted point on the graph doesn't seem warranted.
Click to expand...
This is also this reply I have to consider too. It seems like his stance may have changed here too
 
I still think that it seems uncontroversial and harmless to just divide Saitama's power level's final y-axis height with the initial one, and then multiply his 4-A feat's energy output with that result.
 
Don’t think that is possible since logically speak Saitama will already been stronger after he mentioned going full power/serious mode as before the serious punch clash, he was being causal about, then went full power after the serious punch clash afterwards.
 
Also it is not power level in this case. We have zero mentions of power level and the graph is just the representation of Garou’s vs Saitama’s exponential growth
 
Agnaa said:
Different verses hold different thresholds for when someone would get one-shot by something. Sometimes 2x will turn a stomp around, sometimes 100x won't. That's why we don't have a universal standard multiplier for one-shotting or being unharmed, and that's why I don't find this post of yours convincing.
Click to expand...
ok then, even though I would find it far beyond insanely unrealistic if it was anything less than a 9 times multiplier, especially considering saitama dominates Garou like 3 to 5 times in the span of that graph, and the gap would only get insanely bigger moments later due to exponential growth, I can concede that this line of reasoning alone wouldn't be enough, since it's technically not objective, and technically even if he got an 999 trillion to the quadrillionth power one shots above garou, it wouldn't be enough to assume even baseline 3-C, so you are correct here.
Agnaa said:
Essentially, it would be worth doing if the multiplier was decently less than 58x, but they still wanted to show its exponential nature.
Click to expand...
If the graph really was purely to show the fact that exponential growth occured, the statement would have been enough. Similarly, even if they wanted to go further by using the graph, but they wanted to use a non zero starting value at Y, there's no reason why they wouldn't have just let Saitama and Garou's lines touch zero, but they specifically leave a gap. Let me just bring up, the gap between the bottom line and the start of the lines serves 0 purpose, absolutely none, except for showing that Saitama and Garou were above this already arbitrary hypothetical value that would replace 0. The very clear intention, to me and likely many others, is to show a starting point for Saitama and Garou. For this to not matter, this graph would have to start at a non zero value (in mystery units) but also be a value lower than the sp^2. Why would they do this exactly? Well, it doesn't really serve a purpose, except for being a model specifically developed to destroy the idea of multipliers, which again, is not a priority of the author as we can most likely all agree.
I guess you've put more doubt on it than before, but like I said, I still think a "likely" rating should be given at least, since there is a technical loophole in which it could be a not 58x increase
 
ZillertheBucko said:
If the graph really was purely to show the fact that exponential growth occured, the statement would have been enough.
Click to expand...
Which it is. Remember, the statement explicitly say Saitama’s growth was increasingly exponentially along with the graph. That was shown in the scans I provided from Chapter 168.
 
Antvasima said:
I still think that it seems uncontroversial and harmless to just divide Saitama's power level's final y-axis height with the initial one, and then multiply his 4-A feat's energy output with that result.
Click to expand...
I would appreciate some staff input about this issue.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
I think you overlook the fact that it was stated in the narration that Saitama’s growth was growing exponentially due to experiencing a intense amount of emotions and so on.

That part was made explicit clear
Click to expand...
No I quite clearly directly acknowledged it, that was literally my argument
I have no clue what you're trying to argue rn.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
No I quite clearly directly acknowledged it, that was literally my argument
I have no clue what you're trying to argue rn.
Click to expand...
I guess, the other option is just put far higher with AD (Combat/RPL) as it stands we don’t have enough staff consensus for it and we gone through 5 pages. Not a few pages.
5 pages of ppl going back and forth regarding specific points.
 
Antvasima said:
I still think that it seems uncontroversial and harmless to just divide Saitama's power level's final y-axis height with the initial one, and then multiply his 4-A feat's energy output with that result.
Click to expand...
I believe that would get the same result as the calc method
the current contention is wether or not the white line starts at 0. Opposition argues that it could start at a value higher than 0, thus rendering the calc useless, while I argue that due to the fact that there is already a gap between the first points and the bottom line, it would be illogical for them to make it not start at 0, while still making it not be the starting point of their lines.
 
ZillertheBucko said:
I believe that would get the same result as the calc method
the current contention is wether or not the white line starts at 0. Opposition argues that it could start at a value higher than 0, thus rendering the calc useless, while I argue that due to the fact that there is already a gap between the first points and the bottom line, it would be illogical for them to make it not start at 0, while still making it not be the starting point of their lines.
Click to expand...
No, the original contention was if the multipler should been used or not which is 100% still in debate.
That was ongoing since page 1 from @DontTalkDT since that will mean the multiplier will have to been removed in this case.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The initial value. The baseline of the line.
We don't know what value the 0, 0 coordinate represents, thus we cannot estimate the growth.
 
Qawsedf234 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood my point entirely...

If you argue the baseline is SP^2, then we don't know the value of the initial dot.

If you argue the initial dot is >SP^2 then we don't know the value of the baseline.

Both cases mean we don't know the rate of growth...

Stating that they overlap does nothing to address that. Literally...
 
GodlyCharmander said:
You misunderstood my point entirely...

If you argue the baseline is SP^2, then we don't know the value of the initial dot.

If you argue the initial dot is >SP^2 then we don't know the value of the baseline.

Both cases mean we don't know the rate of growth...

Stating that they overlap does nothing to address that. Literally...
Click to expand...
well I don’t know why you’d consider that we don’t know that the first dot is the sp^2, when we quite objectively know the x begins at Saitama’s upsurge of emotions, meaning the 58 times multiplier must have started at some point during the Garou fight, but as long as it was after genos’ desth then he’s 58 times stronger by the end of it regardless so, that’s not really up for debate

what is up for debate is when the y starts at
But I’ve already made my arguments known in my recent comments
 
To sum it up, I think there’s clear signs that in no way were they intending to make the y axis not start at zero
For one, if that were truly the case then they would have provided that information in the form of some numbers, even if it didn’t say what units were being used in said numbers. That combined with the fact that if the graph was for no other purpose than showing it were exponential growth, then it’d be pointless due to the existing statement of it being exponential, and there also would be no point in the gap between the first point and y=0, as the only information that it provides is to show that there was a starting point, as in to show that the serious punch squared didn’t start at 0 units. The model for the graph of the disagreeing side would be along the lines of having the y axis units increase exponentially (which would entirely make the idea of an exponential graph seem pretty god damn dumb) or just non linear, which is even worse since if it went like 1 2 5 7 8.5 8.82648 then it wouldn’t even be exponential to begin with lol
That, or saying the Y values don’t start at 0, and that they just added a pointless gap meant to convey no information
oh yeah, and they also just decided not to mention any of this to the reader? Either of these scenarios seem beyond improbable, and at worst it wouldn’t do anything to stop a “likely 3-C” rating

Lastly, I think everybody here is already aware that the “no units” counter argument is a thing of the past regardless of where you stand on the graph as a whole.
 
No doubt that all of these counter arguments are objectively possible, but they would require the creators of the chapter to have been incompetent people who love adding pointless things to graphs for no reason.

Edit: Anyways I think this thread should go on hold until the next chapter releases, the arc technically isn’t officially over and we could just get a game changing statement dropped out of nowhere
 
Last edited:
ZillertheBucko said:
No doubt that all of these counter arguments are objectively possible, but they would require the creators of the chapter to have been incompetent people who love adding pointless things to graphs for no reason.

Edit: Anyways I think this thread should go on hold until the next chapter releases, the arc technically isn’t officially over and we could just get a game changing statement dropped out of nowhere
Click to expand...
Again, it is the other way around. Why assign a multiplier to a graph that wasn’t mean to taken too literally to begin with? Your arguments hold zero counters and reinforce the counter arguments.
 
Also it will mean they actually done research on what a exponential graph does need along with a in-verse statement regarding a actual stated multipliers and is being accurate which isn’t the case.
 
Last edited:
ZillertheBucko said:
well I don’t know why you’d consider that we don’t know that the first dot is the sp^2,
Click to expand...
I didn't say that at all.

What I meant is
If we consider sp^2 to be where y starts, then we can't say what the first dot is. Because it cannot be both. It can't be where it starts and where it stops at 0.3x, this would imply the graph measures nothing.

But we're not considering this, we're considering the first dot to be >sp^2 which is a fact. But then we cannot say for absolute certain what the coordinate 0y is, because, as I said, a graph can start from any arbitrary point if said point fits the interest of the graph. For example, the point of interest of this graph is when the growth occurs.


I believe this is non definitive.
 
HammerStrikes219 said:
Also it will mean they actually done research on what a exponential graph does need along with a in-verse statement regarding a actual stated multipliers and is being accurate which isn’t the case.
Click to expand...
Made some corrections, but I am getting sick of the fact no one bothered to directly address the counters against the multiplers being assigned to a calc that was guesstimate/calculated from a graph. Only intentionally dodging it because specific points they think will validated the calculated multipliers when it doesn’t necessarily mean it does inherently.
 
Last edited:
ZillertheBucko said:
To sum it up, I think there’s clear signs that in no way were they intending to make the y axis not start at zero
For one, if that were truly the case then they would have provided that information in the form of some numbers, even if it didn’t say what units were being used in said numbers.
Click to expand...

So, "It cannot be anything other than 0, because no one said otherwise".

This is flawed for two simple reasons.
  • No matter the metric, in no graph whatsoever is the number "0" the default starting point. Any real number point is.
  • It doesn't satisfy the burden of proof.
Also, to anticipate a response like: "Well, you didn't prove it was other number either", I need to remind you that I am not arguing for any specific number, I am saying it could be any given real number, which it could, that's just a fact.

It has to be zero otherwise the graph provide no information.
Click to expand...

It does. It provides the visual information of Saitama's growth, and the gap between the two. If the gap is measurable or not is irrelevant, because the narrative already show us the gap is quite high.
Of course we can't say "it has to be tens of times", gaps in fiction vary wildly, in some, a 2x gap is enough to speedblitz a person.
Of course, we get the same information through dialogue, but the graph alleviates and ease the understanding of what he is saying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

LIFE_OF_KING
Minor addition for Saitama
Replies
9
Views
1K
Epiccheev
Epiccheev
Phoenks
  • Locked
The OPM Power Graph
2 3
Replies
82
Views
10K
Phoenks
Phoenks
Phoenks
One-Punch Man: Faster and Stronger!
2
Replies
67
Views
9K
SatellaTheWoE
SatellaTheWoE
Phoenks
  • Locked
Saitama VS Goku • (1-1-0)
6 7 8
Replies
301
Views
24K
TheGodOfICE777
TheGodOfICE777
Shadow_x007x
  • Locked
Adjusted Tier Boros and Saitama
Replies
5
Views
2K
Shadow_x007x
Shadow_x007x
Back
Top