Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation

[Antvasima]

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.

Yes, but if any of the calculations used linear growth, that seems like a very safe lowball estimation.

I haven't investigated the calculation process. I just meant that if somebody simply measured the linear difference in the graph between Saitama in the beginning (when he performed his 4-A feat) with Saitama at the end of the fight, rather than assume that an vertical distance increase by 10 times in the graph would mean a power increase by 4^10 times, for example, it should probably be a pretty safe lowball.

However, I may have misunderstood.

I cannot just overrule DontTalk though.

I see two possibilities here.

First: It is assumed that "Serious Punch Square" is the baseline, or 0y = SP^2.

Well, if that's the case, the no units argument should be prioritized, because one cannot measure the rate at which the growth occurs. A Graph cannot be measured if all we know is what 0 represents.
Why you ask? First because the graphs basically are based on a function. It tells us where it starts, but not what rate it grows.

For example, both these graphs are correct, and both start at the value "1".

Basically
If 0y is assumed to be SP^2, then this calculation simply cannot claim to be accurate. I'd disagree with that.

---

Second: It is assumed that the first X point of reference is the same level as the Serious Punch Squared.

See, this works! Because if the distance between Y to the line is n value, you can measure the rate at which the growth occurs. Absolutely, this WOULD be accurate.

The only problem is the premise. The first X point cannot possibly signify the same level as they were when they performed the feat, obviously they fought, and their growth occurs at astounding rate even before this graph, so X cannot be the same value as the feat.


However, "X" HAS TO BE A HIGHER VALUE, meaning using the n value when x>n, means that 58x is > 58n, thus, Saitama's value is unquantifiably higher, same applies to Garou. This acts as a low end, granting "at least" to their values.

• It is stated to be an exponential graph.
• It is stated to be growth in power.

This is the near same as a multiplier statement, and ignoring it would be, OBJECTIVELY, indexing inaccurate information. (As in, "Garou and Saitama are at least n times stronger than at the beginning of this graph", as intended).

If it's the first option, then no. I disagree.

If it's the second option, there isn't A SINGULAR VALID REASON in my point of view to discard it. I'd agree with that.
Hopefully I added some insight. I have not looked through the thread and was asked to give my opinion on this.

The graph and the growth are stated to be exponential. If you say "his strength grows exponentially", then show us a graph, it is clear that the Graph should be interpreted linearly to satisfy the first statement (exponent)

First things first: the graph does not even label their stats and units - just a rough estimation of how Saitama's growth compare to Garou.

Second, the group of people may not been even making their best model. From what I see, the reason to justify an exponential model can as well be justified with a line chart or even a bar chart.

To prove an exponential relationship, we may need at least two feats as a comparison, and assume the graph itself as linear.

Just do not count my votes if you believe I am just bluffing.

If one (or even I) can make a graph to explain such relationship then it would be good to go. It is not immediately usable, but if you wish to argue out a way there is a direction.

---

IMHO we may still have some the most lenient way to make the graph usable if you really wish to make it usable:

Use serious punch and collapsing star roaring cannon as the first point,

then use the galactic hole punching feat as another reference point,

THEN refer those feats to Saitama and Garou at different time paths

This is not necessary.

0.4x, 0.3y = n value representing Saitama.

we can solve for n as "at least X", X being the value of his star wiping feat. We can find the units from this simple logic we can find the units of y. We have the necessary context for it.


We don't care for the x unit, it represents time, we can estimate that.

Pardon ... The relationship is stated to exist in the very chapter where the graph is showcased.

@DontTalkDT

What do you think about this?

 

[Antvasima]

I view this as Jason disagree with applying a multipler to a calc to being specific. That is not unclear.

See here:

IMHO we may still have some the most lenient way to make the graph usable if you really wish to make it usable:

Use serious punch and collapsing star roaring cannon as the first point,

then use the galactic hole punching feat as another reference point,

THEN refer those feats to Saitama and Garou at different time paths

 

[HammerStrikes219]

See here:

That seems more like he disagreeing with the graph being used ngl as he was referring to @GodlyCharmander’s points

 

[Antvasima]

No, he apparently offered a solution that he would agree with.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

No, he apparently offered a solution that he would agree with.

A solution that doesn’t exist. He is saying that as a theoretical example, not a solid example.

Also I regret making the voting tally as ultimately what it comes down is whatever or not the multipler should been accepted or not since it only calculated from a graph, not outright stated and shown.

 

[Maverick_Zero_X]

I was assuming she agreed with Andy with key points, but I will cross her out then.

I’m neutral. Just liked some posts that incited discussion.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, so far we do not have enough of a consensus to apply this, but let's see what DontTalk thinks about our points.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, so far we do not have enough of a consensus to apply this, but let's see what DontTalk thinks about our points.

The points was on the grounds of the multipler being accepted or not. That is the whole reason why the calc exist in the first place as ultimately I don’t see any particular strong countering points from the ones agreeing with the calc while those that do disagree are arguing against that specific multipler being applied to the calc anyway.

 

[Jasonsith]

Thanks for the comic book scan...

IMO (purely my opinion after looking at the scans)

1. The chart may not be able to be used if we look into the whole picture - that the central idea shown behind the comic scans is "there was not anyone" in the OPM universe (other than "God") "to measure what level Saitama's strength has reached".

2. If you want to use the exponential table chart so badly, then at least point where the CSRC and Serious Punch 1 point and the Serious Punch 2 land at. Then, we can at least plot an exponential graph.

 

[Kachon123]

2. If you want to use the exponential table chart so badly, then at least point where the CSRC and Serious Punch 1 point and the Serious Punch 2 land at. Then, we can at least plot an exponential graph.

I'm confused. Why is CSRC being brought up?

 

[Majinere566]

I'm confused. Why is CSRC being brought up?

Boros Upscale

 

[Aachintya31]

I'm confused. Why is CSRC being brought up?

Basically to compare the growth of saitama as compared to CSRC serious punch ,serious punch squared and subsequent serious punches.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

2. If you want to use the exponential table chart so badly, then at least point where the CSRC and Serious Punch 1 point and the Serious Punch 2 land at. Then, we can at least plot an exponential graph

Nah, the graph is only a representation of exponential growth. Nothing more, nothing less. The feats you mentioned is before the graph was ever used.

 

[Agnaa]

how the hell this works
like wtf
the **** is honorary staff?

I've been offered staff positions repeatedly over the last four years and turned them down; I've passed the vetting process for staff and the only thing stopping me from being staff is my personal choice, which shouldn't really reflect on my ability to evaluate threads. If I was considered staff-level of reliable years ago should I really get excluded from counts like this just because I don't have a funny tag next to my name?

IMHO we may still have some the most lenient way to make the graph usable if you really wish to make it usable:

Use serious punch and collapsing star roaring cannon as the first point,

then use the galactic hole punching feat as another reference point,

THEN refer those feats to Saitama and Garou at different time paths

I don't like this idea, using multiple of our own calculated values like this and using them in later derivations feels like it's getting into calc stacking territory.

 

[Antvasima]

I've been offered staff positions repeatedly over the last four years and turned them down; I've passed the vetting process for staff and the only thing stopping me from being staff is my personal choice, which shouldn't really reflect on my ability to evaluate threads. If I was considered staff-level of reliable years ago should I really get excluded from counts like this just because I don't have a funny tag next to my name?

That is correct, yes.

 

[Aachintya31]

if that graph is garou's interpretation of saitama and his strength then using CSRC and serious punch 1 as first point shouldn't be valid considering from what i think garou shouldn't be aware of the power of CSRC and serious punch 1.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

That is correct, yes.

@Matthew_Schroeder is still a former staff member and I want to been clear. We don’t have a precedent/ruling that exclude a former staff member’s stance when it comes to voting unless you want me to involve @AKM sama regarding this part.

 

[Jasonsith]

Nah, the graph is only a representation of exponential growth. Nothing more, nothing less. The feats you mentioned is before the graph was ever used.

IMO that only makes the graph even harder to be relied on in assigning a value for strength. Count that an "against using that chart as a multiplier" vote if you will.

Maybe at least "X level, likely higher" for Garou and "X level, likely far higher" for Saitama.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

IMO that only makes the graph even harder to be relied on in assigning a value for strength.

Maybe at least "X level, likely higher" for Garou and "X level, likely far higher" for Saitama.

Yeah, that does seem reasonable.

 

[Antvasima]

@Matthew_Schroeder is still a former staff member and I want to been clear. We don’t have a precedent/ruling that exclude a former staff member’s stance when it comes to voting unless you want me to involve @AKM sama regarding this part.

Matthew was fired though. Or at least we were going to fire him, but he knew that and resigned slightly beforehand, if I remember correctly.

It isn't like most other former staff members who just resigned on their own, but are welcome back if they want to, or Agnaa who can become staff whenever he wants to.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Matthew was fired though. Or at least we were going to fire him, but he knew that and resigned beforehand.

And don’t we list those that retired from the staff position? The managing staff list does include the retired ones so not sure if I can agree with that.

 

[Damage3245]

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Well, I thought that the graph detailed the fight with god-empowered Garou, as the preceding conflict doesn't count as a fight at all, given that Saitama was not challenged in the slightest, and the 4-A attack happened almost at the beginning of the real fight, if I remember correctly.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Well, I thought that the graph detailed the fight with god-empowered Garou, as the preceding conflict doesn't count as a fight at all, given that Saitama was not challenged in the slightest, and the 4-A attack happened almost at the beginning of the real fight, if I remember correctly.

The 4A feat did indeed happen in Chapter 167. In Chapter 168, we see the graph being shown while they are fighting after Chapter 167.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

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.

Should I take this as you disagree with the calc’s multiplers or just staying neutral?

 

[Phoenks]

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.

Why not? Garou only reached Saitama's level after copying him on the last few panels of 167, which should put both of them past SP^2 by the time the graph is shown with them being at the same level in chapter 168. Using it as the first point should be no issue.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Because logically speaking, they could been stronger than when the 4A feat occurred and because the graph in Chapter 168 (I have repeatedly say this and I will say it again) is comparing Garou’s own growth to Saitama’s own rate of growth with the latter outpacing him completely.

 

[Tago238]

HammerStrikes219 has a history of very serious mental illness, so don't be too harsh towards him. However, he has improved his mental state over time, and is a harmless nice person outside of rambling a lot in somewhat incoherent posts nowadays. That is still a problem due to derailing, and he needs to learn to control that, but we shouldn't scream at and insult him.

Alright.

 

[Tago238]

Why not? Garou only reached Saitama's level after copying him on the last few panels of 167, which should put both of them past SP^2 by the time the graph is shown with them being at the same level in chapter 168. Using it as the first point should be no issue.

There’s also the fact that different points in the graph are clearly shown alongside fighting.

 

[Aachintya31]

Waiting for ONE to reject this graph as a multiplier on twitter

 

[ImmortalDread]

Waiting for ONE to reject this graph as a multiplier on twitter

Evil work

 

[ImmortalDread]

Evil work

Even tho, we don't accept author statement

 

[ZillertheBucko]

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.

The scans from earlier show that the graph was getting much higher in between each punch, so clearly it didn't take very long
in fact, it's far more likely to say that the graph started after the serious punch^2
as shown when the short timeframe between punches is around the timeframe in which saitama grows the most
it would be incredibly unrealistic to say that it was anywhere before the fight, especially since it was stated to cause by "an upsurge in emotions"
one that could only be caused by genos' death, or the fact that garou was strong enough to match him, both of which are emotion upsurge events.

1. The chart may not be able to be used if we look into the whole picture - that the central idea shown behind the comic scans is "there was not anyone" in the OPM universe (other than "God") "to measure what level Saitama's strength has reached".

well, the narrator gave the graph, not garou
so

2. If you want to use the exponential table chart so badly, then at least point where the CSRC and Serious Punch 1 point and the Serious Punch 2 land at. Then, we can at least plot an exponential graph.

?????
We clearly see that saitama's full power was only used against cosmic garou after the sp^2, it's insanely arbitrary, and blatantly contradictory to use any timeframe from before the fight for the reasons above
this seems like an extremely invalid disagree justification

 

[ZillertheBucko]

also if this thread fails we fr need to make the OP include the reasons why the graph starts at the sp^2 or after, reasons why the origin is most likely y=0, and all that stuff, and mainly the fact there's no units
I've just seen too many repeat arguments dropped around, stuff that should probably be in the OP...

 

[GodlyCharmander]

Thanks for the comic book scan...

IMO (purely my opinion after looking at the scans)

1. The chart may not be able to be used if we look into the whole picture - that the central idea shown behind the comic scans is "there was not anyone" in the OPM universe (other than "God") "to measure what level Saitama's strength has reached".

I presume this doesn't really do anything to counter and/or address our concerns.
Yes. Saitama got so much higher in said chart that Garou became trivial to him. (That line was said after Saitama was four times as strong as Garou, meaning the gap was exponentially higher).
But, how does that play into the discussion?

2. If you want to use the exponential table chart so badly, then at least point where the CSRC and Serious Punch 1 point and the Serious Punch 2 land at. Then, we can at least plot an exponential graph.

This frame of reference is quite literally not needed because said growth only occurs in the subsequent chapters of Cosmic Garou vs Saitama.

Furthermore, a conclusion can be achieved with two frame of references, one of which is a known value [n]. (As long as n =/= 0y) You're kind of pushing this narrative that two known values need to be brought up for it to be valid, but not elaborating on it.

 

[GodlyCharmander]

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.

This is addressed in my comment.

We know that the value of n (being the energy they scale to during SP^2) has to be lower than the point at 0.4x, 0.3y (earliest), as this was a mid fight Saitama already experiencing growth.

Thus, the use of the value of n is warranted as a low end, as in, "it could not have gotten below this". 0.3y is unquantifiably higher than n, making this a non issue.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Can I just say…
The only calc aspect of this is really just simple pixel scaling, I don’t really think this should be a calc member takes priority discussion when the math is only 1% of the concern, and the actual logic is something that’s being debated by non calc staff and common users

 

[GodlyCharmander]

why the origin is most likely y=0

Isn't*

If 0y was SP^2 this whole graph would become trivial.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Isn't*

If 0y was SP^2 this whole graph would become trivial.

I meant the bottom line of the graph being y=0, not the first points on the lines

 

[GodlyCharmander]

I meant the bottom line of the graph being y=0, not the first points on the lines

.... Oh yeah, how does one prove that?