Yes, it is the Power Graph chart calculation

[Andytrenom]

My only problem is the graph seems symbolic more than exact, a representation of Saitama outpacing Garou's growth but not necessarily something 1:1 to reality. I'd be wary of calculating it mathematically and enforcing it as an accurate representation of their strength

 

[Tago238]

You mean the example that starts with "that means"? The example elaborates on what the previous sentence was referring to, and it's just an entirely different thing.

It could take the stance you apparently believe to be fundamental, but I have faith in the fine moderators of VSBW; assuming silliness like "coordinates shouldn't be treated as numbers" seems quite unfair to me.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

“Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else. That means, for example, that if a verse has powerlevels or statistics, the doubling of a statistic or power level should not be concluded to correspond to the power of the character doubling, unless it is clearly specified to work that way.”

This was directly quoted from the multipler page for guidelines.

Multipliers

A multiplier is generally some number a different number is multiplied with to get a new number. For our VS Battles use we more specifically refer to a number as multiplier, if that number is multiplied with some statistic of a character or its attacks to get a new statistic for the character...

vsbattles.fandom.com

 

[Tago238]

My only problem is the graph seems symbolic more than exact, a representation of Saitama outpacing Garou's growth but not necessarily something 1:1 to reality. I'd be wary of calculating it mathematically and enforcing it as an accurate representation of their strength

I've already commented on the plethora of evidence for that not being the case in my most recent comment to Aye. One thing missing from there (but mentioned in previous comments) is that there is an explicit authorial intent to represent everything accurately shown by the fact that the author bothered to note the comparison between them at multiple stages. You'll even see that the gaps between the nodes are pretty accurate comparatively to the gaps between the nodes.

“Multipliers come from direct statements instead of being reasoned from something else. That means, for example, that if a verse has powerlevels or statistics, the doubling of a statistic or power level should not be concluded to correspond to the power of the character doubling, unless it is clearly specified to work that way.”

This was directly quoted from the multipler page for guidelines.

Multipliers

A multiplier is generally some number a different number is multiplied with to get a new number. For our VS Battles use we more specifically refer to a number as multiplier, if that number is multiplied with some statistic of a character or its attacks to get a new statistic for the character...

vsbattles.fandom.com

Coolio brother

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I've already commented on the plethora of evidence for that not being the case in my most recent comment to Aye. One thing missing from there (but mentioned in previous comments) is that there is an explicit authorial intent to represent everything accurately shown by the fact that the author bothered to note the comparison between them at multiple stages. You'll even see that the gaps between the nodes are pretty accurate comparatively to the gaps between the nodes.

You mean the statements from Chapter 168 that came along with the graph that doesn’t have a specific stated multipler. Yeah, no, that doesn’t debunk @Ayewale ’s reasoning regarding this and I have read the entire chapter when the RPL and exponential growth was shown.

 

[Tago238]

Most feats are not statements from the narrator, though?? I have never seen the wiki accept statements from the narrator and then ignore the narrator's intent.

You are responding to my argument from absurdity by effectively agreeing with it, because the hypothetical argument I described WAS A STATEMENT! So just to be clear for anyone who gives a shit, Ayewale does agree with someone who argues "if the statement that X character could vaporise a human was truly intended to show X character reaching the ability to release 311 megajoules of energy, don't you think he would have explicitly made it clear with the exact value of 311 megajoules already instead of leaving 0.00001% of his fanbase to figure it out?".


Well maybe not, it probably depends on what verse this argument was made against

Edit: mobutt/ Ayewale misread what I was trying to say and doesn't mean this.

Also, the graph is pretty objectively incomplete; several members throughout the thread have pointed this out. You can dismiss them as 'nitpicks' or 'not mattering' but the graph still sucks no matter what.

The units and what the axes represent can be inferred incredibly easily so overall it isn't incomplete information. Simple as.

You're sort of playing semantic games when you say "the graph still sucks no matter what". It's true that if you took the graph in a vacuum it wouldn't work but you don't need to fear brother, it's not in a vacuum so it's all good. The complete information can only be what matters. Your position right now essentially boils down to "okay but what if I just ignored things".

 

[Andytrenom]

Anyway, you know you could apply the "why didn't the author make everything super exact if he actually wanted to show the character reaching a certain level of power" argument for any calc ever. For instance: "if the statement that X character could vaporise a human was truly intended to show X character reaching the ability to release 311 megajoules of energy, don't you think he would have explicitly made it clear with the exact value of 311 megajoules already instead of leaving 0.00001% of his fanbase to figure it out?". That's the logic that argument would use.

Addressing this before the authorial intent part. Unless you want to argue the events in most calcs are just a abstract representations for something else more real then no, most calcs don't run into this issue, a lot of times manga narrations will depict imagery that is not meant to be literal but just a representation of what's going on, such as such a moon flying into the earth but the moon is depicted as almost as big as the earth (not from a specific manga, if you don't trust there are actual examples I can find them)

Using maths on things like this to gauge what's happening in the reality of a story would just be disingenous

 

[Tago238]

Addressing this before the authorial intent part. Unless you want to argue the events in most calcs are just a abstract representations for something else more real then no, most calcs don't run into this issue, a lot of times manga narrations will depict imagery that is not meant to be literal but just a representation of what's going on, such as such a moon flying into the earth but the moon is depicted as almost as big as the earth (not from a specific manga, if you don't trust there are actual examples I can find them)

Using maths on things like this to gauge what's happening in the reality of a story would just be disingenous

So your argument is now "some manga have narration which isn't literal, so all manga should have their narration be assumed to not be literal"? I'm not interested in seeing those scans because I have no doubt they exist, literally anything we assume to be true on the wiki can be proven to not exist for a few pieces of fiction. As for the scans we are actually talking about here there are literally no inconsistencies whatsoever and I can assure you the majority of narration is assumed to be, you know, trustworthy.


What I believe to be disingenuous is drawing random lines in the sand concerning how dense we can be with certain feats.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Addressing this before the authorial intent part. Unless you want to argue the events in most calcs are just a abstract representations for something else more real then no, most calcs don't run into this issue, a lot of times manga narrations will depict imagery that is not meant to be literal but just a representation of what's going on, such as such a moon flying into the earth but the moon is depicted as almost as big as the earth (not from a specific manga, if you don't trust there are actual examples I can find them)

Using maths on things like this to gauge what's happening in the reality of a story would just be disingenous

By design, his exponential increase would have to be pretty extremely slow for him to not have gotten at least 58 times stronger by the end of the fight, which would make Garou’s AD even more insanely trash as he was getting fodderized quite literally in between punches by Saitama’s AD
It would be much more coherent and consistent if the graph is accurate
and I cannot stress enough just how nobody here has been able to find the slightest inconsistency, and the entirety of the opposition is trying to discredit the graph via hypotheticals

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Their point was “Why are we trying to put a number we extrapolate from calculating it via a graph?”
That is one of the main points of what @Agnaa, @Ayewale, @DontTalkDT, and @Andytrenom is saying.

The statements for the exponential growth doesn’t contain any multipliers being stated at all. Only that we know that Saitama is growing a lot more stronger than Garou.

That is just getting into circles at this point.

 

[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.

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

What do you think?

 

[Phoenks]

@HammerStrikes219 could you add a tally to the OP of who agrees and disagrees?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

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?

The graph show exponential growth, not linear.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

@HammerStrikes219 could you add a tally to the OP of who agrees and disagrees?

Sure thing, but I counting staff tally for now as there is quite a lot of back and forward regarding if this should been accepted or no with regular members and staff members.

 

[Antvasima]

The graph show exponential growth, not linear.

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

 

[HammerStrikes219]

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

Here is the problem. We got the multipler from the graph when we have zero statements regarding a actual stated multipler plus this is the only calculation to say the least.

 

[Tago238]

There is not a back and forth. Some people entered the thread and disagreed. That is all. The people who agree agree, I seriously doubt the 3 As (Agnaa, AndyTrenom and Ayewale) have convinced anyone here, let's be honest.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Pretty sure that goes against our multiplier standards on several points.

This is @DontTalkDT prior to the debate.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

There is not a back and forth. Some people entered the thread and disagreed. That is all. The people who agree agree, I seriously doubt the 3 As (Agnaa, AndyTrenom and Ayewale) have convinced anyone here, let's be honest.

And this is when I call not being fair to the opposition.

Quite frankly, both side have applied the reasoning on whatever or not the calc being used since the multipler is only used from getting it via a graph. That is not a biased take. This was in regards to the calculation overall.

 

[Agnaa]

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

If we assume that the origin of the graph is at y=0, then sure, but if it isn't, this calculation is not reliable at all.

There's other ways that this calculation could be off; the scale of the y-axis could be non-linear, but that seems incredibly unlikely when charting an exponential curve, and would in most reasonable cases make the calculation in the OP an under-estimate.

But still, I don't really understand what you mean by saying that the calculation uses linear growth. I don't see a non-linear way to measure that exponential curve.

 

[Tago238]

I mean yeah true, it's not a linear or non linear way of calculating it.

Also a "non linear scale" is intensely unlikely for extremely obvious reasons, yes.

As for whether or not the origin is y=0, I think it's a little silly to assume it wouldn't be. Likely possibility vs unlikely really. It's especially unlikely given that if Saitama's power actually started at a significantly higher point then the rate of growth would also be slower, in which case Garou wouldn't really think he was in that much trouble in such a short period of time.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

I mean yeah true, it's not a linear or non linear way of calculating it.

Also a "non linear scale" is intensely unlikely for extremely obvious reasons, yes.

As for whether or not the origin is y=0, I think it's a little silly to assume it wouldn't be. Likely possibility vs unlikely really. It's especially unlikely given that if Saitama's power actually started at a significantly higher point then the rate of growth would also be slower, in which case Garou wouldn't really think he was in that much trouble in such a short period of time.

Not necessarily. I am pretty it doesn’t have to been extremely slow as being argued here tbf.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

If we assume that the origin of the graph is at y=0, then sure, but if it isn't, this calculation is not reliable at all.

There's other ways that this calculation could be off; the scale of the y-axis could be non-linear, but that seems incredibly unlikely when charting an exponential curve, and would in most reasonable cases make the calculation in the OP an under-estimate.

But still, I don't really understand what you mean by saying that the calculation uses linear growth. I don't see a non-linear way to measure that exponential curve.

I'm fairly confident that the origin is y=0 for multiple reasons, but mainly it's just the fact that Saitama and Garou never touch 0 to begin with, and never would. It would seem odd if it took an arbitrary non-zero point as the bottom line, and then didn't even have saitama and garou start there anyways
but the fact that there's no numbers on the graph means that a graph design like that has no utility, while in some cases graphs may need to start at a larger number to make stuff fit, there are no units to fit to begin with, the closest thing we have to a unit is that a SP^2 is around 1/4 of a square, which is already reflected just fine in this graph without needing to start at something higher than zero
I see where you're coming from, and it's totally technically possible and is a fair concern, but there's still the possibility there is an apple pie that has been floating in orbit for the past 10 year and I launched it myself, it's technically possible and you can't prove me wrong, but it's not really practical or likely

(not intending to say that in a mocking way, am just trying to give an analogy of why your point is somewhat valid, but I still don't think it's a good enough reason to disagree)

 

[Tago238]

Yeah, you can't try and reject shit if you're using an objectively far less likely interpretation.

 

[Ultima_Reality]

Reading through this, I agree with Tago, myself. The latest issue brought up against the usage of this seems to largely boil down to appealing to authorial intent, when that's obviously not something knowable to us under normal circumstances, so that can't be spoken of authoritatively without a degree of guesswork being involved.

The other concern which Andy brought up, that being the possibility of the graph not being literal, doesn't seem particularly strong to me, either, given that so far she hasn't outlined much of a reason for why this would be the case here, and the one example made to illustrate the point ("a lot of times manga narrations will depict imagery that is not meant to be literal but just a representation of what's going on, such as such a moon flying into the earth but the moon is depicted as almost as big as the earth") seems like something involving a lot more factors that make it immensely easier to dismiss as non-literal, compared to the case at hand, so essentially just a tailor-made hypothetical that satisfies what she describes exactly.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Reading through this, I agree with Tago, myself. The latest issue brought up against the usage of this seems to largely boil down to appealing to authorial intent, when that's obviously not something knowable to us under normal circumstances, so that can't be spoken of authoritatively without a degree of guesswork being involved.

The other concern which Andy brought up, that being the possibility of the graph not being literal, doesn't seem particularly strong to me, either, given that so far she hasn't outlined much of a reason for why this would be the case here, and the one example made to illustrate the point ("a lot of times manga narrations will depict imagery that is not meant to be literal but just a representation of what's going on, such as such a moon flying into the earth but the moon is depicted as almost as big as the earth") seems like something involving a lot more factors that make it immensely easier to dismiss as non-literal, compared to the case at hand, so essentially just a tailor-made hypothetical that satisfies what she describes exactly.

The other points was that the graph was a visual aid showcasing the exponential growth of Saitama vs Garou along with the statements

 

[Tago238]

The other points was that the graph was a visual aid showcasing the exponential growth of Saitama vs Garou along with the statements

The authorial intent shit Ultima is referring to literally was that.

 

[Matthew_Schroeder]

Seems like it's not getting accepted.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

The authorial intent shit Ultima is referring to literally was that.

Except here is the issue with that. We given statements in the story along with the graph shown. It is not just purely authoritative intent

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also in the last panel I shown in a imgur gallery, it mentions that no one will been able to measure what level Saitama’s strength had reached.

 

[ZillertheBucko]

Seems like it's not getting accepted.

Seems like it's getting accepted.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Seems like it's getting accepted.

Not yet as I rather prefer if Ultima Reality can address the scans I provided as well as the standards regarding multipliers.

The main contention was originally about “Whatever or not we should get multiplers from other sources other than a direct stated multiplier”. Ultima Reality is also technically have yet to address the standards mathematically side of things.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

Also we weren’t shown the y= 0 in the first panel too so not sure if we can use that point at all.

 

[Antvasima]

If we assume that the origin of the graph is at y=0, then sure, but if it isn't, this calculation is not reliable at all.

There's other ways that this calculation could be off; the scale of the y-axis could be non-linear, but that seems incredibly unlikely when charting an exponential curve, and would in most reasonable cases make the calculation in the OP an under-estimate.

But still, I don't really understand what you mean by saying that the calculation uses linear growth. I don't see a non-linear way to measure that exponential curve.

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.

 

[Antvasima]

Seems like it's getting accepted.

I cannot just overrule DontTalk though.

 

[Tago238]

Not yet as I rather prefer if Ultima Reality can address the scans I provided as well as the standards regarding multipliers.

The main contention was originally about “Whatever or not we should get multiplers from other sources other than a direct stated multiplier”.

You haven't really made anything that can be responded to, as the interpretation of the standards you talked about was something he outright said he didn't believe made sense and your scans only served to "prove" an utterly incomprehensible point.

Ultima Reality is also technically have yet to address the standards mathematically side of things.

What?

Also we weren’t shown the y= 0 in the first panel too so not sure if we can use that point at all.

W h a t ?

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You haven't really made anything that can be responded to, as the interpretation of the standards you talked about was something he outright said he didn't believe made sense and your scans only served to "prove" an utterly incomprehensible point.

Again, he say authorial intent which is referring to what was shown in the story. Unless you are misinterpreting what Ultima Reality is saying.

Reading through this, I agree with Tago, myself. The latest issue brought up against the usage of this seems to largely boil down to appealing to authorial intent, when that's obviously not something knowable to us under normal circumstances, so that can't be spoken of authoritatively without a degree of guesswork being involved.

The author intention is relying on the context being showned to us through the manga as we don’t have any WOG statements that specifically mentioned a stated multipler.
Honestly, I started to think you intentionally misunderstood the points being made here as well as other specific things. (Referred to Tago)

 

[Phoenks]

You forgot to add Qwased and Ultima to the agreements.

 

[HammerStrikes219]

You forgot to add Qwased to the agreements.

Yeah, let me do that real quick.
Also, overall I am technically neutral here as I offering input regarding both side of the debate.
Actually, I have double check although technically it is a part of a calculation.

 

[Tago238]

You are the only person whose points I haven't been able to understand. There is a reason for this. I literally can't respond to most of what you're saying cause it reads like someone got all of Agnaa's posts on this thread and put them in a blender. I'm sorry, I'm really sorry. I believe everything that Agnaa, Ayewale and AndyTrenom said on this thread was complete drivel but at least they were coherent thoughts I could reply to.