• 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.

The OPM Power Graph

Status
Not open for further replies.
Phoenks

Phoenks

He/Him
FC/OC VS Battles
Administrator
10,693
9,416
Here we go again. Told you I had something planned.

In Chapter 168 of OPM, we are given the finale of the fight of Saitama VS Cosmic Garou, where we see the true extent of Saitama's growth in the form of a graph.

This graph was rejected for scaling in the past. I'm here to say "nah, that's dumb."

To use this graph as a multiplier, we only need to assume two things are true.

1. Saitama at the beginning of this graph is 4-A, possibly 3-C.
2. The x-axis line is 0.

For #1, this is already accepted on the page as being his "Post-Balding" base strength.

For #2, the origin point representing 0 is universal in mathematics. For this to not be the general assumption, I believe you would need to bring forth evidence that suggests that. I do not see any. And frankly, this graph would be pretty pointless if it WASN'T zero.

The multiplier for this graph has been calculated here.

This should be completely fine to use. The graph is stated and shown to be exponential, we can seem them actually growing in the fight, it doesn't contradict itself at all, it doubles down on Saitama reaching some unprecedented level of strength, etc... It's pretty clear-cut that this is a genuine multiplier of strength.

So yeah, don't see why it wouldn't be used. It requires only 2 assumptions, both of which are already self-evident. And there's no contradictions. Everything points to this being a genuine multiplier. All you have to do is a simple calculation to find it.

Votes
Bold = Staff

Those in agreement: 13 (3;10): @DarkDragonMedeus, @Qawsedf234, @Maverick_Zero_X, @Phoenks, @Romeu08, @RinneItachi, @ImposingTiger, @Tural2004, @Giannysmag, @Quangotjokes, @Recon1511, @LordGinSama, @The_Yellow_Topaz
Those in disagreement (0: 0;1): @Ayewale
Those without an opinion (0: 0;0):
 
Last edited:
There is a watch button at the top, there is no need to type "following" or send any message to follow the thread. Anyway, following.
 
Phoenks said:
Here we go again. Told you I had something planned.

In Chapter 168 of OPM, we are given the finale of the fight of Saitama VS Cosmic Garou, where we see the true extent of Saitama's growth in the form of a graph.

This graph was rejected for scaling in the past. I'm here to say "nah, that's dumb."

To use this graph as a multiplier, we only need to assume two things are true.

1. Saitama at the beginning of this graph is 4-A, possibly 3-C.
2. The x-axis line is 0.

For #1, this is already accepted on the page as being his "Post-Balding" base strength.

For #2, the origin point representing 0 is universal in mathematics. For this to not be the general assumption, I believe you would need to bring forth evidence that suggests that. I do not see any. And frankly, this graph would be pretty pointless if it WASN'T zero.

The multiplier for this graph has been calculated here.

This should be completely fine to use. The graph is stated and shown to be exponential, we can seem them actually growing in the fight, it doesn't contradict itself at all, it doubles down on Saitama reaching some unprecedented level of strength, etc... It's pretty clear-cut that this is a genuine multiplier of strength.

So yeah, don't see why it wouldn't be used. It requires only 2 assumptions, both of which are already self-evident. And there's no contradictions. Everything points to this being a genuine multiplier. All you have to do is a simple calculation to find it.

Votes
Bold = Staff

Those in agreement: 1 (0;1): @Phoenks
Those in disagreement (0: 0;0):
Those without an opinion (0: 0;0):
Click to expand...
I would like to point out that garou should also get a multiplier for his growth from the graph. It would be much smaller though
 
karo_senpaii said:
I would like to point out that garou should also get a multiplier for his growth from the graph. It would be much smaller though
Click to expand...
This thread is for the graphs usage in general, so yes it would affect Garou as well.
 
i am pretty sure exponential graphs generally have their intercept point at (0, 1).
2^x for example, when x = 0, y = 2^0 = 1
the graph also visibly doesn't intercept at 0, it's a little bit above the line y = 0
2bO8NuS.png

that's all i actually cared to say, it doesn't change the math at large, i just noticed something seemed off.

actually no i realized i misinterpreted what phenks was saying in the OP about origin being (0, 0) as the graph intercepting at (0, 0) ignore this
 
Last edited:
GodlyCharmander a year ago said:
  • Unless we can figure out where the y axis start in value, we cannot figure out the rate of growth, making the multiplier impossible to gauge
  • The graph has a narrative purpose to ease the understanding of Saitama's ability to grow while he fights, it has no probable mathematical purpose.
  • One can assume the y starts at "sp^2" value in Joules, but then the initial point, used as a reference, cannot be measured, barricading a rate of growth as well.
  • The lack of units of the graph is an indicative that the graph isn't meant to be meaningful statistically, and only serves to give visual context. It serves it's purpose.
Click to expand...
To be dead honest I haven't a clue whether the italicized parts are correct, so I'll assume they're not. However I don't see anything in this post that addresses the bolded points, especially the last one.

Why would the graph meant to be interpreted literally and scientifically when it doesn't even have values? The multipliers for the graph come from pixel scaling and I cannot fathom the author being specific enough to scale the graph that specifically and accurately but forget to give it numbers. The far more likely explanation is that it's a visual aid that isn't meant to be taken at the level of specificity this thread is asking for.

Or in less eloquent terms, it's not supposed to be taken seriously. It's just a simple illustration. I Disagree.
 
Both of the bolded points are his headcanons rather than actual arguments, especially the second one. He is guessing ONE's intentions here. To begin with, the lack of units doesn't mean a thing when we are using the graph as a multiplier.

More importantly, even if we went along with the first argument, Saitama's sneeze made Garou dodge when there was merely 3 times of difference between them in the graph so an argument can be made that what is shown is the absolute minimum regardless of its actual accuracy.
 
Ayewale said:
Why would the graph meant to be interpreted literally and scientifically when it doesn't even have values?
Click to expand...
Why does it need explicit values to be taken literally/seriously? You can show a literal power increase without needing the author to show you specific numbers. Why do you think we have other panels where Saitama is shown beating the **** out of Garou with the latter making further statements about his power amping up?

Ayewale said:
The multipliers for the graph come from pixel scaling and I cannot fathom the author being specific enough to scale the graph that specifically and accurately but forget to give it numbers.
Click to expand...
The graph is meant to show a difference between his power at the start, and where it is now. That's the entire point.

We calculated that difference based on what the graph showed us. It doesn't need to give us specific values for that much.

The basic assumption is that this is a linear number line. Regardless of the values, the difference remains the same.

Ayewale said:
The far more likely explanation is that it's a visual aid that isn't meant to be taken at the level of specificity this thread is asking for.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that? Because, from where I stand, the far more likely view is that it's a serious representation of how their power levels are increasing throughout the fight.

I mean, for example, in this scene, when Saitama punches Garou, we see his level on the graph rise at the same time. If it wasn't meant to be taken seriously in perspective of their increasing values in the fight, then showing us these parallels multiple times in a row would be pointless.
 
Last edited:
The argument above literally boiled down to "it's a picture that isn't meant to be taken seriously"

You could say that about every single panel that we pixel scale in the manga as a way of saying they shouldn't be used. And it relies on assuming the author's intent baselessly.
 
Phoenks said:
Why does it need explicit values to be taken literally/seriously?
Click to expand...
How many graphs do you know that are meant to be used seriously and include no values or notes? Do you think if it was meant to be literal, the author would have included numbers?

You didn't respond to this point by the way. There isn't any reasonable way to say that the author wanted his graph to be specific to the pixel but just forgot literally everything else. Occam's razor and common sense suggests that the graph wasn't meant to be that specific/accurate and should not be taken as such.
Phoenks said:
Can you prove that? Because, from where I stand, the far more likely view is that it's a serious representation of how their power levels are increasing throughout the fight.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by serious? You would have to prove that the graph is supposed to be an exact to the pixel representation as opposed to a vague visual aid.
Phoenks said:
I mean, for example, in this scene, when Saitama punches Garou, we see his level on the graph rise at the same time. If it wasn't meant to be taken seriously in perspective of their increasing values in the fight, then showing us these parallels multiple times in a row would be pointless.
Click to expand...
Ayewale said:
You would have to prove that the graph is supposed to be an exact to the pixel representation as opposed to a vague visual aid.
Click to expand...
This next point is also an absolutely massive slippery slope:
Phoenks said:
You could say that about every single panel that we pixel scale in the manga as a way of saying they shouldn't be used. And it relies on assuming the author's intent baselessly.
Click to expand...
When we pixel-scale feats we don't usually ignore the author's intent: if anything, we just analyze their intent more closely. If there was some reason for a feat not being literal then we wouldn't (or shouldn't) scale it. It is also not a baseless assumption to assume that an abstract graph with no value or detail is probably not specific to the pixel.

Your only proof that the graph is that specific is that it's being used at all, but that only adds to the 'visual aid' argument.
 
Tural2004 said:
Both of the bolded points are his headcanons rather than actual arguments, especially the second one. He is guessing ONE's intentions here. To begin with, the lack of units doesn't mean a thing when we are using the graph as a multiplier.

More importantly, even if we went along with the first argument, Saitama's sneeze made Garou dodge when there was merely 3 times of difference between them in the graph so an argument can be made that what is shown is the absolute minimum regardless of its actual accuracy.
Click to expand...
To use the graph at all assumes that it's not only literal, but that ONE wanted it to be specific to the exact pixel while not giving it any detail. You're guessing his intent just as much as he is, except his guess is significantly more reasonable ("It's very likely not that specific due to a lack of literally any detail") than the alternative ("ONE made the graph accurate to the pixel but just forgot everything else").

In particular, this:
To begin with, the lack of units doesn't mean a thing when we are using the graph as a multiplier.
Click to expand...
Seems to just ignore the actual argument I'm focusing on. I'm not arguing that a value is impossible to determine.
 
Ayewale said:
How many graphs do you know that are meant to be used seriously and include no values or notes? Do you think if it was meant to be literal, the author would have included numbers?
Click to expand...
You can make graphs where the main purpose is to showcase a difference between one line (representative of Saitama's strength) and another (representative of Garou's strength), while also having them be serious graphs.

I've seen this all the time in multiple marketing campaigns for different brands. Where they will use graphs that show the difference between themselves and another company (in their products effectiveness), to show a difference, without giving values. These are clearly meant to be taken seriously as well.

And no, I don't think including numbers is necessary for the purposes of the graph. Again, so long as this is a number line, the difference between Garou and Saitama, as well as the exponential increase it is meant to show, remain exactly the same. The whole purpose, again, is to showcase a difference in strength, which is does seriously depict on these graphs.

In all honestly, I would say adding numbers would only decrease the impact of the panel. Sometimes, it's better to let the viewer themselves make up what they think the values there were.

Ayewale said:
What do you mean by serious? You would have to prove that the graph is supposed to be an exact to the pixel representation as opposed to a vague visual aid.
Click to expand...
A serious representation of their growth would mean it's accurate enough for us to scale it to the pixel.

If any graph is serious, we should be able to scale it to the pixel to get a difference in values.

I don't know how this is a point.


-

So your point is just "it doesn't have values on the sides, so it's clearly not meant to be taken seriously."

Here:

1: Values on the sides don't matter if the focus is showing us a difference between two lines. Regardless of linear values on the sides of the graph, the difference, and multiplier, remain the same. That's all that matters here.

2: You don't get to decide what the author's intent is. Occam's razor doesn't favor you at all in this. The simplest explanation IS that it would be an illustration meant to be taken seriously by the audience, the same as any panel in the manga, ESPECIALLY when paired with all the parallels it has to the panels of the fight. It is you that must provide more complexity to the situation for you to assume the author's intent is for it not to be taken seriously. And you have yet to provide ANY good evidence for that.

3: Graphs without values that are meant to be taken seriously DO exist. As I've explained above, it happens plenty of times in advertisements and marketing campaigns.
 
Yeah Ayewale it's on you to prove we aren't supposed to take it seriously. Like you would have an argument if this was played of as a joke or gag but it isn't the case at all.
 
Couldn't you also use Garou's attack reflection to get a 2x increase for the feat? The squared punch with Garou seems awfully similar to the attack reflection punch he used on TankTop Master.

Same position and stance.
 
LordGinSama said:
Couldn't you also use Garou's attack reflection to get a 2x increase for the feat? The squared punch with Garou seems awfully similar to the attack reflection punch he used on TankTop Master.

Same position and stance.
Click to expand...
Probably not since he was meant to be exactly copying the serious punch in that moment, rather than any other technique.

By same position, I assume you mean you agree with the thread?
 
Recon1511 said:
Yeah Ayewale it's on you to prove we aren't supposed to take it seriously. Like you would have an argument if this was played of as a joke or gag but it isn't the case at all.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by 'take it seriously'? Do you mean that the author thought it'd be a visual aid or that the author made the graph as specific as possible?
Phoenks said:
You don't get to decide what the author's intent is
Click to expand...
Then not a sentence later, you do exactly that
Phoenks said:
The simplest explanation IS that it would be an illustration meant to be taken seriously by the audience
Click to expand...
You're deciding the author's intent by claiming that the graph is meant to be 100% accurate to the pixel. Unless I missed something and One personally told you that he made the graph that specific, you're interpreting their intent literally just as much as I am.

What do you think you're doing when you're saying it was 'meant' to be serious? You're saying One intended it to be so.

Phoenks said:
I've seen this all the time in multiple marketing campaigns for different brands. Where they will use graphs that show the difference between themselves and another company (in their products effectiveness), to show a difference, without giving values. These are clearly meant to be taken seriously as well.
Click to expand...
It's funny you bring these up because I'm pretty sure they don't make those graphs with the assumption that they can be scrutinized to the pixel; they give a vague idea of "our product is better" than actual specific information. This is a really really good example of a graph that isn't meant to be taken that seriously.
The reason why they don't use specific stats most of the time is because they explicitly don't want you to scrutinize them, it's to be as misleading as possible. This is not a good example to bring up at all.

Could you find me an example of graphs that are meant to be heavily scrutinized that have no detail? Because this advertising example is the opposite.

Phoenks said:
And no, I don't think including numbers is necessary for the purposes of the graph.
Click to expand...
If you're trying to argue the author was making the graph specific enough that we can reasonably pixel-scale it, it's extremely hard to believe they wouldn't include numbers, no. You bring up advertisements but those are data points created to be as vague as possible; they don't include the stats because you're not meant to scrutinize it.
 
Ayewale said:
You're deciding the author's intent by claiming that the graph is meant to be 100% accurate to the pixel. Unless I missed something and One personally told you that he made the graph that specific, you're interpreting their intent literally just as much as I am.
Click to expand...
Ayewale, the panels of the manga, in general, are meant to be taken seriously by default. It's on you to prove that the graph, in specific, isn't.

That argument doesn't work here. Occam's razor says we go with the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that this graph is just as serious of a depiction as every other panel in the manga.

I'm not making a claim that goes against that, you are.

Ayewale said:
It's funny you bring these up because I'm pretty sure they don't make those graphs with the assumption that they can be scrutinized to the pixel; they give a vague idea of "our product is better" than actual specific information.
Click to expand...
No, they don't, lol. Usually they have some actual stats alongside them, such as "this is 20% better" and etc, and the graphs will be used to depict that difference. And yes, it would be "too the pixel," because otherwise, the graph would be useless to depict their statements.

In this graph we're given multiple statements from the narrator that it's exponential growth and by Garou that Saitama is exceeding him.

All we did was calculate that difference between them based on what the graph showed us. We don't need it to tell us that to find that out.

Ayewale said:
This is a really really good example of a graph that isn't meant to be taken that seriously.
Click to expand...
They are almost always meant to be taken seriously. Why the hell would a company produce graphs that are not meant to be taken seriously to an audience? That'd be completely self-destructive and pointless to their goals.

And they are accurate to what the company itself thinks of their product.

In the same fashion, if an author makes this comparison, it would be a serious depiction of how they view Saitama's power relative to Garou's.

And, again, that is the most simple explanation. It requires no further assumptions like you are making.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Phoenks
One-Punch Man: Faster and Stronger!
2
Replies
67
Views
7K
SatellaTheWoE
SatellaTheWoE
OPM Saitama&Garou's Matter Manipulation
Replies
10
Views
1K
Qawsedf234
Qawsedf234
Bernkastelll
  • Locked
Saitama and Garou tier 3 changes
2 3
Replies
102
Views
6K
Bernkastelll
Bernkastelll
Gendolfgg1
  • Locked
Downgrading of Saitama's and Garou's Levels
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
XxZetsuxX
XxZetsuxX
darkphantom9805
  • Locked
Saitama upgrade
2
Replies
52
Views
3K
Planck69
Planck69
Back
Top