Alex Victory (fodder suggsverse) vs TEAM

LI QIYE BAI MENG HAO LUCIFER MICHEAL HADOU GODS BEYONDER MOLECULE MAN CCC GILGAMESH MOON CELL BB FEATHERINE WILLARD BATTLER BEATRICE LAMBELDELTA BERNCASTRL MADOKA THE ENDLESS COSMIC ARMOR SUPERMAN MANDRAKK CREATOR NANASHI EOS NAOFUMI EOS RIMURU

VS ALEX VICTORY FROM SUGGSVERSE

any from team solos

The characters that don't come from the verse with "fodder" in its name wins

alex solos with minimum diff

Alex Victory?

Too Fodder

@antti: @seagod:

XD

CCC GILGAMESH MOON CELL BB literal fodder got no business being included hereh

EOS NAOFUMI EOS RIMURU both fodder only 2-c and 2b tier while Alex is 1-A to 0 tier so he causally blinks the two from existence

@sergeantmuscle: again any of team solos in power and as characters.

but again Gan solos Sucksverse

Thing solos

You are talking out of butt hurt. Stop pretending a verse is weak just because you're salty they stomp your favorite characters.

@sergeantmuscle: if I hated every verse that beats my favorite characters then I'd hate most action series as a lot of my favorite characters are just normal humans with no skills or powers.

Well one think is for sure. you are definitely salty.

@sergeantmuscle: nah. Gan just solos

Is there any point to making Suggsverse threads? They all win because the entire point of the verse is to win vs battles.

A lot of people from the team solo. Featherine stomps and rewrites Alex Victory's power set, Battler and Beatrice send some theory goats to stomp him in raw AP, but not before Willard solos him intellectually, Lamb and Bern then get Beatrice to revive him so they can use him in the next game. Li Qiye, Senior Bai, Meng Hao all laugh their asses off to how easy it is for them to counter Alex due to their transdual nature and hax. Lucifer sips some wine from the sidelines while Michael chills in the Silver City since he doesn't come for fodders. In the end, everyone gets invited to Lucifer's bar for a good drink about how easy it was to stomp this fodder.

Suggsverse is not that impressive if you actually deduce or scale it logically. A lot of statements are contridicted hence can be thought of as hyperboles.

I mean technically suggsverse is so contradictory and stupid its feats are comparable to meaningless word salad

"Destroyed multiple omniverses","4 times baseline omnipotent"-This bullshit is the same as saying "my character can do hsudkeidn and jsisjehoebe"

@lmaolmaolmao: yeah Suggsverse omniverse has a different definition but they do define it

The Omniverse : The Omniverse is the collection of It is the collection of infinite amount of infinite Universes, Metaverses, Teraverses, Petaverses, Exaverses, and Zettaverses; with an higher reality to the point where they see the latter as fiction.

Translation: if you take the author statements at face value he would ROFL-stomp the list blindfolded

And we can't take his statements at face value since he contridicts himself so many times. Like higher realms containing physics and dimensions when the lower realm supposedly "transcend" them. Or what about changing despite being a changeless entity? We have to ignore the statement Suggs makes becauseof the contridictions that arise out of it, if there were no contridictions, Suggsverse would actually be decently powerful. He incorporates some very unqiue names and powers, sadly it was executed horribly.

Doesn't change the fact that majority of it is still meaningless gibberish.Infinity x Infinity is still aleph null.So the Omniverse would come out to be the size of a default multiverse

Lol so he basically defined a multiverse but he had to make it look more impressive.

More like tried to be impressive but forgot to do his research

I understand what Suggs is trying to do with his writing, I understand that he’s trying to make something bigger then fiction has done by trying to interpret terms like omnipotence and such but I just think he doesn’t really understand how contradictory the writing can be and how certain things he writes can’t be implemented into vs. battles. He tries to bring in his own sort of logic but the problem is if his logic doesn’t makes sense to us it can’t really be used. You can break the logic of physics but not the logics of logic unless you’re omnipotent.

Like for instance he apparently says beyond omnipotents is a thing even though omnipotent already means infinitely powerful, like he can say it but doesn’t make sense since it would be contradictory to say that something is stronger then omnipotence because if something is stronger it immediately means that the person omnipotent isn’t which means the person stronger then omnipotent isn’t stronger then true omnipotence. Omnipotence itself is already sort of contradictory adding more complications doesn’t help make it make any sense.

@kidolio: suggs lacks an understanding of basic logic and why it cannot be broken.

@lmaolmao: What he’s trying to do is make new concepts and ideas that go beyond what we can understand but I think because it doesn’t really make sense most people we don’t get what he’s trying to say.

I get that he’s trying to be super creative but at some point it just sort of becomes giberesh with really no one but the author understanding.

it isn't

and there is no infinity x infinity. and no not all infinite are equal

what is an complex multiverse? an infinite number universes?

terraverse is an infinite number of complex multiverse. I'm not multiplying the number universes. but the number of multiverse which is 1.

a single complex multiverse contains 1 set of infinity.

a terraverse contains and infinity set of infinity .

by his logic and infinite multiverse shouldn't bigger than a single infinite universe. cuz infinite X infinite = infinite

'

no he defined something much larger Anaverageguy123 is just idiot who think an infinite multiverse = infinite universe

@Sergeantmuscle: Actually an infinite universe is just as big as a multiverse mostly because we all assume that inside the multiverse it holds an infinite amount of finite universe.

Like assume in the multiverse it holds an infinite amount of our universe.

@kidolio: No it wouldn't be the same size part of the reason why a Multiverse busting feats are impressive is because these universes are divided by different time spaces.

This is why Zeno from Dragon Ball Z is considered universal plus is because the 12 universes he destroyed still shared the same time space.

Destroying a single Universe even if infinite is still just a single timeline. Granted a really large one.

As opposed to being able to destroy an infinite amount of finite timelines or SV case an infinite amount of infinite timelines..

Which is basically to say destroying 1 infinite timeline = destroying an infinite number of infinite timelines.

Math does not agree with you.You can cry all you want and infinity x infinity is still aleph null

Infinity x infinity x infinity..... Any finite number of times is still aleph null.Infinities don't stack

@lmaolmaolmao: *sigh* do you not understand how sets work?

You're right in the sense that yeah if you have an infinite number of universes X Infinity would still be an infinite number of universes.

But you have to understand that I am not multiplying the mere amount of universes.

A complex Multiverse is a single set of an infinite number of universes.

Two complex multiverses are now two sets of an infinite number of universes

What I am doing is not multiplying the universes I'm multiplying the sets.

Yes if you had a bag full of infinite Marbles and I multiplied the number of marbles in the bag it wouldn't make any difference but if someone came along and multiply the number of bags you have it would actually make a significant change

Any of the Hadou God's, True form Featherine and Voyagers stomp, whilst everyone else chills and watches on the sidelines.

Doesn't change anything.A big set containing all those multiplied sets would still have aleph null amount of total universes

You are essentially doing the same thing under different wording.

A multiverse contains a set of infinite universes.

Two multiverses contain two sets of infinite universes or infinity x infinity...which is not a bigger infinity.

I'm surprise you are trying to lecture @lmaolmaolmao on set theory like how you were trying to teach me and @mymom about dimensions and multiversal theory when we are much well read than you. Heck, you even said he (mymom) misinterpreted dimensions in physics when he literally quoted a whole experiment to prove the existence of dimensions in physics are small comapct extra-dimensions not the "high levels of existence that view infinite universes as atoms" BS fiction likes to pretend it is.

Yeah, Suggs made the mistake most people make when they think infinite multiverses > 1 infinite multiverse even if the math tells us infinity x infinity =/= higher infinity, its one of the building blocks of set theory and transfinities.

@Sergeantmuscle: No its impressive because a multiverse is usually bigger then a universe and blowing up something bigger is better.

And what do you mean a universe has one timeline, you don’t know what’s in that universe. Also even if it was a single one it’s still an infinite one it’s not just a little bigger.

And again destroying an infinite amount of one universe still equals and infinite amount of multiverse because infinity plus infinity is still infinity.

I feel like you don’t understand how big infinity is.

1) Strawman: No one said high infinities don't exist, we (and set theorist) simply don't agree with you on how they are attained.

2) "Complex multiverse" is weightless, what counts as "complex" per say?

3) You are essentially doing the same thing under reworing it. A multiverse is a set of universes, adding more multiverses is the same as adding more universes. Its like me adding 5 marbles to a bag of 5 marbles, its the same as me essentially bringing another bag of five marbles to the original set: the only difference is the bag which doesn't have an equalivent for multiverses.

4) And that is my point, which is supported. Have you heard of a Type I multiverse? I suppose not, since that is refered to as the extention of our universes, aka if it was infinite. And that's a multiverse model so...I guess infinite universe = multiverse is suddenly more plausible when Tegmark is backing us up.

@lmaolmaolmao: "You are essentially doing the same thing under different wording.

A multiverse contains a set of infinite universes.

Two multiverses contain two sets of infinite universes or infinity x infinity...which is not a bigger infinity."

No. I am not multiplying Infinity by Infinity.

1 set of Infinity is still single set.

2 set of Infinity is 2 .

And you can go even further say you store your infinite number bags containing or infinite number of marbles. Building do you multiply that building by Infinity.

And then the sets will increase.

I'm not sure how to explain this.

But hey how exactly do you transcends aleph null universes?

This is just another bait thread where one guy aka SergeantMuscle will continue to embarrassing himself not understading how concept of infinity works without properly defining infinity thinking infinity x infinity = higher infinity which already makes him crazy enough and where Suggs hilariously failed so.

@sergeantmuscle: To attain higher alephs either directly mention them or use some qualitative change.I am not the most knowledgeable on this stuff,but do know that higher alephs are very hard to attain.For example a line only has an aleph 1 number of points.

You can also pull a qualitative change like for example A 3rd dimensional object is always larger than a 2 dimensional object regardless of how many infinities you multiply the 2D object with.

@kidolio: "No its impressive because a multiverse is usually bigger then a universe and blowing up something bigger is better.

And what do you mean a universe has one timeline, you don’t know what’s in that universe. Also even if it was a single one it’s still an infinite one it’s not just a little bigger."

I never said it was just a little bigger. But the characters abilities not transcending any timelines.

"I feel like you don’t understand how big infinity is."

It's never-ending obviously

@lmaolmaolmao: "To attain higher alephs either directly mention them or use some qualitative change.I am not the most knowledgeable on this stuff,but do know that higher alephs are very hard to attain.For example a line only has an aleph 1 number of points.

You can also pull a qualitative change like for example A 3rd dimensional object is always larger than a 2 dimensional object regardless of how many infinities you multiply the 2D object with."

I don't think you're familiar with it after all if that was all that would take then Suggsverse already would be a lot higher than they're down playing it.

Especially if it's merely transcending temporal dimensions. Like the ones presented in M Theory

@Sergeantmuscle: Okay so you have a weird concept of infinity. Let me try and simplify it with ladders.

Let’s say you have 3 infinite ladders next to each other and you combine 2 of them. Now which one is longer the 2 that combined or the the one that didn’t?

@kidolio: no I get it if you add all three latters together the amount won't change distance will not change because three NeverEnding ladders fuse into one will still be a never-ending ladder.

My argument is that you're not transcending time and space in a temporal sense.

The easiest way I could explain this to you is that a 4Dcharacter is confined to a single ladder were 5D character can move and affects to others.

@ServeantMuscle: What character are you talking about?

Then this shouldn’t be so hard to understand 2 bags with an infinite amount of marble will be as much as 1 bag with infinite marbles. It doesn’t matter that there are two bags with an infinite number in each.