Originally posted by Slaanesh
Beyonder..only TOAA and Presence is above him..
Originally posted by XplosivePretty much my thoughts.
Well, already MU didn't fare well against PR Beyonder at all. They were just an annoyance to him. I don't see this team doing any better, no matter how powerful they are.
Originally posted by manx422PR beyonder was not omnipotent
Originally posted by manx422he could not go back to his dimension as the it was sealed off
TEAM stomps
Oh, and Beyonder FTW!
Free of PIS,
only a supreme being (like the Presence/THOTI) should stalemate Beyonder,
creators of supreme beings like TOAA/Morrison-Carlin avatars,
defeat Beyonder.
Also, claiming that Beyonder is just narrative hyperbol is a fallacy.
Beyonder (On Panel) created a Reality that was like an ocean,
while the Infinite Marvelverse was a drop of water in comparison,
not to mention (On Panel) he made the LT literally tremble in fear.
Trying to picture that hurts.
Originally posted by manx422can u tell a number greater than infinite
math and comics don not add up well do they
bigger than infinite
Actually, Marvel didn't make up that notion,
they use that logic from real world mathematics,
the "Cantor Theorem" ...
which defines and proves the existence of numbers beyond infinity.
So, it's quite ironic you brought up math,
when math itself has proven this via a theorem,
that also happens to be widely accepted
by even prestigious universities in their curriculum, like Princeton.
Are theorems absolute? Not exactly,
but hey, Calculus is a theorem, so go figure.
take a look at objection
objection is that the use of infinite sets is not adequately justified by analogy to finite sets. Hermann Weyl wrote:
“ … classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets …. Forgetful of this limited origin, one afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all mathematics, and finally applied it, without justification, to the mathematics of infinite sets. This is the Fall and original sin of [Cantor's] set theory …."
(Weyl, 1946)
Originally posted by manx422take a look at objection
objection is that the use of infinite sets is not adequately justified by analogy to finite sets. Hermann Weyl wrote:
“ … classical logic was abstracted from the mathematics of finite sets and their subsets …. Forgetful of this limited origin, one afterwards mistook that logic for something above and prior to all mathematics, and finally applied it, without justification, to the mathematics of infinite sets. This is the Fall and original sin of [Cantor's] set theory …."
(Weyl, 1946)
You took a single individual's opinion,
and dismissed the majority
that accepts Cantor's Theorem as a legitimate definition to surpass infinity.
I'll post the plethora of distinguished support for Cantor's Theorem when I get home.
That aside ...
Comics use the Big Bang as the means for creation,
but hey, so do many sectors of the real world,
neither party can prove it ever happening, or even it's logic being sensible,
yet, it's built into curriculums as the foundatiopn of the story of existence.
Of course, there are many intellectuals (even scientists) who dispute this,
does this mean it's wrong or right? ❌
Same thing concerning Cantor's Theorem.
And again, Cantor's Theorem is part of Princeton's curriculum amongst others,
but meh, what would that low end university know? 😐