In Heir to the Stars, True Omnipotence is what it is. However, there are times when characters step beyond the necessity of Omnipotence, or when you see Omnipotent Supreme Beings fall. The question becomes how are they Omnipotent?

Since Omnipotence represents true inconceivability in formal logic, even though Omnipotence surpasses logic, the actualities regarding Omnipotence itself fail to conceive attributes of victory or defeat since those are formal finite concepts. And due to the limitations of formalness, even this statement itself fails to capture the conception of Omnipotence being surpassed.

• Any possibility or actuality (denotation, meaning, and reference) of the "concept" of victory or defeat just becomes a stepping stone out of names, terms, and essence. Therefore it is absolutely impossible to formalize the actions revolving Omnipotence.

No formal or informal name, term, or essence (including their extensions and intensions) is attributed to the actus purus of Omnipotence. Any attempts at explaining how something exists beyond Omnipotence are retroactively nullified; by placing something or a statement "beyond" or "outside" Omnipotence, you are essentially just attaching to an aspect of Omnipotence. The very fact that the statement holds properties or is being thought/defined at all places it inside Omnipotence, and Omnipotence will supersede any explanation or excuse of "why". All formal and informal permutations of logic possible and impossible are a mere aspect of Omnipotence, and Omnipotence also contains a boundless hierarchy of copies of itself. By necessity, Omnipotence is so indescribable that saying "it's indescribable" cannot describe it. Because of this, the formal logic and propositional logic of victory and defeat does not apply to Omnipotence in the same sense human language can comprehend since Omnipotence surpasses all propositional formulas of victory and defeat that is true under any possible valuation of its propositional variables.

"Connotation" branches into a mixture of different meanings. These could include the contrast of a word or phrase with its primary, literal meaning (known as a denotation), with what that word or phrase specifically denotes. The connotation essentially relates to how anything may be associated with a word or phrase; for example, an implied value, judgment, or feelings.

The meaning of a word can be thought of as the bond between the idea the word means and the physical form of the word.

Without intension of some sort, a word has no meaning. Such terms may be suggestive, but a term can be suggestive without being meaningful. Such terms, it may be argued, are always intensional since they connote the property 'meaningless term', but this is only an apparent paradox and does not constitute a counterexample to the claim that without intension a word has no meaning. Part of its intension is that it has no extension. Intension is analogous to the signified in the Saussurean system, extension to the referent.

In linguistics and philosophy, the denotation of an expression is its literal meaning. Denotation is contrasted with other aspects of meaning including connotation. Similarly, an expression's denotation is separate from pragmatic inferences it may trigger.

Denotation plays a major role in several fields. Within philosophy of language, denotation is studied as an important aspect of meaning. In mathematics and computer science, assignments of denotations are assigned to expressions are a crucial step in defining interpreted formal languages. The main task of formal semantics is to reverse engineer the computational system that assigns denotations to expressions of natural languages.

In natural language semantics, denotations are conceived of as the outputs of the semantic component of the grammar. Phrases also have denotations which are computed according to the principle of compositionality. Depending on one's particular theory of semantics, denotations may be identified either with terms' extensions, intensions, or other structures such as context change potentials.

• When uttered in discourse, expressions may convey other associations that are not computed by the grammar and thus are not part of its denotation.

In any of several fields of study that treat the use of signs — for example, in linguistics, logic, mathematics, semantics, semiotics, and philosophy of language — the extension of a concept, idea, or sign consists of the things to which it applies, in contrast with its comprehension or intension, which consists very roughly of the ideas, properties, or corresponding signs that are implied or suggested by the concept in question.

In philosophical semantics or the philosophy of language, the 'extension' of a concept or expression is the set of things it extends to, or applies to, if it is the sort of concept or expression that a single object by itself can satisfy. Concepts and expressions of this sort are monadic or "one-place" concepts and expressions.

• So the extension of the word "dog" is the set of all (past, present, and future) dogs in the world: the set includes Fido, Rover, Lassie, Rex, and so on. The extension of the phrase "heirtothestars.com reader" includes each person who has ever read heirtothestars.com, including you.

The extension of a whole statement, as opposed to a word or phrase, is defined as its truth value. So the extension of "Omnipotence is unbeatable" is the logical value 'true', since Omnipotence is the pinnacle of power.

In Suggsverse, victory and defeat and their 'extensions' of a concept or expression is the essence it extends to, or apply to are merely formal concepts within philosophical semantics, philosophy of language, and an Omniversal connotation that is superseded by suggslogic, while allowing Omnipotence to maintain its absolute perfection and stillness.