>>45
It's not a negative area. It's just an area on the imaginary Cartesian plane. Areas have a dimensionality of 2. The Cartesian plane model assigns numbers to a dimensionality of 1. Since those numbers are based upon i, and the areas are real, then it only stands to reason that that relation could mean that imaginary numbers have a dimensionality of -1.
As for linear algebra, my formal math education stopped before that point. So I follow along with discussions of algebra, the calculus, and statistics, but little beyond that range.
As for your use of the "complex plane" ... you seem to be using another model other than the imaginary Cartesian one I used. I'm not talking about xi+y. I'm talking about a Cartesian plane where BOTH axes are based upon i. In the real world, the Cartesian plane used BOTH axes as real numbers, so that seemed a valid move. And then I discovered that on such a plane, real numbers became AREAS, compared to the imaginary ones which were LINES.
Unless you can point out how forming a Cartesian plane with imaginary numbers along BOTH axes is somehow invalid, I think my point stands about the relation I found.