>>49
i2=-1 is a straightforward geometric operation on the imaginary Cartesian plane as I gave it. Why is such an operation invalid?
Remember, the plane is defined only by two axes, and each axis is defined as a +/- rational range of i. This naturally results in the minimum unit of a line (a dimension 1 number). But it also results in another unit of dimension 2. Are we supposed to ignore areas on the Cartesian plane? We used those things in Calculus all the time with no such basic conflict.
Sorry, but I can't see where I've gone wrong with this construction. If i is truly just an imaginary form of a number line, then all other constructions of it should behave in the same way.