>>55
OK, I can see that there's a fundamental confusion of terms at the heart of my prior understanding.
Still, am I to conclude that there's nothing particularly significant in making a geometrical construct as I gave it? We seem to have come up with the concept of i since otherwise we'd just have to stare at the impossibility of "what's the square root of a negative number". The concept of i serves a lot of purpose, and in doing so, seems to have all the validity of the real number system we're based in. So when I extend a geometrical argument, what breaks?
Take this for instance: You have a physical object in the
i-verse, and it's measured linearly in units of i. But this object seems to have real numbers wherever there's an area on it. What's wrong with reaching that sort of conclusion? Did I err in even supposing an i-verse?