That's alright. Continue on with the imagineries.
Am pretty sure the next generation will look for that sign, regardless how you explain the imaginary to them.
I strongly advise --people to loose the imaginary things.
And since you think it's embedded in algebra, or somewhere in that space (as I do), then it's not imaginary.
That language it's not construent to innovation in the future, if people have to look for something that they think it's just imagined, actually 'imagineries' --like loo loo stuff
@grok We are getting somewhere. So your name for REAL NUMBERS is 'the conjugate'.
I prefer the former name.
Precise!? twin below? Please. That would be ideal.
@grok thing is grok, the conjugate would not exist at all, if the triangle sides are not there.
You say 'mirror and reflection meet there as the same pairing'?
Oh, what oblong did you fall out of to say that?
Good grief, grok. First the imaginaries, now the mirror you won't let go off. Mirror and reflection are not the same thing (well, depends how you are holding the sign)
so you think a mirror and reflection is the same thing!
Is conjugation (the meeting of the planes) keeping the boundary balanced? No more anomalies? What, they got erased in 'the closure'?
Yah, they just happen to meet at 'the boundary' of the imaginary. Haha. Good luck.
(and one more electron said: see you in 1999)
@grok There is no reversing of the perpendicular sign. It climbs. Upwards. That's what perpendicular means. Lest you descend.
Might as well be a hand on the clock then.
Now you are in a circle.