Re: The splendor of true

Le 09/03/2025 à 00:54, Richard Hachel a écrit :

A nice contributor pointed out that the imaginary universe based on i, which is an interesting idea to find roots to equations that do not have any, that is to say, roughly, to find the roots of the symmetric curve pointed at $(0,y) in the Hachel system.
 Although physicists use incorrect complex products, since for me, the real part of a complex product is (aa'+bb'), and not (aa'-bb'), they nevertheless manage to find pretty figures.
 So I wondered, what would happen if, instead of working with their equations, we worked with mine.
 Into what strange world would we fall, if, instead of using Z=aa'-bb'+i(ab'+a'b), we used the much more logical and natural equation Z=aa'+bb'+i(ab'+a'b).

Why cannot you consider that *both* make sense? As a matter of fact the first formula leads to the field of complex numbers C and the second one leads to the set of split-complex ("perplex") numbers R(j).
C is a field that extend nicely polynomials algebra and analysis.
R(j) is describing Hyperbolic Geometry, hence Special Relativity
There is another structure R(\epsilon) that is interesting too as it expresses calculus in an algebraic way.
And, again, you are putting stuff together without justifications: your "mirror curve" babbling is basically nonsense, i^4=i^2=-1 is even worse and NEITHER are in any way related to the formulas you prefer: aa'+bb' (i.e. R(j)) instead of aa'-bb' (i.e. C) for the real part of the result.
You are a fractal of misunderstandings and confusions. Even your confusions are confused...