On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 5:18:10 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> torsdag 16 juni 2022 kl. 20:30:16 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > it does not. It is named imaginary by math because
> > the i formula has no solutions... Or math is going
> > to have to take it back and rename it.
> >
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> it is named that for historical reasons, nothing else
Suppose we consider that:
- 1 + 1 = 0
as a fundamental form. This balance forms the geometrical line. Two exactly opposed rays balance each other. Simply upping this to three rays:
- 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
is all that is needed to arrive at the complex plane, though the format is new to humanity. '*' is obviously a new sign, and In P3 the signs take different meaning than in P2. In P2 the signs are modulo two behaved. In P3 they are modulo three behaved. In this way the real value no longer has fundamental status. Indeed the littlest sibling P1 has been overlooked and its geometry as carrying time correspondence is badly needed. That we have a natural basis here in the entire family:
P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
and that this natural product is free standing as each is individuated from its siblings, yet all react and operate via the same rules yet in their own space and place: here is where physical correspondence can be found. Indeed further study will expose a natural breakpoint
P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
and so emergent spacetime can be had from pure mathematics. Best of all this includes unidirectional time.
Tell me, sir; which is more fundamental: the ray, or the line?
Clearly it is the ray, sir.
Get going with it. You'll find the product so easily with no ambiguity. We have general dimensional algebra. We have algebraic geometry. It comes from polysign numbers.

söndag 19 juni 2022 kl. 14:57:05 UTC+2 skrev timba...@gmail.com:
> On Friday, June 17, 2022 at 5:18:10 AM UTC-4, zelos...@gmail.com wrote:
> > torsdag 16 juni 2022 kl. 20:30:16 UTC+2 skrev mitchr...@gmail.com:
> > > it does not. It is named imaginary by math because
> > > the i formula has no solutions... Or math is going
> > > to have to take it back and rename it.
> > >
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > it is named that for historical reasons, nothing else
> Suppose we consider that:
> - 1 + 1 = 0
> as a fundamental form. This balance forms the geometrical line. Two exactly opposed rays balance each other. Simply upping this to three rays:
> - 1 + 1 * 1 = 0
> is all that is needed to arrive at the complex plane, though the format is new to humanity. '*' is obviously a new sign, and In P3 the signs take different meaning than in P2. In P2 the signs are modulo two behaved. In P3 they are modulo three behaved. In this way the real value no longer has fundamental status. Indeed the littlest sibling P1 has been overlooked and its geometry as carrying time correspondence is badly needed. That we have a natural basis here in the entire family:
> P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6
> and that this natural product is free standing as each is individuated from its siblings, yet all react and operate via the same rules yet in their own space and place: here is where physical correspondence can be found. Indeed further study will expose a natural breakpoint
> P1 P2 P3 | P4 P5 P6 ...
> and so emergent spacetime can be had from pure mathematics. Best of all this includes unidirectional time.
> Tell me, sir; which is more fundamental: the ray, or the line?
> Clearly it is the ray, sir.
> Get going with it. You'll find the product so easily with no ambiguity. We have general dimensional algebra. We have algebraic geometry. It comes from polysign numbers.

You should write (-1)+1+(*1)=0 if you want to do it to make it clearest.

And your idea is nothing new, it is equivalent with
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenstein_integer

Please educate yourself