Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!pasdenom.info!from-devjntp
Message-ID: <xWO1K6okCp6JpmP162tVqFnNXYs@jntp>
JNTP-Route: nemoweb.net
JNTP-DataType: Article
Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?y=3Df=28x=29=3D=28x=C2=B2=29=C2=B2+=32x=C2=B2+=33?=
References: <T2C1NQLCMTMrX0AmS8Wgalc3e6Q@jntp> <vo31ot$33ac7$1@dont-email.me> <VksLz1xs6V0ip19khRHTzvN5p5s@jntp>
 <vo37el$345tv$1@dont-email.me> <LtAXqtivksQTgQZmLOJVBADxe1g@jntp> <vo3jrp$36b8t$1@dont-email.me>
 <lU-XIi1ODNGVJB1aUvT7c7yeABs@jntp> <vo51n9$2g7s$1@news.muc.de>
Newsgroups: sci.math
JNTP-HashClient: QpXcAcCvVyGDOS16fxy63WN91yc
JNTP-ThreadID: 8bMoLrlgzaOHKbuJHn32y6ourh0
JNTP-Uri: https://www.nemoweb.net/?DataID=xWO1K6okCp6JpmP162tVqFnNXYs@jntp
User-Agent: Nemo/1.0
JNTP-OriginServer: nemoweb.net
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 25 13:48:41 +0000
Organization: Nemoweb
JNTP-Browser: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/132.0.0.0 Safari/537.36
Injection-Info: nemoweb.net; posting-host="0622b338f00df6c7e122ad5f6ee90645acf995aa"; logging-data="2025-02-07T13:48:41Z/9200590"; posting-account="4@nemoweb.net"; mail-complaints-to="julien.arlandis@gmail.com"
JNTP-ProtocolVersion: 0.21.1
JNTP-Server: PhpNemoServer/0.94.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-JNTP-JsonNewsGateway: 0.96
From: Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr>
Bytes: 1927
Lines: 10

Le 07/02/2025 à 14:27, Alan Mackenzie a écrit :
> No, such a "new approach" to complex numbers is not possible.  You can
> define what you like, but you are not free to call that "complex numbers"
> unless it conforms to actual complex number theory.  You seem to be
> ignorant of all mathematics, so you are not in a position to say what is
> possible, and what not.
> 

 :))

R.H.