>>12113044No Tooker, no. The path from the reals to the complex was long and hard but it was solidified by the realization that the complex numbers were a field with the reals as a subfield with many useful properties that would allow us to use complex math to find real truths. Then it turned out that you could define limits and essentially develop calculus on the complex numbers in a meaningful way that was actually even more useful than real calculus for some problems.
In the case of your numbers
1) You have not bothered solidifying what their relation are with the reals. You just say "Nooooooooooo see this ancient greek definition of reals. My numbers were real all along! REEEEEEEEEEEEEE"
2) You have not bothered developing the analytical theory of your numbers. You just claim that because they are also real, you can do calculus with them in just the same way. This is not necessarily true and is not true.
