I got 1/3 through this article and the silliness made me stop. There was absolutely nothing controversial about imaginary and complex numbers in the Victorian e

I got 1/3 through this article and the silliness made me stop. There was absolutely nothing controversial about imaginary and complex numbers in the Victorian era. The unprovability of Euclid's parallel postulate had a tremendous impact on mathematics and logic; Euclid was no longer regarded as a perfect model. The author's understanding of the etymology of algebra is absurd. The 'restoration and reduction' it refers to is setting a broken bone--moving back and forth from one side of the equation to the other like a doctor setting a bone--and not shrinking in size as the author seems to think. With so many untrue premises I have no interest in the author's conclusion.