3B1B is also informative, especially in explaining why C was not extended using triplets but 4-tuples were needed: https://youtu.be/d4EgbgTm0Bg https://youtu.be

3B1B is also informative, especially in explaining why C was not extended using triplets but 4-tuples were needed: https://youtu.be/d4EgbgTm0Bg https://youtu.be/d4EgbgTm0Bg. Here’s a Math SE answer on why: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1784166/why-are-there-no-triernions-3-dimensional-analogue-of-complex-numbers-quate/1784171 https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1784166/why-are-the..., here’s a more ELI5 discussion: https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/9urjyx/why_there_is_no_complex_numbers_in_3_dimension/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/9urjyx/why_there_is_n.... I especially like this very intuitive comment in that thread : https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/9urjyx/comment/e96j4lg/ https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/9urjyx/comment/e96j4l... Left as an exercise to reader: prove that no such n-tuples exist for n>4.