3 ms·

I doubt you'd be able to prove that it's rational, regardless of how it's constructed, since wouldn't that imply that it's also (for example) a real number?

• lupire 2y ago
  That's the point. When you use ambiguous definitions, you get stuck in a morass.
  • BalinKing 2y ago
    Still, I don't see how any such definition could even be called a "definition of √-1" in the first place, since the resulting object wouldn't actually have the properties of √-1.