You know what, I can kind of see the argument for imaginary numbers being reasonable. Quazie's remarks about personal balances being broken is still a concern, and if it does actually go through it could be a little inconvenient.
天火狐 On 19 June 2017 at 21:25, V.J Rada <vijar...@gmail.com> wrote: > No you don't. Imaginary numbers aren't included in any ordinary definition > of amount. > > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 10:48 AM, CuddleBeam <cuddleb...@googlemail.com> > wrote: > >> Hrmmmm >> >> I pay Agora i (imaginary unit) shinies. >> > >
