>>740670
Umm... scuse me, but √xy = √x√y. The principal square root is a group homomorphism under multiplication.

>Using things defined for Reals with Imaginary numbers the same way
HERP DERP YOU SO SMURT OP, NEXT THING YOU'LL PROVE 1=2 BY DIVIDING BY ZERO

>>740725
>thinking you can't use them the same way in this case

Hint: this exact same fallacy can be made strictly in the reals.

>>740719
uh huh. So according to you, the following proof is completely valid:

-1=i * i = √(-1) * √(-1) = √(-1 * -1) = √1 = 1

Drop the algebra, pick up the complex analysis.

>>740757
√1 = -1, you jackass.

It's the same thing as in the reals. You can make the same fallacy in them too.

2=√4=-2

The complex numbers behave by the same rules as the real numbers. It's just that fallacies using them can be more obscure. All of these fallacies arise from the fact that the square root is not a function. Usually when dealing with it, the desired result is the principal square root, but that is not always the case. Sometimes it is the negation of the principal square root. With some diligence of determining which is needed with both real numbers and complex numbers can be treated in the exact same manner under the square root.

magic, dumbass

Only during a moon alignment

>>740952
If you were Iron man.

>>740972
>>740972
>>740972
>>740972

>>740972

Burn to death.

Magic, brah.

Just leave forever!

needs moar sage

And two forty year-old clowns sung a song about.

magic everywhere in this bitch

It's just there in the air.

fuckin magnets

OH GOD THE MAGNETS

yes

fire, water, air and dirt

i do
im not telling though