> *we can define mathematical objects for every gap (impossibility), but most of...

		JumpCrisscross on April 10, 2023 \| parent \| context \| favorite \| on: Why don't we define “imaginary” numbers for every ... > we can define mathematical objects for every gap (impossibility), but most of them will turn out to be inconsistent with our existing mathematical objects Is the short answer it's not parsimonious or useful?