All in all I am not super satisfied with this post because the math result is not that deep. Ok ok the 4D complex numbers also contain non-invertible numbers, say *P* and *Q*, and these are divisors of zero. That means *PQ = 0* while both *P* and *Q* are non-zero. And just like we did in the case of 3D circular and complex numbers because of the simple property *PQ = 0* all mixed terms in* (P + Q)^n* become *0* and as such:* (P + Q)^n = P^n + Q^n*.

In the space of 4D complex numbers an important feature of the determinant *det(Z)* of a 4D complex number *Z* is that it is non-negative. As such there is not a clear defined layer between the part of the number space where the determinant is positive versus the negative part. During the writing of this post it dawned on me that Gaussian integers in the 4D complex space always have a non-zero determinant. As such the inverse of such a Gaussian exists although often this is not a Gaussian integer just like the inverse of say the number 5 is not an integer. A completely unexpected finding is that the 4D complex fractions form a field…

That made me laugh because the professional math professors always rejected higher dimensional complex numbers because they are not a field. For some strange reason math professors always accept or embrace stuff that forms a field while they go bonkers & beserk when some set or group or ring is not a field. This is a strange behavior because the counter examples that I found against Fermat his last theorem are only there because 3D and 4D numbers are not a field: there are always non zero numbers that you cannot invert.

As such a lot of math professors are often busy to make so called **field extensions** of the rational numbers. And oh oh oh that is just soo important and our perfumed princes ride high on that kind of stuff. And now those nasty 4D complex numbers from those unemployed plebs form a **field too**…

I had to smile softly because 150 years have gone since the last 4D field was discovered, that is known as the quaternions, and now there is that 4D field of rationals that are embedded into something the cheap plebs name ‘4D complex numbers’? How shall the professional math professors react on this because it is at the root of their own behavior over decades & centuries of time?

Do not worry my dear reader: They will stay the overpaid perfumed princes as they are. Field or no field, perfumed princes are not known to act as adult people.

After having said that, this post is only five pictures long all of the ususal size of 550×775 pixels. For myself speaking I like the situation on the 3D numbers more because there you can easily craft an infinite amount of counter examples against the last theorem of Fermat.

Ok, here we go:

Yes I have to smile softly: all this hysteria from overpaid math professors about stuff being a field or not. And now we are likely into a situation where the 4D complex numbers are not a field but the space of 4D complex rationals is a field…

Will the math professors act as adults? Of course not.

Ok, let’s end this post because you just like me will always have other things to do in the short time that we have on this pale blue dot known as planet earth. Till updates.