> If VN had in mind i-the-imaginary-square-root-of-minus-one (it does
> occur in
> general, non-technical writing, e.g., Einstein¹s own popular
> introductions
> to Relativity), then the statement is false. Since i-squared is
minus 1,
> i¹s-square-roots cannot be +-or-minus-i. If I haven¹t lost you,
getting
> the
> FOUR square-roots-of-(i-the-square-root-of-minus-one) means
solving the
> quadratic equation x^4 + 1 = 0;
> using EULER¹s MOST beautiful & mysterious formula e^(i*pi) =
-1, we
> obtain
> x = +/- 1/(2^(1/2)(cos pi/4 +/- i*sin pi/4).
Off-topic, but we're all in favor of the precision of poetry,
so I'll mention that there are only two square roots of i, namely
+/- (1/2^(1/2) + 1/2^(1/2) * i), or if you prefer,
+/- (cos pi/4 + i*sin pi/4). The other two numbers you had
in mind are square roots of -i.
I agree with you about the beauty of Euler's formula, though as
a refutation of Nabokov's equation of math(s) with "commonsense",
I'd suggest later results (that you no doubt understand better
than I do), such as Cantor's proof of different infinite
cardinals, or the Banach-Tarski theorem, or of course Goedel's
theorem.
To Jansy: I meant to mention this before, but waxwings aren't
particularly related to cardinals. (They're in the same suborder
of "songbirds", but this enormous group also contains larks,
nightingales, both kinds of robins, sparrows, and even some
South American birds.) The two species have similar pointed
crests, though.