It is more complex

In my estimation the complexity of animating in the way that I have chosen is as complex as the math of physical systems and likely more complex, as I am required to model the process of openGL and "C" programming and handle compilation, documentation with Doxygen, conversion to La^Tex, manage SVN, deal with SSH, wiki, web pages, video sequencing, libraries, dependencies, shell debug, and many other things in order to achieve a realistic and functional result.

In the process I must deal with coordinate and space transforms in 4 dimensions, surface changes, frequency analysis, transparency, vertexes, normals, volumes, DNA mechanics, genotype relationships, model formats, matrices, physics of objects, and visual projection in space that correlates to shadows and perspective.

This does not even touch on the aspect of interface to UDP, USB, cameras, and my nano-force microscope/manipulator. It does not help that the language and the math are poor imitations of what they could be and are products of successive approximation toward a goal of isolating the educated from the poor.

It is still bothering me that someone has defined -1*-1=1 and I can't even come up with one instance that would lead me to make such a weird definition. Real world associations to area and volume and surfaces are valid in computation, however I do wonder who decided that particular peculiarity and I am going to Google and look into wiki to find out when that was assumed, as it obviously cannot be proven.

I suppose it was the 1500's when it was accepted, because it could be used in a foolish way to get roots of quadratics, so Gerolamo Cardano's students were to blame for this. I know it seems odd, but you cannot define math in such a way that it gets indeterminate results and then later clarify them in some different way. I see that the phase of an AC cycle is assumed to be an imaginary number. In that case it is dubious that it has anything to do with sqrt(-1). By doing this it has lead to many different misinterpretations. I see there are even n-dimensional imaginaries and the odd thing is that how they have devised the methods is only a shadow of the real complexity. You cannot possibly come to a rational solution without dealing with all the aspects of a system. No wonder people can be at odds constantly, the logic and math they use is weak at best, and bizarre at worst.