Its a given that i is the square root of -1.
Is there an imaginary number that describes what happens
when the absolute value of x=-1?
Absolute Value, by it’s definition, does not allow such a solution. Simplified, it in practice means ‘forget about the sign’. The true geometric definition is ‘indicate the distance from the origin irregardless of direction’. In either case, you can see that no absolute value will yield a negative number.
What Waverly said.
But hey, if like i, if you can come up with a definition for it that makes other calcluations simpler or helps to describe real world events, then more power to ya.
“irregardless” would be like “regardless” but on the imaginary axis? Is that what the initial “i” means? That it is an imaginary word? 
I’m aware that ‘irregardless’ is a non-standard blend of irrespective and regardless. Nevertheless [how do you like that word?], It does appear in most dictionaries, and I find it usefully descriptive. Besides, it makes me sound like I know what I’m talking about… now bite me, nitpicker
Yup. Now when you hear people talk about how complex the english language is, you will know what they really mean.
Logically, irregardless means with regard to or dependent upon, just the opposite of the meaning you intended. Well, that’s OK, I guess. We have inflammable, which logically means not capable of being flamed, just the opposite of what it does mean. Buf if you want to be flamed, this is not the proper forum.
Even the word “regardless” in the context used here as colloquial. The proper adjective is “irrespective.”
If by ‘logically’ you mean the normal convention of simply modifying the root with the prefix, then you are correct. If you mean to say that I unwittingly reversed my meaning, then you are wrong. From Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary:
ir•re•gard•less ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
Clearly the word has the intended meaning, irregardless of normal conventions. Please provide a cite for your assertion that the ‘regardless’ is a colloquialism.
Is this thread about “Irregardless”, or about Imaginary Numbers?
Right now it sure seems like it’s about “irregardless”, which I hate.
But what Waverly said about absolute values is true–they can’t ever be less than zero.