Did the person who invented imaginary/complex numbers violate the laws of logic?

I've always been taught that negative numbers can't have roots because it has no meaning because there can't be two numbers with the same sign whose product would be negative. Suddenly, a person comes along and says, "Friend, I defined a number i that is the root of -1," and I, the little one, ask, "What's the difference between that and a circular triangle?" They both don't make mathematical sense, and someone just decided to give one a name, and the other is called a logical contradiction. What's the difference?"

So they lied to you. Complain and get the kindergarten teacher fired. The truth is that a negative number doesn't have a real root, but it does have a complex root (or at least it can be defined that way). They could have taught you in a way that every number is divisible by two, and then in kindergarten you would learn about odd numbers and discover that not every number is that way. Then in first grade you would learn about positive numbers and then in second grade you would discover the negative ones. Then in fourth grade you move from natural numbers to integers and so on. It's good that you go up a grade every now and then, that way you learn more things.

The high school mathematics education system does a lot of damage by saying that instead of explaining things, they simply say, "This is it, now there are fractions/negatives/complexes/the commutative law." This is how delusional opinions emerge, such as the idea that complex numbers are a contradiction.

I don't think so. They are building on the students' intelligence. A student is supposed to understand that things are being explained to him according to his current knowledge. In the world of real numbers, there really is no root for a negative number. There is nothing inaccurate in such a statement. When studying or defining additional numbers, such as complex numbers, it may turn out that in that field there is a root for a negative number. Either there is a root for a negative number or such a root can be defined. If this is just a new definition, then there was no mistake at all before. The definition of numbers has simply been changed.
When I wrote above that he was lied to, it was a cynical criticism of him and not of the education system.

Is it possible to define a number that is the result of division by zero or is it meaningless?

I suppose it's possible.

This is accurate, but when they say it's forbidden!!!! Division by zero and not division by zero has no meaning because it won't respect all sorts of things (this is an introductory explanation of linear, not something complicated), then they create the feeling that mathematics is something that someone simply decided like this and that.

If we moved on to emotions, my arguments would be moot. Each to his own feelings.