It strikes me as more analogous to using j = sqrt(-1) so that it doesn't conflict with current: it works fine, but you're never going to get everyone to do it because people want the papers to stay consistent.
Actually, in this case, there's a particular discipline that's especially inconvenienced (physicists, due to the torque conflict). Contrast with j: there's a particular discipline that benefits, and they use j=sqrt(-1) all the time.
Comments
It strikes me as more analogous to using j = sqrt(-1) so that it doesn't conflict with current: it works fine, but you're never going to get everyone to do it because people want the papers to stay consistent.
Actually, in this case, there's a particular discipline that's especially inconvenienced (physicists, due to the torque conflict). Contrast with j: there's a particular discipline that benefits, and they use j=sqrt(-1) all the time.
As a side note, to a physicist j = sqrt(-1) is also a conflict because we're used to i, j, and k being quaternions.
I'm confused by your statement -- in the quaternions, i, j, and k are all square roots of -1.