> I'm dubious about your assessment of your coworkers fluency in GA. I wouldn't call that rude so much as you making incorrect assumptions and jumping to concl

> I'm dubious about your assessment of your coworkers fluency in GA. I wouldn't call that rude so much as you making incorrect assumptions and jumping to conclusions on top of my story that is incomplete on details. It certainly would be better left out of your comment, as there's nothing to be gained from cross-examining my ability to assess whether they knew more GA than I did. They did, in fact, know more GA than I did. And while I'm framing myself as a GA noob, I've dabbled enough to know a bit about what I don't know. > it's possible to use GA as a language for describing geometric operatiins while continuing to implement them under the hood using old-fashioned vector algebra. You're missing my point. They did implement GA using linear algebra. They built classes for bivectors and rotors that use dot products and cross products under the hood. Once there are classes for GA objects, and they get used in the code, then everyone else has to use them and know how to use them. You can't use GA without knowing the algebra of GA types. The implementation of the GA objects is not the question here at all.