3 ms·
> I could find in there was that the author does not like the people using/doing research in geometric algebra The start of the article makes a specific techni
by groundzeros2015 4mo ago
> I could find in there was that the author does not like the people using/doing research in geometric algebra
The start of the article makes a specific technical claims:
> Hestenes’ Geometric Product is not a very good operation and we should not be rewriting all of geometry in terms of it
Later he explains why:
> there is no good general interpretation or usage for the geometric product or mixed-grade multivectors
- zarzavat 4mo agoHow is the geometric product any less motivated than any other notation? Ultimately the value of a notation is how easy it makes it to work and think. I'm not sure if GA achieves that or not, but what's the harm in trying a new approach? AFAIK nobody is proposing to replace all of geometry with GA, only 3+1 spacetime.
- SonOfLilit 4mo agoAuthor doesn't argue against the idea of choosing a new notation, he makes very detailed arguments about why this specific new notation is clumsy to work with.
- zarzavat 4mo agoYes but my point is that their argument is undermined by the extreme clumsiness of standard mathematical physics notation. I don't believe GA is the best possible notation for physics but it could be a stepping stone. We need more people who explore such things rather than more people who call each other crackpots.
- SonOfLilit 4mo agoAuthor is not calling them crackpots, and _is_ strongly advocating for some of their new notation, and explicitly encouraging readers to find better notation where he dnsagrees with theirs.
- groundzeros2015 4mo agoI’m just refuting the claim that the article only focuses on ad hominem arguments.
- hamish_todd 4mo agoHe's distressingly wrong about this, the geometric product is transform composition (Apologies to folks who have seen me repeat this a million times; but it's very important folks be aware of it)