Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
gave geometric algebra an Idea-section
That prompted a trip back to your discussion of geometric algebra, including lengthy extracts from Clifford algebra and the interpretation of quantum mechanics (pdf) and the claim
the electron is a quaternion
Further back you were helping us visualise the superstring.
Remember that Geometric Algebra was also the title of a lovely book by Emil Artin. It introduces Clifford algebras around page 190
It appears that there is also a page Geometric Algebra with very similar content.
@Dexter: In principle, a page with that title ought to be about Artin's book.
Thanks. I have fixed it now. Added disambiguation lines and made “Geometric Algebra” a stub for a category:reference page.
added pointer to
I have reverted and adjusted my original wording by mentioning real numbers as a ground field. (We really can’t claim that “geometric algebra is s subfield of Clifford algebra. It’s just playing with Clifford algebra in an ideosyncratic way.)
have reverted parts of the anonymous edits from rev 6 (which I only just spotted):
In that edit, the very first sentence of the Idea-section was equipped with a pointer to Sobczyk’s book “New Foundations in Mathematics: The Geometric Concept of Number”.
But it is out of place here to push that pointer before a single other word has been said, certainly before the pointer to Hestenes’s original book. So I have removed that insertion.
Generally, while I haven’t looked into that book yet, it is hard not to notice the overblown title. If anyone here has looked into Sobczyk’s book, please let us know what impression you got, and whether it’s a reference worth keeping here.
I am also reverting the anonymous edit in rev 8, which, in its entirety, added a pointer to “dyadic rational algebra”.
Since this is certainly not related to the topic at hand more than any two topics in maths are related, suggesting that this is a “related entry” is at best misleading. If anyone disagrees, then there needs to be discussion in the entry for what the particular relation is meant to be.
Instead, I have added pointer to the actually related entries, such as Dirac equation and spin geometry.
[ edit: looking at “dyadic rational algebra” , which is also due to an anonyous contributor, I see from the last line what the intended point is meant to be. Still, this is at best peripheral. If you are the anonymous editor and you are reading this, let me ask that if the link to dyadic rational algebra is to be kept, then it needs to go with a paragraph of explanation, for otherwise it looks out of place ]
1 to 12 of 12