LotusFunctor

5 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   >It's really the same method in different notation. You take the cross product and separate into parallel and perpendicular components, and then you reach the epsilon^2 equation, and it's the same from there. Bivectors and cros
2. 2.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   ?? You'll likely be better off seeing different perspectives of the same thing.
3. 3.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   Pascal's triangle, and also with a transparently power-set flavor to it :)
4. 4.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   From my view, it goes both ways: geometric algebra/calculus is a more transparent version of the standard approach and the translation back to it is also a relatively small delta to pick up. Either way of going about what is in essenc
5. 5.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   For me, the substantial thing geometric algebra gave me so far was a newfound appreciation of the seemingly disparate systems: tensors, differential forms, matrix algebra, and also a newfound appreciation of stuff like determinants, conjuga
6. 6.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   Grassmann algebra is a very important part of it, in fact you can reconstruct it in geometric algebra. More generally though, this algebra would be known as Clifford algebra.
7. 7.▲
   by LotusFunctor 5y ago

   >Geometric algebra is, as the article points out, a more powerful version of the usual vector notation That's not just a gross oversimplification, this is also flat out wrong if what you meant was that it only has vectors. It has m