Talk:Geometric algebra: Difference between revisions
→A possible source of confusion
Line 91:
::::::::::If it's not in the task description, and it's relevant to the task, that's a defect of the task description. You can't just refer people to some unmanageably large external context and expect that people will be able to distinguish the parts of that context which you consider relevant from the parts you consider irrelevant.
::::::::::Put differently, I do not know whether the presence of a <math>\mathcal{V}</math> within a clifford algebra excludes the existence of a different <math>\mathcal{V'}</math> from the algebra. Maybe it does, and maybe the statement "It is a known fact that if the dimension of <math>\mathcal{V}</math> is <math>n</math>, then the dimension of the algebra is <math>2^n</math>." hints at the axioms or constraints or concepts which require that. Or maybe not. I've not studied the subject enough to say for sure. --[[User:Rdm|Rdm]] ([[User talk:Rdm|talk]]) 20:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::Notice that I did not mention bivectors in the task description, only in this discussion page. The task description hints that there are multivectors that are not vectors. Without any knowledge of the subject, that means that the reader can not assume anything about i, j and k because he does not know if the geometric product of two vectors is a vector or not. He should assume that they are multivectors and as such the scalar product formula can not ''a priori'' be applied to them. I would also like to point at that you were the one who wanted to discuss the orthogonality of i, j and k (for which the concept does not apply), but there is no need to consider that for solving this task anyway.--[[User:Grondilu|Grondilu]] ([[User talk:Grondilu|talk]]) 20:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
== "Orthonormal basis" ==
| |||