|
|
|
|
|
by sn9
3208 days ago
|
|
Forgive me if I'm making incorrect assumptions about your background, but usually you learn math from books of varying degrees of difficulty which naturally force you to become accustomed to various kinds of notational conventions. You wouldn't try to learn math from papers until you've built that foundation (unless you have access to a tutor/mentor), at which point the notation usually shouldn't be an issue. |
|
http://www.shapeoperator.com/2016/12/12/sunset-geometry/
...might be easier for me to understand if I could use Haskell to implement the wedge and geometric product operators on an algebraic data type describing the scalar/vector/bi-vector thingy. There is probably an applied vs. pure thing here as well. My motivations for investigating geometric algebra is to see if geometric algebra makes synthesizing mechanical linkages easier, whereas maybe most expositions on geometric algebra are focused on teaching geometric algebra to advance the state of geometric algebra. That's probably a long winded way of saying that mathematicans are writing for mathematicians (whether by design or accident). I suppose I should re-read Mindstorms again, but this time in the context of adult learning.