|
|
|
|
|
by amluto
2784 days ago
|
|
I read that a couple times. I found it unsatisfying because you are dropping terms that happen to have a coefficient of zero without a clear explanation of how those terms are even well formed in the first place. I suppose this could be answered if you explicitly stated what set the geometric product acted on. As a guess, and from skimming Wikipedia, it’s the direct sum of scalars, vectors, bivectors, etc, up through n-vectors. So 2 + x∧y + 3x∧y∧z is a valid output. And it’s probably straightforward to show that the geometric product is actually defined on this space. (Hi Marc!) |
|
So, you basically have three case: x (xx) = x (1) = x -> a vector
x (xy) = x (x.y + x^y) = x (x.y) + xxy = x (x.y) + y -> a vector
x (yz) = x (y.z + x^y) = x (y.z) + xyz -> a vector + a trivector. This only happens if the three vectors are independent, which can never be the case for -ava