[groundzeros2015]

> I could find in there was that the author does not like the people using/doing research in geometric algebra

The start of the article makes a specific technical claims:

> Hestenes’ Geometric Product is not a very good operation and we should not be rewriting all of geometry in terms of it

Later he explains why:

> there is no good general interpretation or usage for the geometric product or mixed-grade multivectors

[zarzavat]

How is the geometric product any less motivated than any other notation? Ultimately the value of a notation is how easy it makes it to work and think. I'm not sure if GA achieves that or not, but what's the harm in trying a new approach?

AFAIK nobody is proposing to replace all of geometry with GA, only 3+1 spacetime.

[SonOfLilit]

Author doesn't argue against the idea of choosing a new notation, he makes very detailed arguments about why this specific new notation is clumsy to work with.

[zarzavat]

Yes but my point is that their argument is undermined by the extreme clumsiness of standard mathematical physics notation. I don't believe GA is the best possible notation for physics but it could be a stepping stone. We need more people who explore such things rather than more people who call each other crackpots.

[SonOfLilit]

Author is not calling them crackpots, and _is_ strongly advocating for some of their new notation, and explicitly encouraging readers to find better notation where he dnsagrees with theirs.

[groundzeros2015]

I’m just refuting the claim that the article only focuses on ad hominem arguments.

[hamish_todd]

He's distressingly wrong about this, the geometric product is transform composition

(Apologies to folks who have seen me repeat this a million times; but it's very important folks be aware of it)