Source
- URL: https://x.com/anisomorphism/status/2092700125550240108
- Author: Nick (@anisomorphism)
- Posted: 2026-08-26 19:46:05
Thread
1/ @anisomorphism
Not surprising since geometric algebra is a cult outside of mathematics, per John Baez. Anyone with education in linear algebra fundamentals has realized this.
2/ @EricLengyel
@anisomorphism
I agree with that statement on several levels, but I fail to see how that’s in any way relevant to this situation.
3/ @anisomorphism
@EricLengyel
You call yourself a geometric algebra researcher. Have I misunderstood your perspective or priorities? Not everyone is looking for a conflict, so maybe they simply have different values and are not arguing them.
4/ @EricLengyel
@anisomorphism
It sure sounds like you have misunderstood my perspective. My book makes it clear that I am not the typical GA zealot, and it dedicates significant space explaining why it’s a bad idea to use geometric algebra in many cases.
5/ @anisomorphism
@EricLengyel
Why not just write a linear algebra book? In my experience the wrong kinds of people are attracted to GA in the first place, because they are uninterested in fundamentals.
6/ @EricLengyel
@anisomorphism
I agree! If you’ve ever looked at my blog, you’ll find that I have been very critical of the traditional foundations of GA.
7/ @EricLengyel
@anisomorphism
What I write extends well beyond what most would consider to be linear algebra (even though it is), so I need another term. I was using “Grassmann” algebra a long time ago, but even that seems insufficient. Maybe “Clifford” is all I need.