Comments on: Reading Typing Declarations http://www.arsmathematica.net/2012/09/22/reading-typing-declarations/ Dedicated to the mathematical arts. Fri, 29 May 2015 09:17:44 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.41 By: Blaise Pascal http://www.arsmathematica.net/2012/09/22/reading-typing-declarations/#comment-69276 Sat, 22 Sep 2012 17:55:27 +0000 http://www.arsmathematica.net/?p=1624#comment-69276 I have a similar problem with geometric algebra (and I suspect other Clifford Algebras as well). The geometric product of a and b is written as ab. It is not, generally, commutative, and so can be broken down into a commutative dot product a?b and an anti-commutative wedge product a^b (so ab = a?b + a^b, a?b = b?a, a^b=-b^a). By convention, the geometric product has a lower precedence than the dot and wedge products. So ab^c should be read a(b^c) and a?bc should be read (a?b)c.

That simply looks wrong to me, ab looks more tightly bound that a^b or a?b. It’s gotten in my way of reading standard identities and understanding them.

]]>