Is Associativity Key in Simplifying Multivector Products in Geometric Algebra?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JonnyMaddox
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric Product
JonnyMaddox
Messages
74
Reaction score
1
Hi, I just want to see if I understood this. Since the geometric product is associative and so on we can write for two multivectors A and B given by

A= \alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}e_{1}+\alpha_{2}e_{2}+\alpha_{3}e_{1}\wedge e_{2}
B= \beta_{0}+ \beta_{1}e_{1}+\beta_{2}e_{2}+\beta_{3}e_{1}\wedge e_{2}

the geometric product multiplication as

AB=M=\mu_{0}+\mu_{1}e_{1}+\mu_{2}e_{2}+\mu_{3}e_{1}e_{2}

Where for example \mu_{0}=\alpha_{0}\beta_{0}+\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}+\alpha_{2}\beta_{2}-\alpha_{3}\beta_{3} and so on.

Now let's take an example with beautiful vectors with numbers like a = (e_{1}+2e_{2}), a_{1}=(2e_{1}+3e_{3}), a_{2}=(2e_{1}+0e_{2})

So aa_{1}= 8- e_1\wedge e_{2} Now what if I multiply this with a_{2}?

(8-e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(2e_{1})? Is it just 16e_{1}-(e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(2e_{1}) ? My logic behind this is that one can symbolically (GP) multiply multivectors and then opens up his list with like 300 different products or something and then evaluates each of the products? Is this right?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
JonnyMaddox said:
Hi, I just want to see if I understood this. Since the geometric product is associative and so on we can write for two multivectors A and B given by

A= \alpha_{0}+\alpha_{1}e_{1}+\alpha_{2}e_{2}+\alpha_{3}e_{1}\wedge e_{2}
B= \beta_{0}+ \beta_{1}e_{1}+\beta_{2}e_{2}+\beta_{3}e_{1}\wedge e_{2}

the geometric product multiplication as

AB=M=\mu_{0}+\mu_{1}e_{1}+\mu_{2}e_{2}+\mu_{3}e_{1}e_{2}

Where for example \mu_{0}=\alpha_{0}\beta_{0}+\alpha_{1}\beta_{1}+\alpha_{2}\beta_{2}-\alpha_{3}\beta_{3} and so on.

Now let's take an example with beautiful vectors with numbers like a = (e_{1}+2e_{2}), a_{1}=(2e_{1}+3e_{3}), a_{2}=(2e_{1}+0e_{2})

So aa_{1}= 8- e_1\wedge e_{2} Now what if I multiply this with a_{2}?

(8-e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(2e_{1})? Is it just 16e_{1}-(e_{1}\wedge e_{2})(2e_{1}) ? My logic behind this is that one can symbolically (GP) multiply multivectors and then opens up his list with like 300 different products or something and then evaluates each of the products? Is this right?

To me, if you're dealing with geometric algebra, it's better to leave out the \wedge. For vectors, A \wedge B = \frac{1}{2}(AB - BA). If A and B are orthogonal, then A \wedge B = AB

So aa_{1}= 8- e_1 e_{2}.
Then when we multiply by 2 e_1 you just get:

8 e_1 - e_1 e_2 e_1

You can simplify using e_2 e_1 = -e_1 e_2 to get:
8 e_1 + e_1 e_1 e_2

Then you can use the fact that e_1 e_1 = 1 to get:
8 e_1 + e_2

(Note: this is assuming that your basis vectors are orthonormal:
e_i e_j + e_j e_i = 2 \delta_{ij})
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Hi stevendaryl,
I think I got it. If we can reformulate everything as GP then we can always use this simple relations between the orthogonal basis vectors, hm that was more then obvious...ok thank you.

When you multiply 8-e_{1}e_{2} by 2e_{1} where did you leave the factor of 2 in the result? I think it should be a rotation by 90 degrees anti-clockwise and dilation by factor 2?

Thx for your reply !
 
JonnyMaddox said:
Hi stevendaryl,
I think I got it. If we can reformulate everything as GP then we can always use this simple relations between the orthogonal basis vectors, hm that was more then obvious...ok thank you.

When you multiply 8-e_{1}e_{2} by 2e_{1} where did you leave the factor of 2 in the result? I think it should be a rotation by 90 degrees anti-clockwise and dilation by factor 2?

Thx for your reply !

That was a typo, sorry.
 
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
When decomposing a representation ##\rho## of a finite group ##G## into irreducible representations, we can find the number of times the representation contains a particular irrep ##\rho_0## through the character inner product $$ \langle \chi, \chi_0\rangle = \frac{1}{|G|} \sum_{g\in G} \chi(g) \chi_0(g)^*$$ where ##\chi## and ##\chi_0## are the characters of ##\rho## and ##\rho_0##, respectively. Since all group elements in the same conjugacy class have the same characters, this may be...

Similar threads

Back
Top