a beautiful geometric algebra paper

http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf

Should I ignore this one too? GABLE said it was using different
conventions than Hestenes, so maybe this paper actually agrees with
Grassmann Algebra?

I haven't been following the list very closely lately, but if this
wasn't mentioned before, I can heartily recommend the following
introduction to geometric algebra:

http://carol.science.uva.nl/~leo/clifford/dorst-mann-I.pdf

http://carol.science.uva.nl/~leo/clifford/dorst-mann-II.pdf

Also, I have collected most of all geometric algebra papers available
on the net (aprx. 27 Mb) which I will gladly put on my website for a
while if there's interest.

Kees

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Erlich" <perlich@a...>
wrote:
> http://modelingnts.la.asu.edu/pdf/OerstedMedalLecture.pdf
>
> Should I ignore this one too? GABLE said it was using different
> conventions than Hestenes, so maybe this paper actually agrees with
> Grassmann Algebra?

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Kees van Prooijen" <lists@k...>
wrote:

> Also, I have collected most of all geometric algebra papers
available
> on the net (aprx. 27 Mb) which I will gladly put on my website for
a
> while if there's interest.

What would be nice to find would be a simple, straightforward
exposition of the basics of exterior algebra, without all the bells
and whistles. The heavily mathematical books I use won't cut it,
Browne has far more complexity than we need, and geometric algebra
intoduces stuff I don't think we can use.

--- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...>
wrote:
> --- In tuning-math@yahoogroups.com, "Kees van Prooijen"
<lists@k...>
> wrote:
>
> > Also, I have collected most of all geometric algebra papers
> available
> > on the net (aprx. 27 Mb) which I will gladly put on my website
for
> a
> > while if there's interest.
>
> What would be nice to find would be a simple, straightforward
> exposition of the basics of exterior algebra, without all the bells
> and whistles. The heavily mathematical books I use won't cut it,
> Browne has far more complexity than we need, and geometric algebra
> intoduces stuff I don't think we can use.

the fact that different references appear to contradict one another
is the worst part of all.