The writing is cute and the animations are nice, but none of it makes any sense. I stopped reading at
> It is important to remember that bivectors have a certain redundancy built into them in the sense that
s
a
⃗
∧
b
⃗
=
a
⃗
∧
s
b
⃗
s
a
∧
b
=
a
∧s
b
. We can write them using 6 numbers or 3 numbers, but they actually convey 5 degrees of freedom.
Three (real) numbers have three degrees of freedom, by definition. (And nothing about complex numbers was mentioned.) Is this a parody I don’t get? I feel like I have wasted ten minutes on nonsense.
You're right about that being wrong, and the author makes the same mistake consistently, but otherwise it looks correct. Some steps have details elided where it maybe should have been noted that things were being skipped, but with correct results. I think it's wonderfully written and a great exposition.
author here. I was mistaken about the 5 degrees of freedom bit. Bivectors have three. I'll fix the text tonight. I'm sorry you wasted ten minutes on my nonsense.
> It is important to remember that bivectors have a certain redundancy built into them in the sense that s a ⃗ ∧ b ⃗ = a ⃗ ∧ s b ⃗ s a ∧ b = a ∧s b . We can write them using 6 numbers or 3 numbers, but they actually convey 5 degrees of freedom.
Three (real) numbers have three degrees of freedom, by definition. (And nothing about complex numbers was mentioned.) Is this a parody I don’t get? I feel like I have wasted ten minutes on nonsense.