He's distressingly wrong about this, the geometric product is transform composition
reply(Apologies to folks who have seen me repeat this a million times; but it's very important folks be aware of it)
How is the geometric product any less motivated than any other notation? Ultimately the value of a notation is how easy it makes it to work and think. I'm not sure if GA achieves that or not, but what's the harm in trying a new approach?
replyAFAIK nobody is proposing to replace all of geometry with GA, only 3+1 spacetime.
Author doesn't argue against the idea of choosing a new notation, he makes very detailed arguments about why this specific new notation is clumsy to work with.
replyYes but my point is that their argument is undermined by the extreme clumsiness of standard mathematical physics notation. I don't believe GA is the best possible notation for physics but it could be a stepping stone. We need more people who explore such things rather than more people who call each other crackpots.
replyI’m just refuting the claim that the article only focuses on ad hominem arguments.
reply