For more background about the concepts like quaternions, projective geometry, and exterior algebra, etc. that are all united in PGA, you can check this nice book by Jean Gallier and Jocelyn Quaintance: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/gbooks/geomath.html
direct link https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/math-deep.pdf I haven't read, but sampled it on several topics and found the explanations to be very good.
(edit) first-added links specific to PGA, and typo fix s/external/exterior/
> This tutorial paper provides a short introduction to geometric algebra, starting with its history and then presenting its benefits and exploring its applications.
I agree the representation chosen in the SIGGRAPH lecture and the associated docs seems somewhat unnatural and counter-intuitive (why are points being represented as trivectors?).
Have you reached out to C. Gunn or S. De Keninck to ask what they think about the representation you propose in that blog post and the geometric product ⟑ and antiproduct ⟇ ? If the representations are equivalent and one is closer to concepts people already understand (e.g. points being (x,y,z,w), with w=1), then maybe adopting the simpler representation would lead to wider adoption of the ideas.
Alternatively, maybe they will point out some other reasons why points-as-trivectors representation is preferable.
For those interested - In a few weeks, 26-27-28 February, there is a (free) workshop featuring talks and workshops from Leo Dorst, Anthony Lasenby, Charles Gunn, Steven De Keninck (the lecturer from this vid - disclaimer - thats me), Vincent Nozick, Dietmar Hldenbrand, Hugo Hadfield and Eric Wieser.
They'll be talking about their research on applications of GA in robotics, AI, CS, physics, graphics.
Near the end of your Siggraph 2019 talk (excellent, thanks), an audience member mentions an IEEE Spectrum article "Geometric Algebra for Electrical and Electronic Engineers". What is the author's surname that you mention?
Peter Yolks? Jolts? Holt? Oates?
For me, multiple searches have yielded no results for a similar author name so far.
Specifically, there does not appear to be any such article on IEEE Spectrum [1], but there is one on Proceedings of the IEEE [2] whose listed authors do not include anyone named Peter.
Curious because you go on to state that his work is readily available. That caught my attention, so I became interesting in finding out more.
This video is the best thing I watched in the past few years. Last time I loved something that much was Geoffrey Hintons course about deep learning back in 2015.
It is eye opening, just like in the beginning of mainstream deep learning, it made me wonder “why didn’t we discover this before?” It elegantly solves so many annoyances about geometry, maths and physics.
I’ve been evangelizing Geometric Algebra like crazy since I found this video, including in hacker news comments.
Agreed. Besides Geometric Algebra, dual numbers also play a huge role in automatic differentiation -- the core building block of modern machine learning frameworks.
I really like the analogy in this talk about how Al-Khwarizmi's six quadratic equations simplify to just one, once we learn about negative numbers and zero.
In a lot of ways, geometric algebra (and dual numbers) are our discovery of "negative numbers and zero", but for the 21st century.
Does this solve the problem of consistency in computational geometry? I.e. point lies inside a polygon, but due to rounding errors, the point seems to lie outside the polygon, which might trigger e.g. a program crash.
This is one of the things that this talk touches upon. BAsically if you use GA you eliminate precision issues (at least until you render or otherwise materialise), various special cases, limitations and unnecessary complexity.
[+] [-] ivansavz|6 years ago|reply
1. The 2D and 3D cheat sheets are here: https://bivector.net/doc.html
2. The talk is also available in "paper form" on the arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/1901.05873
3. Ganja.js repo https://github.com/enkimute/ganja.js and the associated demos in the Ganja coffee shop https://enkimute.github.io/ganja.js/examples/coffeeshop.html
____
For more background about the concepts like quaternions, projective geometry, and exterior algebra, etc. that are all united in PGA, you can check this nice book by Jean Gallier and Jocelyn Quaintance: https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/gbooks/geomath.html direct link https://www.cis.upenn.edu/~jean/math-deep.pdf I haven't read, but sampled it on several topics and found the explanations to be very good.
(edit) first-added links specific to PGA, and typo fix s/external/exterior/
[+] [-] skydog23|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cygx|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carapace|6 years ago|reply
> This tutorial paper provides a short introduction to geometric algebra, starting with its history and then presenting its benefits and exploring its applications.
[+] [-] bananabiscuit|6 years ago|reply
http://terathon.com/blog/projective-geometric-algebra-done-r...
[+] [-] ivansavz|6 years ago|reply
I agree the representation chosen in the SIGGRAPH lecture and the associated docs seems somewhat unnatural and counter-intuitive (why are points being represented as trivectors?).
Have you reached out to C. Gunn or S. De Keninck to ask what they think about the representation you propose in that blog post and the geometric product ⟑ and antiproduct ⟇ ? If the representations are equivalent and one is closer to concepts people already understand (e.g. points being (x,y,z,w), with w=1), then maybe adopting the simpler representation would lead to wider adoption of the ideas.
Alternatively, maybe they will point out some other reasons why points-as-trivectors representation is preferable.
[+] [-] enkimute|6 years ago|reply
They'll be talking about their research on applications of GA in robotics, AI, CS, physics, graphics.
more info : https://bivector.net/game2020.html
Everyone welcome !
[+] [-] skwog|6 years ago|reply
Peter Yolks? Jolts? Holt? Oates?
For me, multiple searches have yielded no results for a similar author name so far.
Specifically, there does not appear to be any such article on IEEE Spectrum [1], but there is one on Proceedings of the IEEE [2] whose listed authors do not include anyone named Peter.
Curious because you go on to state that his work is readily available. That caught my attention, so I became interesting in finding out more.
[1] https://spectrum.ieee.org/searchContent?query=Geometric+Alge...
[2] https://proceedingsoftheieee.ieee.org/most-downloaded/geomet...
[+] [-] crubier|6 years ago|reply
It is eye opening, just like in the beginning of mainstream deep learning, it made me wonder “why didn’t we discover this before?” It elegantly solves so many annoyances about geometry, maths and physics.
I’ve been evangelizing Geometric Algebra like crazy since I found this video, including in hacker news comments.
[+] [-] alexkcd|6 years ago|reply
I really like the analogy in this talk about how Al-Khwarizmi's six quadratic equations simplify to just one, once we learn about negative numbers and zero.
In a lot of ways, geometric algebra (and dual numbers) are our discovery of "negative numbers and zero", but for the 21st century.
[+] [-] nimish|6 years ago|reply
And for those who know conformal GA, see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/290437718_Geometric...
[+] [-] DreamScatter|6 years ago|reply
https://grassmann.crucialflow.com
[+] [-] adamnemecek|6 years ago|reply
Join the discord https://discord.gg/vGY6pPk.
Check out a demo https://observablehq.com/@enkimute/animated-orbits
[+] [-] banachtarski|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nutjob2|6 years ago|reply
This is one of the things that this talk touches upon. BAsically if you use GA you eliminate precision issues (at least until you render or otherwise materialise), various special cases, limitations and unnecessary complexity.
[+] [-] garmaine|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] injidup|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] msla|6 years ago|reply
https://www.av8n.com/physics/clifford-intro.htm
Previous discussion on this topic:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22200260
[+] [-] deepaksurti|6 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|6 years ago|reply
[deleted]