Thus spake Tom Carter circa 10/14/2009 11:30 PM: > These days, most mathematicians are so comfortable with associativity > that they'll go ahead and include that as part of "the definition" (of, > e.g., a geometric algebra) . . . and then also they won't have a bunch > of theorems that start out, "Let A be an associative geometric algebra . > . ." rather than "Let A be a geometric algebra . . ." (for example . . .)
After searching last night, I can't find the origins of my conflation between the two (division and geometric algebras). Perhaps in my earlier, sloppy, efforts, I just wasn't well enough informed to see the distinction. But they are definitely different, though some of them are both division and geometric, obviously. Your thought above may be right. Perhaps I stumbled across a lower quality paper, wherein they conflated the two. It's not in amongst the geometric algebra papers I archived on my hard disk, which would indicate that it wasn't very useful to me at the time (IF that's what happened ;-). Thanks for the help. -- glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
