Why do mechanics courses still use vectors to represent angular quantities when bivectors are clearly superior?
>>7712580
most mechanics courses are taught to baby physics majors who have only single variable calc under their belts.
>>7712630
wut?
physics majors don't take mechanics until their junior/senior year and they take multivariable calc their 1st or 2nd year....
>>7712630
It isn't that hard to teach some basic geometric algebra.
>>7712651
The complexity is conserved either way and the civil engineers are not going to put up with geometric algebra when they can barely interpolate from a log-log plot.
>>7712662
Fuck civil engineers. Let them fail.
>>7712668
>tfw just switched from civil last week
Fuck em
Monkeys that think they know calculus
>>7712681
Switched to what?
>>7712580
>bivectors
lol
>>7712580
>[math]r \wedge P[/math]
>fap
hehehe
The Wikipedia article says that bivectors are isomorphic to skew-symmetric matrices. So why bother? What do bivectors bi you? I can't think of a reason why I would use skew-symmetric matrices instead of vectors in general.
Hey, I'm bi-curious!
>>7713912
Because of their direction. It makes more sense.
>>7712580
>bivectors
>not p-forms
Stop trying to sound intelligent spouting the new word you learn yesterday.
>>7714013
I did just learn it yesterday, hence why I am confused that it isn't taught earlier.
>>7713957
Vectors don't have directions?
>>7714156
Angular quantities tend to be defined as a cross product of two vectors. Therefore something like angular momentum is taken as a vector orthogonal to the position and momentum vectors. However if you treat it instead as the wedge product of two vectors, and therefore as a bivector, it gives a more intuitive result.
See the picture.
