<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Boosting Vector Calculus with the Graphical Notation · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1911.00892/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1911.00892/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Boosting Vector Calculus with the Graphical Notation — mentioned by danielscrubs</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23465442</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1911.00892:23465442</guid><pubDate>Tue, 09 Jun 2020 10:50:25 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;I mean conditions exist in math already and I&amp;#x27;d argue that there is a bigger chance qwerty is still the default keyboard layout than your Python 3 program working in 500 years. How many of the popular languages even have formal specifications to use as a reference when the next CPU architecture comes along, or the next ABI? The tools exist but I don&amp;#x27;t see people rushing to Modula-2 for example, which has. It does remind me a bit of this paper &amp;quot;Boosting Vector Calculus with the Graphical Notation&amp;quot; [1], but we instead have over ten thousand only partially defined ones. But I can agree that my…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1911.00892/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.ed-ph</category></item><item><title>Boosting Vector Calculus with the Graphical Notation — mentioned by foxes</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21534321</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1911.00892:21534321</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 10:25:08 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Ref of the original paper https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.00892. The biggest issue for me is they don&amp;#x27;t have proper upper/lower indices. A lower index is a leg pointing down, while an upper index is a leg pointing up. \delta should be \delta_i^j. The upper/lower I like to think of as extra type information. You can pair covectors and vectors. The other issue is with the dot product of course, I would write a_i b^i.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1911.00892/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.ed-ph</category></item><item><title>Boosting Vector Calculus with the Graphical Notation — mentioned by fantispug</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21533425</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1911.00892:21533425</guid><pubDate>Thu, 14 Nov 2019 07:08:34 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;They do mention Penrose notation in the linked arxiv paper[1], as well as Cvitanović&amp;#x27;s Birdtracks[2] which let you do calculations on representations of groups. They claim they&amp;#x27;re making it more accessible with pedagogical examples (and innovations in representing differential vector calculus). I still prefer index notation. Their notation looks pretty intricate and I think it would be really hard to do long calculations in it. It&amp;#x27;s also not clear to me how you&amp;#x27;d generalise it to non-commutative vector algebras like in quantum mechanics. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.00892.pdf [2]…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1911.00892/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.ed-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
