# Matrix representation of Clifford algebra - steps [closed]

In (Vaz and da Rocha, 2016;pg108) the following two step process is given for finding the matrix representation of a Clifford algebra: (verbatim; except for notation)

(1) Choose a set of $N$ primitive idempotents $f_A$ ($A=1,...,N$) of $\mathscr{C}{l}_{p,q}$ such that $\sum_A f_A=1$, with one of them being a primitive idempotent, for instance $f_1$.

(2) Choose elements $\{\mathscr{E}_{A1}\}$ and $\{\mathscr{E}_{1a}\}$ ($A=1,...,N$) such that $f_1=\mathscr{E}_{1A} \mathscr{E}_{A1}$ and that eqn (4.43) holds, namely, $f_B\mathscr{E}_{A1}=\delta_{AB}\mathscr{E}_{A1}$ and $\mathscr{E}_{1A}f_B=\delta_{AB}\mathscr{E}_{1A}$.

I am confused by the first point; Do all my $f_A$'s need to be primitive or just one of them?

## closed as off-topic by Kyle Kanos, M. Enns, honeste_vivere, sammy gerbil, Qmechanic♦Sep 1 '17 at 9:01

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

• "Homework-like questions should ask about a specific physics concept and show some effort to work through the problem. We want our questions to be useful to the broader community, and to future users. See our meta site for more guidance on how to edit your question to make it better" – Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

• Might Mathematics be better suited for this math question? – Kyle Kanos Aug 30 '17 at 11:14
• @KyleKanos I am not sure. Math SE doesn't even have a 'spinor' tag and since Spinors (a concept used more in physics then in maths) are defined using Clifford algebras I thought it best to post it here - although I might be wrong and am happy for it to be migrated to MSE. – Quantum spaghettification Aug 30 '17 at 11:20
• This question was 1 close vote short of a full migration to Mathematics. Note that the Phys.SE community usually welcomes math questions relevant for physics. I closed it as H&E to buy the Phys.SE community more time to decide what to do. – Qmechanic Sep 1 '17 at 9:03
• @Quantumspaghettification Your question as stated does not refer to spinor tags... or maybe we need to read the reference to get the connection with spinors? – ZeroTheHero Sep 2 '17 at 19:42