\#1[[**e**]{}\^[\#1]{}]{} \#1[[\#1]{}\_]{} \#1 \#1\#2[,\#2]{} \#1 \#1[[End]{}   [**R**]{}\^[\#1]{}]{} \#1[$#1{\tt D}$]{} \#1[ ]{} \#1[\_[\#1]{}\^2]{} \#1[([\#1]{})]{}

Department of Physics\
Santa Clara University\
Santa Clara, CA 95053\
U.S.A.\
[Email: wpezzaglia@scuacc.scu.edu]{}

Introduction
============

As a physicist, I am like ‘a stranger in a strange land’ where familiar names have different meanings. It become increasingly clear that the practitioners hypercomplex analysis, and those of multivector physics do not occupy the same “Clifford” space. This is I believe a manifestation of the classical chasm which unfortunately often exists between the disciplines of [applied mathematics]{} and [theoretical physics]{}. My attempts to bridge this gap by conversation at this conference often ran agound. Lacking background (or interest) in physics, many mathematicians are reluctant to be drawn into unfamiliar territory (and of course visa versa). For brevity I will continue from my own point of view, but it should be clear that many of the statements I make are equally true if you interchange the words “mathematician” and “physicist”. Further, any parochial statements are a function of deliberate hyperbolism.

There is perhaps an unconscious assumption that the interface of mathematics and physics is a [*no-man’s land*]{}, which is not to be ventured into under threat of being accused, by ones 