  A motivation of quite another sort, which led Weyl to his general  representation theory, was provided by Study when he attacked Weyl  specifically, as well as other unnamed individuals, by accusing them  “of having neglected a rich cultural domain (namely, the theory of invariants), indeed of having completely ignored   it”.[84]  Weyl (1924c) replied immediately providing a new foundation for the  theory of invariants of the special linear groups   \(SL(n, \mathbb{C})\) and its most important subgroups, the special orthogonal group \(SO(n, \mathbb{C})\) and the special symplectic group \(SSp(\bfrac{n}{2}, \mathbb{C})\) (for \(n\) even) based on algebraic identities due to Capelli. In a footnote, Weyl (1924c) sarcastically informed Study that “even if he [Weyl] had been as well versed as Study in the theory of invariants, he would not have used the symbolic method in his book Raum, Zeit, Materie and even with the last breath of his  life would not have mentioned the algebraic completeness theorem for  invariant theory”. Weyl’s point was that in the context of his  book Raum-Zeit-Materie, the kernel-index method of tensor  analysis is more appropriate than the methods of the theory of  algebraic   invariants.[85] 