Talk:Christoffel symbols
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] "Ugly"
Describing these symbols as "ugly" is subjective
- You're right. I noticed this too and will change it. ---Mpatel (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was wondering why it is written
instead of 
in wikipedia - isn't the second one what we write on the board and on paper? Does this not show up correctly for some people? Orthografer 17:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually this question just came up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Indices on Christoffel symbols. It turns out that they're staggered because the ordering is important when manipulating them. I'm hoping someone there comes up with a neater explanation than mine. — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- I was wondering why it is written
I propose to include the definition of gij in the article, as it is for example in Fundamental theorem of Riemannian geometry. I've lost some time to find apropriate definition...
[edit] Coordinate expression for curvature
I think this section is not directly relevant, it is ok to leave a coordiante decription of curvature tensor, but defining ricci curvature and Weyl curvature is too much. Tosha 09:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- A quick glance at the various curvature articles makes it clear that none(?) of them give coordinate expressions. As these are useful, and don't seem to be listed elsewhere, they can be left here. One possible idea would be to move them to an article Coordinate expression for curvature, but there doesn't seem to be a strong need. Anyone who would actually need to work with indexed version would end up looking at this article anyway. .. linas 15:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it should be moved it to Curvature of Riemannian manifolds. Tosha 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Most of what that article states is true for pseudo-Riemannian manifolds a well. Is there a better way of saying "Riemannian and pseudo-Riemanian", which makes for very long article titles and sentances? linas 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Technical
I think I have nearly the required background to understand this article, but I really can't at the moment. A list of prerequisites, as described on Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible, would be hlepful. —BenFrantzDale
- Yeah, me too. Can anyone make this article more accessible? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.64.188.255 (talk • contribs).
- Off the top of my head I'd say that in order to understand this article you'd at least need Einstein notation and some understanding of covariance and contravariance and the metric tensor. The last two are linked to kinda early on in the article.
- How do people here feel about using a line in the lead in the form of In order to understand them you need... like in Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible#Articles that are unavoidably technical? — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
