Talk:Tensor calculus

	Mathematics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale.

Physics Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index no archives yet (create)

Merge/link to Ricci Calculus? edit

Latest comment: 2 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To merge Tensor calculus into Ricci calculus on the grounds of overlap or duplication. Klbrain (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This page seems like it seems like a stub-class duplicate of the well-developed Ricci Calculus page. Is there any reason not to merge them? Krb19 (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, merge. Could be interesting to have a distinct History of tensor calculus page!? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
- Second. SpiralSource (talk)
- Merge, but remove the assumption that there is a metric. Distinguish between covariant and contravariant vectors in the initial text, and in describing metric tensors explain the cannonical isomorphism. I believe that the other article already does that. -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
  - Also, should the Lie derivative come first, since it does not require a connection? Or would it read better to head the relevant sections with the structures assumed? -- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, definitely merge. Would be easier to read. 2600:1700:232A:550:85B5:AA3F:4310:7C1D (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Add topic