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]

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.