Talk:Tetrad formalism

	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.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

merge[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.

The result of this discussion was no consensus. Unfortunately the destination article was never tagged, so given the lack of response it seems likely that some interested editors were simply not aware of this proposal. NukeofEarl (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Cartan formalism should be merged here. The title should be "tetrad f.." rather than "cartan f.." because the former has slightly (~40%) more google hits and 3+ times more book search results. (Certainly shouldn't be some far less common german equivalent term.) Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2011 (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.

How do you get 'no consensus' if 100% of the contributors shared a single view? Isn't it unconstructive to close a discussion thread for no other reason than lack of response? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion thread was not closed "for no other reason than lack of response"; it was closed because it's over three years old and merge discussions are supposed to be closed after one month, per WP:Merging. I already explained why the discussion was closed as "no consensus", but if you insist, I'll rephrase it in more blunt terms: You did not make a reasonable effort to inform interested editors of the proposal, neglecting even the most basic step of tagging both the relevant articles, so a consensus to merge based on there being no response is obviously invalid. Speaking of unconstructive editing though, I can't help but notice that you've tampered with another editor's talk page posts and reverted an edit without justification, both of which are nonconstructive.--NukeofEarl (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a merge under the name Cartan formalism as the more general case, but I don't think that the dominant special case (tetrad formalism) warrants a separate article of its own. —Quondum 01:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, this should be merged with Frame fields in general relativity, (which could or should be renamed to orthonormal tetrad formalism). The problem is that effectively, as currently written, everything this article says is also true for orthonormal tetrads, with only one tiny-itsy-bitsy difference: here, $g_{ab}$ need not be the flat Minkowski metric. But other than that, this article says nothing at all that is particularly generic (or is it the other way around: the Frame fields in general relativity doesn't say anything that couldn't be copied into here, with the exception of flatness. There is no discussion in either article about why and how flatness is convenient, good, useful, etc. as compared to the general case... That is why these three articles are confusing, and overlap so much. Its a shame, because they should highlight differences, rather than similarities. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruhat decomposition.[edit]

I was editing this article while reading Bruhat decomposition at the same time, and could not help but notice the similarity. So I asked at Talk:Bruhat decomposition if this analogy can be pushed further. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vierbein or n-bein?[edit]

I thought that the article should briefly mention the more general n-bein, e.g., the fünfbein in Kaluza-Klein, but then saw text in Tetrad formalism#Mathematical formulation such as a tetrad basis is chosen: a set of $n$ independent vector fields $e_{a}=e_{a}{}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }$ for $a=1,\ldots ,n$ that together span the $n$ -dimensional tangent bundle at each point in the spacetime manifold $M$ .. A tetrad (n-bein) is actually the special case where $n=4$ . I'm not sure whether to change the "n" to "4" or to change "tetrad" to "n-bein" and then add a sentence that a tetrad is the special case where n=4. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the edit history, it looks like you made all of the needed changes. After a quick skim, it seems to be correct. I removed the nag note, and added one more sentence again reminding that vier=four in German, that viel=many (much). It would be nice if examples were given for some common GR metrics (or are these in other articles?) You mentioned Kaluza-Klien; I recall that the exposition in David Bleecker, Gauge Theory and Variational Principles was rather direct and nice (for the classical, non-quantum case.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]