Talk:Levi-Civita symbol

Too sloppy

This is much too superficial: A symbol is not the same as a tensor. This obscures a very simple abbreviation. --Peter Schmitt 01:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I've modified the wording slightly, and introduced a sub-heading. According to the cited sources, the Levi-Civita symbol also is used to denote the alternating tensor or the completely antisymmetric tensor with three indices in three dimensions. Does the rewording meet your approval? John R. Brews 17:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Though the L-C symbol and the L-C tensor are closely related, I think that the advanced topic (tensor) and the elementary one (symbol) should be treated separately. Thus I moved the tensor part.

By the way, common notions (that appear in many sources) need no reference, I would say.

--Peter Schmitt 00:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've rearranged the text a bit; no changes in content. I filled in some entries on the meta page and added a reference or two. John R. Brews 04:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Applications

This article could benefit from some examples and applications. John R. Brews 15:55, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Cyclic order

Cyclic order is a common (elementary) concept. References are not intended to provide such explanations. The right place to explain concepts are pages devoted to these concepts. And they need no cited source, either. --Peter Schmitt 00:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

References

Basic (common) facts and terms need no source in CZ. (A single, randomly selected source does not prove that it is commonly used, either.) Therefore I removed your reference. --Peter Schmitt 00:57, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanatory footnote

As for the footnote on the sign of permutations: Either leave it unexplained, or explain it (briefly) in the text. (I agree with the cited guidelines.) --Peter Schmitt 01:19, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Peter: According to CZ:Article_Mechanics_Complete#References "An informational note may be included as a reference in order to make important clarifications of the text, when including the clarification in the text itself would break the flow of the discussion." I'd say this footnote falls under this provision. John R. Brews 04:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)