Difference between revisions of "Talk:General theory of relativity"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
m (→Proofread?: Proofread as well as I could) |
DanHutchin (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
:The math is way out of my depth, but I tried clarifying the section about Eddington's experiment. It now says what I think it said - if I'm way off-base, please correct me. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:01, 13 November 2009 (EST) | :The math is way out of my depth, but I tried clarifying the section about Eddington's experiment. It now says what I think it said - if I'm way off-base, please correct me. -- [[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 19:01, 13 November 2009 (EST) | ||
| + | ::Yep, everything in there seems okay. Can't wait to read the rest of the article.--[[User:DanHutchin|DanHutchin]] 19:14, 13 November 2009 (EST) | ||
Revision as of 00:14, November 14, 2009
Higher math template?
Question: I know we have this template for sections that get into early-undergrad math:
| This article/section deals with mathematical concepts appropriate for late high school or early college. |
But the quantitative section is going to make (gentle) reference to tensor algebra and some aspects of differential geometry. Do we have a template that somehow conveys "this section is hard-core math, but don't be scared?" Or maybe something that gets across the idea that you don't have to follow everything in this section to understand this article?
Proofread?
I'm going to leave this page half-done for tonight and pick it up tomorrow. Anybody available to give what's there right now a proofread? I'd love any and all feedback. --KSorenson 18:45, 13 November 2009 (EST)
- The math is way out of my depth, but I tried clarifying the section about Eddington's experiment. It now says what I think it said - if I'm way off-base, please correct me. -- EvanW 19:01, 13 November 2009 (EST)
- Yep, everything in there seems okay. Can't wait to read the rest of the article.--DanHutchin 19:14, 13 November 2009 (EST)