Talk:Bianchi classification

Bianchi space?
The term Bianchi space is used in this article but not defined. I'm not sure it should be in this article, but this should at least be defined.

(comment unsigned 02:48, 13 January 2016‎ 70.247.174.22


 * <, information added > Diametakomisi (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC))

analysis to the closure @ determination of wording (with a two way decision possible)
"...because of the General Theory of Relativity described...

using accessed - 2020-03-07"

"because of the...described"

description: tenses do not agree

analysis: of:describing (looks like bing, could suggest scribbling from "scrib-"), the:described (looks like scribe + bed) - "..to describe the existing Universe..." (using: Longair)

to describe is with the intention of describing, where describing is suggestive of the description being true - Diametakomisi (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

resultant direction
"pertain to" - https://www.google.com/search?ei=QEtpXq32O9mDhbIPhKCnkAU&q=pertain+to&oq=pertain+to&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l10.987652.989454..989759...0.0..0.104.717.10j1......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i10i70i249j0i10j0i273j0i131j0i70i249.thSrVGJMoVk&ved=0ahUKEwitlqHEopPoAhXZQUEAHQTQCVIQ4dUDCAs&uact=5

return: Oxford

rejected due to "related" is a human suggestive

Diametakomisi (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

heading > decision
The analysis identified an error at a location in the passage not identified at the analysis establishment

@ 21:02, 11 March 2020 the consequence was "..Bianchi models describe..." isn't true because this states the models infact give a description of reality, when the models are (at the time of the signature to this user as known to this user by sources), known as models of possible realities - such that description and definition seem similar words) Diametakomisi (talk) 21:06, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I can't figure out what you are trying to say here. Are you saying parts of this article are copyright violations, that copied text, bad grammar and all? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Needs better cohesion
I moved a chunk of material from BKL singularity to this article because it belongs here better. For the large part, this was a mechanical move of text and a lot of it repeats with the previously existing here: the same things repeated in two places with somewhat different wording and notation. Given more free time, I intend to look over the text and smoothen it, that is, integrate it in one narrative.

Another, very obvious flaw, is that the article consists of two separate parts without any connection between them. It starts with defining Bianchi classification strictly from abstract mathematical (group theory) view which leaves the average reader as informed as before reading it. Then it starts talking about physics (Bianchi spaces) without even defining them (Diametakomisi is perfectly right about that) and without any hint why should these matrix operations in the beginning be valid for physical theories about space. This gap should be filled up. For understandability, it would be better to start with physics (simpler and less abstract math) and then gradually increase abstraction towards group theory. I will try to do what I can about it. Lantonov (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, the aricle could be improved, but you have a very bizarre sense of mathematics if you think general relativity is easier than group theory. At least in the United States, group theory and abstract algebra (modules, rings, automorphisms) are taught to 2nd-year college students, whereas general relativity is a graduate-school class, not taught at all to undergraduates. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 01:33, 4 December 2020 (UTC)