[Pmb (OP)]

I'm proof reading the new version of Exploring Black Holes by Taylor, Wheeler and Bertschinger comming out. The website for the text is at http://eftaylor.com/ while PDF files containg chapters of the text are at  http://exploringblackholes.com/
 
I proof read the first version and wrote the glossary of terms as well. Currently there's no glossary. Since we discuss the meaning of terms so often in this forum, as well as all other physics discussion forums, I think i would be wonderful to have a glossary in the new version as well. In fact I think that all textbooks should have a glossary of terms. In fact I have a hard time understanding why all texts don't have a glossary!

I think that a nice solid glossary of terms for general relativity would be nice for us to refer to. What do you think? Glossary or no glossary? And if yu're so inclined, why?

I myself have a glossary of terms under my website at
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/glossary/glossary_of_terms.htm

I'd love some feedback on it. It's obviously very empty right now. I started it a long time ago but illness got into the way of working on it more. Any comments, ideas, other terms you'd like to see deined,  constructive criticism, etc. ?

[yor_on]

A glossary, ideally with further outside references if you get stuck in the book.

[JP]

Certainly a glossary doesn't detract from a science text, but since it takes resources to put together and to print, I'm not sure if it always adds enough value to be worth the effort and cost.  Often, the indices of such books have listings for terms and emphasize the page on which the term is introduced and defined, which can take the place of a glossary.  It's not quite as self-contained as a glossary, but it gets the job done--assuming both the text and index are well written. 

If we had limitless resources, I'd say always add a glossary that not only introduces the terms, but shows briefly how they're used in the main text, including a brief mathematical example if relevant. 

For your website, I can say that terms I always struggled with then being introduced to general relativity were covariant, contravariant and pseudotensor. 

Also, I didn't read through everything, but

Metric Tensor - A multilinear map from vectors to the set of real numbers that is used for calculating the magnitude of a vector of the inner product of two vectors is called the metric tensor and represented as g. The metric tensor is defined such that it is symmetric.

Should the italicized part read "the magnitude of the inner product of two vectors"?

[Airthumbs]

Pmb, I think it is an excellent idea, I think that the science forum here could even add a new section under each category and provide a glossary of terms at the end of it.

[Pmb (OP)]

Certainly a glossary doesn't detract from a science text, but since it takes resources to put together and to print, I'm not sure if it always adds enough value to be worth the effort and cost.

Printing it is of little or no concern. There used to be no worries about creating a glossary. I would have done it for free and enjoyed the work. However when I e-mailed one of the co-authors of the text, Edmund Bertschinger, as to whether he could recommend a good text in science and religion he responded I don’t know and won’t discuss it further. I found that to be rude and it gave him an air of superiority about him which I don’t like. I’ve therefore decided cease proof-reading the text at this point. F@ck’um! Who the hell does he think he is, anyway? And he claims to be a Christian. Is I don’t know and won’t discuss it further. a Christian thing to say? No. It isn't.

So if there is going to be a glossary it won’t have anything to do with me. And I will have nothing to do with that text from now on. Unless something bizarre happens like getting a written apology. He’s just one of those scientists that if you don’t have a PhD in physics and don’t work at MIT then you’re not good enough to talk to him. I never did like him because of his air of superiority.

[Pmb (OP)]

A glossary, ideally with further outside references if you get stuck in the book.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Could you rephrase this again please and this time try to be more specific? Which glossary are you referring to, the one that could potentally go into in Exploring Black Holes - 2nd Ed.. Or perhaps you're referring to the one under my website?

[Pmb (OP)]

Pmb, I think it is an excellent idea, I think that the science forum here could even add a new section under each category and provide a glossary of terms at the end of it.

I'd be more than happy to build such a website for the forum if asked. Tthe wuestion is wiil they build it?