I Adler's New Book on Relativity: Misprint on Page 16?

[mpresic3]

Thank you again for your clarification earlier where you copied the relevant sections from Adler, General Relativity and Cosmology, in your first post. in the future, I will be mindful of you, and the other reader's time, and effort and I will include specific titles, and characteristic information.

Cheers.

 

[vanhees71]

@mpresic3 I would also ask the publisher for a refund or something. It is free to ask.

Against this they legally protect themselves:

The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from
the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard
to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

 

[mpresic3]

Here is a an interesting side note regarding the textbook, Introduction to General Relativity, by Adler, Bazin, and Schiffer. In Chaper 8, on page 235 of the 1965 edition the authors, write:
"It will be convenient in this chapter to use Minkowski coordinates ict, x, y, z, in place of the usual coordinates in special relativity. In this coordinate system, the Lorentz metric has the simple form"

( The matrix shown in equation 8.2 is diag(-1,-1,-1,-1) )

The equation 8.2 that follows give the metric as negative of the Kronecker delta, as the authors themselves state in the next sentence.

This time, of course, there is no misprint. The context of the presentation where they specify the coordinates is important.

The use of coordinate ict seems to be far less popular, nowadays.

I'm not trying to re-open the thread and generate further discussion. I think it has been discussed thoroughly.