@Icosahedron What about it?

@ACuriousMind Is there anything worth blackmailing you over?

@0celo7 No, that's why I put it in quotes, but it sounds like "Reopen my question, or I will continue to get on your nerves". Hm, probably not blackmail. Extortion?

@ACuriousMind That's a shame.

@ACuriousMind He's just being a child. "Give me cookies or I'll keep screaming."

@Danu Ohhhh, I thought you meant your comments under ACuriousMind's answer.

@0celo7 It's not very good.

@Icosahedron Why did you mention it then?

I hadn't seen it before.

I hadn't either. It not being good is a decent enough reason for that.

Why isn't it good?

Nevermind that.

Why can't I use wald as a beginner again?

I read it a bit and it's great.

If you can't do the exercises in Zee, why would you do a harder book that assumes that knowledge?

I can learn the math elsewhere.

from a math book.

Do you have a firm grasp of special relativity in tensor notation?

No.

I remember you saying that wald doesn't cover SR.

That is true.

I suppose I'll read about SR elsewhere before I begin.

Like Carroll.

Do you mean, like Carroll as he does not cover SR, or like Carroll as a book to learn SR from?

It's a great book to learn GR and SR from.

Fine.

Though if I abandon Zee, am I missing out on anything?

I haven't read large parts of Carroll, so I'm not sure. I don't think Carroll covers the stuff in chapter X of Zee.

In any case, abandoning a book because you don't like the format is not a good reason.

...sigh.

Fine I'll read Zee, final decision.

The only book that uses a theorem-proof style is HE.

I look forward to it.

Though for now, I need to read Zee.

Don't. These proofs are so vague.

@HDE226868 I even linked it :P

@Icosahedron Read Carroll!

Carroll does QFT in curved spacetime!! :D

@Danu In chat? I can't see anything in the comments.

In chat, yes

There. I see now.

@ChrisWhite Lemma 4.5.6 is satanic. The comment "The first and third terms vanish as $\gamma(t)$ is an unbroken geodesic" is misleading as hell because those aren't the only terms that vanish as a result of that. They just don't bother mentioning the others!

As a result, I spent 30 minutes trying to figure out why $$\frac{\mathrm{D}}{\partial u_2}\frac{\partial}{\partial u_1}=0$$ since that's the part common to the terms they mention. Turns out that's not zero and they vanish because of other reasons.

RIP John Nash: nj.com/middlesex/index.ssf/2015/05/…

@KyleKanos : Sad. A car crash. Related MO.SE post: mathoverflow.net/q/207477/13917

I've found that this is very reliable in determining rain, more than weather forecasts.