Pith. Sign in

RECORD

The Stability of Lorentzian Space-Time

PaperPDF from arXiv

data files

Paper breakdownThe authors' claims, conditions and measurements, as JSON Signed receiptProof this review has not been altered
X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit Hacker News
Asher Yahalom

General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology · Submitted 9 Feb 2006

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23 · no language-model review

The authors' main claim In this work we show that the above assertion is a consequence of a standard stability analysis of the Einstein \eqs and need not be assumed.

how it is stated · asserted 1.00 read the record →

Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗
Cite ▾
arXiv IDgr-qc/0602034 (version 1)
Pith IDDJVTZZYZ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review
CitationAsher Yahalom. "The Stability of Lorentzian Space-Time." arXiv:gr-qc/0602034 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/DJVTZZYZ
Claim paper

The compiled record

The paper's own sentences, arranged. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Open the compiled record

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 2,375 input tokens, $0.0001 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.06 · states limitation 0.06 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.03 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.03 · compares with prior results 0.45 · mentions code or data availability 0.02.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; .

It is stated in many text books that the any metric appearing in general relativity should be locally Lorentzian i.e. of the type $\eta_\mn = {\rm diag} (1,-1,-1,-1)$ this is usually presented as an independent axiom of the theory, which can not be deduced from other assumptions. In this work we show that the above assertion is a consequence of a standard stability analysis of the Einstein \eqs and need not be assumed.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#sentencerolethe authors' own workstates the main conclusionstrength
s0 It is stated in many text books that the any metric appearing in general relativity should be locally Lorentzian i.e. of the type $\eta_\mn = {\rm diag} (1,-1,-1,-1)$ this is usually presented as an independent axiom of the theory, which can not be deduced from other assumptions. background 1.00 0.03 0.03 asserted 0.99
s1 In this work we show that the above assertion is a consequence of a standard stability analysis of the Einstein \eqs and need not be assumed. result 0.78 0.94 0.95 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from proof or derivation 0.99.

What was examined, and what was not

sources read
  • arXiv listing abstract v1
not examined
  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers
levels run
  • P abstract
not run
  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

The paper
Original abstract

It is stated in many text books that the any metric appearing in general relativity should be locally Lorentzian i.e. of the type $\eta_\mn = {\rm diag} (1,-1,-1,-1)$ this is usually presented as an independent axiom of the theory, which can not be deduced from other assumptions. In this work we show that the above assertion is a consequence of a standard stability analysis of the Einstein \eqs and need not be assumed.

Human review

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

Discussion

Know something about this paper? Leave a comment, or highlight any passage above to comment on it.