Talk:Coleman–Mandula theorem

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Why has this theorem suddenly been re-christened?

Why has the well-known Coleman-Mandula theorem (note hyphen typical of compound adjectives) been suddenly re-christened the "Coleman [en dash] Mandula" theorem? The en-dash is typically used to show intervals but appears in compound words only when one of them already has a hyphen in it. This change seems to me confusing and unnecessary. betsythedevine (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Direct product of Lie groups is not a Lie algebra

In the article the phrasing a symmetry Lie algebra which is always a direct product of the Poincaré group and an internal group is quite wrong. Each direct product of groups is again a group. I suspect that it was intended to say "the direct product of the Lie algebras of the Poincaré group and of an internal group". (Note that the definition of the direct product of two Lie algebras is not too obvious - if one likes to get the Lie algebra of the product group.)

In that way, this internal group must be supposed to be a Lie group, at least to be something like a continuous group. That is, discrete internal symmetries like parity are not concerned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefan Neumeier (talk • contribs) 16:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Incomprehensible

I have a modest background in particle physics, but even to me the article is dense. I doubt a layman could comprehend a single sentence. This article will have to be completely rewritten; I just wish I knew enough about this to do so.