You have a typo in your first line, and I answered a sibling comment about that. Metrics are irrelevant to the discussion (and I presume you wanted to write "norm" instead of "metric").
As for why I said metric, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor. Which is technically a concept from differential geometry rather than linear algebra. But then again, tensors are literally the topic that started this. And it is only in differential geometry that I've ever cared about mapping from V to V*.
This comment is in a discussion about an article titled, Tensors, the geometric tool that solved Einstein's relativity problem. Therefore, "tensors are literally the topic that started this discussion."
Hopefully that's a hint that you should attempt to figure out what someone might be talking about before going to schoolyard insults.
Schoolyard insult? Uh? Can you quote the part of my comment that would be the "schoolyard insult"?
> This comment is in a discussion about an article titled, Tensors, the geometric tool that solved Einstein's relativity problem. Therefore, "tensors are literally the topic that started this discussion."
Again, are manifold involved in any way in the definition of tensors and their properties? No? Then why are you even mentioning "metric tensors"? (Which aren't even tensors, but tensor fields...)
As for why I said metric, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_tensor. Which is technically a concept from differential geometry rather than linear algebra. But then again, tensors are literally the topic that started this. And it is only in differential geometry that I've ever cared about mapping from V to V*.