Timeline for Tags for separation axioms and countability axioms for topological spaces
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Dec 10, 2016 at 5:34 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I have said (hausdorff-property) since it was one of the possibilities you have mentioned. I should probably read your post more carefully, since my impression was that you are against synonyms of the form (hausdorff-something) $\to$ (separation-axioms) in general. (Here something stands for the name of the tag which would be chosen.) I am glad that this was clarified in your comment. (I have added a footnote in my question as a reaction to the above comment.) | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 20:21 | comment | added | quid | It is not clear to me whether you change from "space" to "property" on purpose in your comment. I'd have no problem with h-property being a syn, indeed I more-or-less proposed this. What I am against is making common names of objects a synonym of something, because this leads to mis-tagging and "pollution" of the target, with questions where the objects just happens to appear. Whether or not the tag should (in some abstract sense) be use is only that relevant; as a matter of fact the tag will be used, and it is also hard to avoid as for the asker it often will not be clear it is tangential. | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 11:00 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | On the other hand, if there is a synonym say (hausdorff-property) $\to$ (separation-axioms), in some cases it will help tagging. Probably a new user will be unaware that if their questions is about Hausdorff spaces, it should be tagged (separation-axioms). But when they start typing Hausdorff in the tag field, they might see the synonym. But since this is getting too long, let's either agree that we disagree on this, or let us continue the discussion in chat. | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 10:50 | comment | added | quid | "Now, one might argue the question then should not be tagged Hausdorff space to begin with, but that might be arguable even in theory and anyway in practice users just tag like that, and we should try to avoid synonyms that are likely to turn so-so tagging into tagging that makes no sense." | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 10:36 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | The way I understand current tag-info for (countability-axioms), the tag (separable-spaces) is subtag of this tag. (AFAICT it was used exactly in this way - as the tag where either tag (separable-spaces) of (first-countable) or... would have been used, if they existed.) So every question tagged (separable-spaces) should be also tagged also (countability-axioms) - at least according to current tag description. So if you are pointing out an example where you think (countability-axioms) would be inappropriate, then it is also incorrectly tagged (separable-spaces). | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 10:22 | comment | added | quid | Do you think that somebody looking for questions about countability-axioms will be glad to find the question I gave as example? I doubt it. Therefore it should not be tagged like this. I see two options: either 'kill' the tag separable spaces, or keep it with a remark that if appropriate the additional tag countability-axioms should be added. A synonym though is not desirable. (Generally, I feel that many but the most direct synonyms cause more harm than good.) | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 5:08 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | To be completely honest, originally separable spaces were mentioned only in the tag-wiki, now I have added it into the tag-excerpt too, so that this information is more visible (shown in the tooltip). | |
| Dec 9, 2016 at 5:06 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | It will always be a judgement call whether notion that appears in that question is relevant enough to be used a tag. (We all have seen repeated comments by Asaf saying: If the question contains word set, that does not mean it is (set-theory).) However, if the tag-info explicitly says that that (countability-axioms) is for question about separable spaces, I do not see that much of a problem. If some user is unsure why the tag is there, they can simply hover over it. | |
| Dec 8, 2016 at 19:00 | history | answered | quid | CC BY-SA 3.0 |