Timeline for Should we have a [lambert-w] tag?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:21 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://math.stackexchange.com/ with https://math.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 8, 2015 at 10:46 | comment | added | Asaf Karagila Mod | @barto: For a while now. I think the topic was brought up like a year ago. meta.math.stackexchange.com/a/12683/622 | |
| Apr 8, 2015 at 10:34 | comment | added | Bart Michels | Things have changed by now :) | |
| Sep 7, 2011 at 16:15 | vote | accept | Asaf KaragilaMod | ||
| Sep 7, 2011 at 16:15 | history | edited | Asaf KaragilaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
The mighty conclusion!
|
| Sep 6, 2011 at 1:06 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | Aw man, only Asaf and me were for the beer? I guess the new tag is a "no"... :D | |
| Sep 5, 2011 at 18:43 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackMath/status/110785116363702273 | ||
| Sep 5, 2011 at 7:56 | comment | added | André Nicolas | Someone who knows that the answer involves Lambert $W$ would not need to ask the question. So the tag would only be applied retroactively. | |
| Sep 5, 2011 at 7:41 | history | edited | Asaf KaragilaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 195 characters in body
|
| Sep 5, 2011 at 7:40 | answer | added | Asaf KaragilaMod | timeline score: 4 | |
| Sep 5, 2011 at 7:38 | answer | added | Asaf KaragilaMod | timeline score: 15 | |
| Sep 5, 2011 at 7:37 | answer | added | Asaf KaragilaMod | timeline score: 6 | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 17:49 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | ...and elliptic-functions. Hmm... | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 17:35 | comment | added | t.b. | Come to think of it: We have gamma-function, zeta-functions, riemann-zeta, so my previous argument seems to break down. Anyway, I don't have a strong opinion but still tend to be against [lambert-w]. | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 17:17 | comment | added | t.b. | I'm inclined against it. For example, we don't have a tag (exponential-function) either. Those who know about Lambert $W$ will probably know what special functions are and use that tag (hopefully). It won't help those whose answers unexpectedly involve Lambert $W$, so I think (special-functions) would do as well. | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 16:24 | history | edited | Américo Tavares | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Typo [special-functions] tag
|
| Sep 4, 2011 at 16:16 | history | edited | Asaf KaragilaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 344 characters in body
|
| Sep 4, 2011 at 16:13 | comment | added | Américo Tavares | If we agree that the Lambert W function is a special function, we could use the existing [special-functions] tag. | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 16:10 | comment | added | J. M. ain't a mathematician | For the record: I don't really lean to either for or against the creation of the tag. | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 16:07 | comment | added | davidlowryduda Mod | Without backing this statement up, but rather only giving a short insight into my point of view, I do not think that there should be such a tag. | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 15:53 | comment | added | The Chaz 2.0 | Well, if you disagree (that there should be a tag), then maybe you should start a meta discussion! | |
| Sep 4, 2011 at 15:52 | history | asked | Asaf KaragilaMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |