Timeline for What's with these "sangaku" geometry problems?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 3, 2018 at 18:10 | comment | added | smci | @JonathanZ: Hebrew gematria, Greek isopsephy, Arabic abjad numerals, English gematria are essentially the same concept, with different alphabets and letter-scores. But naming/aliasing one single name for all of those could get controversial... | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 17:16 | comment | added | JonathanZ | You've gone from "The tag is purely a religious concept .... it needs to be nuked" to "if Sangaku is a religious activity ... might be viewable ...". You probably should have researched it and brought some evidence that that was the case before asserting that as a claim. I know that as a Jewish person if I discovered through math.stackexchange some area of Judaism that had a mathematical connection I'd get a huge kick out of it. | |
| Dec 1, 2018 at 6:20 | comment | added | user64742 | @JonathanZ well my thinking was that if Sangaku is a religious activity then the existence of the tag might be viewable as sacrilege by people from that culture. Hence why I feel the tag shouldn't be used. | |
| Nov 30, 2018 at 21:46 | comment | added | JonathanZ | @TheGreatDuck - I strongly disagree. | |
| Nov 26, 2018 at 6:30 | comment | added | davidbak | @TheGreatDuck - wut? I'm with Jean-Claude Arbaut - it's not a "religious" tag when applied to specific mathematical problems that share a common "theme" or "background", just because those specific mathematical problems might have been initially "published" as (allegedly) some form of religious offering. (And that isn't even clear at this date.) | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 13:52 | comment | added | PJTraill | @TheGreatDuck: Obviously questions purely about religion have no place here, but I welcome questions about the culture of mathematics, and if religion plays a rule, I see no problem. One the other hand, I think that sangaku should not be overemphasised if a problem is otherwise well-known. | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 10:58 | comment | added | Jean-Claude Arbaut | @JyrkiLahtonen Understood :) | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 10:57 | comment | added | Jyrki Lahtonen | Thanks for coming here to explain. Personally I would prefer that new tags should be "cleared" in meta before creating them. Partly for the reasons in Gerry Myerson's comment, partly because sometimes relative noobs do this misguidedly. In the case of this tag I do think that you would have had no trouble whatsoever getting that clearance. So no harm done (other than the edit spree - when judged necessary the preferred way is to space them out a bit). | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 9:13 | comment | added | Jean-Claude Arbaut | @TheGreatDuck I don't agree with you. There are mathematical books on sangakus. It does not necessarily convey a religous meaning. But if it's a pretext to remove the tag, then so be it. | |
| Nov 24, 2018 at 0:41 | comment | added | user64742 | The tag is purely a religious concept. It has no business on a mathematical site. It needs to be nuked immediately. It does not define a branch of math. Sangaku is the act of offering theorems as a religious sacrifice based on the Wikipedia article. Many people will be offended by the site treating it as a mathematical subject. It might be taken that applying the tag makes the post itself a religious sacrifice. That has no place here in my opinion. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 13:31 | comment | added | quid Mod | IIRC the tag had existed for years as a synonym that hardly ever was used (which is why I removed it at some point). I don't think that tag is really useful, but at least as an actual tag it might have some use. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 9:06 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | ...and the tag was later removed.) This is most likely not going to be an issue in this specific case - so far the reaction here in this thread seems to be that most people consider it a useful tag. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 9:03 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | I will add a link to the previous discussion related to this: Should every new tag be discussed on meta before creation? The accepted answer says that it is not obligatory to ask on meta first. (Although not everybody agrees.) Still it would be polite after creation of a new tag to leave some time for the community - so that people can notice that a new tag was created and if they have objections, they can raise them on meta. (You can find here on meta some instances where over 50 questions were quickly added to a new tag before any discussion ... | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 8:44 | comment | added | Alexander Gruber Mod | Putting aside the issue of unilateral tag creation for a moment, I do think it's a reasonable tag. | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 8:18 | history | edited | Jean-Claude Arbaut | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 419 characters in body
|
| Nov 23, 2018 at 8:18 | comment | added | YiFan Tey | The tag itself is certainly a great idea, and you have done a service to the site by adding it :) | |
| Nov 23, 2018 at 8:09 | history | answered | Jean-Claude Arbaut | CC BY-SA 4.0 |