It seems to me that although there is already the tag, it would be interesting to have a tag for the beta function. It would allow to tag this special function too, similarly to what happens to the $\Gamma$ function, which has the tag. The tag would also be appropriate for the incomplete beta function. Some examples I've found are:

Are you in favor of the idea of creating the tag?

EDIT: I added two possible answers: YES or NO.

UPDATE. This tag has been created in the meantime as answered by Martin Sleziek. I'm in favor of keeping it and retag some older questions.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do recall seeing more than ten of these sorts of questions, so I think a specialized tag might be appropriate at this point... $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ @J. M. Thanks for the edit. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 15:33
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I don't think this is reasonable. One should then also create cosine- and sine-function separate tags in addition to "exponential function". $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 16:42
  • $\begingroup$ @O.L. I respect your opinion, but it seems to me that by your argument the (gamma-function) tag shouldn't have been created, since if I remember correct there was already the (special-functions) tag. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 17:02
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AméricoTavares This is not quite comparable. Gamma function is much, much more fundamental function then beta, whose (almost) single merit is being a relatively frequently encountered integral. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ @O.L. I tend to agree with you that the Gamma function is more fundamental than the beta function. I just add that both are Euler integrals. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ The question got a downvote. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 17:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AméricoTavares The downvote is mine. This was not at all intended to criticize the question, I just had an impression that it is a common practice on meta to support a proposition or not with voting (my question on increase of time limit for comment editing got two downvotes recently). I apologize if it is not so. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 20:15
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @O.L. You are definitely correct about votes on meta. $\endgroup$
    – Lord_Farin
    Jun 22, 2013 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ @O.L. Thanks for explaining the meaning of your vote! $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 20:35
  • $\begingroup$ @O.L. I've read the paragraph Voting is different on meta and concluded that you are correct, as commented by Lord_Farin. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 20:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @O.L., as a counterpoint, we already have trigonometry, and the trig functions are usually already used together in a question, so there'd be no need to make tags for each of the six (seven? eight?) trig functions, and six more tags for the inverses. (On that note, it was also decided long ago that the hyperbolic functions be also covered under trigonometry, so we already have a sufficiently wide umbrella...) $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 23:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ ...my point being, the analogy does not at all match the situation for considering if beta function questions ought to have a tag of their own. Maybe here's a better analogy: should we have separate tags for the usual Bessel functions, and the modified versions? If I had to react to that... I'd be on the fence. $\endgroup$ Jun 22, 2013 at 23:42
  • $\begingroup$ It seems that it is not reasonable (+5/-4). $\endgroup$ Jun 23, 2013 at 9:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M.: we actually do have a hyperbolic-functions tag, with a not meager number of questions. $\endgroup$ Jun 24, 2013 at 8:11

4 Answers 4


It seems that the tag was created recently. (The list of new tags says that it was created on Oct 18 at 16:36.) I did not want to create a new meta thread for the same tag, which is why I am bumping this one. (If you think that a new discussion would be better, feel free to create one and I will delete my answer here. But to me the new question would seem almost as a duplicate - since it would ask basically the same question. The only difference is that in the meantime someone created the tag. And additionally, in this way the older discussion about this tag will be more visible than in the case of a new post linking to this one.)

A tag-excerpt was also created.

For questions about Beta function, a special function closely related to Gamma. It is advisable to also use [special-functions] tag with this one.

At the moment, the tag has 4 questions: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Basically I see two problems with this tag:

  • The outcome of the voting on this question seems to be that this tag is not needed. (But, of course, the opinion of community can change over time.)
  • The tag is not used consistently with the tag excerpt. Some of the questions are about beta distribution in probability and statistics. (This was pointed out in chat, I did not even know about this kind of probability distribution.)

The purpose of bumping this post is to start some discussion on:

  • Whether the tag should be kept. (In which case we might also retag some older questions.)
  • Whether the two meanings in which the tag is used are compatible enough to be in the same tag. (Maybe this would merit a separate meta question...? I have decided not to fragment the discussion about the same tag too much and mention this in the same post.)
  • $\begingroup$ Not to mention Goedel's $\beta$ function in logic, and the general notion of $\beta$ functions encoding sequences of integers in this context. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Oct 22, 2014 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ I unaccepted one of the answers to bump this question again. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ I'm in favor of keep this tag and retag some older questions. $\endgroup$ Nov 7, 2014 at 11:59

NO, I am not in favor of the idea of creating the tag.


YES, I am in favor of the idea of creating the tag.

  • $\begingroup$ @Lord_Farin Thanks for the corrections! $\endgroup$ Jun 26, 2013 at 11:39

In view of the existing votes it is not a good idea for the time being.

  1. NO: +4/0
  2. YES: +2/0
  3. question: +5/-4

Edit. I will accept this answer. Now the votes are:

  1. NO: +5/0
  2. YES: +3/0
  3. question: +6/-4

Update. Unaccepted in view of the new answer by Martin Sleziak.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .