-7
$\begingroup$

Well, the title is quite self-explaining. I haven't read anything so far in Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry, but looking at ME (and listening to what a close friend of mine told me about it) it really seems that one has to prepare to hard and painful days if interested in reading/studying it. Actually, ME has lots of questions regarding this exercise or that (not so clearly given) proof in that book, and so I wondered if it might be helpful to add a specific tag for problems related to Harthsorne's studying (just to order things a little bit more and improve searches).

What do you think about it?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I really meant to write about Hartshorne in my original post but I don't know why I wrote about Hatcher instead... Reason for downvoting? $\endgroup$ – Marco Vergura Jun 24 '13 at 11:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Voting works differently on meta. Votes on meta usually indicate agreement or disagreement. $\endgroup$ – davidlowryduda♦ Jun 24 '13 at 11:48
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @mixedmath Ok, thanks! Still, I think it would be more useful and constructive (in general, not only for this specific question) if one pointed out his reasons for downvoting, so that discussions are possible... $\endgroup$ – Marco Vergura Jun 24 '13 at 11:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think it's just too specific. If you mention Hartshorne in the question body it will turn up in the search anyway, so I see little reason to do that. $\endgroup$ – tomasz Jun 24 '13 at 12:05
  • $\begingroup$ Understood. If needed, the question can be closed then, I'd say. $\endgroup$ – Marco Vergura Jun 24 '13 at 12:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This post seems related - it also suggested categorizing the posts based on the book, where they appear; but not using tagging system: Categorizing homework questions with textbook information in a way that makes the site act like a solutions manual $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 24 '13 at 12:20
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MarcoVergura Just a heads up: Even though I disagree with your proposal, it is absolutely a valid thing to discuss. There's no need to close it. :) $\endgroup$ – Lord_Farin Jun 24 '13 at 12:40
13
$\begingroup$

I oppose this tag proposal, and in fact any such proposal that suggests to have a designated tag for just one book/source. (See this thread for a recent related discussion about an online source.) My reasons are as follows:

Anyone asking a question about Hartshorne will mention that name in the question body (or if they don't, they won't add the tag either). It is not necessary to repeat this in the tags, more so as it does not describe mathematical content (i.e. it is a "meta-tag", see this thread for an explanation of why we discourage those).

Moreover, since tags are very important for determining related questions, if the exercise/result happens to appear in other sources as well, or there has been a question asked about it outside of the Hartshorne context in some other way, these results will be harder to find because they do not have the tag.

$\endgroup$

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