2
$\begingroup$

A number of times, my questions have had the set-theory tag removed. One such instance is here: Conglomeration for conglomeration's sake . Another is here {On hold is a welcome topic for another place}: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/713610/having-elements-as-ideals . In the first one, I was correct in believing that set theory would give an answer. Somewhat related is I also thought that any theory of collections should be considered set theory, whereas the set theorists here seem to have the position that set theory is what set theorists do(perhaps a function of their professionalization).

The second one I tagged set theory, because it is not about rings up to isomorphism, and it was obvious that some set theoretical method/thought was needed (perhaps elementary, I'll give it another shot). So my question is, should the tags of a question reflect the topics of the statement, or the tools needed to resolve the question? My idea was that tags are primarily a tool for matching questions with the required knowledge. If tags are about the tools needed, should I defend my tags in the problem (so that a knowledgeable set theorist doesn't untag a question I have thought about for hours, after a glance)?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Most of the commonly used tags now have pretty decent tag wiki excerpts. Reading them can avoid tripping up between set-theory and elementary-set-theory. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 17 '14 at 16:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ If you suspect that tools from Subject A maybe useful to your question which is ostensibly about Subject B, it is always useful to share your thoughts and include in your question why you think said tools from Subject A can be useful. At the very least, it is polite to not (through omission) force others to re-derive what you already know. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Mar 17 '14 at 16:37

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .