31
$\begingroup$

Tags need a regular cleanup. This is a customary thread for tag synonyms etc.

Rules of the game are basically the same:

  • post your suggestion as an answer here if you see
    • a particularly bad tag (a rule of thumb: «if I can't imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored, I'm getting rid of it»),
    • a tag that should be a synonym of an existing one,
    • a tag that used for two or more completely unrelated things,
    • a need to create a new tag;
  • upvote/downvote/comment as your agree/disagree with suggestions (so please post different suggestions in separate answers);
  • let's wait a couple of days before implementing a suggestion;
  • after the problem described in an answer is resolved, please edit it to say so.

(Of course if a proposal requires an extended discussion you can post it as a separate question.)

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A possible tool for finding not-so-great tags: Tags by percentage closed. I hypothesize that some tags, by their mere existence, encourage poor and/or offtopic questions; this query attempts to sort tags by badness of questions. $\endgroup$
    – apnorton
    Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 16:51
  • $\begingroup$ @apnorton I guess great minds think alike! Though mine is a horrible SQL mess (I think because I also wanted to have the overall % of closed questions, I don't remember). $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ @NajibIdrissi I swear I searched before writing mine! :P $\endgroup$
    – apnorton
    Commented Aug 4, 2015 at 16:53

72 Answers 72

Reset to default
1
2 3
18
$\begingroup$

I don't understand intended usage of . Perhaps it should be either made a synonym of or just removed.

(Tag-wiki explains things like «The letter Z comes from the German word "Zahlen" which means "numbers".» but doesn't help much.)

Upd. Many questions tagged 'integers' are obviously in need of manual retagging, I'm afraid.

I don't think it hurts to have them

IMO it does hurt (well, a little). Such tags lead to 'hash-tagging' questions (in the spirit of... I don't know... «How to prove that triangular number $>1$ can't be a square? #integers #square #triangle #proof-technique») instead of using correct tags like (elementary-)number-theory etc (corresponding to... areas of expertise, I'd say).

(All this doesn't apply to — which looks like a reasonable tag to me.)

$\endgroup$
13
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ I would remove that tag; various question are not number theory. $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 18:00
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ There are also (natural-numbers), with a similar problem. Some questions belong to elementary-number-theory, some belong to logic. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 18:03
  • $\begingroup$ @quid Removing the tag manually is a fair bit of work. Removing automatically involves SE staff, which is probably warranted only when the tag is explicitly problematic. This one looks slightly weird, but then again: how would you tag a question about a puzzle SIX+SEVEN=EIGHT or some such? (puzzle) and (integers) seems reasonable in such a case. My suggestions: (1) make (natural-numbers) a synonym of (integers); (2) edit the excerpt to indicate that the tag should not be used by itself; (3) retag the questions where it is used by itself. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Behaviour Some of puzzles like this should be, perhaps, tagged (elementary-number-theory) (and some, perhaps, should not). In any case, I don't see how having a tag (integers) on such puzzles is helpful. To me it sounds like having a tag 'plus-sign' for puzzles that, well, contain a plus sign [and are difficult to categorise otherwise]. $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No, moderators cannot blacklist (status-declined) or even mass-remove (no-status). As for second point, I do not argue that it's helpful, but rather "not harmful". $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Behaviour BTW, do you see any real questions that can't be adequately tagged w/o (integers)? I've skipped through the list and it seems that most (?) in fact should be (elementary-number-theory) and the rest — everything like (induction), (algebra-precalculus) etc. $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Behaviour the tag "as is" seems like pure noise to me; I just browsed again the questions, there is not even much like a pattern to that list. But I do not insist it is deleted. The main point of my comment was to signal that it should not be synomised/merged into ENT. $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Behaviour Since you have mentioned (natural-numbers), I'll add a link to a discussion in chat. It was suggested there that this tag could be used for what I would call foundational issues. (For example, set-theoretical definition of natural numbers.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Maybe you could thing about better name for such tag (for found. issues)? I'm sure a tag named (natural-numbers) will be misused, no mater what we decide here (or even write in tag wiki). $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 21:21
  • $\begingroup$ @GrigoryM I am just reporting an older discussion. (If some tags have been discussed before we should not ignore that.) In any case, this is only marginal issue here, the post was about (integers). If further discussion is needed, let us continue in chat. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 5, 2015 at 10:47
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have always seen the specific tags (rational-numbers), (real-numbers), (integers) and (natural-numbers) as being appropriate for questions about the properties of those structures specifically. For instance, a question regarding the countability of the rational numbers might belong in (rational-numbers) because it is a question about that specific set, as would a question on how to define the rational numbers. One similarly might use (natural-numbers) for a question like "what subsets of the natural numbers are closed under addition"? Granted, the tags don't seem all that (contd) $\endgroup$
    – Caleb Stanford
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 17:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ (contd) illuminating or helpful, but I don't think it hurts to have them, and if some amateur mathematician were particularly interested in understanding one of these sets of numbers they might find the tags useful. $\endgroup$
    – Caleb Stanford
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 17:58
  • $\begingroup$ Note that there are a few questions tagged with only integers or natural-numbers $\endgroup$
    – Bart Michels
    Commented Jan 28, 2015 at 14:40
16
$\begingroup$

Resolved

I don't care too much for .

  • It lumps together questions about homomorphisms in different algebraic structures, which work quite differently, in general. Therefore, few users will find it convenient to ignore or favorite.

  • The tag for each of these algebraic structures necessarily includes questions about homomorphisms between those structures. Questions about module homomorphisms, for example, would be better with just . doesn't really add anything.

I think we should blow it up.

$\endgroup$
1
14
$\begingroup$

Resolved. The tag is now synonym of linear-algebra.

I also suggest a removal of the tag . It isn't really that meaningful to warrant its own tag. Often in linear algebra, we are considering spans of vectors implicitly. If the tag was being applied correctly, a large portion of the questions concerning linear algebra would be tagged .

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This could be also solved simply by making (span) synonym of (linear-algebra). (After we make sure that it does not contain post from other topics.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 19:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ For sure. I think that's a good option (just to prevent the tag from being created again, unnecessarily). $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jan 21, 2015 at 21:27
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Once upon a time, I argued for the tag should not be synonymized to (linear-algebra) because it also comes up in (functional-analysis). But I no longer hold that view; it turns out that users asking (functional-analysis) questions don't use this tag, whether or not their problem involves span. So, I support making it a synonym of (linear-algebra). $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 26, 2015 at 20:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Fundamental Makes sense. I can understand your initial viewpoint but I think users asking functional analytic questions on average use more descriptive tags than one as general as span. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jan 26, 2015 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ I've suggested that (span) be made a synonym of (linear-algebra). $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jan 26, 2015 at 20:51
  • $\begingroup$ I will add a link to the page where users can vote on this synonym: math.stackexchange.com/tags/linear-algebra/synonyms (Perhaps you might edit the information that you have suggested the synonym into your post. If you find it useful, you could also add this link. In this way, the information that the users can vote on the synonym will be visible to more users.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Feb 2, 2015 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ Sigh my upvote seems to be the only one the suggested synonym has. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Oct 12, 2015 at 21:56
  • $\begingroup$ @MiceElf Oh well. I've suggested a handful of tag obliterations over the last couple of years. Nothing ever came of it, despite being well-received. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Oct 12, 2015 at 23:04
11
$\begingroup$

, really?

What is it good for? Do we really need it?

$\endgroup$
12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Absolutely nothing! $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jan 17, 2015 at 8:08
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ I actually think that this could be a viable (if little used) tag, but as it is currently used it is not. "Examples of pretty mathematical pictures" questions shouldn't be asked at all, and questions about visualising mathematics likely shouldn't be in this tag. But questions concerning the connection between some piece of art and mathematical concepts could very well be worthwhile. A first step might be to go through the tag and cull what should be culled, and see what's left. $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 8:19
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Art: We already have visualization for that sort of questions. But I'm not surprised to see you support a tag named after you... :-P $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 10:18
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ At the same time on a site close by: math-and-art (created two days ago). $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 12:44
  • $\begingroup$ @quid: That question has nothing to do with art either. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ My comment is not an endorsement of these tags. I merely found the temporal coincidence amusing. (If you'd delete the tag on MO I for one would be happy.) $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 12:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I don't see (visualization) as a superset of (art). Of the questions currently tagged (art) I think only five (one, two, three, four, five) are legitimately about math and art. Of those I think only the first two are really suitable for the site. The first is certainly not about (visualization). (So IMO it would be a tiny tag.) $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 13:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Art: You said "and questions about visualising mathematics likely should be in this tag." $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 13:20
  • $\begingroup$ No I didn't. Your mind must be playing tricks on you. $\endgroup$
    – user642796 Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Art: I must have been dazzled by your shiny diamond. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 15:29
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I see this as being similar in usage to reference-request, but merging it into that would obviously not be good for searchability. Somebody wants to see beautiful art about a specific mathematical subject, I wouldn't call that off-topic. (Actually I've dang-near talked myself into asking big-list in the process of writing this comment.) In other words, my vote is for keeping art. $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 0:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A tag that is used appropriately in only 2 questions out of 10 is probably not worth having. $\endgroup$
    – Caleb Stanford
    Commented Aug 7, 2015 at 18:51
11
$\begingroup$

Resolved: Shog9 has burninated this tag.

Let's as an upvoted answer to the old thread and comments here suggest

remove

it's used for questions from «why intersection of two ideals is an ideal» to «how to compute this area of intersection using integral»; as Najib Idrissi puts it

I don't think there should be tags "intersection" or "union" at all. These two operations appear literally everywhere in mathematics, so it's hard to restrict the tag to a single field. And I have a lot of trouble imagining someone looking specifically for questions about intersections or unions regardless of what is being intersected or united.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Finally, I can upvote my own answers! :-) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 17, 2015 at 12:24
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Minor update: At this moment, every question tagged [intersection] is also tagged with additional tags. So the tag is ripe for destruction. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 15:29
11
$\begingroup$

I made a meta post a while ago about having separate tags for and . Based on their use, it seems like they are almost always used in the same context and their tag wikis are almost the same as well. While not all complex integration is about contour integration, e.g. area integrals, it is almost always the case in practice and on this site. was created over two years ago whereas was created just a few months ago. As a result I think that should be deprecated or made a synonym of . Based on the response contained therein, I think this is a reasonable course of action.

Here is the tag synonym page on which this can be voted.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The class of problems about area integrals seems to suggest potential trouble with a synonym. Is there a complex-area-integrals type tag for these? Has there not been enough questions to warrant one? $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Mar 26, 2015 at 0:35
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I agree - complex-integration should absolution be made a synonym of contour-integration. While some people might argue that contour integration may be performed in $\mathbb{R}^2$, I would say that is rather path integration or line integration. Contour integration seems to be a moniker reserved for the complex plane and would thus encompass all of complex integration. $\endgroup$
    – Ron Gordon
    Commented Apr 9, 2015 at 0:21
10
$\begingroup$

Resolved

List of reasonably upvoted (+5 or more) but not yet implemented suggestions from «Tag management 2014»:

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ All three issues mentioned in this post seem to be resolved now: 1, 2, 3. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 7, 2015 at 13:40
9
$\begingroup$

Resolved: was merged into and made a synonym of .

We have two tags, and . Given the recent fate of and the fact that only has 3 questions, I suggest merging both into (since (group-homology-cohomology) is a bit of a mouthful), possibly making a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
10
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I said the word homology a lot in this post. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Jan 1, 2015 at 20:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Similar thing was done with tags (homology) and (cohomology), see here. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ How about merge and rename as group-(co)-homology? $\endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 18:25
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AndresCaicedo Tag names cannot contain parentheses. They consist of letters, numbers, and symbols + # - . $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 18:36
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, well.${}{}$ $\endgroup$
    – Andrés E. Caicedo
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 18:46
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe (group-co-homology), then? $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 19:25
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I support merging into group-cohomology. I have always heard group theorists refer to the topic as "group cohomology," even when they're talking about homology; it's just what the discipline is called. $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Jan 2, 2015 at 20:53
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber Given how uncontroversial this has been, I think you can just go ahead and do it (I don't know if that entails much work). $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Jan 3, 2015 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ @najib I've been away from my laptop this week for new years, but I'll do so when I get back, if another mod hasn't by then. (Mod tools are a bit difficult on my phone.) $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 1:30
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Okay, it's done. $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Jan 7, 2015 at 4:18
9
$\begingroup$

and/or ?

I think the first should be deleted (and replaced by the second) as contained (and less used, here and in the mathematical practice) into the second.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ The (grobner-generators) tag has both tag-wiki and tag-exceprt. They could be used for (groebner-basis) tag, which has the empty tag-wiki at the moment. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Feb 23, 2015 at 20:12
  • $\begingroup$ Other possibility would be making (grobner-generators) a synonym of (goebner-basis). (Perhaps with the lattter as the master tag.) This would eliminate need for manual retagging. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Feb 23, 2015 at 20:13
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps make grobner-basis a synonym of groeber-basis. Someone typing gro... with the intention to add grobner-basis will usually see tag suggestions involving the word group, but soon enough a b will be written, hiding the groebner-basis tag suggestion and causing the user to add a grobner-basis tag. Same problem with "mobius-..." vs "moebius-..." $\endgroup$
    – Bart Michels
    Commented Mar 16, 2015 at 18:10
9
$\begingroup$

Update: The suggested tag synonyms ⇒ and ⇒ have been withdrawn. See my answer here for related goings-on.

EDIT3: There is now a separate post discussing these tags: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/20664/on-gcd-and-greatest-common-divisor-and-other-similar-tags

So if these tags are discussed further, it should be done there.

The tag is already synonym of .

It seems logical that the tag should also be a synonym. (And maybe also could be created and added to the synonyms; so that some user does not create this tag as a separate tag in the future.) As I do not have sufficiently high score in to suggest a synonym, I am posting this suggestion here.

The recent revisions of (least-common-multiple) tag-excerpt and tag-wiki specifically mention that the notion of lcm exists not only for integers but also in rings. (And that the tag is also suitable for this usage.) I don't think this should cause a problem, since rings are also mentioned in the tag-wiki for divisibility. (Although it not explicitly mentioned at the current version of tag-excerpt.) Note that the tag-wiki for divisibility explicitly mentions both gcd and lcm.

EDIT: quid added this to the suggested synonyms. So it is now possible to vote on these synonyms here.

EDIT2: The tag was made a synonym of as a result of this discussion: http://meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/10998/on-the-gcd-tag. In this post I merely suggested that should be treated similarly as .
If (gcd) being synonym of (divisibility) seems problematic to some users (as the comments suggests), it should be probably discussed in a separate thread. (I am not sure what happens to the questions tagged by the synonymous tags if a tag-synonym is removed from the system. And a synonym definitely should not be removed without discussing such step first.)

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ I proposed the synonyms. (On the after-thought: it would even be worse fo gcd if it were a problem. There is even a specific notion of domains where one has a gcd, creatively called gcd-domain.) $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 15:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks! I should point out that the tag (gcd) was previously discussed here. (The accepted answer is the suggestion to create the synonym.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 24, 2015 at 15:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The gcd tag should not be a synonym of divisibility. Many problems on divisibility have little to do with gcds and lcms (which need not even exist in general domains). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 3:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Tag synonyms are asymmetric. (gcd) is remapped to (divisibility), which is its master tag. Not conversely. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 4:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Fundamental Yes, but so what? $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 5:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque As I pointed out, there was a separate discussion on this tag. I posted there an answer suggesting to keep gcd. That answer got total score 2 (+3/-5). $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 6:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Fundamental I have yet to see any cogent argument for mapping gcd/lcm to divisibility. This makes it much more difficult to use tag-related tools to refine to problems on gcd/lcm. Note that one cannot always search on "gcd" since it is frequently denoted namelessly, i.e $\,(a,b) := \gcd(a,b)$ is in widespread use. $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Feb 3, 2015 at 13:37
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Whatever is done I think the final result should have some symmetry. That is, having "gcd" as synonym yet not "lcm" seems weird, especially as "gcd" is the in my perception more wide spread notion. I am somewhat skeptical of having very many tags. As a compromise, what about a joint "gcd-lcm" tag? @BillDubuque what do you think? $\endgroup$
    – quid
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 23:48
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque I have posted a new question on meta to discuss fate of the (gcd) tag. Since you have mentioned in comment, that you do not think they should be synonyms, I though that it would be good idea to let you know about the new question. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jun 1, 2015 at 8:34
  • $\begingroup$ @Martin Thanks for the tip. But nowadays I prefer not to waste any further time on meta matters. MSE is now past the SE point of no return (inmates running the asylum). $\endgroup$
    – Bill Dubuque
    Commented Jun 1, 2015 at 21:52
  • $\begingroup$ @BillDubuque Even if you decided to stop your activity on meta, you might at least upvote quid's answer, which suggest basically the same thing as what you said in the above comment - that (gcd) and (divisibility) should be two separate tags. (But maybe you have already upvoted it.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jun 3, 2015 at 8:10
9
$\begingroup$

Resolved: is now a synonym of

I think that the tags and should be synonyms. (The latter is probably relatively new. It is still shown in the list of the new tags and it contains only 17 questions at the moment.)

EDIT: Users with sufficient reputation in the tag can vote for (or against) this synonym here.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Well it has 78 questions now... $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Oct 12, 2015 at 22:03
8
$\begingroup$

In accordance with this post and the responses there, I suggest:

[other suggestion moved to a separate answer]

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ related discussion (started in 2010, but last answer 04.2014) $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I like the second suggestion — (teaching) has very clear meaning [even if it's sometimes misused], distinct from (education) [which is much more loose] $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 4, 2015 at 0:18
  • $\begingroup$ Splitting (education) into (teaching) and (learning) seemed like a good idea — but now I see that, say, 'What parts of a pure mathematics undergraduate curriculum have been discovered since 1964?' is (education) but neither (teaching) nor (learning)... $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 6, 2015 at 16:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I've gone through and manually retagged all questions tagged only with self-learning. There are too many total (self-learning) questions to retag them all, but perhaps a bit more targeted retagging (e.g., look at questions tagged both (self-learning) and (soft-question), these are likely to need to be tagged (self-learning)) and then we can delete (self-learning). $\endgroup$
    – Caleb Stanford
    Commented Jan 8, 2015 at 23:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The main problem with the self-learning is that it's not clear if it is meant for "self-assigned homework" or for "where can I learn about X by myself". The latter type of question seems much more suitable for reference-request, while tagging the former with a specific flag is rather pointless in an universe where the tag "homework" is undesirable. $\endgroup$
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Feb 27, 2015 at 8:38
  • $\begingroup$ One thing I'm afraid would happen though is that the "learning" tag will become equally useless over time unless strong language is added there to emphasize that it should only be used about the process of learning and just not for any self-posed question. $\endgroup$
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Feb 27, 2015 at 8:49
  • $\begingroup$ It might even be better if the process-related teaching and learning tags were burnianted too. The Math Educators SE seems to fill that gap, although it seems to exclude "Math Self-Educators". $\endgroup$
    – got trolled too much this week
    Commented Feb 27, 2015 at 9:14
8
$\begingroup$

Resolved

should be made a synonym of the tag , which should be kept.

TLDR: looking at , the vast majority of tagged questions already use it as a synonym for .

Here is the full justification:

  • "Constructive mathematics" includes many approaches to studying mathematics without the law of the excluded middle, or without other axioms that constructivists may find doubtful.

  • "Intuitionism" most specifically refers to the philosophy of L. E. J. Brouwer. Brouwer's philosophy, besides rejecting excluded middle, had many other specific assumptions about the nature of mathematics and mathematical knowledge that are not universally shared among constructive mathematicians. For example, choice sequences are particular to Brouwer's philosophy.

Some mathematicians use "intuitionism" as a synonym for "constructive mathematics". For example, when people say "intuitionistic logic", they typically do not mean anything related to Brouwer, but just any logic without the law of the excluded middle. Others are more careful to only use "intuitionism" to refer to Brouwer's position, and use "constructive mathematics" to refer to the more general program.

On this site, looking at , it is already used in nearly every case as a synonym of , with no relationship to Brouwer's work. Having just one tag for these questions would make them easier to follow. But, if we want to pick just one, is better for the reasons I outlined.

The tag wiki for is about Brouwer's program, but it isn't surprising that people don't read that before using the tag.

$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

I see that and are both synonyms for . I think that these should be synonyms of , instead.

$\endgroup$
1
8
$\begingroup$

Resolved (tag burninated)

Burninate

The tag is being used for questions about a proof by contradiction. That does not give much information as many proofs are. See also this discussion.

$\endgroup$
1
8
$\begingroup$

Please pluralize:

$\endgroup$
3
7
$\begingroup$

Can we have a tag? Or maybe: ,

The tag is intended for questions about formal logic, for instance propositional logic, first-order logic, proof theory, model theory, etc. However, we get questions which are really about a basic or elementary understanding of logic. For example:

  • Why do people lose at chess? is tagged logic presumably because it would be appropriate to tag it as about logical reasoning, but it has nothing to do with formal logic.

  • If the sum of four dice was 21, how many dice show 2? was closed for poor quality, but if it were open, it's hard to tag it appropriately. Currently it's tagged and , neither of which seem very appropriate. Really the question is most accurately described as an elementary logic puzzle, i.e. it is about basic logical deduction and logical reasoning.

I've looked through some things tagged and it seems for the most part it's being used in an acceptable manner. But it would be nice to have a tag for basic logical reasoning and logic puzzles.

(Some more examples that might benefit from this tag: 1, 2, 3.)

$\endgroup$
7
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (logical-reasoning) sounds good to me (and IMHO the suggestion makes a lot of sense) $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 8, 2015 at 23:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What mathematical questions (i.e. not reference requests or big lists) are not about logical reasoning? (As for the relative cleanliness of the logic tag, you're welcome. :-)) $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 19:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf The idea of this name is that it's for questions that just about logical-reasoning — and to me this logic looks quite similar to names like number-theory or set-theory (which are obviously not just for any questions that ask to find some number or include some sets :-) $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 20:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Grigory: I still don't think it's a good fit. Either the question is about something mathematically viable (e.g. a puzzle, a game-theoretic notion, probability, etc.) or it's not a good fit for the site. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 21:02
  • $\begingroup$ Well, I don't really insist on this particular name — but it seems that there is a need for a tag about, well, logical reasoning (including 'logical problems' in the sense of... I don't know Smullyans book — tagging them formal logic «including model theory, proof theory, computability theory» seems hardly appropriate). $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 21:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oh, and «something mathematically viable .. e.g. a puzzle» — do you really consider (puzzle) to be a good description of an area of mathematics? To me it sounds only slightly better than (question)... (And (logical-reasoning) tries to solve a part of this problem by adding a more descriptive tag to at least some 'puzzles'.) $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 21:12
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: No, puzzle is rarely a mathematically viable topic; but I don't see how it's any different than a logical seasoning tag. I mean, unless you're question is specifically about some other topic in mathematics, in which case it's clear that logical seasoning is not the topic; then you question is essentially about solving some puzzle using logical seasoning. It's a superset, then, and I don't see the need for adding a sub-tag. It won't cause people not to use [logic] anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Jan 16, 2015 at 19:27
7
$\begingroup$

Resolved: tag removed from all questions

Someone recently created the tag . Do we really need a tag separate from for this? Especially with schemes, these objects being very often "over" another scheme, ie. the object studied is the morphism $S \to S_0$ where $S_0$ is some fixed base scheme ($\operatorname{Spec} \Bbbk$ for example)...

More generally I don't think every tag about an algebraic structure should be doubled with a tag about the morphisms between these algebraic structures; why not "morphisms-of-groups", "morphisms-of-rings", "morphisms-of-graphs", "functors", "linear-maps"...?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I know there's a tag continuous (synonym of continuity), but students in the majority of cases study continuity before even knowing what a topology is. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Jan 15, 2015 at 14:08
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm in agreement here. It's almost implied I think since we're often considering such maps implicitly in the subject matter. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Jan 16, 2015 at 0:21
7
$\begingroup$

Resolved (synonyms approved)

Could it be possible to make a synonym of ? It's the third time in two days that I've had to correct the tags on questions: [1], [2], [3]. Given the tag excerpt/wiki of and the fact that is a synonym of it this seems reasonable.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Maybe even (convexity) too to cover all bases. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Jan 26, 2015 at 9:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I have suggested those two synonyms, so other users (with sufficient score in that tag) can vote on them. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 26, 2015 at 15:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't know if there is a huge overlap between the people who can vote for this synonym and the people who care about cleaning up tags... $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Feb 2, 2015 at 9:11
7
$\begingroup$

Resolved (synonyms created, also for while we were at it)

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If precedent is anything to go by, moebius-* should be the primary tags. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Mar 8, 2015 at 10:58
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a need for these? Do people tag "mobius-xyz"? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel Fischer Mod
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 13:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Someone typing mo with the intention to add the tag mobius-xyz will usually see tag suggestions like modules, homotopy-theory, modular-arithmetic etc, but soon enough a b will be written, hiding the moebius-xyz tag suggestion and causing the user to add a mobius-xyz tag instead. If nobody keeps an eye on this we end up having both mobius-xyz and moebius-xyz. To avoid this we need the synonyms. $\endgroup$
    – Bart Michels
    Commented Mar 18, 2015 at 13:47
7
$\begingroup$

Resolved

Rename to .

Reason: the name is misleading and may be confused with . In order to make the distinction clearer it seems better to highlight that refers to the operation of completing the square, so why not rename the tag as such?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ We don't need perfect-squares IMO. But the renaming seems apt. $\endgroup$
    – Lord_Farin
    Commented Feb 11, 2015 at 23:19
7
$\begingroup$

What is the scope of ? Can someone write a tag wiki or at least an excerpt?

Or should we just remove it?

$\endgroup$
5
7
$\begingroup$

is a synonym of whereas is not. I suggest to

$\endgroup$
2
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If it's merged, I vote for expected-value as the master, since that is somewhat less fuzzy. expectation hints toward "What result are you expecting from simulating X?" and sounds more subjective towards that end. $\endgroup$
    – AlexR
    Commented Mar 10, 2015 at 18:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Now there is a separate question about this problem: Expectation means average? $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented May 27, 2018 at 19:31
7
$\begingroup$

Suggestion: Burninate and blacklist .

I'd like us as a community to evaluate the tag . The tag wiki suggests that should be used in somewhat of a differential geometric setting, however much more than half the time it seems like it is used specifically for derivatives. Of course there is a connection here, but the tag is so improperly used it is almost devoid of utility. For differential geometry oriented discussion of differentials, we have ; for derivatives, we have , and for nonstandard analysis type questions, we have . These three cover the different type of question to which "differential" might be attributed so there is no use for .

$\endgroup$
8
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ An additional problem is that due to the existence of this tag, a user entering "differential geometry" in the tag field automatically gets the question tagged with (differential) and (geometry), not with (differential-geometry). $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 3:07
  • $\begingroup$ That's a very good point. I wouldn't have thought of that. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 3:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There's also homological-algebra / homology-cohomology for these kinds of differentials. $\endgroup$
    – Najib Idrissi
    Commented Aug 15, 2015 at 10:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Ugh $\endgroup$
    – Alexander Gruber Mod
    Commented Aug 16, 2015 at 20:28
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber Oof. That's spectacularly bad. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Aug 16, 2015 at 20:44
  • $\begingroup$ @NormalHuman If I understand your comment correctly, it is only relevant to users below 1k. If a user has privilege to create tags, then the question will be tagged with two tags, whether they exist or not. (See also here.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Aug 17, 2015 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak True. But users below 1K are most often the ones who don't know what they are doing in the tag field. $\endgroup$
    – user147263
    Commented Feb 27, 2016 at 23:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Sally That's probably true. In addition to that, situation has changed since I made that comment, since now we have warnings about creating new tags. Which means that users who are allowed creating tags will be notify if they put two inexistent tag instead of one existing tag by mistake. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Feb 28, 2016 at 5:44
6
$\begingroup$

Rename to

The name 'searching' is just unclear.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

I propose creating for limits and colimits in the sense of category theory. (Perhaps it might be useful to create also and and add them as synonyms.)

We have many questions about limits and colimits in tag. Some of them are tagged as limits+category-theory which is, in my opinion, incorrect use of tag. Not so long ago tag has been created, but it was removed almost immediately.

See also this discussion in chat.

$\endgroup$
1
6
$\begingroup$

What do folks here think about the tag ? It started in January '14 and currently 9 questions carry this tag.

AFAICT those questions are about the application of Burnside's lemma/Polya enumeration of necklaces and bracelets constructed according to some rules.

In my opinion this is too specialized, and could fall under a tag like combinatorial-enumeration. Unfortunately no such tag exists. The tag exists but from the looks of things has been synonymized/merged with .

I think that combinatorial-enumeration could be a good tag, but I don't visit combinatorics questions nearly often enoug to have any kind of an informed opinion.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I like the tag, actually; it's a particular kind of combinatorial object. For instance, we also have tags for young-tableaux, partitions, trees, etc. $\endgroup$
    – Caleb Stanford
    Commented Aug 3, 2015 at 16:56
5
$\begingroup$

I just came across in a new post. This seems like an unimportant tag, just like . Many systems of equations in linear algebra and in ODE and PDE are homogeneous equations! A separate tag for this extremely common (almost implicit) phenomenon is silly in my opinion.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Seeing this taxonomist badge, the tag was probably created in this question. I have pinged the tag-creator to let them know about this discussion. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Mar 14, 2015 at 8:35
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think you'll be getting any sort of response from the creator. They haven't been on the network in years. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Mar 14, 2015 at 15:50
  • $\begingroup$ You are right. (And I should have noticed that.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Mar 14, 2015 at 21:40
  • $\begingroup$ No worries. It happens. $\endgroup$
    – Cameron Williams
    Commented Mar 14, 2015 at 21:42
5
$\begingroup$

what? Rings? Groups? Modules? Ideals?

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ In the meantime a user added tag-wiki to say that it is about finitely generated groups. (But there are many other context in which the phrase finitely generated is used and the tag has been used for some questions which are not about groups.)] $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jun 8, 2015 at 5:53
5
$\begingroup$

I think that should be removed. And independently of that, I think that it should be blacklisted too.

$\endgroup$
1
2 3

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