10
$\begingroup$

Do we really need a tag?

And if yes, what should go under such tags?

For example, I don't think either of the two questions (related to Navier-Stokes) currently tagged as such should belong to a millennium-problem tag even if the tag is useful. Those two questions concern elementary issues regarding the Navier-Stokes problem, which is rather distinct from the Well/Ill-posedness result that the Clay list explicitly asks for.

In the same token, I don't think an elementary question on Ricci flow should be tagged millennium-problem just because it is the high-powered machinery used in Perelman's proof of Poincare. And who knows how many questions we've already had on things tangentially related to the Riemann hypothesis, the B and S-D conjecture, or PvNP.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ While we are at it, why on earth do we have the tags "Marching-Cube" and "Marching-Tetrahedron." Really? I fail to see the use.... $\endgroup$
    – Eric Naslund
    Apr 28, 2011 at 20:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Eric I don't think "higher-category-theory" should be merged with "category-theory". $\endgroup$
    – Grigory M
    Apr 29, 2011 at 5:24
  • $\begingroup$ @Grigory: Ahh I see. I should of looked it up before commenting. $\endgroup$
    – Eric Naslund
    Apr 29, 2011 at 6:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
19
$\begingroup$

I don't think this tag is useful.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 11
    $\begingroup$ If Grigory gets a "Nice Answer" badge because of this answer, can we pretty please delete the tag? $\endgroup$
    – J. M. ain't a mathematician
    Apr 28, 2011 at 11:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @J.M. It is done. $\endgroup$
    – Willie Wong
    Apr 29, 2011 at 15:27

You must log in to answer this question.

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