12
$\begingroup$

Going through the suggested edits review queue, I stumbled over a tag-wiki edit to . Since I had never seen that tag before, I had a look, and it was just created with one single question tagged (not by the OP).

The suggested tag wiki excerpt reads

For a questions of common foundation in general topology and calculus in normed vector spaces.

and the suggested tag wiki reads

Modern mathematical analysis is the study of infinite processes. It is the branch of mathematics that includes calculus. It can be applied in the study of classical concepts of mathematics, such as real numbers, complex variables, trigonometric functions, and algorithms, or of non-classical concepts like constructivism, harmonics, infinity, and vectors.

Do we really need this tag? (Where and when is the differerence between, say, modern-analysis or real-analysis/functional-analysis, etc?)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Since I've created this tag, my feeling is that we do missing this one. If you ask to distinct between different tags - you can already find million tags says similar thing. Modern Analysis can be considered a union of several tags exactly as for example "calculus" is a union of "integration", "limits" etc...all these tags exists. You can also say that all tag with "analysis" inside can be one "analysis" tag which is also exists, so why to distinct? $\endgroup$ – Michael Medvinsky Dec 3 '15 at 9:05
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelMedvinsky Why are we missing it? (And perhaps your reasoning would be best suited as an answer instead of a comment.) Currently your suggested tag wiki/excerpt leave me more confused about the tag rather than less. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Dec 3 '15 at 9:12
  • 9
    $\begingroup$ @MichaelMedvinsky Are we to understand that the tag analysis (which already has 15,000+ questions) is for "non-modern" analysis then? Even the need for the "analysis" tag is debatable (its excerpt even says to consider more specific tags), IMO "modern-analysis" has no use at all. $\endgroup$ – Najib Idrissi Dec 3 '15 at 9:22
  • $\begingroup$ added an answer $\endgroup$ – Michael Medvinsky Dec 3 '15 at 10:03
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I suggested modern-analysis as a synonym of analysis, but after some discussion (now deleted) found that this was controversial because analysis is largely deprecated. I encourage others to downvote the synonym suggestion unless there emerges a clearer consensus for it. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Dec 3 '15 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey The synonym was removed, as you requested. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Dec 13 '15 at 7:07
-12
$\begingroup$

I've created this tag and why I thought we need it is explained below, however I convinced by you that we might not really need this tag - feel free to remove it.


Since I've created this tag, my feeling is that we do missing this one. If you ask to distinct between different tags - you can already find million tags says similar thing. Modern Analysis can be considered a union of several tags exactly as for example "calculus" is a union of "integration", "limits" etc...all these tags exists. You can also say that all tag with "analysis" inside can be one "analysis" tag which is also exists, so why to distinct?

In respond to Arthur's confusion. Perhaps the suggested tag wiki/excerpt is not the best and still have to be improved. After all this is the first one I do.

My main reason is that sometime you need to add more then one tag and the number of tags is limited, so a tag that include all things together may help.

I somewhat agree with Najib Idrissi that the need "analysis" tag is debatable, it is kind of too broad and of course the "modern analysis" belong to it together with all other analysis's. To distinct it from the "modern analysis" for example "data analysis" belong to "analysis", but in my understanding doesn't belong to "modern analysis", say since it is more modern then the term of "modern analysis".

The real problem thought is with the word "modern" since the term of modern analysis was invented in 17th century Europe and today this is usual thing, however the name is persist even in the really modern literature, so that is. But this is not a problem of a tag of course.

$\endgroup$
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ You wrote: for example "data analysis" belong to "analysis", but in my understanding doesn't belong to "modern analysis". Data analysis definitely does not belong under (analysis) tag. This is even specified in the tag-excerpt and the tag-wiki. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Dec 3 '15 at 11:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak you right, I've misread it, then I probably ask a rename or synonym if you want. because just analysis confuses. either modern analysis or math-analysis would work better. $\endgroup$ – Michael Medvinsky Dec 3 '15 at 11:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A "tag to include all things together" would be math! (Actually, that's not possible, as it is a so-called intrinsic tag, but maths would be possible as a request to add that to the intrinsic tag list hasn't been acted on.) For the specific question you introduced this tag to, I may have opted for functional-analysis, besov-space, and possibly nikolskii-spaces (this would have meant introducing the last, which may may not be used enough to retain). I think we have enough — likely too many — very broad tags. $\endgroup$ – user642796 Dec 3 '15 at 11:14
  • $\begingroup$ @ArthurFischer I think I convinced enough, see my comment to Martin. You can remove this tag I guess. $\endgroup$ – Michael Medvinsky Dec 3 '15 at 11:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ FWIW where I work there was an annual course titled "Introduction to modern analysis" that covered measure theory, Bochner integrals, and bits and pieces of functional analysis. Anyway, early 20th century stuff and beyond. I don't think your description is a good fit. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 3 '15 at 11:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, I think that we have reached the point where the new tags are likely to be research level only. The more elementary stuff is covered quite well by the existing tags. This is just an impression - I do not want to pontificate (nor am I familiar with even a significant fraction of the elementary stuff). Anyway, getting a taxonomist is very difficult nowadays. $\endgroup$ – Jyrki Lahtonen Dec 3 '15 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ measure theory is part of modern analysis, that doesn't contradict anything. Don't know about Bochner integrals thought, but Integration is strongly related to measure theory so I guess no contradiction as well. The suggested description might need be improved, but the discussion here is mainly if we need this tag or not, which I guess can be already concluded as not, since I was the only one who "needed" it and you guys convinced me. $\endgroup$ – Michael Medvinsky Dec 3 '15 at 12:09

You must log in to answer this question.

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