# Tag proposal: squeeze-theorem

There are many questions about the squeeze theorem on this site, and seeing that some other theorems such as the Chinese Remainder Theorem, Stokes theorem, Bayes theorem, etc. have their own tags, why not this one?

Note: A search yielded $668$ results, compared to searches for Chinese Remainder Theorem with $745$ results, Stokes Theorem with $700$ results, Bayes Theorem with $438$ results. I know the searches aren't too accurate, but they give a general representation of how often a theorem is asked about.

• You should at least restrict the searches to questions, adding "is:q" It does not change your point much (thou a bit) but still. Tangentially, why didn't you post in the tag-management thread? – quid Mod Nov 8 '16 at 11:46
• @quid edited the post – suomynonA Nov 9 '16 at 1:59
• This tag seems like it wouldn't benefit the question askers. Would the type of askers who would use this tag go to the trouble of checking previously asked questions in the tag to see if they could solve their problems using answers already given? I doubt it. So then are there enough interested squeeze-theorem question answerers who would follow this tag? I think that's the main point in whether it should be created. – Antonio Vargas Nov 12 '16 at 9:45
• @AntonioVargas How about for people looking for different applications of the squeeze theorem? – suomynonA Nov 12 '16 at 22:15
• @suomynonA, Isn't that more efficiently done by just searching for "squeeze theorem"? That would find all tagged questions plus many questions not in the tag. So no, I don't see creating the tag as helping in that direction. – Antonio Vargas Nov 12 '16 at 23:18
• @AntonioVargas If you want to put it like that, why have any tags at all? Why not just let users search? – suomynonA Nov 13 '16 at 17:33
• Of course they're useful in other cases, and I'm not saying this tag wouldn't be useful. I just don't think its usefulness would be as a search aid in this particular case. Like I said, I think it could be useful to motivated answerers who want to follow the tag, given enough of them exist. That's what's not clear to me. – Antonio Vargas Nov 13 '16 at 19:19
• @AntonioVargas That's what I mean; some people may find it useful, but it can also be used as an easy search (simply clicking on the tag in a tagged question) – suomynonA Nov 13 '16 at 19:39

I don't think it is usual for question to be about a squeeze theorem.

There are common beginning problems in analysis whose solution involves squeezing, but the question itself will rarely be about squeezing.

In particular, I have trouble imagining anyone would like to filter or search questions based on whether the answers employ a squeeze theorem, so the practical utility of having a tag seems to be small.

• It would be useful tag for a teacher who search for exercises on squeeze theorem for his students – user296113 Nov 11 '16 at 18:38
• What about questions specifically regarding how to use the squeeze theorem as a solution method? – user64742 Nov 11 '16 at 22:31
• @TheGreatDuck: Such questions are rare, in my experience. – hmakholm left over Monica Nov 12 '16 at 0:18
• @HenningMakholm the search statistics say otherwise. – user64742 Nov 12 '16 at 0:20
• @TheGreatDuck: Also writing "squeeze theorem" in the search field can do that. – Asaf Karagila Mod Nov 12 '16 at 8:42
• @AsafKaragila what does that have to do with me saying that questions involving the squeeze theorem aren't as rare as Makholm thinks? – user64742 Nov 12 '16 at 19:22
• @TheGreatDuck: It's a reply to your first comment. – Asaf Karagila Mod Nov 12 '16 at 19:41
• @AsafKaragila I know, and that comment was a reply to this "There are common beginning problems in analysis whose solution involves squeezing, but the question itself will rarely be about squeezing.". Then I said, well what if the question specifically wanted the squeezing method or wanted to discuss proofs of the squeeze theorem. – user64742 Nov 12 '16 at 19:42
• @TheGreatDuck: Your first comment is the first comment. I don't know what you're talking about. – Asaf Karagila Mod Nov 12 '16 at 19:44
• @AsafKaragila I quoted the post I was responding to. There is a post before my first comment here and I was responding to this post we are all commenting on. Surely you know there is a post at the head of this thread right? Or did MSE decide to throw a comment to the wrong thread again. I noticed that it's been doing that every once in a while. – user64742 Nov 12 '16 at 19:50

The squeeze-theorem is a useful device (with a nice name) for students just beginning to understand limits. I doubt that it occurs by name often (ever) in more advanced mathematics. Your other examples are well known named tools in a mathematicians toolkit.

That's a reason not to have a tag for squeeze-theorem. On the other hand, many questioners here are just learning to reason about limits, so perhaps the new tag is warranted.

Let's see what others say.

• Good point, +1. How about the other theorems that have tags? Sorry, I don't know all of them so I wouldn't know. – suomynonA Nov 10 '16 at 5:41
• Well, not everyone goes past elementary calculus so perhaps the tag is useful for the broader audience? – user64742 Nov 15 '16 at 0:45
• Counterexample to it never appearing by name: it's used to prove the mean first recurrence theorem of Markov chains (i.e., mean time to reach state $j$ from state $j$ is $1 / \pi_j$, where $\pi_j$ is the limiting/stationary/long-run-time-average probability of being in state $j$), and is cited by name on page 168 of Performance Modeling and Design of Computer Systems. :-) – wchargin Nov 21 '16 at 20:53

I personally believe the tag is useful and should be warranted. For instance, there are many reasons I can see it being used for all listed below:

1. Asking how to solve a problem via squeeze theorem.

2. Questions regarding the squeeze theorem itself (such as proof of the theorem itself).

3. A way for people to find squeeze theorem questions if they need some for examples in exercises, self-study, etc.

• I don't see anything wrong with the points mentioned in this post... – suomynonA Nov 15 '16 at 0:22
• @suomynonA people disagreed with me therefore they downvoted. – user64742 Nov 15 '16 at 0:39
• Looks pretty controversial, +7/-7 on this answer and lots of upvotes and downvotes on the rest... – suomynonA Nov 15 '16 at 0:40
• @suomynonA well, people aren't voting based on what they think is logical. They are voting on what they agree with. – user64742 Nov 15 '16 at 0:44