Would [cantor-theorem] be a constructive tag?

A search for question's containing the keywords yields $427$ results. Feel free to comment to discuss below or just upvote/downvote.


The theorem I am referencing is the following:

For every set $A$, $|A|<|\mathcal P(A)|$

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Which theorem of his? $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 25 '17 at 4:40
  • $\begingroup$ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cantor's_theorem $\endgroup$ – suomynonA Jan 25 '17 at 5:52
  • $\begingroup$ There is also Cantor's intersection theorem. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 25 '17 at 6:03
  • $\begingroup$ For every set $A$, $|A|<|\mathcal P(A)|$ $\endgroup$ – suomynonA Jan 25 '17 at 6:05
  • $\begingroup$ Also there is the diagonal argument, which is an extension of Cantor's theorem, but named differently. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jan 25 '17 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ I'd guess that searching for cantor's theorem is:q may include many questions related to other results. (If you try to sort the results by active rather than by relevance, you will very likely find a few questions which are definitely not about this topic.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 25 '17 at 10:52
  • $\begingroup$ To get a more realistic estimate, I would either try to add elementary-set-theory tag or search for "cantor's theorem" is:q and perhaps also "cantor theorem" is:q. (The last seem to return also questions about Heine-Cantor theorem.) Having said that, number of questions is not the only factor to be considered when discussing creation a new tag. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 25 '17 at 10:53
  • $\begingroup$ I voted to reopen your recent answer to this meta post. It seems to me that StackExchange's explicit disinterest is quite relevant! $\endgroup$ – Mark McClure Apr 24 '18 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .