I noticed that we have a tag for , which seems to me as somewhat redundant. Here are two arguments I have in mind.

Firstly, it's unclear if we are talking about the general relational term, or just the specific set theoretic construction of a transitive set containing a given set.

Secondly, in the former (and likely) case, this should be just subsumed under , rather than existing on its own. There's little to no specialization in this tag that would require it to be separate.

Should this tag be removed? become a synonym of one of the relation-related tags? or perhaps I'm wrong, and there is a case for it being left on the site?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think it should be removed. I can't think of any current tag for which this could a synonym. I agree this should be subsumed under the "relations" tag. $\endgroup$
    – amWhy
    Commented Mar 24, 2018 at 15:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Transitive closure is a pretty important construction, not only in connection with ordinals, but in algorithms for graphs. It would seem to be an important sub-topic in relations. I'll do some queries to see if this is at all represented in its actual use. $\endgroup$
    – hardmath
    Commented Mar 25, 2018 at 23:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @hardmath: And functions are arguably the most important object in mathematics, nevertheless the [functions] tag is not a good one. $\endgroup$
    – Asaf Karagila Mod
    Commented Mar 26, 2018 at 2:37

1 Answer 1


I'll call this a consensus. has been merged into and is no more.

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It seems like there should be some joke here about (transitive-closure) becoming a victim of closure, but I can't quite make it …. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Mar 28, 2018 at 13:35

You must log in to answer this question.

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