8
$\begingroup$

https://mathoverflow.net/questions/tagged/infinite-games

Dr. Hamkins put out a request to re-tag suitable questions on Math overflow.

This is something I'd be happy to undertake on this stack (say 1 question per day so as not to overwhelm) if the community thinks such a tag would be valuable or relevant.

(It's helpful for me personally to review suitable questions asked by members of this community.)

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ For the next time consider if the dedicated thread is sufficient math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/27653/tag-management-2018 $\endgroup$ – quid May 25 '18 at 20:46
  • $\begingroup$ (1) If you're being formal, it's probably best to be correct and use "Prof."; (2) not every tag on MO is suitable for MSE, nor vice versa. The two websites are quite different. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila May 26 '18 at 0:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 thank you for limit of one question per day $\endgroup$ – GEdgar May 26 '18 at 12:10
  • $\begingroup$ This is perhaps more relevant for MO than this site, but since you claim in this post that there is a request for such retags on MO made by JDH, maybe you could add a link to that request. I'd guess you probably meant this comment. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 26 '18 at 12:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps you could add to your proposal two or three Question links that illustrate existing Math.SE posts deserving this tag? $\endgroup$ – hardmath May 26 '18 at 21:33
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath I have posted a CW answer with some possible suggestions. (And I hope other users will add their suggestions, or enter the discussion which of the posts mentioned there are not suitable for the proposed tag.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 27 '18 at 6:31
  • $\begingroup$ I will mention that MO also have (determinacy) tag. (And on this site we definitely had many questions related to Axiom of Determinacy and related stuff.) But this is probably a discussion for another time. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 27 '18 at 7:10
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ @Asaf I find "Dr. Hamkins" and "Prof. Hamkins" to be almost equally correct and formal, although I also know that this usage varies considerably depending on the country and even the university. $\endgroup$ – JDH May 27 '18 at 21:46
  • $\begingroup$ @GEdgar trying to tread softly (as a mod myself, some of the AI users were complaining about a massive typo correcting campaign by one of our enthusiastic members in the sense that it created a flood of old questions pushing the new ones off the front page. I'd take the same approach with re-tagging here as on Math Overflow:) $\endgroup$ – DukeZhou May 30 '18 at 16:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @DukeZhou We actually had this problem on MSE a while back. Some user had a bot (presumably) that was fixing Cauchy-Schwartz -> Cauchy-Schwarz. It was seriously clogging the pipes. As a regular user, I found it absolutely obnoxious, even if it is well-intentioned. $\endgroup$ – Cameron Williams Jun 2 '18 at 15:48
  • $\begingroup$ Since the question is already three weeks old, I do not think we will get much more feedback than we already have. Voting (and also to some extent comments) seem to be slightly more in support of creating the tag. As the OP does not have sufficient reputation to create new tags, would you be willing to create it @JDH? (Unless I missed something, you do not have taxonomist badge yet. And since this topic is rather close to your interest, it would seem appropriate if you earn it for this tag.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 18 '18 at 4:29
  • $\begingroup$ OK, I created the tag. Now, it's time to add it (gradually) to the relevant posts. $\endgroup$ – JDH Jun 18 '18 at 13:21
4
$\begingroup$

Perhaps you could add to your proposal two or three Question links that illustrate existing Math.SE posts deserving this tag? -- hardmath

I will stress that the number of question definitely should not be used as the main criterion when discussing whether or not a new tag might be useful. Still, seeing whether there are some questions that would fit here might help. (And this might help even to clarify the scope of the proposed tag.) For this reason I have started this CW answer where we might list some possible candidates for the tag - if it is created.

The intention is not to create an exhaustive list. More useful thing would be to have a few representatives from various subtopics that fall under this tag.

Here are some possible candidates, ordered by question id:

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

It seems from the comments that some users support the idea of this tag. So in order to have a place where this can be further discussed I am posting also this answer. (Or even if there is no additional feedback in the comments to this answer, at least from the votes on this answer we get some information how some users feel about the new tag.)

This answer is CW, feel free to edit it if you have some useful addition.


It seems that the tag would be useful for finding a questions about infinite games - which seems to be an interesting topic and there already are questions about it. (Some examples have been mentioned in this topic.)

The tag-info and scope of the tag would be probably very similar as on MathOverflow.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

As far as I can tell, many questions about topological games are currently tagged . (Topological games are the infinitary games I am at least a bit familiar with, although there are certainly some other infinitely long games). For example, you can find some such questions if you search for [infinitary-combinatorics] game is:q.

Since study of various infinitary games seems mostly related to set theory, to me this seems to be a reasonable tag.

I am a bit reluctant about creating an entirely new tag. Mainly because there is a limit of five tags per question - so tagging might become problematic if we have too many very specialized tags.

So my proposal would be:


Certainly there are several users on this site whose area of expertise is close to infinitary combinatorics and who know much more about this topic than I do. So certainly suggestions by experts in this area should have more weight. (And I hope some of them will join the discussion.)

But no matter what the outcome of this discussion is, we should then clarify the usage of the relevant tags in the tag info. (For example, it should be clarified whether (infinitary-combinatorics) should include questions about infinite games. Or if a new tag for (infinite-games) is created, the tag info should explicitly say whether topological games belong under this tag or not.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Martin, I think some results about games are combinatorial and some are not. I don't think that would be something that could be reasonably decided at the level of tags. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 26 '18 at 13:56
  • $\begingroup$ (To clarify, I like the idea of the tag, and I don't think we should try to limit its scope much at the beginning, or use it to limit the scope of other tags.) $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 26 '18 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo Thanks for the response. If I understand correctly, you support the creation of the (infinite-games) tag. If/when you have some time, would you be willing to expand your comments and post them as an answer? (So that we can see from comments and votes of other users what they think about the suggestion.) I would also like to know whether the proposed tag is intended to include topological games (such as Banach-Mazur game or Choquet game). I have recently asked about this clarification on MathOverflow, too. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 26 '18 at 14:07
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ "I would also like to know whether the proposed tag is intended to include topological games". I don't see why not. When I think of infinite games I immediately think of Ramsey theory and, of course, determinacy. But there is much more, and it would feel natural to use the new tag in all these rather different settings. There are some continuous games that would qualify. Topological games, model-theoretic techniques, and others. $\endgroup$ – Andrés E. Caicedo May 26 '18 at 14:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AndrésE.Caicedo I waited a bit whether you post an answer. Since it is IMO useful to provide users with a possibility to vote for creation of the tag (and this answer provided some arguments against creation of the tag) I have posted a CW answer. From your comments it seems that you support the creation of the tag - if you have something useful to add to the new answer, feel free to do so. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 27 '18 at 19:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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