15
$\begingroup$

New year, new tag management thread.

Rules of the game are basically the same:

  • Post your suggestion as an answer here if you see
    • A particularly bad tag (a rule of thumb: “if I can't imagine a person classifying a tag as either interesting or ignored, I'm getting rid of it”),
    • A tag that should be a synonym of an existing one,
    • A tag that used for two or more completely unrelated things,
    • A need to create a new tag.
  • Upvote/downvote/comment as your agree/disagree with suggestions, so please post different suggestions in separate answers.
  • Wait a couple of days before implementing a suggestion.
  • After the problem described in an answer is resolved, please edit it to say so.
  • If your tag suggestion exists in a separate question, please provide a link to the question in your suggestion.

See also:

Also, note that one may use [tag:calculus] for , i.e. tags on the main site, and [meta-tag:discussion] for , i.e. for tags on the meta site.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Even though we have a tag management thread, it's worth pointing out that in some cases it might be better to have a separate question. (Typically when a longer discussion is needed and several possible answers are expected. Answers to a question provide more space for a more detailed discussion than comments under an answer in this thread.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 6 at 1:19

34 Answers 34

25
$\begingroup$

Resolved. renamed to .

Proposal: Rename to .

Although Lothar Collatz is most known for the $3x+1$ problem (the Collatz Conjecture), I don’t think their names should be used interchangeably. Furthermore, the latter tag has a more informative name.

I posted this in the last Tag Management, but I only got a single upvote. I want to see what more people think. (Also, since gaining rep in that tag is pretty hard, I don't have the ability to propose the synonym myself).

| |
$\endgroup$
16
$\begingroup$

Resolved. created.

Proposal: Create the tag .

The Eulerian number $A(n,k)$ is the number of permutations in $S_n$ with exactly $k$ descents, and it is an important combinatorial object.

Searching for "Eulerian numbers" is:q returns around 30 legitimate hits, which is a worthwhile number of questions to have a tag attached, in my opinion.

I had also raised this request in the Tagging chatroom a few months ago.


Update: It has been ten days since this was proposed and it looks like the community approves it. So, I've gone ahead and added the tag to the three oldest relevant questions I could find. I've also added a wiki and excerpt.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I like the tag and wouldn't mind seeing it applied to some more questions. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jan 14 at 19:25
12
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Remove , .

These are meta tags with very bare-bones tag wikis. Furthermore, there aren’t any other tags for important math exams, i.e. the IMO or USAMO, so why should we make an exception for these two?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Posts about these tags in older tag management threads: 2014, 2016 and 2017. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 10 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Good to know this issue has been raised before. $\endgroup$ – URL Jan 10 at 3:39
  • $\begingroup$ These questions are also somewhat related: Tag request: csir-net-exam and Would a qual question tag be useful? (There was also this suggestion, the question was deleted: Tag request - GATE Exam.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 11 at 13:42
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is worth pointing out that USAMO and IMO are not really exams (or at least I would consider them contests rather than exams). We have a tag (contest-math) suitable for question from USAMO, IMO and other contests. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 11 at 13:43
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak The key difference between contest-math and the tags I suggest removing is that the former gives very important context. Some very hard problems without the tag could easily be dismissed as open, or inaccessible; moreover, contest math problems are almost always contained in four well-defined topics. The more straightforward nature of the problems in the GRE, GMAT exams, as well as their higher variability (from what I've seen; this is very arguable), makes their tags much more unnecessary. Even if you wanted to consider these two at the same level, I'd suggest a merge. $\endgroup$ – URL Jan 12 at 4:48
12
$\begingroup$

Resolved. created.

Proposal: Create a tag .

In this question the asker asks why there is no tag for questions related to the umbral calculus. I am in agreement with Alexander Gruber's comment that the significant number of otherwise unorganized questions on the topic is a good indication that the tag is needed.

Proposed Tag Excerpt:

Umbral calculus refers to a method of formal computation which can be used to prove certain polynomial identities. The term "umbral", meaning "shadowy" in Latin, describes the manner in which the terms in discrete equations (e.g. difference equations) are similar to (or are "shadows of") related terms in power series expansions.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not expert enough to write a better tag except, nor a long tag wiki. I invite modification, and have marked this answer Community Wiki. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Feb 20 at 14:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The proposed tag has been created. $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng Apr 24 at 13:43
10
$\begingroup$

Resolved. and merged and synonymed into .

Proposal: Combine and , maybe into .

This feels similar to limsup-and-liminf: yes, there are results that deal exclusively with one of the two (for instance, Fatou's Lemma and liminf; or questions about Waring's problem and floors), but the two functions feel like two sides of the same coin. There are currently 276 questions tagged ceiling-function, 1426 with floor-function, and 151 with both.

| |
$\endgroup$
8
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Eliminate the tag .

The tag is too broad—there are a large number of things in mathematics called "transformations" coming from diverse parts of mathematics, and tagging a question with this tag does nothing to refine or sort these different notions. I would like to see this tag dead and buried.

I have spent the last month working to either retag or delete questions which have this tag and no other—there is only one remaining question in that category (and that question appears to be on its way to deletion); please see the pertinent SEDE query (thank you, Martin Sleziak, for bringing this query to my attention).

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I understand why you think it's too broad, but I personally think it's a little silly to delete the tag altogether. It's still a very good way to "group" questions. After all, by that logic we could delete calculus since it's so broad (i.e. integral, differential, stochastic, lambda, propositional, etc. etc). Perhaps we could keep the tag (in the same way we still have the calculus tag) but also add more specific tags (i.e transformation-function, transformation-isometry, etc.)? $\endgroup$ – N. Bar Jul 17 at 0:29
  • $\begingroup$ @N.Bar The tag description for calculus says "For basic questions about limits, derivatives, integrals, and applications, mainly of one-variable functions" (emph mine). It seems that this restricts the scope to questions which might show up in an elementary calculus class (in contrast to, say, a real analysis class). Moreover, while calculus may be broad, it is in some sense "connected", whereas the topics covered by transformation are quite disjoint (and there is essentially no guidance on how to use the tag in the tag-wiki). $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 17 at 1:30
  • $\begingroup$ I also very much support that this tag is still broad. I don't want to manually burn it though, is there any good tag to merge it with? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 25 at 3:57
7
$\begingroup$

Update: all un-tagging done.

Update: the vote count indicates that the community agrees with the propsoal, so I will starting editing posts with the tag .

Either make a synonym of , or un-tag all questions with this tag.

  • The Riemannian metric is the defining object of a Riemannian manifold. I can't think of one question in Riemannian geometry which does not involve the metric.

  • Almost no one is using it: it has only 80 questions. 65 of them use also the tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm not particularly knowledgeable in this field. However, riemannian-metric seems it could offer more specificity. Though anything in riemannian-geometry would involve the metric, not necessarily every question would be about the metric. $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Sep 9 at 17:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not sure if I understand your point. I can think of questions about the metric: for example, geodesics is about the first derivatives of the metric, while curvature is about the second derivatives. But we already have tags for those two. Apart from that, I could imagine some posts about the (?) algebraic structure or norm structure. But then those posts should be tagged with (say) "norm", "tensor", or even "linear-algebra" @MattSamuel $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Sep 9 at 18:21
6
$\begingroup$

Resolved. removed.

Proposal: Remove the new tag . I think it is easily abused and not particularly useful (doesn't convey any interesting information to answerers).

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify: I saw this answer after I've done the clean-ups (here and here). I think in this case it is pretty clear that the new tag doesn't do any good to the site. $\endgroup$ – YuiTo Cheng May 2 at 1:40
5
$\begingroup$

Resolved: merged and synonymed into .

Proposal: Eliminate the tag.

It seems clear that the tag is enough for questions about discontinuous functions.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Since there are 330 questions tagged discontinuous-functions, it might be better to mark it as a synonym for continuity. $\endgroup$ – user279515 Jul 17 at 5:40
  • $\begingroup$ I think it is better to retag those 330 questions with the continuity tag, but I am not against your suggestion. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jul 17 at 6:17
5
$\begingroup$

Resolved. manually removed from many questions, then merged into . Also and are now synonymed to to avoid this being recreated.

Proposal: eliminate the tag

The tag has 150 questions under it. As a rather vague tag, it has seen a spike of usage in the past few months (I have already removed it from the 20 most recent questions). Leaving it untouched will only confuse more newbies about which tag suits the question best.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Would the questions which currently have this tag be suitable for (algebra-precalculus). (If that's the case, moderators would be able to remove all occurrences without any bumping simply by merging this tag into algebra-precalculus.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jun 10 at 19:17
5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Rename to .

Basically the same idea as the other well-received post suggesting changing to . Fubini did a bunch of other stuff and it's best to name the tag after his work not him. Further, Tonelli's generalization is useful in measure theory and is worth mentioning as well.

Update: New tag created, though there doesn't seem to be consensus about renaming . Go here to vote on the synonym.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It seems that at the moment there are only four users who can vote for the synonym (i.e., the users with score $\ge5$ in the tag fubini-tonelli-theorems). $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 13 at 16:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fair point, Martin. If the community agrees, we might just ask the mods to change it. The other synonym I proposed has plenty of eligible users to vote on it though. $\endgroup$ – Integrand Sep 13 at 17:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As far as I can tell, the current situation is that (fubini) was merged into (fubini-tonelli-theorems). So the tag (fubini) no longer exists, the pending proposal for the synonym was removed, too: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/3740/conversation/… $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Sep 20 at 15:27
4
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Merge and .

I'm no statistician, but I don't see the value in having both tags. Looking at the questions under , there doesn't seem to be anything that doesn't fall under the tag .

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Outside of probability theory, "Gaussian" typically refers to a curve $a \mathrm{e}^{-bx^2}$, give or take. This is related to the heat kernel, is important in the study of Schwartz (and other functional) spaces. I think it might be better to preserve the two tags, but edit the gaussian wiki to better highlight the distinction. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 3 at 14:33
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ And, now that I have had time to look at the questions: there are 10 questions tagged gaussian. Only one of those is not a prob and stats question (though there are two or three others which are general enough, perhaps, to deserve a "Gaussian" tag in the sense I proposed). Perhaps the gaussian tag serves no purpose and should be merged. :\ $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 3 at 16:20
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I agree. The tags are used in conjunction. $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Mar 3 at 16:37
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson So what should be done about the tags? $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Mar 4 at 14:52
  • $\begingroup$ I don't have a good answer to that question. Given that only ten questions are tagged gaussian, and nine of those are prob & stats questions, I wouldn't object to your proposal of merging the tags. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Mar 4 at 17:36
  • $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson Unfortunately, I can't propose the merge, but the Gaussian tag is getting bigger... $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand Mar 6 at 14:20
  • $\begingroup$ Just to clarify, are you suggesting merging with or without a synonym? (Or did you want to suggest a tag synonym rather than merging the two tags?) See also: What is the difference between merging two tags and synonymizing two tags? and What is the difference between a synonym and merging a tag? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 2 at 11:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak I think gaussian should be a synonym of normal-distribution, since the latter is the more established tag $\endgroup$ – Don Thousand May 2 at 16:10
  • $\begingroup$ It seems a lot of the questions under gaussian are about the Gaussian Process. How about changing the tag to gaussian-distribution and making it a synonym of normal-distribution, and then questions that aren't about the Gaussian Distribution can be tagged more precisely, e.g. gaussian-process gaussian-integral gaussian-clothing $\endgroup$ – jeremy909 May 31 at 16:47
4
$\begingroup$

Resolved. renamed to

Rename to . (Also a name such as (calibrations-differential-geometry) - or something similar - would help with clarifying the content of the tag. However, that seems to be unnecessarily long.)

The tag was created in June 2019. This is the question where the tag was created: Calibrations vs. Riemannian holonomy. From this question it seems that the intention was to created a tag for calibrated geometry. As the tag name can be interpreted in several various ways, it is not surprising that questions from other areas appeared there too. For example, the most recent question is Camera calibration problem - computer vision. List of the questions which had the tag at the time when I posted this answer can be found in chat.

If the tag is renamed, it is more likely to be used consistently.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ A possible alternative would be to removed the tag for callibrations (or callibration geometry) completely, if users more experienced in this area consider the tag unlikely to be useful. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak May 10 at 5:34
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Not sure if it is calibrated geometry or calibrated geometries. The latter one is used in the oriiginal papers where calibration was introduced. There are several different such geometries. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char May 10 at 20:24
3
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Make a synonym of .

I don't think there is much difference. We can argue whether a division algebra is always associative or not. I wrote the tag wiki with octonions in mind, and phrased it "inclusively". A division-ring is surely always associative, but does that warrant having two tags? I think not.

Currently we have 169 questions tagged division-algebras and 49 questions tagged division-ring. I vote to keep the bigger tag, and to synonymize the smaller.

| |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Resolved. removed.

Proposal: Remove . It's a duplicate of

| |
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Eliminate the tag

The tag seems to encompass this already while also allowing for L-functions, Barnes-zeta and relatives, Hasse-Weil zeta and relatives, etc. Multiple-zeta functions are deep and interesting but I don't think we need the second tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have notified the tag-creator, in case they want to comment on this. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Aug 3 at 5:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As the tag creator, I incline to accept this proposal given that there are not many questions with the tag "zeta-functions". However, I do want to point out that the short description of "zeta-functions" is extremely vapid and narrow, and info page even focus exclusively on Riemann zeta. It is difficult to grasp what "various generalizations of the zeta function of Riemann" might consist solely from the description. So we have plenty room for enrichment on the tag's description&info. $\endgroup$ – pisco Aug 3 at 6:40
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @pisco the best solution would be do edit the tag wiki $\endgroup$ – Integrand Aug 3 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ I can cook something up tomorrow or the next day, if you'd like $\endgroup$ – Integrand Aug 3 at 6:43
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Many thanks. I just edited the short description, it is now pending for review. $\endgroup$ – pisco Aug 3 at 7:07
3
$\begingroup$

Create the tag: and make it a synonym of .

Right now the tag is not quite used: for example, there seems to be over 3k questions about Hausdorff spaces that is not tagged . And for me, the term "separation" is not the first thing that comes to my mind.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In this context, it is probably worth mentioned the discussion which lead to creation of the (separation-axioms) tag: Tags for separation axioms and countability axioms for topological spaces. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 10 at 17:27
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, @MartinSleziak. That is relevant, especially the answer by quid which argue against the proposal here. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Oct 10 at 18:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Arctic Char: You might notice that in the comments quid clarifies that they would not object to (hausdorff-property) as a synonym of (separation-axioms). $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Oct 10 at 18:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This would also help with the problem where questions about Hausdorff spaces often get tagged with random other tags that include the word "Hausdorff" like (hausdorff-measure). $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Oct 10 at 20:01
3
$\begingroup$

Proposal Removal of the unit-circle tag

The unit-circle tag has just been created. It doesn't seem to me that the concept of unit circle deserves a tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have retagged all those five questions. Most of them, I replaced it with circle. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Nov 19 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar Yes, that seems to me to be a good option. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Nov 19 at 10:39
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @ArcticChar that seems good. trigonometry is also probably a fine substitute. $\endgroup$ – Integrand Nov 19 at 15:01
2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Rename to .

I added a tag excerpt/wiki a few months ago to specify that this isn't just a tag for any limit that you graph, but I've edited the tag out of a lot of questions that used the tag as such. I think that renaming it would remove this tendency.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Create the tag .

The Schur functions $s_\lambda$ are an important basis for $\mathrm{Sym}$, the graded vector space of symmetric functions, and they are very important in combinatorics.

There are around 60 questions which can benefit from having this tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not just use symmetric-functions? $\endgroup$ – Matt Samuel Jun 12 at 15:28
  • $\begingroup$ @MattSamuel My feeling is that the symmetric-functions tag is quite broad, so it might be useful to have a separate tag for Schur functions. $\endgroup$ – user279515 Jun 12 at 15:32
2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Make a synonym of .

The new tag (methods) was created about three years ago; the old one (differences) has been around for almost 10 years. Methods only has 73 questions, 38 of which are also tagged differences, suggesting considerable overlap between the two and not a lot of use (compare to 590 questions tagged differences). Pretty much every question tagged methods is about some sort of discrete difference equation such as the heat equation, finding curvature, boundary value problems, etc.; all of these fall under the umbrella of finite differences.

I've created the synonym on the main tag. If you agree with this classification and have the 5 answer score, please upvote on the tag page.

| |
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Pluralize tag.

Note that another tag in an aged post About the plurality of tag names has been pluralized to .

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't it already pluralized? ;) $\endgroup$ – Integrand Nov 30 at 20:48
1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: add a tag for exponential families

Rationale: I've asked at least a couple of questions now that I originally tagged with , but each of these were edited to remove the tag. However, I think such a tag deserves to exist, because the concept of an exponential family is absolutely crucial to a number of topics in statistical inference and machine learning. Moreover, it's a somewhat subtle concept that students can often trip over - exponential families have a number of important non-obvious properties, and they are generally the first place where you start having to reason about manifolds of distributions, rather than just considering one distribution at a time.

Additionally, when I find myself asking about exponential families, there isn't really any other tag that fits the question. I can use , but that's too specific - it emphasises only the geometric perspective on exponential families, while a more classical inference perspective might be just as useful. I can also use , but that's too general, because you can read a lot about information theory without ever meeting the concept of an exponential family. Consequently, it's difficult to find and identify questions about exponential families without a specific tag.

Searching the site for "exponential family" reveals a reasonable number of questions on the topic (at least, most of the ones on the first page are actually about exponential families), but they are tagged with a random mixture of , , , , etc., which suggests that a specific tag for this topic would be helpful.

(An explanatory note, in case it's needed: people sometimes say informally that normal and lognormal distributions are part of "the exponential family." I don't intend the tag to refer to this but to the concept of an exponential family, which has a precise technical definition and refers to a set of distributions that's parameterised by a vector of real numbers in a particular way. I suppose the tag wiki would need to make clear that the tag is intended to be used this way.)

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have added a Wikipedia link (in case it is helpful to clarify the notion you're talking about). I have collected the previous instances that I was able to find in the Tagging chatroom. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 14 at 18:54
  • $\begingroup$ Would it make sense to call it exponential-classes? Though that is (according to the wikipedia article) a less common term, I think it may be less prone to misuse than exponential-families. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jan 14 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber I'm hesitant, because I've never heard that term, and I'm familiar with quite a lot of literature that uses them $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jan 14 at 19:41
  • $\begingroup$ @Nathaniel do you know of any other synonyms? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jan 22 at 7:20
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber sorry, I missed your previous comment somehow, but no, I don't think there are any synonyms that are in common use. "Exponential family" is the only term I've ever seen used for the concept. It seems to be a pretty much unanimously agreed-upon name. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 29 at 8:54
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber can I ask, at what point do these suggestions get implemented, and how does one move the process forward? I'm asking another question on this topic now, so it's on my mind again. I'd be happy to write a tag wiki for it, for example. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 29 at 8:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Nathaniel It's implemented when the post gains community approval (i.e. the mods deem it has enough upvotes / other positive reception). Asking another question may be a good way of developing it considering this hasn't received much attention. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 29 at 20:05
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber what's the threshold? 2 is a small number, but for a relatively niche topic perhaps one should not expect too much more, and there's been no negative reception to the proposal. To me it seems like asking another question would defeat the purpose of this question, which, I gather, is to prevent the need to have a separate question for every tag suggestion. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 30 at 0:11
  • $\begingroup$ The threshhold is case-by-case. Really, the most important part is convincing a mod (typically, me) that it's a good idea. The reason I am unconvinced is that I anticipate exponential-families being added to precalc questions about e^kx much more than for the use you intend. Avoiding this type of thing sometimes requires finding a good synonym or another way of phrasing it that isn't as prone to misuse by inexperienced students (from whom most questions on the site originate). $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 30 at 0:15
  • $\begingroup$ We could also look into alternatives like exponential-families-information-theory but I think that's too long for the tag character limit. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jul 30 at 0:16
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber what about exponential-family-distribution? That term is sometimes used informally for a distribution that's a member of an exponential family. I consider it a bit of a misnomer, because technically every distribution is a member of an exponential family, but it has the advantages that (i) it is used in the literature, and (ii) it begins with "exponential-family", so it would be found by someone typing that into the tag field. I've asked another question also. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 30 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber (actually I deleted the other question. It got a couple of irate comments, not related to the specifics of exponential family tag, and I don't have the energy for managing a meta discussion right now. If you don't like exponential-family-distribution I guess I'll just give up on this one.) $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 30 at 1:10
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber I'm sorry to pester, but what are your thoughts on exponential-family-distribution? I'd be happy if the discussion doesn't tail off again without reaching a conclusion, and I'd like to just go ahead and implement it, if you don't see a specific reason not to. $\endgroup$ – Nathaniel Jul 31 at 7:34
1
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Make a synonym of .

The new tag (problems) was created about a year and a half ago; the old one (theory) has been around for nine years. Theory has 221 questions tagged and problems has 63. While there are only three questions tagged both, I don't see this as a and sort of scenario that merits two separate tags. I'd create the synonym myself but I don't have the rep.

| |
$\endgroup$
-1
$\begingroup$

Please create the tag "realizability" for questions regarding realizability as the term is used by researchers like Kleene, Kreisel, Troelstra and also in more modern work on proof theory.

Looking through posts that use the word "realizability", the term is sometimes used to refer to the term from proof theory, and sometimes in a seemingly colloquial manner to refer to arbitrary mathematical concepts to be somehow "realized". So, having a well-defined tag for the proof theoretical term would help getting more relevant search results when searching for the tag.

Suggested tag definition wording (editing is welcome):

Realizability is the proof theoretical study of formal objects (realizations) that realize formulas from a formal theory, giving knowledge about the truth of the formula.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I will add a link to the separate question about this proposal: Tag suggestion - realizability. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 9 at 23:28
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ It would help if you discussed the use of the term "in completely different contexts", and what distinctions could be drawn. If you think the tag summary would help users to properly apply it, your proposed language could be added to this post. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Jan 11 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ @hardmath: I was referring to the findings of Noah Schweber from full-text searching in the original post. I put it more precisely now. Actually, the proof theoretical term is the only one where I know it is somewhat defined (even having a Wikipedia article). Of course, if there are other areas it mathematics which use the term in a well-defined manner, it should probably be discussed here to be able to distinguish. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 13 at 6:59
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ There's a LOT of different uses of the term realizability. Is there a way to narrow it down, maybe proof-realizability? $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Jan 14 at 19:27
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderGruber: I think this is even better that my suggestion. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 14 at 21:02
  • $\begingroup$ I must say I think it's kind of rude to downvote the original tag suggestion question. After all, the math.stackoverflow UI explicitly tells new users to ask here on meta (and not to answer somewhere on meta). I agree that it is sufficient to discuss things in one place, but there is no comprehensible way to call the original question a "bad" question. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 20 at 14:59
  • $\begingroup$ I'd like to add that mathoverflow already has a "realizability" tag. Maybe it does work with a proper definition. $\endgroup$ – ternary Jan 20 at 14:59
-1
$\begingroup$

$\textbf{Proposal}:$ Create the tag Quotient-ring

Searching for "Quotient ring" is:q returns 1010 results.

There is also a tag quotient-group, so I thought that there may be one for rings too, given that is common to see a lot of questions about identifying quotient rings with some known ring, ideals, etc. The tag quotient-space seems too general.

It does not make sense to create a tag for each quotient structure, but at least in groups and rings are very "popular" or common I think.

| |
$\endgroup$
-3
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Create a tag.

The inspiration for this proposal is this deleted meta post, which suggests a political sciences tag. This tag would serve as an umbrella for questions on and , some aspects of , etc. I can also see a place for some questions on statistics in the social sciences (though CrossValidated might be a more appropriate place for many of those questions).

As noted in the linked meta question, this tag would be inline with other tags on the site, such as and .

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That's a nice suggestion (+1). Of course, it will be used to tag off-topic questions, but that also happens with other tags. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jul 18 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @JoséCarlosSantos If more harm than good are expected, then probably one shouldn't create this tags. $\endgroup$ – Arctic Char Jul 18 at 18:37
  • $\begingroup$ @JoséCarlosSantos I'm not sure that I see how the existence of a tag is supposed to lead to off-topic questions, but if it will, then I am in agreement with Arctic Char. $\endgroup$ – Xander Henderson Jul 18 at 18:38
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @XanderHenderson I have seen people asserting that a purely historical question about Mathematics is on-topic just because there is a math-history tag, in spite of the fact that it is written here that questions about History and development of Mathematics might be better asked at the History of Science and Mathematics StackExchange site. So, yes, I think that there is some risk that the existence of a social-sciences tag will be used to justify posting questions which are purely about Social Sciences. $\endgroup$ – José Carlos Santos Jul 18 at 18:45
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Cancel the synonym complex-analysis and holomorphic-functions tags

The holomorphic-function tag synonym was proposed in May 2016. It was approved in March 2019. (Information thanks to Martin Sleziak)

Currently there are 6,698 questions about complex-analysis and 4689 questions about holomorphic-functions, it seems to me that would be appropriate to have a separate tag to classify questions better.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I will point out that the two tags are synonyms - they were not merged. So you probably want to ask to cancel the synonym (ton to unmerge). For people who want to check how cancelling synonym works: What happens with the tagged questions when a tag-synonym is cancelled? $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 14 at 1:00
  • $\begingroup$ duh..I will edit, thank you Martin $\endgroup$ – allesia_b Jan 14 at 1:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I will also add links to a related conversations in Math Mods' Office and the exchange in the tagging chatroom. Among other things, people can find there this SEDE query which shows the dates 2016-05-28 (CreationDate) and 2019-03-23 (ApprovalDate) for this synonym. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jan 14 at 1:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What is the purpose of having a separate tag for holomorphic functions? To a very good approximation, complex analysis is the study of holomorphic functions. $\endgroup$ – Eric Wofsey Jan 14 at 3:19
  • $\begingroup$ @EricWofsey I agree with your comment but also notice that there's approximately a difference of 2,000 questions that aren't about holomorphic-functions $\endgroup$ – allesia_b Jan 14 at 19:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Isabellatrix Some questions mention "analytic functions", which in complex analysis is equivalent to "holomorphic functions". Also, if you search for just "holomorphic" (without "functions") you get 6657 results... $\endgroup$ – Arnaud D. Jan 15 at 10:53
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Rename to geometry-probability.

This is to make it distinct from questions about geometric random variables.

| |
$\endgroup$
-5
$\begingroup$

Proposal: Create the tag .

There are currently around 5,000 questions that come up when searching "cosets". It's a central concept in elementary group theory and seems too important and distinct from other concepts to not have its own tag.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'll just mention that the tag (cosets) and (coset) were created and removed several times in the past. Considering this, bringing up the tag on meta seems like a good idea. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 17 at 4:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm not sure that this useful. Practically any question about groups will use cosets in a crucial way, so it won't help much in categorization, in my opinion. $\endgroup$ – user279515 Jul 17 at 5:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ BTW how did you get 7000 questions. When searching for cosets is:q I get 2864 questions. Searching for cosets in all posts gives 6960 posts - but that includes answers, some of them might be to the same question. $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 17 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If we're looking an the question where the word coset is in the text of the question or in the text of some answer, I got 4836 questions. (Assuming that I did not make a mistake in the linked SEDE query.) $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Jul 17 at 6:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak Thanks for that! I didn't think that my search included answers as well. $\endgroup$ – N. Bar Jul 17 at 13:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh Not necessarily. You can certainly prove many properties of groups without even mentioning cosets. $\endgroup$ – N. Bar Jul 17 at 14:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @N.Bar You’re right, of course. May I rephrase? I don’t see the value of having a [cosets] tag for categorization purposes — for instance, what advantage would I get by following / ignoring this tag? I don’t think one would either seek out or avoid questions about cosets. They just happen to be ubiquitous in group theory, no doubt, but the concept perhaps does not warrant a tag of its own. $\endgroup$ – user279515 Jul 17 at 14:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Brahadeesh Hmm. That certainly is a valid point. But, in a search of questions tagged group theory excluding the word "cosets," we get around 37,000 results. Granted, many of these may still utilize cosets and their properties, but there is still a significant difference between the number of questions. $\endgroup$ – N. Bar Jul 17 at 14:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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