14
$\begingroup$

Currently our $2$-groups tag concern about $p$-groups with $p=2.$ However there is another well established notion of $2$-groups in algebraic topology/homotopy theory about $2$-dimensional higher groups. In fact, it generalizes to $n$-group for any $n\in\mathbb{Z}.$ This is a very unfortunate coincidence of terminologies. But usually it does not confuses people in day-to-day mathematics as they belongs to two quit far away fields.

As far as I know, currently we don't have questions about the second notion of $2$-groups and therefore it does not make sense to construct one immediately (but we may need to do so one day). What I am interested in is, how can we create a new tag for this second notion without destroying the existing tag and without making a confusion?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ Something to keep in mind if the need arises. $\endgroup$ – hardmath Mar 8 at 5:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe you could ask and answer a question in the second category, just so a tag can be created for it $\endgroup$ – Benjamin Wang Mar 8 at 18:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @BenjaminWang: I am curious about the process of making a such tag while there is another tag with the same name for on a different thing. $\endgroup$ – Bumblebee Mar 8 at 21:37
5
$\begingroup$

I think 2-groups-higher-categories and n-groups-higher-categories would clearly signal what they were talking about. I'm not sure anyone is asking questions about these, though.

$\endgroup$
11
$\begingroup$

It is not possible to have two tags with the same name. There are a few options to work around such things.

For example we have to signal what type of divisors we mean.

One can also group things together to disambiguate, for example "divisors-and-multiples" would convey what divisors are meant as well.

For the current case, frankly, I don't see a need for the 2-groups tag, p-groups should suffice.

$\endgroup$
5
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ While $2$-groups are technically a special case of $p$-groups, their properties are very different from other $p$-groups of odd order, and are generally considered to be a different topic by group theorists. They are treated with different books, for example. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Mar 9 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ Fair enough, I still don't think that tag is overly useful. I mean it seems to get one or two questions a year or so. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 9 at 23:17
  • $\begingroup$ yes, conceptually it is distinct, but it doesn't seem to be very active. I wouldn't be opposed to repurposing it for algebraic topology if that topic has more interest. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Mar 9 at 23:37
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ If we need the other I'd go for "higher order groups" or some such thing. $\endgroup$ – quid Mar 10 at 1:06
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'd support that. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Gruber Mar 10 at 3:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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