1
$\begingroup$

Currently, the tags , and are synonyms of . This reflects what combinatorics was considered to be maybe 100 years ago, but modern combinatorics is about much more than only (or mainly) counting.

As an example, this is a selection of topics from the table of contents of two reputable books on combinatorics:

  • J. H. van Lint, R.M. Wilson. "A Course in Combinatorics": Graphs, Colorings of graphs and Ramsey's theorem, Flows in networks, Latin squares, Hadamard matrices, Codes and designs, Strongly regular graphs, Projective and combinatorial geometries, Association schemes.
  • Peter J. Cameron. "Combinatorics": Latin squares, Finite geometry, Ramsey's Theorem, Graphs, Designs, Error-correcting codes, Graph colorings.

My suggestion is to have and as two independent tags, and and should be synonyms of .

What do you think?

Also: How is the removal of a tag synonym done technically? I did not find any detailed information on this.

Addition

I found this old discussion from 2010 which I guess led to the creation of the synonyms. The main point in the discussion appears to be that there have not been enough questions to justify a distinction of counting and non-counting combinatorial questions. This has been a long time ago and certainly is not true any more. Today, there are more than 50,000 questions with the tag.

Addition 2

The has been a discussion on whether it makes sense to have to be a synonym of of . This is a pretty similar case, and the 40+ answer shows a clear consensus against that synonym.

Addition 3

I just spotted the independent tag for , without any synonyms. Given that, I think that as arguably the most important branch of combinatorics, also deserves to have its own independent tag.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ BTW you can use [tag:tagname] in posts - it makes the tags easier to access; the readers can simply click on the tag and go to the list of questions. I have added at least a link to the list of tag synonyms for (combinatorics). $\endgroup$ Dec 18, 2023 at 9:54
  • $\begingroup$ A related post in Tag management 2015 by Jyrki Lahtonen. $\endgroup$ Dec 18, 2023 at 9:57
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak thank you, I did an update to use the format [tag:tagname]. $\endgroup$
    – azimut
    Dec 18, 2023 at 14:24

0

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .