This question is brought about by this post:


Reasons for [crystallography]:

  • There is a large amount of current mathematics devoted to crystallography ranging from inverse scattering, X-ray/Radon transforms, and especially the study of the phase problem
  • The geometry of unit cells of crystal lattices is mathematical (the tiling problem in 3D).
  • It is a somewhat special field at the intersection of group theory, linear algebra, Fourier analysis, and analytic geometry (perhaps more?)

Reasons against [crystallography]:

  • It is a somewhat specialised field, and we may not get much call for questions of that sort here.
  • Questions that would fall under this tag could in principal be tagged as a combination of other tags. (The question linked above could perhaps have the [tiling] and [analytic-geometry] tags added.)


  • 2
    $\begingroup$ No. We don't need it. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Nov 12 '12 at 9:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe not yet; geometry would cover the question in, uhurm, question for the time being (and didn't we once have a lattices tag?). If we are suddenly awash in crystallographic questions, then I suppose we can reconsider... $\endgroup$ – J. M. is a poor mathematician Nov 12 '12 at 11:23
  • $\begingroup$ Special in the sense of specialized, I presume. $\endgroup$ – Did Nov 12 '12 at 11:49
  • $\begingroup$ @J.M. That tag was split into lattice-orders and integer-lattices. See meta and chat $\endgroup$ – Martin Sleziak Nov 12 '12 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @did: yes. I edited to reflect that. $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Nov 12 '12 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ @J.M.: as Martin indicated, the lattices tag was split. And unfortunately neither of them works well for this context. (I guess if we stretch it a bit, integer-lattices can be okay, but it is not ideal.) $\endgroup$ – Willie Wong Nov 12 '12 at 13:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .