Tagging - 2016-08-26

6:36 AM

@MartinSleziak I'm not sure that every question dealing with a ring belongs to ring-theory as this is usually understood. But on M.SE the confusion with tags is ubiquitous. — user26857 2 mins ago

This seems to be along the same lines as our previous conversation of the ring-related tags: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3740/2016/4/24

Stack Exchange

9:39 AM

0

Q: How should questions about rings be tagged?

It seems that there is no clear consensus about tagging questions about (or related to) rings. There are several tags which might apply. The tag-excerpt for ring-theory says: This tag is for questions about rings, which are a type of algebraic structure studied in abstract algebra and alg...

Martin Sleziak

@user26857 This question is about ideal in the ring $K[x_1,\dots,x_n]$, which is why I considered the tag (ring-theory) applicable. You are certainly more experienced with questions from this are, feel free to remove the tag if you thing it is better that way. I have also posted a question on meta about ring related tags, perhaps the discussion there might help clarify what is correct tagging on questions like this. — Martin Sleziak 22 secs ago

Martin Sleziak

11:02 AM

@user26857 And maybe I should have mentioned that if you prefer, you can contact me also in chat. If not anything else, you can ping me there to let me know that you have seen my comments here. (I can remove my tagging related comments from this post when I know that you have seen them - since they are strictly speaking not relevant to the topic of the post.) — Martin Sleziak 7 secs ago

Since ring-related tags are discussed: Do you think that rings of continuous functions is an important enough topic to have a separate tag?

I think there might be some questions about this topic: math.stackexchange.com/search?q=gillman+jerison+is%3Aq math.stackexchange.com/… math.stackexchange.com/…

quid

12:46 PM

@MartinSleziak vectors what's that intended for? I feel the tag-wiki summary and the tag-wiki a bit contradictory.

Martin Sleziak

Wasn't that tag discussed a few times already?

There is this post with no extensive discussion:

3

Q: Tags to kill: "vectors"

I just retagged two questions containing the tag [vectors]. This is a useless tag. It's like making a tag [elements-of-a-group]. Kill it whenever you see it from now on. Good hunting.

discussion tagging

I thought that I have seen a longer discussion somewhere, but I might be wrong. (There were too many tag-related posts on meta to remember them all.)

quid

Yes, that post seems obsolete give that the tag is at size 3000.

Martin Sleziak

@quid Personally I wasn't sure what is the purpose of this tag. I thought that it could be replaced by vector-spaces. But now that you pointed out the tag-excerpt it says that it is " for questions involving vectors, which are elements of vector fields". I did not notice that before.

quid

@MartinSleziak yes, that's the cause of my question, I should have been more clear. The "of vector fields" suggests a more restricted usage than just any vector.

Manolis Lyviakis

hey guys

quid

12:54 PM

But I don't know if that it really intended, or tenable.

@ManolisLyviakis Hello.

Manolis Lyviakis

:)

Martin Sleziak

Probably that would be worth posting in tag management thread.

Manolis Lyviakis

u mind checking a question of mine?

it is easy i just dont know the theory maybe you can help me find the theory if you dont want to tell me the answer

Martin Sleziak

With the suggestion to remove the tag? Or replace it by a better named one, if it is suppose to be about vector fields?

Manolis Lyviakis

1

Q: Find the Max of The function

Find the maximum of the the function $$f(\bar x)=\sqrt{x_1^2+2x_2^2+......2016x_{2016}^2}$$ $\bar x=(x_1,x_2,....x_{2016}) \in R^{2016}$ where the domain of $f$ is $$\bar x=(x_1,x_2,....x_{2016}) \in R^{2016} :\sum_{n=1}^{2016}x_n^2=1$$. Sol: $f^2(\bar x)={x_1^2+2x_2^2+......2016x_{2016}^2}=...

real-analysis functions optimization maxima-minima

Martin Sleziak

12:55 PM

@ManolisLyviakis Wrong room.

Manolis Lyviakis

ohh

whats the apropriate?

Martin Sleziak

This room is for discussions related to tagging.

Manolis Lyviakis

ohh

quid

@MartinSleziak thanks will do, I just wanted to double-check with you before-hand.

Martin Sleziak

@ManolisLyviakis Either main chatroom or calculus and analysis room? The latter does not have much activity though.

quid

12:57 PM

@ManolisLyviakis you just asked the question 5 minutes ago. I'd just wait a bit.

Martin Sleziak

The last suggestion from quid sounds very reasonable.

Manolis Lyviakis

if you want you can at least thumbs it up so it get ome views !! would really help!!thanks anyway :) sorry for spamming

Martin Sleziak

BTW there is also vector-fields tag. If the tag vectors is supposed to be used in accordance with the tag excerpt, then vector-fields would be more suitable.

However, looking at the revision history of the tag-excerpt I am not sure whether the user who edited this part in knows what a vector field is.

quid

@MartinSleziak I should have done this before asking, but the summary was only recently chanegd;

@MartinSleziak yes. Just noticed, too. :-)

Martin Sleziak

And the same user who added vector fields in the tag-excerpt wrote about vectors as elements of vector space in the tag-wiki.

I am never sure about the terminology. The whole thing is called tag-info and it consists of tag-excerpt and tag-wiki? Or is tag-wiki the whole thing?

To summarize, I am not sure what should be done with the vectors. Perhaps synonym with vector-spaces might be reasonable?

quid

1:08 PM

@MartinSleziak I think it might even make sense to keep them separate. "vectors" could be useful for more specific calculations with vectors in the context of analytic geometry, as they are done in secondary-education already. Whereas vector space could be more about the structure. I think I'll just look at what is actually tagged vectors and rewrite the wiki then.

I now think the current one is a just a bit misleading.

That is, given the history I'd search the "fault" with the description not the usage.

@MartinSleziak if one looks at the revision it says return to {tagname} wiki and it goes back to the "tag info" page. It seems "info" and "wiki" are used interchangably.

Thanks for the discussion on this tag. And, sorry, for not having had the idea to check the history right away.

Martin Sleziak

1:41 PM

@quid If this is the way the suggestion is going, then this might be for a longer discussion. Perhaps it would make sense in that case to make a separate post for this issue (i.e., not in the tag management thread)?

BTW some time ago there was synonym suggestion vectors $\to$ linear-algebra.

Jul 23 at 4:19, by Martin Sleziak

Several synonyms for linear-algebra have been suggested, namely vectors, vector-spacesand vectorization.

But I do not see it anywhere, so it has probably been downvoted and deleted since then.

quid

1:55 PM

@MartinSleziak I inadvertently stumbled over this when editing a questions tagged "vectors" I notice the summary and then was unsure if it would apply to that qu. My edit would be just restoring the status before that last wiki edit. I think I'll keep it simple.

Martin Sleziak

What I meant there was not that you should not edit tag wiki.

I meant that if you're going to start discussion on meta about this tag, then IMO a separate questions would be better than using tag management thread.

quid

I see. Thanks for the clarification. On the specific synoyms, I think this takes synonyms too far. Maybe for "vector-spaces."

Martin Sleziak

@quid I agree. I am glad that the synonym suggestion to (linear-algebra) was not approved. (I think I might be one of the users who downvoted it.)

Martin Sleziak

3:18 PM

Dear @MartinSleziak, I'm not very eager to enter a tagging debate. I just wanted to let you know that for me not every question related to a ring belongs to Ring Theory, but this can be only a personal opinion. Anyway, since we are here on an undergraduate mathematical site, I suppose that such confusions can occur. — user26857 3 hours ago

@user26857 I certainly did not want to press you into entering the discussion on meta. (Although I think that many users would welcome your input, especially since you are among top users in these tags.) However, since it seems to me that various users use these tag differently, opening the meta thread seemed to me as a reasonable thing to do. — Martin Sleziak 27 secs ago

Asaf Karagila

8:07 PM

What do we think about the abc-conjecture tag?

Transcript for

$Mathematics$ Tagging