MO editors' lounge

« first day (1394 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2496 days later) »

11:40 AM

This question has been bumped today:

Q: Geodesic path on the unit sphere with the sup norm

Let $X$ be the unit sphere of $\mathbb{R}^n$ with the sup norm, i.e. $X=\{x\in\mathbb{R}^n: \|x\|_{\infty}=1\}$. Let the metric $d$ on $X$ be the geodesic metric induced by the sup norm, i.e for any two points $x,y\in X$, $$d(x,y)=\inf \{\ell(\alpha): \alpha \mbox{ a continuous curve on }X \mbox...

Of course, the geometry tag should be removed. Are there some other suitable tags. I have suggested geodesics. Would perhaps dg.differential-geometry or riemannian-geometry be suitable. (Probably not - the use of sup-norm makes it somewhat different from manifolds where we usually deal with geodesics.)

2 hours later…

Martin Sleziak

1:52 PM

I will probably eventually ask about this on meta (but not now - I do not want to have two questions about deprecated tags so close after each other): Does anybody remember relevant links to meta/tea discussions which decided that topology and geometry are now deprecated?

I have some idea what the reasons might be. (Both tags cover too many various area. Algebraic topology, general topology, differential topology etc. can be broadly considered topology. Similarly the questions about plane geometry, Euclidean geometry, algebraic geometry, differential geometry were probably tagged by geometry.)

Still, it would be nice to see the original discussion about this.

1 hour later…

François G. Dorais

3:19 PM

@MartinSleziak: These tags have been deprecated for a very, very long time. I don't remember the specific discussion where they were deprecated. Some relevant tea discussions are in the very long "tag merger/rename requests" thread: tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/34/5/tag-mergerename-requests

Martin Sleziak

@FrançoisG.Dorais Thanks for the reply, I'll have a look on other pages of that thread too, on the one you linked I see your post saying that: "Some tags get created by accidentally splitting hyphenated tags (e.g. [algebraic] [topology] instead of [at.algebraic-topology])."

I would not expect that the tags I mentioned above were created in this way.

As I mentioned above, I was planning on posting on meta something like: "Which tags are deprecated and why?"

And in the body of the question I would ask for tags which are deprecated, reasons for that decision, links to past discussions.

Do you think that such post on meta would be useless?

Are there some (still existing) deprecated tags other than geometry?

François G. Dorais

@MartinSleziak That was a worse problem on MO 1.0. I don't think it's much of a problem since we finally got rid of algebraic and differential.

Martin Sleziak

But I guess since many questions on geometry are being bumped now anyway, it still makes sense to remove the deprecated tag from them right?

Similarly for the new questions.

This is along the lines of my question on meta: What is the correct way to handle questions with deprecated tags?

BTW this room has reached 2k messages - assuming the numbers in the room info are correct.

1 hour later…

Martin Sleziak

4:39 PM

And since we are already discussing tags, what do you think about the tag elementary?

I have to admit that I would not be sure which questions should be tagged with that tag. Should it be simply removed?

There are currently two questions with this tag:

Q: Beauty of some numbers discovered by Ramanujan

I am a graduate PhD student and my topic is analytic number theory. I am also a mathematics teacher. I am planning to give a course to pupils in high school that motivates them to study arithmetic and see the beauty of numbers. For instance, I have enough informations about the golden ratio. I wa...

nt.number-theory reference-request analytic-number-theory elementary-proofs elementary

Q: Going beyond the Sylvester and Schur theorem with regard to $x,x+1,\dots,x+n-1$

I was recent reading through Paul Erdos's classic elementary proof of Sylvester-Schur. It occurred me that there is a simple argument that when $x$ is sufficiently large and if $p_i$ represents the $i$th prime such that $p_i \le n < p_{i+1}$, then there are least $n - i$ numbers in the sequence...

nt.number-theory analytic-number-theory prime-numbers elementary

But arjafi's query reveals that this tag has been created and removed in the past.

And I see that this tag has been mentioned in this room before:

Aug 28 '13 at 21:38, by François G. Dorais

Is anyone working on the "elementary" tag?

Aug 29 '13 at 8:58, by quid

@FrançoisG.Dorais re elementary, it is the next thing on my list

I see a link here - which goes to a deleted answer (being below 10k I do not see the answer):

Oct 16 '13 at 19:44, by quid

@FrançoisG.Dorais not to be insistant but just in case my first comment from some weeks ago fell through the cracks: IMO elementary could now be deleted, see here http://meta.mathoverflow.net/a/700/9072 for context

From Wayback Machine I can see that the linked answer was indeed about elementary.

Other two answers which are now deleted but are shown in that snapshot are ask-noam and ask-johnson.

1 hour later…

Martin Sleziak

5:53 PM

Somewhat marginal question: Would it perhaps be better not to delete such discussions? If it stays, when the tags reappears we have link to discussion which lead to its removal. And I can imagine asking about the tag elementary in "Help cleanup tags!" - only to be told by users with privilege to see deleted stuff that this has been discussed before.

Although in this case specific case the discussion is still in the Internet Archive.

I see that you have already merged elementary into elementary-proofs. Thanks for that!

I kind of expected to see there tag-removed if some of the mods does something with this tag. But elementary-proofs probably makes more sense.

François G. Dorais

6:07 PM

The only case where mods can't do efficient retagging is cases like geometry where there are lots of targets each with lots of cases.

Martin Sleziak

Well, tag-removed would still be an option - but probably not a good one. I suppose it's better to retag them manually, since in that way many question would be missing correct tags, right?

François G. Dorais

Nothing beats manual retagging, but it's good to avoid excessive bumps. If there were more retagging enthusiasts, we could have a retagging spree for a few days and get rid of stubborn bad tags.

Martin Sleziak

Well, I guess some users would be very grumpy in case of retagging spree.

But the point is moot anyway - it seems to me that there are not that many users here at MO who care about tagging of the questions and who are familiar enough with the tags.

I probably would be hesitant to join myself since I do not know enough about the tags on this site.

I know that at chemistry.SE they had something call The Great Retagging Event. But this requires both sufficient planning and enough dedicated users.

Here on MO most posts on meta about tags remain unnoticed, or at least without response.

Martin Sleziak

6:33 PM

Still, the situation here is probably better than at math.SE where several new tags are created each week.

1 hour later…

Martin Sleziak

7:47 PM

It seems that there are also other users helping to removed geometry tag from new (or recently bumped) questions. For example, this Joseph O'Rourke's edit.

« first day (1394 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2496 days later) »

all rooms