« first day (2142 days earlier)      last day (1956 days later) » 

5:43 AM
Two new tags and (created in the same question).
0
Q: A simple cardinal characteristic associated with $\omega^\omega$

dragoonWe can define a very simple cardinal characteristic in the following way. Recall the relation $\leq^*$ on $\omega^\omega$ defined by $x\leq^* y$ iff $x(i)\leq y(i)$ for all but finitely many $i$. For $x,y\in\omega^\omega$, say that $x$ and $y$ are comparable, denoted by $x\parallel y$, if either ...

Some time ago there was a discussion related to similar tags: Creating tag “small-uncountable-cardinals”.
Several alternative names for has been suggested. The intended usage was probably as . This seems to be suggested by Taras Banakh's comment and my older proposal.
Yes "infinite-combinatorics" is a broader field which (almost) swallows "small-uncountable-cardinals" and contains a lot of other things. For me "small-uncountable-cardinals" are synonyms to "cardinal characteristics of the continuum". — Taras Banakh Mar 12 at 16:30
François G. Dorais' answer is the most upvoted and it seems that he is in favor of having a tag .
4
A: Creating tag "small-uncountable-cardinals"

François G. DoraisThis question has generated a lot of discussion while I was looking away! Here are my thoughts. The primary purpose of tags is to aid with search. As mathematicians, we have a tendency to think in terms of classification and taxonomy instead, but this is not the best way to think of tags and we ...

In a separate CW answer in that thread, the tag-infos for the tag discussed there were suggested. (Maybe I should say "hypothetical tags" - since clearly no all of them are going to be left on the site. But even for the tag which is eventually going to be removed it's good to have some version of tag-info - since that helps clarifying the scope of the tag and thus it helps in the decision whether the tag is worth keeping.)
2
A: Help improve tagging!

Martin SleziakWhat about creating small-uncountable-cardinals tag? (The tag name is within the recently increased 35 character limit.) Looking at the main site, it seems that small uncountable cardinals (such as $\mathfrak p$, $\mathfrak t$, $\mathfrak b$, $\mathfrak d$, etc.) get quite a lot of attention on ...

It seems to me that part of that discussion arose also due to the fact that some people understand small uncountable cardinals as a synonym of cardinal characteristics of the continuum - and some people don't.
@FrançoisG.Dorais Sorry for bothering you, but since the tag was created recently, I thought it might be reasonable to ask you about it.
I hope that my summary of the discussion about the tag is at least somewhat accurate.
I don't expect that there will be some more feedback posted in that thread. (Theoretically bumping the thread might get a few more views. Possibly tagging it as - but I do not think it is that important. But even then I'm not sure whether many users would join the discussion.)
Would, for example, "renaming" as be a reasonable solution. From your answer it seems that this is the tag name you favored (and it is the most upvoted answer in that thread).
(I know that renaming a tag is technically merging it into another tag - but perhaps technicalities are not that important for the discussion which tag should be kept.)
 
3 hours later…
9:24 AM
I see that above - when I was talking about the proposed tag-wikis - I have linked to a different post. I wanted to link to this one:
4
A: Creating tag "small-uncountable-cardinals"

Martin SleziakIt seems that these three tags are being discussed in this thread: infinite-combinatorics, small-uncountable-cardinals, cardinal-characteristics.The tag infinite-combinatorics exists for a long time, but it might be good to improve the tag-info. Whether or not the other two tags should be created...

 
1 hour later…
10:30 AM
@MartinSleziak I did not even notice until now that also was created in the same question.

« first day (2142 days earlier)      last day (1956 days later) »