« first day (1782 days earlier)      last day (1274 days later) » 

 
4 hours later…
5:24 AM
Today's question spent some time in HNQ list (before I added MathJax into the title) and as a consequence it has more views and more questions.
Close the older one as duplicate of today's question? Or merge in some direction?
 
 
5 hours later…
10:47 AM
Evaluate and prove by induction: $\sum k{n\choose k},\sum \frac{1}{k(k+1)}$ contains two question in one. I cast duplicate close vote for one of them, perhaps somebody else could cast a close vote with a duplicate target for the other question. Some of these links might be reasonable candidates:
Sorry, I have already posted a duplicate for this sum:
Which means I should have linked to hits comment:
The first question has been answered on this site several times, see this question and other posts linked there. And also this post. — Martin Sleziak 13 mins ago
@MartinSleziak Hard to digest the upvotes actually. — StubbornAtom 55 secs ago
 
 
2 hours later…
 
1 hour later…
1:41 PM
@MartinSleziak I found this to be the highest-quality combination of question and answers, and cast my votes accordingly.
 
2:02 PM
@DanielFischer Thanks for the response. Indeed, I was comparing mainly the two questions which were exactly the same.
Of course, replacing 3/6 by 4/6 is not a substantial change, that is still reasonable duplicate target. (At least I doubt that somebody will object.)
 
Oh, we have some who object on principle ;)
 
You mean to almost every closure?
@MartinSleziak This one is now closed too.
Since I have opportunity to talk to you - any opinion on this?
in Tagging, yesterday, by Martin Sleziak
Should be removed for the same reason? Or is this tag somehow better than ?
 
@MartinSleziak At least to closures where fewer than five close-voters were involved.
 
Blacklisting basis tag has already been discussed on meta: meta.math.stackexchange.com/questions/21091/… I am not sure whether adding the word dimension changes too much.
 
Hm, seems like an awful tag name. But I'm a bit surprised that in the list of related tags of I don't see anything about dimension or bases. I'd have expected that we have something for those.
 
2:14 PM
It seems that the tag was created and removed several times: chat.stackexchange.com/search?q=basis&room=3740
I do not recall whether there was a discussion on meta about tag for basis/dimension in the sense of linear algebra. (With more descriptive name which would clarify the usage.)
 
Yeah, by itself is too ambiguous.
 
Do you think that this newly created tag is an opportunity to start a discussion on meta about the tag specifically for basis/dimension for vector spaces?
There was short-lived tag:
in Tagging, Aug 12 at 22:44, by Asaf Karagila
Just this evening I had to remove the twice. The second time was almost exclusively old questions. I wish we had a 20k rep limit on new tags.
 
Would be sufficiently clear that one is meaning the cardinality of a Hamel basis?
 
Yes. It is clear enough.
Would this mean that questions about dimension and questions about basis would be in separate tags? (Assuming that tag for basis of a vector space is created in the future.)
 
Next question, is it useful enough to justify its existence?
 
2:20 PM
@DanielFischer I am not sure. It does not seem as an easy question to answer.
It might be useful. But my worry is that we will have then too many possible tags for some questions.
 
Quick brainstorming. What sort of question would reasonably be tagged if that tag exists, and what other tags (besides the obvious linear algebra) would they have?
 
Perhaps some of them might be a stretch, but it seems that these tags might fit that question:
It is a question about dimension of nullspace of $S\circ T$.
Re: What other tags they may have?
Questions about kernels, images and similar stuff: .
 
I have always associated only with stuff like AM-GM, Hölder's inequality, Minkowski, Young, …; never with inequalities between dimensions.
 
If also matrix of a transformation appears there and come into the question.
 
And has obvious overlap with .
 
2:28 PM
If someone could please take a look at my question to help make suggestions for reopening it? Thanks in advance.
2
Q: How do you prove this very different method for evaluating $\sum_{k=1}^nk^p$

Simple Art I found the following formula in my previous question. This differs from my previous question in that I want an alternative proof of the below recursive formula for calculating $\displaystyle\sum_{k=1}^nk^p$. Suppose I had a function recursively defined as $$f(x,p)=a_px+p\int_0^xf(t,p-1)...

 
@DanielFischer I have commonly tagged questions like matrix-rank+inequality. Maybe it is wrong - it's up to discussion. But I found that useful when searching for some type of question.
 
@MartinSleziak I don't know if that is (or should be considered) wrong. I've just never thought about it that way.
 
I often combined with other tags. I'll give inequality+totient-function as a different example. But that is a completely different question that what we were discussing before.
@DanielFischer Perhaps we can leave further discussion about for another time? I should get back to my grading.
As far as the issue at hand is concerned, you probably would not object to removing , right? Or would you prefer to replace it with , which you suggested as a possible alternative?
 
@MartinSleziak Yes. Perhaps it should be a meta question anyway.
 
@DanielFischer Would you volunteer to write it? (After all, the tag name was your suggestion.) Of course, there is no hurry to do so.
 
2:36 PM
@MartinSleziak I think should go. It may be useful to not edit it out immediately to keep a small list of posts to receive a sort-of-replacement tag. But with only four questions, that wouldn't matter much.
 
@DanielFischer The list of questions is available here, should it be needed: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3740/2016/11/27
So I'll go ahead an remove the tag.
 
@MartinSleziak Ah, true. Go ahead.
 
It is empty at the moment. We will see whether somebody will use it until tomorrow.
@SimpleArt I am sorry, I'll have to do some other stuff, so I will not have time to look into those question. Let's hope somebody else will be able to help you.
 
@MartinSleziak Thank you for the consideration
 

« first day (1782 days earlier)      last day (1274 days later) »