Tagging - 2018-01-15

« first day (2043 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2294 days later) »

7:29 AM

A new tag insight was created by Michael Hardy.

Q: A definite integral of a rational function: How can this be transformed from trivial to obvious by a change in viewpoint?

It is obvious without taking an antiderivative that $$\tag 1\int_0^\pi \cos\theta\,d\theta =0.$$ But suppose we do the tangent half-angle substitution that is used for rational functions of sine and cosine (often incorrectly called the Weierstrass substitution, partly but not entirely because Jam...

5 hours later…

Martin Sleziak

12:42 PM

Two new tags statespace and switchedsystem. Somebody familiar with the area of mathematics related to the question?

Q: Understanding Definition of Switching Sequence

Pardon me to upload the picture without writing as it is long. My question is while defining switching sequence why they are considering system realization, by realization are they talking about minimal realization? Also, the definition is same as this? a switching signal is $\sigma: (0,\infty)\...

control-theory switchedsystem statespace

6 hours later…

John Ma

7:12 PM

@MartinSleziak it had been retagged, using soft-question instead.

Martin Sleziak

So the insight tag should be removed unless somebody uses is today. (Until 03:00 UTC, is it?)

Martin Sleziak

7:30 PM

@MartinSleziak It seems that Asaf Karagila removed some of the poset tag.

@John: What makes you think that we need a "poset" tag? — Asaf Karagila 3 mins ago

math.stackexchange.com/posts/2097630/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/2605222/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/941747/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/784509/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/1039018/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/2598148/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/2605140/revisions math.stackexchange.com/posts/2606153/revisions

Even if this leads to removal of the tag, the issue should be brought up on meta - as mentioned before tags for posets have been created and removed several times in the past.

But this would make the start of meta discussion a bit less urgent.

Why? Is something wrong with that tag? If we are taking about poset isn't natural to put that tag. It is not so ''bounded'' concept. — John Watson 2 mins ago

@JohnWatson Tags for posets (with various but rather similar names) has been created and removed several times in the past. (See for example here or here.) To prevent a few other rounds of creation and removal of this tag, it would probably be better to discuss matters on meta first. Anyway, I would suggest to continue this in chat, so that we do not leave here many comments unrelated to this question. — Martin Sleziak 17 secs ago

Unless somebody else does this before me, I can make the post about posets on meta during the weekend. Probably it would be reasonable to discuss whether we need tag for linear orders in the same post.

2 hours later…

John Watson

10:05 PM

I really wonder what is wrong with the poset tag. Why is it unacceptable? Anyway, what are the criteria for creating new tags?

Martin Sleziak

@JohnWatson Well, I am not sure whether this adds something useful to the already existing order-theory.

In any case, as you have seen, the tag has been created and removed several times; which clearly shows that there are many users who think that such tag is not useful.

So probably before creating this tag, it would be better first to discuss this on meta to see what the consensus of the community on such tag is. (After all, this is recommended for tag creation in general.)

The tag posed was created and removed in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2018. And there were also some instances of other tags with similar name but the same meaning.

Also, as you could see here several rather experienced users expressed the view that (order-theory) is sufficient: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3740/2018/1/7 Most recently quid - who is a moderator and is rather active in tag-related discussions:

Jan 6 at 23:08, by quid

It is however not clear to me if it adds anything beyond, say, order-theory

I really think that preferable solution is to discuss this on meta rather than go through another round of adding the tag to some questions and removing it.

John Watson

@MartinSleziak So there is no advance agreement on creating tags. Everything is left to the current inspiration of individuals. Specifically, I would use this tag for purely technical reasons, because it would reduce the number of hits.

Martin Sleziak

What you mean by "advance agreement"?

You mean discussions and guidelines when new tags should be created?

John Watson

10:22 PM

Yes, there should be an agreed rule about creating tags.

Martin Sleziak

You can have a look at What are the more convenient criteria to create new tags? and the posts linked there if you want to see past discussions about this.

John Watson

Ok, thank you, I will take a look.

Martin Sleziak

But it seems clear that this tag is rather problematic - just look at how many times it was created and removed in the past. So in this case, discussing it on meta before creating it sound very reasonable to me.

In fact, some users think that every new tag should be discussed on meta first, although this viewpoint is definitely not shared by majority of users: Should every new tag be discussed on meta before creation?

« first day (2043 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (2294 days later) »

all rooms