There are also (natural-numbers), with a similar problem. Some questions belong to elementary-number-theory, some belong to logic. — Fundamental2 days ago
@Behaviour Since you have mentioned (natural-numbers), I'll add a link to a discussion in chat. It was suggested there that this tag could be used for what I would call foundational issues. (For example, set-theoretical definition of natural numbers.) — Martin Sleziak24 hours ago
@Martin Maybe you could thing about better name for such tag (for found. issues)? I'm sure a tag named (natural-numbers) will be misused, no mater what we decide here (or even write in tag wiki). — Grigory M13 hours ago
@GrigoryM I am just reporting an older discussion. (If some tags have been discussed before we should not ignore that.) In any case, this is only marginal issue here, the post was about (integers). If further discussion is needed, let us continue in chat. — Martin Sleziak19 secs ago
I definitely do not claim that the tag natural-numbers (if it is kept) should be used solely for this purpose. But this was the usage mentioned in the linked discussion.
Maybe it would be reasonable to post a separate post on meta: How should posts related to set-theoretical construction of natural numbers be tagged? But recently we had lost of tagging-related posts on meta. (Not to mention loads of older posts which are still unresolved.)
I am taking my first course in analysis. I like the subject. I study it almost on a daily basis. I would try to prove theorems on my own without even looking at the hints. If I really get stuck I would just read the first line of the proof and then try to continue on my own. I find this way to be...
