« first day (2440 days earlier)      last day (176 days later) » 

12:14 AM
@MartinSleziak I fixed the "Front" link in my answer, which was more of a search for a specific author, but took the opportunity to fix some other links in other answers there, too. In particular, Springer's internal links (from springer.com to Springerlink) to LNM volumes are broken, so I had to bypass that.
 
 
4 hours later…
 
3 hours later…
7:11 AM
Posts where a link to front.math.ucdavis.edu or front.math.ucdavis.edu/search was removed/changed at some point.
Posts where a link to front.math.ucdavis.edu or front.math.ucdavis.edu/search was removed/changed at some point. — Martin Sleziak 31 secs ago
I have notice an edit in 2017 with the edit summary "corrected broken link (this arxiv's mirror is not in operation for several weeks)". So this is not the first time there is a similar problem. — Martin Sleziak 30 secs ago
 
 
1 hour later…
8:15 AM
Would be suitable for "Simplicity of alternating group AnAnA_n"? What about and ? (The question was recently bumped.)
17
Q: Simplicity of alternating group $A_n$

Igor RivinI am teaching an introductory group theory course, and it has come to the inevitable proof that $A_n$ is simple for $n\geq 5$. Now, there seem to be a number of proofs that I can find – one the "standard" one with $3$-cycles, and the others using primitivity or conjugacy class size estimation. Do...

17
Q: Simplicity of alternating group $A_n$

Igor RivinI am teaching an introductory group theory course, and it has come to the inevitable proof that $A_n$ is simple for $n\geq 5$. Now, there seem to be a number of proofs that I can find – one the "standard" one with $3$-cycles, and the others using primitivity or conjugacy class size estimation. Do...

 
@MartinSleziak I added a few tags: symmetric group (because simplicity of the derived subgroup is a result on the symmetric group), and alternative proof to follow your suggestion. I didn't add permutation group which I think is unnecessary to add to every question on the symmetric group.
 
Thanks for looking into that!
 
 
1 hour later…
9:23 AM
@MartinSleziak A few more comments related to links in that post.
@MartinSleziak, I searched on MathSciNet for "Author=(Kurano) AND Anywhere=(Riemann Roch)". The only one of the results on a Springer site was Kurano and Ohta - On the limit of Frobenius in the Grothendieck group (MSN). Perhaps @‍HailongDao could confirm? — LSpice 11 hours ago
I also changed the "almost ring theory" link to its (heh) almost certain target; it looks like maybe there was a spurious '5' in the link that prevented it from being an arXiv identifier, so I thought it was worth editing in light of @MartinSleziak's recent meta post on the arXiv front-end. — LSpice 10 hours ago
 
 
1 hour later…
10:27 AM
I will just remind that mods can merge tags without any bumping. So if at some point we will reach the state that all question tagged are questions where fits, mods can change the tags without bumping any questions.
Alternatively a tag could be burninated, which removes all instances of the tag without any bumping. (This cannot be done by mods. However, MO mods sometimes used merging into as a replacement.)
Using seems a bit unusual to me - and one obvious disadvantage it that this placeholder tag remains on the question. Meta Stack Exchange: Burnination vs. merging into a specific tag.
Although we are still quite far from situation where all instances of could be replaced by the same tag.
 
 
2 hours later…
12:10 PM
If some merging should be made, it would rather be , which in a sense is more generic than the other two. I might then retag the group theory questions currently tagged then, and more generally those for which [ra.rings-and-algebras] wouldn't fit too well. (Tagging questions of pure commutative algebra being a minor side effect.)
 
12:21 PM
One question in any case is whether any mod is currently prone to deal with retagging. François Dorais used to do so but seems to have his last activity in the "help cleanup tags" thread in March 2019, in spite of many pending requests (including some obvious ones).
 
12:38 PM
As you say, François G. Dorais used to be rather involved in tag-related discussions on meta and he also helped with clean-up of deprecated tags: data.stackexchange.com/mathoverflow/query/1193741/… data.stackexchange.com/mathoverflow/query/1038477/…
Todd Trimble expressed interest to be more involved in tag-related issues at some point. However, it was back in 2018, I am not sure whether he is still interest.
S. Carnahan edited quite a few tag-infos, I suppose mostly those which were plagiarized (copied from elsewhere without a proper attribution). data.stackexchange.com/mathoverflow/query/1229811/…
Looking at the list of tag-synonyms, many of them were created by François G. Dorais.
@YCor I suppose that retagging might take several months before it is cleaned-up sufficiently for merging. So it is more important whether the moderators will be active after that happens.
However, I believe they at least read meta. (And, in addition to that, mods get notification about each new question on meta into their moderator inbox.)
So I suppose that a reasonable thing to do would be to make a post on meta. (When the tag - or some other deprecated tag - is cleaned-up enough to consider merging.)
It seems that I have basically repeated some things which I said here before: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/10243/2019/1/24 Although this time we are mostly interested in activity of moderators.
 
 
1 hour later…
1:55 PM
Four new tags created in the same question , , , .
0
Q: Freeness of completed homology over universal deformation ring

little dogIn Theorem 7.4 of the paper "patching and the p-adic Langlands program for GL2(Qp)", https://arxiv.org/pdf/1609.06902.pdf, it is proved that in the minimally ramified case, the completed homology of given level is the completed tensor of the dual family of Banach representation (denoted as $\til...

The tags and have been created an removed before.
 
 
1 hour later…
2:56 PM
1
A: Creating tag "small-uncountable-cardinals"

YCorGiven the discussion, I tend to be gradually convinced that creating small-uncountable-cardinals is a good idea, and a good counterpart to the existing quite broad large-cardinals, which currently has almost 500 occurrences. I initially expressed that all this could be embedded into continuum-hyp...

> Edit (April 2020)
> Finally a majority led to create about 13 months ago, with at this date 38 questions including 10 older ones that were retagged.
> The use of this tag seems consistent and I'm finally convinced it was a good idea and that my reluctance was excessive.

About the (small-uncoutable-cardinals) tag

Mar 12 '19 at 11:56, 3 days total – 78 messages, 2 users, 0 stars

Bookmarked Mar 16 '19 at 11:52 by Martin Sleziak

Removal of (small-uncoutable-cardinals)

Dec 22 '19 at 8:33, 10 days total – 47 messages, 1 user, 0 stars

Bookmarked Jan 2 at 5:12 by Martin Sleziak

The tag (cardinal-characteristics)

Jul 4 '19 at 5:43, 1 day 7 hours total – 21 messages, 1 user, 0 stars

Bookmarked Aug 2 '19 at 7:49 by Martin Sleziak

The tag (cardinal-characteristics) 2

Aug 2 '19 at 10:10, 1 hour 40 minutes total – 29 messages, 1 user, 0 stars

Bookmarked Aug 2 '19 at 11:52 by Martin Sleziak

 
 
5 hours later…
7:41 PM
0
Q: Why there is no tag about decoupling theory in MO?

Rafikmath  zI'm confused Decoupling theory probably it is anciant theory in mathematics but no enough backgrounds on it either in wiki or mathworld , And also I accrossed this theory on Tao Blog here , Now I ask why in mathoverflow there is no tag about this theory like homotopy and others theories ?

 

« first day (2440 days earlier)      last day (176 days later) »