« first day (2607 days earlier)      last day (1292 days later) » 

Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
3:16 AM
PS Relevant 2020 MSC numbers seem to be: 03C62 Models of arithmetic and set theory; 03F30 First-order arithmetic and fragments; 03F35 Second- and higher-order arithmetic and fragments 03H15 Nonstandard models of arithmetic — YCor 14 hours ago
0
A: Creating arithmetic logic tag

Noah SchweberI think having a tag for something like this would be quite reasonable. However, I have a couple reservations with your proposal. First, in my opinion "arithmetic logic" is not an ideal tag name: it sounds like it refers to the study of general logics from an "arithmetic" perspective, rather tha...

 
 
5 hours later…
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
7:48 AM
 
 
4 hours later…
YCor
YCor
12:13 PM
@gmvh where do you see linear-algebra is listed as a subtopic of ra.rings-and-algebras? I think in general that linear-algebra doesn't need any parent tag and if any other top-level tags can be more appropriate (e.g. here, mg-metric-geometry, often ac.commutative-algebra or kt.k-theory-homology and others...).
 
gmvh
gmvh
@YCor the tag excerpt starts "Non-commutative rings and algebras, non-associative algebras, universal algebra and lattice theory, linear algebra, semigroups. "
But I agree that linear algebra questions often don't quite seem to fit into this tag.
 
YCor
YCor
12:41 PM
@gmvh OK, thanks. One thing is that this very question is only tangentially linear algebra. Also more typical linear algebra questions are in practice often not tagged ra.rings-and-algebras.
 
gmvh
gmvh
@YCor True, mg.metric-geometry would have been a better fit, I see that now. It has been my understanding so far that questions should always bear either a top-level tag or the "soft-question" tag. Is that not correct?
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
It depends on how seriously MO users take their own rules. If this is considered a strict rule, large percentage of the questions is tagged incorrectly.
May 6 at 4:30, by Martin Sleziak
top-level-tags 22.036% of questions without top-level tags, 17.240% of questions if we take the less strict interpretation.
I have posted somewhat related question on MO some time ago: Which “non-arxiv” tags are de facto top-level tags?
The recommendation to use top-level tags is mentioned on meta, for example here: Frequently asked questions about tagging on MathOverflow and Why are MO tags formatted as they are?
 
gmvh
gmvh
@MartinSleziak Thanks, that is useful.
 
Martin Sleziak
Martin Sleziak
One of the mods praised use of the top-level tags as a source of stability:
Oct 16 '17 at 4:06, by François G. Dorais
@MartinSleziak Yes, the tag management on MO is very different than on Mathematics. There are several reasons for that. For example, the systematic use of broad area tags borrowed from the arxiv on day one brought a lot of stability to the general tagging system here. Mathematics explicitly decided not to use such tags in the early days, which I think was a wise choice since a great deal of users on Mathematics are unfamiliar with the arxiv classification.
Maybe som discussion around top-level tags can be found on tea.
I remember some discussion on top-level tags with quid, which can be found here: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/19138/2017/10/22 And this was also a bit related to tags on meta: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/19138/conversation/…
Of course, it is more important what MO users think about the top-level tags. (You cannot count me among those.)
 
YCor
YCor
1:30 PM
linear-algebra is the more frequent (4400 questions as of now) non "top" level tag followed by set-theory and real-analysis. While "top-level" [sp.spectral-theory] has less than 800 questions. The use of a wide established well-defined tag is itself a source of stability.
Actually I'm less convinced by the frequent non-"top-level" tags are matrices and polynomials, whose use I believe is less consistent. Also homotopy-theory, which seems very redundant with at.algebraic-topology.
To pursue among frequent non-"top level" tags: "tag:graph-theory" naturally has the "co.combinatorics" parent, but sometimes mg.metric-geometry, oc.optimization-and-control, or even the rare it.information-theory. [complex-geometry] has, according to context, the possible parents ag.algebraic-geometry, dg.differential-geometry, or even sg.symplectic-geometry...
... riemannian-geometry has the canonical parent [dg.differential-geometry], but sometimes metric-geometry or ap.analysis-of-pdes (the latter could fit in a few cases of complex-geometry too). measure-theory has no canonical parent too and I believe needs none (while many top-level tags are natural with it in many cases).
 

« first day (2607 days earlier)      last day (1292 days later) »