Not signed in (Sign In)

Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.


    @quid: done

    • CommentAuthorWill Jagy
    • CommentTimeDec 25th 2012
    I put one today, it seems there are both tags sums-of-squares and sum-of-squares, I used the one with sums as it had double or triple the count of the other

    @Will: merged

    • CommentAuthorWillieWong
    • CommentTimeJan 10th 2013

    the tag [ap.analysis-of-pdes] has spawned a duplicate? A version of the tag without the 'ap' prefix. Please merge.


    @Willie: merged.

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJan 15th 2013

    Two standard merges (both have three questions so to avoid too much "front-page noise" I do not want to do it manually):

    matrix -> matrices

    combinatorics -> co.combinatorics

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeJan 22nd 2013

    There is a tag "history" with about ten questions. I think this could/should be merged into ho.history-overview.

    In addition there is a single one tagged ho.historical-overview that also should be merged (since it is only one I could do so myself but the question is very old, and since I am already mentioning history tags I thought I leave it for the moment)

    Thanks in advance!



    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 4th 2013 edited

    There are eight questions tagged "group-theory", please, merge into "". Thanks in advance!

    Added: analogous problem for "number-theory" (seven questions)

    Added 2: likewise for "numerical-analysis"

    • CommentAuthorTeo B
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2013
    Hello, could a moderator please retag my question

    "delete-me" (current tag) => "tag-removed"

    Sorry I prefer now to do it myself, that would bump that stupid question again on main! Regards.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 8th 2013

    AFAIK the default for a tag-name of object-type is plural (according to some long ago agreed upon convention). This is not totally uniformly done though (yet might not be worth fixing).

    However, there are some instances where both singular and plural exist, yet the singular is frequent and the plural one very rare (indeed unique!). To have both seems quite unfortunate, yet I am hesitant to simply 'kill' the more correct though infrequent ones.

    The examples I am presently aware of are:

    hilbert-space(s) 93 vs 1 unitary-representation(s) 27 vs 1 blow-up(s) 37 vs 1

    So this is either a request for the merges singular to plural or a request for permission for me 'killing' the plural ones.


    All done.

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 9th 2013 edited

    Thank you François G. Dorais! Some more findings (where more than I am feeling comfortable to do manually or things I do not want to reactivate are effected):

    Several arXiv-like tags, mistyped, or just missing the prefix or otherwise extremely close, and would need merging into the arxiv one:

    statistics -> st.statistics

    gt.general-topology -> gn.general-topology (yet not gt.geometric topolgy :-) )

    ag.algebraic-topology -> at.algebraic-topology

    k-theory -> kt.k-theory-homology (this might be debatable, but still seems to make sense, IMO)

    functional -> fa.functional-analysis (at the moment there seems to be no single usage of this tag in a truly meaningful way, yet on the other hand it is sometimes abused as building block of "functional analysis"; if ever there is a need the plural "functionals" could be created; yet now it would seem renaming is a lot worse than just merging)

    category -> ct.category-theory (at the moment there is just one tagged like so, but I do not want to bump that one)

    control-theory -> oc.optimization-control (same as above)

    number-theory -> nt.number-theory

    numerical-analysis -> na.numerical-analysis (I mention the last two again, as due to my sub-optimal way of reporting them earlier I believe they were overlooked)

    Some singular/plural issues (where both exist):

    curve -> curves

    journal -> journals

    manifold -> manifolds

    norm -> norms

    tensor-product -> tensor-products

    Some other things

    linear -> linear-algebra (I checked this makes sense at the moment; in some cases manual changes would be "cleaner" as they would not leave tangling 'algebra' tags but 'algebra' seems "lost" as a tag anyway so it might not be worth the bumps)

    complexity -> computational-complexity (also makes sense at the moment)

    community-wiki -> tag-removed (here I am not sure, but to have three out of many cw-questions tagged cw seems pointless yet could have the bad side-effect that some new users might think tagging like so is what "making community-wiki" means)


    All done.

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 16th 2013 edited

    Thanks again! Another weekend, another list :)

    Singular/plural duplicates (I only give the singular to be merged into the plural):












    Other 'duplicates' or clear 'errors', sometimes I am not sure which form is better

    nonstandard-analysis <-> non-standard-analysis

    preduals <-> pre-duals

    char-p -> characteristic-p ; in addition there is also positive-chracteristic (perhaps in fact both former ones should go into this one)

    reference -> reference-request

    refer -> reference-request

    ha.harmonc-analysis -> harmonic-analysis (no arviv cat.)

    geometric-topology -> gt.geometric-topology

    Near duplicates (perhaps some are debatable)

    dgalgebra -> dg-algebras (at least I believe this makes sense)

    derived -> derived-algebraic-geometry (there is only one use of derived)

    height-functions -> heights (or the other way round)

    algebraic-numbers -> algebraic-number-theory (the former is only used once while the tag is old)

    convex -> convexity (the convex tag is somewhat harmful as it "distracts" from convex-something tags; and I think this makes sense for all tagged like so at the moment; there was one where convex-optimization was better I retagged that one manually)

    inner-model-theory <-> inner-models (perhaps?)

    harmonic -> harmonic-functions (the latter does not exist, but I think it fits for all current uses while I am slightly worried to see 'harmonic numbers' for example making 'harmonic' a strange mix; there is perhaps one exception a question on hermonic polynomials, but since these are AFAIK also harmonic functions it is not so bad)

    computability -> computability-theory

    real -> real-analysis (seems to make sense at the moment, and real is perhaps a tag to be eliminated)


    A new singular/plural

    arithmetic-group -> arithmetic-groups (the correcter plural is new)

    And another arXiv without prefix

    differential-geometry -> dg.differential-geometry (11 questions)

    One more close duplicate

    hyperbolic -> hyperbolic-geometry (the tag hyperbolic was somewhat recently born as a broken hyperbolic-geometry; this resurfaced on the front page, which I thus fixed right away, another usage of it was for hyperbolic pde, I created that tag now and retagged one; the remaining is again hyperbolic-geometry)


    All done.

    The merge of inner-model-theory and inner-models that quid just made happen is inappropriate in abstract (I didn't check the questions that had one or the other to see how the tags were originally used). We use inner models in all sorts of settings where none of the definability or canonicity considerations of inner model theory are required or even appropriate.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2013 edited

    @Andres Caicedo: There are only 6 question affected. If you care about this perhaps have a look and make a concrete suggestion. (In any case the split before was if I remember right 1-5 (theory -models) so to revert to the original state is in the worst case one manual and one global retag.) If I understand you correctly inner-models seems more general. So perhaps the new joint tag should be named so rather then then the other as it is now.

    I retagged the one question to which not even squinting the inner-model-theory tag applies. I think we should keep both tags, even if after my retagging, only one question has the inner-models tag, and very very few have the other. Some of the other questions, I wouldn't have used either tag for them, but inner-model-theory seems more appropriate than the other. (Most likely there are several questions in set-theory that could have been tagged inner-models as well. If I find time, I'll post a list or something.)
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 18th 2013

    Thanks for following up on this. In some sense I am very suprise which one you retagged (on purely superficial reasons) as this one contains in the body of the question "inner model theory".


    Andres, none of the questions tagged inner models (including the one you retagged) had much to do with inner models. I think removing the tag would be more appropriate than adding it back.

    François, I agree with you, and am fine with the removal. Most questions I saw involving inner models also involve forcing or large cardinal issues, and those tags are being used, so having also inner-models may be redundant for now. Whether there is need for it in the future, we will see.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 22nd 2013

    This is more a question than a direct suggestion:

    There is an (established) tag 'continuum-hypothesis'. Somewhat recently a tag 'gch' got created in addition (it has now 2 questions tagged like so, the second by me, when an old question became reactivated.) Yet, just know a question got asled that seems directly related to the generalized continuum hypothesis but is still tagged only continuum-hypothesis.

    In my mind this raises the question whether it is useful to have both tags, for general "size" considerations but even more so since this latest question reinforced my general conviction that consitent usage of fine-grained tags simply is unlikely to happen.

    Could the pluralized 'continuum-hypotheses' as common tag makes sense?

    No, please, no common tag. And yes, continuum-hypothesis and generalized-continuum-hypothesis are utterly different things. An error in tagging in a recent question does not mean a tag is superfluous.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeFeb 23rd 2013

    @Andres Caicedo: not to be argumentative but since I really do not understand this: if you think (as it seems you do) it is relevant to have these separate tags, why didn't you retag the (IMO) clearly mistagged one to which you contributed (just shortly after being made aware of the issue)?

    Because I kept expecting the OP would make the change themselves. They have been steadily adding answers and editing them, and if they had done it that would have been less intrusive. (But no, I had not left a comment to the effect that there is a tag that says so-and-so that may be more appropriate, or pointing to your comment above.)
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013 edited

    Some new essential duplicate and 'errors':

    mathematical-physics -> mp.mathematical-physics

    quantum-group -> quantum-groups

    computabilty -> computability-theory


    ha.homological-algebra -> homological-algebra

    refe -> reference-request (or tag-removed as the question is already tagged reference request)

    graph.theory -> graph-theory

    Some more complicated ones:

    derived-categories got created the 'wrong' singular exists with about 100 questions. (This could be a good tactic for getting a taxonimist tag; search a singular tag with a lot of use and create the plural ;D)

    Not sure what to do with


    AFAIK this is math.SE practise, we have both separately; the current one asks for examples and I am under the impression OP only used it out of math.SE habit. (I once had a conversation on a similar instance where this was given as reason.)

    In fact, I just noticed we have

    counter-examples and counterexamples (and examples)

    as tag.

    One possibly controversial one:

    Recently non-associative-algebras and nonassociative-algebra got created (by different users).

    The later usage is more like algebra as field and not structure. So, in principle, one could say there is a difference; but due to the general scarcity my personal opinion would be that perhaps one of the two would suffice. Likely i'd preserve the latter.

    Thanks in advance for merges!

    • CommentAuthoreldering
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2013
    There are a few (7 currently) questions tagged "dynamical-systems" that should be retagged "ds.dynamical-systems".
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2013

    complex-variables -> cv.complex-variables

    And, at the moment the five question tagged differential could be merged into dg.differential-geometry (I just extracted one where the also existing differentials seemed needed).


    All done, more or less. I decided against doing anything about nonassociative algebras, because my preferred spelling hasn't appeared yet.

    Do we really need a [dependent-choice] tag? There are two questions, one which seems to fit (and is tagged) under [axiom-of-choice]; and another which seem to have no business being tagged under [dependent-choice] at all.
    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeApr 17th 2013

    I am thinking about untangling the "analytic" tag (with the eventual goal of getting rid of it). Presently it is a strange mix of analytic number theory and things related to analytic functions (mainly). My plan is to retag those where it applies as analytic-functions (or something else applicable) and after that (when it will make sense) to suggest a merge analytic into analytic-number-theory.

    Are there any objections to this? Or other/better suggestions? (The amount of manual retagging is not large but nonminimal, say 5+eps. I will not do all at the same time.)


    Asaf & Quid, go ahead an retag these (not all at once). Thanks!

    There were only two, so I really felt like retagging all the questions was not a big deal, but [dependent-choice] is gone. For now.

    Any proposals for what to do with the [elementary] tag? Qualifier tags are not a great idea but this one seems to be used quite a lot, not necessarily for bad reasons. Does anyone ever search for this tag?

    • CommentAuthorquid
    • CommentTimeApr 29th 2013

    Regarding the elementary tag: I did not yet look into this in detail but to me it seems used a bit much in the sense of "easy", which seems not useful. However, an elementary proof has a somewhat precise technical meaning and for this a tag could be be useful; also, say, elementary number theory is something that might be worth a tag as well as some other things.

    A solution might be to extract manually the technical usages in other mainly to be created tags, and to remove the rest. (I would be willing to contribute to this 'extraction' effort.)

    On a different subject (continuing from a couple comments above): "analytic" is meanwhile/at the moment ready for merging into "analytic-number-theory" (at the moment 6 questions, which I add on the small chance that something appears in the interim.)