9
$\begingroup$

I just saw that the Reedy cofibrancy of the bar construction for algebras question is tagged with "" and I wonder if such "sloppy" tag-naming is considered acceptable/appropriate.

Introducing a tag for "simplices" or "simplex-theory" would IMHO fit better.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Probably people who know about, well, simplicial stuff are able to give a more qualified response. But I will add at least a link to a discussion about the tag (simplicial-stuff) on Mathematice Meta. (Some MO veterans have been involved in that discussion.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 10:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Still, Mathematics has an advantage that there is tag-excerpt that clarifies the usage. (It was created by Grigory M.) On Mathoverflow, the tag-info is empty at the moment. (The tag-info on Mathematics site could at least give a basic idea what this tag is intended for.) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 10:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Good names could be "simplicial-objects" or "simplicial-homotopy-theory" (depending on where to put the focus). I kind of like "simplicial-stuff", and I have to say I don't really understand the objections $\endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 11:11
  • 8
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand the downvote on the question. It is true that the OP misunderstood completely the meaning of the "simplicial-stuff" tag, but this is possibly even more an indication that there is a problem, not the converse. $\endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 11:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ +1 Also from me - in the spirit of the above comment. (So the intended meaning of the upvote is "it is useful that this was brought up on meta" and not "I agree with the suggested alternative names for the tag".) $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 11:43
  • $\begingroup$ To clarify: I am not an expert in the field at which the question on MO is aimed and my naming "suggestions" were only meant to demonstrate, that there is no need to use "stuff" in a tag; sorry if my suggestions were perceived as coming from knowledge in the field. $\endgroup$
    – Manfred Weis
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 11:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Tangential remark: if we decide to do something about this tag name, another similar case is abstract-nonsense. $\endgroup$
    – Federico Poloni
    Commented Jan 5, 2018 at 14:23
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @FedericoPoloni (abstract-nonsense) is a little different, in that it has become essentially acceptable terminology in category theory: you find it in papers, maybe even titles of papers. "Simplicial stuff" is definitely used in seminars, but I don't think people write it down, usually. $\endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Commented Jan 5, 2018 at 17:02

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11
$\begingroup$

I think neither "simplices" nor "simplex-theory" captures the topic that is currently described by "simplicial-stuff". If we want to rename it, maybe "simplicial-objects"? (even if taken literally is a bit more restrictive). I like a lot "simplicial-stuff" though, and I'd prefer to keep it. I don't think any name that we come up with is going to avoid well-intentioned people from using the tag to describe combinatorial questions about simplices.

That said, I think a tag-excerpt should definitely be added. What about the following variation on the math.stackexchange tag-excerpt?

For questions about simplicial sets, simplicial (co)algebras and simplicial objects in other categories; geometric realization, Dold-Kan correspondence, simplicial resolutions etc.

(I removed model structures from the description because we already have a tag for those, . Moreover they are a different topic, and they deserve a different tag.)

$\endgroup$
5
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ thanks for the clarification; if "simplicial-stuff" is considered appropriate, then I don't object. I just wanted to bring it to attention. $\endgroup$
    – Manfred Weis
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 12:01
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ @ManfredWeis To be clear: it is an informal name, and I would (probably) not use it in a paper. It's just that to people familiar with the field brings a set of connotations that I would struggle to convey with a more formal name. $\endgroup$
    – Denis Nardin
    Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ I like this tag very much too but I have to admit that for practical purposes there might be problems. One of the functions of tags is convenience for searching particular topics, and an average user might not come up with this particular tag to search for something simplicial. Not that I know how to make it more useful in this respect... $\endgroup$
    – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე
    Commented Jan 13, 2018 at 5:34
  • $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე There are many ways how a user can notice this tag. For example, if they browse or search some posts related to this topic, they might notice which tags are used there. Or they might simply go to the list of tags and start typing simpl... to see which tags from related areas are there. Or there might see it among related tags if they look at some other tag, such as at.algebraic-topology or homotopy-theory, ... $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 13, 2018 at 10:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Basically what you describe is a problem with any tag - if a user wants to use it for searching, they must first learn from somewhere that such tag exists. $\endgroup$
    – Martin Sleziak
    Commented Jan 13, 2018 at 10:03

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .