Timeline for Help improve tagging!
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2019 at 12:02 | comment | added | YCor | I indeed think that lattice-theory should be changed to lattice-ordering. As regards lattices, maybe lattices-discrete-subgroups? it's a bit lengthy but takes into account various ambiguities. It also takes into account the increasing research on discrete subgroups of Lie groups beyond the lattice case. | |
| Jul 2, 2014 at 14:47 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | @S. Carnahan: I see three (out of the 29 total, a substantial fraction of which is dual tagged). The real problem is the lattices tag, which contains many questions of both kinds. | |
| Jul 1, 2014 at 5:38 | comment | added | S. Carnahan Mod | I only see two questions with lattice-theory tags that involve free abelian groups with quadratic forms. | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 13:30 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Hmm, that’s a good point. Dropping the “sub” might help, but then again, “lattice-group” could be easily misinterpreted as referring to l-groups. Maybe “lattice-module”? (Though that sounds dangerously close to modular lattices. Oh dear.) | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 12:22 | comment | added | user9072 | I agree this should be the main concern. On second thought lattice-subgroup could have the issue to be read as "lattice of subgroups" , which would be quite unfortuante. Not sure how to call it. Perhaps we could simply use certain languages other than English and the problem will be trivial :-) | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 11:26 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | ... word, and “poset” should do the job. Whether “lattice-subgroup” is an adequate description for the second meaning I can’t tell, as I am not much familiar with this field, but if it looks good to you, I’d go with it. | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 11:22 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | That’s not what I want to propose, I want to disambiguate the existing two mixed-up tags into two categories as broad as possible. Above I was just trying to figure out your terminology, so that we are both talking about the same thing, I didn’t mean to restrict the second category to sublattices of $\mathbb R^n$. Ryan Budney’s proposal looks fine to me. “Lattice-poset” is not ideal as more often than not, they are considered as algebraic rather than order-theoretic structures, but in view of your comments, “lattice-subgroup” can also be interpreted as algebraic, so one needs another ... | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 10:48 | comment | added | user9072 | I should however add that I do not have a fixed opinion here, also what I suggest might still miss out on some lattices in the sense of modules (and I somehow lumped this into the 'algebraic'), and I feel I do not fully oversee the situation. The main point I wanted to make here, in view of your proposal and Gerhard Paseman's comment is that not every use of lattice that is not the partial order meaning is captured well by the second tag proposed, and indeed for what you seem to propose, there mainly is a tag already (namely euclidean-lattices). | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 10:31 | comment | added | user9072 | @EmilJeřábek in tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/679/lattices it was suggested by Ryan Budney to have lattice-poset and lattice-subgroup, mentioning Wikipedia, and I agree this is a good idea. I refered to the latter as algebraic (perhaps this is a bad/confusing idea though) and would call geometric only special cases of it, like the one you mention, for which there is more or less a tag already namely euclidean-lattices (though one might generalize the name a bit to point-lattices as suggested in the tea thread you link to). | |
| Jun 27, 2014 at 10:01 | comment | added | Emil Jeřábek | Thanks for the link, I had a vague recollection this was discussed before, but couldn’t find it. However, @quid, I am quite confused by your comments both here and there. The post tea.mathoverflow.net/discussion/1375 discusses exactly the same distinction as here (“lattice as an algebraic structure” is the same thing as “lattice as a poset”, just formulated in a different signature). You somehow seem to call “algebraic” what everyone else in the discussion calls “geometric”, or otherwise I can’t make heads or tails of the last sentence in your post here. Could you please clarify? | |
| Jun 26, 2014 at 18:45 | comment | added | user9072 | @GerhardPaseman yes something along these lines. However, I would prefer other disambiguations (the usage of Wikipedia seems a good model).// Also it might be worth noting there is a tag euclidean-lattices and also lattice in the alg sense can be used more general than disc subgroups of R^n or someting iso to Z^n. | |
| Jun 26, 2014 at 17:38 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | Perhaps lattices-Zn and lattices-minmax might help? This is definitely a case where a short modifier would be useful. Gerhard "Using Algebraic Lattices Is Confusing" Paseman, 2014.06.26 | |
| Jun 26, 2014 at 17:04 | comment | added | user9072 | I fully agree. See meta.mathoverflow.net/a/1407/9072 for my version of the proposal. | |
| Jun 26, 2014 at 12:26 | history | edited | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| S Jun 26, 2014 at 10:36 | history | answered | Emil Jeřábek | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Jun 26, 2014 at 10:36 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by Emil Jeřábek |