Timeline for Creating tag "small-uncountable-cardinals"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 1, 2019 at 22:27 | comment | added | YCor | @FrançoisG.Dorais for instance mathoverflow.net/questions/325987 | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 22:20 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @Ycor Which questions were retagged or untagged? I'm not sure what you are talking about. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 12:07 | comment | added | YCor | At this point I'm a bit overtaken by the controversial aspect of the discussion. I'd just say that I would not be happy with a tag creation if it results in half of the new question including this tags being retagged or untagged. One solution is to not create a tag. Another is to have more flexibility on the tag's meaning and let it somewhat converge, instead of fixing a too rigid framework. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 5:36 | comment | added | Taras Banakh | But since introducing new tags appeared to be so delicate question, then I agree to keep just wide tags: "set-theory" and "general-topology". This is less important comparing to the presence or absence of interesting questions (and answers) in these fields. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 5:33 | comment | added | Taras Banakh | "cardinal-function-topology" is a separated topic covering cardinal faunctions on topological spaces like weight, separability, cellularity, etc. "cardinal characteristics of the continuum" is a bit different set-theoretic topic decribing combinatorial cardinality properties of some standard Polish spaces like real line, Cantor set, Baire space. Up to my understanding "cardinal characteristic of continuum" is a subtopic of "small-uncountable-cardinals". The latter relates to cardinals that are near the continuum. | |
| Apr 1, 2019 at 1:56 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @Andrés I have no firm opinion, as far as I can tell there is little interest from users in using any of these tags, but there (hopefully) might be more interest if they were properly named. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 20:32 | comment | added | Andrés E. Caicedo | @François I suppose that would do but I still don't understand the insistence in having to explicitly indicate that one is a tag in topology, and that the same objects need a different tag if discussed in other contexts. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 20:01 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @TarasBanakh I recall István Juhász describing some of his major works as "cardinal functions" . Perhaps having both "cardinal-functions-topology" and "cardinal-characteristics" would work? They overlap some, but they cover everything I can think of right now. Also, they are both nouns. | |
| Mar 31, 2019 at 5:32 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | @TarasBanakh Moderators can rename tags without bumping any questions. And if the tag has to be removed, mods can request SE user to "burninate" them - which means simply removal of the tag without bumping any question. (However, if this would concern only 8 questions, I suppose manual retagging would do.) I would mainly suggest not to be too hasty about retagging, let's see where this discussion goes first. (And since mods can do changes without bumping, we can leave the action to them.) | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 23:25 | comment | added | Taras Banakh | Ok, I have no energy (and arguments) to discuss this further. Maybe you are right. Now what would you suggest to do? Remove all (I hope 8) tags and wait 24 hours till it will disappear? Unfortunately removing tags will bump the corresponding problems to the top, which makes some MO-users very nervous :( | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 21:51 | comment | added | François G. Dorais Mod | @TarasBanakh: That is definitely not "the problem". If there is a problem, it's that the tag is ineffective for reasons that I explained. There are plenty of such tags on MO (e.g. abstract-nonsense). You can keep using it if you want but there is little point in doing so. A better option would be to find a better name for this tag. | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 17:15 | comment | added | Taras Banakh | Like "cardinal characteristics of the continuum" (the title of the survey paper of Blass in Handbook of Set Theory), "small uncountable cardinals" also is a (part of the) title of an influential paper by Vaughan (pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9065/…) in "Open problems in Topology". Maybe the problem is that Vaughan is mainly a set-theoretic topologists and set theorists percept this topic a bit differently. | |
| Mar 30, 2019 at 15:04 | history | answered | François G. DoraisMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |