4
$\begingroup$

I can suggest tag synonyms now (and others are soon to follow). Every suggestion will need to be upvoted by at least five users with answer score at least 5 for this tag.

This will (as I understand it) automatically retag according to the provided rules. Please suggest synonyms, vote on them and discuss in the comments. I will suggest synonyms that appear to be (near) consensus.

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ "Every suggestion will need to be upvoted by at least five users with answer score at least 5 for this tag." ... ? ? Which tag? There are two tags involved in each case. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 13 '15 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ This seems open for answers suggesting other synonyms. What about suggesting the removal of a tag minimum-spanning-tree, and creation of another tag minimality, so that we can minimize other things. I do not wish to demean spanning trees in any way, but their utmost importance relates only to some topics. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 14 '15 at 0:14
  • $\begingroup$ @babou 1) The proposed main tag, iirc. That's where the synonym proposal resides. 2) I guess MSTs have their own tag because they are part of most undergrad curricula. Instead of what you propose, why not use optimization? $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Apr 14 '15 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ Only 6 questions with MST tag. (138 for shortest-path). No way to talk of "minimal DFA", or minimal anything else. "Optimization" has a totally different connotation. Minmal NFA is hardly an optimization topic.If adjectives are OK, I actually prefer minimal to minimality, but minimality is OK because you get it when typing minimal. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 14 '15 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ Is there a page of recommendations regarding what makes a good keyword system. It would be nice to have a pointer to that. For example, it is probably unwise to have two distinct tags for close topics that most people do not distinguish uniformly. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 14 '15 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ @babou Not that I know of, no. We make it up as we go. (Regarding the specific discussion, best move that to Computer Science Chat, a new answer here or even a new meta question.) $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Apr 14 '15 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ I have closed this question as too broad because each tag or group of closely-related tag should be discussed in its own thread. A mega-thread for all is a recipe for things to get lost. To discuss tags mentioned here, please open a new thread if there isn't one already. $\endgroup$ Aug 29 '16 at 23:07
2
$\begingroup$

Vote here if you've got the tag rep.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Isn't CPU design way more special? I thought computer architecture contained general design, memory hierarchy, I/O etc pp. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Mar 19 '15 at 11:15
  • $\begingroup$ Good question/point. Maybe we need a broader proposal? We have computer-architecture, but not its two subfields instruction set architecture (designing the interface) and organization (the implementation). Then we have cpu-cache and cpu-pipelines and memory-hardware and (possibly related) parallel-computing. $\endgroup$ Mar 19 '15 at 13:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WanderingLogic This is likely not by design but due to the lack of domain experts in the early core user group (including the mods, afaik). For me, everything related to "concepts of building computers for real" went into computer-architecture, and I did little inspired tagging inside that domain. Feel free to introduce tags as needed and retag appropriately. A little chat may be in order to avoid complications (conflicts, contradiction to established practice, messed up question lists by mass retaggings, ...). $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Mar 19 '15 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ @WanderingLogic I have been using parallel-computing for algorithms questions mostly. Do you think we need to separate domains here, e.g. introduce parallel-algorithms? $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Mar 19 '15 at 14:29
2
$\begingroup$

As far as I know, the two notions describe the same field.

Vote here if you've got the tag rep.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I may have my terminology wrong, but I thought that "recursion theory" is one approach to computability, like Turing Machines or Lambda-calculus. If that is the case it deserves the same status, i.e. not as a synonym. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 13 '15 at 23:59
-1
$\begingroup$

Right now, there are five tag synonym proposals languishing. I'll create entries here for them.

.

I can see why they might have been created as separate tags but in practice, any question relating to graphs seems to get tagged with both.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ I would +1 this but I can't vote on my own post. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 9:58
  • $\begingroup$ I frequently (re)tag questions about graph algorithms with algorithms+graphs (including applied questions!) and reserve graph-theory for the structural/combinatoric study of (classes of) graphs. I think the distinction has merit; questions about checking for intersections of paths have a quite different flavor as embeddability of planar graphs. So I'm against the synonym. That said, few taggers seem to make a distinction. :/ $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 9:59
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I guess what I'm saying is: graphs should be used if the question belongs to another "category" -- such as algorithms, machine learning or even complexity theory -- and graph-theory only if the question belongs to that category. (I'm aware that this is not a rigorous classification and that categories differ with the speaker.) $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ @Raphael I think it's reasonable to classify as complexity theory and graph theory but I agree with your other points. On the other hand, is it worth having two separate tags that most people don't distinguish? I'll have a think and might change my vote. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 10:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Keep in mind that most tagging is awful; this is just one frequent "mistake". Better tag descriptions may help with users actively trying to get it right, but many just type anything they heard in the same course. (Classifying some question as both complexity and graph theory is probably fine, true!) $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ This was discussed at some point and reject IIRC. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jul 20 '14 at 7:26
  • $\begingroup$ @Kaveh: This discussion had no clear outcome. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 25 '14 at 6:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Raphael, sorry, but it seems to me it did: it is 7 to 0 for renaming graphs to graph-theory. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jul 25 '14 at 7:55
-3
$\begingroup$

.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I would -1 this one but I can't vote on my own post. The two are not synonymous: modular arithmetic is a strict subset of arithmetic and has a rather distinctive flavour. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 10:04
  • $\begingroup$ I tend to be pro this with a similar reasoning as for binary arithmetic. That said, modular arithmetic is different from the normal one (note how binary, ternary, ... arithmetic are essentially the same) so I end up being neutral. The tag may have merit. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 10:09
  • $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure I proposed this one. modular-arithmetic is used on exactly two questions, both of which are quite basic (not distinctive.) $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 12:25
  • $\begingroup$ @WanderingLogic There may be more posts which should have the tag? But on the other, such are probably better off on Mathematics. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 12:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe, but I'm concerned about the social question. Who is the tag helping? People who are asking questions that are distinctively about modulo arithmetic aren't thinking to try that tag. Is there anyone with modulo-arithmetic on their favorites list who doesn't also have arithmetic? $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 12:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @WanderingLogic, we shouldn't only consider how they are used right now, but also how they are likely to be used in feature. $\endgroup$
    – Kaveh
    Jul 20 '14 at 9:02
-3
$\begingroup$

.

These are exact antonyms so any post about one is necessarily about the other.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ This is my own proposal. $\endgroup$ Jul 18 '14 at 9:59
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I disagree. I read "computability theory" to be the whole field (including decidability, semi-decidability, may hypercomputation) whereas "undecidability" is only about one specific aspect. In practice, I use computability as "category tag" and undecidability on questions that specifically address the (un)decidability of a problem. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Jul 18 '14 at 10:01
  • $\begingroup$ The only good reason to have undecidability rather than decidability is that users will not find the latter if they start looking for the former. $\endgroup$
    – babou
    Apr 13 '15 at 23:57
-3
$\begingroup$

The former includes the latter, by description and use.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ terminology is about English, notation is about mathematical notation. I'm not a fervent defender of either tag, but synonymizing them makes no sense. $\endgroup$ Aug 20 '14 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Gilles I don't know it the English word "terminology" excludes "how to write things down" but notation has always been in the tag description of terminology. I certainly have tagged notation questions with it (as I was not even aware of notation). So the current use is that one is a subset of the other, and I don't think that notation alone is worth keeping. Hence the proposal. (An alternate solution would be to retag the notation questions and not create the synonym.) $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Aug 20 '14 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Gilles To be clear, to you oppose getting rid of notation? $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Aug 24 '14 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I oppose synonymizing notation to terminology, or removing notation and terminology altogether without a separate meta thread. $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '14 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ @Gilles Neither was my question. I was thinking about retagging notation questions with terminology, hence effectively removing notation. $\endgroup$
    – Raphael Mod
    Aug 24 '14 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ That would have the same effect as merging notation into terminology and then removing the synonym, except for bumping the questions in the process. $\endgroup$ Aug 24 '14 at 23:26

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