0
$\begingroup$

@Patrick87 proposed the concept of heap automata (here) which has lead to three follow-up questions (1, 2, 3) so far. It is not unlikely that more will follow.

Should we create a tag in this case? As far as I know, the concept is novel so there is no common association; the tag would only be used to string these questions together.

$\endgroup$
7
$\begingroup$

As long as Patrick87 links the questions together, which he has, I think this is sufficient. Unless/until heap automata become a revolutionary new concept, it's a good idea to keep the tags as general as possible, so no [heap-automata] tag. Tags such as etc do not make sense in isolation, outside of the specific question, so I don't see how they will be useful.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I agree. I edited the corresponding questions so their relationship is clear(er) easily navigatable. $\endgroup$ – Raphael♦ Mar 16 '12 at 18:28
0
$\begingroup$

Since the concept of heap automata isn't really canonical, I'd be wary of introducing one just for this example. I mean, that seems even more problematic than adding a separate tag for each algorithm or data structure.

Perhaps what would be more appropriate would be a , , or tag, for the more general case of somebody asking a question, getting an answer, and asking a closely-related question. This can happen pretty generally, and would probably make more clear the fact that the discussion is carried over from another question (which a plethora of specific tags might not make clear).

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I agree with paragraph 1, but not with paragraph 2. Such a tag would be overly general and say nothing about the tagged questions content. $\endgroup$ – Raphael♦ Mar 16 '12 at 18:12
-2
$\begingroup$

I was about to ask a related question:

Shouldn't this series of question appear as a single community-wiki thread?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Why???????????? $\endgroup$ – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 17 '12 at 1:12
  • $\begingroup$ because it allows to come up with other properties, jointly proven by many people. Eventually, it organizes this entire subject into one very informative thread. $\endgroup$ – Ran G. Mar 17 '12 at 2:02
  • $\begingroup$ @RanG.: I'd rather we collaborated to put some summary article on arXiv or something (once we have covered all elementary properties). $\endgroup$ – Raphael♦ Mar 17 '12 at 9:36
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Raphael it all depends on some "pumping lemma" equivalent we are yet to find $\endgroup$ – Ran G. Mar 17 '12 at 9:38

You must log in to answer this question.

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