tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Hochschild tags)

Anton Geraschenko comments on "Hochschild tags" (6189)

Anton Geraschenko — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 21:16:37 -0700

Nope: http://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/415/what-symbols-are-not-allowed-in-tags

Even if we could have a tag like [Hochschild-(co)homology], I think [Hochschild-cohomology] would keep getting recreated. At some point somebody suggested tag synonyms, which I think would be better.

Harry Gindi comments on "Hochschild tags" (6186)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:51:08 -0700

Can we add slashes in tags?

VP comments on "Hochschild tags" (6185)

VP — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:49:09 -0700

Even if it doesn't hurt too much, it's silly to have both. There are some not entirely elegant solutions, such as "Hochschild co/homology" and "Hochschild-co-homology".

Harry Gindi comments on "Hochschild tags" (6177)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:36:41 -0700

I don't see how it's really hurting anything at the moment to have them separate, that is, until we can add parentheses.

Pete L. Clark comments on "Hochschild tags" (6176)

Pete L. Clark — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:11:03 -0700

@Scott: Yes, I think "HH" is too terse. Although not ideal, I would prefer simply "Hochschild".

Scott Carnahan comments on "Hochschild tags" (6175)

Scott Carnahan — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 10:02:05 -0700

What do people think of [HH]? It reduces the distinction to superscript versus subscript indices. Is it too terse?

CSiegel comments on "Hochschild tags" (6170)

CSiegel — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:54:44 -0700

My attempt to create it failed, looks like they are. Maybe someone should make a request on meta.SE?

Mariano comments on "Hochschild tags" (6168)

Mariano — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:55:17 -0700

oh, I imagined parenthesis were off limits, but that'd be perfect!

CSiegel comments on "Hochschild tags" (6167)

CSiegel — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:53:56 -0700

How about just [hochschild-(co)homology]?

Harry Gindi comments on "Hochschild tags" (6166)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:49:28 -0700

Well, it's up to you guys who actually do Hochschild things =)

Mariano comments on "Hochschild tags" (6165)

Mariano — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 04:33:10 -0700

No one doing Hochschild things would imagine «Hochschild invariants» is supposed to mean «hochschild (co)homology», I'd say. I know I wouldn't :)

Harry Gindi comments on "Hochschild tags" (6164)

Harry Gindi — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 03:58:03 -0700

I like [hochschild-invariants].

Kevin Lin comments on "Hochschild tags" (6163)

Kevin Lin — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 02:18:59 -0700

Funny, I was just about to post a meta thread about the exact same thing (after seeing your question)...

Do people have any strong preference for [hochschild-homology] or for [hochschild-cohomology]? Or maybe there are some alternative possibilities? Maybe [hochschild-invariants]? I dunno.

Mariano comments on "Hochschild tags" (6162)

Mariano — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:27:19 -0700

Currently there are «Hochschild-homology» and «Hochschild-cohomology» tags... While of course the two refer to different things, it would be useful---at least to me---to merge them...