tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Should I create a banach-algebras tag?)

Jonas Meyer comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4190)

Jonas Meyer — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 12:31:40 -0700

Thanks Yemon, Pete, and Scott for the feedback, and Yemon for making me laugh hard.

Ben Webster comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4185)

Ben Webster — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:38:57 -0700

My guess is it's a comment on the relative trendiness of different branches of the theory of operator algebras.

Harry Gindi comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4183)

Harry Gindi — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:25:17 -0700

I wish I understood that joke, because it looks quite funny.

Yemon Choi comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4180)

Yemon Choi — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 11:11:01 -0700

Good to see responses not along the lines of "BUT BANACH ALGEBRAS IS DEAD - LOOK AT THE SIZE OF MY SPECTRAL TRIPLE" :)

Scott Morrison comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4176)

Scott Morrison — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 10:13:51 -0700

Absolutely, [banach-algebras] is a great tag!

Pete L. Clark comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4164)

Pete L. Clark — Sun, 28 Mar 2010 00:04:44 -0700

Go for it. We can have as many tags as we like. The problematic tags are those which are vague, too open to misinterpretation, or are near-exact duplicates of existing tags. I don't see how banach-algebras could possibly be construed to be about anything other than -- wait for it -- Banach algebras, which are certainly not exactly the same as Banach spaces or operator algebras (as even I, an arithmetic geometer, know).

Jonas Meyer comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4162)

Jonas Meyer — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:49:06 -0700

Thanks. I agree, and I don't think the fact that demand is small is really a problem. I've seen questions raised here about keeping tags with little use, after which the little used tag has survived. In this case, there are already at least 3 that deserve it (I haven't done any searching, that's just off the top of my head), and reason to hope that more will trickle in over time. Your last point is one of the reasons it would be nice to have; so that users with few points can use the tag.

I'll probably do this, then, but I'll check back in case there are other opinions.

Yemon Choi comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4161)

Yemon Choi — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:36:07 -0700

In principle I don't see why not, although I don't know how much demand there would be for it. (And in case that gets taken the wrong way: I am by training a Banach algebraist of sorts.)

There is also an old question on the exponential spectrum which I think got tagged with banach-spaces and functional-analysis but should evidently be tagged with banach-algebras if such a tag existed. (IIRC the original questioner didn't have enough rep to create his own tag.)

Jonas Meyer comments on "Should I create a banach-algebras tag?" (4160)

Jonas Meyer — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 23:16:20 -0700

I'm just uncertain because I've never created a tag, and I don't know the etiquette for this sort of thing. For those questions involving Banach algebras that are not operator algebras, it seems like a good idea to have something more descriptive than functional analysis (even though there haven't been many of them yet).

For example, there is a recent question involving l^1 group algebras that I think deserves the banach-algebras tag.

Any thoughts?