6
$\begingroup$

I just noticed that there is . Could you guess what does it stand for..? It has only 11 questions while the topic is pretty broad -- so I guess it is probably used less often than needed. Its name is hard to search if you do not know that it exists, so it is probably useless. Maybe it should be renamed or merged with other tag that has more informative name?

$\endgroup$
4
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Weak law of large numbers $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 12:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Scortchi yes, I know, I read the tag wiki... My point is that the acronym is not the best choice for tags' name. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 1, 2015 at 12:58
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ Sorry, I thought I was on a quiz show for some reason, & just hit the buzzer; I didn't realize there was a wiki already. I think the acronym's fairly common but a synonym would certainly be a good idea. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 13:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Scortchi Please join any quiz team I am in. $\endgroup$
    – Nick Cox
    Dec 1, 2015 at 19:30

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

Update 3: Re-tagging finished.

Update 2: I wrote a wiki excerpt for , put it on several most prominent old questions, and have now started retagging into it.

Update: While this remains not implemented since December (!), has been created by somebody in June here and was by now used 4 times. The answer below is updated accordingly.


There is no tag on CV for the strong law of large numbers. Moreover, it seems that there is not enough questions about various laws of large numbers to warrant two different tags for the strong and the weak laws:

The total number of threads that could possibly be tagged with any of the related tags is probably well below 50 (with probably only 10-20 "notable" questions). That's not that many. And currently these questions are not united by any tag at all, which is a pity.

I would therefore suggest to use the generic tag as the only tag for all these questions.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ There is no consensus in this case. Maybe let's discuss @amoeba's (and mine) proposal? What are the cons of this idea? $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 8, 2015 at 22:22
3
$\begingroup$

"Could you guess what does it stand for..?" -- yes, easily, since it's a common abbreviation for a standard term.

But the fact that many of us here would know shouldn't be the test.

There's a technical issue:

While weak-law-of-large-numbers just fits in the character limit for tags, strong-law-of-large-numbers would not. As such, Scortchi's suggestion of a synonym makes sense - since we can cut off the longer tag at 25 characters and then when someone starts typing it - it would bring up the shorter one which would remap to slln.

That is, I think the long terms need to be synonyms of the short ones.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So maybe we don't need to be so precise and [law-of-large-numbers] is enough..? $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 1, 2015 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ The distinction can be be pretty central to some questions. Possibly we could have law-of-large-numbers along with weak-law and strong-law when needed, which can have synonyms that point to them. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Dec 1, 2015 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ Ah ... I didn't know about the character limit. I've swapped them, at least for now. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 13:16
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Glen_b central -- yes -- but for taxonomic reasons maybe it is enough? I doubt that there is/will be that much questions on WLLN and SLLN combined that it would be hard to search through them. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 1, 2015 at 13:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Scortchi at least, as far as I know it's still 25 characters -- I may have missed something though $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Dec 1, 2015 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ It is; I've just checked. $\endgroup$ Dec 1, 2015 at 13:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The names could be [weak-law-of-large-n] and [strong-law-of-large-n]. However, I notice that there is no tag for the strong law at all! From this I conclude that there is not enough questions on CV to warrant this difference and would perhaps go with @Tim's suggestion of making all these tags synonyms of [law-of-large-numbers]. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Dec 1, 2015 at 14:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Glen_b what do you think about amoebas proposal? This thread seems to be slowly dying while IMHO amoebas proposal is simple and reasonable. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 17, 2015 at 10:26
2
$\begingroup$

I've made a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
7
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think it needs to be the other way around. see my answer. $\endgroup$
    – Glen_b
    Dec 1, 2015 at 13:09
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Maybe you could comment on amoebas proposal? This thread seems to be slowly dying while IMHO amoebas proposal is simple and reasonable. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Mod
    Dec 17, 2015 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ I retagged all wlln into law-of-large-numbers (see updates to my answer above); consequently, wlln has been deleted. However, your synonym still exists; I guess synonyms do not get automatically removed in such situations. Should we delete it (now both tags still appear as pop-ups when looking for tags)? $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Aug 28, 2016 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba: Thanks, I've deleted the existing synonym. Do we now want to make [law-of-large-numbers] a master & [weak-law-of-large-numbers] a synonym? $\endgroup$ Aug 28, 2016 at 17:42
  • $\begingroup$ @Scortchi I'd say there is no need for that; whoever starts typing "law" of "large" will get [law-of-large-numbers] as suggestion, so I don't see how the presence of [weak/strong-law-of-law-numbers] would help. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Aug 28, 2016 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba: I was thinking of someone who started typing "weak-law[...]" $\endgroup$ Aug 30, 2016 at 8:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hmm, yes, good point. I guess we could make [weak-law-of-large-n] and [strong-law-of-large-n] pointing at the [law-of-large-numbers]. $\endgroup$
    – amoeba
    Aug 30, 2016 at 8:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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