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?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Weak law of large numbers $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 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 Dec 1 '15 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. $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 at 13:03
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @Scortchi Please join any quiz team I am in. $\endgroup$ – Nick Cox Dec 1 '15 at 19:30
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
    $\begingroup$ 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 Dec 8 '15 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.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ So maybe we don't need to be so precise and [law-of-large-numbers] is enough..? $\endgroup$ – Tim Dec 1 '15 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 -Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 at 13:13
  • $\begingroup$ Ah ... I didn't know about the character limit. I've swapped them, at least for now. $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 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 Dec 1 '15 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 -Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 at 13:31
  • $\begingroup$ It is; I've just checked. $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 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 says Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 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 Dec 17 '15 at 10:26
2
$\begingroup$

I've made a synonym of .

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I think it needs to be the other way around. see my answer. $\endgroup$ – Glen_b -Reinstate Monica Dec 1 '15 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 Dec 17 '15 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 says Reinstate Monica Aug 28 '16 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? $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Aug 28 '16 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 says Reinstate Monica Aug 28 '16 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ @amoeba: I was thinking of someone who started typing "weak-law[...]" $\endgroup$ – Scortchi - Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '16 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 says Reinstate Monica Aug 30 '16 at 8:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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