As the title suggests, Do we need a dense-linear-algebra tag?

I have a few reasons for this:

  1. Whenever linear algebra is mentioned in context to Scientific Computing, it usually refers to Sparse Matrices.

  2. The distinction between the methods used for the solution of Sparse and Dense matrices is worlds apart.

  3. Finding resources for Dense SciComp is usually difficult. The fact that one has to pore through thousands of questions tagged with linear-algebra to finally get a lead on dense-linear-algebra is rather demotivating.

  4. We can circumvent the creation of a new tag by simply searching up the word "dense" but its a rather poor way of gleaning results in my opinion.

  5. Why not have a new tag?

| |

I don't think we need a dense linear algebra tag yet, although if we want one for the future, it's best to think about that in the near future, while the number of questions mentioning "dense" is still small (right now, it's at 18).

My reasoning is that , which I would've thought would be popular, is not being used. Part of the problem probably comes from the abundance of tags related to sparse linear algebra, like , , , , and perhaps to a lesser extent and .

Before deciding on a dense linear algebra tag, it's probably worth brainstorming about existing related tags that will diminish its popularity. Things like , , , and might eat into the potential question base for a dense linear algebra tag. If there's enough of an audience, then that's fine. I just want to avoid lots of singleton tags that don't get used.

| |
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Perhaps a happy compromise would be to add the 'sparse' tag to all discussions of sparse methods and to then allow for the 'dense' tag. I was under the impression that the main point of tags was to ease searching, and @Nunoxic is claiming that having tags for the general terms would help (and I agree). $\endgroup$ – Jack Poulson Feb 2 '12 at 18:39

You must log in to answer this question.

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