> Would you say that "algebraic variety" is some incredibly common terminology just because it's common within a globe spanning subgroup?

Leaving aside that it came up often enough back in the early 1980s when I was working on the first draft of Magma (known then as Cayley) and having discussions with John Cannon, Charles Leedham-Green and George Havas, I would not say that it's as common among mathematicians to use the term as it is among air travellers and pilots to use city codes.

All air travel workers deal with destination codes, generally on a daily basis.

Not all mathematicians work with Abstract Algebras.

> I'm not finding this discussion especially enlightening.

Agreed. Your example certainly struggled for relevance.

It's funny you take issue with my example because it's apparently not as common amongst "mathematicians" as the other terminology is amongst air travel workers. Of course, the terminology "algebraic variety" _is_ common amongst the subgroup of mathematicians who work in abstract algebras (basically by definition). In fact, it's common amongst students studying abstract algebra as well. However you define it, it's certainly a group of people that spans the globe. So it _does_ fit your definition of "incredibly common". I find this funny because I wouldn't consider it common terminology. I guess you've shown me that it really is.

Anyway I think most people mean "common" to say "you have some reasonable expectation that it will be understood". That's what I certainly mean. So yeah I think I'll stick with my original point here:

> In other words, it's _not_ an incredibly common well established convention. Thanks for clarifying my confusion.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38530035

Anyway I'll have to log out after this comment since I feel myself getting dumber. Apparently I don't have enough self-control here to extract myself from this discussion in any other way.