@darijgrinberg From this statement, I think you are misunderstanding those who you say you want to satisfy. I really doubt anyone who values context here saw that context and thought it moved the quality needle up at all. (Of course, I may soon learn I'm very wrong by responses to this message.) By all means, continue experimenting with adding context to improve questions, but I think it is probably not a good use of your time to make additions which are just "an excuse for context."
I think that adding a relevant reference moves the quality needle up a tiny bit.
However, in the case above, I don't think that the reference to Niven was relevant. If the asker had a copy of Niven handy, then they had access to the proof, too.
Hence the question would deserve downvoting on the basis that the asker didn't do their basic research.
Basically, the edit changed the context of the question, and did so in a way that made things unclear and confusing.
That being said, I generally feel that citing the source of a problem adds good context. Not always sufficient context, but a good first step.
@XanderHenderson Contradict? more like tomayto-tomahto: yeah, basically I meant "not enough" by "not at all."
Or I guess "up enough" instead of "up at all." Everyone gets the idea, I hope.
I don't normally consider improvements on the granularity of "strictly positive but not sufficient" but I guess strictly speaking they are improvements.
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Blacklisted username, offensive answer detected, potentially bad keyword in answer, toxic answer detected (253): Nicer Output in GAP by Niggerhater on math.SE
@ArnaudD. It isn't a precise duplicate (which is why I didn't vote to close it as a duplicate), but abstractly, it is exactly the same technique: take logs, then apply L'H to the ratio.
@ArtAttack It should be noted that chat is an asynchronous form of communication. If you have a question or comment, just post it. Someone will get back to you eventually (probably).
@RRL, @All, DJ is also a duplicate of this which, in turn, is a duplicate of this. None of the askers really shine, but I think I would like to keep at least the oldest version for the problem is nice.
@quid Do you think a merge is warranted with the three versions above?
@JyrkiLahtonen I merged 2, and deleted DJ. The only thing that might save DJ is that OP has worked it out by themselves. But not sure how to actually make this into a good thread.
@JyrkiLahtonen: That sounds fine to me. @All Note that for DI context-- such as it is -- has been edited in by another user (in the voice of the OP, e.g., "my textbook").
