@Peter I'm not sure why that question should be deleted.
It is short, but the nLab reference gives a lot of context. The fact that the asker is even reading nLab indicates quite a bit about their general level of understanding and mathematical maturity, and says quite a bit about what kind of answer might be expected.
@Peter This is the same question you were mentioning above - I think it's a little deceptive to not mention that. Further, I think it's a fine question: it displays research effort, and it found an incorrect statement in a reference source - what would you want to improve the question?
@Peter (1) That doesn't answer my question, nor @KReiser's question.
(2) I already answered your question: I think that the link is context. It is a reference to source. Moreover, that link is to nLab, which gives a fair amount of context: it tells us that the asker is probably not a total noob, as one does not simply walk into nLab.
Again, for the third time: what further context could the asker possibly have provided? What would have made the question better?
Genuinely---if you can give examples of what could be added to the problem to make it better, I am convincible. What does a better version of that question look like?
@XanderHenderson Huh? That is surely a no-clue, no-effort question and this room closes them all the time. How is that question any different than "I'm trying to prove the claim in exercise n in textbook xyz but I couldn't."
@BillDubuque Most of the "no clue" questions that get closed here are of the form "I am trying to solve [problem from a caculus class], and I have no clue. Halp!" The material is lower level, and there are no citations or references. I don't think that this is an apt description of the question being asked.
And, again, what kind of context would improve the question?
Note that I am of the opinion that a question of the form "I am studying calculus out of Thomas. One of the homework problems from chapter 4 has me stumped. [problem statement] The book says the answer is 3. I don't understand," is acceptable (if not great). That is, more or less, what has been presented here.
But, like I said, I am convincible. What further context could the author have added?
@XanderHenderson As you likely know, there are many users who are upset that standards are sometimes relaxed for "higher level" questions. That seems to be what is happening here. I was quite surprised by the strong critique of Peter's suggestion when those are run of the mill here.
@XanderHenderson As you know I usually don't use the methods here - rather I prefer to instead use duplication as I find it more constructive. As for what could be done, usually no-effort questions are rescued by showing effort.
Perhaps this is the crux of the issue---I have a long standing dislike for context in the form of "an attempt", which is what people often mean by "showing effort". I think that attempts tend to make questions less good.
But maybe that isn't what is meant by "effort"?
Personally, I value context over a moral outrage about perceived laziness (which is what "effort" seems to imply). And, like I said, I think that the nLab link realistically gives quite a bit of context.
But, again, what is a concrete thing that the asker could do? They claim that they spent many hours on the problem. Are you asking for a copy of the notes they wrote while working through it?
@XanderHenderson I don't like policy-forced attempts either. But this is not about personal viewpoint. Rather it concerns uniform application of policy. There should not be bias against elementary level questions (esp. since that is the primary level of users served by this site and by far the level at which the site provides the most pedagogical value)
^^^ above "elementary" means roughly "introductory undergrad"
@BillDubuque You are arguing that lower level and higher level questions should not be treated differently. I have already agreed to that statement. I just don't think that this is an example of higher level questions being treated differently.
Again, "I am working on homework problem [x] from Thomas' Calculus. The book says the answer is 3, but I don't understand why. Help!" is not a great question, but I think that it hits the requirements for context.
We know what book the question is from, which in turn tells us that the asker is probably taking an introductory level class. We know that they have access to a "correct" answer, and that they don't understand how that answer was obtained.
What more do we need?
There are folk would would demand an "attempt", but, honestly, I think that would make the question worse (less general, more specific to the individual asker).
This is the same standard that I am applying to the more advanced question.
@XanderHenderson Then why didn't you make the same strong objections here when calculus questions like that were closed and deleted thousands of times here in the past?
That's why it appeared to me that level might be playing a role here, and that it was worth discussing this to avoid giving users the impression that (some) mods support such level bias.
(1) I am not omniscient, and don't see or pay attention to every question here,
(2) I think that most of the calc questions that come up here lack a reference (I can't recall seeing more than a handful of basic calculus questions here which have ever given a source), and
(3) even in cases where the question itself is well-sourced, it is almost certainly a duplicate of another bog-standard, routine exercise, and there is little value in keeping such routine problems around.
As an aside, my opinion is that the "intrinsic interestingness" of a question should be considered as a kind of context. This is not a reading which is supported by the plain text of consensus policy on the site, and it is not how I act in moderation, but I do think that some questions about mathematics are intrinsically interesting, or (perhaps) natural to ask. I'm willing to put my thumb on the scale a little regarding questions which seem to be interesting or natural.
(by which I mean, I'm willing to debate borderline cases, even if I won't use my moderator powers to do anything further)
Even at lower levels, there are natural or intrinsically interesting questions which deserve to be on the site. For example, "Why is $(fg)'$ not equal to $f'g'$?" This is a natural question for a student to ask, and it deserves to have answers (both in terms of "because there are counterexamples [example]" and in terms of "here is a proof of the product rule"). Except that question has already been asked-and-answered here about a million times.
I posted the question Position of Mathematical Logic [closed]. It is closed as lacking context but it is unclear what context is missing.
I have added the following context.
My work
My bakground
Definitions
However, reviewers, primarily José Carlos Santos, Another User, and Anne Bauval, leave q...
I posted the question Position of Mathematical Logic [closed]. It is closed as lacking context but it is unclear what context is missing.
I have added the following context.
My work
My bakground
Definitions
However, reviewers, primarily José Carlos Santos, Another User, and Anne Bauval, leave q...
