Another request for the same thread: R019. Please reopen this thread. I answered it, and I think the question was clear enough with provided effort. It was for some reason closed again.

@XanderHenderson Did you read a comment by the asker? I merely improved the asker's attempt.

It is allowed, is it not, to make things clearer? I did not add any new thoughts.

@Batominovski You will note that I rolled back the question to the state it was in when you first added the asker's comment. The extended attempt which you included is not obviously in-line with the asker's original intentions, and was therefore inappropriate.

@XanderHenderson No, it was in fact the same as the asker's intention. I simply made the question clearer.

Where does the asker specifically say that they performed the computations which you are attempting to add to the question?

"Keep updating the sequence" is the same as "creating new sequences" bla bla bla.

This is speculation on your part.

If you believe that this should be part of the question, then please encourage the asker to include their own thoughts.

This is a standard computer code operation. The asker already included their thoughts...

You are being inappropriately picky.

@Batominovski I will once again direct your attention to the policy on context edits: math.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/32402/…

> Do not add an attempt. Adding an attempt modifies the author's intent by adding presumed information about their background, prior knowledge, mistakes or lack thereof in earlier parts of the question, and their understanding of mathematics in general.

I did not add an attempt, and the attempt is definitely not mine..

It's the asker's original thoughts.

You added a series of computations which were never actually written down by the original author. This was inappropriate.

Are you serious? The computations in my version and in the original version are exactly the same. The only difference is that one is properly formatted and clearer, and the other is somewhat sloppy.

That simply isn't true, @Batominovski. There are no computations in the original version, which is here: math.stackexchange.com/revisions/3809115/1

There is, perhaps, some implied computation in the comment here:

@XanderHenderson Yes, that is the computation I referred to, which was done by the OP.

Your edit to include that comment into the question was appropriate (though, in general, when you make such edits, you should not mark them as "EDIT:"; they should be incorporated naturally into the question).

And it is the correct computation that leads to a correct answer.

Yes, but the asker didn't write that!

That is, the asker didn't actually display their computations.

You assumed that they performed the computations, did it correctly, and then added that to the question.

This was not appropriate.

I don't see the difference between my version and the original version.

They say the same thing.

Only one is more rigorously written than the other.

When one wants to use an attempt at a problem as context, the goal of providing the attempt is to give answers an idea about the level and competence of the asker. Writing an attempt which is "more rigorous" implies that the asker is, perhaps, more sophisticated than they really are.

Hence adding a more rigorous attempt changes the original intent and meaning of the question.

In any event, I have told you that the edit was inappropriate. I am not going to continue this conversation any longer.