2
$\begingroup$

So I asked the question "Can one construct a non-zero (conditional) probability in this situation?", which was downvoted and voted to close without the last edits (so I deleted it - The original tag was quantum information). Is it welcome to this stack exchange after the edit?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ I removed the text of the question, there is no need to reproduce it here. I'm confused though, I don't see that the question was deleted in the question's history $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 30 '19 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ Note to readers - asking this sort of question is one of the fundamental purposes of meta! This sort of question is on topic $\endgroup$ – Mithrandir24601 Oct 30 '19 at 20:13
  • $\begingroup$ @gls because it was asked as a seperate question $\endgroup$ – More Anonymous Oct 31 '19 at 5:05
2
$\begingroup$

First of all, there is no reason to delete a question and then ask it again with only minor changes, you can just edit the original question.

Regarding the question itself, I do agree with the voters that it's not very clear what is been asked. I don't know that it should be closed by it's borderline there. The wording is in general vague and unspecific. For example, you say

What one "sees" is an eigenvalue linked to that of a photon.

which might be interpreted in different ways. What photon are you talking about? What do you mean by "see" here? Where did eigenvalues come from in this discussion? Or

With each eigenvalue one can determine there is some "source"

what is a "source"? Where did you get this statement from? etc.

There might be some merit in the question you maybe meant to ask, but it's not easy to get to it. In general, I would try to avoid using concepts that you cannot properly define and try to formulate things mathematically as well as in words, when possible. Finally, a good rule of thumb is that if you cannot give a very good idea of the question being asked in the title of the question itself, that is a good indication that it's not going to be a good question. There are exceptions, but it usually works pretty well (and note that from the title of your question, I would have no idea what is actually being asked).

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ I do mention source as "the word source seems to imply it's spatially confined and uniqueness of hamiltonian producing these photons" the statement source came from the youtube video (I think). Also, I do have a vague/incomplete mathematical idea of what I'm talking about see: quantumcomputing.stackexchange.com/a/8624/5045 $\endgroup$ – More Anonymous Oct 31 '19 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ Again I use the word "sees" as opposed to "measures" in reference to the video. $\endgroup$ – More Anonymous Oct 31 '19 at 11:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous you keep reiterating that those points are clear, so I'm not sure what else to say here. I'm sure they look clear enough to you, but clearly others don't see it the same way, so you just need to make a bigger effort into making questions as clear and focused as possible. This is not easy, but it's the only way to make questions useful to some other than you (and to yourself, because the process of pinning down what exactly the misunderstanding is usually goes a long way towards solving a problem) $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 31 '19 at 12:29
  • $\begingroup$ Oh I never argued that they were "clear." I was merely unaware that your criticism didn't take my defence into account. I see so I have to put more effort? Would including my (incomplete/vague) answer part of that help in this cause as well or work against me? $\endgroup$ – More Anonymous Oct 31 '19 at 12:59
  • $\begingroup$ simply put, "the word source seems to imply it's spatially confined and uniqueness of hamiltonian producing these photons" does not clarify things, not enough at least. Also, you cannot expect people to watch a video to understand the question. I would suggest you to break down these questions into their "elementary components", to figure out exactly where a problem is. Again, a good rule of thumb is that the core of the question should fit in the few words of a title. $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 31 '19 at 16:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MoreAnonymous If multiple people tell you that it's not clear what you are asking, it means that you should change the way you ask questions, period, there isn't much to argue there. I understand that asking good questions is not easy, especially when you don't have a very clear idea of what you are talking about. Still, you should try to break apart your question(s) into more specific and focused ones, that are easier to understand and answer, and will probably also be more useful to other people $\endgroup$ – glS Oct 31 '19 at 16:33

You must log in to answer this question.

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