3
$\begingroup$

In the post Why was Évariste Galois killed? @Danu correctly points out that my answer is worse than a bad summary of the wiki page on Galois. (A fair point)

Quickly looking around, I don't see much more information that changes the story. Except for maybe minor details that enrich it. Is it acceptable to fill in such answers with facts surrounding the original question? In this particular example would talking about the significance of the work be acceptable? Ie, the significance of Galois Theory in regards to solving polynomial equations in closed form? Or would that be off topic as it doesn't pertain to the original question about his death?

| |
$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Sometimes, to write a complete-ish answer, more time is needed to research, it took me a quite a while to find the information that I included into my answer to that question.

It would be very important to keep to the topic that is being asked in the question, additional information could be included, but the focus must be on answering the actual question.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

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