# What is unclear in my question?

I asked this question yesterday, and it was put on hold because "it is not clear what I am asking". Is it really unclear? How clearer can I be in asking my question?

• I don't think that the comments are fair on this question. The use of $\omega$ in set theory is as standard as the use of $\Bbb C$ in functional analysis. Using that as an excuse to close the question is preposterous. That being said, I do think that the question could benefit from a bit more details from the OP, especially these thoughts and ideas which are supposedly not worth mentioning. – Asaf Karagila Jun 8 '17 at 21:14
• Also, a pro-tip for free: $$\Huge\textrm{The title }\textbf{IS NOT }\textrm{part of the body!!!}$$In other words, your body should be self-contained. – Asaf Karagila Jun 8 '17 at 21:15
• And if you write that there is some other question where you don't fully understand the answers, it might be a very good idea to point out what is unclear about these answers. – Asaf Karagila Jun 8 '17 at 21:16
• @Asaf Your comment would be much more helpful if you explained why the title should not be considered to be part of the body, esp. considering that the OP is new. – Bill Dubuque Jun 9 '17 at 2:06
• Omega, I saw that you deleted your question. It should be noted that re-posting a question that was closed is generally not well-received here. So if you want to post this question again, I suggest that you take to heart all the comments and suggestions that you received about elaborating more. I would be very happy to answer your question, if I knew exactly what is unclear to you. – Asaf Karagila Jun 9 '17 at 7:07

Here is the entire body of your Question:

I saw this question for example, but I don't understand the proof there. Can you please explain how to do that?

I tried to prove it and I have some thoughts, though I don't think they are worth mentioning.

Yes, a reasonable Reader might find it unclear what you are asking. From the brief contents of the Question's body, it seems you have difficulty with something that was proved in various places, and in particular in the one linked previous Question.

But what difficulty are you having? Are there definitions that are unfamiliar to you? Is there a step that seems to be a leap/unsupported? Is the approach taken a dubious one, either intuitively or because it seems similar to faulty proofs you've seen?