# Is it good practice to edit an answer which has been accepted?

Sometimes after posting an answer I want to edit it—for example to correct typos, word something better, or plug some gap.

Usually I just go ahead and edit, but I'm never quite sure what to do if the answer has already been accepted: since I might be changing it from what the questioner needed.

Example: in my answer to Need for rigorous meaning in English for definitions from my reference book I wrote

"The $$A$$ of all $$B$$ 's" is unambiguous as long as you know the mathematical meaning of an $$A$$ and a $$B$$. There is only one $$A$$ (because of the), and it contains every possible instance of a $$B$$.

Now, I don't like contains in the last sentence. I would prefer to write

There is only one $$A$$ (because of the), and every possible instance of a $$B$$ belongs to it.

to cover cases where "containing" isn't the correct relationship. But the questioner asked precisely about interpreting phrases in English definitions, so rephrasing one of my key points might affect its clarity for them.

In general, what is appropriate?

Edit: In the case of the linked post, I've now made the edit (I do feel the original wording was too restrictive, and in particular that this made the language point misleading.) But I've also noted that editing an answer bumps the post (I thought it didn't), so did a proper copy-edit while I was at it to try and avoid extra edits.

• For the illustrated post, with a relatively minor edit, it is permissible to make such a change to your own post if you feel it makes even a minor improvement (regardless of whether it is an Accepted Answer). That said, if you plan on "polishing" a post with a number of such minor formatting or expositional changes, it is recommended to batch them up rather than submitting them one at a time. The latter approach would cause excessive "bumping" of the post in the opinion of many Readers. – hardmath Dec 23 '18 at 18:19
• @hardmath Ah—I've never been sure what bumps the post and what doesn't. I knew adding a new answer has that effect, but didn't realise editing an existing one does. – timtfj Dec 23 '18 at 18:29
• Do you think "x belongs to y" is any less ambiguous than "y contains x"? Just please don't make trivial edits. In this case, if you want to be unambiguous, then use "for all $B\in A$" or "for all $B \subset A$," whatever your intended meaning of your answer. If you mean neither of these things, then "A contains all B" vs. "all B belong to A" makes no difference, the use is still somewhat ambiguous in either case. – amWhy Dec 24 '18 at 0:32
• @AmWhy The point was that questioner wants to know about definitions in general, no necessarily just definitions of things which relate to each other like sets. It's basically "How should I treat these phrases when they come up in definitions?" Contains wrongly restricts my answer to sets and their elements/subsets, and also misrepresents the English usage that he's asking about—since of doesn't necessarily imply inclusion. "Belongs to" is therefore much more accurate. – timtfj Dec 24 '18 at 15:44
• Actually belongs to is too specific as well. Suppose someone defines the "ratio limit" of a sequence $(s_n)$ as $\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty} (\frac{s_n+1}{s_n})$ then defines $\phi$ as "the ratio limit of all Fibonacci-like sequences". $\phi$ isn't a set of sequences, and saying that a sequence 'belongs to $\phi$" is decidedly odd as well. – timtfj Dec 24 '18 at 17:07