I was told " flags should not be used to indicate technical inaccuracies, or an altogether wrong answer" and then I found Don't flag wrong answers?

A claim here made by a user named Neal, asked about here (where I ask about the definition of "local diffeomorphism onto image"), is that immersions are "local diffeomorphisms onto images". If we read "local diffeomorphisms onto images" as "local-(diffeomorphisms onto images)" rather than "(local diffeomorphisms)-onto images", then this is correct because diffeomorphisms onto (submanifold) images are equivalent to embeddings, and immersions are equivalent to local embeddings.

This answer by Neal neither defines "local diffeomorphisms onto images" nor proves how immersions are "local diffeomorphisms onto images". Two users, a user named Arrow and I, have already tried to ask clarification from Neal, but Neal has not responded.

Neal's answer has 6 upvotes and yet is potentially wrong under a different definition of "local diffeomorphism onto image". (I think "local diffeomorphism onto image" should be different from "local embedding". Otherwise, "local diffeomorphism onto image" is kind of redundant.)

Also, I have asked similar questions to two commenters who claim similarly to Neal here, but the commenters have not answered my similar questions. But these are just comments and not answers.

What in general should one do when an answer is potentially wrong, when there are comments made about these potential errors, when the downvotes do not exceed the upvotes and when the one who answers does not address the potential errors? Could be this, but you'd have to be specific please.

  • 17
    $\begingroup$ Nothing. You've done what you can, the evidence is there for anyone else coming along to judge. $\endgroup$ – Gerry Myerson Jul 26 '19 at 11:58
  • $\begingroup$ @GerryMyerson Okay thanks. $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 26 '19 at 12:00
  • 17
    $\begingroup$ I have rejected at least two of your flags of wrong answers. Let me clarify what's going on when you press "flag post". The flag is then presented to the moderators which need to address it. It seems odd that we are expected to referee answers. Really, we shouldn't be required to. Sometimes we can (e.g. if someone flags some nonsensical answer in logic, I can do it), but often we can't, or we simply don't have the time. So since moderators are not expected to judge the quality of the content, flagging wrong answers is only helpful when it becomes a significant and global problem. [...] $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 26 '19 at 12:58
  • 14
    $\begingroup$ [...] For example, if a user posts a lot of answers which don't make any sense, but you need to be somewhat familiar with the topic in order to catch that up. In other words, we only intervene when there is a problem with the user, rather than a problem with the answer. What could you do? Well, flag as "very low quality" along with a downvote and a comment. This tends to be pushed into the review queue, and with low score and a comment explaining the problem it's more likely to be removed by users, or at least help the moderators make an informed decision if it ends up on our desk again. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 26 '19 at 13:00
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Okay thanks. $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 27 '19 at 7:48
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila How do I 'flag as "very low quality"' ? $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 27 '19 at 12:16
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Hmm. Yes, apparently you can only flag as VLQ something that has low score (0 or negative, I think). In that case, you can use "Not an answer", although in that case more people might be inclined to disagree and dispute your flag (i.e. review as "Looks OK"). In that case, you're almost out of options. You've downvoted, left a comment, flagged... nothing more to do than move on and hope future visitors will see your remarks. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Jul 27 '19 at 12:22
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila Okay thanks. $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 27 '19 at 12:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila -- Your comments would make a good answer. $\endgroup$ – Jasper Jul 30 '19 at 0:20
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ AsafKaragila, I agree with @Jasper $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 30 '19 at 10:52

The best course of action, which I believe you've promoted in this specific Question, is to post your own Answer. The source of "potential errors" in this case appears to be some ambiguity in the formulation of the problem (terminological), and I would personally welcome such clarifications (together with their implications) being posted on one of my Questions which already had a well-received Answer.

Sometimes an OP does a less-than-perfect job of presenting the context of a problem, and particularly in lower-level exercises the problem itself may be intended to get the student thinking about what interpretation of its wording best lends itself to a tractable solution. If such ambiguity appears in a higher-level exercise, it might be due to an OP not realizing the importance of material preceding a proof etc. in pinning down the interpretation.

Pointing out the variations of possible meaning is usually best begun with Comments on the Question itself, and if the OP fails to clarify it, then some Readers may prefer to proceed with an Answer that picks an interpretation and runs through to a solution. If a variant interpretation would lead to a substantially different result, then posting a "competing" Answer with clarification is the kind of content we are trying to collect here IMHO.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks hardmath! $\endgroup$ – user636532 Jul 30 '19 at 10:55

You must log in to answer this question.