# Is it advisable to provide a supplementary answer to a question?

## Question

As the title (hopefully tries to convey) - Is it advisable to answer a question with an answer that is more "supplementary"?

## Examples

For example;

I would say, maybe, if the user (asker) is new, and an answer is (although correctly and accurately) explaining in a very detailed way - exactly what the question is asking about; I thought if I could write an answer based on the other answers, but in a "simpler" "language". That is,

(for a concrete example) (note I am kind of making this up, just to not make this question incredibly long)

Q: What is a simplest black hole?

• A1: A Schwarzschild one.
• A2: A hole that doesn't have angular momentum and no charge. (...)

based on A1, it is a Schwarzschild black hole (and, based on A2 - it has no angular-momentum(in other words it does not spin) and no charge(no electric charge)

(Based on a comment I edit this to be a bit better example)

based on A1 and A2; it is a Schwarzschild black hole (related to the Schwarzschild metric (being, an solution to Einstein's equations in General Relativity, that describes the gravitational field outside a spherical mass(Like Earth), on the assumption that the electric charge of the mass, angular momentum of the mass, and universal cosmological constant are all zero. -Wikipedia

### Some things in the answer could be

• Explanations (at a different "level" or "point of view").
• ...

this was a Ubuntu question i posted; which I forgot about; adding it as well.

• note, as I pointed out - I just made up the example just to try to explain the way I meant the above-question; it's not a great analogy :) Jan 12, 2023 at 13:07
• edit thanks @PeterMortensen, will include them in comments instead: note, this is my first question (on Physics Meta) therefore, if I can improve this - point it out :) thanks! have a good, continuing nice day! Wishes from Sweden. Jan 12, 2023 at 14:38