I've been a long time lurker in this stackexchange, having spent most of my time at math.stackexchange.com. I know each separate site can have its own community standards, so I was hoping to get clarification as to what is wanted here.

I posted my first answer today here: dice rolling where it was indicated that I should improve citations or documentation for verification.

It may just be the mathematician in me with that dreaded word "Clearly" or "it should be obvious", but I'm finding it hard to see how it is not perfectly clear that the procedure I described generates 2 chances at every letter other than Q and Z and 1 each for those, thus yielding the result. Do I actually need to include a full table of all results here as documentation, or is there something else being sought? Actually seeking clarity here, I hope I'm not coming across as combative.


1 Answer 1


That was me. Sorry, I meant to leave a comment that made sense and got distracted by other things.

I'll admit, my understanding of what exactly this question is looking for has changed significantly since it was posted, due to the author's responses to some of the answers and their (now deleted) comments on the question. Were I to review your answer again in the First Answers queue, I'd mark it Looks OK.

At the time, my understanding was that the question was intended to focus on methods of generating names, rather than just generating letters randomly, and it wasn't clear that your answer was even concerned with actually generating names. So I meant to leave a comment explaining that, but got distracted. That's on me. I think your answer is fine, it adequately addresses what I understand the question to be looking for.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ No worries, thanks for the clarification. I know how edited questions can skew outlooks! \$\endgroup\$
    – Alan
    Jan 10, 2023 at 0:00

You must log in to answer this question.

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