1
$\begingroup$

Please reopen the following question

Generalization of De Rham cohomology for spinor fields

I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.

It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate.

and, @DavidBarMoshe has something to say, and I would be interested in listening to that.

Please do consider that rules are only meant as guidelines to benefit the community, hence the interest of the community must be taken into due weight, rather than a literal interpretation of the rules in place.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

I see that it has been three days since the math version and two since the mathoverflow version, both with no replies as yet. It's getting on toward the time when trying it on a new site makes sense.

I'm an old guy---old enough to have used the USENET before there was a web---and some of my attitudes are, perhaps, shaped by the culture of the pre-web internet.

Those attitudes say that cross-posting is a form of prioritizing your desire for a large audience ahead of the desire of other users to see only a selected fraction of the available traffic as indicated by their choice of which [usenet groups|stack exchange sites] to read. That was historically interpreted as a kind of rudeness---putting ones own desired first it ones of the core attributes of rudeness.

Now, Stack Exchange isn't usenet, but the users have been polled on their opinions on this issue, and it is clear that the usenetesque view is dominant on the network.

We understand that you don't agree. Well, there is no harm in disagreement.

Which brings us to

I have suitably edited it to suit the interest of the audience in the site. In specific highlighted possible application in the study of topological solitons.

It is no longer the same question as I had posted on MSE or MO. So it can no longer be considered as a duplicate.

Frankly I disagree. You've made a fairly minimal set of textual changes, but you are still asking the same thing.

Assuming you don't get an answer elsewhere I'll reopen it sometime tomorrow.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Thanks I can wait for tomorrow. I really want it open on this site because david barmoshe wanted to answer and he preferred to answer it on this site. As he had an answer suitable for a physics crowd. Which is the main reason I posted it here in the first place, not because I was in any particular hurry. I did get useful comments on MO, which certainly have to be followed up with a fair bit of work. $\endgroup$
    – Prathyush
    Jun 20 '15 at 20:35
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I promised Prathyush to try to give him an answer. I think that my answer is not appropriate to the mathematics people. But I need a few days to prepare a good answer. $\endgroup$
    – David Bar Moshe
    Jun 21 '15 at 14:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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