mercio

is there any news from the reviewers ?

and for each path from $x_0$ to $x_1$ you have a map from $S(x_0)$ to $S(x_1)$

so maybe it's only a topological bundle

ah, except that we don't know if the transfer maps are linear

at each point $x_0$ you have a vector space of solutions near $x_0$

that sounds like a vector bundle

I know a little about it

okay

but when you want to talk about representations it makes more sense to define the categories in terms of the representation and not in terms of something awkward that happens to coincide by luck

I had it written down

I think it's proved somewhere

but it's not like you can say "the representation corresponding to the elements of highest order" cuz that's all mathematical nonsense

yes there was something like that

ah the number of elements of order > 2 ?

uh what ?

but I'm not aware of any one that works, at least from the mathematical side

so yeah I wish there were nice names for the three families

yeah

cyclic group of order >= 3 I think

there are some abelian groups in the Kae family right ?

by trying to phrase it like he wants to and putting it in some place it's easy to see if that isn't the case already

so we should heed hi sadvice so more of the readers also get it

and is focusing on that

but really he got what is the important part of the paper

unlike someone else

and he didn't say that the note on page S2 was wrong

he feels nicer somehow

"the irreducible representation corresponding to rotation about the high-symmetry axis" this sounds so mathematically vague

:s

have you looked up Schleyer's works ?

but I like this reviewer more than the previous one

also there is the tidbit that technically the tables are infinitely long

but talking about 'doubly-degenerate point groups' will lose all of your mathematician audience !

ah

we don't know where Th ends and where Oh begins

for example in table 4

tables 1 - 5

have they always been like that ?

can you add some vertical bars to the tables though ?

ah I thought this one had been cleared up

referee 3 ?

and the computation rules between them that allow us to do anything

with tensor products and direct sums and alternate squares and so on

that's why you need to be able to express those relationships

the whole point is being to explain how the second one is going to reduce when you know how the first one reduces and what is going to be the relationships between all the pieces

"and therefore are simultaneously reducible or irreducible"

though I'd be easier for me if I knew which expression he is criticising

the definitions of tensor products and direct sums of representations or of anything are widely accessible

i'm hurt