A brief description: I have written a paper which contains a new result which I believe is somewhat important but not vital to the field. It is a generalization of an existing proof to get significant new information, in a framework that did not exist at the time of the original paper (not by me). I do not believe the result can be recovered from the original result, only from the proof, which is lengthy.


The paper as it stands is self-contained but a significant portion is a reproduction of the original paper (recovering additional information from various lemmas). Some lemmas are new but many are old. A copy of it which does not reproduce original work is only about 5 pages long but is very difficult to read.


It is my adviser's opinion (and I agree) that neither form of the paper is suitable for publication, for different reasons. We both believe the result on its own is significant enough, though. So, the question: would posting the long form on the arXiv as is be appropriate?


To head off the obvious question: yes, the author of the original paper is prominently pointed out in the abstract and the introduction, where it is pointed out that we follow the original proof closely in most cases.



Should one post a paper on the arXiv if it is not intended to be published?
Based on what you say, your paper would be valuable and useful for the mathematical community. So I think you should put it on the arXiv, with the remark in the comment field that the paper is not intended for publication.


**Update.** I meant "the paper is not intended for publication in a journal". Thanks for the comments and the (unexpectedly) large number of upvotes!


