2:

 A rigorous proof can be found in Appendix.

2:

 	The rigorous proof can be found in appendix~A.

2:

 %For a rigorous proof refer to~\cite{wedin}.

2:

 A rigorous proof can be found in \cite{StegemanSidiropoulos07}.

2:

 See Theorem~4 (iii) of \cite{PhysRevA.81.032326} for a rigorous proof.

2:

 A rigorous proof can be found within \ref{apndx:proof_of_concave_sign}.

2:

 For a rigorous proof of this lemma, the reader is referred to \cite{gaotemporal}.

2:

 See \cite[Corollary 4.3]{sg} or \cite[Lemma 2.2.20]{thesis} for a rigorous proof.

2:

 See \cite[Proposition 6.1]{sg} or \cite[Lemma 2.2.21]{thesis} for a rigorous proof.

2:

 	Please refer to Appendix~\ref{app:proofs} for a rigorous statement and detailed proof.

2:

 It follows as application of Theorem \ref{th:radii_pol} and Lemma~\ref{lem:rigorous_eigen}

2:

 The proof is given in the Section \ref{sec:Proofs-concerning-Chapter rigorous}

2:

 The proof is given in the Section \ref{sec:Proofs-concerning-Chapter rigorous}

2:

   See Cox, Little, O'Shea \cite{opac-b1094391}. The rigorous

2:

 ...(17 bytes skipped)...cal interpretation of the map, it should be clear that it is an injective group homomorphism. For a rigorous algebraic proof, see \cite{Lin}.

2:

 ...(36 bytes skipped)...the proof of~\cite{LampisMitsou17} for QBFs of the form~$\exists V_1.\forall V_2. E$. \todo{provide rigorous proof?}

2:

 A rigorous treatment must wait until \S \ref{subsection: Fib words in GD} where it is provided in the proof of...(69 bytes skipped)...

2:

 %    See~\cite[Lem.\ 1]{Kok75} for a rigorous proof. Here we merely point out that the existence and uniqueness of a fixed point solution follows...(47 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(55 bytes skipped)...ernative choice of contours is developed in \cite{BorCorFer} Theorem 1.16. The formula follows from rigorous asymptotic analysis of Theorem \ref{PlancherelfredThm}.

2:

 The same arguments as Theorem \ref{thm-inv-mfd-rigorous} for $(a_1, b, y)\in N_j\cap N_{j+1}\cap W^s(S_\epsilon)_j$ and $(a_2, b, y)\in N_j \cap N_{j+1}\ca...(63 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(113 bytes skipped)...a law presented in \cite{arad2013area}, and $\log(d)$ dependence explicitly stated in \cite{arad2017rigorous}.

2:

 ...(48 bytes skipped)...sistency}), the rest closely follows the proof of asymptotic normality of MLE~\citep{vaart_1998}. A rigorous proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:sec:normality}.

4:

 See \cite[Lemma 7.1]{BeIoKeTa11} for the rigorous argument.

2:

 ...(34 bytes skipped)...VJ1COORD} should be enough to convince oneself of the validity of \eqref{eqJ1VugualeVJ1}. A general rigorous proof takes much more space and it is put off (see Section \ref{appVJ1UgJ1V} later on).

2:

 ...(95 bytes skipped)...ement for $\w$. As the definition of GP-paths is local, it follows that all paths in this union are rigorous, hence GP-paths for $\w$.

2:

 ...(92 bytes skipped)...cide whether to utilize or discard the resource increases and the decision thresholds shrink. For a rigorous proof see Appendix \ref{app:time_variant_threshold}.

3:

 ...(28 bytes skipped)... either by duality or using the Girsanov transform. We refer to  \cite{dawson} or \cite{EK93} for a rigorous 

2:

 ...(45 bytes skipped)... same logic as in the scalar-valued case with the pole at $\infty$.  See~\cite{Niebur:1974vw} for a rigorous proof and a discussion of the $\vec\Delta$ term, which compensates for the reordering, or~\cite{Che...(40 bytes skipped)...

3:

 The rigorous proof of the lemma follows the same step of the proof of Lemma 2 and is omitted here.

6:

 the best rigorous upper bound for $\pcsite$ known,  $\pcsite<0.6795$ \cite{Wie}.

1:

 \begin{proof} The  rigorous proof follows similar steps that those one in Lemma \ref{Solve_Poisson}. Here, we just compute form...(226 bytes skipped)...

1:

 ...(197 bytes skipped)...r{\phi\otimes\delta\psi}$, where the approximate equality holds to the first order. A slightly more rigorous one can be found in Example 14.16 of \cite{Harris}.

2:

 % {[}A rigorous proof requires to show that the change of variables

5:

 % this is correct, but will do a rigorous proof later on: probably will

3:

 The rigorous  proof follows as in the 

2:

 ...(45 bytes skipped)...ment that if $f$ is a folding then so is its image $f^C$ under the circular permutation $C$ (a more rigorous argument is provided by Lemma \ref{condition_folding}). As $C^{n} = 1$, each orbit contains $n$ ele...(110 bytes skipped)...

2:

 As for Lemma~\ref{lem:rigorous...(127 bytes skipped)...o $\ell^1_\gamma$) of the solution $X$ and of the data $\left(c_j\right)_{1\leq j\leq 9}$ allows to rigorously backtrack the manipulations made to obtain $F$ from the eigenproblem~\eqref{eq:expanded_eigen}. 

2:

 The discussion from equation (\ref{qgamma_eqn}) to (\ref{gfinaleqn}) is rigorous, and, for $\tilde\eta'$ and $\tilde\zeta$ in the fixed compact regions of their contours, we have u...(149 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(90 bytes skipped)...rts (ii) and (iv), for which we refer the reader to \cite{cew}[Theorem 3.1] for a discussion of the rigorous details.  The remaining parts are easy consequences of these together with well-known facts from th...(25 bytes skipped)...

7:

 %(see also \cite[Theorem 2.2]{1052.35126} for more rigorous details).

1:

 ...(188 bytes skipped)...i}+\wektor{\phi\otimes\delta\psi}$, where the approximate equality holds to the first order. A more rigorous proof can be found in Example \ref{exSegretangent} of Section \ref{sectangent}, as well as in Examp...(49 bytes skipped)...

6:

 \emph{not} in $\SetB$ is rigorous, so it suffices to exhibit 

7:

 ...(38 bytes skipped)... integral in $x$ (of which it is a Riemann sum approximation with $\Delta x=N^{-1/2}$) by using the rigorous Euler-Maclaurin

2:

 ...(276 bytes skipped)...gstar$ \textbf{Should we provide analogues of \cite[Theorems 12.1 \& 12.3]{BM13} so as to make this rigorous or is it clear that the same proofs go through unchanged?}

3:

   are rigorous provided $\delta$ is sufficiently small so that $F -

6:

   gives a rigorous bound for the error $\| (y_{{\rm qce}, F} - \hat{y}_{\rm

3:

 using standard Lagrange multiplier techniques.  However, a rigorous proof

3:

     in~\cite{kifer2012rigorous}) is a proof by case analysis on every possible

2:

 In \cite{GMN}, Table 1 (first and last line) the reader can find a rigorous

9:

 rigorous.

3:

 holds for $n$ large. In a similar fashion as in \cite{CV} we can make rigorous the argument 

2:

 ...(6 bytes skipped)...ng the interpolation method mentioned above, one can prove \cite{albeverio2003lectures,toninelli2002rigorous} that

3:

 ...(236 bytes skipped)...y dropping the rank constraint, similar as in the Shor's relaxation~\ref{def:shorRelax}. In fact, a rigorous proof can be obtained using the POP formulation of Section~\ref{sec:background}. Please, refer to t...(61 bytes skipped)...

2:

 %We only give a sketch of the proof and refer the reader to the supplementary material for a rigorous proof. Intuitively, we construct a problem for which any $\epsilon$-approximation solution must hav...(37 bytes skipped)...

4:

 In order to make this argument rigorous, one has to work in convenient tubular neighborhoods of $E$ and to look at the cycles defined by th...(69 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(120 bytes skipped)...d for all realizations consistent with the observation. See~\cite{golovin_adaptive_2011} for a more rigorous definition. Golovin and Krause point out that any instance which only depends on the state of items...(296 bytes skipped)...

3:

 abstractly game graphs.  But the rigorous proofs work by induction.  For instance,

8:

 \item[3.] The periodic pseudo-orbit\footnote{To be rigorous here, pseudo-orbits must be considered in the cover $\R^2$ and perturbations of diffeormorphisms pe...(104 bytes skipped)...

10:

 require a more rigorous mathematical specification of the properties

11:

 ...(47 bytes skipped)... q = 0 \}$ is contained in a subspace of $\R^d$ of codimension $1$, this formal computation is made rigorous by the decay estimate \lref{Sdecay}.  We conclude by appealing to \eref{Hintegral}.

2:

 We argue formally, noting that the computations can easily be made rigorous with standard arguments. 

13:

 The same estimate holds after integration over $\nu\in[0,1]$, with rigorous justification given by large moments and Markov's inequality, similarly to the argument  after (\re...(11 bytes skipped)...

1:

 ...(81 bytes skipped)...rectly follows from Proposition 2.2 from \cite{Kesten} (see also pp.398 - 402 of that book: there a rigorous proof of this proposition is presented, including necessary topological considerations). Statement ...(107 bytes skipped)...

10:

 ...(140 bytes skipped)...(s), t)\le{d}_{\mathcal{N}}(G(s),t^{'})$. And thus $T_{\text{non-paired}} \ge T_{\text{paired}}$. A rigorous proof can be found in Appendix A.

5:

 ...(62 bytes skipped)...}. One just needs to notice that $\frac{\chi_{\R^+}(\xi)}{\xi-\lambda}\in L^2$ to make the argument rigorous. Finally, by the Sobolev embedding theorem, $H^1(\R)\subset C^{0,\frac{1}{2}}(\R)$. Hence $\varphi$...(27 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(277 bytes skipped)...n, irrespective of the order. The number of such arrangements are  $\frac{N!}{\prod_{i}(n_i) !}$ (a rigorous proof for this statement is given in Appendix \ref{young} using the Young diagram representation of...(207 bytes skipped)...

4:

 and by \citet{H98as} for general models under rigorous regularity conditions.

1:

 \begin{proof}[Rigorous Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:new}]

2:

 %This proposition follows immediately from the work of \cite{ACQ}\footnote{Note also the (non-rigorous) work of \cite{SaSp,Dot,CDR} in which this one-point distribution was discovered independently and ...(511 bytes skipped)...

2:

 The estimate is illustrated in the Figure \ref{fig:L1norm}. Here, we give a rigorous proof.

13:

 (see Lemma 23 in \cite{lerasle2011robust} for a rigorous proof of this fact). 

12:

   be used to make this rigorous. Hence we deduce that $\hat{f} \in

7:

 ...(135 bytes skipped)... $B$ harder, so the same bound holds for $\Pr^H(5 \le \sigma_1 \le j,\tau > \sigma_1)$; making this rigorous is easy but tedious, so we omit it. }

12:

 this argument can be made rigorous by standard approximations, as in

2:

 ...(201 bytes skipped)...$\mathcal{C}_t^1\mathcal{C}_v^2$. Hence the calculations \eqref{eq:radialbefp}--\eqref{eq:varu} are rigorous and we see that $f$ satisfies \eqref{befp} in $(0,\infty) \times (\R^2 \setminus \{0\})$ (the point...(107 bytes skipped)...

8:

 ...(301 bytes skipped)...Pr\{\delta>a>\lambda\delta\}$ whose order is equal to 1, and thus suffers from  diversity losses. A rigorous proof is provided in Appendix\ref{appendix:F_out_function_diversity_order}.

10:

 ...(117 bytes skipped)...t to $\pa_z ( 4z \pa_z - 2)$. Then $\pa_z$ is not in the image of $\phi$ so it is not surjective. A rigorous way to show this is as follows: the morphism $\phi$ is filtered. Therefore, it induces a morphism o...(36 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(144 bytes skipped)...\vec k} \neq \vec 0$ only at some global minima in the spectrum, then the resulting state must be a rigorous ground state. Suppose $\vec k_1$ is a global minimum. Since $\epsilon_{-\vec k} = \epsilon_{\vec k}...(474 bytes skipped)...

13:

 arguments that make the computation rigorous) 

11:

 ...(7 bytes skipped)...Proof of this part essentially uses the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem_nga_indirect} with additional rigorous technical estimates, and repeats to the letter the proof of the corresponding result for the OGA pr...(69 bytes skipped)...

7:

 % However I do not know how to make this argument rigorous, i.e. not wave hands about the splitting. Apparently a more careful estimate for the number of simp...(119 bytes skipped)...

4:

 ...(249 bytes skipped)...t method is included in the form domain of the operator and thus the computed eigenvalue provides a rigorous upper-bound (see \cite[Section 2]{BDMV07} and \cite[Section 5.1]{BDPR11}).

4:

 This can be made rigorous by

2:

 ...(165 bytes skipped)... if $\vec S_{\vec k\alpha} \neq \vec 0$ only at spectral minima, then the resulting state must be a rigorous ground state. Suppose $(\pm \vec k_1, \alpha_1)$ are a pair of spectral minima where $\xi_{\pm\vec ...(526 bytes skipped)...

3:

 ...(260 bytes skipped)...hown for the n-dimensional volume. Need the right notion of ``n-1 dimensional volume'' to make this rigorous - again the notion of ``density'' from differential geometry could be useful}]. Thus, the integral ...(246 bytes skipped)...

2:

 Using rigorous computation we first check 

2:

 ...(51 bytes skipped)...)=j$ takes us from the first asymptotic to the second. The difficulty with making this substitution rigorous is that if $\lam_j$ is a multiple eigenvalue, then $N(\lam_j)$ can exceed $j$.

14:

 We do not repeat the rigorous proof of this lemma here. Nevertheless, the intuitive idea is that the subspace generated by eigenv...(279 bytes skipped)...

16:

 %To be rigorous, we need to consider the changes in the bids after $i$ joins $S$. This is given in \cite{Zhang14}. ...(1 bytes skipped)...

4:

 The rigorous estimate is obtained thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:f/h}, applied to the identities

2:

 We present a sketch of the proof and refer the reader to \cite[Section 3]{TCGJ} for a rigorous proof in an analogous setting.

28:

 but we can also give a rigorous proof.}

2:

 ...(16 bytes skipped)...s sense as intuitively, we would like to use as a candidate $\log( f )$ . However, let us provide a rigorous proof of it and explicitly construct the function $g$. The exponential function is surjective from ...(447 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(74 bytes skipped)...{Bessel figure} (since the first three functions are even, we may restrict attention to $x\ge0$); a rigorous proof is unenlightening, and we omit most of the details. Derivatives of Bessel functions are relat...(57 bytes skipped)...

17:

   making the above proof rigorous. The lengthy proof of \cite{Dr-08},

4:

 is due to D. Yang \cite{yang1992convergence}, see also G. Xu \cite{xu2013short} for a rigorous proof. By Proposition \ref{theorem: lifespan estimate - local ricci flow} the solution $g_j(t)$ exi...(183 bytes skipped)...

4:

 ...(329 bytes skipped)... strips in one-parameter families of such) \cite{Floer:MorseTheoryLagrangian}. This sketch was made rigorous in \cite{Sullivan} for Lagrangian Floer theory, as well as in \cite{YJLee} for Hamiltonian  Floer t...(6 bytes skipped)...

6:

 %\TODO{Make this lemma and proof rigorous}

1:

 \begin{proof}[Sketch] (A rigorous generalization of this proof can be found in Theorem~\ref{thm:vm-sp-char}.) Note that the GSP price...(98 bytes skipped)...

1:

 \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main_theorem_rigorous} in the case $\mathbb{E}q=0$.]

12:

 The converse is more complicated to show and its rigorous proof can be found in \cite{HawEll}.

3:

 %We just point out that the test function below can be made rigorous in the renormalized setting multiplying by the function ${\theta_n(\cdot)}$ and taking advantage of...(38 bytes skipped)...

5:

 ...(108 bytes skipped)...ga}$, $\vp=1$ and $\omega>0$, in \eqref{sr22}. Again, we note that such a test function can be made rigorous up to be multiplied by ${\theta_n}(G_k(u))$ and recalling the asymptotic condition \eqref{ET}.

11:

 ...(89 bytes skipped)... full interval) and propagate the interval in the computations. We are able to obtain the following rigorous bounds:

2:

 We proceed formally since, similarly to Theorem \ref{T:FTalpha}, for a rigorous proof we should verify the following steps in $\mathscr S'(\Rn)$, and not in the pointwise sense. T...(162 bytes skipped)...

14:

 rigorous, we can write (bearing in mind that $\widetilde E^1_h$ is

13:

 To be rigorous, we must consider $t_*:=\inf\left\{t\ge t_n, f'(t)>\frac{a}{3} t_n^{-2/3} - \frac{\pi^2\sigma^2}{2M...(198 bytes skipped)...

2:

 The argument is similar to that of Lemma~1 of~\cite{MohiBJ09}, but made a bit more rigorous. Having in mind the proof of the first part of Corollary~\ref{coro: convexity}, observe that (\ref{...(335 bytes skipped)...

2:

     It is sufficient to give a rigorous proof of existence of local RR

6:

 Apply \eqref{rigorous...(44 bytes skipped)...the case when $h_1(t)=c$ and $h_2(t)=d$ for all $t$. The integrand on the right-hand side of \eqref{rigorous_dissipation_rate_calc_middle_part_ineq} is bounded. Thus, there exists some constant $C>0$ such tha...(361 bytes skipped)...

8:

 Note the approximate right-hand limit also exists for $t_0=0$ and because \eqref{rigorous_dissipation_rate_calc_middle_part_ineq} holds for the time $a=0$, the approximate right-hand limit ...(50 bytes skipped)...

4:

 proof\textquotedblright\ here which will be closer in line with the rigorous

15:

 %To make this intuition rigorous, 

1:

 \begin{proof} Exaggerating a bit the only rigorous proof, we are

13:

 To be rigorous, one would  we need to ensure$\spa \X_\th$ to be the same for all $\th\in \Theta\esnu_i$: if not, o...(185 bytes skipped)...

2:

 		We only provide an informal argument. For a more detailed and rigorous proof, refer to \citet[Proposition 3.1]{BSS2017}. From \eqref{bndecomp}, for any $g\in B^2(\lambda)...(10 bytes skipped)...

3:

 ...(38 bytes skipped)... is a bit sloppy.  We are trying to integrate a complex 1-form over a real 1-chain.  To make things rigorous, we write $f=u+iv$ where $u$ and $v$ are real valued functions.  So the integral above becomes

5:

   so the lemma follows. We make this rigorous below.

7:

 a rigorous proof now. Consider $\tau>0$. According to

2:

 ...(311 bytes skipped)...r to~\cite{leimkuhler2016computation} for strategies of proof in order to make the expansions below rigorous. First, 

4:

 ...(207 bytes skipped)...)|$, it follows that $v(x)\geq \inf_x \bar v(x)-r>0$. The same holds for $w(x)$. For Lemma~\ref{lem:rigorous_justification} it follows  the existence of a smooth solution to~\eqref{eq:steady_states}. The erro...(68 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(53 bytes skipped)...ing} one can see how to generalize the proof for $d>2$ but at the same time it seems that writing a rigorous proof is rather complicated and tedious. The labeling of $\Z^d$ is spanned by its values on $\Z^{d-...(959 bytes skipped)...

9:

 ...(255 bytes skipped)...sities, this process maintains weighted volume and does not increase weighted perimeter. For a more rigorous description of this process, see Harman, Howe, and Morgan [HHM Prop. 3].

3:

 of Models~\ref{mdl:Z2} (Z2) and \ref{mdl:CBM} (CBM). Rigorous proof

18:

 The first term on the last line is zero, by the equation. To make the integration by parts rigorous, we observe that $\psi \ast \Phi_r$ decays faster than any polynomial at infinity and $u$ has at mo...(57 bytes skipped)...

4:

 ...(322 bytes skipped)...sing trough the crossing of $l_k$ and $l_{i+1}$ on line $l_k$, but this is a contradiction to being rigorous. If $k<i$ the right end of $l_k$ is above the right end of $l_{i+1}$. So the two lines have to inte...(62 bytes skipped)...

15:

  it is not hard to make the arguments above rigorous, but we omit the details here for conciseness.

2:

 We verify the following claim by using rigorous numerics. 

6:

 ...(552 bytes skipped)...oof works as well without the stronger assumption (see \cite[Theorem 5.49, Lemma 5.44]{Kol18} for a rigorous proof), hence we conclude.

6:

 ...(43 bytes skipped)...and the order of traversal of vertices respects the order of the tree. (See \cite{aldous93crt3} for rigorous details, and \cite{legall05survey} for further explanation.) 

13:

 This calculation can be made rigorous in its time-integrated form by approximating $p^2/m^2 + V(q)$ by a sequence of smooth functions $f_...(187 bytes skipped)...

2:

 We will proceeding formally, however we note that it is not difficult to make the calculations rigorous, then

2:

   We give a formal proof for completeness; a rigorous one can be

9:

 ...(12 bytes skipped)...{B}$ elementwise i.i.d.\ $B$ independent of  $\mathbf{Z}  \sim \mathcal{N}(0, \mathbb{I}_{\p})$.  A rigorous argument for the above requires showing that the assumptions of Lemma~\ref{lem:beta_expectation} ar...(156 bytes skipped)...

16:

 (we leave it to the reader to make this rigorous):

2:

   Our proof is not rigorous. 

25:

 ...(1 bytes skipped)...his method of first order approximation is often referred to as the \emph{delta method}. For a more rigorous discussion 

24:

 ...(45 bytes skipped)...om the existing analysis on the minimax \emph{risk}~(see Section~\ref{sec:proof_minimaxity} for the rigorous proof and Section~\ref{sec:discussion_minimax_risk} for detailed discussions).

8:

 To make this idea rigorous, note that the vector

2:

 We elect to present this proof in an intuitive rather than rigorous way.

33:

 directly theorem \ref{theorem1} from section \ref{sec:rigorous_RS} and reach the desired result. 

6:

 so that this fixed point appears to be attracting. To put this on a rigorous footing we work in exact arithmetic to deduce,  by the intermediate value theorem, that $p(\lambda)...(111 bytes skipped)...

21:

 The argument can easily be made rigorous by using compactly supported approximations of $\phi$ on $\mathbb{R}^2$ as test functions, see e.g....(5 bytes skipped)...

2:

 The following claim can be verified by using rigorous numerics.

20:

 {\tt{rigorous\_volume.C}}, along with the constant value

21:

 $(n-1)*3.66386237670888$.  The program checks rigorously whether the

11:

 ...(95 bytes skipped)...)}$, the size of $\mathcal M_{(s,a)}$ should not be larger than $O(\log(T))$. This argument is made rigorous as follows.

8:

 % \s{this argument is not rigorous. show why this is the case}

21:

 %% To obtain a rigorous proof of the theorem, we would need

2:

 ...(47 bytes skipped)...Q_{t-s}f(x)$. By the chain rule, one has $L \ln g=Lg/g-\Gamma(\ln g)$. Thus, proceeding as before, (rigorous justification is identical)

12:

 We perform some \emph{formal} computations, which can be made rigorous by arguing as in the proof of Counterexample~\ref{l:ce1}: by \eqref{e:cpburgers}, the Jensen inequa...(40 bytes skipped)...

9:

 ...(20 bytes skipped)...f $u, \dot{u}$ and exponential decay of $p$ and $\Delta p$, the above formal calculation is in fact rigorous for each $s \in (0,1)$.

15:

 ...(187 bytes skipped)...for e.g. ch. 11.1 of \cite{Schwabl-02} for an intuitive approach or ch. XII of \cite{Reed-78} for a rigorous one. In any case, one finds for \(j=1,\dots,n\):

20:

 This again can be made rigorous by writing $N_t = Z_t^2 -\beta^2 \intot Z_s^2 I_s \, ds$ as a probability mixture of martingales:

14:

 %\note{(make more rigorous?)},