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?)},

14:

 This can be made rigorous  either by using the fact that $\varphi$ is smooth or by applying \cite[Lemma A.1]{AS}. Since $v_\a...(164 bytes skipped)...

18:

 ...(146 bytes skipped)...nvexity of $H$, we see that the function $\hat u_\ep$ is a subsolution of \eqref{aux}. This is made rigorous in the viscosity sense by appealing to Lemma~\ref{convtrick}, or by a more direct argument using th...(115 bytes skipped)...

14:

 For a rigorous proof of the geometric properties of $D(p)$, the reader is referred to \cite{Kong2012}.

26:

 for a rigorous definition

2:

 We will sketch the main idea of the proof, and leave it to the reader to make the argument rigorous.

18:

 evolution. Let us state \textbf{Egorov's theorem}, which is a rigorous

11:

 ...(71 bytes skipped)...not found in the literature any proof concerning the moment convergence of the $K$th maxima. Yet, a rigorous proof can be obtained by a line-by-line adaptation of Proposition~2.1 in \cite{Resnick1987}. For th...(77 bytes skipped)...

3:

   \cite{CazCourant} for the arguments that make the proof rigorous. We

30:

 the above is justified at formal level. A rigorous proof follows by

6:

 ...(147 bytes skipped)...; we will see that it is actually the case in the following section. All the proof can then be made rigorous thanks to the subsequent Theorem \ref{gaus}}. For

6:

 ...(163 bytes skipped)...C) is described in the projective coordinate. Therefore, the verification of the (BBC) involves the rigorous interval arithmetic for the coordinate change between them. This becomes problematic when the focus...(389 bytes skipped)...

4:

  they can be made rigorous exactly as therein. 

15:

 These intuitions can be made rigorous by means of explicit rooted branching bisimulation relations between the left- and right-hand sides...(156 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(410 bytes skipped)...i + (1-\alpha^*)\mu$, which are known to converge under the conditions of the theorem. This is made rigorous by decomposing the update on the Q-function from the $(k+1)$\textsuperscript{th} trajectory as

2:

 Instead of a rigorous proof we provide only a sketch, the easy details are left

1:

 \begin{proof} (not rigorous) For any $t \in \R$, stalk at $t$ is 

25:

 From this we formally obtain \eqref{movepup}. The derivation is once again made rigorous with smooth test functions. 

13:

 See Lemma \ref{l:s_upperboundw2bychisquared} in Appendix \ref{s:appendix:inhomogeneous} for a rigorous proof of \eqref{e:s_rc:1}.

6:

 % rigorous proof that these are alg indep? (disjoint sets of variables)

2:

 ...(36 bytes skipped)...$D$, we have $D|\lambda\>=\lambda|\lambda\>$. As a result, we have\footnote{This proof is not fully rigorous...(536 bytes skipped)... arguments (regarding $\delta(0)$ as a positive real number) in this section, but keep in mind that rigorous proofs can be given by limit arguments.}

16:

 These intuitions can be made rigorous by means of explicit bisimulation relations between the left- and right-hand sides of closed instan...(122 bytes skipped)...

28:

 %\improvement{actually to make it really rigorous one should also cut-off in space... Shall we keep or remove this proof?}

13:

 % Rigorously one considers an admissible function $\beta$, regularizes, integrates by parts and eventually let...(41 bytes skipped)...

2:

 We present an informal derivation of the stated energy estimate. The rigorous justification of these calculations is a simple consequence of first considering a vanishing viscos...(167 bytes skipped)...

6:

 This can be verified numerically but we also provide a rigorous proof. Using the Taylor expansion of $\exp$ and the identity $$\EE_\theta\left[\cos^k \theta\right]...(106 bytes skipped)...

21:

 ...(45 bytes skipped)...For simplicity, we will directly take the derivative of this function. This computation can be made rigorous by considering smooth approximation of a truncated squared function, with bounded second derivative...(65 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(294 bytes skipped)...describe and analyse it in intuitive terms here, referring to~\cite[SM]{bound-coherence} for a more rigorous analysis. There are three main steps.

13:

 ...(1 bytes skipped)...and therefore $\omega$ should behave as $\mathcal O(h)$, i.e., go to zero. But I am far away from a rigorous proof.

4:

 ...(189 bytes skipped)...ence of our definition of $G_{m,k}$, along with an application of LIP if one wants to be completely rigorous. The inequality for 

45:

 %as claimed. The rigorous justification of the above steps under the assumption $0<\re(s)<2$ is similar to the one given in P...(32 bytes skipped)...

31:

 ...(63 bytes skipped)...d by repeated differentiation of equation~\eqref{eq:helmholtz_weak}; see~\cite{Bonizzoni2016} for a rigorous derivation.

2:

 ...(310 bytes skipped)... very unlikely that any entry of $BX$ would have a different sign than $X_i b_{i,i}$.  This is made rigorous as follows.

10:

 A rigorous proof is given in Appendix~\ref{sec:encodingErrorProof}.

22:

 % \ga{This proof could be made more mathematically rigorous, but is it necessary?}

21:

 A more rigorous proof can be performed by following the same methods as the proofs of Proposition 8.1 and Propositi...(34 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(45 bytes skipped)...cations of the identity $(I-AB)^{-1}A = A(I-BA)^{-1}$ proves this lemma. Instead of presenting such rigorous proof, we sketch the conceptual idea. Let the output of the lifted system obtained by sampling the ...(759 bytes skipped)...

8:

 ...(207 bytes skipped)... biased estimator of $\nabla_\theta J^\theta(x_0)$, where the bias vanishes asymptotically. In more rigorous terms, we have

10:

   equivalence.  To give a rigorous proof we calculate the relative

20:

 {\bf (N2)} hold, it follows from Corollary \ref{rigorous2} that

5:

 ...(88 bytes skipped)...lated: $\limsup{k\rightarrow \infty} \langle \nabla f (U_t), Z_t \rangle < 0$ \footnote{To obtain a rigorous proof we slightly complicated the sampling procedure in line 1 of Algorithm \ref{alg1}, such that c...(203 bytes skipped)...

3:

 	Indeed, a more rigorous expression of Equation (\ref{eq:analysis_formula}) is

4:

 	\begin{equation}\label{eq:analysis_formula_rigorous}

10:

 ...(27 bytes skipped)...V_{m-1}$, $f_u(S_m)=0$, this implies that (\ref{eq:analysis_formula}) and (\ref{eq:analysis_formula_rigorous}) are equivalent.

3:

 but it can be turned into a rigorous proof using standard methods in multiscale analysis;

3:

   into rigorous mathematics. The small factor $T^{\delta}$ is obtained from a

12:

 rigorously holds. By taking the preimage of this rigorous...(14 bytes skipped)...\mathcal{V}^s_{\mathrm{loc}}(p_1)$, again using the set-oriented algorithm, we can also construct a rigorous covering of $\mathcal{V}_{31\overline{0}}^s(a, b)^+$. In the same way, a rigorous covering of $\mathcal{V}_{\overline{0}23}^u(a, b)^+$ can be obtained. Thus, by verifying $\frac{\pa...(176 bytes skipped)...

17:

 Even though we cannot make this rigorous at the moment, we still have 

22:

 ...(286 bytes skipped)...nctions) and uses function spaces based on the Wiener algebra (the $\ell_s^1$ spaces). However, the rigorous proof of \eqref{eq:umun} is essentially a variation on the same theme and does not present any part...(60 bytes skipped)...

21:

 ...(204 bytes skipped)...:factorisation_qprime}.  As discussed in Subsection~\ref{subsec:pluri/pluri}, this argument is made rigorous via log densities.

34:

 and\footnote{By rigorous integration from $1/4$ to $1/2$ and from $1/2$ to

12:

 ...(41 bytes skipped)...example in \cref{sub:a_worked_example} will convince the reader that this could indeed be made more rigorous.

2:

 We again restrict to giving the informal derivation, the rigorous justification is standard by considering a vanishing viscosity approximation first, then using lowe...(95 bytes skipped)...

11:

 ...(147 bytes skipped)...is proof so our theorem is the case for both the gradient ascent and descent, which makes our proof rigorous. These indicate that the directional derivative %\footnote{See Appendix for the concept of directio...(17 bytes skipped)...

8:

 ...(190 bytes skipped)...cally $2:1$. Thus we have to add this cycle with multiplicity $1$. \todo{Please proofread} \todoOld{Rigorous argument? ... use that two critical components of $C_W B \times B$ intersect in codimension $2$ set...(74 bytes skipped)...

28:

 We remark that all of these formal manipulations are analytically rigorous for $|u|,|v|$ sufficiently small. 

13:

 ...(11 bytes skipped)...ly. This statement is correct indeed, but unfortunately it is tedious to make the ODE approximation rigorous. Instead, to show Theorem \ref{T:Kcdi}, we use the following simple argument. It is enough to show ...(167 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(32 bytes skipped)...ent is that Artin's approximation theorem tells us that $H^\et$ is dense in $H$. In order to give a rigorous proof it is useful to restrict further to the monoid introduced above: this is still dense in $H$ a...(414 bytes skipped)...

14:

 We now make this construction rigorous. Consider the union $U \subset W_{(n, n+1)} \times \R_{\ge 0}$

9:

 ...(171 bytes skipped)...mma_2(x;A))  = 0$ on $(A,\infty)$; see also the appendix of \cite{Biffis_Kyprianou_2010} for a more rigorous proof.

7:

 For the rigorous proof, let us first check that $\lambda_\epsilon$

2:

 ...(120 bytes skipped)...t some details, to show that solutions are sufficiently smooth so that the following computation is rigorous. In particular, we focus on uniqueness (which is the part that we need for our study of convergence...(156 bytes skipped)...

9:

 This argument can be made rigorous with the use of the map from (\ref{e:vthep})

24:

 addition formula for $q$-Bessel \eqref{41}. We give a rigorous

2:

 See appendix Section~\ref{app:beatrep} for a complete and rigorous proof. \textbf{Here we only provide the main intuition behind the proof.} From Theorem~\ref{thm:bea...(19 bytes skipped)...

10:

 Because	the speed of light $c =1$ is a rigorous bound of the spectral radius of $\partial \vec F_i/\partial \vec U$,

2:

 %\red{This needs to be rigorously proved to see the convexity.}

2:

 %%\red{This needs to be rigorously proved to see the convexity.}

2:

 This is rigorously verified using the Resolve function of Mathematica in  Section~\ref{app:d<=22techlem}.

2:

 The proof consists in writing rigorously the various equations and is given in section \ref{RTS_recursive_equation_proof}

2:

 This was shown rigorously in \autocite{KirschMomentSurvey}, see Theorem 5.6, Remark 5.7, Proposition 5.9 and Theorem 5.17 i...(14 bytes skipped)...

2:

 	We write this as a lemma to ensure the rigorousness of the whole proof. Actually it can be easily verified and thus the proof is omitted.

2:

 ...(108 bytes skipped)...e. The interested reader can consult \cite{Biswas2013} or \cite{silvestre:2010}, where the proof is rigorously detailed. 

3:

 that the corresponding list of rigorously computed zeros is consecutive for

2:

 ...(86 bytes skipped)...c.unrootedstr} the set of nice vertices of a graph $G \in \crd l$ is $H$-attachable. %\m{Prove more rigorously?}

5:

 also been stated (less rigorously and without proof) in

2:

 ...(252 bytes skipped)...at $\log B_m^{(k)}/| \Delta_m^{(k)}| < h_n^{(k+1)}$ ($n=4$ suffices for the above statements) shows rigorously that $h^{(k)}<h^{(k+1)}$ for that $k$. 

2:

 The intuition is that $\vct{b}_s$ is close to $\vct{b}$, which is close to $\vct{x}$.  Rigorously,

3:

 	This well-known fact has been rigorously shown in the sense of generalized random processes in \cite{Dalang2015Levy}.

4:

 \ref{C:new1+} ($n>4$).\footnote{Rigorously speaking, we have to

2:

 ...(56 bytes skipped)...g that $\partial_t K(t-s+x)=\partial_x K(t-s+x)$ and that $u_t(0)=V_t$, gives \eqref{eq_utx2}. More rigorously, note that $K(t-s+x)=T_{t-s}K(x)$, where $T_{t-s}$ is the shift operator that maps any function $...(281 bytes skipped)...

4:

 but will rigorously shown in Lemma \ref{DLemCP1B} below).

4:

 was done rigorously in \cite{Johansson_shape}, \cite{Johansson_paths}, \cite{Feral},

4:

 ...(214 bytes skipped)... (a_\xi \nabla \partial_i u_\shom)=\partial_i f + \nabla \cdot (\partial_i g)$, there is no need to rigorously justify the formally differentiated PDE.

2:

 	Since both $\omega_4^s$ and $\omega_{6}^s$ are rigorously known to be universal optimizers for all $s\geq -2$, 

9:

 (It is possible to bound maxima rigorously as in (\ref{eq:elek1}).)

9:

 which was established rigorously in recent work by Land \cite{Land}. Therefore, if $\BC$ is an isomorphism, then so is $\Nov^c$. B...(218 bytes skipped)...

4:

 %\emphnote{need to verify this rigorously. continue reading from here}

2:

   The lemma can be rigorously proved by \emph{Mathematica}. The codes

6:

 we can rigorously check for any given $\theta$ if the true image $P(\theta)$ lies in $\mathcal{A}$. This computatio...(416 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(397 bytes skipped)...\mathscr{A}_c$ due to the previous isomorphism. Moreover, we can show $[C]_{\beta}=[C_c]_{\beta_c}$ rigorously by using the basis \ref{basis} after changing $\beta$ with Proposition \ref{mat2}. Finally, $w_{\...(121 bytes skipped)...

12:

 ...(92 bytes skipped)...$. Thus intuitively we know that for suitable $a$ there will always be $|z-a|^2>|z|$. It is easy to rigorously verify this assertion;

4:

 ...(300 bytes skipped)...using the elliptic regularization properties stated in Proposition \ref{propell}. These results are rigorously stated and proved in Lemma \ref{lemMM}.\\

2:

 ...(80 bytes skipped)...0^9$  and remains so for $t$ all the way down to $t=226.7088\ldots$. We checked the range $[2,230]$ rigorously by computer as follows.

2:

 ...(57 bytes skipped)...denote the law on $C([0,\Delta])$ of $U$ conditional on $U_\Delta=y$. We define the conditional law rigorously via disintegration (eg.\ see \cite{Pollard2001} Chapter 5, Theorem 9, applied to $\lambda=\WW_\si...(131 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(517 bytes skipped)...e uniform equicontinuity of the $g_j^\de$. Property (ii) is intuitively clear, and is easy to prove rigorously using Thm.~\ref{thm:rsw}.

4:

 ...(217 bytes skipped)...iod of external addresses associated to $[\itn{p},\itn{q},\itn{r}]$ (this terminology is introduced rigorously in Section~5). It will be shown in Section~5 that $[\itn{p},\itn{q},\itn{r}]$ has the same shape ...(71 bytes skipped)...

16:

 ...(211 bytes skipped)...orem and Theorem \ref{theorem:linear:point:stab}. In this way, the Lyapunov linearization method is rigorously applied.  

6:

 Rigorously, the substitution of $q$ if represented with the items from $\hat{S}_{p + p(p-2-q)}$ to $\hat{S}_...(131 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(59 bytes skipped)...n of $\w$ and behaves same as the directional derivative $\fp\w)$ for sufficiently small $\w$. More rigorously, from \eqref{dirder3}, for any $\w_1,\w_2\in\R^n$ and $ \delta>0$ there exists $\eps>0$ such that...(10 bytes skipped)...

14:

 their programs rigorously proved that the volumes of these chain links

3:

   to 0. More rigorously,

19:

 To justify this rigorously, note that, by \eqref{eq:omegax-asym-xinfty}--\eqref{eq:omegax-asym-xzero}, the function $\omega(...(114 bytes skipped)...

2:

 ...(97 bytes skipped)...e can bound the moments of $\dot{M}_i(\theta_0)$ and $\ddot{M}_i(\theta_0) - \ddot{M}_0(\theta_0)$. Rigorously, for $1 \le q \le 8$, we have

3:

  For $1\le k \le n$ one obtains (to do it rigorously one has to consider finite

2:

 ...(24 bytes skipped)...thcal{H}$, then $I^-(q)\subset M\setminus\mathcal{B}$, even though it is quite intuitive, it can be rigorously proved: let $p\in I^-(q)$, then there exists a neighbourhood $\mathcal{V}$ of $q$ in $I^+(p)$, si...(257 bytes skipped)...

5:

 ...(36 bytes skipped)...floating point numbers, so only satisfy the equations approximately. Though these methods have been rigorously tested through countless examples, are open source and repeatable, there is still a chance that t...(177 bytes skipped)...

11:

 ...(181 bytes skipped)...rgence in distribution to $N(0,1)$ holds in our case as both $N$ and $M$ get large. These ideas are rigorously treated in Appendix E.

1:

 \begin{proof} The idea is that determinant zero is a codimension-one condition. To show it rigorously,

27:

 rigorously verify that the mapping torus of $f$ is hyperbolic with volume

3:

 	eigenvalues on a cube $Q$ can be rigorously justified with a uniform 

12:

 (Rigorously, this projection is from $E'$ to $\R^A$, but $A$ being countable, we admit this slight abuse of n...(9 bytes skipped)...

6:

 ...(55 bytes skipped)...equivalent to the first three equalities in \eqref{u'out}. This formal calculation can be justified rigorously as done in \cite[Proposition 2.3]{cava} (nevertheless, in this case we do not need to split the d...(293 bytes skipped)...

12:

 equation in \eqref{eq:Ehr}. To do this rigorously, let $\chi$ be a

5:

 ...(22 bytes skipped)...qrt[]{n}}}\frac{1}{p} \sim loglog(n)$, by Euler's result on sum of reciprocal of primes (later more rigorously obtained by Mertens in \cite{N}). This identity gives us our result for $k=2$.

19:

   spun-normal surfaces.  This is easily done rigorously using SnapPy

2:

 To derive the above asymptotic result rigorously, we use the notations in \cite{Kato66} and invoke (3.2), (3.3), (3.4) and (3.6) in Chap.\ Two of ...(1202 bytes skipped)...

4:

 From the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus\footnote{This can be rigorously done only with a theory of integration for Banach space valued curves. One possibility is to use ...(165 bytes skipped)...

19:

 and Fock, and is rigorously dealt with in \cite{Liu04}).

12:

 localization and light leaves in order to state rigorously. \end{proof}

25:

 We do not know how to rigorously bound $\|\hat{K_3}\|_{4/3}$, but we can rigorously bound $\|\hat{K_4}\|_{4/3}$

21:

 rigorously verified by an approximation argument.) 

13:

 ...(195 bytes skipped)...class MF} for measures. For particular $\cW$ containing only few-particle interactions one can pass rigorously~\cite{RouYng-14} from~\eqref{eq:class hamil 2} to~\eqref{eq:class MF}, which gives a particular, ...(149 bytes skipped)...

3:

 for which all subsequent computations are rigorously justified. Invoking 

21:

 ...(115 bytes skipped)...for the classical drift-diffusion equation. In addition, its Wasserstein gradient flow structure is rigorously well-defined without the extra assumption on the growth of $V$, see \cite{JKO98}.

2:

 ...(242 bytes skipped)...n H^{1,2}((0,T)\times (-1,0))$ and $v\in V^{5/4}((0,T)\times (0,1))$. With stated regularity we can rigorously justify all the steps that lead to the formal equivalence of Problem \ref{HW} and~\eqref{HWequiv}...(365 bytes skipped)...

5:

 Note that the coefficient $\rm{const_m}$ of the principal symbol is calculated rigorously in \cite{Laksh2013b} for $m=0$ and $m=1$ only.

2:

 ...(553 bytes skipped)...ilon$ is small enough the half-collar is very close metrically to the cylinder. This can be checked rigorously using the explicit metric in the universal cover of the cylinder.

30:

 Bounding $|\mathcal{S}|$ rigorously from above by $2^{|\cM|}$, the claim follows

10:

 rigorously that there is no solution to~\eqref{eq:d=2fixedpoints}

13:

 $\{ \arr^2_i\}_{i\le m}$ are independent of future inter-arrival times $\{\arr^1_j\}_{j\ge m+1}$.  Rigorously,  \eqref{m:800} and \eqref{DSR4} show  that variables $\{ \arr^2_i\}_{i\le m}$ are functions of $...(103 bytes skipped)...

16:

   Rigorously, we have $1-\delta\rightarrow1$ and $\frac1h\rightarrow0$ for $\delta\rightarrow0$ and $h\rightar...(223 bytes skipped)...

16:

 		where rigorously step $(*)$ works inductively, see the proofs of \cite[Lemma 4.4]{bartl2016exponential} and \cite[...(26 bytes skipped)...

11:

 This formula can be rigorously justified in the current setting by applying Lemma 5.4.5 in \cite{PazyBook}. We then estimate

4:

 ...(372 bytes skipped)...s the unique global minimizer for $m(u)$ (\ref{m}) that does not depend on $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. Rigorously, it may be that only one local maximizer $u_1^*$ or $u_2^*$ exist for $L(u)$, but this does not a...(648 bytes skipped)...

27:

 ...(7 bytes skipped)...^l_{\alpha,\alpha}, q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}], [q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}, q^l_{\alpha',\alpha'}]]$\footnote{Rigorously, ${\mathcal C}$ is a function of $q^l_{\alpha,\alpha}, q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}$ and $ q^l_{\alpha',\...(12 bytes skipped)...

10:

  More rigorously, use induction on the structure of $F$ (see Tab.~\ref{Terms}).\\

8:

    to rigorously apply the co-area formula. On $|u|>\delta$, the solution $u$ is Lipschitz.  Then  

4:

 ...(49 bytes skipped)... $S^0$, hence on any finite spectrum.\footnote{This is a standard ``assembly map".  To construct it rigorously, note that left Kan extension of the restriction of the right hand side to finite spectra is uniq...(300 bytes skipped)...

26:

   is likely to be bounded by $O(\sqrt{d_k^{\max}/N})$. We show this rigorously with high probability

3:

 We repeat the above considerations {rigorously} for general $n$.

4:

 To see this rigorously, we note that by commuting operators in the first line of \eqref{ddotfP}, we

16:

 %\xxx[Nadia-18April2011]{Have I proved Property (2) rigorously enough?  I tried to be as concise as possible, just giving

5:

   \item The branch is then rigorously continued using \ref{sec:continuation} and parametrized by $h_\mu(z) = (x_\mu(z),0,z,0,\dot y_\mu...(168 bytes skipped)...

25:

 Therefore, the index is $1$ if and only if $\ln(r_0^{-1}) >  1$ (observe that, rigorously, a smoothing of the function $f_{r_0}$ is needed), that means $r_0<e^{-1}$ as we wanted.

20:

 Rigorously, this amounts to the ideal-theoretic conditions that

32:

 ...(5 bytes skipped)...^l_{\alpha,\alpha}, q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}], [q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}, q^l_{\alpha',\alpha'}]]$\footnote{Rigorously, ${\mathcal C}$ is a function of $q^l_{\alpha,\alpha}, q^l_{\alpha,\alpha'}$ and $ q^l_{\alpha',\...(12 bytes skipped)...

23:

 For NBSRW, we would need to inspect the  LCLT bounds to establish monotonicity rigorously, though it is intuitively clear for $\ell\gg 1$.

22:

 This proves rigorously that $x:=1$ has unbounded orbit under $f_{t_\infty}$.

18:

 	In \eqref{e:Phin2}, each of the approximations can be shown rigorously, using techniques that are very similar to the ones that were used in \Section{s:recursions}: The...(131 bytes skipped)...

5:

 widely believed, but not rigorously proved, result that for $p=p_c$

31:

 Rigorously, it cannot have a critical point by Proposition~\ref{rado-proposition} below.

2:

 Differentiating\footnote{ On Lie groups differentiation can indeed be rigorously defined as $\frac{\partial}{\partial\alpha}\phi_{\alpha}\bigr |_{ \alpha=Id}(\bfx) \delta\alpha:=...(305 bytes skipped)...