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