Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigSuggestions(1)
Exact(8)
We use a contradiction argument.
We prove the theorem by a contradiction argument.
First, by a contradiction argument we claim that I ( u ( t ) ) < 0, (4.18).
Therefore their idea is to reduce the general case to the case of nearly spherical sets via a contradiction argument.
To close this section, we prove by a contradiction argument that the energy E (defined in (1.6)) can NOT decay exponentially.
5.2 of proving first the stability estimate for nearly spherical sets and then to extend it to general open sets by a contradiction argument via regularity.
Similar(52)
It follows from the symmetry of all and Definition 2.3 by a simple contradiction argument.
The second claim that the expanding slope must be bounded below by (gamma') can be proved using a similar contradiction argument to above.
A standard contradiction argument based on the contraction and on the continuity of (F_{f}) concludes that the limit must be 0.
If this is indeed the case we have — recalling that KS establish that QM & VD & NC implies a contradiction — an argument for the claim that QM alone implies contextuality.
Unfortunately, looking more carefully at the proof of the quantitative isoperimetric inequality (4.3) given in Sect. 4 one gets a constant growing exponentially fast with n, while the contradiction argument used in the Sect.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com