Exact(4)
We follow the same argument as Theorem 2.1.
Proof This lemma can follow the same argument that, for the classical setting, was given by Kenig and Stein [5].
For each subsequence { x n k } of { x n } with x n k ⇀ u for some u ∈ C, we follow the same argument as above, we see that u = T u.
It follows from Theorem 3.6, that { x n } n ∈ N converges strongly to u 0 ∈ A. Since C is closed, we have u 0 ∈ C. We follow the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 3.3 [3], we can prove Theorem 3.7.
Similar(56)
Then we follow the same arguments as those in Section 4.3, pp.200-204 of [24].
The collated results, using several images, in Table 1 follow the same arguments and they support the same conclusions.
Following the same argument as in [5], we can get the following strong convergence theorem of the proposed algorithm for the split feasibility problem.
Following the same argument as in the proof of Corollary 4.1, we have the following result from Theorem 4.3.
The proof for general (t,ω) follows the same argument.
Following the same argument, unloading of the specimen will result in regaining the thermal conductivity.
Following the same argument as before, we get that ((hat{x},hat{y})inOmega ).
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