Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(4)
This proves case (i).
On the other hand, from p + q ≥ 0, that is, p ≥ − q, it is acquired that S ˜ ( p, q, t ) ≤ S ˜ ( − q, q, t ) = 1, which proves Case 2 and the sufficiency is complete.
Noticing that p + q ≥ 0, that is, p ≥ − q, we have T ˜ ( p, q, t ) ≥ T ˜ ( − q, q, t ) = 1, which proves Case 2 and the proof is finished.
At the same time, since p + q ≥ 0, that is, p ≥ − q, we have C ˜ ( p, q, t ) ≤ C ˜ ( − q, q, t ) = 1, which proves Case 2 and the sufficiency is complete.
Similar(56)
It is not yet a proven case.
Next, we prove case (ii).
Now, we prove case (ii).
We prove case (ii) and case (iii).
Since it is easy to prove Cases (ii) and (iii), we only prove Case (i).
Thus, we prove case (ii) in Lemma 8.1.
In a similar way to proving cases 1 and 2, we can prove case 3. Finally, we will prove (rho_{2}(f)=rho_{2}(g)). Suppose that (rho (f)=infty).
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