Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(12)
With the same argumentation, the other inclusion follows.
So far, we have here roughly the same argumentation as others have advanced.
Thus, employing the same argumentation as in the proof of Lemma 3.3, we have (3.7).
It follows from the same argumentation as Theorem 3.2 that is bounded and, where is a nonexpansive mapping defined by (3.32).
The same argumentation holds for every m-fold barycentric subdivision S m of S, m ∈ N, that is, there exists a completely labeled conditional simplex in every m-fold barycentrically subdivided conditional simplex which is properly labeled.
Using the same argumentation regarding Ψ as for the calculation of (76), it follows that F ( 3, 3 ) = 2 γ 2 T s 2 σ Ψ 2 b H A H E H EA b = 2 γ 2 T s 2 W σ Ψ 2 | a 0|2 2 + | a 2 | 2. (81).
Similar(48)
Along the same line of argumentation, it may very well be that a policy maker is best placed to answer the questions.
Following the same line of argumentation, the first step is to evaluate the normality of the measured data and Table 10 summarizes these tests.
The same line of argumentation holds for the parameters kd11, kd9, and kd24.
We omit the (easy) proof, since it follows exactly the same line of argumentation that we used to prove the preceding proposition.
Indeed, such an argumentation form relies on the (classical) intuition that one cannot assert in the same argument a literal in its positive and negative versions.
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