Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(7)
Proof Essentially, we can prove it using the same discussion as in Lemma 3.1.
Using the same discussion as in Lemma 5, we deduce that f cannot be a rational function.
Using the same discussion as Lemma 2.1, we easily see that f ( z ) + A ( z ) − α 1 + α and 1 − f ( z ) have at most finitely many common zeros.
Using the same discussion as Lemma 2.1, we easily see that f 2 ( z ) + α f ( z ) + A ( z ) − α and 1 − f ( z ) have at most finitely many common zeros.
(2.25) Starting from (2.25) and using the same discussion as we did in the proof of Theorem 2.6, we obtain int_{B} varphibigl(bigl|TdTH u bigr| bigr),dx leq C int _{sigma B} varphibigl(|u|bigr),dx.
Using the same discussion as Lemma 2.1, we easily see that ( 1 + α ) f 2 ( z ) − α f ( z ) + A ( z ) and f ( z ) ( 1 − f ( z ) ) have at most finitely many common zeros.
Similar(53)
All focus groups were conducted using the same customized discussion guide based on the study's objectives.
Consequently, in any discussion involving economists and philosophers together, we can find ourselves in a situation where everyone uses the same word to refer to something different.
The moderator guided the discussion using the same template for each session.
The focus groups started with a general discussion using the same format as Stage 1 of the study.
For those who use it, the collapse function will be remembered when you visit other discussions using the same browser.
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