2
$\begingroup$

I am writing this article on a graph related problem. In an important lemma dealing with classification of a type of graphs, I am undergoing this huge and tedious case analysis involving identification of a forbidden subgraph. Even though each individual case is often very simple, but for the sake of rigor, I am pushing the analysis grind day and night.

My only concern is that if a referee finds writing these cases involving easy identifications rather silly and picks up a bad vibe about an otherwise good article. Of course, to make sure that the lemma is correct, we have to wade through all the cases. My question is if it is a good idea to write all the cases down or just say that the cases are easy and such and such ideas come up repeatedly; thus, this is the result!

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If you won't run afoul of a length requirement, I'd recommend attempting to organize the cases into appendices. Let the reader see the forest first, and let him/her determine if s/he wants to examine the trees. If you have cases that are truly similar, provide a proof of one such case and then refer to it in the other cases by saying "similar to case xxx".

Alternately, you may consider looking at other similar articles in the targeted publication. Those might give you a guide as to what would be appropriate.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

If most cases really are simple and amenable to computer-assisted checking (I don't know whether that's true or not), you could include a bit of "pseudocode" or include an actual program (Mathematica, or C++ if you're into that) as an appendix.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.