I'm a PhD student working in Stochastic calculus/Malliavin calculus, and I am currently writing a paper (my second one), in which I use tools from probability theory to solve an Analysis problem. My idea was to write it in such a way that not only a probabilist could read it, but also an analyst (since the problem I "solve" has more relevance when considered from the Analysis perspective).
In order to achieve this I had to write an first section with preliminary results where I tried to "translate" some of the concepts/tools into a more "analyst-friendly" language since I am not sure if the general public working in mathematical analysis has some familiarity with Malliavin/Hida-calculus.
The problem is that even though I need only a few lemmas from Malliavin/Hida-calculus, in order to prove those I've ended up with a 15-pages-long "introductory" section, while the statement & proof of my result can be written in at most 3 pages.
This seems somehow "unbalanced", what do you think? Is it always necessary to provide a proof for the "intermediate lemmas", or maybe I could write something like "the interested reader in refer to ...". If this was a paper for people working in the field I would certainly ommit some.
I know this is something I could discuss with my supervisor, but he is a probabilist and I would like to listen the opinion of some analyst.
Thanks in advance!