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!

  • 2
    Is there an analyst in your department who you could ask to look over the draft and give their opinion? Nov 20, 2020 at 10:06
  • Hmmm, the "general public" doesn't work in analysis. It's been a long time for me, but a quick wikipedia search suggests that the things you are suggesting should be accessible to any mathematician working primarily in analysis. It is probably enough to cite some things.
    – Buffy
    Nov 20, 2020 at 10:37
  • @Buffy yeah... Actually the wikipedia article is not very representative of what Malliavin calculus really is..
    – Chaos
    Nov 20, 2020 at 16:26
  • 2
    Is there some kind of a good, widely accepted, well-know in your area, and accessible summary / lecture notes / review article / book? Then just cite it and regurgitate only the major key points very tersely. If not, I'd support @Tommi: use an appendix. Nov 20, 2020 at 23:36

1 Answer 1


An appendix, maybe

In many other fields it is typical to first choose a journal and only then start writing. In mathematics this is often not done. But here it might be relevant to consider your target audience and thereby target journal.

If the problem is from analysis and you want to publish it in a journal devoted to analysis (or in any non-stochastics journal), an appendix with the stochastics might be appropriate. In any case, formatting the paper so that it can be read without the material in the appendix is a worthwhile task. It also makes it simple to react to referee comments concerning the usefulness of the appendix, if you get such: you can keep it, integrate it back into the main text or remove it with only a little trouble.

If you think the paper is of (more) interest to people into Malliavin calculus, or would be easier to publish in a journal close to stochastics, then maybe leaving out the basics is desirable. But remember to motivate the problem sufficiently.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .