I'm just preparing a paper in an engineering context about a new mathematical framework to do something novel. I've something around 9 definitions, 2 lemmas and 1 theorem (in addition to some remarks for further explanations). Currently, these items are successively placed in the manuscript, in that there is nothing between each pair in view of extra explanations (except those sparse mentioned remarks), like this:

Def. 1

Def. 2

Def. 3

Rem. 1

Def. 4

Def. 5

Def. 6

Def. 7

Lem. 1

Rem. 2

Def. 8

Lem. 2

Rem. 3


In one hand, some people around me say that such roster of mathematical stuffs without extra illustrations between each pair of items is incredibly tedious for the reader, because the paper is supposed to be an engineering one.

On the other hand, I've faced with a 6-page limitation for this manuscript and can not elaborate the stuffs, considerably, without violating the restriction. Furthermore, I've done my best to apply the necessary explanations as much as possible by considered remarks. But there are still situations in which 3 or 4 definitions are located at the paper next to each other.

Is this a poorly-organized fashion of proceeding-paper composition (especially in technical fields, not pure mathematics)?

Any idea for better arrangement?


1 Answer 1


Yes, it is considered good form, in mathematics, to have at least a sentence to introduce 'named' theorems, lemmas and definitions and navigate the reader through the results. And an "introduction" section --- you can dispense with the conclusions.

Sometimes in this kind of venues you are allowed to put the proofs of your theorems and lemmas in an appendix (which doesn't count against your page limit). Ask the organizers if it is the case.

If not, then leave everything as it is; it seems that you have no better solution (assuming that you have already tried to save as much vertical space as you can).

  • Usually, at least for the engineering conferences I'm used to, an appendix counts in the page limit. Though in mathematics the structure outlined by the OP could be considered good form, with some linking text, the main issue is that an engineering audience and the reviewers might find it not appealing or not suited for the conference scope. Jan 23, 2017 at 9:15

You must log in to answer this question.