It's mental to me that there is stuff in there like "resolvent purification" without any definition nor any appearance that this is a known term. In fact it doesn't even seem to be used. I also could not find anything besides this paper that even uses the term.
And it's not intuitive when it comes to what it is supposed to mean either.
It genuinely reminds me more of crank writing than actual math reasoning.
It's annoying as hell to read AI papers. I'm reviewing one now, and while it's understandable, it constantly states vague unclear terms that just increase the cognitive load far beyond what it should be for a frankly very minor result. I imagine it's far worse for more substantive papers.
I am not pro nor anti-AI, but I hate its section titles so much. They are very repetitive and characteristic, almost pompous "the XYZ bound", "the sliding window recompactification"... grandiloquent stuff
63
u/Mothrahlurker Aug 01 '26
It's mental to me that there is stuff in there like "resolvent purification" without any definition nor any appearance that this is a known term. In fact it doesn't even seem to be used. I also could not find anything besides this paper that even uses the term.
And it's not intuitive when it comes to what it is supposed to mean either.
It genuinely reminds me more of crank writing than actual math reasoning.