[dan-robertson]

This depends a lot on the branch of maths: eg topology has much more of a reputation for being wishy-washy than analysis.

It also depends what the context is. A paper is not meant to prove things sufficiently for a layperson but for the author’s peers and so an omitted proof means one of “proven elsewhere;” “follows in a straightforward way from the definitions;” “follows in a straightforward way from an earlier proposition;” or “follows from a well-known pattern in the subfield.” And here “follows in a straightforward way” typically means something between “just look at;” “at each step there is only one reasonable thing to do so just do that;” and “apply all the standard tricks from the subfield and see what sticks.”

It is not true that advanced mathematics is less rigorous than more elementary maths, it’s just that materials for advanced topics require more domain knowledge, and provide less hand-holding.

[Avshalom]

"you must understand when I say it's trivial I just mean that I can do it "

[SolarNet]

And I feel like this is where better hyperlinking of papers could be used. Like not just citations, but the ability to click through to the "proven elsewhere" perhaps with a short paragraph of how the given citation proves it.

[thrmsforbfast]

Hyperlinking wouldn't provide much help. It's easy to prove this because academics have been hyperlinking for hundreds of years. A lay person finding the connection between [21,45,48,60] and the "trivial" step of theorem 15 is the problem.

So, hyperlinking is not what is needed for outsiders. What's needed is lots of extra exposition and explicit connection-building/hand-holding/narration.

The result of the hard work of doing so is typically called "a book". Which, hopefully, makes it clear why no author does this exposition and connection-building work for everything they write...

[abdullahkhalids]

Paper writing is hard. Adding more material - even supplementary material just slows down the work of good people.

On the other hand, I do feel like there should be websites where papers can be annotated by readers, who can provide missing details etc. Though this does require a lot more papers to be open access.

[visarga]

On the other hand almost all papers have a short introductory section where they present basic concepts in a concise way. I find them great for learning and reinforcing concepts. They should be collected together in a wiki. We would have dozens of variations for each concept and great coverage.

[jerf]

See: https://fermatslibrary.com/journal_club

Primary problem is interest, really. No one's going to annotate "The Last Ditch Journal Of Applied Theorem"'s non-headliner papers.

[mitchty]

Basically something like rapgenius but for papers?

[roywiggins]

https://fermatslibrary.com

[roywiggins]

Wikipedia hyperlinks definitions, but if you don't have a background in the field, following all hyperlinks off hyperlinks produces something of an exponential explosion of things you'd have to understand before you can understand a particular article.

[fredgrott]

true..how many understand no really know Graph Theory at the level we use it to analyze code object coupling, RTTI, etc