[theteapot]

> I've just skimmed, but the paper is quite unkind about its internal details (which is very typical for mathies, hahaha).

Excusing such only encourages it IMHO. I think it was Einstein who said "If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't really understand it." Stupid "mathies".

[funcantor]

Its a research paper, the audience is going to be other experts in the field; it will be written in a way suitable for publishing to a journal. Even with a concise writing style, the paper is already at 100 pages. If you want to understand the paper it would make more sense to pick up a textbook and learn about the prerequisite material rather then expecting them to write a book for you, just to communicate their research result.

[theteapot]

Explaining simply and rigorously are not mutually exclusive. They can do both.

[funcantor]

I would agree with this, good explanations and rigour are definitely not mutually exclusive. But I am not sure what you are expecting. This is a research paper, intended to be read by other experts. Even still, if we look at how the paper is organised, the authors start with a high level overview, and build upon simpler problems to leverage their way to an understanding of the main result. For a research paper, it is extremely thorough.

If you want a 'simple explanation' that allows a layman to gain some understand the problem, sure. But this isn't, and absolutely should not be, the purpose or content of the research publication, which is to succinctly communicate to other experts the results of their findings.

[Ar-Curunir]

simple != simple for laymen. It doesn’t make sense to recap the entire history of a field in the intro

[marcosdumay]

It's hard enough to create the thing and make your explanation fit on the page limit. You also want people to make it comprehensible at the same time?

If you want to, you can study it, make it easier to understand and write another paper. If it's good, you will do both yourself and the original author a huge favor.