If the author had provided links to explanations or additional materials for those who want to understand the formal reasoning more deeply.

And why does the linked paper not qualify as such a link?

	▲	whyandgrowth a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		P.S. Sorry, I was wrong.
	▲	whyandgrowth a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Good point. I just thought that a direct link or summary of the formal reasoning would have made it easier for readers unfamiliar with the topic. But fair enough, the linked paper does cover it.