Finding citations for 'well-known' results - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-06-19T02:22:47Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/61331http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/61331/finding-citations-for-well-known-resultsFinding citations for 'well-known' resultsGreg Muller2011-04-11T19:59:45Z2011-04-12T00:44:48Z
<p>I am almost ready to submit my most recent paper, and I find myself in a problem that has already occurred multiple times in my short publishing career. In this paper, I wish to state a result which I consider 'well-known', but a skimming of all the likely textbooks and survey articles doesn't yield a nice statement that I can cite. For reference, the result in question is the following:</p>
<p><Blockquote> Let $X$ be a smooth, affine variety over $\mathbb{C}$, with coordinate ring $\mathcal{O}_X$. Then there is a natural isomorphism of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules from the Kahler differentials $\Omega(\mathcal{O}_X)$ of $\mathcal{O}_X$ to the global 1-forms on $X$ with regular coefficients.
</Blockquote></p>
<p>This is a result whose proof I know, and is homework-level difficulty, but including the proof in my short paper would require terminology and techniques I'd rather not introduce and consume precious space. It's also not a necessary result for the paper; I am including it to justify the study of Kahler differentials to an audience which might include differential geometers. </p>
<p>So what does one do in this situation? The lazy solution is to include some weasel words to avoid finding a citation ("it is a straight-forward exercise to show that..."), but this seems like a dangerous policy to employ in general. However, finding a citation is proving unreasonably time-consuming, since it's not in the books I know (Hartshorne, Eisenbud, Kunz), and each new book/article I skim has its own notation and assumptions.</p>
<p>Also, while I'd be extremely grateful for a citation for the specific result above, my question is about what to do in this <strong>kind</strong> of situation. I'm trying not to get the answers mixed up.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/61331/finding-citations-for-well-known-results/61337#61337Answer by Gerhard Paseman for Finding citations for 'well-known' resultsGerhard Paseman2011-04-11T21:17:14Z2011-04-11T21:17:14Z<p>For your specific result, I have no suggestions or references.</p>
<p>In general, I suggest including a Proof Hint: or Proof Sketch:, along with a note to the editor that you would like assistance in finding a proper reference. The hint should occupy little more space than a full bibliographic citation, and you can prepare a (possibly never to be published) appendix which contains sufficient details of the proof and a summary of your efforts in finding a reference, should someone call you on the (truth of the) statement. This should be doable in a short time and allow you to delay/defer/circumvent this issue. If this is not doable in a short time, then you might rethink its use as a motivating statement, as it may be more of a distraction than motivation. (You can also solicit the editor's opinion on how to handle this issue.)</p>
<p>Gerhard "Ask Me About System Design" Paseman, 2011.04.11</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/61331/finding-citations-for-well-known-results/61343#61343Answer by Kevin O'Bryant for Finding citations for 'well-known' resultsKevin O'Bryant2011-04-11T22:34:30Z2011-04-11T22:34:30Z<p>I've seen "details are presented in the arXiv version of this paper" several times. The only down side I see to this is that you do need to write up the details.</p>