Thus

>the author

>nigger

>it is trivial

>observe that
>notice that
>see that

As a high school writer it makes me sad to know that I use all of this shit in my papers and it probably makes me sound like a massive pleb, even though I'm a solid writer

>;

>proof is left as an exercise to the reader

>I use all of this shit in my papers and it probably makes me sound like a massive pleb
this. somebody teach me how to write like hardy or someone please

>it is simple that

>and so

My classmates and I would often try and "one-up" eachother by using the most obnoxious academic language we could in our thesis:

>ergo
>herewith
>notwithstanding
>heretofor

>it is trivial that

don't forget!:

-moreover
-jejune
-concordantly (you of all people should know this one! :^)
-homologous

>our results show
>studies suggest
>was titrated with _____ to ______
>to form
>it is the intent of the researchers
>further studies are needed to

not sure if you guys are memeing, nothing is wrong with these

I'm a foreign that publishes in English and use many terms you're making fun of. Could you give me some tips to improve my writing? I really can't see what's wrong...

They're "synergy" tier cliches that only people with poor writing use because they saw it somewhere else and it sounds professional.

Meant

They probably saw it somewhere else because they are commonly used phrases, and there's nothing wrong with conforming with established practices in academic writing. You don't have to be a fucking hipster in everything you do.

>thenceforward

>we then write
>is then
>now
>we have
>we find
>so that
>which means

>-homologous
brainlet spotted

>think

>Similarly
>Straightforward
>Check

I am a foreigner, whose choice of words you have subjected to ridicule. I most humbly ask you, whether you could offer me your council on the topic of academic writing, as I am unable to discern the undesirable traits thereof.

>We can now define
>Observe that
>Finally
>Alright, already, am i right?
>We seek

>not including the spyphone bit
Wow mate really dropped the ball there. Here I'll do it for you.

> [math] \text{ Let G be a group, desu} [/math]

>whomst'dve

>and
>is
>or
>not

>[math] \textsf{Let $f(x)$ be a function}\,. [/math]

>desu

>there's nothing wrong with conforming

Kek

If you're good at math and science but can't express your words in creative, personal, unique ways, you are still a brainlet.

back to redit anime fag

>conforming is edgy

a lot of these are just simple transitions

why is it bad to use them? am i brainlet for missing something.. i don't see what's wrong with most of these