Is it always necessary to mathematically define an existing algorithm (which can easily be researched elsewhere) in a paper? I'm writing a paper which explores a new forecasting method. I compare the results with those of an existing algorithm as a baseline. Plenty of literature already exists on the existing algorithm, and the definitions for the new forecasting method already make the paper very math-heavy. Being in-depth mathematical definitions of the existing algorithm can easily be found, is it necessary to define it mathematically in the paper? Would it suffice to clearly describe what it does in English? Adding math for the existing algorithm on top of the math for the new one adds significant complexity for the reader. On the other hand, readers who want the full definition may have to research elsewhere which could lessen the appeal of the paper to peer reviewers. Any thoughts?
In my experience, most of the times, when someone tries to &quot;clearly describe in English&quot; what an algorithm does avoiding mathematical notation, the result is not as clear as intended. Ask yourself if that is the case also for your description.
Math exists precisely because it makes it clear and unambiguous to speak about combinatorial concepts.