It is taken granted that if you are reading a high level maths paper, you are capable of deriving the authors' working intuitively. Papers would be excessively bloated without that assumption; besides, how far in detail do you go with the process and intuition?
> It is taken granted that if you are reading a high level maths paper, you are capable of deriving the authors' working intuitively.
I don't think that many research mathematicians expect that the readers of their papers will be able to derive their work intuitively. I know that I don't expect this, and my papers are no works of high-flown genius, just highly specialised and domain-specific so that even the people most interested in using the results probably won't be as interested in the techniques.
