Related papers: Reply to Comment: S. Das Sarma et al., arXiv:0708.…

This is a Comment to the recent review by L. Glozman, hep-ph/0701081

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

I reply to the four points raised by S. A. Hayward, R. Di Criscienzo, M. Nadalini, L. Vanzo, S. Zerbini (arXiv:0909.2956v1) against my comment (arXiv:0907.2020v1) to their previous article. I maintain my position on the wrongness of their…

In this short note I reply to criticisms of an argument in my paper [1] that appear in comment [2]. I refer the reader to section 4 of [1] in which I described the scenario of a Gedankenexperiment on which is based the argument criticized…

The authors are not satisfied about the analysis.

In the Comment we scrutinized the quartet basis for the Delta resonances, and the high-momentum truncation scheme, suggested by Bicudo et al. Not all the results and claims has been properly justified by the authors.

The commented manuscript was submitted for publication without informing at least four of the other authors, viz. N. Severijns, O. Zimmer, H.-F. Wirth and D. Rich. This violates our rights as collaborators. The analysis presented and the…

Results of the experiments carried out in [Shahriar S. Afshar, Proc. SPIE bf 5866 (2005) 229-244] and [Shahriar S. Afshar, AIP Cof. Proc. 810, (2006) 294-299] are reviewed and their interpretation by the authors is questioned. Arguments are…

We continue the work of [4, 2, 3], in which we discuss published assertions that are incorrect or incorrectly proven; that are severely limited or reduce to triviality; or that we improve upon.

This is an appendix to our paper "An update of the Hirsch Conjecture" (arXiv:0907.1186), containing proofs of some of the results and comments that were omitted in it.

We show that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3244v1 by R.S. Decca et al against our paper, D.A.R. Dalvit and S.K. Lamoreaux, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163203 (2008), are wrong and manifestly inconsistent with basic…

Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin: cond-mat/0410147

In our original article (Sarvet & Stensrud, 2024), we examine twin definitions of "harm" in personalized medicine: one based on predictions of individuals' unmeasurable response types (counterfactual harm), and another based solely on the…

After carefully studying the comment by Wang et al. (arXiv:1408.6420), we found it includes several mistakes and unjustified statements and Wang et al. lack very basic knowledge of dislocations. Moreover, there is clear evidence indicating…

We reply a Comment (hep-th/xxx) on our recent paper published in Phys Rev Lett 72 (1994) 2527-2530. We point out that the author of the Comment overlooks the highly non-trivial Chern-Simons interactions and his hand-waving arguments are…

It is shown that the claims expressed in the Comment arXiv:0810.3247v1 against my paper Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 101}, 163603 (2008) [arXiv:0809.3901] are obviously wrong or not essential.

This note is the follow up to a paper by M. Waldschmidt.

It is shown that the arguments in the reply of Z.-D. Zhang (arXiv:0812.0194) to the comment arXiv:0811.1802 defending his conjectures in arXiv:0705.1045 are invalid. His conjectures have been thoroughly disproved.

This is a comment to an article by Laakso, Matthias and Jahn (arXiv:2008.11933).

The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…