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

We describe several omissions and deficiencies in the arguments presented by Ackermann et al. (arXiv:2401.07684), pointing at missing information necessary to back up its conclusions.

A comment has been recently posted on the arXiv (arXiv:1902.07504) that discuss our recent work on encircling multiple exceptional points in Nat. Commun. 9, 4808 (2018). In that comment, the authors claim that our approach is prone to…

We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.

In recent paper "Quantifying Inequities and Documenting Elitism in PhD-granting Mathematical Sciences Departments in the United States" (arXiv:2308.13750) by a group of accomplished and/or aspiring mathematicians, the authors use data to…

We present here our response to Dikpati et al.'s criticism of our recent solar dynamo model.

This is a brief response to a recent posting by Gross.

Withdrawn by arXiv administration because authors have forged affiliations and acknowledgements, and have not adequately responded to charges [hep-th/9912039] of unattributed use of verbatim material.

Remarks on reply (cond-mat/0206368) to Johansen's comment (cond-mat/0205249)

This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064

There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of…

Determining faithfulness of a claim to a source document is an important problem across many domains. This task is generally treated as a binary judgment of whether the claim is supported or unsupported in relation to the source. In many…

In their "How proper are Bayesian models in the astronomical literature?" [arXiv:1712.03549], Hyungsuk Tak, Sujit K. Ghosh and Justin A. Ellis criticised my work with false statements. This is an infamous case of straw man fallacy. They…

We observe that there is no clash between the works \cite{gar} and \cite{g1}.

The article has been withdrawn - the proof of the final corollary turned out to rely on an unproven statement. If the authors will manage to repair the argument, resubmission will be made.

We respond to a Comment [arXiv:1407.6854 (2014)] on our recent Nature paper [Nature, 510, 385 (2014)]. We categorically disprove the arguments provided in arXiv:1407.6854 (2014) and thereby further substantiate the evidence we presented in…

This document contains a description of several of my papers, including remarks on history and connection with subsequent work. It also contains some new results and conjectures.

In a commentary published in mid-2024 (to which the present work is a direct response), a number of scientists argue that U.S. funding agencies have "politicized" the process by which grants are awarded, in service of diversifying the…

When evaluating a counterfactual statement, it is often convenient to specify conditions that ought to be kept unchanged. Formally, this can be done by associating to each counterfactual a ceteris paribus set of formulas, specifying the…

In a recent preprint, arXiv 2005.03716v1, G. Wegner and C. Henkel criticized my work on the possibility of lossless surface plasma waves. Here I refute all of their criticisms.

We respond to the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.