Related papers: Agterberg, Zheng, and Mukherjee Reply

This is a response to five comments [American Psychologist 69, 626-629 and 632-635 (2014)] on our article arXiv:1307.7006.

Answer to the comment of E. Chudnovsky concerning the following papers: (1) N.V. Prokof'ev, P.C.E. Stamp, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5794 (1998). (2) W. Wernsdorfer, T. Ohm, C. Sangregorio, R. Sessoli, D. Mailly, C. Paulsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82,…

As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

This is a reply to a comment of Casati, Chirikov and Zhirov (PRL 85, 896 (2000)) on PRL 83, 5419 (1999). The suitability of the particlar two-time boundary value problem used in the earlier PRL is argued.

Statements included in the comment published by Schumann et al. (arXiv:1904.03023v1) are contradicted by documents that were communicated to one of the co-authors of the comment (Dr. Koester). These documents are reviewed but cannot be…

Comment on the paper of T.Bachels, H. J. G\"{u}ntherodt and R.Sch\"{a}fer : "Melting of Isolated Tin Nanoparticles".

We reply to recent criticisms of the SIMPLE project by J.I. Collar [arxiv:1106.3559]

The authors mention work of Christensen, Mycielski, Tsujii, and others which is closely related to a survey article by the first author [math.FA/9210220].

In a Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 029801 (2014)] on our Letter on self-propelled asymmetric particles [Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 198302 (2013); arXiv:1302.5787], Felderhof claims that our theory based on Langevin equations would be…

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

Reply to A. M. M. Pruisken and I. S. Burmistrov: cond-mat/0504763

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].

Comment on P. Walker, Nature 453 (2008) 864, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7197/full/453864a.html

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…

This is a reply to the comment from E. Amselem et al. on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 150401 (2012), arXiv:1207.0059).

In this note we re-examine the analysis of the paper "On the martingale property of stochastic exponentials" by B. Wong and C.C. Heyde, Journal of Applied Probability, 41(3):654-664, 2004. Some counterexamples are presented and alternative…

Some remarks on the jump condition appearing in Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 in the article [1] and their implications are given.

We reply to the criticisms of our publication (N. Hasegawa, K. Hagino, and Y. Tanimura, Phys. Lett. B808, 135693 (2020)) made by A. Ono in his recent article, arXiv:2201.02966.