Related papers: Second comment to "Invariance of the tunneling met…

This paper was withdrawn by arXiv administrators. It is an erroneous duplicate submission of math.NA/0405095.

Reply to comment appeared on hep-lat/9912014.

We continue the work of [5] and [3], in which are considered papers in the literature that discuss fixed point assertions in digital topology. We discuss published assertions that are incorrect or incorrectly proven; that are severely…

We show that conjecture 15 in the article by Rabern et al. is wrong, comment on theorem 24 there, and conclude with some remarks on structures similar to the Yablo construction.

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…

J.M.R. Parrondo at al. in arXiv:0904.1573 continue numerous efforts to unify the concepts of the arrow of time and entropy production with the concept of time invariance in physics. This is a wrong way.

A response to a letter to the editor by Schilling regarding Bartroff, Lorden, and Wang ("Optimal and fast confidence intervals for hypergeometric successes" 2022, arXiv:2109.05624)

We comment on Z. D. Zhang's Response [arXiv:0812.2330] to our recent Comment [arXiv:0811.3876] addressing the conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model reported in [arXiv:0705.1045].

In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.

In two recent articles [PRL 90, 026802 (2003); PRB 69, 085307 (2004)], we developed a transport theory for an extended tunnel junction between two interacting fractional-quantum-Hall edge channels, obtaining analytical results for the…

Comment on R. Planet, S. Santucci, J. Ortin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 094502 (2009) about the rescaling of the data and the data collapse. Reply to be found here.

We show that, contrarily to the claims in [K. Bradler, (2011), arXiv:1108.5553] (and arXiv:1201.1045), the reference [Phys. Rev. A 83, 062323 (2011)] is devoid of flaws or mistakes. We show that the criticism comes from a misunderstanding…

In the comment to the article by J.Baez and K.Krasnov (hep-th/9703112) are discussed some topics related with application of certain constructions to non-trivial principal bundles.

The points raised in the Comment are addressed and except for one error, which will be corrected, the conclusion is that all of our findings are accurate.

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.

Two recent articles by Norman H. March that contain misleading statements concerning 3D Ising models, partly based on earlier erroneous work of Z.D. Zhang, are addressed.

We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.

We reply to the comment cond-mat/9902073 by Ben-Naim and Krapivsky on our paper cond-mat/9901130. We show that their arguments are incorrect, and present more numerical results to back our earlier conclusions.

The comment by O. Entin-Wohlman, A. Aharony, and Y. Utsumi, on our paper S. Varela, I. Zambrano, B. Berche, V. Mujica, and E. Medina, Phys. Rev. B 101, 241410(R) (2020) makes a few points related to the validity of our model, especially in…

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…