Related papers: Reply to "Comment on Strangeness -2 hypertriton"

Reply to the recent comment by I.Ispolatov and M.Karttunen, cond-mat/0303564

In the recently posted arXiv:2312.04495v3 [1], its authors used a computer code written by me supplied to them by the authors of Ref. [2], and claimed that the results that they obtained invalidate the results and conclusions presented in…

Brief response to a Reply [arXiv:1005.2615] on our Comments [arXiv:1005.0838] on XENON100 recent results [arXiv:1005.0380].

The author decided to withdraw this paper by 1) an error in Lemma 5.11 (and 5.12) which requires some justification; 2) the main result of this paper suffers overlap with arXiv:1203.5254; 3) the author decided to split arXiv:1203.5254 into…

In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).

This paper suffers from conceptual difficulties and unjustified approximations that render its conclusions dubious.

This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an erro thereon line -2 of page 4.

This is a comment on two recent arXiv postings.

Below we analyze the `critic' statements made in the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th]. The doubtful scientific argumentation of the authors of the Preprint arXiv:1301.1828v1 [nucl-th] is also discussed.

Comment withdrawn.

We demonstrate that criticisms concerning our work nucl-th/9704043, made in the recent preprint hep-ph/9903352, are unfounded. The improvements over our results claimed in hep-ph/9903352 are in fact spurious, being based mainly on…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due an error in the proof of Proposion 2.13.

New cases of the multiplicity conjecture are considered.

This reply addresses concerns expressed in a comment (arXiv:2508.16689v1) on arXiv:submit/6841332 [physics.gen-ph] 29 Sep 2025 the paper given in the title (arXiv:2501.02022v2), hereafter referred to as the paper.

We offer a brief response to the criticisms put forward by Cusin et al in arXiv:1811.03582 about our work arXiv:1810.13435 and arXiv:1806.01718, emphasising that none of these criticisms are relevant to our main results.

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

Comment on Proximity breakdown of hydrides in superconducting niobium cavities [arXiv:1212.3384].

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].

We briefly comment on the paper by Albaladejo et al. [arXiv:1709.09101], rejecting its conclusions.

We speculate on a possible interpretation of events selected by the SELEX collaboration and stress an insufficient evidence for the observation of doubly charmed baryon.