Related papers: Reply to "Comment on Strangeness -2 hypertriton"
The first version of this paper gave another proof of the Kropholler Conjecture, which gives a relative version of Stallings Ends Theorem, following an earlier incorrect proof. It has been pointed out by Sam Shepherd that the the second…
This paper has been withdrawn by the author. The most updated version can be accessed by arXiv:1806.07290.
We reply to the recent comments on our published papers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 152005 and Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 214. We point out that the criticisms about the transverse polarization parton sum rule we obtained are invalid.
This is our formal Reply to revised version (v2) of arXiv: nucl-th/0510004v2.
The Halting Problem is ill-conceived and ill-defined.
Withdrawn by arXiv administration because the text and equations were plagiarized from chapter 11 of the BaBar Physics Book http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacreports/slac-r-504.html See also hep-ph/0304045
A recent Comment [arXiv:0811.2790] on the Letter 'Quantum Bounce and Cosmic Recall' by the authors is shown to arise from an incorrect understanding of the issues at hand and of our analysis. The conclusions of Bojowald's Comment are shown…
In a brief note posted recently, the authors of arXiv:1503.07813 raised some concerns on our arxiv:1502.03821, recently published in Nature Physics. We thank them for the interest in our work and respond here to their criticisms.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, as the proof of Theorem 3.2 contains a flaw; subsequently, both it and Theorem 3.3 are not known to hold. The content of Section 5 has been improved and expanded upon in two separate papers. The…
In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].
arXiv admin note: This submission has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to unprofessional personal attack.
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…
Short discussion trying to explain, why superconductivity revealed for some diborides is not always confirmed in experiments of different research groups.
A comment to the authors' SRF Conference pre-print [1] was submitted by A. Gurevich to the arXiv [2]. In this response, we show that the arguments used in the comment are not valid. [1] arXiv:1309.3239 [2] arXiv:1309.5626
This is an erratum to our paper in Physical Review D82:022004,2010, corresponding to preprint: arXiv:1003.2961 .
Towards precise predictions of residue cross sections of the superheavy elements, recent theoretical developments of reaction mechanisms are presented, together with the remaining problems which give rise to ambiguities in absolute values…
This is a Reply to the Comment posted as arXiv:1207.1261.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to the version of [A complete proof of Hamilton's conjecture] at arXiv:1008.1576
This manuscript, a revised version of arXiv:0811.3168v1, was inadvertently submitted as a separate paper. It can now be accessed, including some final corrections for the published version, as arXiv:0811.3168v2.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors. Some of the arguments developed in the paper are erroneous. They will be rectified in a later publication.