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

This is response to the recent comment arXiv:2210.10539v2 by I. Burmistrov.

We continue the work of [4, 2, 3], in which we discuss published assertions that are incorrect or incorrectly proven; that are severely limited or reduce to triviality; or that we improve upon.

We regret that PRL did not accept our Reply for publication. We believe that both our Reply and the original paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 135901 (2017)) is sound and correct. We post our reply here and let readers to judge.

A comment on a misleading statement contained in [Phys. Rev. A 97, 062115 (2018)]. v2: a typo corrected

This paper has been withdrawn.

This paper has been withdrawn due to non-clearness of some technical points, as well as lack of a reasonable statement of quantization conjecture.

We discuss avenues for diagnosing new physics hinted from lepton nonuniversality in rare $b$-decays, and physics implications.

This submission has been withdrawn by the arXiv admins because it is an abstract only, which is against arXiv policy.

This paper has been withdrawn

We point out that the recursive formula that appears in Erickson's presentation "Fusible Numbers" is incorrect, and pose an alternate conjecture about the structure of fusible numbers. Although we are unable to solve the conjecture, we…

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

This paper has been withdrawn because the content has been substantially improved in a later paper, arXiv:0806.1165.

We provide a brief topical outline of the persisting problem of the hyperon polarization and consider some future experimental prospects. The predictions which deserve experimental verification are proposed.

The present status of superstring phenomenology is briefly discussed.

It is shown that a recent article by Z.-D. Zhang [arXiv:0705.1045] is in error and violates well-known theorems.

We clarify the relationship between the conclusions of the previous Comment of A. Helfer [1] and that of our Brief Report [arXiv:0906.5315]

This paper has been withdrawn by the author because similar published work on the topic was overlooked. See S. Deser and A. Waldron, Nucl. Phys. B 631, 369-387 (2002).

It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…

This paper has been withdrawn by the authors. Significantly revised versions of the results of this paper are now available in arXiv:0707.0487v2 and arXiv:0808.3169v1.

Our paper arXiv:2101.11629 contains a technical error which changes some of the conclusions. We thank Streltsov, Pedernales, and Plenio for bringing the essence of this error to our attention. Here we explain the error, examine its…