Related papers: "A combinatorial universal $\star$-product" is inc…
This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s), due a crucial sign error in Thm. 11.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s), due a crucial error in the data.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to some error in the result
The purpose of the present note is two-fold. First, to show that deformations of algebras of smooth functions can be used to construct topologically nontrivial standard central extensions of loop groups. Second, to use noncommutative…
We find new "reasons" for a class of models for not having a universal model in a cardinal $\lambda$. This work, though it has consequences in model theory, is really in combinatorial set theory. We concentrate on a prototypical class which…
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to a gap in the proof of the main result (in 5.3).
This paper is being withdrawn because an error was discovered in lemma 4.3. Although the rest of the paper appears to be correct, this error invalidates the proof of theorem 3.1 and theorem 3.3.
Withdrawn by the authors, the main theorem is incorrect
This paper has been withdrawn by the author because the conclusions reached in it are incorrect.
A few typos in Mamajek, Meyer, & Liebert (2002, AJ, 124, 1670) have been corrected in this erratum (including two stellar misidentifications and an incorrect power in the units of a slope). The most significant is the correction of a sign…
Paper has been withdrawn due to a critical error in the numerical evaluation of the capture fraction.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error in equation.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author, due a crucial error in the optimization. For the last one month I have been trying to remove the error, but it seems to take a lot of time so I decided to withdraw this paper for the moment.
In their IZA Discussion Paper 10247, Johansson and Lee claim that the main result (Proposition 3) in Abbring and Van den Berg (2003b) does not hold. We show that their claim is incorrect. At a certain point within their line of reasoning,…
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an erro thereon line -2 of page 4.
This paper has been withdrawn due to a error in Theorem 3.1.
TThe paper had many errors.
The paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to some error in the manuscript.
This paper is withdrawn because of an error in Lemma 3.1
I show that the main statement of [Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 094802 (2010), arXiv:1005.2617] is wrong. Other inconsistences of this Letter are also discussed.