Related papers: What Maudlin replied to
After the rejection of their comment [arXiv:cond-mat/0609399v1] to our Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 97}, 100601 (2006), the Authors informed us that an extended version of their comment is going to be published in a different journal under the…
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…
Brief response to a Reply [arXiv:1005.2615] on our Comments [arXiv:1005.0838] on XENON100 recent results [arXiv:1005.0380].
It is shown that the arguments in the reply of Z.-D. Zhang (arXiv:0812.0194) to the comment arXiv:0811.1802 defending his conjectures in arXiv:0705.1045 are invalid. His conjectures have been thoroughly disproved.
Lieberman and Melott built their recent arXiv preprint 0704.2896 on my published paper and (a preprint of) a subsequent comment by Liebermans associate Cornette. But had this group waited for the Cornette comment to actually appear in print…
In this manuscript the authors present a detailed answer to the comment in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.
Cramer's (1986) transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics posits retrocausal influences in quantum processes in an attempt to alleviate some of the interpretational difficulties of the Copenhagen interpretation. In response to…
In this note we answer the two questions raised by Y.Y Li and L. Nguyen in their note [LN2] below.
We respond to the criticism raised in the paper arXiv:1704.07831.
Clement and Noiucer submitted a note {\tt arXiv:2401.16008 [gr-qc]} replying to our criticism {\tt arXiv:2401.10479 [gr-qc]} of their previous submission. We reply to the contents of this note and remark that these authors have not…
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.
Commentary on Emil Artin's "Uber eine neue Art von L-Reihen" (1924), including a modernized and expanded translation.
The paper entitled ``Against Many-Worlds Interpretations'' by A. Kent, which has recently been submitted to the e-Print archive (gr-qc/9703089) contained some misconceptions. The claims on Everett's many-worlds interpretation are quoted and…
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.
The present article is the reply to the discussion of our earlier "Not only defended but also applied" (arXiv:1006.5366, to appear in The American Statistician) that arose from our memory of a particularly intemperate anti-Bayesian…
In their correspondence [arXiv:1610.07633] Drummond and Brand criticize our work [Nature Physics 12, 451-454 (2016) http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys3631]. We show that their criticism is misleading and unfounded.
This is the reply given at the conference ``Mach's Principle" at T\"ubingen in July 1993 to the paper by Isenberg (1993a). Unfortunately the Isenberg paper itself was not submitted to gr-qc.
Rejoinder to "The Future of Indirect Evidence" [arXiv:1012.1161]
The authors of the Comment ascribe us claims never made while moderating their own previous unsubstantiated statements.
This paper is a natural continuation of paper "On rectifiable spaces and its algebraical equivalents, topological algebraic systems and Mal'cev algebras" published in arxiv:1309.4572. Thus we justify the need to present the entire material…