Related papers: Comments on Backreaction

We comment on Z. D. Zhang's Response [arXiv:0812.2330] to our recent Comment [arXiv:0811.3876] addressing the conjectured solution of the three-dimensional Ising model reported in [arXiv:0705.1045].

We respond to Comment on our recent letter (Phys.Rev.Lett.99:092501,2007) by Dean et al (arXiv:0709.0449).

In this short note we give counterexamples to several results related to extension theorems published recently.

We clarify that a result recently stated by Kaiser is contained in a theorem of Buchert and Ehlers that is widely known for its main result: that there is no global kinematical backreaction in Newtonian cosmology. Kaiser cites this paper,…

We reply to P. Forg\'acs, T. Herpay, and P. Kov\'acs (arXiv: 1202.6289).

A response to a letter to the editor by Schilling regarding Bartroff, Lorden, and Wang ("Optimal and fast confidence intervals for hypergeometric successes" 2022, arXiv:2109.05624)

This work is a continuation of what was done in a previous paper and strongly connected to the recent work of U. Abel and I. Rasa [arXiv:1707.00127]

In the present article, we have given a corrigendum to our paper ``On (p,q)-analogue of Bernstein operators" published in Applied Mathematics and Computation 266 (2015) 874-882.

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

Response to William A. Wilson on the limits and fallibility of science.

In this paper, we respond to a recent criticism of our work on CSH, (1,2) raised by Hirsch and van der Marel on the arXiv (3). We point out that their non-peer reviewed critique (3) stems from either a lack of scientific understanding or a…

This is a reply to the comment by Yuan et al. [arXiv:1009.6130v1] on our publication [arXiv:1008.4593].

We show that arguments in the comment by Schwab et al. quant-ph/0503018 on our recent work are invalid.

Shukla and Akbari-Moghanjoughi have {\it corrected} their Comment (see their version 1 on `arXiv:1207.7029v1) to EPL on our work [1] after receiving our Response from the Editors of EPL. We have a pleasant duty at hand to present our second…

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.

In [arXiv:2409.00161v1 (2024)] Cavendish et al. raise three criticisms against our time of arrival proposal [L. Maccone and K. Sacha, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 110402 (2020)]. Here we show that all three criticisms are without merit. One of…

This is the reply to a Comment by Alava and Zapperi (cond-mat/0401568) on Schmittbuhl, Hansen and Batrouni, PRL, 90, 045505 (2003).

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 a response to five comments [American Psychologist 69, 626-629 and 632-635 (2014)] on our article arXiv:1307.7006.

Sutter et al. have responded to the criticisms we made of their cosmic void catalogue in our recent paper presenting an alternative catalogue (Nadathur & Hotchkiss 2013). Unfortunately, their response contains several statements which are…