Related papers: Correction to "$C_1$ in [2] is zero"
This reply tries to rectify some misunderstandings that are in our opinion contained in the Comment by Campostrini and Rossi, <hep-lat 99407008> on our paper <hep-lat 9407003>.
This paper is a corrigendum to the article 'On the ideal theorem for number fields`. The main result of this paper proves to be untrue and is replaced by an estimate of a weighted sum with an improved error term.
Our published paper contains an incorrect statement of a result due to Artin and Zhang. This corrigendum gives the correct statement of their result and includes a new result that allows us to use their result to prove our main theorem.…
The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…
It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.
The paper (as posted originally) contains several errors. It has been subsequently split into two papers, the corrected (and accepted for publication) versions appear in the archive as papers cs.CC/0503082 and cs.DM/0503083.
It is shown that a recent article by Z.-D. Zhang [arXiv:0705.1045] is in error and violates well-known theorems.
I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].
We show that very clear answers to the queries raised by D. Chen and R. Ni in their Comment on our recent paper [A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 028002 (2022)] can be found in our original paper already. The paper [A. Zaccone, Phys. Rev.…
The target paper presents an experimental verification of a "Jarzynski-related" equality. We show that the latter equality is in fact not related to the Jarzynski equality.
After the publication of [Compos. Math. 156 (2020), no. 4, 822-861], Andrew Putman pointed out a mistake in our paper and helped us fix it. In this note, we will explain what this mistake is and how to fix it.
The statement of item (ii) of Proposition 3.2 of the article referenced in the title is not correct. We provide a corrected version and show that, under the assumption that $\gcd(a_i, a_j, q-1)=1$ for any pair $i\neq j$ in $\{0, \cdots,…
In the paper "The relativistic Doppler effect: when a zero-frequency shift or a red shift exists for sources approaching the observer, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 523, No. 3, 239-246 (2011), DOI 10.1002/andp.201000099 by C. Wang the use of an…
The paper comments on "Quantifying long-term scientific impact". It indicates that there is a mistake of [D. S. Wang , C. Song, A. L. Barabasi, Quantifying long-term scientific impact, Science 342, 127 (2013), arXiv:1306.3293].
A result by C. C.-A. Cheng, J. H. Mckay and S. S.-S. Wang says the following: Suppose the Jacobian of $A$ and $B$ is invertible in $\mathbb{C}[x,y]$ and the Jacobian of $A$ and $w$ is zero for $A,B,w \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$. Then $w \in…
In 2008 I thought I found a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, but there was an error. In the Spring 2020 I believed to have fixed the error, but it cannot be fixed. I describe here where the error was. It took me several days to find the…
As a coauthor of the article mentioned in the title, I discuss the criticism in the comment of Aalseth et al. Part of the criticism is justified.
The purpose of this letter is to point out an argument which may ultimately lead to a rigorous proof of the Penrose inequality in the general case. The argument is a variation of Geroch's original proposal for a proof of the positive energy…
This paper has been withdrawn by Chien-Yu, Chen due to the authors fields error.
In this note, it is shown that the results claimed in the paper [1]---as well as the examples presented there---are, unfortunately, incorrect.