Related papers: Comments on "On Favorable Propagation in Massive M…

Unfortunately the proof of the main result of [1], Theorem 1, has a flaw. Namely, Lemma 13 used in the proof of Proposition 11 is correct only under an additional assumption that the operator $A$ is normal (adjoint for the one-sided shift…

Wireless communications is one of the most successful technologies in modern years, given that an exponential growth rate in wireless traffic has been sustained for over a century (known as Cooper's law). This trend will certainly continue…

This note discusses three examples given in the recent technical correspondence paper [1], which addresses the results presented in [2,3,4]. It is shown that the first example ([1], Section 3) is irrelevant to the results of [2]. The second…

Withdrawn by the authors due to an error in the proof of the finite field result (Thm. 1.5): The random primes used in the proof need NOT avoid the exceptional primes from Lemma 2.7, thus leaving Thm. 1.5 unproved.

This paper has been withdrawn to provide a more rigorous proof of the converse of Theorem 1 and Lemma 1 as well.

In this paper, we intend to revisit Theorem 2 of [3] formulating it in a way that, weakening the hypotheses and, at the same time, highlighting the richer conclusion allowed by the proof, it can potentially be applicable to a broader range…

Paper withdrawn. There is a gap in the proof of Proposition 4.3 (its conclusion ``d'o\`{u} la proposition.'' is incorrect). Therefore theorems 1.1 and 3.1, which were the main results of the paper, are not proved.

We give an example to show that the main result of [1] is incorrect.

There is an error in the proof of Theorem 1.1 that invalidates proofs of other theorems. Theorem 1.5 is unaffected.

It was pointed out to us that the proof of a crucial lemma (Lemma 5.3) in the paper is incorrect. Thus the approximation theorem (Theorem 0.1) for L^2 torsion of an amenable covering of a finite simplicial complex remains unproved. However,…

In part I of the rebuttal (see [2] to the article [1] entitled "Uniform stabilization for the Timoshenko beam by a locally distributed damping" published in 2003, in the journal Electronic Journal of Differential Equations, we prove that…

The first and second representation theorems for sign-indefinite, not necessarily semi-bounded quadratic forms are revisited. New straightforward proofs of these theorems are given. A number of necessary and sufficient conditions ensuring…

Cox's well-known theorem justifying the use of probability is shown not to hold in finite domains. The counterexample also suggests that Cox's assumptions are insufficient to prove the result even in infinite domains. The same…

We characterize the validity of the Whitney extension theorem in the ultradifferentiable Roumieu setting with controlled loss of regularity. Specifically, we show that in the main Theorem 1.3 of [15] condition (1.3) can be dropped.…

It will be shown that the comment [1] contains numerous errors, misconceptions, inaccuracies, false assumptions, misunderstandings and unjustified claims. The analysis of the comment is built on a false assumption that the terminal current…

Massive MIMO systems with uniform circular and cylindrical antenna arrays are studied. Favorable propagation property is rigorously shown to hold asymptotically in LOS environment for a fixed antenna spacing and under some mild conditions.…

Arveson's extension theorem guarantees that every completely positive map defined on an operator system can be extended to a completely positive map defined on the whole C*-algebra containing it. An analogous statement where complete…

This paper has been withdrawn. See v1 still available to understand the problem: Proposition 2.2 is false. The error in the proof is in claim (3). Then, the whole paper collapses. We do not have any correction for now. We apologize to…

This paper has been withdrawn by the author. The statement of the Main Theorem but is wrong in general, there have been provided counterexamples. The main theorem only holds conditionally, under the finiteness statement of theorem 2.8.

The proofs of Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.5(2) in the authors' paper 'The Hasse norm principle for abelian extensions' are incorrect. We point out the mistakes and provide correct proofs, using techniques of the original paper.