Related papers: Luttinger liquid with asymmetric dispersion
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to a possible inconsistency in the program code.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.
This paper was withdrawn by the authors due to the belated discovery of a published paper showing similar results.
Contents I. Introduction II. Fermi Liquids III. Renormalization group for interacting fermions IV. Luttinger liquids V. Transport in a Luttinger liquid VI. The Bethe ansatz: a pedestrian introduction VII. Conclusion and outlook
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors, due to a mistake pointed out by Lenny Ng and Josh Sabloff.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors because the paper is largely revised and improved, and to appear in Mechanics Research Communications.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors due to a gap in the proof of the main result (in 5.3).
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors. Significantly revised versions of the results of this paper are now available in arXiv:0707.0487v2 and arXiv:0808.3169v1.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an error.
The paper has been withdrawn by the authors for modification.
The paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a gap in Proof of Theorem 1.1.
%auto-ignore This paper has been withdrawn by the author(s) because somebody do not agree with my idea.
We show that claims, presented in Phys. Rev. B {\bf 65}, 125109 (2002) concerning the threshold behavior of dynamical correlations of a Coulomb Luttinger liquid, are based on an inconsistent mathematical analysis. Physical arguments are…
The paper has been temporarily withdrawn by the authors.
This paper has being withdrawn by the authors due to an error in the conclusion.
This paper has been withdrawn by the authors.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author.
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to a crucial error related with the consideration of regular points
This paper has been withdrawn by the author due to an error in the computation of E(n,x) on page 6 which appears to be essential for the result. The author is currently trying to correct this proof