Related papers: Hong et al. reply to Walliser
After carefully studying the comment by Wang et al. (arXiv:1408.6420), we found it includes several mistakes and unjustified statements and Wang et al. lack very basic knowledge of dislocations. Moreover, there is clear evidence indicating…
In the paper [Hong-Shi Zong, Wei-Min Sun, Phys. Lett. B 640 (2006) 196], the authors claim that our proof of the inconsistency of the ladder approximation to QCD [Phys. Lett. B 611 (2005) 129] was incorrect. However, their claim is based on…
Samuely et al. (cond-mat/0503153) make the strong claim that our letter is 'contradicting several established experimental results'. As we will show below this is not justified and the claims from are based on a misinterpretation of our…
The experimental findings reported in our original paper [1] (arXiv:1211.2913) have been criticized in ref.[2] (arXiv:1606.00710). We believe that the arguments brought in ref. [2] are not correct and we show evidence for this.
Manfred Stelzer has pointed out that part of Corollary 4.5 of our paper "Topological nonrealization results via the Goodwillie tower approach to iterated loopspace homology" [Alg. Geo. Top. 8 (2008), 2109--2129] was not sufficiently proved,…
Searle's Chinese Room argument is refuted by showing that he has actually given two different versions of the room, which fail for different reasons. Hence, Searle does not achieve his stated goal of showing ``that a system could have input…
This short note provides a new and simple proof of the convergence rate for Peng's law of large numbers under sublinear expectations, which improves the corresponding results in Song [15] and Fang et al. [3].
In a recent paper, Wang. et al. (2009) claim that Tsallis' nonadditivity of q-nonextensive statistical mechanics (Gell-Mann and Tsallis 2004, Tsallis 2009) is mathematically inconsistent and hence one should carefully review Tsallis' ideas…
We prove an analytic KAM-Theorem, which is used in [1], where the differential part of KAM-theory is discussed. Related theorems on analytic KAM-theory exist in the literature (e. g., among many others, [7], [8], [13]). The aim of the…
The Halting Problem is ill-conceived and ill-defined.
In this paper, we give corrected and improved definitions of the sets $S$ and $\Delta$ compared to [1]. By using these new definitions, we go throughout the proof of the main result in [1], and we correct it.
In this paper a result of Latala about the tail behavior of Gaussian polynomials will be discussed. Latala proved an interesting result about this problem in paper [2]. But his proof applied an incorrect statement at a crucial point. Hence…
We study inequalities between general integral moduli of continuity of a function and the tail integral of its Fourier transform. We obtain, in particular, a refinement of a result due to D. B. H. Cline [2] (Theorem 1.1 below). We note that…
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.…
In this paper, we first present simple proofs of Choi's results [4], then we give a short alternative proof for Fiedler and Markham's inequality [6]. We also obtain additional matrix inequalities related to partial determinants.
In this Comment, we refute conclusions made in Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 233601 (2014) by L.-G. Wang, L. Wang, M. Al-Amri, S.-Y. Zhu, and M. S. Zubairy. These conclusions stem from the use of the linear theory, which is not applicable to…
This note points out that the assertions of [1] are groundless and incorrect.
In the paper based on the question of Zhang and L\"{u}[15], we present one theorem which will improve and extend the results of Banerjee-Majumder [2] and a recent result of Li-Huang [9].
The central conjecture of parameterized complexity states that FPT is not equal to W[1], and is generally regarded as the parameterized counterpart to P != NP. We revisit the issue of the plausibility of FPT != W[1], focusing on two…
In [2] the author claims to provide a counterexample to a result in a recent paper [1]. In this note, we prove that the details of his example is false and this example is compatible with our result in [1] and so is not a countreexample.