Related papers: Reply to Schlottmann and Zvyagin
This is a comment on a collection of statements gathered on the occasion of the Quantum Physics of Nature meeting in Vienna.
Comment on ``Understanding OR, PS and DR'' [arXiv:0804.2958]
Recently R. G. Newton published a comment criticizing the methods and the results of a paper published by the author. His criticism touches on a few key points of the subject and hence deserves a detailed reply. Here is the reply, point by…
A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]
In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).
Comment on K.J Thomas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 135-138 (1996).
Rejoinder to ``Least angle regression'' by Efron et al. [math.ST/0406456]
Response to William A. Wilson on the limits and fallibility of science.
Response to comment by Finn et al.
It is shown that the results of ref [1] are consistent.
A Comment on the Letter by Victor Gurarie and Alexander E. Lobkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 178301 (2002). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.
This is the reply to a Comment by I.S.Tupitsyn and P.C.E. Stamp (PRL v92,119701 (2004)) on a letter of ours (J.F.Fernandez and J.J.Alonso, PRL v91, 047202 (2003)).
Comment on "Theory of helimagnons in itinerant quantum systems" by D.Belitz, T.K.Kirpatrick and A.Rosch and "Cubic magnets with Dzyaloshinskii-Moriya interaction at low temperatures" by S.V.Maleyev
This is a letter to editor, about a previously published paper and comments.
It is shown that criticism of my paper arXiv:0801.0656 Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment arXiv:0810.3243v1 is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical…
We give necessary and sufficient conditions for the Chebyshev inequality to be an equality.
This is a survey on the recent fundamental paper by V.V. Shokurov on the existence of log flips.
The purpose of this note is to correct an inaccuracy in the paper: R.P. Agaev and P.Yu. Chebotarev, "On Determining the Eigenprojection and Components of a Matrix," Autom. Remote Control, 2002, vol. 63, pp. 1537-1545 [arXiv:math/0508197],…
In a recent article published in EPJC, Moshe Chaichian and colleagues have presented an overarching critique of mass dimension one fields and related matters. In this Letter we show without ambiguity where these authors go wrong.
Rejoinder to "Multiple Testing for Exploratory Research" by J. J. Goeman, A. Solari [arXiv:1208.2841].