Related papers: Reply to Schlottmann and Zvyagin

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review A, Vol. 101, 023843 (2020), raised by H. Schuermann and V. Serov in arXiv:2204.05846.

In this manuscript the authors present a detailed answer to the comment in order to avoid misunderstandings in the future.

The authors respond to the commentary listed in the title.

A comment to the paper by S. Chen, H. B\"uttner, and J. Voit, [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 087205 (2001)].

Comment on paper by Blanchette and Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 144501 (2009).

We reply to the preceding Comment by E. van Beveren et al., arXiv:0811.2589 [hep-ph].

We reply to a recent comment by Bhattacharya et. al. (cond-mat/9812290) on our previous Letter (PRL 81, 5640 (1998)).

We are pleased to see that Jeckelmann has made many changes to the original version of his comment on our paper as a result of our response. Here is a copy of this powerful response that reveals problems in his previous results. However,…

This is a review article on Lorenz knots.

Reply to the Comment of J.J. Alonso and J.F. Fernandez on the paper "'Hole-digging' in ensembles of tunneling molecular magnets" of I.S. Tupitsyn, P.C.E. Stamp and N.V. Prokof'ev (Phys. Rev. B 69, 132406, (2004)).

This is an addendum to the Reply Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139602 (2009), arXiv:0811.0518] to Comment [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 139601 (2009), arXiv:0810.4791] on Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 116101 (2008), arXiv:0804.1898].

Comment on B.A. Bernevig, D. Giuliano, and R.B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3392 (2001).

This is a critique of cond-mat/9709195 . This paper is being submitted at this time for archiving purposes.

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 is a reply to the comment of Dr Sakov on the work "Ensemble Kalman filter with the unscented transform" of Luo and Moroz (2009).

We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]

In this report we've shown that the arguments, which the author of the Comment presents to prove his case, are either wrong or irrelevant.

In this short paper we reply to the Comment [arXiv:1108.4543] by M. J. T. F. Cabbolet on Villata's theory of antigravity [arXiv:1103.4937]. The criticisms of methodological and ontological kind presented by that author come from a…

It is shown that the recent criticism of Brevik et al. (hep-th/0004041) is in error.

comment on J. Schmalian and P. Wolynes, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 85}, 836 (2000).