Related papers: Reply to Schlottmann and Zvyagin
This Comment points out a number of errors in the recent paper by Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky, et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 185501 (2009)). Results and conclusions presented by Zarechnaya et al. (2009) are either incorrect or…
The Comment by Xiong et al. (arXiv:1610.06275) criticizing my Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 133903 (2016)] was rejected by Physical Review Letters. In this Reply, I show that all their claims are wrong.
We make a couple of remarks on ``Comments'' due to A. Moroz which were addressed to our recent letter "Differential cross section for Aharonov-Bohm effect with non standard boundary conditions", Europhys. Lett. 44 (1998) 403.
Comment on the Letter by M. Franz and Z. Tesanovic, Phys. Rev. Lett. v.87, p.257003 (2001).
A reply to a comment by Mineev and Champel.
A review article on perturbation theory
The concept of the elegant work introduced by Levai in Ref. [5] is extended for the solutions of the Schrodinger equation with more realistic other potentials used in different disciplines of physics. The connection between the present…
We discusss the results published by Ruegg et al in PRB 81, 155118 (2010).
Reply to comment by Jop et al. (arXiv:0705.1421v1).
We provide a proof and a counterexample to two conjectures made by N. Kuznetsov.
This is an extended Reply to Comment by A. Sergeev, M.Y. Reizer, and V. Mitin [arXiv:0906.2389] on our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 067001 (2009)]. We explicitly demonstrate that all claims by Sergeev et al. are completely unfounded,…
In this short Comment, the difference in the treatment of the gauge function presented in~\cite{VH1} and work of this author is analyzed. it is shown why some transformation of the gauge function made by Hnizdo and Vaman gives incorrect…
This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].
The Response [J. Chem. Phys. 160, 187102 (2024)] of Inoue and coworkers to my Comment [J. Chem. Phys. 160, 187101 (2024)] on their original paper [J. Chem. Phys. 159, 054105 (2023)] clarifies some points put forward in my Comment, but also…
In this paper, I review the section 8 of V.V.Shokurov's paper '3-fold log flips'.
This combines a reply to the Comment [hep-th/0203067 v1] by A. N. Vaidya and R. de L. Rodrigues with an erratum to our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210405 (2001)]
This is an additional remark to the paper (hep-th 9411005) concerning a Hamiltonian structure of suggested there system of equations. The remark is inspired by a letter from L. Feher and I. Marshall.
In this short note we provide clarification to the comments made in Z. Angew. Math. Phys. (2018) 69:64 on our work "Finiteness of corner vortices" [ Z. Angew. Math. Phys. (2018) 69:37].
Reply to Comments by Lambrecht, Jaekel, and Reynaud, and by Garcia and Levanyuk, submitted to Physical Review Letters.
This is a Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 95}, 187404 (2005)