Related papers: Reply to a Comment

Introducing the discussion paper by Sz\'{e}kely and Rizzo

Reply to Comments by Lambrecht, Jaekel, and Reynaud, and by Garcia and Levanyuk, submitted to Physical Review Letters.

This paper is in response to a recent comment by Bellissard [arXiv:1704.02644] on the paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 130201 (2017)]. It is explained that the issues raised in the comment have already been discussed in the paper and do not…

This is a Reply to the Comment posted as arXiv:1207.1261.

A comment is given to the reply of Kraemmer and Rebhan (hep-th/9711075) to our paper (hep-th/9710131).

It is shown that the evidence asserted in the Comment [arXiv:1205.6418] on the chemical composition data published by Carpinteri et al. [Strain 47 (Suppl. 2), 282 (2011)]-that the data "cannot be the result of independent measurements as…

I give a comment on arXiv:1802.01804v3 [hep-ph]

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

We answer a question of Zeilberger and Zeilberger about certain partition statistics.

A Reply to the Comment by C. Ciuti and P. Nataf [arXiv:1112.0986v1] on our Letter "Superradiant Phase Transitions and the Standard Description of Circuit QED" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 113602 (2011)].

We address the three points raised by the authors of the above Comment.

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].

A Comment on the Letter by G. Scarcelli, V. Berardi and Y. Shih, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 063602 (2006).

A Comment on the Letter by Raphael Blumenfeld and Sam F. Edwards, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 114303 (2003)].

We reply to Belitz and Kirkpatrick comment cond-mat/0102064, on cond-mat/0101392.

This is a response to the commentaries on "CoRR: A Computing Research Repository".

We are grateful to the discussants, Levis and Kennedy [2025], Luo and Geng [2025], Wang and van der Laan [2025], and Yang and Kim [2025], for their thoughtful comments on our paper (Nabi et al., 2025). In this rejoinder, we summarize our…

The Comment by Duval et al. [PRL 96, 099701 (2006)] addresses an important, but not the main, result of our Letter [PRL 95, 137204 (2005)]. It does not contradict our results in substance, and the only objection is really on the style of…

A Comment on the Letter by O. Viehmann, J. von Delft, and F. Marquardt [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 107}, 113602 (2011)].

Comment on cond-mat/0205390; PRL 90, 026805 (2003)