Related papers: Reply to a Comment

This is a reply to arXiv:1409.7513 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 138901 (2014)].

I reply to a Comment by Q. Wang and W.G. Unruh regarding my paper "Hiding the Cosmological Constant" [Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 131302].

Reinhard Werner authored a comment on my paper "What Bell Did", disputing the conclusion and argumentation of the paper. This is my reply.

We reply to the comment [arXiv:0903.5110] on our paper "Mechanism of Terahertz Electromagnetic Emission from Intrinsic Josephson Junctions" [arXiv:0810.5268].

This is a comment on Phys. Rev. A 67, 022104(2003).

A Comment on the Letter by B. Kraus {\it Phys. Rev. Lett.}{\bf 104}, 020504 (2010).

Discussion of Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [arXiv:1504.02689].

Discussion of Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [arXiv:1504.02689].

Discussion of Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [arXiv:1504.02689].

Discussion of Overall Objective Priors by James O. Berger, Jose M. Bernardo, Dongchu Sun [arXiv:1504.02689].

This is a reply to the comment by A. W. Sandvik (cond-mat/0010433) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4204 (2000). We show that his data do not conflict with our data nor with our conclusions.

This is the reply to the comment arXiv:0801.4620 by Vidal, Dusuel, and Schmidt.

Reply to Comment on 'Length Scale Dependence of DNA Mechanical Properties'

In the recently posted arXiv:2312.04495v3 [1], its authors used a computer code written by me supplied to them by the authors of Ref. [2], and claimed that the results that they obtained invalidate the results and conclusions presented in…

The authors reply to the Comment arXiv:2104.03770 by P. Canfield et. al.

A comment on the recent paper of R Manica, J N Connor, L Y Clasohm, S L Carnie, R G Horn, D Y C Chan, Transient response of a wetting film to mechanical and electrical perturbations, Langmuir 2008, 24, 1381.

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

We show that Peliti's Comment [arXiv:0808.2855] fails to appreciate basic physical principles and consequently misrepresents both our work as well as the classical work of Gibbs and Tolman.

This is our reply to comment (hep-ph/0206289) on our paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011601].

Comment on "Support Vector Machines with Applications" [math.ST/0612817]