Related papers: Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin

Reply to arXiv:1903.09201.

Benenti et al. recently submitted a Comment (arXiv:0912.3667) on our work "Coherent Ratchets in Driven Bose-Einstein condensates". We show that the main claim of the Comment is wrong, and correct some other misunderstandings presented…

This article is a reply to the Comment by D. Spemann et al (arXiv:1204.2992) in response to our paper 'Revealing common artifacts due to ferromagnetic inclusions in highly oriented pyrolytic graphite' (EPL, 97 (2012) 47001).

In a recent preprint, arXiv 2005.03716v1, G. Wegner and C. Henkel criticized my work on the possibility of lossless surface plasma waves. Here I refute all of their criticisms.

The results in the preceding comment are placed on a more general mathematical foundation.

Rejoinder to ``Breakdown and groups'' by P. L. Davies and U. Gather [math.ST/0508497]

We provide here a reply to: Smaldino, P. E., Aplin, L. M. & Farine D. R., Do Sigmoidal Acquisition Curves Indicate Conformity? bioRxiv 159038 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1101/159038

Rejoinder to ``The 2005 Neyman Lecture: Dynamic Indeterminism in Science'' [arXiv:0808.0620]

In this note, we establish the validity of a conjecture recently proposed in Mathematics Magazine and connect it to the existing interesting results

In this note some philosophical thoughts and observations about mathematics are expressed, arranged as challenges to some common claims.

A discussion on the contribution of Peshkov, Bertin, Ginelli and Chate, arxiv:1404.3275v1, in this special issue.

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

I comment on a recent preprint "Neutrino Velocity Anomalies: A Resolution without a Revolution" that appeared recently as arXiv:1110.0989 [hep-ph]

I comment briefly on derivations of the Born rule presented by Masanes et al. and by Hossenfelder.

Comment on P. Walker, Nature 453 (2008) 864, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7197/full/453864a.html

The authors are not satisfied about the analysis.

We show that some mathematical results and their negations are both deducible. The derived contradictions indicate the inconsistency of current mathematics. This paper is an updated version of arXiv:math/0606635v3 with additional results…

A Comment on the Letter by D. Hemanth Kumar et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 144301 (2004)

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].

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.