Related papers: Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin

Comment: Struggles with Survey Weighting and Regression Modeling [arXiv:0710.5005]

This is a reply to the comment by Singh and Rajesh (arXiv 1212.0946; to appear in PRL) on our paper Olejarz et al., PRL, 108, 016102 (2012) [arxiv 1109.1253]

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

A short Reply to the Comment of Brankov, Tonchev and Zagrebnov, quant-ph/0506207, is given.

This is a corrigendum to Acta Math. 196 (2006) as well as to the follow-up publications JFA 259 (2010) and to JFA 260 (2011).

We give a proof of a result of Bonet, Engli\v{s} and Taskinen filling in several details and correcting some flaws.

Here we give our reply to the comment by Sibirtsev et al on our paper ``Mass and K-Lambda Coupling of the N*(1535)".

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

We answer a question of Zadrozny.

This is a Comment to the recent 3 papers by S.S. Afonin

This is a Comment on the Article ``Aging, phase ordering and conformal invariance'' by M.Henkel, M.Pleimling, C.Godr\`eche and J.M.Luck [Phys.Rev.Lett. 87, 265701 (2001)].

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

Some mathematically incorrect claims of Compagno and Persico in their reply (2002 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 35, 8965) to my comment on their recent paper on self-dressing and radiation reaction in classical electrodynamics are pointed out.

arXiv admin note: This submission has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to unprofessional personal attack.

The paper presents a counterexample to the Hodge conjecture.

This is a reply to the comment by Gilbert and Sanders [arXiv:1111.6271 (2011)]. We point out that their comment is a follow-up of a previous discussion which we briefly summarize before we refute their new criticism.

The article provides a counterexample to a conjecture by Blocki-Zwonek.

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…

We have reviewed the comment in [3], posted on arXiv.org concerning our recent work in [1]. We reply to the comment in this paper.

Rejoinder of "A significance test for the lasso" by Richard Lockhart, Jonathan Taylor, Ryan J. Tibshirani, Robert Tibshirani [arXiv:1301.7161].