Related papers: Reply to comments by D.H.E. Gross

A response to a letter to the editor by Schilling regarding Bartroff, Lorden, and Wang ("Optimal and fast confidence intervals for hypergeometric successes" 2022, arXiv:2109.05624)

This is a comment on the article "Integrable Systems in Stringy Gravity" by D. V. Gal'tsov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 2863, (1995).

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

There are some points in the reply of Horton et al. [http://stacks.iop.org/JPhysA/35/7963] to my comment [quant-ph/0202140] on their paper [quant-ph/0103114] which I cannot let stand without a response. I provide here some clarification of…

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

We collect here various conjectures on congruences made by the author in a series of papers, some of which involve binary quadratic forms and other advanced theories. Part A consists of 100 unsolved conjectures of the author while…

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

Recently R. G. Newton published a comment criticizing the methods and the results of a paper published by the author. His criticism touches on a few key points of the subject and hence deserves a detailed reply. Here is the reply, point by…

This is a short communication in reference to the comments in (arXiv: 1605.05147) of our paper in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650051 (2016). We have tried to answer to the comments or criticism in the paper.

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…

An observation on Hall-Littlewood polynomials.

A reply to arXiv:0809.2310, "Comment on Universal Charge-Radius Relation for Subatomic and Astrophysical Compact Objects" [arXiv:0804.2140,PRL100(2008)151102]

This note is a somewhat-lighthearted comment on a recent paper by David Wallace, arXiv:0906.2718[quant-ph] entitled "A formal proof of the Born rule from decision-theoretic assumptions".

Reply to a comment by T. Rakovszky, F. Pollmann, and C. W von Keyserlingk [arXiv:2010.07969].

We survey recent developments on the Restriction conjecture.

This paper replies the comment by E. Kapuscik [Am. J. Phys. 77, 754 (2009)]

We respond to comments in arXiv:2502.15817v2 about our article, arXiv:2412.12282. We stand by our conclusions and defend them against the criticisms.

This paper is a reply to the comments on 'Integer SEC-DED codes for low power communications'.

An updated version of this paper is available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.01131

A short reply to Jarzynski's comment cond-mat/0509344 on my paper ``Flaw of Jarzynski's equality when applied to systems with several degrees of freedom'' (cond--mat/0508721) is presented.