Related papers: Rezayi and Read Reply

This is a Reply to the Comment by Vaidman in arXiv:2306.16756 on the paper: R. B. Griffiths, Phys. Rev. A 107, 062219 (2023)

This combines a reply to the Comment [hep-th/0203067 v1] by A. N. Vaidya and R. de L. Rodrigues with an erratum to our Letter [Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 210405 (2001)]

This is a Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett., {\bf 95}, 187404 (2005)

A comment on the letter by M. Machida and T. Koyama, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 94}, 140401 (2005) and also on the preprint by Y. Kawaguchi and T. Ohmi, cond-mat/0411018.

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

This is a reply to a comment by P. Schlottmann and A.A. Zvyagin.

A reply to the comment by S. Friedemann et al. [arXiv:1207.0536] on our article [Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 137002 (2011), arXiv:1012.0303].

In the present work we reply to the Comment by Catalan and Scott (cond-mat/0607500) on two of our papers. This Comment has been rejected from publication in Physical Review Letters and, hence, our Reply is based on the cond-mat version.

This is a comment published in Phys. Rev. Lett. vol. 73, page 1051 (1994).

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

Comment on M. Kataoka et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 160 (1999).

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

Reply to Bernevig, Giuliano, and Laughlin: cond-mat/0410147

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

We respond to Comment on our recent letter (Phys.Rev.Lett.99:092501,2007) by Dean et al (arXiv:0709.0449).

Response to Comment by A. Bussmann-Holder (arXiv:0909.3603)

Originally published as a Supplemental Appendix to Adjoint Equations in Stability Analysis, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 46:493-517 (2014)

This manuscript contains a Comment on "Supercurrent Noise in Quantum Point Contacts" by D. Averin and H.T. Iman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 76, 3814 (1996) [cond-mat/9511128].

I reply to the comment by Dr S. Nishigaki (hep-th/0007042) to my papers Phys. Rev. D61 (2000) 056005 and Phys. Rev. D62 (2000) 016005.

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…