Related papers: Rezayi and Read Reply

We provide a reply to a comment by I. Goychuk arXiv:1501.06996 [cond-mat.stat-mech] (not under active consideration with Phys. Rev. Lett.) on our Letter A. Rebenshtok, S. Denisov, P. H\"anggi, and E. Barkai, {\em Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf…

Cho and Pak reply to Lamm et al. [hep-th/0007108] comment on "A Convergent Series for the Effective Action of QED" [hep-th/0006057].

It is shown that the recent Comment [cond-mat/0306019] by Y. Yu on the above article is not substantiated.

We regret that PRL did not accept our Reply for publication. We believe that both our Reply and the original paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 135901 (2017)) is sound and correct. We post our reply here and let readers to judge.

This is the first version of the editorial foreword to the Perspective review "Research Landscape of Altermagnetism" by L. \v{S}mejkal, et al, published in Phys. Rev. X 12, 040501 (2022). Due to various editorial constraints the publish…

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.

I respond to the Bernard et al. comment on my letter ``Chiral anomalies and rooted staggered fermions.''

A Comment on the Letter by C. R. Galley, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 174301 (2013).

In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.

We reply to David's comment (hep-lat/9504017) on our paper Phys.Rev.Lett. 74(1995)1920.

We reply to Comment by J. Gemmer, L. Knipschild, R. Steinigeweg (arXiv:1712.02128) on our paper Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 100601 (2017).

Reply to the comment of E.M. Chudnovsky and D.A. Garanin on Europhys. Lett. 46, 692 (1999).

This reply contains a brief response to the comment by R. Howl, D. R\"atzel, and I. Fuentes [arXiv:1811.10306]

Comment on the paper "Novel Convective Instabilities in a Magnetic Fluid" by W. Luo, T. Du, and J. Huang, Phys. Rev. Lett., v.82, p.4134 (1999).

A Comment on the Letter by Victor Gurarie and Alexander E. Lobkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 178301 (2002). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.

A Comment on the Letter by O. Viehmann, J. von Delft, and F. Marquardt [Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 107}, 113602 (2011)].

This paper replies the comments by J. D. Jackson [Am. J. Phys. 75, 844-845 (2007)] and V. Hnizdo [Am. J. Phys. 75, 845-846 (2007)].

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).

This is a reply to the paper by S.C.Benjamin, quant-ph/0008127.

In the preprint cond-mat/0408050 M. V. Cheremisin noticed that some results (namely Fig. 4) of our recent work (cond-mat/0407364) have been taken from his paper cond-mat/0405176. As clear from the caption to Fig. 4 as well as from the text…