Related papers: Reply to "Comment on `General Method to Determine …
Although old, this may be of interest. In particular, I have had inquiries concerning the renormalization group calculations in Sec. 6.4. This is a Latex transcription. A scanned version of the original typed manuscript is available at…
This Comment identifies errors in the formalism/implementation reported in Ref. 1 and discusses some aspects of that work that were not fully specified in the original publication. This Comment also provides reference numerical results for…
This Comment points out a number of errors in the recent paper by Zarechnaya, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky, et al. (Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 185501 (2009)). Results and conclusions presented by Zarechnaya et al. (2009) are either incorrect or…
We reply to the comment of Marinari and Parisi [cond-mat/0002457 v2] on our paper [Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 5126 (1999) and cond-mat/9906323]. We show that the data in the comment are affected by strong finite-size corrections. Therefore the…
This comment is devoted to the paper "Exact solutions of nonlinear diffusion-convection-reaction equation: A Lie symmetry approach" (CNSNS, vol. 67 (2019), 253-263) in which several results are not new because were derived much earlier.…
We make some comments about the results we obtained in Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3392(2001), and in Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 177206 (2001), and show that the conclusion of a recent paper [cond-mat/0409495] leveling some criticism on our results is, in…
The Comments are devoted to the paper ``Solutions of Multitime Reaction-Diffusion PDE'' (Mathematics, vol. 10 (2022), 3623), in which main results are misleading and can be derived in a simple way from those obtained earlier. Moreover, it…
This is a reply to the recent comment from Ikeda, Berthier, and Sollich (arXiv:1602.04796) on "Constant stress and pressure rheology of colloidal suspensions", Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 158301 (2015).
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)].
This is a comment on the paper ``Electron Mass Operator in a Strong Magnetic Field and Dynamical Chiral Symmetry Breaking" by A. V. Kuznetsov and N. V. Mikheev [Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 011601]. We show that the main conclusions of the…
A recent Comment [arXiv:0811.2790] on the Letter 'Quantum Bounce and Cosmic Recall' by the authors is shown to arise from an incorrect understanding of the issues at hand and of our analysis. The conclusions of Bojowald's Comment are shown…
This comment is to show that our simulation data, based on our theory and method in Ref. [J. Phys. B 41, 055401 (2008)], are also in agreement with the experimental data presented for $D_{p}-D_{s}$ in Ref. [Phys. Rev. Lett. \textbf{109},…
We reply to the comment by Ying Zhang and S. Das Sarma on our PRL 94, 226405 (2005).
A recent paper by Herbut in J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. {\bf 29}, 1 (1996) is shown to contain an internal inconsistency which invalidates the principal conclusion of the paper that the magnetic penetration depth diverges with an XY-exponent…
In a recent article [Phys. Rev. A 94, 052128 (2016)], the authors compute the predictions of two collapse models on the transition probabilities of neutral mesons. Notably, they claim to find an influence on the decay rates and attempt to…
It is demonstrated that remarks and criticism in work [1] (arXiv:1005.2436 nucl-th) have resulted from inattentive reading of work [2] (Phys. Rev.C 81, 035501 (2010)) or just some misunderstanding and do not influence conclusions of work…
The results and calculations of the article \cite{SY} is found erroneous for a generic $r$ and it remains irremediable in general. However for $r=0$, $r=\pm 1$, and $r >> 1$ it may be physically acceptable.
We reply to the comment of Becker, Nelissen, Cleuren, Partoens, and Van den Broeck, Phys. Rev. E 93, 046101 (2016) on our article, Phys. Rev. E 90, 052108 (2014) about transport properties of a class of generalized exclusion processes.
This reply tries to rectify some misunderstandings that are in our opinion contained in the Comment by Campostrini and Rossi, <hep-lat 99407008> on our paper <hep-lat 9407003>.
We reply to the comment (cond-mat/9806125) by Essler, Goehmann and Korepin, and show that their points are unfounded.