Related papers: A Comment on hep-th/0608078
These are notes on adic spaces. They are made available upon some requests in order to make quoting them easier.
Remarks on reply (cond-mat/0206368) to Johansen's comment (cond-mat/0205249)
The main results of papers gr-qc/0307026 and gr-qc/0312068 are formulated. These results are opposite to conclusions of paper astro-ph/0305039 and comments gr-qc/0309036.
Withdrawn; note hep-th/0110236 covers some similar material.
I comment on a recent preprint "A Proposal to Measure Photon-Photon Scattering" that appeared recently as arXiv:1106.0465v1 [hep-ph].
Please goto the "Note Added" part of v6, quant-ph/0501143
S.E. Hans paper, Remarks on Pseudocovering Spaces in a Digital Topological Setting: A Corrigendum, is meant to address errors in previous papers. However, this paper is also marked by errors in its mathematics, as well as improprieties in…
I reply to Professor Peter van Nieuwenhuizen in connection with hep-th/0408137
This is a brief response to a recent posting by Gross.
This note presents an interesting counterexample to a basic covering problem.
These are the notes from my courses on the arithmetic of quadratic forms.
In this note, we correct an oversight from the paper mentioned in the title.
The note complements topological aspects of the theory of chiral algebras.
This paper is a revised version of a previously posted paper in arxiv. The authors posted it as a new submission by mistake. The latest version of the paper can be found at arXiv:math-ph/0512003v2
A comment on a misleading statement contained in [Phys. Rev. A 97, 062115 (2018)]. v2: a typo corrected
This note is my comment on Glenn Shafer's discussion paper "Testing by betting", together with two online appendices comparing p-values and betting scores.
This note is the written version of conversations with young colleagues on unofficial history, general ideas, unexpected facts and open problems concerning tilting theory.
Paper withdrawn due to errors. Revised version may or may not appear in the future.
This short note present a "proof" of $P\neq NP$. The "proof" with double quotation marks is to indicate that we do not know whether the proof is correct or not (We're confused because we do know in which we make the mistakes).
In this brief reply we point out to some misconceptions in C.Camacho's comment (cond-mat/9701210).