Related papers: A Comment on hep-th/0608078
This document contains a description of several of my papers, including remarks on history and connection with subsequent work. It also contains some new results and conjectures.
A brief comment on the paper hep-th/0508051 (with the title mentioned above) by F. Nasseri.
Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]
This is an appendix to our paper "An update of the Hirsch Conjecture" (arXiv:0907.1186), containing proofs of some of the results and comments that were omitted in it.
Over one year ago, a very long preprint posted on arXiv [arXiv:1709.03771] and HAL announced a proof of Lehmer's Conjecture (and of other related results). Unfortunately, as was remarked by several specialists, this proof contains a (at…
The contents of this manuscript has been moved to hep-ph/0412204.
The content of this paper is incorporated into hep-th/9805093
In this note, we want to highlight and correct an error in the paper "On the nonlocal Cahn-Hilliard-Brinkman and Cahn-Hilliard-Hele-Shaw systems" [Comm. Pure Appl. Anal. 15 (2016), 299-317] written by the authors.
We make a few comments on some misleading statements in the above paper.
This is a response to the commentaries on "CoRR: A Computing Research Repository".
In these notes we provide the foundation for the deformation theoretic parts of arXiv:0807.3753 and arXiv:math/0102005.
Comment withdrawn. To be superseded by a subseqent paper.
This paper has been replaced by hep-ph/9908225.
I briefly summarize my personal opinions on the current status of HEP theory and comment on the so-called "non-empiric confirmation."
We reply to the comment arXiv:quant-ph/0702060 on our letter arXiv:quant-ph/0603120 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 100402 (2006)]
This is a Reply to the Comment posted as arXiv:1207.1261.
The original paper, as published in Nuclear Physics B in 1988, had a few factor-of-two errors. Some people got confused by those errors. The purpose of these errata is to make things clear. The revised version of the complete article is…
In this note I respond to Vilenkin's claim that there must have been a beginning.
The aim of this note is to point out some inaccuracies in our paper \cite{HD} and to fix them. Some new notions are introduced and properties of them are investigated.