Related papers: Reply to 'Comment on "Solution of the Relativistic…

We find it necessary to advise the interested and active instructor of Physics on the wrongness of some computations in the aforementioned article. Surprisingly, the Journal refuses to even publish an erratum on the paper, which naturally…

We comment on incorrect citing and wrong statements made in the recent e-print hep-th/0405121.

We reply to the recent comments on our published papers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 152005 and Phys. Lett. B717 (2012) 214. We point out that the criticisms about the transverse polarization parton sum rule we obtained are invalid.

This is a Reply to the Comment [arXiv:0807.0699] on our paper [PRL 100:232002 (2008)].

Comment on Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 2086 (2001)

A Comment on the paper "Conservative Quantum Computing" by M. Ozawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 057902 (2002). The author replies in Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 089802 (2003).

Comment on cond-mat/0205390; PRL 90, 026805 (2003)

We correct a mistake in the analytical expression for the energy density given in Phys. Rev. C76, 021902 (2007) [arXiv:0704.3625 [hep-ph]]. The expression should be multiplied by 16. One question then arises; how could it be possible to…

Closure relations satisfied by the radial Dirac-Coulomb Sturmians are proved analytically. The Sturmian expansion of the Dirac-Coulomb Green function is transformed to the form containing only series with summations running over…

Reply to the recent comment by I.Ispolatov and M.Karttunen, cond-mat/0303564

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

The question raised by [Bastin and Martin 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36, 4201] is examined and used to explain in more detail a key point of our calculations. They have sought to rebut criticisms raised by us of certain techniques…

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

It is argued that a recent claim that there is no radiation in the preacceleration part of a non-runaway solution of the Abraham--Lorentz equation is incorrect.

A brief comment on A variational Bayesian approach for inverse problems with skew-t error distributions (Guha et al., Journal of Computational Physics 301 (2015) 377-393) is given in this letter.

Withdrawn; originally put in incomplete form without permission

This is an erratum to the article: "Computation of maximal projection constants" (J. Funct. Anal., 277). The statement of Lemma 3.1(2) of that paper is incorrect. As a consequence of this the proof of Theorem 1.4 is incomplete. In this…

Herein I respond to the criticism and to the complains by Benestad (Pattern Recogn. Phys. 1, 91-92, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/prp-1-91-2013) of Scafetta (Pattern Recogn. Phys. 1, 37-57, 2013, http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/prp-1-37-2013)…

We reply to the comments on our previous paper Physical Review Letters, Vol. 129, 087001 (2022), raised by Th\'eo S\'epulcre, Serge Florens, and Izak Snyman in arXiv:2210.00742.

We derive a massive analog of the ALD (Abraham, Lorentz and Dirac) equation, i.e., the equation of motion of a relativistic charged particle with a radiation reaction term induced by emissions of massive fields. We show that the radiation…