相关论文: Comment on "Experimental retrodiction of trajector…

We make a few comments on some misleading statements in the above paper.

Two typos in the published paper are pointed out. Both are just typos and the calculations in that paper are based on the correct formulism.

Marchildon's arguments against my earlier work are refuted.

(One typo corrected and one incorrect statement removed. Extra details on conserved quantities and symmetry algebras added).

In this comment, I point out to several mathematical mistakes in the above-referenced letter.

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…

This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to…

This article corrects two mistakes in the article "Coarse homology theories" [math.AT/0106183].

The paper of Unal [J. Math. Phys. 59, 062104 (2018)], though worthy of attention, contains a conclusion that is in error and may mislead the efforts to extend his results. The aim of the present note is twofold: we provide a correction to…

We respond to the recent comment [arXiv:1105.1593] on our Letter [G. G. Plunk and T. Tatsuno, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 165003 (2011)]. The comment claims that our argument for spectral transfer direction is incomplete. The comment gives an…

We explicitly fix a mistake in a preliminary statement of our previous paper on the conductor at a multiplanar singularity. The correction is not immediate and, though the mistake does not affect correctness of the subsequent results, the…

The referred-to paper on antiproton production contains two errors: an error in the value reported for one of the fit parameters and an error in units. I give the errors and the corrected values when possible.

We make remarks on Ristroph and Zhang's [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} {\bf 101}, 194502 (2008)] paper. We argue especially that due to the interferences the calibration procedures in [1] were not complete and this will induce some measurements'…

The correctness of the consistent histories analysis of weakly interacting probes, related to the path of a particle, is maintained against the criticisms in the Comment, and against the alternative approach described there, which receives…

In this communication we refute a criticism concerning results of our work [3] that was presented in references [1] and [2].

The author would like to report an error of [T. Ito, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 152 (2024), pp. 4515--4519.] (version 1 of the arXiv:2311.08676) )

In this Comment we show that the statements made in PRB85, 014505 (2012) regarding our work (PRL 100, 227007 (2008))) are incorrect because they result from model artifacts. We address the issues neglected in PRB85, 014505 (2012) and…

Our paper arXiv:2101.11629 contains a technical error which changes some of the conclusions. We thank Streltsov, Pedernales, and Plenio for bringing the essence of this error to our attention. Here we explain the error, examine its…

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…

We make comments on Gaidarzhy {\it et al.}'s [{\it Phys. Rev. Lett.} 94, 030402 (2005)] letter.