相关论文: Speculations on the Evans-Comay Discussion

Reply to the comment, cond-mat/0209398 by by N.W. Watkins, S.C. Chapman, and G. Rowlands

In this note I respond to Vilenkin's claim that there must have been a beginning.

We are grateful to the discussants, Levis and Kennedy [2025], Luo and Geng [2025], Wang and van der Laan [2025], and Yang and Kim [2025], for their thoughtful comments on our paper (Nabi et al., 2025). In this rejoinder, we summarize our…

We respond to `Comments on the U(2) ADHM two-instanton' [Y. Tian, Phys. Lett. B 566 (2003) 183].

Shukla and Akbari-Moghanjoughi have {\it corrected} their Comment (see their version 1 on `arXiv:1207.7029v1) to EPL on our work [1] after receiving our Response from the Editors of EPL. We have a pleasant duty at hand to present our second…

A Comment on the Letter by Raphael Blumenfeld and Sam F. Edwards, [Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 114303 (2003)].

This note is the follow up to a paper by M. Waldschmidt.

This is our response to the comment arXiv:2504.13683 posted by Chat\'e and Solon in reference to our preprint arXiv:2503.17064

We make a couple of remarks on ``Comments'' due to A. Moroz which were addressed to our recent letter "Differential cross section for Aharonov-Bohm effect with non standard boundary conditions", Europhys. Lett. 44 (1998) 403.

I respond to the Bernard et al. comment on my letter ``Chiral anomalies and rooted staggered fermions.''

Re-considering this work.

Reply to the Comment by F. Corberi, E. Lipiello and M. Zannetti (cond-mat/0211609).

Using algebraic transformations and equivalent reformulations we derive a number of new results from some earlier ones (by the author) in more accepted terms closely related to well-known conjectures of Bondy and Jung including a number of…

This is a comment on J. Schmittbuhl, A. Hansen, and G. G. Batrouni, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 045505 (2003). They offer a reply, in turn.

Some observations on the Wu-Sprung potential.

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

Comment on "Citation Statistics" [arXiv:0910.3529]

We respond to the criticisms of a recent paper of Buchert et al. [arXiv:1505.07800]

The authors reply to the Comment arXiv:2104.03770 by P. Canfield et. al.

Remarks on reply (cond-mat/0206368) to Johansen's comment (cond-mat/0205249)