Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical

Reply to Comment on ‘Critical points of Potts and O( N ) models from eigenvalue identities in periodic Temperley–Lieb algebras’

Jesper Lykke Jacobsen

Published Jun 6, 2024• 0 citations

Abstract

Abstract The authors replies to the comment made by Yang and Zhou (2024 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. ) on his 2015 paper entitled ‘Critical points of Potts and O( N ) models from eigenvalue identities in periodic Temperley–Lieb algebras’ (Jacobsen 2015 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 48 454003).

DOI: 10.1088/1751-8121/ad4d33

Related papers

ON ALGEBRAIC DIAGONALIZATION OF THE XXZ CHAIN

Paul Martin, Hubert Saleur

The purpose of this note is to comment on the diagonalization of the XXZ chain Hamiltonian (and others such as the Potts model), using the abstract Temperley-Lieb algebra relations, following the paper by Dan Levy1 where the idea was first developed.

International Journal of Modern Physics BNov 1, 199413 citations

Comment on “Yang-Lee Zeros of the Q -State Potts Model in the Complex Magnetic Field Plane”

James L. Monroe

A Comment on the Letter by Seung-Yeon Kim and Richard J. Creswick, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 2000 (1998). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 10 September 1998DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3923©1999 American Physical Society

Physical Review LettersMay 10, 19996 citations

Reply to “Comment on “Nonuniqueness of algebraic first-order density-matrix functionals” ”

Jian Wang, Peter J. Knowles

It is shown that symmetry considerations do not alter the conclusions of our original work [Phys. Rev. A 92, 012520 (2015)], and that there exists an example of an electronic system for which at several geometries the one-matrix eigenvalues are identical, but the two-matrix spectrum is not. It is still therefore the case that JK and related functionals that depend on the one-matrix eigenvalues to model the two-matrix cannot be made arbitrarily accurate.

Physical Review AFeb 14, 20185 citations

Reply to ‘Lifshitz-point critical behaviour toO(ϵL2)’

Luiz C. de Albuquerque, Marcelo M. Leite

We reply to a recent comment by Diehl and Shpot ( 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 9101 ) criticizing our paper (Albuquerque L C and Leite M M 2001 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 34 L327 ). We show that the approximation we use for evaluating higher loop integrals is consistent with homogeneity. A new renormalization group approach is presented in order to compare the two methods with high-precision numerical data concerning the uniaxial case. We stress that isotropic behaviour cannot be obtained from anisotropic behaviour.

arXiv:cond-mat/0108254Journal of Physics A Mathematical and GeneralFeb 11, 20025 citations

Comment on “Potts Model with Long-Range Interactions in One Dimension”

Katarina Uzelac, Zvonko Glumac

A Comment on the Letter by E. Bayong, H. T. Diep, and Viktor Dotsenko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 14 (1999). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 14 September 1999DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.5255©2000 American Physical Society

Physical Review LettersDec 11, 200010 citations

Reply to Comment on ‘Initial states of qubit–environment models leading to conserved quantities’

Bartłomiej Gardas, Jerzy Dajka

We discuss a comment recently made by C F Lo concerning validity of one of the examples used in our paper (2013 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 46 235301). While we agree with Lo's statement regarding inapplicability of the example to the proposed schema, we disagree with the claim concerning mathematical correctness of that example. We are not convinced by Lo's arguments leading to the conclusion that the model is mathematically ill-defined.

Journal of Physics A Mathematical and TheoreticalApr 2, 20140 citations