Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:cond-mat/9806225

Reply to the Comment on "Bound States in the One-dimensional Hubbard Model"

Daniel Braak, Natan Andrei

Published Jun 18, 1998• 0 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

We reply to the comment (cond-mat/9806125) by Essler, Goehmann and Korepin, and show that their points are unfounded.
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.cond-mat/9806225

Related papers

Jeckelmann Replies:

Eric Jeckelmann

In their Comment (see cond-mat/0301237), Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell present some numerical evidences to support the existence of an extended bond-order-wave (BOW) phase at couplings (U,V) weaker than a tricritical point (U_t,V_t) in the ground state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled U-V Hubbard model. They claim that their results do not agree with the phase diagram proposed in my Letter (cond-mat/0204244), which shows a BOW phase for couplings stronger than the critical point only. However, I argue here that their results are not conclusive and do not refute the phase diagram described in the Letter.

arXiv:cond-mat/0308446•Physical Review Letters•Aug 20, 2003•15 citations

Comment on “One-Particle Excitation of the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model”

Osamu Narikiyo

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•May 15, 1998•1 citation

"Symmetry properties of magnetization in the Hubbard model at finite temperature": Comment on 'Reply to Comment'

Adolfo Avella, Francesco Paolo Mancini, D. Villani

We comment on the Reply of G. Su and M. Suzuki [cond-mat/9808011] to our Comment [cond-mat/9807402] about the papers of G. Su [Phys. Rev. B 54, 8291 (1996)] and G. Su and M. Suzuki [Phys. Rev. B 57, 13367 (1998)]. The algebraic mistake originating their incorrect solutions is evidenced in detail.

arXiv:cond-mat/9808109•Aug 11, 1998•0 citations

Comment on “One-Particle Excitation of the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model”

Osamu Narikiyo, Satoshi Fujimoto

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•May 15, 1998•2 citations

Reply to comment by S.-K. Yip cond-mat/0611426

Ryan Barnett, Ari M. Turner, Eugene Demler

We respond to S.-K. Yip's criticism of our work on the classification of spinor condensates. We explain why his criticism is unfounded, emphasizing that the phases he mentions have been addressed in our paper cond-mat/0611230. To provide a constructive aspect to this response, we use it as an opportunity to show how our classification scheme makes explicit not only spin rotations which leave spinor states invariant, but also the phase factors which need to accompany them.

arXiv:cond-mat/0612099•Dec 4, 2006•1 citation

Comment on “One-Particle Excitation of the Two-Dimensional Hubbard Model”

Satoshi Fujimoto

Journal of the Physical Society of Japan•May 15, 1998•2 citations
In their Comment (see cond-mat/0301237), Sandvik, Sengupta, and Campbell present some numerical evidences to support the existence of an extended bond-order-wave (BOW) phase at couplings (U,V) weaker than a tricritical point (U_t,V_t) in the ground state phase diagram of the one-dimensional half-filled U-V Hubbard model. They claim that their results do not agree with the phase diagram proposed in my Letter (cond-mat/0204244), which shows a BOW phase for couplings stronger than the critical point only. However, I argue here that their results are not conclusive and do not refute the phase diagram described in the Letter.