From aab3c8e2b5fcad46e41f2f76e1dd342031f8afe0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jaron Kent-Dobias Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 10:49:08 +0200 Subject: Edited the referee response. --- referee_response.tex | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++------- 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) (limited to 'referee_response.tex') diff --git a/referee_response.tex b/referee_response.tex index b33d3b1..0f2ce95 100644 --- a/referee_response.tex +++ b/referee_response.tex @@ -13,7 +13,22 @@ First, we would like to apologize for the large delay in resubmission. As is evident, the manuscript has undergone a significant transformation as a result of the reviews we received. We would like to thank the reviewers for their -helpful notes on the original manuscript. +helpful notes on the original manuscript. The first reviewer was supportive and +asked instructive questions. The second reviewer, though critical, led us to +some great insights. + +The manuscript now focuses on the approximation of the 2D Ising universal +scaling function by a smooth functional form. Though the singularity discussed +in the original manuscript still plays an important role, our approximation now +encompasses the whole parameter space of the relevant scaling fields. We +compare this form to the values of the universal scaling function and its +derivatives previously measured in the literature, and find exponential +convergence with the amount of data fit. + +We believe that the substantial changes to our manuscript merit its +reconsideration for publication. Though the new manuscript is so different from +the old one as to likely deserve a new reviewing cycle, we respond to the +original reviews here, to make clear how the revised manuscript addresses them. \begin{verbatim} ---------------------------------------------------------------------- @@ -169,9 +184,7 @@ where scattering in the Ising field theory is extensively discussed. \end{verbatim} We thank the referee for their helpful references, and we have cited the first -two. The second one was especially relevant to our study. We don't see the -relevance of the scattering to the scaling functions we study here, but perhaps -future work may examine it as well. +two. The second one was especially relevant to our study. \begin{verbatim} 2. Several references are clearly not understood. The authors state @@ -202,11 +215,11 @@ predict similar singularities..." have no place in a scientific paper. We believe that our transformed technique and manuscript can substantiate this claim, in a specific sense. Though the free energy computed point by point in -our references by Mangazeev et al. and Fonseca et al. are more accurate, they +our references by Mangazeev et al.\ and Fonseca et al.\ are more accurate, they are not functional forms: they are tables of data. We now show in the -manuscript that our functional form exponentially approaches the numeric values +manuscript that our functional form approaches the numeric values of the scaling function and its derivatives measured in the aforementioned -works. +works exponentially with iterative fitting. \begin{verbatim} 4. The statement "Our forms both exhibit incorrect low-order -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2