Update on Overleaf.

1 files changed, 11 insertions, 9 deletions

diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex
index ab2107c..1893bbe 100644
--- a/response.tex
+++ b/response.tex
@@ -67,16 +67,17 @@ broad audience. This is surprising to the authors, since a quick
 search on Google Scholar reveals several recent PRLs with heavy use of
 RSB schemes.
 
-We would also like to submit to the referees  that it is somewhat incongruous
+It is perhaps
+true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical
+than the previous ones.
+But we would  like to submit to the referees  that it is somewhat incongruous
 that the solution to a problem that had remained open for 42 years -- during
 which it was always present in articles in PRL
 \footfullcite{Fyodorov_2004_Complexity, Bray_2007_Statistics,
 Fyodorov_2012_Critical, Wainrib_2013_Topological, Dennis_2020_Jamming}-- is
 rejected because  it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span.
 These previous works were often limited by the fact that general landscapes
-(for which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. It is perhaps
-true that the final solution of an open problem may often be more technical
-than the previous ones.
+(for which an annealed solution is not exact) were inaccessible. 
 
 
 Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
@@ -117,8 +118,7 @@ A comprehensive accounting of the changes to our manuscript can be found appende
 
 Referee A correctly points out that one new feature of the solutions
 outlined in our manuscript is that RSB must occur in parts of the
-phase diagram for these models. However, they neglect another feature:
-that they are the solutions of the \textit{quenched} complexity, which has
+phase diagram for these models they are indeed the solutions of the \textit{quenched} complexity, which has
 not been correctly calculated until now. We agree with the referee
 that ``the complexity of the mixed p-spin glass models'' is not a major
 breakthrough in and of itself, we just
@@ -165,15 +165,17 @@ The novelty of the paper is most definitely
 not the fact of treating a zero temperature case. 
 We have added the following phrase, that should clarify the situation:
 
+\begin{quote}
   For simplicity we have concentrated here on the energy, rather
 than  {\em free-energy} landscape, although the latter is sometimes
 more appropriate. From the technical point of view, this makes no fundamental difference, it suffices 
 to apply the same computation to the Thouless-Andreson-Palmer  (TAP) free energy, \footfullcite{Crisanti_1995_Thouless-Anderson-Palmer} instead of the energy. We do not expect new features or technical 
 complications arise.
+\end{quote}
 
 We agree with Referee B's assessment of ``essential open problems in
-the field,'' and agree that our work does not deliver answers. However,
-delivering answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance
+the field,'' and agree that our work does not deliver all answers. However,
+delivering all answers for all essential open problems is not the acceptance
 criterion of PRL. These are
 
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -183,7 +185,7 @@ criterion of PRL. These are
   \item Be of unusual intrinsic interest to PRL's broad audience.
 \end{itemize}
 
-We believe our manuscript makes essential steps toward solving the
+Our manuscript makes essential steps toward solving the
 critical problem of connecting analysis of the static landscape to
 dynamics. We believe that its essential step is through the
 introduction of a new technique, calculation of the quenched