Removed some comments and changed some formatting.

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 13 deletions

diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex
index 6abde6c..13c220f 100644
--- a/response.tex
+++ b/response.tex
@@ -86,8 +86,10 @@ because  it demands of the readers a slightly longer attention span.
 
 Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
 
-Report of Referee A -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
 \begin{quote}
+  \begin{center}
+    Report of Referee A -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
+  \end{center}
   \it
      The authors consider spin glass models with mixed p-spin interactions
      on the N-Sphere and calculate the number of stationary points, the
@@ -141,12 +143,11 @@ use of RSB and the quenched complexity are not sufficient to
 reestablish a landscape–dynamics connection. 
 {\bf One can hardly expect that the structure of saddles at a given energy may be connected
 with dynamics (for example in Sherrington Kirkpatrick) if it is unknown}.
-%We disagree with the
-%referee's implicit assertion that only clean resolutions, and not the
-%compelling deepening of problems, are worthy of a broad audience.
 
-Report of Referee B -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
 \begin{quote}
+  \begin{center}
+    Report of Referee B -- LY17256/Kent-Dobias
+  \end{center}
   \textit{The paper presents a computation of the complexity in spherical
      spin-glass models. Neither the techniques nor the results are
      sufficiently new and relevant to justify publication on PRL. This is
@@ -174,14 +175,6 @@ more appropriate. From the technical point of view, this makes no fundamental di
 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.
 
-
-%For a system where the quenched and annealed
-%complexities differ, there has not been a correct calculation of the
-%quenched complexity at finite temperature. (and, besides our work,
-%only once or twice at zero temperature, e.g., PRX 9, 011003 (2019).)
-%Rejecting a paper based on a severe misconception of its contents or
-%of the state of the field is not appropriate.
-
 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