summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/response.tex
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'response.tex')
-rw-r--r--response.tex6
1 files changed, 4 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/response.tex b/response.tex
index 4addddf..ab2107c 100644
--- a/response.tex
+++ b/response.tex
@@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ in the direction of highlighting the importance of having a full solution. In p
we have emphasized that going to the full replica treatment uncovers a phase-space structure that needs to be taken into account, and that is absent in the annealed treatment.
-We have thus added the paragraph:
+Among other changes, we have added the paragraph:
\begin{quote}
Having a full, exact (`quenched') solution of the generic problem is not
@@ -60,11 +60,12 @@ barrier crossing (which barriers?) \footfullcite{Ros_2019_Complexity, Ros_2021_D
(which end in what kind of target states?).
\end{quote}
+
Both referees find that our paper is clearly written but technical, and
that its topic of ``the different RSB schemes'' are not suitable for a
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.
+RSB schemes.
We would also 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
@@ -79,6 +80,7 @@ than the previous ones.
Below, we respond to the referees' comments.
+A comprehensive accounting of the changes to our manuscript can be found appended to this letter.
\begin{quote}
\begin{center}