From ae25ce253aa13604f2c2c0431e7766ee9f74abf4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "kurchan.jorge" Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 18:42:06 +0000 Subject: Update on Overleaf. --- response.tex | 20 +++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) (limited to 'response.tex') 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 -- cgit v1.2.3-70-g09d2