✦ LIBER ✦

A critical analysis of N. Bohr's reply to the EPR argument revisited

✍ Scribed by Yalçin Koç

Publisher: Elsevier Science
Year: 1981
Tongue: English
Weight: 351 KB
Volume: 86
Category: Article
ISSN: 0375-9601
DOI: 10.1016/0375-9601(81)90491-6

No coin nor oath required. For personal study only.

📜 SIMILAR VOLUMES

A critical analysis of N. Bohr's reply t

A critical analysis of N. Bohr's reply to the EPR argument

✍ Yalçin Koç 📂 Article 📅 1981 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 473 KB

A reply to V. R. Oberbeck's criticisms o

A reply to V. R. Oberbeck's criticisms of “the expected frequency of doublet craters”

✍ Alexander Woronow 📂 Article 📅 1978 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 104 KB

Reply: on the importance of scale in bio

Reply: on the importance of scale in biochronological analysis: a reply to Cuenca-Bescós

✍ M. Hernández Fernández; B. Azanza; M. A. Álvarez Sierra 📂 Article 📅 2006 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 56 KB

A reply to Dr. Bensted's discussion on “

A reply to Dr. Bensted's discussion on “Study and critical review of the pozzolanicity test”

✍ M.P. de Luxán; F. Soria 📂 Article 📅 1977 🏛 Elsevier Science 🌐 English ⚖ 118 KB

Reply to Professor Scheiner's criticisms

Reply to Professor Scheiner's criticisms, in A. N. 3593, of certain observations of the nebula in orion made at the Lick Observatory

✍ James E. Keeler 📂 Article 📅 1899 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 106 KB 👁 2 views

Reply to Guido Erreygers and Tom Van Our

Reply to Guido Erreygers and Tom Van Ourti's comment on ‘The concentration index of a binary outcome revisited’

✍ Adam Wagstaff 📂 Article 📅 2011 🏛 John Wiley and Sons 🌐 English ⚖ 48 KB

Erreygers and Van Ourti's (2011b) comment on my paper (Wagstaff, 2011) leaves me with the overall impression that a consensus is emerging on some key issues in this field and that the areas of disagreement are narrowing. The main claim of my paper was that binary variables are amenable to both rela