Skip to main content
Log in

“Comment” on the Reply to the Paper “On the Elber–Karplus Reaction Path-Following Method and Related Procedures”

  • Published:
Journal of Mathematical Chemistry Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The flaws in the “Reply” [1] to our paper [2] have been pointed out. Elber and Karplus (EK) have not disproved our irrefutable global statement that the energy average cannot be minimized which rebuts the theoretical background of EK-type calculations. Another statement of ours has shown that even a curve for which the average energy is locally minimal for all directional perturbations in the sense of classical variational calculus cannot be identical with the reaction path (RP) defined as a steepest descent path (SDP). EK found an error in the early preprint of our theoretical paper [3] and because of this error they qualified our correct variational statement as false for all the SDPs consisting of a straight line each. Mixing global and variational arguments, EK refuted our criticism in a logically incorrect manner. In this Comment we prove that both of our earlier statements invariably remain in force and the criticism included in those has been as well-established and solid as was before.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. R. Elber and M. Karplus, Chem. Phys. Lett. 311(1999) 335.

    Google Scholar 

  2. L.L. Stachó, Gy. Dömötör and M.I. Bán, Chem. Phys. Lett. 311(1999) 328.

    Google Scholar 

  3. L.L. Stachó, Gy. Dömötör and M.I. Bán, J. Math. Chem. 26(1999) 87.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Gy. Dömötör, L.L. Stachó and M.I. Bán, Comparative study of global path-following methods, in: WATOC'99(5th World Congress of Theoretically Oriented Chemists), Book of Abstracts, London, UK, 1–6 August 1999, p. 335; to be published in J. Comput. Chem. (in preparation).

  5. R. Elber and M. Karplus, Chem. Phys. Lett. 139(1987) 3755.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R. Czerminski and R. Elber, J. Chem. Phys. 92(1990) 5580.

    Google Scholar 

  7. S. Huston and J.W. Ponder, TINKER: Software tools for molecular design, Version 3.5 (October 1997) (Copyright Jay William Ponder, 1990–1997).

  8. R. Olender and R. Elber, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 398–399 (1997) 63.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. Ulitsky and R. Elber, J. Chem. Phys. 96(1990) 1510.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Maple V Release 4, Version 4.00b (1981–1996).

  11. L.L. Stachó, Gy. Dömötör and M.I. Bán, J. Math. Chem. 28(2000) 241.

    Google Scholar 

  12. L.L. Stachó, M.I. Bán and Gy. Dömötör, Reaction paths defined by global variational principles, in: WATOC'99 (5th World Congress of Theoretically Oriented Chemists), Book of Abstracts, London, UK, 1–6 August 1999, p. 333; published in [11].

  13. Gy. Dömötör, L.L. Stachó and M.I. Bán, J. Mol. Struct. (Theochem) 501–502 (2000) 509.

    Google Scholar 

  14. W.H. Press, B.P. Flannery, S.A. Teukolsky and W.T. Vetterling, Numerical recipes, in: The Art of Scientific Computing (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1986) p. 294.

    Google Scholar 

  15. S.S.L. Chiu, J.J.W. Douall and I.H. Hillier, J. Chem. Soc. Farad. Trans. 90(1994) 1575.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M.I. Bán.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stachó, L., Dömötör, G. & Bán, M. “Comment” on the Reply to the Paper “On the Elber–Karplus Reaction Path-Following Method and Related Procedures”. Journal of Mathematical Chemistry 29, 169–175 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010920305977

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010920305977

Navigation