On the development of brittle-fracture mechanics of materials with initial stresses

Conclusions

The following conclusions can be drawn from what has been stated above.

• 1. I have proven that critique [10] of my results is erroneous and suggests the author's ignorance of the problem statement.

• 2. The method of solution used in [1–8] (replacement of the problem for the entire plane by the problem for a half plane where conditions of symmetry exist, “replacement method” on page 363 of [10] in accordance with the terminology of [10]) is correct and is familiar even to university students.

• 3. All the specific results of [10] (including basic results (8.7)–(8.12) of [10]) agree exactly with my results of the “ten-years' prescription” [5–8], and in a number of cases, also with results of the “sixteen-years' prescription” (for example, Eq. (5.5) of [10] conforms exactly to (2.272) of [4]). Thus, there is no “paradox” in my studies that Mr. Soos so actively contends on the basis of results (8.7)–(8.12) of [10], since results (8.7)–(8.12) of [10] also belong to me in the form of (3.19) of [8], and he had known about this (see documented proof in Section 2.1 of the present paper).

• 4. It is very difficult to evaluate [10] entirely. The fact is that each person (including Mr. Soos — the author of [10]) may be mistaken; all the same, the information presented in Section 2.1 and commentaries 3 and 4 of the present paper suggest that the case under consideration with Mr. Soos goes beyond the limits of a phenomenon that can be characterized by the term “mistake.” It is extremely logical that readers independently drew the common conclusion in connection with [10]. I permit myself only to use the term that Mr. Soos used in [10] to characterize the method of solution that I use (“bad replacement” — 6th line down from the top of page 373 of [10]), and call paper [10] a “bad article.”