 the number of derivatives included into the analysis. As discussed in [@Showk], it implies that the minimum in the plots of Fig. 7 in [@Showk] should be merged with the apparent “kink” at $N \to \infty$. This “kink” is not really sharp at a finite $N$. Nevertheless, its location can be identified with the value of $\Delta(\sigma)$, at which the second derivative of the plot has a local maximum. The minimum of the plot is slightly varied with $N$, whereas the “kink” is barely moving [@Showk]. Apparently, the convergence to a certain asymptotic curve is remarkably faster than $1/N$, as it can be expected from Fig. 7 and other similar figures in [@Showk]. In particular, we have found that the location of the minimum in Fig. 7 of [@Showk] is varied almost linearly with $N^{-3}$. We have shown it in Fig. \[fig2\] by solid circles, the position of the “kink” being indicated by empty circles. The error bars of $\pm 0.000001$ correspond to the symbol size. The results for $N=153, 190, 231$ are presented, skipping the estimate for the location of the “kink” at $N=153$, which cannot be well determined from the corresponding plot in Fig. 7 of [@Showk]. The linear extrapolations (dashed lines) suggest that the minimum, very likely, is moved only slightly closer to the “kink” when $N$ is varied from $N=231$ to $N = \infty$. The linear extrapolation might be too inaccurate. Only in this case a refined numerical analysis for larger $N$ values can possibly confirm the hypothesis about the formation of a sharp kink at $N \to \infty$.

The results of both [@Showk] and [@xx] strongly support the commonly accepted 3D Ising values of the critical exponents $\eta$ and $\nu$. In particular, the estimates $\eta=0.03631(3)$ and $\nu = 0.62999(5)$ have been reported in [@Showk]. However, these estimates are obtained, based on certain hypotheses. If these hypotheses are not used, then the conformal bootstrap analysis appears to be consistent even with the discussed here GFD values $\eta=1/8$ and $\nu =2/3$. Indeed, the corresponding
the number of derivatives included into the analysis. As discourse in   [ @Showk ], it entail that the minimum in the plots of Fig.   7 in   [ @Showk ] should be merged with the apparent “ kink ” at $ N \to \infty$. This “ crick ” is not really sharp at a finite $ N$. Nevertheless, its location can be identify with the value of $ \Delta(\sigma)$, at which the second derivative of the plot has a local utmost. The minimum of the plot is slenderly varied with $ N$, whereas the “ kink ” is barely move   [ @Showk ]. Apparently, the convergence to a certain asymptotic curvature is remarkably faster than $ 1 / N$, as it can be expected from Fig.   7 and other similar number in   [ @Showk ]. In particular, we have found that the location of the minimum in Fig.   7 of   [ @Showk ] is varied about linearly with $ N^{-3}$. We have shown it in Fig.   \[fig2\ ] by solid traffic circle, the position of the “ crick ” being indicated by empty lap. The error bars of $ \pm 0.000001 $ correspond to the symbol size. The results for $ N=153, 190, 231 $ are present, skipping the estimate for the location of the “ kink ” at $ N=153 $, which cannot be well determined from the correspond plot in Fig.   7 of   [ @Showk ]. The linear extrapolations (dashed lines) suggest that the minimum, very likely, is moved only slightly closer to the “ crick ” when $ N$ is change from $ N=231 $ to $ N = \infty$. The linear extrapolation might be besides inaccurate. merely in this case a refined numerical psychoanalysis for larger $ N$ value can possibly confirm the hypothesis about the formation of a abrupt kink at $ N \to \infty$. 

 The results of both   [ @Showk ] and   [ @xx ] strongly support the commonly accept 3D Ising values of the critical exponents $ \eta$ and $ \nu$. In particular, the estimates $ \eta=0.03631(3)$ and $ \nu = 0.62999(5)$ have been reported in   [ @Showk ]. However, these estimate are obtained, based on certain hypotheses. If these hypotheses are not practice, then the conformal bootstrap analysis appears to be consistent even with the discussed here GFD values $ \eta=1/8 $ and $ \nu = 2/3$. Indeed, the corresponding
 thf number of derivatives lncluded into thg qnalysms. As djscussed in [@Showk], it implies that the munimun in the plots of Fig. 7 kn [@Showk] sjould be merjed with the appedent “kikh” at $K \to \nnhty$. This “kink” ix not realny sharp at a xivice $N$. Nevertheless, its location can bq identofled with the vwlue jf $\Dslta(\sigma)$, at which the second deribative mf the plot hss a local maximum. The minlmum of the plot is sllghtly varigs wyrh $N$, whereas the “kink” pv barely mkving [@Showk]. Apparently, the convefgencz to a certqib adimptotic curte is gemarkably faster that $1/N$, as ot can be expegted hrom Fig. 7 and other similac figures in [@Showk]. In particuldr, we have found thqt the nocadion if ghe mmnijum in Fij. 7 of [@Showk] ia varied alnost linearly with $M^{-3}$. Rv have shown jt in Sid. \[fig2\] by solid circles, the position of tve “iink” being indicated by empty circles. The ertor bars os $\pm 0.000001$ correspond to the symbol size. The results fmr $N=153, 190, 231$ art ivesevref, skipping the estimate for the location of trs “likk” at $N=153$, which caknot be well deterkijec from the cortespondnhg plot in Fig. 7 of [@Shoak]. The jineae extrapojatipns (dashed lines) suggest thqt the minimlm, vwry likely, is moveb only slighcly clpser yo the “kink” when $N$ is vcried rrom $N=231$ to $N = \infty$. Tgd linear extrapouatpon kight be too inaccurate. Onjy in thiw caxe a rewinec numewical analjsis nmr larger $N$ values can kossibny confirm the hypothesis about the formavmon of a shark khnk at $N \to \inftn$.

The results of both [@Showk] and [@rx] stronyly suoport the bommonly eccepted 3D Ifing values ox the critican exponegts $\wta$ qnd $\nu$. Kv particular, tne estimanef $\etq=0.03631(3)$ and $\nu = 0.62999(5)$ have becn rekodted in [@Showk]. Hoctvet, these estimatrs xre ohteined, tased on cerdain hyopthesds. If these fypoyheses are not used, dhen the conformal booysbrap analisis appewrs to be conxistent even with uhe divcursed nerg GFD values $\eta=1/8$ and $\nu =2/3$. Indeed, the corrfspjnding
the number of derivatives included into the discussed [@Showk], it that the minimum 7 [@Showk] should be with the apparent at $N \to \infty$. This “kink” not really sharp at a finite $N$. Nevertheless, its location can be identified the value of $\Delta(\sigma)$, at which the second derivative of the plot has local The of plot is slightly varied with $N$, whereas the “kink” is barely moving [@Showk]. Apparently, the convergence a certain asymptotic curve is remarkably faster than as it can be from Fig. 7 and other figures [@Showk]. In we found the location of minimum in Fig. 7 of [@Showk] is varied almost linearly with $N^{-3}$. We have shown it in \[fig2\] by the position the being by empty circles. bars of $\pm 0.000001$ correspond to The results for $N=153, 190, 231$ are presented, the estimate the location of the “kink” at which cannot be well determined from the corresponding in Fig. 7 of [@Showk]. The linear extrapolations (dashed lines) suggest that the minimum, very moved only slightly closer the “kink” when is from to = \infty$. linear extrapolation might be too inaccurate. Only in this case a numerical analysis for larger $N$ values can possibly confirm the the of a sharp at $N \to \infty$. results both [@Showk] and [@xx] the accepted of critical $\eta$ and $\nu$. In the estimates $\eta=0.03631(3)$ and $\nu 0.62999(5)$ have been reported are obtained, based on certain hypotheses. If these are not used, then the conformal bootstrap appears to be consistent even with the discussed here GFD values $\eta=1/8$ $\nu =2/3$. corresponding
 the number of derivatives incLuded into tHe anaLysIs. AS dIscuSsed In [@Showk], it impliES thaT the minimum in the plots oF Fig. 7 iN [@SHOwk] sHOuLd be mErged wiTH tHE AppArEnT “kiNk” AT $N \To \infTy$. THis “kink” Is not reallY shArP at a finite $N$. NEVeRtheless, itS loCation can be iDenTified WiTh tHE valuE of $\delta(\Sigma)$, aT Which tHe second dErIVative OF the ploT HAs A locAl maximum. The minimUM oF The plot is slighTly varIeD WiTH $n$, whEreAs the “kink” iS bArely MOving [@ShOWk]. aPPAreNTly, the convergEnce to a certAIn aSymptoTiC cuRVe is reMarkaBlY FasTer than $1/N$, as iT can Be expecteD from FIG. 7 and othER similaR figurEs iN [@ShOwk]. IN PaRtIcuLaR, We hAVe FouND thAt the locAtIoN of thE minIMUM In FiG. 7 of [@showK] is vaRied almost linEarLy wiTH $N^{-3}$. WE have Shown It in fiG. \[fig2\] bY solid CirclEs, The position of thE “kinK” being indIcaTeD by EmPty ciRCles. ThE erRor Bars of $\pM 0.000001$ corresPOnd To THE SyMbol size. The results FoR $n=153, 190, 231$ ArE presentEd, skipPInG tHE estimatE fOr tHe loCATion oF the “KInK” at $N=153$, whicH cannoT Be WeLl deterMiNed froM tHe cOrrEsponDIng pLot in FIg. 7 of [@ShowK]. The lINear extrapolatIOns (dashed lineS) SuGGEsT That The Minimum, very LikeLY, is mOved ONlY slIGhtly CloseR tO ThE “Kink” when $N$ is varied frOm $n=231$ to $N = \inFty$. ThE linear extrapOlation migHT BE too inacCuraTE. ONLy in this case a rEfineD numerical ANalysis fOr larGer $N$ valuEs can possIBLy confirM thE hyPotHesIS AbOut the formatiON Of a sHaRp kink aT $N \tO \infty$.

THe rEsuLts Of bOtH [@Showk] and [@Xx] strongLy SuPpOrT thE commONly accepTeD 3D ISiNg vAlues OF the crIticaL expOnEnTS $\etA$ and $\nu$. IN PaRTIculAr, ThE estImaTeS $\eta=0.03631(3)$ aNd $\nu = 0.62999(5)$ HAve Been repOrted in [@ShOwk]. hOwevEr, ThEse estiMates are obtaiNeD, based on ceRtAin HypothESEs. If thesE hypotheses are not used, thEN the conForMal boOtstRap analysIs aPpears To bE ConsisTent evEn witH tHe dISCusseD HErE GFd vAlues $\eta=1/8$ anD $\NU =2/3$. InDeed, tHe CorrEspondiNg
 the number of derivatives  includedintothe  an al ysis . As  discussed in[ @Sho wk], it implies that t he mi ni m um i n  t he pl ots ofF ig . 7 i n[@ Sho wk ]  s hould  be  merged  with theapp ar ent “kink” a t  $ N \to \inf ty$ . This “kink ” i s notre all y  shar p a t a f inite$ N$. Ne vertheles s, its lo c ation c a n  b e id entified with the va l ue of $\Delta( \sigma )$ ,  a t whi chthe second  d eriva t ive oft he p l oth as a local ma ximum. Them ini mum of  t hep lot is  slig ht l y v aried with$N$,  whereasthe “k i nk” isb arely m oving[@S how k].A pp ar ent ly ,  th e  c onv e rge nce to a  c er tainasym p t o t ic c urv e is  rema rkably faster  th an $ 1 /N$ , asit ca n be  e xpect ed fro m Fig .7 and other sim ilar  figuresin[@ Sho wk ]. In partic ula r,we have  foundt hat  t h e lo cation of the mini mu m in  Fig. 7of [@S h ow k] is varie dalm ostl i nearl y wi t h$N^{-3}$ . We h a ve  s hown it  i n Fig.  \ [fi g2\ ] bys olid  circl es, theposit i on of the “kin k ” being indic a te d by empt y c ircles. The  err o r ba rs o f  $ \pm 0.000 001$co r re s pond to the symbolsi ze. Th e res ults for $N=1 53, 190, 2 3 1 $  are pre sent e d, skipping the e stima te for the location  of t he “kink ” at $N=1 5 3 $, which  ca nno t b e w e l ldetermined fr o m  the  c orrespo ndi ng plot  in  Fi g.7 o f[@Showk].  The lin ea rex tr apo latio n s (dashe dlin es ) s ugges t  thatthe m inim um ,v ery  likely ,  i s move don ly s lig ht ly cl oser tothe “ki nk” when$N$ is v ar ie d from$N=231$ to $N  =  \infty$.Th e l ineare x trapolat ion might be too inaccu r ate. On lyin th is c ase a ref ine d nume ric a l anal ysis f or la rg er$ N $ val u e scan  p ossibly co n f irm  thehy poth esis ab out the formationo f a  sharp kink a t $ N \t o \i nft y $. 
Th er esu l t s of both [@Sho wk] and [@ xx ]  s trongly su p por tthe com monly a ccept e d 3D Is ing value s of thecr itic a l  ex ponents $\ eta$ and  $\nu$. I n  part i cu lar,the  estim at es$\eta =0.036 3 1(3 )$ an d $\nu  =  0.629 99(5) $have bee n reported in [@Showk].  Howev er, t hes e estimat esa reobtained,  bas ed on cert ain  hy pothe ses .  If t hese hy pot h esesaren ot used,t he n t h e  c onformal bo o t s tra p ana lys i s appe arsto be consistente ven with the d iscu s s edher e  GFD  v alues $\eta=1/ 8$an d $\nu =2/ 3$ . Indeed, t he corre sp o nding 
 the_number of_derivatives included into the_analysis. As_discussed_in [@Showk], it_implies_that the minimum_in the plots_of Fig. 7 in [@Showk] should_be merged with_the_apparent “kink” at $N \to \infty$. This “kink” is not really sharp at a_finite_$N$. Nevertheless,_its_location_can be identified with the_value of $\Delta(\sigma)$, at which_the second_derivative of the plot has a local maximum._The_minimum of the_plot is slightly varied with $N$, whereas the “kink”_is barely moving [@Showk]. Apparently, the convergence_to a certain_asymptotic_curve_is remarkably faster than_$1/N$, as it can be expected_from Fig. 7 and other similar figures_in [@Showk]. In particular, we have found that_the location of the minimum in_Fig. 7 of [@Showk] is varied almost_linearly with_$N^{-3}$. We have shown it_in Fig. \[fig2\] by_solid circles,_the position of_the “kink” being indicated by empty_circles. The error_bars of $\pm 0.000001$ correspond to_the_symbol size. The_results_for_$N=153, 190,_231$ are presented,_skipping_the estimate_for_the location of the “kink” at_$N=153$,_which cannot be well determined from the_corresponding plot in Fig. 7_of [@Showk]._The linear extrapolations (dashed_lines) suggest that the minimum,_very likely, is moved only slightly_closer to_the “kink”_when $N$ is varied from $N=231$ to $N = \infty$. The_linear extrapolation might be too inaccurate._Only in this case_a refined_numerical_analysis for larger_$N$_values can_possibly confirm the hypothesis about the formation_of a_sharp kink at $N \to \infty$.

The_results of both [@Showk] and [@xx]_strongly_support the commonly accepted 3D Ising_values of the critical exponents $\eta$_and $\nu$. In particular, the_estimates_$\eta=0.03631(3)$_and $\nu = 0.62999(5)$ have_been reported in [@Showk]. However, these estimates_are obtained, based_on certain hypotheses. If these hypotheses are_not_used, then the conformal bootstrap analysis_appears_to be consistent even with the_discussed_here_GFD values $\eta=1/8$ and $\nu_=2/3$. Indeed, the corresponding