“…The author claims that these results are new, and establishes a comparison with some previous papers. The aim of this rebuttal is not only to clarify that this claim is false (that is, these results are not new), but also to show that the proofs in [1] Amazingly, paper [3] is included in the list of references of [1], but the author does not recognize in his discussion that Theorem 2.3 was already proven there; rather than this, he choose to compare his result with other papers, that were already cited in [3].…”