  In this reply, we will provide our impersonal, point-to-point responses to
the major criticisms (in bold and underlined) in arXiv:1909.12464. Firstly, we
will identify a number of (imperceptibly hidden) mistakes in the Comment in
understanding/interpreting our physical model. Secondly, we will use a
3rd-party experiment carried out in 1961 (plus other 3rd-party experiments
thereafter) to further support our claim that our invented Phi memristor is
memristive in spite of the existence of a parasitic inductor effect. Thirdly,
we will analyse this parasitic effect mathematically, introduce our
work-in-progress (in nanoscale) and point out that this parasitic inductor
effect should not become a big worry since it can be completely removed in the
macro-scale devices and safely neglected in the nano-scale devices.
