Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 62 references

Numerically modelling semidirect product geodesics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Geodesics on self-semidirect product groups produce strongly coupled dynamics, with peakons emerging from smooth initial data and vorticity fields locking together.

desk verdict Interesting new coupled equations from self-semidirect products, but the central numerical claim of emergent coupled peakons is not yet validated. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05167 v1 pith:JKSKXKQC submitted 2025-05-08 nlin.PS

James Woodfield This is my paper · ORCID
classification nlin.PS MSC 22E6535Q5337K6565M60
keywords semidirectproductgroupEuler-PoincaréequationsCamassa-Holmpeakonsgeodesicflowvorticitydiffeomorphismcentralextension
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper investigates what happens when the same group is semidirect-product-composed with itself, so that one copy's flow is viewed in the frame of the other. Its central claim is that this structure couples the two geodesic flows strongly and asymmetrically: one component transports the other while the other forces the first. The paper supports the claim by numerically solving the resulting coupled Camassa-Holm system on the circle and the coupled Euler system on the torus, and by deriving new coupled systems (KdV-KdV, Burgers-KdV, and others) from centrally extended semidirect products. A sympathetic reader would care because the coupling changes the qualitative behaviour of known integrable and fluid equations: peakons that would travel at different speeds become locked into travelling pairs, and vorticity structures stop merging.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the coadjoint action of the self-semidirect product Lie algebra, $\mathrm{ad}^*_{(\xi_h,\xi_k)}(m,n) = (\mathrm{ad}^*_{\xi_h}m + \mathrm{ad}^*_{\xi_k}n,\, \mathrm{ad}^*_{\xi_h+\xi_k}n)$, which splits into a transported variable $n$ and a difference variable $m-n$. Writing the system in variables $(m-n,n)$ diagonalises the coupling: $m-n$ is carried by $\xi_h$ alone and $n$ by $\xi_h+\xi_k$, which is exactly why one component acts as transport and the other as forcing. The numerical experiments are carried by a monolithic continuous-Galerkin finite-element discretisation with trapezium-rule time stepping for the circle, and a mimetic C-grid finite-difference method with spectral elliptic solves for the torus.

What would settle it

Rerun the CH-CH experiment at half the time step and double the spatial resolution, and also with a different energy-preserving scheme such as implicit midpoint or a spectral discretisation. If the coupled peakon pair no longer forms, or if total energy drifts measurably over $t\in[0,32]$, the locking behaviour is a numerical artifact rather than a property of the geodesic flow. For the Euler-Euler case, replace the upwind C-grid fluxes with a non-dissipative scheme and check whether the vorticity fields still lock.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that geodesic flow on a self-semidirect product of diffeomorphism groups is not a mild perturbation of two independent flows; it is a one-way coupling in which the second component is transported by the first while the first is forced by the second. Starting from smooth, non-peakon initial data for the coupled Camassa-Holm equations on $\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)\ltimes\mathrm{Diff}(S^1)$, the numerics show peakons and anti-peakons being created, and eventually a peakon in each variable travelling together at the same speed despite different heights. For the volume-preserving case, the same coupling appears in the vorticity formulation: the second vorticity is advected by the first flow, the first is forced by the second, and the two vorticity fields become spatially locked while the total vorticity stays bounded. The paper also claims that centrally extending the group before taking the semidirect product yields genuinely new coupled dispersive systems, giving equations such as KdV-KdV, Burgers-KdV, and dispersively coupled Camassa-Holm pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The numerical solutions faithfully represent the true geodesic flows of the continuous equations, so the coupled peakons and vorticity locking are properties of those equations rather than artifacts of the time integrator or the upwind-biased spatial scheme.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Peakons can be created out of smooth initial data by the semidirect coupling alone, so the coupled system has richer coherent-structure dynamics than either uncoupled Camassa-Holm equation.
  • Peakons of different heights and different uncoupled speeds lock into pairs moving at a common speed, a behaviour that should also appear in any other system with the same coadjoint structure.
  • In the 2D Euler-Euler case, the additional transport prevents merging of vortices and transfers energy between the two fluids while preserving total vorticity integrals.
  • Centrally extended semidirect products give new coupled dispersive equations, and the order of extensions matters: dispersive coupling terms appear when the central extension is taken first, but not when the semidirect product algebra is centrally extended directly.
  • The vorticity bound $\|\omega_1(t)\|_\infty \le \|\omega_1(0)\|_\infty + 2\|\omega_2(0)\|_\infty$ gives a priori control that explains the growth of $\omega_1$ seen in the simulations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the coupling mechanism is generic, the same locking should appear in other self-semidirect fluid models, such as coupled EPDiff or MHD-MHD systems; testing these numerically would separate the group-theoretic effect from the specific equations.
  • The diagonalised variables $(m-n,n)$ suggest reduced low-dimensional models: the interaction is essentially one scalar field being transported by the sum velocity while the difference field is advected independently, so existing numerical methods for the Camassa-Holm equation could be adapted to the coupled system.
  • The asymmetry (first component transports, second forces) resembles wave-mean-flow interaction and could be a design template for coupled models in geophysical fluid dynamics, but the paper does not make that connection itself.
  • One testable extension is to vary the metric parameters $\alpha,\beta$, or the off-diagonal metric parameter $\theta$ described in appendix A.4, and check whether the peakon locking speed tracks a predicted combination of the two uncoupled peakon speeds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies Euler–Poincaré geodesic equations on self-semidirect product groups, focusing on Diff(S^1) ⋉ Diff(S^1) and SDiff(T^2) ⋉ SDiff(T^2). It derives coupled Camassa–Holm (CH-CH) and Euler–Euler systems, and reports numerical experiments using a continuous Galerkin finite element method and a mimetic C-grid finite difference scheme. The headline claims are that peakons emerge from smooth initial data in the CH-CH system, that u- and v-peakons travel together, and that analogous coupling appears in the vorticity variables of the Euler–Euler system. The paper also derives coupled systems from centrally extended groups and vector-space semidirect products, including Burgers-KdV and KdV-KdV type equations.

Significance. If the numerical claims are correct, the paper provides interesting evidence that semidirect product structure yields genuinely coupled dynamics in which one component transports and the other forces, going beyond direct-product couplings. The analytical parts are largely self-contained and the diagonalization of the semidirect product coadjoint action, leading to conserved quantities for the Euler–Euler system, is a useful contribution. However, the central numerical claims about emergent peakons and coupled vorticity are not validated against known analytic peakon solutions or by convergence studies, and the stated exact energy preservation is not established. These gaps currently prevent the manuscript from supporting its abstract-level conclusions.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.10)–(3.13), Fig. 3.4b] The above two comments concern the central numerical claims of the paper and should be addressed before publication.
  2. [§3.1.1, Figs. 3.3 and 3.4] Similarly, the claim that the semidirect product creates 'positive and negative peakons' in the u variable at t=4 is asserted from snapshots without a definition of what is meant by a peakon in a P1 solution or a check that the feature persists under refinement. The absence of such checks leaves the main phenomenological claim of Section 3.1 insufficiently supported.
  3. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.18)–(3.19), Figs. 3.5 and 3.6] The analytical vorticity bound in Eqs. (3.23)–(3.25) is a useful and correct observation for the continuous equations, but it does not by itself establish that the discrete C-grid solution inherits these bounds. A statement about the discrete conservation of the vorticity integrals is made in the caption of Fig. 3.6k, but the local and global conservation properties of the mimetic scheme should be stated precisely and verified in the text.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'Monolythic', 'trapesium', 'consequnently', 'non-Albelian', and 'Cammassa-Holm'. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§3.1, text after Eq. (3.17)] The sentence 'In comparing between the semidirect product coupled system fig. 3.6 and the direct product uncoupled system in fig. 3.1' appears to refer to Fig. 3.3, not Fig. 3.6, since Fig. 3.6 shows the Euler–Euler system. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  3. [§4.3, Example 4.2] The Lagrangian for KdV-KdV is written as ℓ = 1/2||u||^2 + 1/2||v||^2 + 1/2α^2 + 1/2β^2, but the constants α, β are then used as the central-extension parameters l, o in the equations. The notation is confusing: the relation between α, β and l, o should be stated explicitly, and the variational derivatives with respect to these parameters should be shown.
  4. [§A.2] The overview states that 'In section 4.1 the group axioms for centrally extended groups are verified', but the verification appears in Appendix A.2, not Section 4.1. The cross-reference should be corrected.
  5. [§3.2, Figs. 3.5 and 3.6] The figures are crowded and the color scales are not labeled with the vorticity values. Since the claim of higher vorticity values in Fig. 3.6 than in Fig. 3.5 is qualitative, adding consistent color bars and reporting the maximum/minimum values in the text or captions would strengthen the presentation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the geometric derivations and numerical observations are independent; the sole self-citation is a non-load-bearing numerical tool reference.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The coupled CH-CH system (3.1)-(3.4), the Euler-Euler system (3.18)-(3.19), and the extensions in Section 4 (e.g. (4.37)-(4.38) and (4.77)) are obtained by inserting the semidirect-product adjoint/coadjoint actions computed in Section 2.5 and Appendix A.4 into the standard Euler-Poincare variational principle (2.7), not by fitting to the numerical output. The headline observations are numerical experiments: peakons are observed from non-peakon initial conditions, and [13] is used only as an analytic benchmark for existence of peakon solutions, not as an input to the simulation; no parameter is fitted to the data and then renamed a prediction. Energy preservation is attributed to the trapezium rule via [18], and the finite-element discretization follows [5], both external to the author's own prior work. The only self-citation is [54], used as a numerical limiter/linear-invariant idea in Section 3.2; it is a tool and is not load-bearing for the geometric derivation or the central coupling claims. The caveat in Appendix A.6 that "it is not clear what the group action is" for the centrally extended semidirect-product examples is an acknowledged limitation of those examples, not a circular step. Therefore there is no circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical or mathematical entities; it applies the known semidirect product construction to known groups. The free parameters listed are chosen experimental settings or model parameters, not fitted to data. The main load-bearing assumptions are the formal infinite-dimensional Lie group treatment and the unproven numerical convergence.

free parameters (4)
  • α (H¹ weight for u in CH-CH) = 1
    Chosen in Section 3.1; the peakon speed and coupling behavior may depend on this weight.
  • β (H¹ weight for v in CH-CH) = 1/2
    Chosen in Section 3.1; affects the v peakon dynamics and the observed locking.
  • Initial condition parameters for CH-CH experiment = u(0)=0.5 cosh(x - 20/3), v(0)=0.2 cosh(x - 40/3) on [0,40]
    Smooth profiles chosen by hand; the emergence of peakons and coupled behavior may be specific to these data (Section 3.1).
  • l, o (central cocycle parameters) = arbitrary constants
    Appear in Section 4.3 equations as parameters of the centrally extended systems; not fitted, but they determine the dispersive coupling.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The diffeomorphism group Diff(M) is treated as an infinite-dimensional Lie group with Lie algebra Vect(M), and the Euler-Poincaré variational principle applies (Sections 2.1-2.2).
    This is a standard but formal assumption; the paper does not prove the manifold structure.
  • standard math Adjoint and coadjoint actions for the semidirect product computed in Appendix A.4 are correct and match known results.
    These are standard calculations, included as a reference.
  • domain assumption The numerical schemes converge to the weak solutions of the continuous equations as mesh and time step vanish.
    No convergence analysis is provided; the observed phenomena are assumed to be features of the PDEs, not numerical artifacts (Sections 3.1 and 3.2).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Numerically modelling semidirect product geodesics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/JKSKXKQC

@misc{pith2026250505167,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Numerically modelling semidirect product geodesics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/JKSKXKQC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05167}
}
read the original abstract

This paper numerically investigates Euler-Poincar\'e equations arising from a self-semidirect product group structure. Nonlinearly coupled systems of equations emerge from the semidirect product action where one set of dynamics can be considered in the frame of another. A monolithic energy-preserving continuous Galerkin finite element method is used to study geodesic equations associated with the semidirect product of the diffeomorphism group on a circle with itself. Theoretically predicted peakon solutions are observed as an emergent behaviour. In addition, complicated nonlinear transfers of energy are associated with the semidirect product coupling, where amongst various nonlinear interactions, we observe coupled peakon behaviour. A mimetic (C-grid) finite difference method is used to study the geodesic flow of the semidirect product of the volume preserving diffeomorphism group with itself, where similar coupling behaviour is observed in the vorticity variables. We also investigate coadjoint and Lie-Poisson structures in the context of geodesic equations on semidirect product groups, where the underlying group is first extended by central extension or semidirect product.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05167 by the authors.

Figure 3.1
Figure 3.1. Finite element solution of the CH-CH direct product system eqs. (3.14) to (3.17) at t = 0, 4, 8, ..., 32 in the variables (u, v), plotted in black and blue respectively. We observe two uncoupled solutions of the Camassa-Holm equation, both initial conditions separate out into peakons. In blue the taller peakon travels faster and almost overtakes the slower peakon in black. (a) Space-Time plot, of the direct product … view at source ↗
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.2. Direct product uncoupled CH-CH system. Space time plot fig. 3.2a and Energy plot fig. 3.2b. We observe energy preservation in each system. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.3. Finite element solution of the CH-CH semidirect product system eqs. (3.1) to (3.4) at t = 0, 4, 8, ..., 32 in the variables (u, v), plotted in black and blue respectively. At first, the blue initial condition v created positive and negative peakons in the black u variable. Later in the run, a peakon in blue and black travels with the same speed. (a) Space-Time plot, of the coupled semidirect product CH-CH system (u,… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 3.4
Figure 3.4. Figure 3.4: Semidirect product-CH-CH system. Space time plot fig. 3.4a and Energy plot fig. 3.4b. We observe total energy preservation, and transfers of energy between the system in u and v associated with the nonlinear coupling. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3_4.png]
Figure 3.5
Figure 3.5. Figure 3.5: Solution of the Euler-Euler direct product uncoupled system at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3_5.png]
Figure 3.6
Figure 3.6. Figure 3.6: Solution of the Euler-Euler semidirect product coupled system (eqs. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    Escher, R

    J. Escher, R. Ivanov, and B. Kolev. Euler equations on a semi-direct product of the diffeomorphisms group by itself. Journal of Geometric Mechanics 3 (2011), Nr. 3 , 3(3):313–322, 2011

    work page 2011

  2. [1]

    K. Araki. Differential-geometrical approach to the dynamics of dissipationless incompressible Hall magnetohydrody- namics: I. Lagrangian mechanics on semidirect product of two volume preserving diffeomorphisms and conservation laws. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical , 48(17):175501, 2015

    work page 2015

  3. [2]

    V. Arnold. Sur la g´ eom´ etrie diff´ erentielle des groupes de lie de dimension infinie et ses applications ` a l’hydrodynamique des fluides parfaits. In Annales de l’institut Fourier , volume 16 (1), pages 319–361, 1966

    work page 1966

  4. [3]

    V. I. Arnold and V. I. Arnold. Topological methods in hydrodynamics. Springer, 2014

    work page 2014

  5. [4]

    V. I. Arnol’d and B. A. Khesin. Topological methods in hydrodynamics, volume 19. Springer, 2009

    work page 2009

  6. [5]

    T. M. Bendall, C. J. Cotter, and D. D. Holm. Perspectives on the formation of peakons in the stochastic Camassa– Holm equation. Proceedings of the Royal Society A , 477(2250):20210224, 2021

    work page 2021

  7. [6]

    R. Bott. On the characteristic classes of groups of diffeomorphisms. Enseign. Math., 2:209–220, 1977

    work page 1977

  8. [7]

    Bruveris, L

    M. Bruveris, L. Risser, and F.-X. Vialard. Mixture of kernels and iterated semidirect product of diffeomorphisms groups. Multiscale Modeling & Simulation , 10(4):1344–1368, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 62 references
  1. [8]

    Camassa and D

    R. Camassa and D. D. Holm. An integrable shallow water equation with peaked solitons. Physical review letters , 71(11):1661, 1993

    1993

  2. [9]

    Cendra and J

    H. Cendra and J. E. Marsden. Lin constraints, Clebsch potentials and variational principles. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 27(1-2):63–89, 1987

    1987

  3. [10]

    Cendra, J

    H. Cendra, J. E. Marsden, and T. S. Rat ,iu. Lagrangian reduction by stages. American Mathematical Soc., 2001

    2001

  4. [11]

    D. G. Ebin. On the space of Riemannian metrics . PhD thesis, Massachusetts Instituse Of Technology, 1968

    1968

  5. [12]

    D. G. Ebin and J. Marsden. Groups of diffeomorphisms and the motion of an incompressible fluid. Annals of Mathematics, 92(1):102–163, 1970

    1970

  6. [14]

    J. D. Garrett. garrettj403/SciencePlots. Sept. 2021

    2021

  7. [15]

    Gay-Balmaz and T

    F. Gay-Balmaz and T. S. Ratiu. The geometric structure of complex fluids. Advances in Applied Mathematics , 42(2):176–275, 2009

    2009

  8. [16]

    P. Guha. Geodesic flow on extended Bott–Virasoro group and generalized two-component peakon type dual systems. Reviews in Mathematical Physics , 20(10):1191–1208, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Guillemin and S

    V. Guillemin and S. Sternberg. Geometric quantization and multiplicities of group representations. Inventiones mathematicae, 67(3):515–538, 1982. 21

    1982

  10. [18]

    Hairer, M

    E. Hairer, M. Hochbruck, A. Iserles, and C. Lubich. Geometric numerical integration. Oberwolfach Reports, 3(1):805– 882, 2006

    2006

  11. [19]

    A. N. Hirani, J. E. Marsden, and J. Arvo. Averaged template matching equations. In Energy Minimization Methods in Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition: Third International Workshop, EMMCVPR 2001 Sophia Antipolis, France, September 3–5, 2001 Proceedings 3, pages 528–543. Spr...

    2001

  12. [20]

    G. P. Hochschild. The structure of Lie groups. (No Title), 1965

    1965

  13. [21]

    D. D. Holm. Hall magnetohydrodynamics: Conservation laws and lyapunov stability. The Physics of fluids , 30(5):1310–1322, 1987

    1987

  14. [22]

    D. D. Holm. Stochastic parametrization of the Richardson triple. Journal of Nonlinear Science , 29:89–113, 2019

    2019

  15. [23]

    D. D. Holm. 31 Lectures on Geometric Mechanics. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09564 , 2024

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    D. D. Holm, R. Hu, and O. D. Street. Lagrangian reduction and wave mean flow interaction. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 454:133847, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    D. D. Holm and C. Tronci. Geodesic flows on semidirect-product Lie groups: geometry of singular measure-valued solutions. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences , 465(2102):457–476, 2009

    2009

  18. [26]

    D. D. Holm and C. Tronci. Euler-Poincar´ e formulation of hybrid plasma models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1012.0999 , 2010

    2010 arXiv

  19. [27]

    D. D. Holm and T. M. Tyranowski. New variational and multisymplectic formulations of the Euler–Poincar´ e equation on the Virasoro–Bott group using the inverse map. Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 474(2213):20180052, 2018

    2018

  20. [28]

    M. Ito. Symmetries and conservation laws of a coupled nonlinear wave equation. Physics Letters A , 91(7):335–338, 1982

    1982

  21. [29]

    Khesin and Y

    B. Khesin and Y. V. Chekanov. Invariants of the euler equations for ideal or barotropic hydrodynamics and super- conductivity in d dimensions. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena , 40(1):119–131, 1989

    1989

  22. [30]

    B. A. Khesin and R. Wendt. The geometry of infinite-dimensional groups , volume 51. Springer, 2009

    2009

  23. [31]

    A. A. Kirillov. Infinite dimensional Lie groups; their orbits, invariants and representations. The geometry of mo- ments. In Twistor Geometry and Non-Linear Systems: Review Lectures given at the 4th Bulgarian Summer School on Mathematical Problems of Quantum Field Theory, Held...

    1980

  24. [32]

    D. J. Korteweg and G. De Vries. XLI. On the change of form of long waves advancing in a rectangular canal, and on a new type of long stationary waves. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 39(240):422–443, 1895

  25. [33]

    Kriegl and P

    A. Kriegl and P. W. Michor. The convenient setting of global analysis , volume 53. American Mathematical Soc., 1997

    1997

  26. [34]

    B. A. Kupershmidt and T. Ratiu. Canonical maps between semidirect products with applications to elasticity and superfluids. Communications in Mathematical Physics , 90(2):235–250, 1983

    1983

  27. [35]

    Marcel, V

    P. Marcel, V. Ovsienko, and C. Roger. Extension of the Virasoro and Neveu-Schwarz algebras and generalized Sturm-Liouville operators. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 40:31–39, 1997

    1997

  28. [36]

    Marsden and A

    J. Marsden and A. Weinstein. Coadjoint orbits, vortices, and Clebsch variables for incompressible fluids. Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena, 7(1-3):305–323, 1983

    1983

  29. [37]

    J. E. Marsden, G. Misiolek, J.-P. Ortega, M. Perlmutter, and T. S. Ratiu. Hamiltonian reduction by stages. Springer, 2007

    2007

  30. [38]

    J. E. Marsden, T. Rat ¸iu, and A. Weinstein. Semidirect products and reduction in mechanics. Transactions of the american mathematical society, 281(1):147–177, 1984

    1984

  31. [39]

    P. W. Michor. Topics in differential geometry, volume 93. American Mathematical Soc., 2008. 22

    2008

  32. [40]

    P. W. Michor and T. S. Ratiu. On the geometry of the virasoro-bott group. Journal of Lie Theory , 8(2):293–309, 1998

    1998

  33. [41]

    Misio lek

    G. Misio lek. A shallow water equation as a geodesic flow on the Bott-Virasoro group. Journal of Geometry and Physics, 24(3):203–208, 1998

    1998

  34. [42]

    Misio lek and S

    G. Misio lek and S. C. Preston. Fredholm properties of Riemannian exponential maps on diffeomorphism groups. Inventiones mathematicae, 179:191–227, 2010

    2010

  35. [43]

    Modin, M

    K. Modin, M. Perlmutter, S. Marsland, and R. McLachlan. Geodesics on Lie groups: Euler equations and totally geodesic subgroup. 2010

    2010

  36. [44]

    H. Omori. Infinite dimensional Lie transformation groups , volume 427. Springer, 2006

    2006

  37. [45]

    Ortega and T

    J.-P. Ortega and T. S. Ratiu. Momentum maps and Hamiltonian reduction , volume 222. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

  38. [46]

    Ovsienko and C

    V. Ovsienko and C. Roger. Extensions of Virasoro group and Virasoro algebra by modules of tensor-densities on S1. arXiv preprint hep-th/9409067 , 1994

    1994 arXiv

  39. [47]

    V. Y. Ovsienko and B. A. Khesin. Korteweg-de Vries superequation as an Euler equation. Functional Analysis and Its Applications, 21(4):329–331, 1987

    1987

  40. [48]

    G. W. Patrick. The Landau–Lifshitz Equation by Semidirect Product Reduction. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 50:177–188, 1999

    1999

  41. [49]

    M. J. Perlmutter. Symplectic reduction by stages . University of California, Berkeley, 1999

    1999

  42. [50]

    C. Roger. Extensions centrales d’alg` ebres et de groupes de lie de dimension infinie, alg` ebre de virasoro et g´ en´ eralisations.Reports on Mathematical Physics , 35(2-3):225–266, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    G. Segal. The geometry of the KdV equation. International Journal of Modern Physics A , 6(16):2859–2869, 1991

    1991

  44. [52]

    Vizman et al

    C. Vizman et al. Geodesic equations on diffeomorphism groups. SIGMA. Symmetry, Integrability and Geometry: Methods and Applications, 4:030, 2008

    2008

  45. [53]

    Washabaugh

    P. Washabaugh. The SQG equation as a geodesic equation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1509.08034 , 2015

    2015 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Woodfield, H

    J. Woodfield, H. Weller, and C. J. Cotter. New limiter regions for multidimensional flows. Journal of Computational Physics, 515:113286, 2024

    2024

  47. [55]

    Zeitlin and R

    V. Zeitlin and R. A. Pasmanter. On the differential geometry approach to geophysical flows. Physics Letters A , 189(1-2):59–63, 1994. A. Appendix A.1. Group Homomorphism A fundamental construction in this work is a group homomorphism, it is defined as follows. Definition A.1 (...

    1994

  48. [56]

    from the group homomorphism property

    ϕ h−1 =ϕ(h)−1. from the group homomorphism property. ϕ maps the unit element eH of H to the unit element eK of K, this property follows from the homomorphism property ϕ (eH) = ϕ (eH·H eH) = ϕ (eH)·K ϕ (eH). ϕ maps the inverse in H to inverse in K, this follows from the previou...

  49. [57]

    Identity. For (g,b ) to be the left and right identity of bG, the following conditions must hold (f,a ) = (f,a )ˆ·(g,b ) = (fg,a +b + Σ(f,g )) ⇐⇒ g =eG, and b =−Σ(f,e ), (A.2) (f,a ) = (g,b )ˆ·(f,a ) = (gf,b +a + Σ(g,f )) ⇐⇒ g =eG, and b =−Σ(e,f ). (A.3) Therefore−b = Σ(f,e ) ...

  50. [58]

    From the group composition ( f,a )ˆ·(g,b ) = (fg,a +b+ Σ(f,g )), right identity of (g,b ) requiresg =f−1, and thena+b+Σ(f,f−1) = 0

    Inverse. From the group composition ( f,a )ˆ·(g,b ) = (fg,a +b+ Σ(f,g )), right identity of (g,b ) requiresg =f−1, and thena+b+Σ(f,f−1) = 0. Left identity of (g,b )ˆ·(f,a ) = (gf,b +a+Σ(g,f )) requiresg =f−1 and 0 =b+a+Σ(f−1,f ). Therefore, since b =−a− Σ(f,f−1) and b =−a− Σ(f...

  51. [59]

    Associativity in bG requires (f,a )ˆ·((g,b )ˆ·(h,c )) = ((f,a )ˆ·(g,b ))ˆ·(h,c ) (A.8) Consider the right hand side of eq

    Associativity. Associativity in bG requires (f,a )ˆ·((g,b )ˆ·(h,c )) = ((f,a )ˆ·(g,b ))ˆ·(h,c ) (A.8) Consider the right hand side of eq. (A.8) (fg,a +b + Σ(f,g ))ˆ·(h,c ) = (fgh,a +b +c + Σ(f,g ) + Σ(fg,h )) (A.9) and equate it to the left hand side of eq. (A.8), (f,a )ˆ·(gh,...

  52. [60]

    Identity. eG = (eH,eK), is the identity, as can be verified through the group homomorphism properties (eH,eK)·⋉ (h,k ) = (eH·H H,eK·KϕeHk) = (h,k ) (A.11) (h,k )·⋉ (eH,eK) = (h·H eH,k·Kϕhek) = (h,k ) (A.12)

  53. [61]

    The inverse can be infered from the group multiplication structure eq

    Inverse. The inverse can be infered from the group multiplication structure eq. (2.33) g−1 = (h,k )−1 = (h−1,h−1·k−1) (A.13) The right inverse property is verified using eq. (2.35) as follows gg−1 = (h,k )(h−1,h−1·k−1) = ( e,k (h· (h−1· k−1))) = ( e,e ). The left inverse prope...

  54. [62]

    Associativity. The group associativity property holds by direct computation g1(g2g3) =g1(h2,k 2)(h3,k 3) =g1(h2h3,k 2(h2·k3)) = (h1h2h3,k 1h1· (k2(h2·k3))) (A.14) (g1g2)g3 = (h1,k 1)(h2,k 2)g3 = (h1h2,k 1(h1·k2))g3 = (h1h2h3,k 1(h1·k2)(h1h2·k3)), (A.15) the right hand sides ar...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.