Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Convergence of Normal Form Power Series for Infinite-Dimensional Lie Pseudo-Group Actions

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Normal form power series for Lie pseudo-group actions converge under a well-posed cross-section.

desk verdict Genuinely new convergence theorem for pseudo-group normal forms; proof is solid modulo a δ-regularity caveat that should be stated as an explicit hypothesis. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.08869 v3 pith:2FFCNGTE submitted 2025-06-10 math-ph math.DGmath.MP

Peter J. Olver , Masoud Sabzevari , Francis Valiquette This is my paper
classification math-phmath.DGmath.MP MSC 22F0553A5558K50
keywords normalformpowerseriesLiepseudo-groupactionsequivariantmovingframesinvolutivesystemsofdifferentialequationsCartan–Kählertheoremwell-posedcross-sectionreduceddeterminingCRhypersurfaceforms
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

The paper proves that the formal normal form power series produced by the equivariant moving frame method for an analytic submanifold under an analytic Lie pseudo-group converges, provided the pseudo-group eventually acts freely and the cross-section used to define the moving frame is well-posed with convergent defining series. This turns an earlier purely formal construction into an analytic one, so equivalence of submanifolds under such actions can be decided by comparing convergent Taylor series. The result includes the classical convergence theorem for real hypersurfaces in complex space as a particular case. The argument works by showing the normal form is part of the solution to an involutive system of partial differential equations, the normal form determining equations, whose analytic solvability is guaranteed by the Cartan–Kähler theorem.

What carries the argument

The normal form determining equations are the central object: they are obtained from the reduced determining equations of the pseudo-group by substituting chain-rule relations that express target derivatives in terms of the source normal form and the diffeomorphism jets. Their involutivity, inherited from the reduced determining equations, means the normal form appears as part of a uniquely determined analytic solution once initial data are prescribed. The initial data are furnished by a well-posed cross-section, meaning a coordinate cross-section whose parametric indices admit a Rees decomposition into disjoint involutive cones specified by a Pommaret basis, so that the phantom coefficients coincide with the parametric derivatives beyond the order of freeness. The Cartan–Kähler theorem then supplies the convergence.

What would settle it

Take an analytic submanifold and pseudo-group satisfying the theorem's hypotheses, with a well-posed cross-section and convergent cross-section series, and compute the normal form series coefficients recursively from the involutive normal form determining equations; if the series has finite radius of convergence, the theorem is false. A concrete test case is the pseudo-group of Example 10.1 in its original coordinates, where the reduced determining equations are not involutive at any order—if no delta-regular coordinate change preserving the cross-section exists, that illustrates the boundary of the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 8.21: for an analytic Lie pseudo-group acting transitively on the space of independent variables, with prolonged action eventually free on an analytic submanifold, any well-posed coordinate cross-section whose normalization constants define convergent power series yields a normal form power series that converges and defines an analytic function. The proof reduces the normal form to part of the solution of an initial value problem for the involutive normal form determining equations, so analyticity follows from the Cartan–Kähler theorem. A key preparatory result is that reducible pseudo-groups, those to which moving frames apply, have reduced determining equations that remain involutive with the same first p Cartan characters, and beyond the order of freeness the moving-frame normalizations become compatible with involutivity.

Load-bearing premise

The proof runs only in delta-regular coordinates, where the algebraic involutivity test holds, and natural coordinates often are not delta-regular; if no such coordinate change can be made without breaking the cross-section or the normal form, the theorem's conclusion is not guaranteed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every analytic submanifold satisfying the hypotheses has a convergent moving-frame normal form, so submanifold equivalence under the pseudo-group is decided by equality of convergent normal forms.
  • The classical convergence theorem for nonsingular real hypersurfaces is recovered as a special case of the new theorem.
  • At and beyond one order past freeness, the moving-frame normalization constants are exactly the parametric derivatives of the involutive normal form system, so the normal form coefficients are governed by a finite involutive PDE system rather than by an infinite formal recursion.
  • Convergence can be certified by checking the cross-section power series and the Rees decomposition condition, without constructing the actual solution.
  • Chains generalize: when the largest nonzero Cartan character is c(k), the normalizing transformation is governed by a k-dimensional chain submanifold satisfying a PDE system rather than only one-dimensional ODE chains.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The delta-regularity condition suggests that convergence is not intrinsic to the pseudo-group action alone but depends on a choice of adapted coordinates; algorithmic normal form procedures may need to include a coordinate-adaptation step before the moving frame computation.
  • The Rees-decomposition criterion could be automated: checking well-posedness reduces to a combinatorial condition on the cross-section indices, which could turn the convergence theorem into a symbolic certificate without constructing the PDE solution.
  • If the partial-moving-frame extension indicated in Section 11 works, divergent normal forms for singular hypersurfaces may be understood as failures of well-posedness or freeness rather than as unavoidable divergence.
  • The higher-dimensional chain perspective suggests that for systems with several nonzero Cartan characters, normalizing transformations solve initial value problems for PDE systems, which may connect to existing higher-dimensional chain constructions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proves a general convergence theorem for normal form power series of analytic submanifolds under infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-group actions. The authors introduce reduced determining equations and normal form determining equations, prove their involutivity under a reducibility assumption, and combine this with the equivariant moving frame method through the notion of a well-posed cross-section. The main result, Theorem 8.21, states that a well-posed cross-section with convergent cross-section power series yields a convergent normal form power series, and it is applied to several examples, including a new proof of the Chern–Moser convergence theorem.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, this is a substantial unification: it gives one convergence mechanism that covers the Chern–Moser theorem, prior formal moving-frame constructions, and several new examples. The paper is explicit about the algebraic criteria for well-posedness (Theorem 8.17 and the Rees decomposition), and the examples are worked in enough detail to be checked independently. The main proof is not circular: it builds on established Cartan–Kähler theory and prior moving-frame results rather than assuming the conclusion. The main risk is not the overall strategy but two load-bearing points that need sharper treatment: the δ-regular-coordinate hypothesis in the statement of Theorem 8.21 and the formal integrability step in the proof of Theorem 7.10.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theorem 8.21, Remark 8.22, Examples 10.1 and 10.5] The statement of Theorem 8.21 does not list δ-regularity among its hypotheses, although Remark 8.22 acknowledges that the involutivity criterion (3.8) and the notion of well-posed cross-section presuppose δ-regular coordinates. Examples 10.1 and 10.5 show that natural coordinate systems for the pseudo-group action need not be δ-regular and that a change of variables is required before the theory applies. The paper verifies such changes in those two examples, but it proves no general existence or compatibility theorem ensuring that a δ-regular coordinate change can be made while preserving the cross-section as a coordinate cross-section and preserving the normal form up to analytic equivalence. As written, Theorem 8.21 therefore does not cover an arbitrary analytic submanifold and cross-section described in natural coordinates; either δ-regularity must be made an explicit hypothesis, or a coordinate-change lemma must be added that shows the hypotheses are invariant under a suitable admissible change of variables.
  2. [Theorem 7.10, Section 7.1] The proof of Theorem 7.10 establishes the symbol-level comparison, but the formal integrability step is asserted in a single sentence: 'any integrability condition would map back to an integrability condition of the reduced determining equations.' This is load-bearing because Theorem 3.12 and hence Theorem 8.21 require full involutivity, i.e., formal integrability in addition to an involutive symbol, and the chain-rule substitution (7.21) is not shown to preserve the prolongation/projection process. Please provide a detailed proof or a precise reference for the claim that integrability conditions of the normal form determining equations correspond to integrability conditions of the reduced determining equations.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 7, equation (7.4)] The repeated switching between source and target sections, with the warning on page 35, makes Section 7 hard to follow; a small commutative diagram or a table of the two notational conventions would improve readability.
  2. [Section 8.5, equation (8.24)] In equation (8.24) the range 'n≤ℓ≤cls(L)' appears to contain a typo: the index ℓ should presumably range over the multiplicative indices of the class of L, and the lower bound n is not defined in that context.
  3. [References] Reference [60] lists 'Olver, P.D.'; this should be 'Olver, P.J.' to match the other entries in the bibliography.
  4. [Section 10.5, Rees decomposition line] The displayed Rees decomposition for Example 10.5 uses concatenated summation ranges with the disjoint union symbol, which is hard to read; placing each cone on a separate line or using a clearer notation for the disjoint union would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circularity: Theorem 8.21 derives convergence from Cartan–Kähler applied to involutive normal form equations, with well-posed analytic cross-sections as hypotheses; self-citations are prior results, not the target theorem.

full rationale

The normal form convergence result is not circular. The target theorem (Theorem 8.21) assumes well-posedness of the cross-section and convergence of the cross-section power series; it concludes convergence of the full normal form series. These are genuinely different objects: the cross-section power series (7.3) contains only the phantom/normalization coefficients, while the normal form series (7.6) also contains the basic differential invariants. The proof does not redefine the conclusion as an input; it constructs the normal form determining equations (7.13), proves their involutivity (Theorems 5.12 and 7.10), and then invokes the Cartan–Kähler theorem (Theorem 3.12) to obtain the normal form as the u-part of a unique analytic solution (8.24)–(8.27). The δ-regularity assumption is an implicit requirement of the involutive-system framework (Remark 3.4, Remark 8.22, Examples 10.1 and 10.5); this is a technical coverage caveat, not a circular reduction, because the theorem's hypotheses (well-posed cross-section) already carry that framework. The self-citations to [56–59] supply prior moving-frame, freeness, and Chern–Moser computations; those prior papers do not contain the present convergence theorem and their results are not equivalent to it. No fitted data are relabeled as predictions, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors to force the choice. The closest thing to a concern is the silent δ-regularity dependence, but the paper itself flags it, and the argument remains an application of an external theorem (Cartan–Kähler) to a constructed system, so there is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger contains no fitted parameters and no invented entities. The theorem is conditional on standard analyticity and involutivity background, plus domain assumptions of reducibility, eventual freeness, delta-regular coordinates, and well-posed cross-sections. These are honest hypotheses rather than hidden inputs.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption All manifolds, fiber bundles, pseudo-groups, submanifolds, and cross-section functions are real-analytic.
    The proof uses the Cartan-Kähler theorem, which requires analyticity; stated in Section 2 and Theorem 8.21.
  • domain assumption G is a regular analytic Lie pseudo-group characterized by involutive determining equations G^(n) for n >= n*.
    Section 4 cites Theorem 1 of [29] for the existence of the order of involutivity; all computations assume this structural property.
  • standard math Cartan-Kähler theorem and Cartan-Kuranishi prolongation theorem hold as stated in Seiler's framework.
    Used in Theorem 3.12, Theorem 5.12, and Section 8.5; no proof is repeated in the paper.
  • domain assumption The coordinate charts used are delta-regular, so that the involutivity test (3.8) is valid.
    Remark 3.4 and Remark 8.22 assume delta-regularity throughout; Examples 10.1 and 10.5 show natural coordinates are not always delta-regular and require changes of variables.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-group is reducible on the section, meaning the reduction map is one-to-one on fibers for sufficiently high order, equivalent to eventual freeness by Theorem 6.5.
    Definition 5.5 and Theorem 6.5; reducibility is needed for the reduced determining equations to be involutive with matched Cartan characters in Theorem 5.12.
  • domain assumption The prolonged action eventually acts freely on an open subset of jet space, with order of freeness n_f.
    Hypothesis of Theorem 8.21; used to prove equality of vertical and prolonged annihilator symbols beyond n_f in Corollary 8.12.
  • domain assumption The chosen cross-section K is well-posed, meaning its defining index set admits a Rees decomposition beyond n_f, and the cross-section power series C^alpha converge to analytic functions.
    Definition in Section 8.4 and Theorem 8.17; these are hypotheses, not consequences, of Theorem 8.21.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Convergence of Normal Form Power Series for Infinite-Dimensional Lie Pseudo-Group Actions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FFCNGTE

@misc{pith2026250608869,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Convergence of Normal Form Power Series for Infinite-Dimensional Lie Pseudo-Group Actions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FFCNGTE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.08869}
}
read the original abstract

We prove the convergence of normal form power series for suitably nonsingular analytic submanifolds under a broad class of infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-group actions. Our theorem is illustrated by a number of examples, and includes, as a particular case, Chern and Moser's celebrated convergence theorem for normal forms of real hypersurfaces. The construction of normal forms relies on the equivariant moving frame method, while the convergence proof is based on the realization that the normal form can be recovered as part of the solution to an initial value problem for an involutive system of differential equations, whose analyticity is guaranteed by the Cartan-K\"ahler Theorem.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Holomorphic normal forms of six-dimensional totally nondegenerate CR manifolds in C^5

    math.CV 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Six-dimensional totally nondegenerate CR submanifolds of C^5 are divided into fourteen branches with normal forms and automorphism algebras claimed, twelve complete, one partial, and one deferred.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 68 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Arnaldsson, ¨O., Involutive moving frames,Diff. Geom. Appl.69(2020), 101603

    work page 2020

  2. [2]

    Arnaldsson, ¨O., Involutive moving frames II; The Lie–Tresse theorem,Diff. Geom. Appl. 79(2022), 101802

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    USSR Izv.14(1980), 223–245

    Beloshapka, V.K., On the dimension of the group of automorphisms of an analytic hypersurface,Math. USSR Izv.14(1980), 223–245

    work page 1980

  4. [4]

    Lie Theory32(2022), 709– 736

    Brown, R., Marsland, S., and McLachlan, R., Differential invariant signatures for planar Lie group transformations with applications to images,J. Lie Theory32(2022), 709– 736

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Bruce, J.W., and Giblin, P.J.,Curves and Singularities, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1984

    work page 1984

  6. [6]

    18, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1991

    Bryant, R.L., Chern, S.S., Gardner, R.B., Goldschmidt, H.L., and Griffiths, P.A.,Ex- terior Differential Systems, MSRI Publications, vol. 18, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1991

    work page 1991

  7. [7]

    Bryant, R., Griffiths, P., and Hsu, L., Hyperbolic exterior differential systems and their conservation laws, Part 1,Selecta Math., New Series1(1995), 21–112

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    Calabi, E., Olver, P.J., Shakiban, C., Tannenbaum, A., and Haker, S., Differential and numerically invariant signature curves applied to object recognition,Int. J. Computer Vision26(1998), 107–135

    work page 1998

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Mat.11(1932), 17–90

    Cartan, ´E., Sur l’´ equivalence pseudo-conforme des hypersurfaces de l’espace de deux variables complexes, I,Ann. Mat.11(1932), 17–90

    1932

  2. [10]

    5, Hermann, Paris, 1935

    Cartan, ´E.,La M´ ethode du Rep` ere Mobile, la Th´ eorie des Groupes Continus, et les Espaces G´ en´ eralis´ es, Expos´ es de G´ eom´ etrie No. 5, Hermann, Paris, 1935

    1935

  3. [11]

    Leroy, J

    Cartan, ´E, and Einstein, A.,Elie Cartan–Albert Einstein:Letters on Absolute Paral- lelism, 1929–1932, J. Leroy, J. Ritter, translators, R. Debever, ed., Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1979

    1929

  4. [12]

    Chern, S.S., and Moser, J.K., Real hypersurfaces in complex manifolds,Acta Math.133 (1974), 219–271

    1974

  5. [13]

    Cipolla, R., and Giblin, P.,Visual Motion of Curves and Surfaces, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  6. [14]

    178, AMS, 2017

    Clelland, J.N.,From Frenet to Cartan: The Method of Moving Frames, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 178, AMS, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    Ehlers, K., Geometric equivalence on nonholonomic three-manifolds,in:Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Dynamical Systems and Differential Equations, 24–27 May 2002, Wilmington, NC, USA, Springer, 2002, pp. 246–255. 72

    2002

  8. [16]

    Eˇ zov, V.V., and Schmalz, G., Normal form and two-dimensional chains of an elliptic CR manifold inC 4,J. Geom. Anal.6(1996), 495–529

    1996

  9. [17]

    Fels, M.E., The equivalence problem for systems of second-order ordinary differential equations,P. Lond. Math. Soc.71(1995), 221–240

    1995

  10. [18]

    Fels, M., and Olver, P.J., Moving coframes. II. Regularization and theoretical founda- tions,Acta Appl. Math.55(1999), 127–208

    1999

  11. [19]

    Methods Appl.5(2009), 092

    Fesser, F., and Seiler, W.M., Existence and construction of Vessiot connections,SIGMA: Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl.5(2009), 092

    2009

  12. [20]

    Synerg.9(2023), 10

    Foo, W.G., Heyd, J., and Merker, J., Normal forms of second-order ordinary differential equationsy xx =J(x, y, yx) under fibre-preserving maps,Complex Anal. Synerg.9(2023), 10

    2023

  13. [21]

    Math.70(2002), 113– 131

    Gaeta, G., Poincar´ e normal and renormalized forms,Acta Appl. Math.70(2002), 113– 131

    2002

  14. [22]

    Control Lett.8(1987), 463–465

    Gardner, R.B., and Shadwick, W.F., Feedback equivalence of control systems,Syst. Control Lett.8(1987), 463–465

    1987

  15. [23]

    Guggenheimer, H.W.,Differential Geometry, McGraw–Hill, New York, 1963

    1963

  16. [24]

    Hashemi, A., Schweinfurter, M., and Seiler, W.M., Deterministic genericity for polyno- mial ideals,J. Symb. Comp.86(2018), 20–50

    2018

  17. [25]

    Heyd, J., and Merker, J., On affinely homogeneous submanifolds: The power series method of equivalence, preprint,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.18437

    doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    Heyd, J., and Merker, J., Classification of affinely homogeneous Hessian rank 2 hyper- surfacesS 3 ⊂R 4, preprint,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2404.18565

    doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    Hoff, D., and Olver, P.J., Automatic solution of jigsaw puzzles,J. Math. Imaging Vision 49(2014), 234–250

    2014

  20. [28]

    53(2010), 687–700

    Huang, X., and Yin, W., Equivalence problem for Bishop surfaces,Science China Math. 53(2010), 687–700

    2010

  21. [29]

    Itskov, V., Olver, P.J., and Valiquette, F., Lie completion of pseudo-groups,Transfor- mation Groups16(2011), 161–173

    2011

  22. [30]

    Kamran, N., Lamb, K.G., and Shadwick, W.F., The local equivalence problem for d2y/dx2 =F(x, y, dy/dx) and the Painlev´ e transcendents,J. Diff. Geom.22(1985), 139–150

    1985

  23. [31]

    Kamran, N., and Olver, P.J., Equivalence problems for first order Lagrangians on the line,J. Diff. Eq.80(1989), 32–78. 73

    1989

  24. [32]

    Kamran, N., and Olver, P.J., Equivalence of differential operators,SIAM J. Math. Anal. 20(1989), 1172–1185

    1989

  25. [33]

    Kamran, N., and Olver, P.J., Equivalence of higher-order Lagrangians. III. New invariant differential equations,Nonlinearity5(1992), 601

    1992

  26. [34]

    Blondel, V.D

    Kang, W., and Krener, A.J., Problem 2.4 On the convergence of normal forms for analytic control systems,in:Unsolved Problems in Mathematical Systems and Control Theory, Eds. Blondel, V.D. and Megretski, A., Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2004, 82–86

    2004

  27. [35]

    Math.76(2003), 137–193

    Kogan, I.A., and Olver, P.J., Invariant Euler-Lagrange equations and the invariant vari- ational bicomplex,Acta Appl. Math.76(2003), 137–193

    2003

  28. [36]

    Ann.354 (2012), 813–825

    Kol´ aˇ r, M., Finite type hypersurfaces with divergent normal form,Math. Ann.354 (2012), 813–825

    2012

  29. [37]

    Math.681(2017), 153–177

    Kol´ aˇ r, M., Kossovskiy, I., and Zaitsev, D., Normal forms in Cauchy–Riemann geometry, Contem. Math.681(2017), 153–177

    2017

  30. [38]

    Math.281(2015), 670–705

    Kossovskiy, I., and Zaitsev, D., Convergent normal form and canonical connection for hypersurfaces of finite type inC 2,Adv. Math.281(2015), 670–705

    2015

  31. [39]

    Kossovskiy, I., and Zaitsev, D., Normal form for second order differential equations,J. Dyn. Control Syst.24(2018), 541–562

    2018

  32. [40]

    Reine Angew Math.765(2020), 205–247

    Lamel, B., and Stolovitch, L., Convergence of the Chern–Moser–Beloshapka normal forms,J. Reine Angew Math.765(2020), 205–247

    2020

  33. [41]

    Mackenzie, K.,General Theory of Lie Groupoids and Lie Algebroids, London Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Series, vol. 213, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005

    2005

  34. [42]

    Mall, D., On the relation between Gr¨ obner and Pommaret bases,Appl. Alg. Eng. Comm. Comp. (AAECC)9(1998), 117–123

    1998

  35. [43]

    Mansfield, E.L.,A Practical Guide to the Invariant Calculus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012

    2012

  36. [44]

    Lie Theory.31 (2021), 29–62

    Merker, J., A Lie-theoretic construction of Cartan–Moser chains,J. Lie Theory.31 (2021), 29–62

    2021

  37. [45]

    Merker, J., and Nurowski, P., Homogeneous CR and para-CR structure in dimensions 5 and 3,J. Geom. Anal.34(2024), 27

    2024

  38. [46]

    Morozov, O.I., Contact-equivalence for linear hyperbolic equations,J. Math. Sci.135 (2006), 313–335

    2006

  39. [47]

    Murdock, J.,Normal Forms and Unfoldings for Local Dynamical Systems, Springer, New York, 2003. 74

    2003

  40. [48]

    Nayfeh, A.H.,Method of Normal Forms, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1993

    1993

  41. [49]

    107, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1993

    Olver, P.J.,Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations, Second Edition, Grad- uate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 107, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1993

    1993

  42. [50]

    Olver, P.J.,Equivalence, Invariants, and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1995

    1995

  43. [51]

    Olver, P.J.,Classical Invariant Theory, London Math. Soc. Student Texts, vol. 44, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999

    1999

  44. [52]

    Olver, P.J., Generating differential invariants,J. Math. Anal. Appl.333(2007), 450–471

    2007

  45. [53]

    Olver, P.J., Recursive moving frames,Results Math.60(2011), 423–452

    2011

  46. [54]

    Kac, P.J

    Olver, P.J., Normal forms for submanifolds under group actions,in:Symmetries, Dif- ferential Equations and Applications, V. Kac, P.J. Olver, P. Winternitz, and T. ¨Ozer, eds., Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, Springer, New York, 2018, pp. 3–27

    2018

  47. [55]

    Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Maurer–Cartan forms and the structure of Lie pseudo- groups,Selecta Math.11(2005), 99–126

    2005

  48. [56]

    Math.60(2008), 1336–1386

    Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Moving frames for Lie pseudo–groups,Canadian J. Math.60(2008), 1336–1386

    2008

  49. [57]

    in Math.222(2009), 1746–1792

    Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Differential invariant algebras of Lie pseudo-groups, Adv. in Math.222(2009), 1746–1792

    2009

  50. [58]

    Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Persistence of freeness for pseudo-group actions,Arkiv Mat.50(2012), 165–182

    2012

  51. [59]

    Olver, P.J., Sabzevari, M., and Valiquette, F., Normal forms, moving frames, and dif- ferential invariants for nondegenerate hypersurfaces inC 2,J. Geom. Anal.33(2023), 192

    2023

  52. [60]

    Olver, P.D., and Shakiban, C.,Applied Linear Algebra, Second Edition, Undergraduate Texts in Mathematics, Springer, New York, 2018

    2018

  53. [61]

    Poincar´ e, M.H., Les fonctions analytiques de deux variables et la repr´ esentation con- forme,Rend. Circ. Matem. Palermo23(1907), 185–220

    1907

  54. [62]

    Respondek, W., and Tall, I.A., Feedback equivalence of nonlinear control systems: A survey on formal approach,in:Chaos in Automatic Control, CRC Press, 2006

    2006

  55. [63]

    48, AMS, 2006

    Rousseau, C., Normal forms for germs of analytic families of planar vector fields un- folding a generic saddle-node or resonant saddle,in:Nonlinear Dynamics and Evolution Equations, Fields Institute Communications, vol. 48, AMS, 2006

    2006

  56. [64]

    Sato, H., and Yoshikawa, A.Y., Third order ordinary differential equations and Legendre connections,J. Math. Soc. Japan50(1998), 993–1013. 75

    1998

  57. [65]

    24, Springer, 2010

    Seiler, W.M.,Involution: The Formal Theory of Differential Equations and its Appli- cations in Computer Algebra, Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics, vol. 24, Springer, 2010

    2010

  58. [66]

    Stormark, O.,Lie’s Structural Approach to PDE Systems, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000

    2000

  59. [67]

    Methods Appl.9(2013), 029

    Valiquette, F., Solving local equivalence problems with the equivariant moving frame method,SIGMA: Symmetry Integrability Geom. Methods Appl.9(2013), 029

    2013

  60. [68]

    Ann.233 (1978), 97–102

    Webster, S.M., On the Moser normal form at a non-umbilic point,Math. Ann.233 (1978), 97–102. †School of Mathematics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455 Email address:olver@umn. edu ‡Department of Mathematics, Shahrekord University, Shahrekord, Iran 88186 and School...

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.