Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

On Conservative Matrix Fields: Continuous Asymptotics and Arithmetic

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Conservative Matrix Fields put ratios of D-finite sequences—the engine of Apéry's irrationality proof—into a higher-dimensional directional framework, with conjectured continuous arithmetic along trajectories.

desk verdict Solid algebraic core, but the advertised continuous asymptotics are conjectures, and the abstract cites a Levinson framework the paper never states. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08138 v2 pith:2VCSAMZO submitted 2025-07-10 math.NT cs.SCmath.COmath.RA

Shachar Weinbaum , Elyasheev Leibtag , Rotem Kalisch , Michael Shalyt , Ido Kaminer This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NTcs.SCmath.COmath.RA MSC 11J7211J8239A0633C20
keywords ConservativeMatrixFieldD-finitefunctionsApérylimitsPoincaré-PerronasymptoticsirrationalitymeasuresOrealgebrascocycleequationmultivariatehypergeometricterms
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 tries to establish that ratios of D-finite sequences—the objects behind Apéry's proof that $\zeta(3)$ is irrational—are special cases of a higher-dimensional structure called a Conservative Matrix Field (CMF). It proves that any such classical ratio is a CMF ratio, and that when a CMF trajectory can be conjugated into companion form encoding an irreducible Poincaré–Perron recurrence, the CMF ratio has the same limit and the same convergence rate as the corresponding D-finite ratio. Numerical experiments on CMF ratios show limits that appear constant over angular regions and normalized convergence rates and irrationality measures that appear continuous in the direction of evaluation; these observations are formalized as four conjectures. If the conjectures hold, they would extend Poincaré–Perron asymptotics to higher dimensions and open the way to optimization-based searches for new irrationality proofs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Conservative Matrix Field: a map $M:\mathbb{Z}^d\to GL_r(K(x))$ satisfying the cocycle equation $M_{v+w}=M_v\,\sigma_v(M_w)$, whose evaluation at a point gives path-independent multiplicative matrices. Along a trajectory $x+nv$, the trajectory matrices $T_{x,v}(n)=M_v(x+nv)$ multiply to $M_{nv}(x)$, and when $T_{x,v}(n)$ is in companion form—the matrix form whose last column encodes a linear recurrence—its last column carries the solutions of that recurrence. The other load-bearing pieces are the construction of CMFs from D-finite functions as basis-change matrices of the finite-dimensional module $A'.f$, the notion of coboundary equivalence (change of basis), and the Poincaré–Perron theorem, which converts the eigenvalue ratios of the companion matrix into convergence rates and multiplicative constants.

What would settle it

Take the CMF of Example 2.4 with $x=(1,1)$, $p=(0,1)$, $q=(1,1)$, and compute the CMF ratio for primitive directions $v=(2,3)$ and $v=(3,5)$ up to $N=1000$ terms. If either direction's limit estimate misses $\zeta(3)$ by much more than the predicted error $e^{N\rho}$, or its measured normalized convergence rate misses the closed-form value, then Conjecture 1 or 3 fails; conversely, agreement for all sampled primitive vectors in a neighborhood of $(1,1)$ is the concrete check the paper's framework predicts.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Conservative Matrix Field ($M:\mathbb{Z}^d\to GL_r(K(x))$ satisfying $M_{v+w}=M_v\,\sigma_v(M_w)$) is the natural multi-dimensional home for ratios of D-finite sequences. Given a multivariate D-finite function $f$ and a basis of its image under the Ore algebra, the basis-change matrices $M^f_v$ form a CMF, and a change of basis is exactly a coboundary transformation. A CMF ratio $L^{p,p',q,q'}_{x,v}(n)=p^t M_{nv}(x)p'/(q^t M_{nv}(x)q')$ along a trajectory $x+nv$ generalizes a D-finite ratio; Corollary 4.1.1 shows every D-finite ratio arises this way, and Corollary 4.3.1 states that under a companion-form irreducibility assumption the CMF ratio inherits the exact limit and convergence rate of the corresponding D-finite ratio. The paper's conjectures assert that the limit, the normalized convergence rate, and the irrationality measure of such ratios depend continuously on the direction $v$, with the limit constant on angular regions between a finite set of discontinuities.

Load-bearing premise

The bridge from CMF ratios to classical Apéry limits rests on the assumption that, for each trajectory, the trajectory matrix can be conjugated by a rational-function matrix $A$ into companion form encoding an irreducible Poincaré–Perron recurrence; the paper supplies such an $A$ explicitly only for the $\zeta(3)$ example.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any D-finite ratio, and therefore any Apéry limit, is a CMF ratio (Corollary 4.1.1), so the new framework contains all previously studied ratios of this kind.
  • Under the companion-form and irreducibility conditions, every CMF ratio shares the limit and convergence rate of its associated D-finite ratio (Corollary 4.3.1), making CMF ratios legitimate candidates for irrationality proofs.
  • The $\zeta(3)$ example reproduces Apéry's sequence exactly: the CMF ratio converges to $\zeta(3)$ with convergence rate $-8\log(\sqrt{2}+1)$ and the same height bound.
  • If Conjectures 1 and 2 hold, one irrationality-proving CMF ratio yields infinitely many essentially different irrationality-proving sequences in an angular neighborhood of the original direction.
  • If Conjectures 2 and 3 hold, normalized convergence rate, normalized height, and irrationality measure become continuous functions of direction, so scanning or optimizing over directions $v$ becomes a principled search strategy.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's conjectures imply a spectral view of CMF ratios: the normalized eigenvalues $\log|\lambda_i|/|v|$ form smooth surfaces over the direction sphere, and the limit should jump exactly where the dominant eigenvalue changes; this pattern is visible in the figures but is not stated as a theorem.
  • The main algorithmic bottleneck is not the CMF construction but the companion-form reduction; a canonical rational normal form over $K(x)$ for trajectory matrices would turn Corollary 4.3.1 from an existence statement into a computation.
  • If the continuity conjectures survive, optimization over primitive directions $v$ could be used to improve known irrationality measures for constants like $\zeta(5)$, $\pi$, or Catalan's constant, since nearby directions would inherit the proven irrationality while offering different heights and rates.
  • A quantitative test of Conjecture 2 would be to compute height and convergence rate for many directions and check whether the implied irrationality measure varies smoothly; the paper's Remark 14 already notes that height is determined by the other two.
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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces Conservative Matrix Fields (CMFs), defined as cocycles M: Z^d -> GL_r(K(x)) satisfying M_{v+w} = M_v sigma_v(M_w), and uses them to encode families of ratios of D-finite sequences along trajectories x+nv. The main rigorous results are Theorem 3.1 (a construction of CMFs from any D-finite function by basis changes in the Ore-algebra module), Proposition 3.2 (coboundary equivalence corresponds to change of basis), Corollary 4.1.1 (every D-finite ratio is a CMF ratio), and Propositions 4.2 and 4.3 (under companion-form and Poincaré--Perron hypotheses, CMF ratios inherit the classical limits and convergence rates; coboundary equivalence changes the vectors defining the ratio in an explicit way). Section 5 presents numerical experiments for three families of CMFs and formulates Conjectures 1--4 asserting continuity of the limit, irrationality measure, normalized convergence rate, and normalized eigenvalues as functions of the direction v. The conjectures are explicitly labeled as experimental observations, and the paper proposes optimization-based searches for irrationality proofs as a potential application.

Significance. If the conjectures are true, the paper points to a genuinely new phenomenon: Apéry-like limits and their arithmetic qualities varying continuously with the direction of a trajectory in a high-dimensional lattice, a property not visible in the classical one-parameter theory. The rigorous core is coherent and appears correct: the CMF construction from a D-finite function is an exact basis-change computation, the inclusion of Apéry limits as CMF limits is definitionally sound, and the ζ(3) example in Example 4.2 correctly recovers Apéry's recurrence via a coboundary transformation. The paper also has a reproducible, computational flavor: it uses the HolonomicFunctions and Asymptotics packages and gives explicit generators for the examples. The main gap is that the advertised 'continuous asymptotics' and 'continuous arithmetic' are not established theorems but conjectures resting on finite-N estimates, and the only rigorous bridge to classical Poincaré--Perron asymptotics, Corollary 4.3.1, is conditional on an unproved companion-form reduction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Corollary 4.3.1] The promised Levinson-type framework is not present in the body of the paper. Section 2.3 states only the scalar Poincaré--Perron theorem (Theorem 2.1), and no Benzaid--Lutz or other discrete Levinson theorem is stated for the matrix systems y(n+1)=T_{x,v}(n)y(n) that underlie CMF ratios. As a result, the only proved bridge from a CMF ratio to a classical D-finite ratio with a known convergence rate is Corollary 4.3.1, whose hypothesis requires an A in GL_r(Q(x)) such that C(n)=A(x+(n-1)v)T_{x,v}(n)A^{-1}(x+nv) is in companion form and encodes an irreducible Poincaré--Perron recurrence. That existence is not proved for the general CMFs constructed in Section 3; Example 4.2 supplies it for one trajectory only. Consequently the red lines in Figures 3--5, comparing normalized convergence rates with log|lambda_i|/|v|, are not consequences of any proved statement for non-companion trajectories. The authors should either state and prove a companion-form/coboundary existence theorem (ideally via a genuine Benzaid--Lutz theorem) or explicitly restrict all asymptotic claims to the cases covered by Corollary 4.3.1 and Proposition 4.2.
  2. [Section 4, Definition 17] The 'extension' claim needs re-framing, because a standard Krylov argument shows that every CMF ratio is already a D-finite ratio. For the first-order system y(n+1)=T_{x,v}(n)y(n), the vectors y(n),...,y(n+r) are Q(n)-linearly dependent, so a nontrivial relation gives one common P-recursive recurrence of order at most r satisfied by every coordinate of M_{nv}(x)p' and similarly for q'. Hence L_{p,q}^{x,v}(n) is a ratio of two solutions of a common P-recursive recurrence over Q(n), i.e., exactly a D-finite ratio in the sense of Definition 7. The CMF framework therefore does not enlarge the class of sequences; what is new is the direction-parametrized family {L_{p,q}^{x,v}(.) : v in Z^d}. The abstract's phrase 'extend ratios of D-finite sequences to a high-dimensional setting' and the wording in Section 4 should be adjusted to say that the paper organizes a family of D-finite ratios, rather than introducing a larger sequence class.
  3. [Section 5.1, Conjectures 1--4] The experimental support for Conjectures 1--4 is not calibrated. The estimates hat l, hat rho, and hat delta are computed at N=1000 (Figure 3), N=100 (Figure 4), and N=200 (Figure 5), with no error bars and no demonstration that the finite-N values are close to the true asymptotic quantities. The estimator for delta uses log|H(L(N))| and log|L(N)-L(2N)|/N, which is singular when the convergence rate is close to zero; the plotted non-convergence intervals in Figure 4 correspond exactly to rho-hat = 0 and are where the approximation breaks down. Since Conjectures 1--4 carry the paper's advertised 'continuous asymptotics and arithmetic', the conjectures should be presented strictly as numerical observations with explicit caveats, and the abstract should not state that the paper 'establishes' these properties. In addition, Conjecture 4 implicitly assumes the same unproved companion-form reduction identified in the first major comment.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Corollary 5.0.1] In the statement of Corollary 5.0.1, the conclusion 'L_{p,q}^{x,v0}(n) -> l' inside the for-all-v sentence should presumably be 'L_{p,q}^{x,v}(n) -> l'; the current wording makes the quantifier over v vacuous.
  2. [Definition 7] Definition 7 says u1(n), u2(n) in Q^N, but N is not defined; it should say that u1 and u2 are sequences of rational numbers, or introduce notation for the set of sequences explicitly.
  3. [Definition 8] In Definition 8, if s_n = l then the defining equation |s_n - l| = 1/H(s_n)^{1+delta_n} has no solution delta_n; the definition should explicitly exclude the case s_n = l.
  4. [Proposition 4.2] Proposition 4.2 refers to 'irreducible (in the sense of definition 2 in [32])' without stating the definition; since the proof uses this property to rule out smaller annihilators, the definition should be included or paraphrased in the paper.
  5. [Definition 17] The notation L_{p,p',q,q'}^{x,v} and L_{p,q}^{x,v} is hard to parse because the superscripts carry both the trajectory data and the vector data; a notation such as L(x,v;p,p',q,q')(n) would improve readability.
  6. [Figures 3--5] The figures would be much more informative with error bars or with multiple starting points for the same direction; the text should also state the stopping criterion used to decide that a trajectory 'does not converge' in Figure 4.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CMF construction is exact basis-change algebra, and the inclusion of Apéry limits is a definitional embedding rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The paper's rigorous derivation chain is self-contained. Theorem 3.1 constructs a CMF from a D-finite function by basis-change matrices (Definition 15), and the cocycle identity is verified directly from the action of shifts, with no target limit assumed. Definition 17 then defines CMF ratios, and Proposition 4.1 plus Corollary 4.1.1 show that a D-finite ratio becomes a CMF ratio by building the 1-dimensional CMF from the companion matrix of the recurrence (Example 2.6). This is an embedding by construction, not a circular derivation: Corollary 4.1.1 asserts exactly what the definition was designed to include. Propositions 4.2 and 4.3 and Corollary 4.3.1 are conditional implications: when a coboundary puts the trajectory matrix in companion form, the CMF ratio inherits the scalar Poincaré–Perron limit and rate; the existence of such an A is assumed and only exhibited for the ζ(3) trajectory in Examples 2.12 and 4.2, so no general conclusion is smuggled in. Conjectures 1–4 are explicitly empirical and conditional, not presented as proved predictions. The main self-citations ([16], [19], [20], [21]) provide motivation and an empirical observation on irrationality-measure identity; they are not load-bearing for the asymptotic derivation. The paper does leave gaps: no Benzaid–Lutz discrete Levinson theorem is stated or proved, and the general existence of A in Corollary 4.3.1 is unproved; these are correctness and completeness risks, not circularity. The score is 2 only to acknowledge the minor, non-load-bearing self-citations; no circular step is exhibited.

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

The rigorous core rests on standard Poincaré-Perron theory; the experimental conjectures additionally assume finite-N estimates are faithful and that companion-form coboundaries exist. No free parameters are fitted to data.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Poincaré-Perron theorem as stated in Theorem 2.1, with distinct characteristic roots and leading coefficient normalized
    Used throughout Sections 2-4 to decompose solutions and compute convergence rates of D-finite and CMF ratios.
  • domain assumption The recurrence L in Proposition 4.2 is irreducible in the sense of Wimp [32]
    Needed so that weighted sums of shifted solutions cannot vanish, preserving the first nonzero multiplicative constant argument.
  • domain assumption For general trajectories, a companion-form coboundary matrix A exists as described in Corollary 4.3.1
    Assumed for connecting CMF ratios to D-finite ratios; proven only in the worked ζ(3) example, not for general CMFs.
  • ad hoc to paper Finite-N estimates L(N), rho-hat, and delta-hat represent true asymptotic values with exponential error
    The estimators in Section 5 rely on error decaying like e^{N rho}; no rigorous error bounds are given, and this underpins Conjectures 1-4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On Conservative Matrix Fields: Continuous Asymptotics and Arithmetic." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VCSAMZO

@misc{pith2026250708138,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On Conservative Matrix Fields: Continuous Asymptotics and Arithmetic},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VCSAMZO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08138}
}
read the original abstract

We present the Conservative Matrix Field (CMF) as a tool for the analysis and computation of D-finite functions. We use conservative matrix fields to establish asymptotic properties of families of linear forms in periods, including (but not limited to) multivariate Mellin integrals, via a discrete Levinson-type framework due to Benzaid and Lutz. Finally, we present an experimental analysis of the families of linear forms generated by these objects and formalize the resulting observations as conjectures on their continuous asymptotic and arithmetic properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.08138 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The geometric interpretation of the evaluated CMF Mv(x), depicted over a subset of the lattice Z 2 . The black arrows encode the translations up and to the right. The colored arrows encode a subset of other possible translations. This figure is a commutative diagram. Remark 10. Defining Q notation for matrices thusly: Yn k=0 Mk = M0 · M1 · · · Mn results in: Mnv(x) = nY−1 k=0 Tx,v(k) (5) Example 2.9. Using the CMF d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example of non-converging CMF ratio - First 300 values of L p,q x,v(n) Proposition 4.2. Suppose for a CMF M, the trajectory matrix Tx,v(n) is in companion form. Suppose further, that the recurrence operator L encoded by Tx,v(n) satisfies the conditions of Poincar´e and Perron, and is irreducible (in the sense of definition 2 in [32]). Then, for any a(n) ∈ Q(n) r , and any p, q such that L p,q x,v(n) converges, limn→… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Asymptotic and arithmetic properties of the CMF from Example 2.4, VS the direction of v ∈ N 2 . In all the figures above, the parameters are plotted as function of the angle of v with the x1 axis. Top Left: The estimated limit ˆl = L p,q x,v(1000). In red – the value of ζ(3). Top Right: The estimated irrationality measure ˆδ. in black – the cutoff for irrationality δ = 0. Note the span of directions for which L p,q … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Asymptotic and arithmetic properties of the CMF in Appendix B, VS the direction of v ∈ Z 2 . In all the figures above, the parameters are plotted as function of the angle of v with the x1 axis, and critical angles are marked by black dashed lines. Top Left: The estimat…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Asymptotic and arithmetic properties of the constant CMF in Example 2.7, VS the direction of v ∈ Z 2 . In all the figures above, the parameters are plotted as function of the angle of v with the x1 axis, where the parameters of L p1,q1 x,v (n) are in blue, and the para…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID 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. The Ramanujan Challenge For AI

    math.HO 2026-06 accept novelty 6.5 of 10

    A benchmark of new continued fractions, recurrences, series and integrals for classical constants, split into encrypted-proof problems and open conjectures for testing AI mathematical reasoning.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. P. Stanley. Enumerative Combinatorics, Volume 2 . Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathe- matics. Cambridge University Press, 1999

    work page 1999

  2. [2]

    Flajolet and R

    P. Flajolet and R. Sedgewick. Analytic Combinatorics. Cambridge University Press, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    Y. Andr´ e. G-Functions and Geometry. Aspects of Mathematics. Vieweg+Teubner Verlag, 1989

    work page 1989

  4. [4]

    A. Baker. Transcendental Number Theory. Cambridge University Press, 1975

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    Petkovsek, H

    M. Petkovsek, H. S. Wilf, and D. Zeilberger. A=B. A K Peters/CRC Press, 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    Kashiwara

    M. Kashiwara. D-Modules and Microlocal Calculus . Trans. by M. Saito. Translations of Mathe- matical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, 2003

    work page 2003

  7. [7]

    Irrationalit´ e deζ2 et ζ3

    R. Ap´ ery. “Irrationalit´ e deζ2 et ζ3”. In: Ast´ erisque (1979)

    work page 1979

  8. [8]

    A Note on the Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3)

    F. Beukers. “A Note on the Irrationality of ζ(2) and ζ(3)”. In: Bulletin of the London Mathe- matical Society (1979)

    work page 1979

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    An Ap´ ery-like Difference Equation for Catalan’s Constant

    W. Zudilin. “An Ap´ ery-like Difference Equation for Catalan’s Constant”. In: Electr. J. Comb. (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Zudilin et al

    W. Zudilin et al. On cellular rational approximations to ζ(5). 2022. arXiv: 2210.03391

    2022

  3. [11]

    Calegari, V

    F. Calegari, V. Dimitrov, and Y. Tang. The linear independence of 1, ζ(2), and L(2, χ−3). 2024. arXiv: 2408.15403

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    A. I. Aptekarev. On linear forms containing the Euler constant . 2009. arXiv: 0902.1768

    2009 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The irrationality measure of π is at most 7 .103205334137

    D. Zeilberger and W. Zudilin. “The irrationality measure of π is at most 7 .103205334137 . . .”. In: Moscow Journal of Combinatorics and Number Theory (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Generating conjectures on fundamental constants with the Ramanujan Ma- chine

    G. Raayoni et al. “Generating conjectures on fundamental constants with the Ramanujan Ma- chine”. In: Nature (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Automated Search for Conjectures on Mathematical Constants using Analysis of Integer Sequences

    O. Razon et al. “Automated Search for Conjectures on Mathematical Constants using Analysis of Integer Sequences”. In: PMLR (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Algorithm-assisted discovery of an intrinsic order among mathematical con- stants

    R. Elimelech et al. “Algorithm-assisted discovery of an intrinsic order among mathematical con- stants”. In: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Ap´ ery Limits: Experiments and Proofs

    M. Chamberland and A. Straub. “Ap´ ery Limits: Experiments and Proofs”. In: The American Mathematical Monthly (2021)

    2021

  10. [18]

    Dougherty-Bliss et al

    R. Dougherty-Bliss et al. Tweaking the Beukers Integrals In Search of More Miraculous Irra- tionality Proofs A La Apery . 2021. arXiv: 2101.08308

    2021 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Strip Mining in the Abandoned Orefields of Nineteenth Century Mathematics

    R. W. Gosper. “Strip Mining in the Abandoned Orefields of Nineteenth Century Mathematics”. In: Computers in Mathematics . Dekker, 1990

    1990

  12. [20]

    O. David. The conservative matrix field . 2023. arXiv: 2303.09318

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Raz et al

    T. Raz et al. From Euler to AI: Unifying Formulas for Mathematical Constants . 2025. arXiv: 2502.17533v2

    2025

  14. [22]

    An algorithmic proof theory for hypergeometric (ordinary and “q

    H. S. Wilf and D. Zeilberger. “An algorithmic proof theory for hypergeometric (ordinary and “q”) multisum/integral identities”. In: Inventiones Mathematicae (1992)

    1992

  15. [23]

    G. Payne. Multivariate Hypergeometric Terms. 2014. arXiv: 1412.7214

    2014 arXiv

  16. [24]

    M. Kauers. D-Finite Functions: Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics . Algorithms and Computation in Mathematics. Springer, 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Non-commutative elimination in Ore algebras proves multivariate holonomic identities

    F. Chyzak and B. Salvy. “Non-commutative elimination in Ore algebras proves multivariate holonomic identities”. In: Journal of Symbolic Computation (1998)

    1998

  18. [26]

    Sur les ´ equations lin´ eaires aux diff´ erentielles ordinaires et aux diff´ erences finies

    H. Poincar´ e. “Sur les ´ equations lin´ eaires aux diff´ erentielles ordinaires et aux diff´ erences finies”. In: American Journal of Mathematics (1885)

  19. [27]

    ¨Uber Summengleichungen und Poincar´ esche Differenzengleichungen

    O. Perron. “ ¨Uber Summengleichungen und Poincar´ esche Differenzengleichungen”. In:Mathema- tische Annalen (1921)

    1921

  20. [28]

    Koutschan and W

    C. Koutschan and W. Zudilin. Ap´ ery limits for elliptic L-values. 2021. 24

    2021

  21. [29]

    S. Melczer. An Invitation to Analytic Combinatorics: From One to Several Variables . Texts & Monographs in Symbolic Computation. Springer Cham, 2021

    2021

  22. [30]

    Pemantle, M

    R. Pemantle, M. C. Wilson, and S. Melczer. Analytic Combinatorics in Several Variables . Cam- bridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, 2024

    2024

  23. [31]

    A physicist’s guide to the solution of Kummer’s equation and confluent hypergeometric functions

    W. N. Mathews Jr. et al. “A physicist’s guide to the solution of Kummer’s equation and confluent hypergeometric functions”. In: Condensed Matter Physics (2022)

    2022

  24. [32]

    Irreducible recurrences and representation theorems for 3F2(1)

    J. Wimp. “Irreducible recurrences and representation theorems for 3F2(1)”. In: Computers & Mathematics with Applications (1983)

    1983

  25. [33]

    Advanced Applications of the Holonomic Systems Approach

    C. Koutschan. “Advanced Applications of the Holonomic Systems Approach”. PhD thesis. Re- search Institute for Symbolic Computation, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2009

    2009

  26. [34]

    M. Kauers. A Mathematica Package for Computing Asymptotic Expansions of Solutions of P- Finite Recurrence Equations. Tech. rep. RISC, Johannes Kepler University Linz, 2011. 25 A Dual CMF, and Sub CMF Definition 18. Let M be a CMF of dimension d rank r over K. Then, the Dual CM...

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.