REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references
Moving Frames for Lie Pseudo-groups: A Recursive Implementation
T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash
Pith's one-line read A moving frame for a Lie pseudo-group can be constructed recursively by normalizing parametric derivatives one involutive cone at a time, before the full prolonged action is computed, and the order of the steps does not matter.
desk verdict New recursive moving frame algorithm with real promise, but the central order-independence and solvability claims need proof or precise assumptions. read the letter →
The pith
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
The reading
What carries the argument
The load-bearing objects are the reduced Lie pseudo-group $\underline{\mathcal{G}}$, whose transformations are restricted to the submanifold $s$, its reduced determining equations, and the Rees decomposition $Z^{(\infty)}_{\mathrm{par}} = \mathcal{S} \cup \bigcup_{Z^a_J \in \mathcal{B}} \mathcal{C}(Z^a_J)$, which splits parametric derivatives into a finite set plus disjoint involutive cones. An involutive cone $\mathcal{C}(Z^a_J)$ is the set of all derivatives obtained by repeatedly differentiating $Z^a_J$ with respect to its multiplicative variables $x_1,\dots,x_k$, where $k$ is the class of the multi-index $J$ under the Pommaret division. The algorithm normalizes one such derivative at a time by solving either the algebraic equations (4.24)–(4.25) or the restricted PDE (4.27)–(4.29) on the hyperplane $H_k$, substitutes the normalization back into the normal form equation, and then prolongs only along non-multiplicative variables. This normalize, substitute, prolong interleaving is what keeps intermediate expressions small and is the reason the paper gives for why the order of the steps does not matter.
What would settle it
A concrete check: impose the same normalizations on the running example (2.2) in the opposite order from Example 7, normalizing $X_x$ before $Y_x$; if the computed differential invariants or the moving frame differ, the order-independence claim is false.
Extended reading notes
Core claim
On its own terms, the paper's discovery is that the normal form equation $U(x,u(x)) = \hat U(X(x,u(x)))$ can be used as a recursive normalization engine. Writing $N^\alpha = U^\alpha - \hat U^\alpha(X) = 0$, the algorithm repeatedly selects a parametric pseudo-group derivative $Z^a_J$ of largest class and order and solves the corresponding normalization equation: as an algebraic equation at the origin when $Z^a_J$ lies in the finite set $\mathcal{S}$, or as a PDE restricted to the hyperplane $H_k$ of multiplicative variables when $Z^a_J$ lies in an involutive cone. The result is substituted back into the normal form equation and the whole involutive cone $\mathcal{C}(Z^a_J)$ (or a subcone) is removed from the Rees decomposition. Because the reduced determining equations are involutive, the normalized values are well-posed initial conditions, and prolongation along the multiplicative variables fills in the entire cone. The paper asserts that the process terminates once the prolonged action becomes free, that the final moving frame and invariant set are independent of the order in which the cones are chosen, and that the leftover normal form Taylor coefficients are a complete set of differential invariants, all without recurrence relations or Maurer–Cartan forms.
Load-bearing premise
The method assumes that, at every recursive step, the chosen derivative of the transformation can be isolated from the restricted normal form equation; the paper proves this solvability only for the classical one-step construction, not for the recursive equations.
Editorial extensions
If this is right
- Symbolic moving frame computations for Lie pseudo-groups can be pushed to higher orders, because the expressions no longer contain the full prolonged action at every intermediate step.
- A complete set of differential invariants emerges directly from the non-normalized Taylor coefficients of the normal form, without computing recurrence relations or Maurer–Cartan forms.
- The recursion works for actions that are not quasi-horizontal, such as $X=x+a$, $Y=y+b$, $U=f(u)$, with no prior hodograph transformation.
- For finite-dimensional Lie group actions the scheme reproduces classical invariants; the linear fractional example yields the Schwarzian derivative as a normal form by-product.
Reading between the lines
- An implication the authors do not draw is that the order-independence claim could be phrased as a confluence property of the rewriting system defined by the normal form equations; if true, any choice of normalization order would lead to the same normal form.
- A testable extension would be to replace the symbolic solution of each restricted equation by numerical integration, producing approximate moving frames and invariants for submanifolds without ever forming the prolonged action.
- Because each cone is normalized and then discarded, a practical corollary is that changing the cross-section at low order would only re-run the affected cone normalizations rather than the whole computation.
- The paper gives no complexity estimate; a natural next step would be to bound the number of normalization steps in terms of the classes and orders of the parametric derivatives in the Rees decomposition.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper proposes a recursive implementation of the equivariant moving frame method for infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-groups. Instead of computing the fully prolonged action before normalizing, the algorithm uses the normal form equation (4.1) and the Rees decomposition of the parametric pseudo-group derivatives into a finite set S and involutive cones C(Z^a_J). Normalizations are performed step by step: the base point is fixed by x=0, then a parametric derivative of largest class and highest order is selected, and the corresponding restricted normal form equation (4.24) or (4.27) is solved for that derivative; prolongation along multiplicative variables normalizes an entire involutive cone, and the result is substituted back before the next step. The authors claim that the order in which normalizations are imposed and the prolonged action is computed does not matter, and that the method avoids recurrence relations and Maurer–Cartan forms. The paper illustrates the algorithm with a running example and with several additional examples, including a non-quasi-horizontal action, a subcone normalization, and a finite-dimensional group action recovering the Schwarzian derivative.
Significance. If the central correctness claims are established, this is a useful algorithmic contribution: it has the potential to make moving frame computations for Lie pseudo-groups substantially more tractable, and the worked examples are convincing evidence that the method works in practice. The paper explicitly reproduces previously known differential invariants, including the Schwarzian derivative and invariants from [38,40], which is a concrete strength. The exposition is clear and the examples are detailed, including the subtle case of normalizing a subcone of an involutive cone. However, the paper does not provide a proof of the two load-bearing claims: solvability of each restricted recursive normalization equation, and independence of the order of normalizations. The correctness of the algorithm is therefore asserted rather than demonstrated. The paper also relies on the authors' own preprints [40,42] for foundational results on reduced determining equations and convergence of normal form power series, which should be stated explicitly.
major comments (4)
- [§4, Eqs. (4.27)–(4.29)] The recursive step requires that the restricted normal form equation (4.27) can be solved for the selected parametric derivative Z^a_J after restriction to the hyperplane H_k. The paper justifies solvability only for the full simultaneous system (3.2), via the Implicit Function Theorem and transversality of the cross-section. Freeness and regularity of the prolonged action imply full rank of the total Jacobian of all normalization equations with respect to all parametric derivatives; they do not imply that the particular derivative chosen by the class/order rule has a nonzero coefficient in the particular equation used. A full-rank matrix can have a zero pivot in a chosen row/column, in which case the recursive step cannot be solved and the algorithm stalls. The authors need either a recursive transversality lemma, showing that after previously normalized derivatives are substituted the selected derivative is always solvable, or an explicit pivoting rule together with a proof that a valid pivot always exists. This is load-bearing because it is the only bridge from the classical existence theorem to the recursive procedure.
- [Introduction and §4] The central claim that 'the order in which these initial conditions are imposed on the pseudo-group transformation and when the prolonged action is computed does not matter' is asserted in the Introduction but is never formalized or proved. Sequential normalizations are generally order-dependent unless a commutativity or confluent termination argument is supplied. The manuscript should state and prove that any admissible choice of parametric derivative in (4.24)–(4.29), or any allowed order of normalizations, yields the same moving frame and the same differential invariants, or at least that the final normal form and the set of unnormalized Taylor coefficients are independent of the choices. Currently the claim rests on the worked examples rather than on a general argument.
- [§4, after Eq. (4.30)] Termination and completeness are only asserted: 'Assuming that the prolonged action eventually becomes free, the process of normalizing pseudo-group parameters will eventually terminate at a finite order n with the creation of a moving frame.' No argument is given that the recursive normalization of involutive cones and of the finite set S exhausts Z_par before infinite regress, nor that the residual normal form equations not used for normalization produce a complete set of differential invariants. A theorem with proof is needed, since the examples only demonstrate the procedure for particular actions. The proof should in particular show that each normalization of a cone C(Z^a_J) by prolongation along multiplicative variables is compatible with previously imposed normalizations on overlapping cones, and that no derivative is normalized twice with conflicting constants.
- [§2 and §3] The correctness of the algorithm depends on results quoted from the authors' own preprints [40,42]: the existence and involutivity of the reduced determining equations, the reducibility of the pseudo-group when the prolonged action is free, and the convergence of the normal form power series. The manuscript states these as facts but does not restate them as theorems or provide proofs. If these preprints are not yet published, the present paper's theoretical grounding is incomplete. The authors should either include the precise statements of the results they use, with proofs or pointers to peer-reviewed versions, or clearly mark which results are assumed from the preprints.
minor comments (6)
- [Introduction] There is a typo in the first paragraph: 'Building of the works of Cotton' should read 'Building on the works of Cotton'.
- [Example 13] The word 'prescibed' should be 'prescribed' in the sentence 'where X0, Y0, Z0, U0 determine the base point on the prescibed hypersurface'.
- [Example 16] The phrase 'group of linear factional transformations' should be 'group of linear fractional transformations'.
- [§4, Fig. 1] Figure 1 is a useful diagram, but it is not numbered or captioned in the text; adding a proper caption would improve readability.
- [§4] The algorithm is described in prose rather than as a numbered pseudocode block. A concise pseudocode summary would make the recursive procedure easier to implement and to compare with the classical algorithm.
- [References] References [40] and [42] are listed as preprints; if they have been updated or accepted, the published versions should be cited.
Circularity Check
No significant circularity: the recursive moving frame construction is derived from the normal form equation and cross-section normalizations, with all examples checked against known invariants; the self-cited background results are structural prerequisites, not restatements of the claimed recursion.
full rationale
The central derivation chain solves the normal form equation (4.1) for pseudo-group parameters by imposing cross-section normalizations, and then obtains differential invariants as the remaining Taylor coefficients of the normal form, e.g. Eqs. (4.14)–(4.17) and the invariants I_{0,3}, I_{1,2} in Example 7. No fitted parameter is later relabeled as a prediction, and no defining equation is equivalent by construction to the claimed output. The paper relies on prior same-author work [40,42] for reduced determining equations, involutivity, and convergence of normal form power series; this is a self-citation chain, but it supplies structural background (Rees decomposition, initial-value formulation) rather than the recursive normalizations themselves, and the examples are benchmarked against known differential invariants (Examples 12, 13, 14, 16). The recursive step (4.27)–(4.29) assumes without proof that the restricted normal form equation can be solved for the chosen parametric derivative, and the Introduction's claim that the order of normalizations 'does not matter' is not proven; these are omitted-justification and correctness risks, not circular reductions, and therefore do not raise the circularity score.
Assumptions & free parameters
free parameters (1)
- Cross-section normalization constants (e.g., x=y=0, u(x,0)=0, u_yy(0,0)=1 in Example 7; u(x,y0)=1 in Example 12… =
arbitrary constants set to 0 or 1 in the examples
assumptions (6)
- standard math Involutive systems theory: Pommaret division, class, multiplicative variables, and the Rees decomposition of parametric derivatives into a finite set S and disjoint involutive cones C(Z^a_J).
- domain assumption The reduced Lie pseudo-group framework and the involutivity of the reduced determining equations at sufficiently high order.
- domain assumption The open subset on which normalization equations are solvable is nonempty; examples assume conditions such as U not equal to 0, U^0_YY > 0, u_x not equal to 0, and related non-degeneracy inequalities.
- domain assumption The normal form u(x) exists as a convergent power series on the relevant domain.
- ad hoc to paper The initial normalization x = 0 is legitimate, i.e., the pseudo-group acts transitively on the base manifold X.
- ad hoc to paper The order in which initial conditions are imposed and the prolonged action is computed does not matter.
Cite this review
Pith. "Pith review of Moving Frames for Lie Pseudo-groups: A Recursive Implementation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Q5WIJNAF
@misc{pith2026260808249,
author = {Pith},
title = {Pith review of: Moving Frames for Lie Pseudo-groups: A Recursive Implementation},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Q5WIJNAF}},
note = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08249}
}
read the original abstract
A new recursive implementation of the equivariant moving frame method for infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-group actions is presented. It allows pseudo-group normalizations to be performed before the prolonged action is computed, thereby avoiding the introduction of unnecessarily complicated intermediate expressions. Several examples are provided to illustrate the algorithm.
Figures
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
Akivis, M.A., and Rosenfeld, B.A., ´Elie Cartan (1869-1951), Translations Math. Mono- graphs, Vol. 123, American Math. Soc., Providence R.I., 1993. https://doi.org/10.1090/mmono/123 23
-
[2]
Arnaldsson, ¨O., Involutive moving frames II; The Lie–Tresse theorem,Diff. Geom. Appl. 79(2022), 101802. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.difgeo.2021.101802
arXiv 2022
-
[3]
https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2021.033
Arnaldsson, ¨O., and Valiquette, F., Invariants of surfaces in three-dimensional affine geometry,SIGMA17(2021), 033. https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2021.033
-
[4]
Benson, J., and Valiquette, F., Symmetry reduction of ordinary finite difference equa- tions using moving frames,J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.50(2017), 195201. https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/aa65f1
-
[5]
Benson, J., and Valiquette, F., Invariant discrete flows,Stud. Appl. Math.143(2019), 81–119. https://doi.org/10.1111/sapm.12270
-
[6]
Benson, J., and Valiquette, F., Geometric curve flows in low dimensional Cayley–Klein geometries,J. Int. Sys.5(2020), xyaa003. https://doi.org/10.1093/integr/xyaa003
-
[7]
18, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1991
Bryant, R.L., Chern, S.S., Gardner, R.B., Goldschmidt, H.L., and Griffiths, P.A.,Exte- rior Differential Systems, MSRI Publications, Vol. 18, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1991. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-9714-4
-
[8]
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
Show all 53 references
-
[9]
18, Gauthier– Villars, Paris, 1937
Cartan, ´E.,La Th´ eorie des Groupes Finis et Continus et la G´ eom´ etrie Diff´ erentielle Trait´ ees par la M´ ethode du Rep` ere Mobile, Cahiers Scientifiques, Vol. 18, Gauthier– Villars, Paris, 1937
1937
-
[10]
Chern, S.-S., Moving frames, in ´Elie Cartan et les Math´ ematiques d’Aujourd’hui, Soc. Math. France, Ast´ erisque, num´ ero hors s´ erie, 1985, pp. 67–77
1985
-
[11]
178, AMS, 2017
Clelland, J.N.,From Frenet to Cartan: The Method of Moving Frames, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 178, AMS, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/178
2017 doi
-
[12]
Cotton, E., G´ en´ eralisation de la th´ eorie du tri` ede mobile,Bull. Soc. Math. France33 (1905), 42–64
1905
-
[13]
1 Gauthier–Villars, Paris, 1914
Darboux, G.,Le¸ cons sur la Th´ eorie G´ en´ erale des Surfaces et Applications G´ eom´ etriques du Calcul Infinit´ esimal, Vol. 1 Gauthier–Villars, Paris, 1914
1914
-
[14]
Fels, M., and Olver, P.J., Moving coframes. II. Regularization and theoretical founda- tions,Acta Appl. Math.55(1999), 127–208. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006195823000 24
1999 doi
-
[15]
Math.109(2010), 903–937
Feng, S., Kogan, I.A., and Krim, H., Classification of curves in 2D and 3D via affine integral signatures,Acta Appl. Math.109(2010), 903–937. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-008-9353-9
2010 doi
-
[16]
Frenˆ et, J.F., Sur quelques propri´ et´ es des courbe ` a double courbure,J. Math. Pures Appl. 17(1852), 365–372
-
[17]
Sigma4(2016), e29
Gon¸ calves, T.M.N., and Mansfield, E.L., Moving frames and Noether’s conservation laws – The general case,Forum Math. Sigma4(2016), e29. https://doi.org/10.1017/fms.2016.24
2016 doi
-
[18]
J.45(1978), 735–779
Green, M.L., The moving frame, differential invariants and rigidity theorems for curves in homogeneous spaces,Duke Math. J.45(1978), 735–779. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-78-04535-0
1978 doi
-
[19]
J.41(1974), 775–814
Griffiths, P.A., On Cartan’s method of Lie groups and moving frames as applied to uniqueness and existence questions in differential geometry,Duke Math. J.41(1974), 775–814. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-74-04180-5
1974 doi
-
[20]
Grim, A., O’Connor, T., Olver, P.J., Shakiban, C., Slechta, R., and Thompson, R., Automatic reassembly of three-dimensional jigsaw puzzles,Int. J. of Image and Graphics 16(2016), 16500029. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219467816500091
2016 doi
-
[21]
Hoff, D., and Olver, P.J., Automatic solution of jigsaw puzzles,J. Math. Imaging Vision 49(2014), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10851-013-0454-3
2014 doi
-
[22]
https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2007.097
Hubert, E., and Olver, P.J., Differential invariants of conformal and projecive surfaces, SIGMA3(2007), 097. https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2007.097
2007 doi
-
[23]
610, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1977
Jensen, G.R.Higher order contact of submanifolds of homogeneous spaces, Lecture Notes in Math., No. 610, Springer–Verlag, New York, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0068415
1977 doi
-
[24]
Math.285(2001), 157– 170
Kogan, I.A., Inductive construction of moving frames,Contemp. Math.285(2001), 157– 170. https://doi.org/10.1090/conm/285/04741
2001 doi
-
[25]
Math.55 (2003), 266–291
Kogan, I.A., Two algorithms for a moving frame construction,Canadian J. Math.55 (2003), 266–291. https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-2003-013-2
2003 doi
-
[26]
Math.76(2003), 137–193
Kogan, I.A., and Olver, P.J., Invariant Euler–Lagrange equations and the invariant variational bicomplex,Acta Appl. Math.76(2003), 137–193. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022993616247 25
2003 doi
-
[27]
https://doi.org/10.1006/hmat.1997.2123
Lumiste, ¨U., Martin Bartels as Research: His contribution to analytical methods in geometry,Historia Math.24(1997), 46–65. https://doi.org/10.1006/hmat.1997.2123
1997
-
[28]
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844621
Mansfield, E.L.,A Practical Guide to the Invariant Calculus, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511844621
2010 doi
-
[29]
https://doi.org/10.1134/S156035471004009X
Mari-Beffa, G., and Olver, P.J., Poisson structures for geometric curve flows on semi- simple homogeneous spaces,Regular and Chaotic Dynamics15(2010), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.1134/S156035471004009X
2010 doi
-
[30]
https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609565
Olver, P.J.,Equivalence, Invariants, and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 1995. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609565
1995 doi
-
[31]
44, London Math
Olver, P.J.,Classical Invariant Theory, Student Texts, Vol. 44, London Math. Soc., Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511623660
1999 doi
-
[32]
Olver, P.J., Joint invariant signatures,Found. Comput. Math.1(2001), 3–67. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10208001001
2001 doi
-
[33]
Olver, P.J., Geometric foundations of numerical algorithms and symmetry,Appl. Alg. Engin. Commun. Comput.11(2001), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002000000053
2001 doi
-
[34]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-011-0153-6
Olver, P.J., Recursive moving frames,Results Math.60(2011), 423–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-011-0153-6
2011 doi
-
[35]
https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/ olver/sm /mflc.pdf
Olver, P.J.,Lectures on moving frames, University of Minnesota, 2012. https://www-users.cse.umn.edu/ olver/sm /mflc.pdf
2012
-
[36]
Iranian Math
Olver, P.J., Using moving frames to construct equivariant maps,Bull. Iranian Math. Soc.52(2026), 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41980-025-01024-9
2026 doi
-
[37]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00029-005-0008-7
Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Maurer–Cartan forms and the structure of Lie pseudo- groups,Selecta Math.11(2005), 99–126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00029-005-0008-7
2005 doi
-
[38]
Math.60(2008), 1336–1386
Olver, P.J., and Pohjanpelto, J., Moving frames for Lie pseudo-groups,Canadian J. Math.60(2008), 1336–1386. https://doi.org/10.4153/CJM-2008-057-0
2008 doi
-
[39]
Olver, P.J., Sabzevari, M., and Valiquette, F., Normal forms, moving frames, and differ- ential invariants for nondegenerate hypersurfaces inC 2,J. Geom. Anal.33(2023), 192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12220-023-01243-8 26
2023 doi
-
[40]
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08869
Olver, P.J., Sabzevari, M., and Valiquette, F., Convergence of normal form power series for infinite-dimensional Lie pseudo-group actions, preprint, 2025. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08869
2025 arXiv
-
[41]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-018-0818-5
Olver, P.J., and Valiquette, F., Recursive moving frames for Lie pseudo-groups,Results Math.73(2018), 57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-018-0818-5
2018 doi
-
[42]
Olver, P.J., and Valiquette, F., Convergence of normal form power series: The general case, preprint, 2026
2026
-
[43]
Difference Eq
Rebelo, R., and Valiquette, F., Symmetry preserving numerical schemes for partial dif- ferential equations and their numerical tests,J. Difference Eq. Appl.19(2013), 738–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/10236198.2012.685470
2013
-
[44]
Ribaucour, A., ´Etude des ´ elasso ¨ ıdes ou surfaces ` a courbure moyenne nulle,M´ emoires Couronn´ es Bruxelles45(1884)
-
[45]
Sanborn, C
Sangalli, M., Blusseau, S., Velasco-Forero, S., and Angulo, J., Moving frame net: SE(3)– equivariant network for volumes, in:Proceedings of the 1st NeurIPS Workshop on Sym- metry and Geometry in Neural Representations, S. Sanborn, C. Shewmake, S. Azeglio, A. Di Bernardo, N. Mi...
2023
-
[46]
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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-01287-7
2010 doi
-
[47]
Serret, J., M´ emoire sur quelques formules relatives ` a la th´ eorie des courbes`double cour- bure,J. Math. Pures Appl.16(1851), 193–207
-
[48]
Math.116(2011), 199–226
Thompson, R., and Valiquette, F., On the cohomology of the invariant Euler–Lagrange complex,Acta Appl. Math.116(2011), 199–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10440-011-9638-2
2011 doi
-
[49]
https://doi.org/10.1017/fms.2015.24
Thompson, R., and Valiquette, F., Group foliation of differential equations using moving frames,Forum of Mathematics: Sigma3(2015), e22. https://doi.org/10.1017/fms.2015.24
2015 doi
-
[50]
Nonlinear Sci
Thompson, R., and Valiquette, F., Group foliation of finite difference equations,Com- mun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.59(2018), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2017.11.027
2018 doi
-
[51]
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-012-0294-2 27
Valiquette, F., Inductive moving frames,Results in Math.64(2013), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-012-0294-2 27
2013 doi
-
[52]
Valiquette, F., Symmetry reduction of ordinary differential equations using moving frames,J. Nonlin. Math. Phys.25(2018), 211–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/14029251.2018.1452671
2018
-
[53]
https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2024.006 28
White, L.C., and Hydon, P.E., Moving frames: Difference and differential-difference Lagrangians,SIGMA20(2024), 006. https://doi.org/10.3842/SIGMA.2024.006 28
2024 doi
Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.