Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Partial Scalar Curvatures and Topological Obstructions for Submanifolds

C.-R. Onti, K. Polymerakis and Th. Vlachos
Abstract

We investigate specific intrinsic curvatures ρksubscriptπœŒπ‘˜\rho_{k}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT (where 1≀k≀n1π‘˜π‘›1\leq k\leq n1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n) that interpolate between the minimum Ricci curvature ρ1subscript𝜌1\rho_{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and the normalized scalar curvature ρn=ρsubscriptπœŒπ‘›πœŒ\rho_{n}=\rhoitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ of n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional Riemannian manifolds. For n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifolds in space forms, these curvatures satisfy an inequality involving the mean curvature H𝐻Hitalic_H and the normal scalar curvature ΟβŸ‚superscript𝜌perpendicular-to\rho^{\perp}italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, which reduces to the well-known DDVV inequality when k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n. We derive topological obstructions for compact n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifolds based on universal lower bounds of the Ln/2superscript𝐿𝑛2L^{n/2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norms of certain functions involving ρk,HsubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π»\rho_{k},Hitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H and ΟβŸ‚superscript𝜌perpendicular-to\rho^{\perp}italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. These obstructions are expressed in terms of the Betti numbers. Our main result applies for any 1≀k≀nβˆ’11π‘˜π‘›11\leq k\leq n-11 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n - 1, but it generally fails for k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n, where the involved norm vanishes precisely for Wintgen ideal submanifolds. We demonstrate this by providing a method of constructing new compact 3-dimensional minimal Wintgen ideal submanifolds in even-dimensional spheres. Specifically, we prove that such submanifolds exist in π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with arbitrarily large first Betti number.

††footnotetext: 2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 53C40, 53C42.††footnotetext: Keywords: Eigenvalues of Ricci tensor, partial/intermediate scalar curvatures, normal curvature, DDVV inequality, Wintgen ideal submanifolds, Betti numbers, Morse theory, Eells-Kuiper manifolds.

1 Introduction

A fundamental problem in differential geometry is to investigate the intricate relationship between the geometry and topology of Riemannian manifolds. From the perspective of submanifold theory, there is a profound interplay between the intrinsic and extrinsic geometries of a submanifold, significantly influencing its topological properties. In particular, the intrinsic geometry, governed by metrics and curvature tensors intrinsic to the submanifold itself, interacts with the extrinsic geometry, characterized by how the submanifold is embedded within a higher-dimensional ambient space. This interaction can lead to profound insights into the topological structure of the submanifold.

One of the key questions in this area involves understanding how intrinsic curvature invariants, such as the Ricci curvature and scalar curvature, relate to extrinsic ones, including the mean curvature and normal curvature. These relationships often manifest through inequalities that bind intrinsic quantities to extrinsic ones, providing constraints that influence the topological classification of the submanifolds.

In the case of surfaces f:M2β†’β„šc2+m:𝑓→superscript𝑀2superscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘2π‘šf\colon M^{2}\to\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{2+m}italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT isometrically immersed into the complete simply connected space form β„šc2+msuperscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘2π‘š\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{2+m}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of constant curvature c𝑐citalic_c, such a pointwise relation is Wintgen’s inequality

K≀c+H2βˆ’|KN|.𝐾𝑐superscript𝐻2subscript𝐾𝑁K\leq c+H^{2}-|K_{N}|.italic_K ≀ italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | .

This inequality, first proved by Wintgen [Wi] for surfaces in ℝ4superscriptℝ4\mathbb{R}^{4}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, provides an extrinsic upper bound for the Gaussian curvature K𝐾Kitalic_K of the surface in terms of the length H𝐻Hitalic_H of the mean curvature vector field and the normal curvature KNsubscript𝐾𝑁K_{N}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of f𝑓fitalic_f, which is related to the area of the curvature ellipse. Furthermore, Wintgen demonstrated that equality holds precisely at the points where the ellipse of curvature is a circle. Guadalupe and Rodriguez [GR] extended Wintgen’s inequality in the aforementioned form and straightforwardly derived an inequality for compact surfaces. This inequality establishes a relationship between the integral of c+H2βˆ’|KN|𝑐superscript𝐻2subscript𝐾𝑁c+H^{2}-|K_{N}|italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - | italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | and the Euler-PoincarΓ© characteristic of the surface.

Wintgen’s inequality has been generalized to any isometric immersion f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m:𝑓→superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘π‘›π‘šf\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{n+m}italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with arbitrary dimension into space forms, resulting in what is known as the DDVV (cf. [DDVV, GT, Lu]) inequality

ρ≀c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚.πœŒπ‘superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-to\rho\leq c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}.italic_ρ ≀ italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This pointwise inequality provides an upper bound for the normalized scalar curvature ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in terms of the length H𝐻Hitalic_H of the mean curvature vector field, and of the normal scalar curvature of f𝑓fitalic_f given by ΟβŸ‚=β€–RβŸ‚β€–/n⁒(nβˆ’1)superscript𝜌perpendicular-tonormsuperscript𝑅perpendicular-to𝑛𝑛1\rho^{\perp}=\|R^{\perp}\|/n(n-1)italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ / italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ), where RβŸ‚superscript𝑅perpendicular-toR^{\perp}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the normal curvature tensor of f𝑓fitalic_f. Submanifolds for which the DDVV inequality holds as equality at every point are termed Wintgen ideal submanifolds. These submanifolds often exhibit highly symmetric structures, and their classification remains an area of active research, especially in higher dimensions (see [XLMW] and references therein). In the case n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2, these precisely correspond to superconformal surfaces, which are surfaces with curvature ellipses becoming circles at every point. However, in dimensions nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, the classification of Wintgen ideal submanifolds remains an intriguing yet challenging problem.

In this paper, we are interested in a type of partial scalar curvatures essentially introduced by Wolfson in [Wo]. More precisely, let Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be a Riemannian manifold and denote by Ξ»1≀⋯≀λnsubscriptπœ†1β‹―subscriptπœ†π‘›\lambda_{1}\leq\dots\leq\lambda_{n}italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≀ β‹― ≀ italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the eigenvalues of the normalized Ricci tensor at each point. The kπ‘˜kitalic_k-th scalar curvature of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is defined pointwise as

ρk=1kβ’βˆ‘i=1kΞ»i,  1≀k≀n.formulae-sequencesubscriptπœŒπ‘˜1π‘˜superscriptsubscript𝑖1π‘˜subscriptπœ†π‘–1π‘˜π‘›\rho_{k}=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\lambda_{i},\;\;1\leq k\leq n.italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n .

At any point, the kπ‘˜kitalic_k-th scalar curvature interpolates between the minimum ρ1subscript𝜌1\rho_{1}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the normalized Ricci curvature for k=1π‘˜1k=1italic_k = 1, and the normalized scalar curvature ρ=ρn𝜌subscriptπœŒπ‘›\rho=\rho_{n}italic_ρ = italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In fact, ρksubscriptπœŒπ‘˜\rho_{k}italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the minimum of the average of the sum of Ricci curvatures in kπ‘˜kitalic_k orthonormal vectors, and it is a continuous function on Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for every kπ‘˜kitalic_k.

Using the DDVV inequality and its equality case (cf. [GT, Lu]), one can show that for every n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifold f:Mnβ†’β„šcn:𝑓→superscript𝑀𝑛subscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}^{n}_{c}italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, the following inequality holds

ρk≀c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚,  1≀k≀nβˆ’1,formulae-sequencesubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-to1π‘˜π‘›1\rho_{k}\leq c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp},\;\;1\leq k\leq n-1,italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ≀ italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n - 1 ,

at every point of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where the equality holds precisely at the umbilical points.

The aim of the present paper is to derive topological obstructions for compact n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifolds based on universal lower bounds of the Ln/2superscript𝐿𝑛2L^{n/2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norms of certain functions involving ρk,HsubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π»\rho_{k},Hitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_H and ΟβŸ‚superscript𝜌perpendicular-to\rho^{\perp}italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. These obstructions are expressed in terms of the Betti numbers. For compact submanifolds into space forms β„šcn+msubscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with cβ‰₯0𝑐0c\geq 0italic_c β‰₯ 0, we prove the following theorem that can be regarded as a generalization of the result of Guadalupe-Rodriguez [GR] in the context of higher-dimensional submanifolds. Throughout this paper, we assume all considered manifolds to be connected without boundary and oriented, with i𝑖iitalic_i-th Betti number bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) over an arbitrary coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F.

Theorem 1.

Given integers nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 and mβ‰₯1π‘š1m\geq 1italic_m β‰₯ 1, there exists for every k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 } a positive constant Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ), depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m, such that if Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a compact Riemannian manifold that admits an isometric immersion into β„šcn+msuperscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘π‘›π‘š\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{n+m}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with cβ‰₯0𝑐0c\geq 0italic_c β‰₯ 0, then

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑Mβ‰₯Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM\geq\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)% \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F )

for any coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F. Moreover, if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑M<2⁒Ρk⁒(n,m)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀2subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM<2\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < 2 italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m )

for some k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 }, then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, or it is an Eells-Kuiper manifold. In particular, Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑M<Ξ΅k⁒(n,m).subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM<\varepsilon_{k}(n,m).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) .

We recall that an Eells-Kuiper manifold [EK] of dimension n𝑛nitalic_n is a compactification of ℝnsuperscriptℝ𝑛\mathbb{R}^{n}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT by a sphere of dimension n/2𝑛2n/2italic_n / 2, where n=2,4,8𝑛248n=2,4,8italic_n = 2 , 4 , 8, or 16161616. For nβ‰₯4𝑛4n\geq 4italic_n β‰₯ 4, it is simply connected and has the integral cohomology structure of the complex (n=4𝑛4n=4italic_n = 4), quaternionic (n=8𝑛8n=8italic_n = 8), or the Cayley (n=16𝑛16n=16italic_n = 16) projective plane.

We point out that the assumption nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 in the above theorem is essential, and the result does not hold in the case n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2. In fact, the involved integral vanishes for every compact superconformal surface, and there exist an abundance of such surfaces with arbitrary genus in any codimension mβ‰₯2π‘š2m\geq 2italic_m β‰₯ 2.

Chen and Wei [CW] obtained a geometric rigidity result for compact submanifolds f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m,nβ‰₯4:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛subscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘π‘›4f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c},n\geq 4italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 4, with parallel mean curvature vector field, in terms of the lowest eigenvalue of the Ricci tensor. More precisely, for cβ‰₯0𝑐0c\geq 0italic_c β‰₯ 0, they proved that such a submanifold is totally umbilical if the Ln/2superscript𝐿𝑛2L^{n/2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-norm of the nonnegative part of the function Ξ»βˆ’(nβˆ’1)⁒ρ1πœ†π‘›1subscript𝜌1\lambda-(n-1)\rho_{1}italic_Ξ» - ( italic_n - 1 ) italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is sufficiently pinched, where Ξ»πœ†\lambdaitalic_Ξ» is a constant satisfying (nβˆ’2)⁒(c+H2)<λ≀(nβˆ’1)⁒(c+H2)𝑛2𝑐superscript𝐻2πœ†π‘›1𝑐superscript𝐻2(n-2)(c+H^{2})<\lambda\leq(n-1)(c+H^{2})( italic_n - 2 ) ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) < italic_Ξ» ≀ ( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). The following immediate consequence of Theorem 1 is the analogous topological rigidity result for submanifolds of dimension nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, without imposing any assumption on the mean curvature.

Corollary 2.

Let f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m,nβ‰₯3,cβ‰₯0:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘π‘›π‘šformulae-sequence𝑛3𝑐0f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{n+m},n\geq 3,c\geq 0italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 3 , italic_c β‰₯ 0, be an isometric immersion of a compact Riemannian manifold. If

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο1)n/2⁒𝑑M<Ξ΅1⁒(n,m),subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscript𝜌1𝑛2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€1π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{1})^{n/2}dM<\varepsilon_{1}(n,m),∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ,

then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

The following result is a consequence of Theorem 1 that applies to Einstein submanifolds.

Corollary 3.

Let f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m,nβ‰₯3,cβ‰₯0:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘π‘›π‘šformulae-sequence𝑛3𝑐0f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{n+m},n\geq 3,c\geq 0italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 3 , italic_c β‰₯ 0, be an isometric immersion of a compact Einstein manifold with Ricci curvature ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ. Then

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑Mβ‰₯Ξ΅1⁒(n,m)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€1π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM\geq\varepsilon_{1}(n,m)\sum_{i% =1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F )

for any coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F. Moreover, if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑M<2⁒Ρ1⁒(n,m),subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀2subscriptπœ€1π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM<2\varepsilon_{1}(n,m),∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < 2 italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ,

then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, or it is an Eells-Kuiper manifold. In particular, Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑M<Ξ΅1⁒(n,m).subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€1π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM<\varepsilon_{1}(n,m).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) .

The above result demonstrates that Theorem 1 is also valid for k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n in the case of any Einstein submanifold, as ρk=ρsubscriptπœŒπ‘˜πœŒ\rho_{k}=\rhoitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ for any 1≀k≀n1π‘˜π‘›1\leq k\leq n1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n in this scenario. However, Theorem 1 doesn’t hold for k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n in general, in which case the involved integral vanishes for Wintgen ideal submanifolds. We note that apart from superconformal surfaces and totally umbilical submanifolds, there are only a few known compact Wintgen ideal submanifolds (cf. [DDVV, XLMW]) and all of them have dimension n=3𝑛3n=3italic_n = 3. In Section 5, we provide counterexamples to Theorem 1 for k=n=3π‘˜π‘›3k=n=3italic_k = italic_n = 3. In fact, we present a method to generate new compact Wintgen ideal submanifolds with positive first Betti number, which is an interesting result in its own right. These Wintgen ideal submanifolds are unit bundles of plane subbundles of the normal bundle of appropriate compact minimal surfaces in even-dimensional spheres. This class of minimal surfaces encompasses pseudoholomorphic curves in the nearly KΓ€hler sphere π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. This justifies the inclusion of the additional term in the following result when considering the case k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n.

Theorem 4.

Given integers nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and mβ‰₯1π‘š1m\geq 1italic_m β‰₯ 1, there exists for every λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) a positive constant Ρλ⁒(n,m)subscriptπœ€πœ†π‘›π‘š\varepsilon_{\lambda}(n,m)italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ), depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m, such that if Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a compact Riemannian manifold that admits an isometric immersion into β„šcn+msuperscriptsubscriptβ„šπ‘π‘›π‘š\mathbb{Q}_{c}^{n+m}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, then

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑Mβ‰₯Ρλ⁒(n,m)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€πœ†π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM\geq\varepsilon_{\lambda% }(n,m)\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F )

for any coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F. Moreover, if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑M<2⁒Ρλ⁒(n,m)subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀2subscriptπœ€πœ†π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM<2\varepsilon_{\lambda}(% n,m)∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < 2 italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m )

for some λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ), then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is either homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, or it is an Eells-Kuiper manifold. In particular, Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if

∫Mn(c+H2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑M<Ρλ⁒(n,m).subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscript𝐻2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€πœ†π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(c+H^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM<\varepsilon_{\lambda}(n% ,m).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) .

It is worth noting that the integral in Theorem 4 is conformally invariant, rendering Theorem 4 applicable to submanifolds in any space form. Moreover, the above theorem may be regarded as an enhancement of a topological result by Shiohama and Xu [SX2] for submanifolds in any space form, where the case Ξ»=0πœ†0\lambda=0italic_Ξ» = 0 is considered.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we prove an auxiliary lemma that is essential for the proofs of our results and may have potential applications in other contexts. In Section 3, we derive algebraic inequalities regarding symmetric bilinear forms, which are crucial to our proofs. Additionally, we provide examples that suggest Theorem 1 may not hold in general for k=n>3π‘˜π‘›3k=n>3italic_k = italic_n > 3. In Section 4, we give the detailed proofs of Theorems 1 and 4. The final Section 5 is devoted to the construction of the aforementioned new compact 3-dimensional Wintgen ideal submanifolds with arbitrarily large first Betti number, providing counterexamples to Theorem 1 for k=n=3π‘˜π‘›3k=n=3italic_k = italic_n = 3.

2 An auxiliary lemma

The aim of this section is to prove an algebraic lemma essential to our results. In the following, let V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W be finite-dimensional real vector spaces with dimensions nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and mβ‰₯1π‘š1m\geq 1italic_m β‰₯ 1 respectively. Both spaces are equipped with positive definite inner products, which, for convenience, we denote by the same symbol βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β‹…β‹…\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩. We denote the space of all symmetric bilinear forms from V𝑉Vitalic_V to Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W by Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), and the space of all self-adjoint endomorphisms of V𝑉Vitalic_V by End⁒(V)End𝑉\mathrm{End}(V)roman_End ( italic_V ). Given β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), we associate to each ξ∈Wπœ‰π‘Š\xi\in Witalic_ΞΎ ∈ italic_W the formal shape operator Aξ⁒(Ξ²)∈End⁒(V)subscriptπ΄πœ‰π›½End𝑉A_{\xi}(\beta)\in\mathrm{End}(V)italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ∈ roman_End ( italic_V ), defined by

⟨β⁒(x,y),ξ⟩=⟨Aξ⁒(Ξ²)⁒x,y⟩,x,y∈V.formulae-sequence𝛽π‘₯π‘¦πœ‰subscriptπ΄πœ‰π›½π‘₯𝑦π‘₯𝑦𝑉{\langle}\beta(x,y),\xi{\rangle}={\langle}A_{\xi}(\beta)x,y{\rangle},\;\;x,y% \in V.⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x , italic_y ) , italic_ΞΎ ⟩ = ⟨ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) italic_x , italic_y ⟩ , italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V .

The space Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) is a complete metric space with respect to the norm βˆ₯β‹…βˆ₯\|\cdot\|βˆ₯ β‹… βˆ₯ defined by

β€–Ξ²β€–2=βˆ‘i,j=1n‖β⁒(ei,ej)β€–2=βˆ‘a=1mβ€–AΞΎa⁒(Ξ²)β€–2,superscriptnorm𝛽2superscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscriptnorm𝛽subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗2superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1π‘šsuperscriptnormsubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Žπ›½2\|\beta\|^{2}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\|\beta(e_{i},e_{j})\|^{2}=\sum_{a=1}^{m}\|A_{% \xi_{a}}(\beta)\|^{2},βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are orthonormal bases of V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W, respectively.

A function Ο†:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:πœ‘β†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\varphi\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}italic_Ο† : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R is called homogeneous of degree dβˆˆβ„+𝑑superscriptℝd\in\mathbb{R}^{+}italic_d ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT if φ⁒(t⁒β)=td⁒ϕ⁒(Ξ²)πœ‘π‘‘π›½superscript𝑑𝑑italic-ϕ𝛽\varphi(t\beta)=t^{d}\phi(\beta)italic_Ο† ( italic_t italic_Ξ² ) = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο• ( italic_Ξ² ) for every tβ‰₯0𝑑0t\geq 0italic_t β‰₯ 0 and any β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ). The following lemma, that may be useful for other purposes, is crucial for the proofs of our results.

Lemma 5.

Let nβ‰₯2,mβ‰₯1,0≀p<n/2formulae-sequence𝑛2formulae-sequenceπ‘š10𝑝𝑛2n\geq 2,m\geq 1,0\leq p<n/2italic_n β‰₯ 2 , italic_m β‰₯ 1 , 0 ≀ italic_p < italic_n / 2 be integers and dβˆˆβ„+𝑑superscriptℝd\in\mathbb{R}^{+}italic_d ∈ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Suppose that there is a map that assigns to each pair V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W of vector spaces of dimensions n,mπ‘›π‘šn,mitalic_n , italic_m respectively, and equipped with positive definite inner products, a nonnegative continuous function Ο†V,W:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šβ†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\varphi_{V,W}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R that is homogeneous of degree d𝑑ditalic_d and satisfies the following conditions:

  1. (i)

    For any isometries 𝗂:V~β†’V:𝗂→~𝑉𝑉\mathsf{i}\colon\tilde{V}\to Vsansserif_i : over~ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG β†’ italic_V and 𝗃:W~β†’W:𝗃→~π‘Šπ‘Š\mathsf{j}\colon\tilde{W}\to Wsansserif_j : over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG β†’ italic_W we have

    Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ²)=Ο†V~,W~⁒(π—ƒβˆ’1∘β∘(𝗂×𝗂))⁒for all⁒β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W).subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›½subscriptπœ‘~𝑉~π‘Šsuperscript𝗃1𝛽𝗂𝗂for all𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\varphi_{V,W}(\beta)=\varphi_{\tilde{V},\tilde{W}}(\mathsf{j}^{-1}\circ\beta% \circ(\mathsf{i}\times\mathsf{i}))\;\;\text{for all}\;\;\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V% \times V,W).italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_V end_ARG , over~ start_ARG italic_W end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( sansserif_j start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∘ italic_Ξ² ∘ ( sansserif_i Γ— sansserif_i ) ) for all italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) .
  2. (ii)

    If Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ²)=0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›½0\varphi_{V,W}(\beta)=0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = 0 for some β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), then the endomorphism Au⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝐴𝑒𝛽A_{u}(\beta)italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) has an eigenvalue of multiplicity at least nβˆ’p𝑛𝑝n-pitalic_n - italic_p for every unit vector u∈Wπ‘’π‘Šu\in Witalic_u ∈ italic_W, the vanishing of which implies that Au⁒(Ξ²)=0subscript𝐴𝑒𝛽0A_{u}(\beta)=0italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = 0.

Then there exists a positive constant δ⁒(n,m)π›Ώπ‘›π‘š\delta(n,m)italic_Ξ΄ ( italic_n , italic_m ), depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m, such that the following inequality holds for any vector spaces V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W and all β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W )

Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ²)β‰₯δ⁒(n,m)⁒(ψp⁒(Ξ²))d/n,subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›½π›Ώπ‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘π›½π‘‘π‘›\varphi_{V,W}(\beta)\geq\delta(n,m)\left(\psi_{p}(\beta)\right)^{d/n},italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰₯ italic_Ξ΄ ( italic_n , italic_m ) ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where the function ψp:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:subscriptπœ“π‘β†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\psi_{p}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R is given by

ψp⁒(Ξ²)=βˆ«Ξ›p⁒(Ξ²)|detAu⁒(Ξ²)|⁒𝑑Su,Ξ›p⁒(Ξ²)={uβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1:p<Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ²)<nβˆ’p},formulae-sequencesubscriptπœ“π‘π›½subscriptsubscriptΛ𝑝𝛽subscript𝐴𝑒𝛽differential-dsubscript𝑆𝑒subscriptΛ𝑝𝛽conditional-set𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1𝑝Indexsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛽𝑛𝑝\psi_{p}(\beta)=\int_{\Lambda_{p}(\beta)}|\det A_{u}(\beta)|dS_{u},\;\;\Lambda% _{p}(\beta)=\left\{u\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}:p<\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\beta)<n-p% \right\},italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) | italic_d italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = { italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_p < roman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) < italic_n - italic_p } ,

and d⁒Su𝑑subscript𝑆𝑒dS_{u}italic_d italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT stands for the volume element111In case m=1π‘š1m=1italic_m = 1, integration reduces to summation. of the unit (mβˆ’1)π‘š1(m-1)( italic_m - 1 )-sphere π•Šmβˆ’1superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1\mathbb{S}^{m-1}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT in Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W.

To simplify the proof of the above lemma, we first prove the following result.

Sublemma 6.

Let {Ξ²r}rβˆˆβ„•subscriptsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ‘Ÿβ„•\{\beta_{r}\}_{r\in\mathord{\mathbb{N}}}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ∈ blackboard_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be a sequence in ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)βŠ‚Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)\subset\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) βŠ‚ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) and {sr}rβˆˆβ„•subscriptsubscriptπ‘ π‘Ÿπ‘Ÿβ„•\{s_{r}\}_{r\in\mathord{\mathbb{N}}}{ italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r ∈ blackboard_N end_POSTSUBSCRIPT a sequence of positive real numbers. Assume that the sequence Ξ³r=sr⁒βrsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscriptπ‘ π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\gamma_{r}=s_{r}\beta_{r}italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT converges to some γ∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛾Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\gamma\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ³ ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) with Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ³)=0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›Ύ0\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma)=0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) = 0. Then Ξ³=0𝛾0\gamma=0italic_Ξ³ = 0.

Proof: For every rβˆˆβ„•π‘Ÿβ„•r\in\mathord{\mathbb{N}}italic_r ∈ blackboard_N, since Ξ²r∈ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\beta_{r}\in\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) and Ξ›p⁒(Ξ²r)=Ξ›p⁒(Ξ³r)subscriptΛ𝑝subscriptπ›½π‘ŸsubscriptΛ𝑝subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ\Lambda_{p}(\beta_{r})=\Lambda_{p}(\gamma_{r})roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), there exists an open subset 𝒰rβŠ‚π•Šmβˆ’1βŠ‚Wsubscriptπ’°π‘Ÿsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘š1π‘Š\mathcal{U}_{r}\subset\mathbb{S}^{m-1}\subset Wcaligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ‚ italic_W such that 𝒰rβŠ‚Ξ›p⁒(Ξ³r)subscriptπ’°π‘ŸsubscriptΛ𝑝subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ\mathcal{U}_{r}\subset\Lambda_{p}(\gamma_{r})caligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ‚ roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and detAξ⁒(Ξ³r)β‰ 0subscriptπ΄πœ‰subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ0\det A_{\xi}(\gamma_{r})\neq 0roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0 for all ΞΎβˆˆπ’°rπœ‰subscriptπ’°π‘Ÿ\xi\in\mathcal{U}_{r}italic_ΞΎ ∈ caligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Let {ur}subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿ\{u_{r}\}{ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } be any convergent sequence such that urβˆˆπ’°rsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ’°π‘Ÿu_{r}\in\mathcal{U}_{r}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all rβˆˆβ„•π‘Ÿβ„•r\in\mathbb{N}italic_r ∈ blackboard_N, and set u=limrβ†’βˆžur𝑒subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿu=\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}u_{r}italic_u = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We claim that

limrβ†’βˆžAur⁒(Ξ³r)=0.subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ0\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{u_{r}}(\gamma_{r})=0.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 . (1)

Since Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ³)=0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›Ύ0\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma)=0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) = 0, by our assumption Au⁒(Ξ³)subscript𝐴𝑒𝛾A_{u}(\gamma)italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) has an eigenvalue μ⁒(u)πœ‡π‘’\mu(u)italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) with multiplicity at least nβˆ’p𝑛𝑝n-pitalic_n - italic_p.

We argue that μ⁒(u)=0πœ‡π‘’0\mu(u)=0italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) = 0. Using that limrβ†’βˆžAur⁒(Ξ³r)=Au⁒(Ξ³)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{u_{r}}(\gamma_{r})=A_{u}(\gamma)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) and since urβˆˆπ’°rsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ’°π‘Ÿu_{r}\in\mathcal{U}_{r}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ caligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we obtain Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ³)<nβˆ’pIndexsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾𝑛𝑝\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\gamma)<n-proman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) < italic_n - italic_p (see [A]). Assuming that μ⁒(u)<0πœ‡π‘’0\mu(u)<0italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) < 0, since its multiplicity is at least nβˆ’p𝑛𝑝n-pitalic_n - italic_p, it follows that Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ³)β‰₯nβˆ’pIndexsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾𝑛𝑝\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\gamma)\geq n-proman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) β‰₯ italic_n - italic_p and this is a contradiction. Therefore μ⁒(u)β‰₯0πœ‡π‘’0\mu(u)\geq 0italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) β‰₯ 0 and this implies that Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ³)≀pIndexsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾𝑝\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\gamma)\leq proman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) ≀ italic_p. Assuming now that μ⁒(u)>0πœ‡π‘’0\mu(u)>0italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) > 0, from limrβ†’βˆžAur⁒(Ξ³r)=Au⁒(Ξ³)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{u_{r}}(\gamma_{r})=A_{u}(\gamma)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) it follows that Index⁒Aur⁒(Ξ³r)≀pIndexsubscript𝐴subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿπ‘\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u_{r}}(\gamma_{r})\leq proman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≀ italic_p for rπ‘Ÿritalic_r large enough, and this contradicts the fact that urβˆˆΞ›p⁒(Ξ³r)subscriptπ‘’π‘ŸsubscriptΛ𝑝subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿu_{r}\in\Lambda_{p}(\gamma_{r})italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Therefore, μ⁒(u)=0πœ‡π‘’0\mu(u)=0italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u ) = 0 and the second condition for Ο†V,Wsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Š\varphi_{V,W}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT yields that limrβ†’βˆžAur⁒(Ξ³r)=Au⁒(Ξ³)=0subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscript𝐴𝑒𝛾0\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{u_{r}}(\gamma_{r})=A_{u}(\gamma)=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) = 0.

We may choose convergent sequences {ur(1)},…,{ur(m)}superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿ1…superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘š\{u_{r}^{(1)}\},\dots,\{u_{r}^{(m)}\}{ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , … , { italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } in 𝒰rsubscriptπ’°π‘Ÿ\mathcal{U}_{r}caligraphic_U start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that the vectors ur(1),…,ur(m)superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿ1…superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘šu_{r}^{(1)},\dots,u_{r}^{(m)}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT span Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W for all rβˆˆβ„•π‘Ÿβ„•r\in\mathbb{N}italic_r ∈ blackboard_N. Using the Gram-Schmidt process we obtain sequences {ΞΎr(1)},…,{ΞΎr(m)}superscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿ1…superscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿπ‘š\{\xi_{r}^{(1)}\},\dots,\{\xi_{r}^{(m)}\}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } , … , { italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_m ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } with ΞΎr(a)∈span⁒{ur(1),…,ur(a)}superscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿπ‘Žspansuperscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿ1…superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿπ‘Ž\xi_{r}^{(a)}\in{\rm{span}}\{u_{r}^{(1)},\dots,u_{r}^{(a)}\}italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ roman_span { italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } for each 1≀a≀m1π‘Žπ‘š1\leq a\leq m1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m. Then ΞΎr(a)=βˆ‘β„“=1axr(β„“)⁒ur(β„“)superscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿπ‘Žsuperscriptsubscriptβ„“1π‘Žsuperscriptsubscriptπ‘₯π‘Ÿβ„“superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿβ„“\xi_{r}^{(a)}=\sum_{\ell=1}^{a}x_{r}^{(\ell)}u_{r}^{(\ell)}italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, where {xr(β„“)}superscriptsubscriptπ‘₯π‘Ÿβ„“\{x_{r}^{(\ell)}\}{ italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT } are convergent sequences for each 1≀ℓ≀m1β„“π‘š1\leq\ell\leq m1 ≀ roman_β„“ ≀ italic_m. Consequently, we have that

Ξ³r(β‹…,β‹…)=βˆ‘a=1m⟨AΞΎr(a)(Ξ³r)β‹…,β‹…βŸ©ΞΎr(a),whereAΞΎr(a)(Ξ³r)=βˆ‘β„“=1axr(β„“)Aur(β„“)(Ξ³r).\gamma_{r}(\cdot,\cdot)=\sum_{a=1}^{m}{\langle}A_{{\xi}_{r}^{(a)}}(\gamma_{r})% \cdot,\cdot{\rangle}{\xi}_{r}^{(a)},\;\;\text{where}\;\;A_{{\xi}_{r}^{(a)}}(% \gamma_{r})=\sum_{\ell=1}^{a}x_{r}^{(\ell)}A_{u_{r}^{(\ell)}}(\gamma_{r}).italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( β‹… , β‹… ) = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‹… , β‹… ⟩ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , where italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) . (2)

Using (1), we obtain

limrβ†’βˆžAΞΎr(a)⁒(Ξ³r)=limrβ†’βˆžβˆ‘β„“=1axr(β„“)⁒Aur(β„“)⁒(Ξ³r)=0⁒for all⁒  1≀a≀m.subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴superscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿπ‘Žsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptβ„“1π‘Žsuperscriptsubscriptπ‘₯π‘Ÿβ„“subscript𝐴superscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ÿβ„“subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ0for all1π‘Žπ‘š\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}A_{{\xi}_{r}^{(a)}}(\gamma_{r})=\lim_{r\rightarrow% \infty}\sum_{\ell=1}^{a}x_{r}^{(\ell)}A_{u_{r}^{(\ell)}}(\gamma_{r})=0\;\;% \text{for all}\;\;1\leq a\leq m.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_a ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_β„“ = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( roman_β„“ ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for all 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m .

From (2) and the above it follows that limrβ†’βˆžΞ³r=0subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ0\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\gamma_{r}=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0 and thus, Ξ³=0𝛾0\gamma=0italic_Ξ³ = 0.    

Proof of Lemma 5. Let V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W be vector spaces as in the statement of the lemma. We first show that the set ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) in nonempty. Indeed, since the function ψpsubscriptπœ“π‘\psi_{p}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is homogeneous of degree n𝑛nitalic_n, it follows that for an arbitrary β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) with ψp⁒(Ξ²)β‰ 0subscriptπœ“π‘π›½0\psi_{p}(\beta)\neq 0italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰  0, we have that Ξ²/(ψp⁒(Ξ²))1/n∈ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)𝛽superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘π›½1𝑛superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\beta/(\psi_{p}(\beta))^{1/n}\in\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_Ξ² / ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ).

Let {Ξ²r}subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\{\beta_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } be a sequence in ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) such that

limrβ†’βˆžΟ†V,W⁒(Ξ²r)=infΟ†V,W⁒(ψpβˆ’1⁒(1))β‰₯0.subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿinfimumsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘110\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\varphi_{V,W}(\beta_{r})=\inf\varphi_{V,W}(\psi_{p}^{% -1}(1))\geq 0.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_inf italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) ) β‰₯ 0 .

We claim that the sequence {Ξ²r}subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\{\beta_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is bounded. Arguing indirectly, assume that there exists a subsequence, which by abuse of notation is again denoted by {Ξ²r}subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\{\beta_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT }, such that limrβ†’βˆžβ€–Ξ²rβ€–=∞subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿnormsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\|\beta_{r}\|=\inftyroman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ = ∞. Since Ξ²r∈ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\beta_{r}\in\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) implies that Ξ²rβ‰ 0subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ0\beta_{r}\neq 0italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0 for all rβˆˆβ„•π‘Ÿβ„•r\in\mathord{\mathbb{N}}italic_r ∈ blackboard_N, we can consider the sequence Ξ³r=sr⁒βrsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscriptπ‘ π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\gamma_{r}=s_{r}\beta_{r}italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where sr=1/β€–Ξ²rβ€–subscriptπ‘ π‘Ÿ1normsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿs_{r}=1/\|\beta_{r}\|italic_s start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1 / βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯. Then {Ξ³r}subscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ\{\gamma_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is bounded with β€–Ξ³rβ€–=1normsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ1\|\gamma_{r}\|=1βˆ₯ italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ = 1 and, by passing to a subsequence if necessary, we may assume that it converges to some γ∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛾Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\gamma\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ³ ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) with β€–Ξ³β€–=1norm𝛾1\|\gamma\|=1βˆ₯ italic_Ξ³ βˆ₯ = 1. From Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ³r)=Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ²r)/β€–Ξ²rβ€–dsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptnormsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ‘‘\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma_{r})=\varphi_{V,W}(\beta_{r})/\|\beta_{r}\|^{d}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT it follows that limrβ†’βˆžΟ†V,W⁒(Ξ³r)=0subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿ0\lim_{r\rightarrow\infty}\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma_{r})=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. Then, the continuity of Ο†V,Wsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Š\varphi_{V,W}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT yields that Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ³)=0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›Ύ0\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma)=0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) = 0 and Sublemma 6 implies that Ξ³=0𝛾0\gamma=0italic_Ξ³ = 0. This contradicts the fact that β€–Ξ³β€–=1norm𝛾1\|\gamma\|=1βˆ₯ italic_Ξ³ βˆ₯ = 1, and the proof of the claim follows.

Thus we may assume that {Ξ²r}subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\{\beta_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } converges to some β∞∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)subscript𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta_{\infty}\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ). We argue that Ο†V,W⁒(β∞)>0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscript𝛽0\varphi_{V,W}(\beta_{\infty})>0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) > 0. Suppose to the contrary that Ο†V,W⁒(β∞)=0subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscript𝛽0\varphi_{V,W}(\beta_{\infty})=0italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0. Then, Sublemma 6 applied to Ξ³r=Ξ²rsubscriptπ›Ύπ‘Ÿsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\gamma_{r}=\beta_{r}italic_Ξ³ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT yields that β∞=0subscript𝛽0\beta_{\infty}=0italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0. Therefore Au⁒(β∞)=0subscript𝐴𝑒subscript𝛽0A_{u}(\beta_{\infty})=0italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for every uβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1u\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. On the other hand, since Ξ²r∈ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\beta_{r}\in\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ), the mean value theorem implies that there exists ΞΎrβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1subscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘š1\xi_{r}\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT such that

1=ψp⁒(Ξ²r)β‰€βˆ«π•Šmβˆ’1|detAu⁒(Ξ²r)|⁒𝑑Su=|detAΞΎr⁒(Ξ²r)|⁒Vol⁒(π•Šmβˆ’1)⁒for all⁒rβˆˆβ„•.1subscriptπœ“π‘subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscriptsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘š1subscript𝐴𝑒subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿdifferential-dsubscript𝑆𝑒subscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›½π‘ŸVolsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘š1for allπ‘Ÿβ„•1=\psi_{p}(\beta_{r})\leq\int_{\mathbb{S}^{m-1}}|\det A_{u}(\beta_{r})|dS_{u}=% \left|\det A_{\xi_{r}}(\beta_{r})\right|\mathrm{Vol}(\mathbb{S}^{m-1})\;\;% \text{for all}\;\;r\in\mathbb{N}.1 = italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≀ ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | italic_d italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) | roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) for all italic_r ∈ blackboard_N .

Since the sequence {ΞΎr}subscriptπœ‰π‘Ÿ\{\xi_{r}\}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } is bounded, we may assume that it converges to some ΞΎβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1πœ‰superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1\xi\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}italic_ΞΎ ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then, by letting rβ†’βˆžβ†’π‘Ÿr\to\inftyitalic_r β†’ ∞ in the above, we conclude that detAξ⁒(β∞)β‰ 0subscriptπ΄πœ‰subscript𝛽0\det A_{\xi}(\beta_{\infty})\neq 0roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0 which contradicts the fact that Au⁒(β∞)=0subscript𝐴𝑒subscript𝛽0A_{u}(\beta_{\infty})=0italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for every uβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1u\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

Thus, the function Ο†V,Wsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Š\varphi_{V,W}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT attains a positive minimum δ⁒(n,m)=Ο†V,W⁒(β∞)π›Ώπ‘›π‘šsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šsubscript𝛽\delta(n,m)=\varphi_{V,W}(\beta_{\infty})italic_Ξ΄ ( italic_n , italic_m ) = italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) on ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ), which by condition (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) depends only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m. Therefore, for an arbitrary β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) with ψp⁒(Ξ²)β‰ 0subscriptπœ“π‘π›½0\psi_{p}(\beta)\neq 0italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰  0, since Ξ³=Ξ²/(ψp⁒(Ξ²))1/n∈ψpβˆ’1⁒(1)𝛾𝛽superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘π›½1𝑛superscriptsubscriptπœ“π‘11\gamma=\beta/(\psi_{p}(\beta))^{1/n}\in\psi_{p}^{-1}(1)italic_Ξ³ = italic_Ξ² / ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∈ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ), it follows that Ο†V,W⁒(Ξ³)β‰₯δ⁒(n,m)subscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ›Ύπ›Ώπ‘›π‘š\varphi_{V,W}(\gamma)\geq\delta(n,m)italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ³ ) β‰₯ italic_Ξ΄ ( italic_n , italic_m ). Then, the homogeneity of Ο†V,Wsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Š\varphi_{V,W}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT implies the desired inequality. Β Β Β 

3 Algebraic preliminaries

Let V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W be real vector spaces of dimensions nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and mβ‰₯1π‘š1m\geq 1italic_m β‰₯ 1 respectively, equipped with positive definite inner products.

The Kulkarni-Nomizu product of two bilinear forms Ο•,ψ∈Hom⁒(VΓ—V,ℝ)italic-Ο•πœ“Hom𝑉𝑉ℝ\phi,\psi\in\mathrm{Hom}(V\times V,\mathbb{R})italic_Ο• , italic_ψ ∈ roman_Hom ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , blackboard_R ) is the (0,4)04(0,4)( 0 , 4 )-tensor Ο•βˆ§βƒΟˆ:VΓ—VΓ—VΓ—V→ℝ:βˆ§βƒitalic-Ο•πœ“β†’π‘‰π‘‰π‘‰π‘‰β„\phi\varowedge\psi\colon V\times V\times V\times V\to\mathbb{R}italic_Ο• βˆ§βƒ italic_ψ : italic_V Γ— italic_V Γ— italic_V Γ— italic_V β†’ blackboard_R defined by

Ο•βˆ§βƒΟˆβ’(x1,x2,x3,x4)βˆ§βƒitalic-Ο•πœ“subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3subscriptπ‘₯4\displaystyle\phi\varowedge\psi(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})italic_Ο• βˆ§βƒ italic_ψ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =\displaystyle== ϕ⁒(x1,x3)⁒ψ⁒(x2,x4)+ϕ⁒(x2,x4)⁒ψ⁒(x1,x3)italic-Ο•subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯3πœ“subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯4italic-Ο•subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯4πœ“subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯3\displaystyle\phi(x_{1},x_{3})\psi(x_{2},x_{4})+\phi(x_{2},x_{4})\psi(x_{1},x_% {3})italic_Ο• ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_Ο• ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT )
βˆ’Ο•β’(x1,x4)⁒ψ⁒(x2,x3)βˆ’Ο•β’(x2,x3)⁒ψ⁒(x1,x4).italic-Ο•subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯4πœ“subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3italic-Ο•subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3πœ“subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯4\displaystyle-\phi(x_{1},x_{4})\psi(x_{2},x_{3})-\phi(x_{2},x_{3})\psi(x_{1},x% _{4}).- italic_Ο• ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - italic_Ο• ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ψ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) .

Using the inner product of Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W, we extend the Kulkarni-Nomizu product to bilinear forms Ξ²,γ∈Hom⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽𝛾Homπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta,\gamma\in\mbox{Hom}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² , italic_Ξ³ ∈ Hom ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), as the (0,4)04(0,4)( 0 , 4 )-tensor Ξ²βˆ§βƒΞ³:VΓ—VΓ—VΓ—V→ℝ:βˆ§βƒπ›½π›Ύβ†’π‘‰π‘‰π‘‰π‘‰β„\beta\varowedge\gamma\colon V\times V\times V\times V\to\mathbb{R}italic_Ξ² βˆ§βƒ italic_Ξ³ : italic_V Γ— italic_V Γ— italic_V Γ— italic_V β†’ blackboard_R defined by

Ξ²βˆ§βƒΞ³β’(x1,x2,x3,x4)βˆ§βƒπ›½π›Ύsubscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3subscriptπ‘₯4\displaystyle\beta\varowedge\gamma(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})\!\!\!italic_Ξ² βˆ§βƒ italic_Ξ³ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =\displaystyle== ⟨β⁒(x1,x3),γ⁒(x2,x4)⟩+⟨β⁒(x2,x4),γ⁒(x1,x3)βŸ©π›½subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯3𝛾subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯4𝛽subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯4𝛾subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯3\displaystyle\!\!\!\langle\beta(x_{1},x_{3}),\gamma(x_{2},x_{4})\rangle+% \langle\beta(x_{2},x_{4}),\gamma(x_{1},x_{3})\rangle⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ξ³ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟩ + ⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ξ³ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟩
βˆ’βŸ¨Ξ²β’(x1,x4),γ⁒(x2,x3)βŸ©βˆ’βŸ¨Ξ²β’(x2,x3),γ⁒(x1,x4)⟩.𝛽subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯4𝛾subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3𝛽subscriptπ‘₯2subscriptπ‘₯3𝛾subscriptπ‘₯1subscriptπ‘₯4\displaystyle\!\!\!-\langle\beta(x_{1},x_{4}),\gamma(x_{2},x_{3})\rangle-% \langle\beta(x_{2},x_{3}),\gamma(x_{1},x_{4})\rangle.- ⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ξ³ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟩ - ⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ξ³ ( italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟩ .

For any cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R, we define the formal Ricci tensor as the map 𝖱𝗂𝖼c:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)β†’Sym⁒(VΓ—V,ℝ):subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐→Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘ŠSym𝑉𝑉ℝ{\sf Ric}_{c}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,\mathbb{% R})sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , blackboard_R ) given by

𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(x,y)=tr⁒𝖱c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(β‹…,x,β‹…,y),x,y∈V,formulae-sequencesubscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽π‘₯𝑦trsubscript𝖱𝑐𝛽⋅π‘₯⋅𝑦π‘₯𝑦𝑉{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(x,y)=\mathrm{tr}\ {\sf R}_{c}(\beta)(\cdot,x,\cdot,y),\;% \;x,y\in V,sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y ) = roman_tr sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( β‹… , italic_x , β‹… , italic_y ) , italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V ,

where

𝖱c⁒(Ξ²)=12⁒(cβ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©βˆ§βƒβŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©+Ξ²βˆ§βƒΞ²).subscript𝖱𝑐𝛽12βˆ§βƒπ‘β‹…β‹…β‹…β‹…π›½βˆ§βƒπ›½{\sf R}_{c}(\beta)=\frac{1}{2}\left(c{\langle}\cdot,\cdot{\rangle}\varowedge{% \langle}\cdot,\cdot{\rangle}+\beta\varowedge\beta\right).sansserif_R start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_c ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ βˆ§βƒ ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ + italic_Ξ² βˆ§βƒ italic_Ξ² ) .

For any β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), we denote by 𝝀c,1⁒(Ξ²)≀⋯≀𝝀c,n⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝝀𝑐1𝛽⋯subscript𝝀𝑐𝑛𝛽\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,1}(\beta)\leq\dots\leq\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,n}(\beta)bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ β‹― ≀ bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) the eigenvalues of the self-adjoint operator 𝖳c⁒(Ξ²)∈End⁒(V)subscript𝖳𝑐𝛽End𝑉{\sf T}_{c}(\beta)\in{\rm End}(V)sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ∈ roman_End ( italic_V ) determined by

βŸ¨π–³c⁒(Ξ²)⁒x,y⟩=1nβˆ’1⁒𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(x,y).subscript𝖳𝑐𝛽π‘₯𝑦1𝑛1subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽π‘₯𝑦{\langle}{\sf T}_{c}(\beta)x,y{\rangle}=\frac{1}{n-1}{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(x,y).⟨ sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) italic_x , italic_y ⟩ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n - 1 end_ARG sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y ) .

For each 1≀k≀n1π‘˜π‘›1\leq k\leq n1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n, we consider the functions 𝝆c,k:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜β†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R defined by

𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)=1kβ’βˆ‘i=1k𝝀c,i⁒(Ξ²).subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½1π‘˜superscriptsubscript𝑖1π‘˜subscript𝝀𝑐𝑖𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)=\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i=1}^{k}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{% c,i}(\beta).bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_k end_ARG βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) .

For k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n, we set 𝝆c⁒(Ξ²)=𝝆c,n⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽subscript𝝆𝑐𝑛𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,n}(\beta)bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ). Clearly we have

𝝆c⁒(Ξ²)=1n⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒tr⁒𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²).subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽1𝑛𝑛1trsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\mathrm{tr}\ {\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta).bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG roman_tr sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) .

Furthermore, we define the function π†βŸ‚:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:superscript𝝆perpendicular-toβ†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R by

π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)=1n⁒(nβˆ’1)β’β€–π–±βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)β€–=1n⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒(βˆ‘i,j=1nβˆ‘a,b=1m(π–±βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)⁒(ei,ej,ΞΎa,ΞΎb))2)1/2,superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽1𝑛𝑛1normsuperscript𝖱perpendicular-to𝛽1𝑛𝑛1superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑖𝑗1𝑛superscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘1π‘šsuperscriptsuperscript𝖱perpendicular-to𝛽subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗subscriptπœ‰π‘Žsubscriptπœ‰π‘212\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\|{\sf R}^{\perp}(\beta)\|=% \frac{1}{n(n-1)}\Big{(}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}\sum_{a,b=1}^{m}\left({\sf R}^{\perp}(% \beta)(e_{i},e_{j},\xi_{a},\xi_{b})\right)^{2}\Big{)}^{1/2},bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG βˆ₯ sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG ( βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i , italic_j = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_b = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,

where {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are orthonormal bases of V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W, respectively. Here, the tensor π–±βŸ‚β’(Ξ²):VΓ—VΓ—WΓ—W→ℝ:superscript𝖱perpendicular-toπ›½β†’π‘‰π‘‰π‘Šπ‘Šβ„{\sf R}^{\perp}(\beta)\colon V\times V\times W\times W\to\mathbb{R}sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) : italic_V Γ— italic_V Γ— italic_W Γ— italic_W β†’ blackboard_R is given by

π–±βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)⁒(x,y,ΞΎ,Ξ·)=⟨[Aξ⁒(Ξ²),Aη⁒(Ξ²)]⁒x,y⟩,x,y∈V,ΞΎ,η∈W,formulae-sequencesuperscript𝖱perpendicular-to𝛽π‘₯π‘¦πœ‰πœ‚subscriptπ΄πœ‰π›½subscriptπ΄πœ‚π›½π‘₯𝑦π‘₯formulae-sequenceπ‘¦π‘‰πœ‰πœ‚π‘Š{\sf R}^{\perp}(\beta)(x,y,\xi,\eta)={\langle}[A_{\xi}(\beta),A_{\eta}(\beta)]% x,y{\rangle},\;\;x,y\in V,\;\xi,\eta\in W,sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y , italic_ΞΎ , italic_Ξ· ) = ⟨ [ italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ· end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ] italic_x , italic_y ⟩ , italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V , italic_ΞΎ , italic_Ξ· ∈ italic_W ,

being [A,B]=A∘Bβˆ’B∘A𝐴𝐡𝐴𝐡𝐡𝐴[A,B]=A\circ B-B\circ A[ italic_A , italic_B ] = italic_A ∘ italic_B - italic_B ∘ italic_A the commutator of A,B∈End⁒(V)𝐴𝐡End𝑉A,B\in{\rm End}(V)italic_A , italic_B ∈ roman_End ( italic_V ).

For every β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), we set β„‹Ξ²=(1/n)⁒tr⁒β,𝖧β=β€–β„‹Ξ²β€–formulae-sequencesubscriptℋ𝛽1𝑛tr𝛽subscript𝖧𝛽normsubscriptℋ𝛽\mathcal{H}_{\beta}=\left(1/n\right)\mathrm{tr}\beta,{\sf H}_{\beta}=\|% \mathcal{H}_{\beta}\|caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = ( 1 / italic_n ) roman_tr italic_Ξ² , sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = βˆ₯ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ and we denote by β̊=Ξ²βˆ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β’β„‹Ξ²ΜŠπ›½π›½β‹…β‹…subscriptℋ𝛽\mathring{\beta}=\beta-{\langle}\cdot,\cdot{\rangle}{\cal H}_{\beta}over̊ start_ARG italic_Ξ² end_ARG = italic_Ξ² - ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the traceless part of β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ². The form β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is called umbilical if β̊=0ΜŠπ›½0\mathring{\beta}=0over̊ start_ARG italic_Ξ² end_ARG = 0. It is clear that β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is umbilical if and only if Aξ⁒(Ξ²)=βŸ¨β„‹Ξ²,ξ⟩⁒IdVsubscriptπ΄πœ‰π›½subscriptβ„‹π›½πœ‰subscriptId𝑉A_{\xi}(\beta)={\langle}{\cal H}_{\beta},\xi{\rangle}\operatorname{Id}_{V}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = ⟨ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_ΞΎ ⟩ roman_Id start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for every ξ∈Wπœ‰π‘Š\xi\in Witalic_ΞΎ ∈ italic_W.

Lemma 7.

For every β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) and any cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R, the following hold:

  1. (i)

    The formal Ricci tensor is given by

    𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(x,y)=c⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒⟨x,y⟩+nβ’βŸ¨β„‹Ξ²,β⁒(x,y)βŸ©βˆ’βˆ‘i=1n⟨β⁒(x,ei),β⁒(y,ei)⟩,subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽π‘₯𝑦𝑐𝑛1π‘₯𝑦𝑛subscriptℋ𝛽𝛽π‘₯𝑦superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛𝛽π‘₯subscript𝑒𝑖𝛽𝑦subscript𝑒𝑖{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(x,y)=c(n-1){\langle}x,y{\rangle}+n{\langle}{\cal H}_{% \beta},\beta(x,y){\rangle}-\sum_{i=1}^{n}{\langle}\beta(x,e_{i}),\beta(y,e_{i}% ){\rangle},sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y ) = italic_c ( italic_n - 1 ) ⟨ italic_x , italic_y ⟩ + italic_n ⟨ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Ξ² ( italic_x , italic_y ) ⟩ - βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ italic_Ξ² ( italic_x , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ξ² ( italic_y , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ⟩ ,

    for x,y∈Vπ‘₯𝑦𝑉x,y\in Vitalic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V, where {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is an orthonormal basis of V𝑉Vitalic_V.

  2. (ii)

    The DDVV inequality is valid

    𝝆c⁒(Ξ²)≀c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²).subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)\leq c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{% \perp}(\beta).bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) .

    Equality holds if and only if there exist orthonormal bases {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of V𝑉Vitalic_V and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W such that

    AΞΎ1⁒(Ξ²)=diag⁑(Ξ»1+ΞΌ,Ξ»1βˆ’ΞΌ,Ξ»1,…,Ξ»1),AΞΎ2⁒(Ξ²)=diag⁑((Ξ»2ΞΌΞΌΞ»2),Ξ»2,…,Ξ»2),formulae-sequencesubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰1𝛽diagsubscriptπœ†1πœ‡subscriptπœ†1πœ‡subscriptπœ†1…subscriptπœ†1subscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰2𝛽diagsubscriptπœ†2πœ‡πœ‡subscriptπœ†2subscriptπœ†2…subscriptπœ†2A_{\xi_{1}}(\beta)=\operatorname{diag}(\lambda_{1}+\mu,\lambda_{1}-\mu,\lambda% _{1},\dots,\lambda_{1}),\;\;A_{\xi_{2}}(\beta)=\operatorname{diag}\left(\left(% \begin{array}[]{cc}\lambda_{2}&\mu\\ \mu&\lambda_{2}\end{array}\right),\lambda_{2},\dots,\lambda_{2}\right),italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = roman_diag ( italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_ΞΌ , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - italic_ΞΌ , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = roman_diag ( ( start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_ΞΌ end_CELL start_CELL italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ) , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

    and AΞΎa⁒(Ξ²)=Ξ»a⁒Insubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Žπ›½subscriptπœ†π‘Žsubscript𝐼𝑛A_{\xi_{a}}(\beta)=\lambda_{a}I_{n}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for 3≀a≀m3π‘Žπ‘š3\leq a\leq m3 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m, where ΞΌ,Ξ»1,…,Ξ»mπœ‡subscriptπœ†1…subscriptπœ†π‘š\mu,\lambda_{1},\dots,\lambda_{m}italic_ΞΌ , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are real numbers.

Proof: Part (i) follows by a straightforward computation. For the second part, we choose an orthonormal basis {ua}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπ‘’π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{u_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W such that u1=β„‹Ξ²/𝖧βsubscript𝑒1subscriptℋ𝛽subscript𝖧𝛽u_{1}={\cal H}_{\beta}/{\sf H}_{\beta}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT / sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT if β„‹Ξ²β‰ 0subscriptℋ𝛽0{\cal H}_{\beta}\neq 0caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0. Let Ba⁒(Ξ²)=Aa⁒(Ξ²)βˆ’βŸ¨β„‹Ξ²,ua⟩⁒IdVsubscriptπ΅π‘Žπ›½subscriptπ΄π‘Žπ›½subscriptℋ𝛽subscriptπ‘’π‘ŽsubscriptId𝑉B_{a}(\beta)=A_{a}(\beta)-{\langle}{\cal H}_{\beta},u_{a}{\rangle}% \operatorname{Id}_{V}italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - ⟨ caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ⟩ roman_Id start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the traceless part of Aa⁒(Ξ²)subscriptπ΄π‘Žπ›½A_{a}(\beta)italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for 1≀a≀m1π‘Žπ‘š1\leq a\leq m1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m. Using part (i) and taking into account that β€–Ξ²ΜŠβ€–2=β€–Ξ²β€–2βˆ’n⁒𝖧β2superscriptnormΜŠπ›½2superscriptnorm𝛽2𝑛subscriptsuperscript𝖧2𝛽\|\mathring{\beta}\|^{2}=\|\beta\|^{2}-n{\sf H}^{2}_{\beta}βˆ₯ over̊ start_ARG italic_Ξ² end_ARG βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_Ξ² βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n sansserif_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a direct computation yields that

c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†c⁒(Ξ²)=β€–Ξ²ΜŠβ€–2n⁒(nβˆ’1)=1n⁒(nβˆ’1)β’βˆ‘a=1mβ€–Ba⁒(Ξ²)β€–2.𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽superscriptnormΜŠπ›½2𝑛𝑛11𝑛𝑛1superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1π‘šsuperscriptnormsubscriptπ΅π‘Žπ›½2c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)=\frac{\|\mathring{\beta}\|^% {2}}{n(n-1)}=\frac{1}{n(n-1)}\sum_{a=1}^{m}\|B_{a}(\beta)\|^{2}.italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG βˆ₯ over̊ start_ARG italic_Ξ² end_ARG βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (3)

On the other hand, it follows easily that

π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)=β€–RβŸ‚β’(Ξ²)β€–n⁒(nβˆ’1)=1n⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒(βˆ‘a,b=1mβ€–[Ba⁒(Ξ²),Bb⁒(Ξ²)]β€–2)1/2.superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽normsuperscript𝑅perpendicular-to𝛽𝑛𝑛11𝑛𝑛1superscriptsuperscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘1π‘šsuperscriptnormsubscriptπ΅π‘Žπ›½subscript𝐡𝑏𝛽212\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)=\frac{\|R^{\perp}(\beta)\|}{n(n-1)}=\frac{1}{% n(n-1)}\Big{(}\sum_{a,b=1}^{m}\|[B_{a}(\beta),B_{b}(\beta)]\|^{2}\Big{)}^{1/2}.bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = divide start_ARG βˆ₯ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG ( βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_b = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ] βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT . (4)

Therefore, the desired inequality is equivalent to

βˆ‘a,b=1mβ€–[Ba⁒(Ξ²),Bb⁒(Ξ²)]β€–2≀(βˆ‘a=1mβ€–Ba⁒(Ξ²)β€–2)2.superscriptsubscriptπ‘Žπ‘1π‘šsuperscriptnormsubscriptπ΅π‘Žπ›½subscript𝐡𝑏𝛽2superscriptsuperscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1π‘šsuperscriptnormsubscriptπ΅π‘Žπ›½22\sum_{a,b=1}^{m}\|[B_{a}(\beta),B_{b}(\beta)]\|^{2}\leq\Big{(}\sum_{a=1}^{m}\|% B_{a}(\beta)\|^{2}\Big{)}^{2}.βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a , italic_b = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ [ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_b end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ] βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ≀ ( βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

The last inequality, along with its equality case, has been proved in [GT, Lu]. The remainder of the proof follows the same steps as the proof of Corollary 1.2 in [GT], with Tp⁒Msubscript𝑇𝑝𝑀T_{p}Mitalic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M replaced by V𝑉Vitalic_V and TpβŸ‚β’Msubscriptsuperscript𝑇perpendicular-to𝑝𝑀T^{\perp}_{p}Mitalic_T start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M replaced by Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W.    

Proposition 8.

The following assertions hold for any vector spaces V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W, any β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) and every cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R:

  1. (i)

    If nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, then for every k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 }, the following inequality holds:

    𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)≀c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²).subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½π‘superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)\leq c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{% \perp}(\beta).bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) . (5)

    Equality holds for some k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 } if and only if β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is umbilical.

  2. (ii)

    For every λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ), the following inequality holds:

    𝝆c⁒(Ξ²)≀c+𝖧β2βˆ’Ξ»β’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²).subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ†superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)\leq c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\lambda\boldsymbol{\rho% }^{\perp}(\beta).bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) . (6)

    Equality holds for some λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) if and only if β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is umbilical.

Proof: (i) Assume that nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3. For every k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 } we have that

𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)≀𝝆c,k+1⁒(Ξ²),subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜1𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)\leq\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k+1}(\beta),bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , (7)

and equality holds if and only if 𝝀c,1⁒(Ξ²)=β‹―=𝝀c,k+1⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝝀𝑐1𝛽⋯subscriptπ€π‘π‘˜1𝛽\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,1}(\beta)=\dots=\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,k+1}(\beta)bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = β‹― = bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ). The proof of (5) then follows from the DDVV inequality in Lemma 7(i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ).

Assume now that for some k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 }, inequality (5) holds as equality. From (7) it follows that all inequalities in

𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)≀⋯≀𝝆c,n⁒(Ξ²)≀c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½β‹―subscript𝝆𝑐𝑛𝛽𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)\leq\dots\leq\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,n}(\beta)\leq c% +{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ β‹― ≀ bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ≀ italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² )

hold as equalities. This implies that all eigenvalues of 𝖳c⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝖳𝑐𝛽{\sf T}_{c}(\beta)sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) are equal and thus, 𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)=(nβˆ’1)β’Οβ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽𝑛1πœŒβ‹…β‹…{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)=(n-1)\rho\langle\cdot,\cdot\ranglesansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = ( italic_n - 1 ) italic_ρ ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩, where ρ=𝝆c,i⁒(Ξ²)𝜌subscript𝝆𝑐𝑖𝛽\rho=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,i}(\beta)italic_ρ = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ), 1≀i≀n1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n.

Moreover, the DDVV inequality holds as equality for β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ². Let {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be orthonormal bases of V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W, respectively, as in Lemma 7(i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ). Using Lemma 7 and taking into account that β„‹Ξ²=βˆ‘a=1mΞ»a⁒ξasubscriptℋ𝛽superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1π‘šsubscriptπœ†π‘Žsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž{\cal H}_{\beta}=\sum_{a=1}^{m}\lambda_{a}\xi_{a}caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, a straightforward computation yields that

𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(e1,e1)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒1\displaystyle{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(e_{1},e_{1})sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =\displaystyle== (nβˆ’1)⁒(c+𝖧β2)+μ⁒((nβˆ’2)⁒λ1βˆ’2⁒μ),𝑛1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ‡π‘›2subscriptπœ†12πœ‡\displaystyle(n-1)(c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2})+\mu\left((n-2)\lambda_{1}-2\mu\right),( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_ΞΌ ( ( italic_n - 2 ) italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 2 italic_ΞΌ ) ,
𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(e2,e2)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽subscript𝑒2subscript𝑒2\displaystyle{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(e_{2},e_{2})sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =\displaystyle== (nβˆ’1)⁒(c+𝖧β2)βˆ’ΞΌβ’((nβˆ’2)⁒λ1+2⁒μ),𝑛1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ‡π‘›2subscriptπœ†12πœ‡\displaystyle(n-1)(c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2})-\mu\left((n-2)\lambda_{1}+2\mu\right),( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - italic_ΞΌ ( ( italic_n - 2 ) italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + 2 italic_ΞΌ ) ,
𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(ei,ei)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑖\displaystyle{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(e_{i},e_{i})sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) =\displaystyle== (nβˆ’1)⁒(c+𝖧β2),if⁒iβ‰₯3.𝑛1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2if𝑖3\displaystyle(n-1)(c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}),\;\;\text{if}\;\;i\geq 3.( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) , if italic_i β‰₯ 3 .

Since 𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)=(nβˆ’1)β’Οβ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽𝑛1πœŒβ‹…β‹…{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)=(n-1)\rho\langle\cdot,\cdot\ranglesansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = ( italic_n - 1 ) italic_ρ ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩, the above yield that ΞΌ=0πœ‡0\mu=0italic_ΞΌ = 0. Therefore, we obtain that AΞΎa⁒(Ξ²)=Ξ»a⁒In,1≀a≀mformulae-sequencesubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Žπ›½subscriptπœ†π‘Žsubscript𝐼𝑛1π‘Žπ‘šA_{\xi_{a}}(\beta)=\lambda_{a}I_{n},1\leq a\leq mitalic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m, and this implies that β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is umbilical. The converse is obvious.

(ii) The desired inequality follows immediately from the DDVV inequality. If (6) holds as equality, then

c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†c⁒(Ξ²)βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)=(Ξ»βˆ’1)β’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²).𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽superscript𝝆perpendicular-toπ›½πœ†1superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c}(\beta)-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(% \beta)=(\lambda-1)\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta).italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = ( italic_Ξ» - 1 ) bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) .

By virtue of Lemma 7(i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ), the left hand side of the above is nonnegative. Thus π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)=0superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽0\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)=0bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = 0 and the DDVV inequality holds as equality for β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ². Now we choose the orthonormal bases of V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W as in Lemma 7(i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ). Then a direct computation yields that β€–π–±βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)β€–=4⁒μ2normsuperscript𝖱perpendicular-to𝛽4superscriptπœ‡2\|{\sf R}^{\perp}(\beta)\|=4\mu^{2}βˆ₯ sansserif_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) βˆ₯ = 4 italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)=0superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽0\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)=0bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = 0, it follows that ΞΌ=0πœ‡0\mu=0italic_ΞΌ = 0. Then, as in the proof of part (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ), we conclude that β𝛽\betaitalic_Ξ² is umbilical.    

Proposition 9.

Given integers nβ‰₯2𝑛2n\geq 2italic_n β‰₯ 2 and mβ‰₯1π‘š1m\geq 1italic_m β‰₯ 1, the following assertions hold:

  1. (i)

    If nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, then for any cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R and k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 } there exists a constant Ξ΄c,k⁒(n,m)>0subscriptπ›Ώπ‘π‘˜π‘›π‘š0\delta_{c,k}(n,m)>0italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) > 0 depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m, such that the following inequality holds

    c+𝖧β2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)βˆ’π†c,k⁒(Ξ²)β‰₯Ξ΄c,k⁒(n,m)⁒(ψ0⁒(Ξ²))2/n𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½subscriptπ›Ώπ‘π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“0𝛽2𝑛c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}% (\beta)\geq\delta_{c,k}(n,m)\left(\psi_{0}(\beta)\right)^{2/n}italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰₯ italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

    for any vector spaces V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W and all β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), where ψ0subscriptπœ“0\psi_{0}italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the function defined in Lemma 5.

  2. (ii)

    For every cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R and λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) there exists a constant Ξ΄c,λ⁒(n,m)>0subscriptπ›Ώπ‘πœ†π‘›π‘š0\delta_{c,\lambda}(n,m)>0italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) > 0 depending only on n𝑛nitalic_n and mπ‘šmitalic_m, such that the following inequality holds

    c+𝖧β2βˆ’Ξ»β’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)βˆ’π†c⁒(Ξ²)β‰₯Ξ΄c,λ⁒(n,m)⁒(ψ0⁒(Ξ²))2/n𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ†superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽subscript𝝆𝑐𝛽subscriptπ›Ώπ‘πœ†π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“0𝛽2𝑛c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\lambda\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta)-\boldsymbol{\rho% }_{c}(\beta)\geq\delta_{c,\lambda}(n,m)\left(\psi_{0}(\beta)\right)^{2/n}italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰₯ italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

    for any vector spaces V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W and all β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ).

Proof: For each pair of vector spaces V,Wπ‘‰π‘ŠV,Witalic_V , italic_W of dimensions n,mπ‘›π‘šn,mitalic_n , italic_m, respectively, cβˆˆβ„π‘β„c\in\mathbb{R}italic_c ∈ blackboard_R, λ∈[0,1]πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1]italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ] and k∈{1,…,n}π‘˜1…𝑛k\in\{1,\dots,n\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n }, we consider the function Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»:Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)→ℝ:superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†β†’Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šβ„\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}\colon\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)\to\mathbb{R}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) β†’ blackboard_R given by Ο†V,Wk,λ⁒(Ξ²)=c+𝖧β2βˆ’Ξ»β’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)βˆ’π†c,k⁒(Ξ²)superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†π›½π‘superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ†superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}(\beta)=c+{\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\lambda\boldsymbol{\rho% }^{\perp}(\beta)-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ). We claim that the function Ο†V,Wk,1superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜1\varphi_{V,W}^{k,1}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for any k∈{1,…,nβˆ’1}π‘˜1…𝑛1k\in\{1,\dots,n-1\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n - 1 }, nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, as well the function Ο†V,Wn,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘›πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{n,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for any λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ) fulfill the requirements in Lemma 5.

First, we argue that Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is continuous. Let {Ξ²r}subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ\{\beta_{r}\}{ italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } be a sequence in Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) with limrβ†’βˆžΞ²r=β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ›½Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\lim_{r\to\infty}\beta_{r}=\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) and we consider orthonormal bases {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of V𝑉Vitalic_V and Wπ‘ŠWitalic_W, respectively. From Lemma 7(i) it follows that the Ricci tensors satisfy limrβ†’βˆžπ–±π—‚π–Όc⁒(Ξ²r)⁒(ei,ej)=𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(ei,ej)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽subscript𝑒𝑖subscript𝑒𝑗\lim_{r\to\infty}{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta_{r})(e_{i},e_{j})={\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(e_% {i},e_{j})roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), 1≀i,j≀nformulae-sequence1𝑖𝑗𝑛1\leq i,j\leq n1 ≀ italic_i , italic_j ≀ italic_n. Therefore limrβ†’βˆžπ–³c⁒(Ξ²r)=𝖳c⁒(Ξ²)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝖳𝑐subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝖳𝑐𝛽\lim_{r\to\infty}{\sf T}_{c}(\beta_{r})={\sf T}_{c}(\beta)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for the associated self-adjoint operators. Then the ordered eigenvalues of these operators satisfy limrβ†’βˆžπ€c,i⁒(Ξ²r)=𝝀c,i⁒(Ξ²)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝝀𝑐𝑖subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝝀𝑐𝑖𝛽\lim_{r\to\infty}\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,i}(\beta_{r})=\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c% ,i}(\beta)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ), 1≀i≀n1𝑖𝑛1\leq i\leq n1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n (see for instance [A, Theorem 1]). Therefore,

limrβ†’βˆžπ†c,k⁒(Ξ²r)=𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)⁒for every⁒k∈{1,…,n}.subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptπ†π‘π‘˜subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½for everyπ‘˜1…𝑛\lim_{r\to\infty}\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta_{r})=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(% \beta)\;\;\text{for every}\;\;k\in\{1,\dots,n\}.roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for every italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n } .

Using the fact that limrβ†’βˆžAΞΎa⁒(Ξ²r)=AΞΎa⁒(Ξ²)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Žsubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰π‘Žπ›½\lim_{r\to\infty}A_{\xi_{a}}(\beta_{r})=A_{\xi_{a}}(\beta)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for any 1≀a≀m1π‘Žπ‘š1\leq a\leq m1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m, we obtain limrβ†’βˆžπ†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²r)=π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsuperscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽\lim_{r\to\infty}\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta_{r})=\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp% }(\beta)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ). It is clear that limrβ†’βˆžπ–§Ξ²r2=𝖧β2subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsubscriptsuperscript𝖧2subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscriptsuperscript𝖧2𝛽\lim_{r\to\infty}{\sf H}^{2}_{\beta_{r}}={\sf H}^{2}_{\beta}roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT sansserif_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = sansserif_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Hence the above imply that limrβ†’βˆžΟ†V,Wk,λ⁒(Ξ²r)=Ο†V,Wk,λ⁒(Ξ²)subscriptβ†’π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†π›½\lim_{r\to\infty}\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}(\beta_{r})=\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda% }(\beta)roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) and thus the function Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is continuous.

We next show that Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a homogeneous function of degree d=2𝑑2d=2italic_d = 2. Lemma 7(i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) yields that

𝖱𝗂𝖼c⁒(Ξ²)⁒(x,y)=c⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒⟨x,y⟩+𝖱𝗂𝖼0⁒(Ξ²)⁒(x,y)⁒for every⁒x,y∈V.formulae-sequencesubscript𝖱𝗂𝖼𝑐𝛽π‘₯𝑦𝑐𝑛1π‘₯𝑦subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼0𝛽π‘₯𝑦for everyπ‘₯𝑦𝑉{\sf Ric}_{c}(\beta)(x,y)=c(n-1){\langle}x,y{\rangle}+{\sf Ric}_{0}(\beta)(x,y% )\;\;\text{for every}\;\;x,y\in V.sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y ) = italic_c ( italic_n - 1 ) ⟨ italic_x , italic_y ⟩ + sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) ( italic_x , italic_y ) for every italic_x , italic_y ∈ italic_V .

This implies that 𝖳c⁒(Ξ²)=c⁒IdV+𝖳0⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝖳𝑐𝛽𝑐subscriptId𝑉subscript𝖳0𝛽{\sf T}_{c}{(\beta)}=c\operatorname{Id}_{V}+{\sf T}_{0}{(\beta)}sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_c roman_Id start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + sansserif_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) and the corresponding eigenvalues are related by 𝝀c,i⁒(Ξ²)=c+𝝀0,i⁒(Ξ²),1≀i≀nformulae-sequencesubscript𝝀𝑐𝑖𝛽𝑐subscript𝝀0𝑖𝛽1𝑖𝑛\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{c,i}(\beta)=c+\boldsymbol{\lambda}_{0,i}(\beta),1\leq i\leq nbold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_c + bold_italic_Ξ» start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n. Therefore, 𝝆c,k⁒(Ξ²)=c+𝝆0,k⁒(Ξ²)subscriptπ†π‘π‘˜π›½π‘subscript𝝆0π‘˜π›½\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,k}(\beta)=c+\boldsymbol{\rho}_{0,k}(\beta)bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) = italic_c + bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) and thus

Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»=𝖧β2βˆ’Ξ»β’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²)βˆ’π†0,k⁒(Ξ²),  1≀k≀n.formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†superscriptsubscript𝖧𝛽2πœ†superscript𝝆perpendicular-to𝛽subscript𝝆0π‘˜π›½1π‘˜π‘›\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}={\sf H}_{\beta}^{2}-\lambda\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}% (\beta)-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{0,k}(\beta),\;\;1\leq k\leq n.italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) , 1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n .

From Lemma 7(i) it follows that 𝖱𝗂𝖼0⁒(t⁒β)=t2⁒𝖱𝗂𝖼0⁒(Ξ²)subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼0𝑑𝛽superscript𝑑2subscript𝖱𝗂𝖼0𝛽{\sf Ric}_{0}(t\beta)=t^{2}{\sf Ric}_{0}(\beta)sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_t italic_Ξ² ) = italic_t start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT sansserif_Ric start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for every tβˆˆβ„π‘‘β„t\in\mathbb{R}italic_t ∈ blackboard_R. Then a straightforward computation shows that Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a homogeneous function of degree d=2𝑑2d=2italic_d = 2.

The fact that the function Ο†V,Wk,Ξ»superscriptsubscriptπœ‘π‘‰π‘Šπ‘˜πœ†\varphi_{V,W}^{k,\lambda}italic_Ο† start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_V , italic_W end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT satisfies condition (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) in Lemma 5 follows directly from its definition. Moreover, Proposition 8 implies that condition (i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ) is fulfilled for p=0𝑝0p=0italic_p = 0. The proof now follows from Lemma 5.     

The following example shows that the inequality in part (i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) of Proposition 9 fails for k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n. In fact, this example shows that lim infΞ»β†’1βˆ’Ξ΄c,λ⁒(n,m)=0subscriptlimit-infimumβ†’πœ†superscript1subscriptπ›Ώπ‘πœ†π‘›π‘š0\liminf_{\lambda\to 1^{-}}\delta_{c,\lambda}(n,m)=0lim inf start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» β†’ 1 start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) = 0.

Example 10.

Given ΞΌ>0πœ‡0\mu>0italic_ΞΌ > 0 and a sequence Οƒr>0subscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿ0\sigma_{r}>0italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0 such that limrβ†’βˆžΟƒr=0subscriptβ†’π‘ŸsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿ0\lim_{r\to\infty}\sigma_{r}=0roman_lim start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r β†’ ∞ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 0, we define the sequence Ξ²r∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W),rβˆˆβ„•formulae-sequencesubscriptπ›½π‘ŸSymπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Šπ‘Ÿβ„•\beta_{r}\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W),r\in\mathbb{N}italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ) , italic_r ∈ blackboard_N, given by Ξ²r=AΞΎ1⁒(Ξ²r)⁒ξ1+AΞΎ2⁒(Ξ²r)⁒ξ2subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰1subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscriptπœ‰1subscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰2subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscriptπœ‰2\beta_{r}=A_{\xi_{1}}(\beta_{r})\xi_{1}+A_{\xi_{2}}(\beta_{r})\xi_{2}italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where

AΞΎ1⁒(Ξ²r)=diag⁑(ΞΌ,βˆ’ΞΌ,βˆ’Οƒr,Οƒr,…,Οƒr),AΞΎ2⁒(Ξ²r)=diag⁑((0ΞΌΞΌ0),βˆ’Οƒr,Οƒr,…,Οƒr),formulae-sequencesubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰1subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿdiagπœ‡πœ‡subscriptπœŽπ‘ŸsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿβ€¦subscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿsubscript𝐴subscriptπœ‰2subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿdiag0πœ‡πœ‡0subscriptπœŽπ‘ŸsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿβ€¦subscriptπœŽπ‘ŸA_{\xi_{1}}(\beta_{r})=\operatorname{diag}(\mu,-\mu,-\sigma_{r},\sigma_{r},% \dots,\sigma_{r}),\;\;A_{\xi_{2}}(\beta_{r})=\operatorname{diag}\left(\left(% \begin{array}[]{cc}0&\mu\\ \mu&0\end{array}\right),-\sigma_{r},\sigma_{r},\dots,\sigma_{r}\right),italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_diag ( italic_ΞΌ , - italic_ΞΌ , - italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = roman_diag ( ( start_ARRAY start_ROW start_CELL 0 end_CELL start_CELL italic_ΞΌ end_CELL end_ROW start_ROW start_CELL italic_ΞΌ end_CELL start_CELL 0 end_CELL end_ROW end_ARRAY ) , - italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

with respect to orthonormal bases {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of V=ℝn𝑉superscriptℝ𝑛V=\mathbb{R}^{n}italic_V = blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and W=ℝmπ‘Šsuperscriptβ„π‘šW=\mathbb{R}^{m}italic_W = blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, respectively, with nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 and mβ‰₯2π‘š2m\geq 2italic_m β‰₯ 2.

Then, for any unit vector u=βˆ‘a=1mua⁒ξa∈W𝑒superscriptsubscriptπ‘Ž1π‘šsubscriptπ‘’π‘Žsubscriptπœ‰π‘Žπ‘Šu=\sum_{a=1}^{m}u_{a}\xi_{a}\in Witalic_u = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_W the eigenvalues of Au⁒(Ξ²r)subscript𝐴𝑒subscriptπ›½π‘ŸA_{u}(\beta_{r})italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are

Ο„1subscript𝜏1\displaystyle\tau_{1}italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =\displaystyle== μ⁒(u12+u22)1/2,Ο„2=βˆ’ΞΌβ’(u12+u22)1/2,πœ‡superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑒12superscriptsubscript𝑒2212subscript𝜏2πœ‡superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝑒12superscriptsubscript𝑒2212\displaystyle\mu(u_{1}^{2}+u_{2}^{2})^{1/2},\;\;\tau_{2}=-\mu(u_{1}^{2}+u_{2}^% {2})^{1/2},italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = - italic_ΞΌ ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ,
Ο„3subscript𝜏3\displaystyle\tau_{3}italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT =\displaystyle== βˆ’Οƒr⁒(u1+u2),Ο„i=Οƒr⁒(u1+u2),  4≀i≀n.formulae-sequencesubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2subscriptπœπ‘–subscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒24𝑖𝑛\displaystyle-\sigma_{r}(u_{1}+u_{2}),\;\;\tau_{i}=\sigma_{r}(u_{1}+u_{2}),\;% \;4\leq i\leq n.- italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) , 4 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n .

Thus Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ²r)=2Indexsubscript𝐴𝑒subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ2\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\beta_{r})=2roman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 2 if u1+u2>0subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒20u_{1}+u_{2}>0italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT > 0, whereas Index⁒Au⁒(Ξ²r)=nβˆ’2Indexsubscript𝐴𝑒subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ‘›2\mathrm{Index}\,A_{u}(\beta_{r})=n-2roman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_n - 2 if u1+u2<0subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒20u_{1}+u_{2}<0italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT < 0. Therefore, Ξ›1⁒(Ξ²r)=UsubscriptΞ›1subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ‘ˆ\Lambda_{1}(\beta_{r})=Uroman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_U for every rβˆˆβ„•π‘Ÿβ„•r\in\mathbb{N}italic_r ∈ blackboard_N, where U={uβˆˆπ•Šmβˆ’1:u1+u2β‰ 0}π‘ˆconditional-set𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘š1subscript𝑒1subscript𝑒20U=\left\{u\in\mathbb{S}^{m-1}:u_{1}+u_{2}\neq 0\right\}italic_U = { italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰  0 } and consequently,

ψ1⁒(Ξ²r)=I⁒σrnβˆ’2,where⁒I=ΞΌ2⁒∫U(u12+u22)⁒|u1+u2|nβˆ’2⁒𝑑Su.formulae-sequencesubscriptπœ“1subscriptπ›½π‘ŸπΌsuperscriptsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿπ‘›2where𝐼superscriptπœ‡2subscriptπ‘ˆsuperscriptsubscript𝑒12superscriptsubscript𝑒22superscriptsubscript𝑒1subscript𝑒2𝑛2differential-dsubscript𝑆𝑒\psi_{1}(\beta_{r})=I\sigma_{r}^{n-2},\;\;\text{where}\;\;I=\mu^{2}\int_{U}(u_% {1}^{2}+u_{2}^{2})|u_{1}+u_{2}|^{n-2}dS_{u}.italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_I italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , where italic_I = italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) | italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT . (8)

On the other hand, a straightforward computation using (3) and (4) yields that

c+𝖧βr2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²r)βˆ’π†c,n⁒(Ξ²r)=D⁒(n)⁒σr2,where⁒D⁒(n)=4⁒(3⁒nβˆ’8)n2⁒(nβˆ’1).formulae-sequence𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ2superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝝆𝑐𝑛subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿπ·π‘›superscriptsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿ2where𝐷𝑛43𝑛8superscript𝑛2𝑛1c+{\sf H}_{\beta_{r}}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta_{r})-\boldsymbol{% \rho}_{c,n}(\beta_{r})=D(n)\sigma_{r}^{2},\;\;\text{where}\;\;D(n)=\frac{4(3n-% 8)}{n^{2}(n-1)}.italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = italic_D ( italic_n ) italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , where italic_D ( italic_n ) = divide start_ARG 4 ( 3 italic_n - 8 ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_n start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_n - 1 ) end_ARG .

From (8) and the above it follows that the quotient

c+𝖧βr2βˆ’π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ²r)βˆ’π†c,n⁒(Ξ²r)(ψ1⁒(Ξ²r))2/n=D⁒(n)I2/n⁒σr4/n𝑐superscriptsubscript𝖧subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ2superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsubscript𝝆𝑐𝑛subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿsuperscriptsubscriptπœ“1subscriptπ›½π‘Ÿ2𝑛𝐷𝑛superscript𝐼2𝑛superscriptsubscriptπœŽπ‘Ÿ4𝑛\frac{c+{\sf H}_{\beta_{r}}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\beta_{r})-% \boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,n}(\beta_{r})}{\left(\psi_{1}(\beta_{r})\right)^{2/n}}=% \frac{D(n)}{I^{2/n}}\sigma_{r}^{4/n}divide start_ARG italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) end_ARG start_ARG ( italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG = divide start_ARG italic_D ( italic_n ) end_ARG start_ARG italic_I start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_ARG italic_Οƒ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_r end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT

tends to zero. Therefore, the function (c+𝖧2βˆ’π†βŸ‚βˆ’π†c,n)/ψ12/n𝑐superscript𝖧2superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscript𝝆𝑐𝑛superscriptsubscriptπœ“12𝑛(c+{\sf H}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,n})/\psi_{1}^{2/n}( italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is not bounded from below by a positive constant. Since ψ0⁒(Ξ²)β‰₯ψ1⁒(Ξ²)subscriptπœ“0𝛽subscriptπœ“1𝛽\psi_{0}(\beta)\geq\psi_{1}(\beta)italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) β‰₯ italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ² ) for every β∈Sym⁒(VΓ—V,W)𝛽Symπ‘‰π‘‰π‘Š\beta\in\mathrm{Sym}(V\times V,W)italic_Ξ² ∈ roman_Sym ( italic_V Γ— italic_V , italic_W ), we conclude that this also holds for the function (c+𝖧2βˆ’π†βŸ‚βˆ’π†c,n)/ψ02/n𝑐superscript𝖧2superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscript𝝆𝑐𝑛superscriptsubscriptπœ“02𝑛(c+{\sf H}^{2}-\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}-\boldsymbol{\rho}_{c,n})/\psi_{0}^{2/n}( italic_c + sansserif_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) / italic_ψ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 / italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

4 Proofs of the Results

Let f:Mn→ℝn+m:𝑓→superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptβ„π‘›π‘šf\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{R}^{n+m}italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be an isometric immersion of a compact Riemannian manifold into the Euclidean space ℝn+msuperscriptβ„π‘›π‘š\mathbb{R}^{n+m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT equipped with the usual inner product βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β‹…β‹…\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩. We denote by Nf⁒Msubscript𝑁𝑓𝑀N_{f}Mitalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M the normal bundle of f𝑓fitalic_f and by Ξ±fβˆˆΞ“β’(Hom⁒(T⁒MΓ—T⁒M,Nf⁒M))subscript𝛼𝑓ΓHom𝑇𝑀𝑇𝑀subscript𝑁𝑓𝑀\alpha_{f}\in\Gamma(\mathrm{Hom}(TM\times TM,N_{f}M))italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ roman_Ξ“ ( roman_Hom ( italic_T italic_M Γ— italic_T italic_M , italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M ) ) its second fundamental form.

First, let’s recall some well-known facts about total curvature and how Morse theory imposes constraints on the Betti numbers. The unit normal bundle of f𝑓fitalic_f is defined as the set

U⁒Nf={(p,ΞΎ)∈Nf⁒M:β€–ΞΎβ€–=1}.π‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓conditional-setπ‘πœ‰subscript𝑁𝑓𝑀normπœ‰1UN_{f}=\left\{(p,\xi)\in N_{f}M:\|\xi\|=1\right\}.italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) ∈ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M : βˆ₯ italic_ΞΎ βˆ₯ = 1 } .

The generalized Gauss map Ξ½:U⁒Nfβ†’π•Šn+mβˆ’1:πœˆβ†’π‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\nu\colon UN_{f}\to\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}italic_Ξ½ : italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is given by ν⁒(p,ΞΎ)=ΞΎπœˆπ‘πœ‰πœ‰\nu(p,\xi)=\xiitalic_Ξ½ ( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) = italic_ΞΎ. For each uβˆˆπ•Šn+mβˆ’1𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1u\in\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we consider the height function husubscriptβ„Žπ‘’h_{u}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT defined by hu⁒(p)=⟨f⁒(p),u⟩,p∈Mnformulae-sequencesubscriptβ„Žπ‘’π‘π‘“π‘π‘’π‘superscript𝑀𝑛h_{u}(p)=\langle f(p),u\rangle,\,p\in M^{n}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = ⟨ italic_f ( italic_p ) , italic_u ⟩ , italic_p ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since husubscriptβ„Žπ‘’h_{u}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT has a degenerate critical point if and only if u𝑒uitalic_u is a critical value of ν𝜈\nuitalic_Ξ½, by Sard’s theorem, there exists a subset EβŠ‚π•Šn+mβˆ’1𝐸superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1E\subset\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}italic_E βŠ‚ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of measure zero such that husubscriptβ„Žπ‘’h_{u}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Morse function for all uβˆˆπ•Šn+mβˆ’1βˆ–E𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1𝐸u\in\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}\smallsetminus Eitalic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– italic_E. We denote by ΞΌi⁒(u)subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’\mu_{i}(u)italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) the number of critical points of husubscriptβ„Žπ‘’h_{u}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of index i𝑖iitalic_i for each uβˆˆπ•Šn+mβˆ’1βˆ–E𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1𝐸u\in\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}\smallsetminus Eitalic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– italic_E and set ΞΌi⁒(u)=0subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’0\mu_{i}(u)=0italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) = 0 for every u∈E𝑒𝐸u\in Eitalic_u ∈ italic_E. Following Kuiper [Kuiper], we define the total curvature of index i𝑖iitalic_i of f𝑓fitalic_f by

Ο„i⁒(f)=1Vol⁒(π•Šn+mβˆ’1)β’βˆ«π•Šn+mβˆ’1ΞΌi⁒(u)⁒𝑑S,subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“1Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1subscriptsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’differential-d𝑆\tau_{i}(f)=\frac{1}{\mathrm{Vol}(\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1})}\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}% }\mu_{i}(u)dS,italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) = divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) end_ARG ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_S ,

where d⁒S𝑑𝑆dSitalic_d italic_S denotes the volume element of the sphere π•Šn+mβˆ’1superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. From the weak Morse inequalities [Milnor63, Theorem 5.2, p. 29], we have

ΞΌi⁒(u)β‰₯bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)⁒for all⁒uβˆˆπ•Šn+mβˆ’1βˆ–E,subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽for all𝑒superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1𝐸\mu_{i}(u)\geq b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})\;\;\text{for all}\;\;u\in\mathbb{S}^{n+% m-1}\smallsetminus E,italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) β‰₯ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) for all italic_u ∈ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– italic_E , (9)

where bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) is the i𝑖iitalic_i-th Betti number of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over an arbitrary coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F. By integrating over π•Šn+mβˆ’1superscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, we obtain

Ο„i⁒(f)β‰₯bi⁒(Mn;𝔽).subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽\tau_{i}(f)\geq b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F}).italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) β‰₯ italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) . (10)

There is a natural volume element d⁒Σ𝑑Σd\varSigmaitalic_d roman_Ξ£ on the unit normal bundle U⁒Nfπ‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓UN_{f}italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. In fact, if d⁒V𝑑𝑉dVitalic_d italic_V is a (mβˆ’1)π‘š1(m-1)( italic_m - 1 )-form on U⁒Nfπ‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓UN_{f}italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that its restriction to a fiber of the unit normal bundle at (p,ΞΎ)π‘πœ‰(p,\xi)( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) is the volume element of the unit (mβˆ’1)π‘š1(m-1)( italic_m - 1 )-sphere of the normal space of f𝑓fitalic_f at p𝑝pitalic_p, then d⁒Σ=d⁒M∧d⁒V𝑑Σ𝑑𝑀𝑑𝑉d\varSigma=dM\wedge dVitalic_d roman_Ξ£ = italic_d italic_M ∧ italic_d italic_V, where d⁒M𝑑𝑀dMitalic_d italic_M is the volume element of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Shiohama and Xu [SX, p. 381] refined a well-known integral formula due to Chern-Lashof [CL1, CL2], and proved that

∫Ui⁒Nf|det⁒AΞΎ|⁒𝑑Σ=βˆ«π•Šn+mβˆ’1ΞΌi⁒(u)⁒𝑑S,subscriptsuperscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–subscript𝑁𝑓detsubscriptπ΄πœ‰differential-dΞ£subscriptsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’differential-d𝑆\int_{U^{i}N_{f}}\left|\mathrm{det}A_{\xi}\right|d\varSigma=\int_{\mathbb{S}^{% n+m-1}}\mu_{i}(u)dS,∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_d roman_Ξ£ = ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_S , (11)

where Ui⁒Nfsuperscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–subscript𝑁𝑓U^{i}N_{f}italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the subset of the unit normal bundle of f𝑓fitalic_f defined by

Ui⁒Nf={(p,ΞΎ)∈U⁒Nf:Index⁒AΞΎ=i},  0≀i≀n,formulae-sequencesuperscriptπ‘ˆπ‘–subscript𝑁𝑓conditional-setπ‘πœ‰π‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓Indexsubscriptπ΄πœ‰π‘–β€„β€„0𝑖𝑛U^{i}N_{f}=\left\{(p,\xi)\in UN_{f}:\mathrm{Index}\,A_{\xi}=i\right\},\;\;0% \leq i\leq n,italic_U start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { ( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) ∈ italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_Index italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_i } , 0 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n ,

and AΞΎsubscriptπ΄πœ‰A_{\xi}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the shape operator of f𝑓fitalic_f with respect to ΞΎπœ‰\xiitalic_ΞΎ, where (p,ΞΎ)∈U⁒Nfπ‘πœ‰π‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓(p,\xi)\in UN_{f}( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) ∈ italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

Lemma 11.

Let f:Mn→ℝn+m,nβ‰₯2:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptβ„π‘›π‘šπ‘›2f\colon M^{n}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{n+m},n\geq 2italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2, be an isometric immersion of a compact Riemannian manifold such that βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1Ο„i⁒(f)<2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\tau_{i}(f)<2βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) < 2. Then, for any coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F, the Betti numbers satisfy βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)∈{0,1}superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽01\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})\in\{0,1\}βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) ∈ { 0 , 1 }. In particular:

  1. (i)

    If bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=0subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽0b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 0 for any 1≀i≀nβˆ’11𝑖𝑛11\leq i\leq n-11 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1, then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

  2. (ii)

    If βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽1\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=1βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 1, then Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an Eells-Kuiper manifold.

Proof: The assumption is equivalent to

βˆ«π•Šn+mβˆ’1βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1ΞΌi⁒(u)⁒d⁒S<2⁒V⁒o⁒l⁒(π•Šn+mβˆ’1).subscriptsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœ‡π‘–π‘’π‘‘π‘†2Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\int_{\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1}}\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\mu_{i}(u)dS<2\mathrm{Vol}(\mathbb{S}% ^{n+m-1}).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u ) italic_d italic_S < 2 roman_V roman_o roman_l ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

This implies that there exists a unit vector u0subscript𝑒0u_{0}italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that the height function hu0subscriptβ„Žsubscript𝑒0h_{u_{0}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Morse function satisfying βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1ΞΌi⁒(u0)<2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœ‡π‘–subscript𝑒02\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\mu_{i}(u_{0})<2βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) < 2, or equivalently

βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1ΞΌi⁒(u0)≀1.superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœ‡π‘–subscript𝑒01\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\mu_{i}(u_{0})\leq 1.βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≀ 1 . (12)

The above and (9) yield that βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)∈{0,1}superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽01\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})\in\{0,1\}βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) ∈ { 0 , 1 } for every coefficient field 𝔽𝔽\mathbb{F}blackboard_F.

(i) Suppose that

bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=0⁒for every⁒  1≀i≀nβˆ’1.subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽0for every1𝑖𝑛1b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=0\;\;{\text{for every}}\;\;1\leq i\leq n-1.italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 0 for every 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1 . (13)

We claim that the homology groups of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over the integers satisfy Hk⁒(Mn;β„€)=0subscriptπ»π‘˜superscript𝑀𝑛℀0H_{k}(M^{n};\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})=0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_Z ) = 0 for any 1≀k≀nβˆ’11π‘˜π‘›11\leq k\leq n-11 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n - 1, which in view of (13), is equivalent to the claim that Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has no torsion. Indeed, if Hk⁒(Mn;β„€)subscriptπ»π‘˜superscript𝑀𝑛℀H_{k}(M^{n};\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_Z ) contains torsion for some 1≀k≀nβˆ’11π‘˜π‘›11\leq k\leq n-11 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n - 1, then Hk⁒(Mn;β„€p)β‰ 0subscriptπ»π‘˜superscript𝑀𝑛subscript℀𝑝0H_{k}(M^{n};\mathord{\mathbb{Z}}_{p})\neq 0italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_Z start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_p end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0 for some prime p𝑝pitalic_p, which contradicts (13). Hence Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a homology sphere over the integers.

We now prove that Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is simply connected. This is clear if n=2𝑛2n=2italic_n = 2. Assume that nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3 and suppose, to the contrary, that the fundamental group is Ο€1⁒(Mn)β‰ 0subscriptπœ‹1superscript𝑀𝑛0\pi_{1}(M^{n})\neq 0italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0. It follows from [AD, Proposition 4.5.7, p. 90] that ΞΌ1⁒(u0)β‰ 0subscriptπœ‡1subscript𝑒00\mu_{1}(u_{0})\neq 0italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0. Thus, (12) yields that ΞΌ1⁒(u0)=1subscriptπœ‡1subscript𝑒01\mu_{1}(u_{0})=1italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 and ΞΌi⁒(u0)=0subscriptπœ‡π‘–subscript𝑒00\mu_{i}(u_{0})=0italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 for any 2≀i≀nβˆ’12𝑖𝑛12\leq i\leq n-12 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1. Then, by Morse theory, it follows that the manifold Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT has the homotopy type of a CW-complex with no cells of dimension 2≀i≀nβˆ’12𝑖𝑛12\leq i\leq n-12 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1. In particular, there are no 2222-cells, and thus, by the cellular approximation theorem, the inclusion of the 1111-skeleton X(1)β†ͺMnβ†ͺsuperscriptX1superscript𝑀𝑛\mathrm{X}^{(1)}\hookrightarrow M^{n}roman_X start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 1 ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†ͺ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT induces isomorphism between the fundamental groups. Therefore, Ο€1⁒(Mn)subscriptπœ‹1superscript𝑀𝑛\pi_{1}(M^{n})italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) is a free group on b1⁒(Mn;β„€)=0subscript𝑏1superscript𝑀𝑛℀0b_{1}(M^{n};\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})=0italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_Z ) = 0 elements. Hence, Ο€1⁒(Mn)=0subscriptπœ‹1superscript𝑀𝑛0\pi_{1}(M^{n})=0italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = 0, which is a contradiction.

Thus, Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a simply connected homology sphere over the integers and therefore a homotopy sphere. By the (generalized) PoincarΓ© conjecture (Smale nβ‰₯5𝑛5n\geq 5italic_n β‰₯ 5, Freedman n=4𝑛4n=4italic_n = 4, Perelman n=3𝑛3n=3italic_n = 3), Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is homeomorphic to π•Šnsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›\mathbb{S}^{n}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.

(ii) Assume that βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=1.superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽1\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=1.βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 1 . From PoincarΓ© duality it follows that n𝑛nitalic_n is even and the Betti numbers are

bn/2⁒(Mn;𝔽)=1⁒and⁒bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=0, 1≀i≀nβˆ’1,iβ‰ n/2.formulae-sequencesubscript𝑏𝑛2superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽1andsubscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽01𝑖𝑛1𝑖𝑛2b_{n/2}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=1\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=0,\;1\leq i% \leq n-1,\;i\neq n/2.italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 1 and italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 0 , 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1 , italic_i β‰  italic_n / 2 .

Jointly with (9) and (12), the above implies that

ΞΌn/2⁒(u0)=1⁒and⁒μi⁒(u0)=0, 1≀i≀nβˆ’1,iβ‰ n/2.formulae-sequencesubscriptπœ‡π‘›2subscript𝑒01andsubscriptπœ‡π‘–subscript𝑒001𝑖𝑛1𝑖𝑛2\mu_{n/2}(u_{0})=1\;\;\mbox{and}\;\;\mu_{i}(u_{0})=0,\;1\leq i\leq n-1,\;i\neq n% /2.italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 and italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0 , 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n - 1 , italic_i β‰  italic_n / 2 . (14)

Since ΞΌ1⁒(u0)=0subscriptπœ‡1subscript𝑒00\mu_{1}(u_{0})=0italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 0, it follows from [CE75, Lemma 4.11, p. 85] that ΞΌ0⁒(u0)≀1subscriptπœ‡0subscript𝑒01\mu_{0}(u_{0})\leq 1italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ≀ 1. Hence from (9), we obtain

ΞΌ0⁒(u0)=1.subscriptπœ‡0subscript𝑒01\mu_{0}(u_{0})=1.italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1 . (15)

The Euler-PoincarΓ© characteristic of Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is given by

χ⁒(Mn)=βˆ‘i=0n(βˆ’1)i⁒bi⁒(Mn;𝔽)=3.πœ’superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑛superscript1𝑖subscript𝑏𝑖superscript𝑀𝑛𝔽3\chi(M^{n})=\sum_{i=0}^{n}(-1)^{i}b_{i}(M^{n};\mathbb{F})=3.italic_Ο‡ ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ; blackboard_F ) = 3 .

On the other hand, using (14) and (15), from [Milnor63, Theorem 5.2, p. 29] we have

χ⁒(Mn)=βˆ‘i=0n(βˆ’1)i⁒μi⁒(u0)=2+ΞΌn⁒(u0),πœ’superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsubscript𝑖0𝑛superscript1𝑖subscriptπœ‡π‘–subscript𝑒02subscriptπœ‡π‘›subscript𝑒0\chi(M^{n})=\sum_{i=0}^{n}(-1)^{i}\mu_{i}(u_{0})=2+\mu_{n}(u_{0}),italic_Ο‡ ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) = βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 2 + italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ,

and thus ΞΌn⁒(u0)=1subscriptπœ‡π‘›subscript𝑒01\mu_{n}(u_{0})=1italic_ΞΌ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = 1. Taking into account (14) and (15), this implies that the height function hu0subscriptβ„Žsubscript𝑒0h_{u_{0}}italic_h start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_u start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Morse function with three critical points. Therefore, Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an Eells-Kuiper manifold.     

Proof of Theorem 1. Let f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m,nβ‰₯3:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛subscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘π‘›3f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c},n\geq 3italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 3, be an isometric immersion with second fundamental form Ξ±fsubscript𝛼𝑓\alpha_{f}italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, mean curvature Hfsubscript𝐻𝑓H_{f}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and shape operator AΞΎsubscriptπ΄πœ‰A_{\xi}italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with respect to ΞΎπœ‰\xiitalic_ΞΎ, where (p,ΞΎ)∈U⁒Nfπ‘πœ‰π‘ˆsubscript𝑁𝑓(p,\xi)\in UN_{f}( italic_p , italic_ΞΎ ) ∈ italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Assume first that the ambient space is the Euclidean space ℝn+msuperscriptβ„π‘›π‘š\mathbb{R}^{n+m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, that is c=0𝑐0c=0italic_c = 0. Since Hf⁒(p)=𝖧αf⁒(p)subscript𝐻𝑓𝑝subscript𝖧subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝H_{f}(p)={\sf H}_{\alpha_{f}(p)}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, ρk⁒(p)=𝝆0,k⁒(Ξ±f⁒(p))subscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘subscript𝝆0π‘˜subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝\rho_{k}(p)=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{0,k}(\alpha_{f}(p))italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) and ΟβŸ‚β’(p)=π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ±f⁒(p))superscript𝜌perpendicular-to𝑝superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscript𝛼𝑓𝑝\rho^{\perp}(p)=\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\alpha_{f}(p))italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ), it follows from Proposition 9(i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) that

(Hf2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒(p)β‰₯(Ξ΄0,k⁒(n,m))n/2β’βˆ«Ξ›0⁒(Ξ±f⁒(p))|detAΞΎ|⁒𝑑VΞΎsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝛿0π‘˜π‘›π‘šπ‘›2subscriptsubscriptΞ›0subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝subscriptπ΄πœ‰differential-dsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‰(H_{f}^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}(p)\geq\left(\delta_{0,k}(n,m)\right)^{% n/2}\int_{\Lambda_{0}(\alpha_{f}(p))}|\det A_{\xi}|\ dV_{\xi}( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) β‰₯ ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_d italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

for all p∈Mn𝑝superscript𝑀𝑛p\in M^{n}italic_p ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Integrating over Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and using (11), we have

∫Mn(Hf2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑Mβ‰₯(Ξ΄0,k⁒(n,m))n/2⁒Vol⁒(π•Šn+mβˆ’1)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1Ο„i⁒(f).subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀superscriptsubscript𝛿0π‘˜π‘›π‘šπ‘›2Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“\int_{M^{n}}(H_{f}^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM\geq\left(\delta_{0,k}(n,% m)\right)^{n/2}\mathrm{Vol}(\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1})\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\tau_{i}(f).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M β‰₯ ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) .

Thus, from the above and (10) we obtain

∫Mn(Hf2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑Mβ‰₯Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1Ο„i⁒(f)β‰₯Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)β’βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1bi⁒(M;𝔽),subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscript𝑏𝑖𝑀𝔽\int_{M^{n}}(H_{f}^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM\geq\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)% \sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\tau_{i}(f)\geq\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}b_{i}(M;% \mathbb{F}),∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M ; blackboard_F ) , (16)

where Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)=(Ξ΄0,k⁒(n,m))n/2⁒Vol⁒(π•Šn+mβˆ’1)subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝛿0π‘˜π‘›π‘šπ‘›2Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)=\left(\delta_{0,k}(n,m)\right)^{n/2}\mathrm{Vol}(\mathbb{% S}^{n+m-1})italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) = ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ).

Now, assume that

∫Mn(Hf2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑M<2⁒Ρk⁒(n,m).subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀2subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(H_{f}^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM<2\varepsilon_{k}(n,m).∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < 2 italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) .

Then it follows directly from (16)16(\ref{57667})( ) that βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1Ο„i⁒(f)<2superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“2\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\tau_{i}(f)<2βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) < 2, and the proof follows from Lemma 11. In particular, if

∫Mn(Hf2βˆ’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Οk)n/2⁒𝑑M<Ξ΅k⁒(n,m),subscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2superscript𝜌perpendicular-tosubscriptπœŒπ‘˜π‘›2differential-d𝑀subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š\int_{M^{n}}(H_{f}^{2}-\rho^{\perp}-\rho_{k})^{n/2}dM<\varepsilon_{k}(n,m),∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M < italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ,

then βˆ‘i=1nβˆ’1Ο„i⁒(f)<1superscriptsubscript𝑖1𝑛1subscriptπœπ‘–π‘“1\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\tau_{i}(f)<1βˆ‘ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i = 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο„ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_f ) < 1 and (10) implies that only the first case in Lemma 11 can occur.

Suppose now that c>0𝑐0c>0italic_c > 0. We consider the isometric immersion f~:Mn→ℝn+m+1:~𝑓→superscript𝑀𝑛superscriptβ„π‘›π‘š1\tilde{f}\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{R}^{n+m+1}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT given by f~=i∘f~𝑓𝑖𝑓\tilde{f}=i\circ fover~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG = italic_i ∘ italic_f, where i𝑖iitalic_i is an umbilical inclusion of the sphere π•Šcn+msuperscriptsubscriptπ•Šπ‘π‘›π‘š\mathbb{S}_{c}^{n+m}blackboard_S start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of radius R=1/c𝑅1𝑐R=1/\sqrt{c}italic_R = 1 / square-root start_ARG italic_c end_ARG into ℝn+m+1superscriptβ„π‘›π‘š1\mathbb{R}^{n+m+1}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Clearly Hf~2=Hf2+csubscriptsuperscript𝐻2~𝑓superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2𝑐H^{2}_{\tilde{f}}=H_{f}^{2}+citalic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_c and the normal curvature ρ~βŸ‚superscript~𝜌perpendicular-to\tilde{\rho}^{\perp}over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG is given by ρ~βŸ‚=ΟβŸ‚superscript~𝜌perpendicular-tosuperscript𝜌perpendicular-to\tilde{\rho}^{\perp}=\rho^{\perp}over~ start_ARG italic_ρ end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then the proof follows from the above argument applied to f~~𝑓\tilde{f}over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG with Ξ΅k⁒(n,m)=(Ξ΄0,k⁒(n,m+1))n/2⁒Vol⁒(π•Šn+m)subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝛿0π‘˜π‘›π‘š1𝑛2Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š\varepsilon_{k}(n,m)=\left(\delta_{0,k}(n,m+1)\right)^{n/2}\mathrm{Vol}(% \mathbb{S}^{n+m})italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) = ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m + 1 ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Β Β Β 

Remark 12.

It is immediate from (7) that the constants in Proposition 9(i)𝑖(i)( italic_i ) satisfy Ξ΄c,1⁒(n,m)β‰₯β‹―β‰₯Ξ΄c,nβˆ’1⁒(n,m)>0subscript𝛿𝑐1π‘›π‘šβ‹―subscript𝛿𝑐𝑛1π‘›π‘š0\delta_{c,1}(n,m)\geq\dots\geq\delta_{c,n-1}(n,m)>0italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) β‰₯ β‹― β‰₯ italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c , italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) > 0. Then, it follows from the proof of Theorem 1 that the constants Ξ΅k⁒(n,m),1≀k≀nβˆ’1subscriptπœ€π‘˜π‘›π‘š1π‘˜π‘›1\varepsilon_{k}(n,m),1\leq k\leq n-1italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) , 1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_n - 1, satisfy Ξ΅1⁒(n,m)β‰₯β‹―β‰₯Ξ΅nβˆ’1⁒(n,m)>0subscriptπœ€1π‘›π‘šβ‹―subscriptπœ€π‘›1π‘›π‘š0\varepsilon_{1}(n,m)\geq\dots\geq\varepsilon_{n-1}(n,m)>0italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) β‰₯ β‹― β‰₯ italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) > 0.

Proof of Corollary 2. It follows immediately from Theorem 1 for k=1π‘˜1k=1italic_k = 1.Β Β Β 

Proof of Corollary 3. Since Mnsuperscript𝑀𝑛M^{n}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is Einstein and nβ‰₯3𝑛3n\geq 3italic_n β‰₯ 3, it has constant normalized Ricci curvature equal to ρ𝜌\rhoitalic_ρ. Therefore, ρk=ρsubscriptπœŒπ‘˜πœŒ\rho_{k}=\rhoitalic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_ρ for every k∈{1,…,n}π‘˜1…𝑛k\in\{1,\dots,n\}italic_k ∈ { 1 , … , italic_n }. The proof follows immediately from Theorem 1.    

Proof of Theorem 4. Let f:Mnβ†’β„šcn+m,nβ‰₯2:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝑀𝑛subscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘π‘›2f\colon M^{n}\to\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c},n\geq 2italic_f : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2, be an isometric immersion. We claim that the integral

∫Mn(c+Hf2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒𝑑Msubscriptsuperscript𝑀𝑛superscript𝑐superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2differential-d𝑀\int_{M^{n}}(c+H_{f}^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}dM∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M

is invariant under conformal changes of the metric βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β‹…β‹…\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ of β„šcn+msubscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Indeed, from (3) and (4) it follows that

n⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒(c+Hf2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)=β€–Ξ¦fβ€–2βˆ’Ξ»β’β€–RβŸ‚β€–,𝑛𝑛1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-to𝜌superscriptnormsubscriptΦ𝑓2πœ†normsuperscript𝑅perpendicular-ton(n-1)(c+H_{f}^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)=\|\Phi_{f}\|^{2}-\lambda\|R^{% \perp}\|,italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) = βˆ₯ roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» βˆ₯ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ , (17)

where Ξ¦fsubscriptΦ𝑓\Phi_{f}roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the traceless part of the second fundamental form of f𝑓fitalic_f and RβŸ‚superscript𝑅perpendicular-toR^{\perp}italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT its normal curvature tensor. Consider the conformal change βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©~=e2⁒uβ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©~β‹…β‹…superscript𝑒2𝑒⋅⋅\widetilde{\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle}=e^{2u}\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangleover~ start_ARG ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ end_ARG = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ of the metric of β„šcn+msubscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, where u𝑒uitalic_u is a smooth function, and let f~:M~nβ†’(β„šcn+m,βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©~):~𝑓→superscript~𝑀𝑛subscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘~β‹…β‹…\tilde{f}\colon\tilde{M}^{n}\to(\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c},\widetilde{\langle\cdot,% \cdot\rangle})over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG : over~ start_ARG italic_M end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ ( blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , over~ start_ARG ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ end_ARG ) be the isometric immersion induced by f𝑓fitalic_f. Then, at corresponding points the normal spaces of f,f~𝑓~𝑓f,\tilde{f}italic_f , over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG coincide and particularly, the second fundamental forms and the mean curvature vector fields are related by

Ξ±f~=Ξ±fβˆ’βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β’(grad ⁒u)βŸ‚β’and⁒ℋf~=eβˆ’2⁒u⁒(β„‹fβˆ’(grad ⁒u)βŸ‚),subscript𝛼~𝑓subscript𝛼𝑓⋅⋅superscriptgrad 𝑒perpendicular-toandsubscriptβ„‹~𝑓superscript𝑒2𝑒subscriptℋ𝑓superscriptgrad 𝑒perpendicular-to\alpha_{\tilde{f}}=\alpha_{f}-\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle(\mbox{grad\,}u)^{\perp% }\;\;\text{and}\;\;{\cal H}_{\tilde{f}}=e^{-2u}\left({\cal H}_{f}-(\mbox{grad% \,}u)^{\perp}\right),italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ ( grad italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( caligraphic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - ( grad italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) ,

where (grad ⁒u)βŸ‚superscriptgrad 𝑒perpendicular-to(\mbox{grad\,}u)^{\perp}( grad italic_u ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the normal component of the gradient of u𝑒uitalic_u is with respect to the metric βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©β‹…β‹…\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩. The above imply that Ξ¦f~=Ξ¦fsubscriptΞ¦~𝑓subscriptΦ𝑓\Phi_{\tilde{f}}=\Phi_{f}roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and thus, the traceless parts of the shape operators of f~,f~𝑓𝑓\tilde{f},fover~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG , italic_f associated to a local orthonormal frame field {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Nf⁒Msubscript𝑁𝑓𝑀N_{f}Mitalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M satisfy B~ΞΎa=BΞΎa,1≀a≀mformulae-sequencesubscript~𝐡subscriptπœ‰π‘Žsubscript𝐡subscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\tilde{B}_{\xi_{a}}=B_{\xi_{a}},1\leq a\leq mover~ start_ARG italic_B end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_B start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m. Any orthonormal tangent frame field {ei}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{e_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of (M,βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©)𝑀⋅⋅(M,\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle)( italic_M , ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ ) and any orthonormal normal frame field {ΞΎa}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscriptπœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\xi_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Nf⁒Msubscript𝑁𝑓𝑀N_{f}Mitalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M give rise to orthonormal frame fields {e~i}1≀i≀nsubscriptsubscript~𝑒𝑖1𝑖𝑛\{\tilde{e}_{i}\}_{1\leq i\leq n}{ over~ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_i ≀ italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of (M,βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©~)𝑀~β‹…β‹…(M,\widetilde{\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle})( italic_M , over~ start_ARG ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ end_ARG ) with e~i=eβˆ’u⁒eisubscript~𝑒𝑖superscript𝑒𝑒subscript𝑒𝑖\tilde{e}_{i}=e^{-u}e_{i}over~ start_ARG italic_e end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_e start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and {ΞΎ~a}1≀a≀msubscriptsubscript~πœ‰π‘Ž1π‘Žπ‘š\{\tilde{\xi}_{a}\}_{1\leq a\leq m}{ over~ start_ARG italic_ΞΎ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT } start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 ≀ italic_a ≀ italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of Nf~⁒Msubscript𝑁~𝑓𝑀N_{\tilde{f}}Mitalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_M with ΞΎ~a=eβˆ’u⁒ξasubscript~πœ‰π‘Žsuperscript𝑒𝑒subscriptπœ‰π‘Ž\tilde{\xi}_{a}=e^{-u}\xi_{a}over~ start_ARG italic_ΞΎ end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_a end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Therefore, a direct computation using (3) and (4) yields that

β€–Ξ¦f~β€–βˆΌ2βˆ’Ξ»β’β€–R~βŸ‚β€–βˆΌ=eβˆ’2⁒u⁒(β€–Ξ¦fβ€–2βˆ’Ξ»β’β€–RβŸ‚β€–).superscriptsubscriptnormsubscriptΞ¦~𝑓similar-to2πœ†subscriptnormsuperscript~𝑅perpendicular-tosimilar-tosuperscript𝑒2𝑒superscriptnormsubscriptΦ𝑓2πœ†normsuperscript𝑅perpendicular-to\|\Phi_{\tilde{f}}\|_{\sim}^{2}-\lambda\|\tilde{R}^{\perp}\|_{\sim}=e^{-2u}(\|% \Phi_{f}\|^{2}-\lambda\|R^{\perp}\|).βˆ₯ roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over~ start_ARG italic_f end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» βˆ₯ over~ start_ARG italic_R end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∼ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( βˆ₯ roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» βˆ₯ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ₯ ) .

Now, by virtue of (17), the claim follows from the above equality and the fact that the volume element of (M,βŸ¨β‹…,β‹…βŸ©~)𝑀~β‹…β‹…(M,\widetilde{\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle})( italic_M , over~ start_ARG ⟨ β‹… , β‹… ⟩ end_ARG ) is en⁒u⁒d⁒Msuperscript𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑑𝑀e^{nu}dMitalic_e start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n italic_u end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_d italic_M.

Therefore, under a conformal change of the metric of (a part of) β„šcn+msubscriptsuperscriptβ„šπ‘›π‘šπ‘\mathbb{Q}^{n+m}_{c}blackboard_Q start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_c end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, we may assume without loss of generality that the ambient space is the Euclidean space ℝn+msuperscriptβ„π‘›π‘š\mathbb{R}^{n+m}blackboard_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Since Hf⁒(p)=𝖧αf⁒(p)subscript𝐻𝑓𝑝subscript𝖧subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝H_{f}(p)={\sf H}_{\alpha_{f}(p)}italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = sansserif_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, ρ⁒(p)=𝝆0⁒(Ξ±f⁒(p))πœŒπ‘subscript𝝆0subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝\rho(p)=\boldsymbol{\rho}_{0}(\alpha_{f}(p))italic_ρ ( italic_p ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) and ΟβŸ‚β’(p)=π†βŸ‚β’(Ξ±f⁒(p))superscript𝜌perpendicular-to𝑝superscript𝝆perpendicular-tosubscript𝛼𝑓𝑝\rho^{\perp}(p)=\boldsymbol{\rho}^{\perp}(\alpha_{f}(p))italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) = bold_italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ), it follows from Proposition 9(i⁒i)𝑖𝑖(ii)( italic_i italic_i ) that

(Hf2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)n/2⁒(p)β‰₯(Ξ΄0,λ⁒(n,m))n/2β’βˆ«Ξ›0⁒(Ξ±f⁒(p))|detAΞΎ|⁒𝑑VΞΎsuperscriptsuperscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-toπœŒπ‘›2𝑝superscriptsubscript𝛿0πœ†π‘›π‘šπ‘›2subscriptsubscriptΞ›0subscript𝛼𝑓𝑝subscriptπ΄πœ‰differential-dsubscriptπ‘‰πœ‰(H_{f}^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)^{n/2}(p)\geq\left(\delta_{0,\lambda}(n,m)% \right)^{n/2}\int_{\Lambda_{0}(\alpha_{f}(p))}|\det A_{\xi}|\ dV_{\xi}( italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_p ) β‰₯ ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∫ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT roman_Ξ› start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_p ) ) end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | roman_det italic_A start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | italic_d italic_V start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_ΞΎ end_POSTSUBSCRIPT

for all p∈Mn𝑝superscript𝑀𝑛p\in M^{n}italic_p ∈ italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Then the proof follows arguing as in the proof of Theorem 1 with Ρλ⁒(n,m)=(Ξ΄0,λ⁒(n,m))n/2⁒Vol⁒(π•Šn+mβˆ’1)subscriptπœ€πœ†π‘›π‘šsuperscriptsubscript𝛿0πœ†π‘›π‘šπ‘›2Volsuperscriptπ•Šπ‘›π‘š1\varepsilon_{\lambda}(n,m)=\left(\delta_{0,\lambda}(n,m)\right)^{n/2}\mathrm{% Vol}(\mathbb{S}^{n+m-1})italic_Ξ΅ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) = ( italic_Ξ΄ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 , italic_Ξ» end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_n , italic_m ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT roman_Vol ( blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + italic_m - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ). Β Β Β 

Remark 13.

Since λ∈[0,1)πœ†01\lambda\in[0,1)italic_Ξ» ∈ [ 0 , 1 ), from (17) it follows that

n⁒(nβˆ’1)⁒(c+Hf2βˆ’Ξ»β’ΟβŸ‚βˆ’Ο)≀‖Φfβ€–2=β€–Ξ±fβ€–2βˆ’n⁒Hf2.𝑛𝑛1𝑐superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2πœ†superscript𝜌perpendicular-to𝜌superscriptnormsubscriptΦ𝑓2superscriptnormsubscript𝛼𝑓2𝑛superscriptsubscript𝐻𝑓2n(n-1)(c+H_{f}^{2}-\lambda\rho^{\perp}-\rho)\leq\|\Phi_{f}\|^{2}=\|\alpha_{f}% \|^{2}-nH_{f}^{2}.italic_n ( italic_n - 1 ) ( italic_c + italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_Ξ» italic_ρ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_ρ ) ≀ βˆ₯ roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = βˆ₯ italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ₯ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - italic_n italic_H start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

This shows that our integrand is smaller than the (normalized) one of Shiohama and Xu in [SX2], which corresponds to Ξ»=0πœ†0\lambda=0italic_Ξ» = 0.

5 Counterexamples to Theorem 1 for k=nπ‘˜π‘›k=nitalic_k = italic_n

5.1 Minimal surfaces in spheres

In this subsection, we discuss some properties of the isotropic surfaces in spheres, which are the basic tool for the construction of new compact 3-dimensional Wintgen ideal submanifolds.

Let f:L2β†’π•Šn+2:𝑓→superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Šπ‘›2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{n+2}italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denote an isometric immersion of a two-dimensional oriented Riemannian manifold into the sphere π•Šn+2superscriptπ•Šπ‘›2\mathbb{S}^{n+2}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The kt⁒hsuperscriptπ‘˜π‘‘β„Žk^{th}italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-normal space of f𝑓fitalic_f at x∈L2π‘₯superscript𝐿2x\in L^{2}italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT for kβ‰₯1π‘˜1k\geq 1italic_k β‰₯ 1 is given by

Nkf⁒(x)=span⁒{Ξ±fk+1⁒(X1,…,Xk+1):X1,…,Xk+1∈Tx⁒L}subscriptsuperscriptπ‘π‘“π‘˜π‘₯spanconditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptπ›Όπ‘“π‘˜1subscript𝑋1…subscriptπ‘‹π‘˜1subscript𝑋1…subscriptπ‘‹π‘˜1subscript𝑇π‘₯𝐿N^{f}_{k}(x)=\mbox{span}\{\alpha_{f}^{k+1}(X_{1},\ldots,X_{k+1}):X_{1},\ldots,% X_{k+1}\in T_{x}L\}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = span { italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) : italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L }

where Ξ±f2=Ξ±f:T⁒LΓ—T⁒Lβ†’Nf⁒L:superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑓2subscript𝛼𝑓→𝑇𝐿𝑇𝐿subscript𝑁𝑓𝐿\alpha_{f}^{2}=\alpha_{f}\colon TL\times TL\to N_{f}Litalic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_T italic_L Γ— italic_T italic_L β†’ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L is the standard second fundamental form with values in the normal bundle and

Ξ±fs:T⁒LΓ—β‹―Γ—T⁒Lβ†’Nf⁒L,sβ‰₯3,:superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑓𝑠formulae-sequence→𝑇𝐿⋯𝑇𝐿subscript𝑁𝑓𝐿𝑠3\alpha_{f}^{s}\colon TL\times\cdots\times TL\to N_{f}L,\;\;s\geq 3,italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : italic_T italic_L Γ— β‹― Γ— italic_T italic_L β†’ italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L , italic_s β‰₯ 3 ,

is the symmetric tensor called the st⁒hsuperscriptπ‘ π‘‘β„Žs^{th}italic_s start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-fundamental form defined inductively by

Ξ±fs⁒(X1,…,Xs)=(βˆ‡XsβŸ‚β€¦β’βˆ‡X3βŸ‚Ξ±f⁒(X2,X1))βŸ‚.superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑓𝑠subscript𝑋1…subscript𝑋𝑠superscriptsubscriptsuperscriptβˆ‡perpendicular-tosubscript𝑋𝑠…subscriptsuperscriptβˆ‡perpendicular-tosubscript𝑋3subscript𝛼𝑓subscript𝑋2subscript𝑋1perpendicular-to\alpha_{f}^{s}(X_{1},\ldots,X_{s})=\left(\nabla^{\perp}_{X_{s}}\ldots\nabla^{% \perp}_{X_{3}}\alpha_{f}(X_{2},X_{1})\right)^{\perp}.italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) = ( βˆ‡ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT … βˆ‡ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_X start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Here βˆ‡βŸ‚superscriptβˆ‡perpendicular-to\nabla^{\perp}βˆ‡ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is the induced connection in the normal bundle Nf⁒Lsubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿N_{f}Litalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L and ()βŸ‚superscriptperpendicular-to(\;\;)^{\perp}( ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŸ‚ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT means taking the projection onto the normal complement of N1fβŠ•β‹―βŠ•Nsβˆ’2fdirect-sumsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓1β‹―subscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠2N^{f}_{1}\oplus\cdots\oplus N^{f}_{s-2}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Nf⁒Lsubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿N_{f}Litalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L.

Now suppose that f:L2β†’π•Šn+2:𝑓→superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Šπ‘›2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{n+2}italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT denotes an oriented minimal and substantial surface. The latter means that the codimension cannot be reduced, in fact, not even locally since minimal surfaces are real analytic. It is known (cf. [v, df]) that the normal bundle Nf⁒Lsubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿N_{f}Litalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L of f𝑓fitalic_f splits along an open dense subset of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as

Nf⁒L=N1fβŠ•N2fβŠ•β‹―βŠ•Nmf,m=[(n+1)/2],formulae-sequencesubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿direct-sumsuperscriptsubscript𝑁1𝑓superscriptsubscript𝑁2𝑓⋯superscriptsubscriptπ‘π‘šπ‘“π‘šdelimited-[]𝑛12N_{f}L=N_{1}^{f}\oplus N_{2}^{f}\oplus\dots\oplus N_{m}^{f},\;\;\;m=[(n+1)/2],italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L = italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ• italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_m end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_m = [ ( italic_n + 1 ) / 2 ] ,

since all higher normal bundles have rank two except possibly the last one that has rank one if n𝑛nitalic_n is odd. The orientation of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT induces an orientation on each plane vector bundle Nsfsuperscriptsubscript𝑁𝑠𝑓N_{s}^{f}italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT given by the ordered pair

ΞΎ1s=Ξ±fs+1⁒(X,…,X),ΞΎ2s=Ξ±fs+1⁒(J⁒X,…,X)formulae-sequencesuperscriptsubscriptπœ‰1𝑠superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑓𝑠1𝑋…𝑋superscriptsubscriptπœ‰2𝑠superscriptsubscript𝛼𝑓𝑠1𝐽𝑋…𝑋\xi_{1}^{s}=\alpha_{f}^{s+1}(X,\ldots,X),\;\;\;\xi_{2}^{s}=\alpha_{f}^{s+1}(JX% ,\ldots,X)italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , … , italic_X ) , italic_ΞΎ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_J italic_X , … , italic_X )

where 0β‰ X∈T⁒L0𝑋𝑇𝐿0\neq X\in TL0 β‰  italic_X ∈ italic_T italic_L and J𝐽Jitalic_J is the complex structure of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT determined by the metric and orientation.

For each 1≀k≀m1π‘˜π‘š1\leq k\leq m1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_m, the kt⁒hsuperscriptπ‘˜π‘‘β„Žk^{th}italic_k start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_t italic_h end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT-order curvature ellipse β„°kf⁒(x)βŠ‚Nkf⁒(x)subscriptsuperscriptβ„°π‘“π‘˜π‘₯subscriptsuperscriptπ‘π‘“π‘˜π‘₯{\cal E}^{f}_{k}(x)\subset N^{f}_{k}(x)caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) βŠ‚ italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) is defined by

β„°kf⁒(x)={Ξ±fk+1⁒(ZΟ†,…,ZΟ†):ZΟ†=cos⁑φ⁒Z+sin⁑φ⁒J⁒Z⁒andβ’Ο†βˆˆ[0,2⁒π)}subscriptsuperscriptβ„°π‘“π‘˜π‘₯conditional-setsuperscriptsubscriptπ›Όπ‘“π‘˜1superscriptπ‘πœ‘β€¦superscriptπ‘πœ‘superscriptπ‘πœ‘πœ‘π‘πœ‘π½π‘andπœ‘02πœ‹{\cal E}^{f}_{k}(x)=\left\{\alpha_{f}^{k+1}(Z^{\varphi},\ldots,Z^{\varphi})% \colon\,Z^{\varphi}=\cos\varphi Z+\sin\varphi JZ\;\mbox{and}\;\varphi\in[0,2% \pi)\right\}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) = { italic_Ξ± start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_k + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο† end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , … , italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο† end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) : italic_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο† end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT = roman_cos italic_Ο† italic_Z + roman_sin italic_Ο† italic_J italic_Z and italic_Ο† ∈ [ 0 , 2 italic_Ο€ ) }

where Z∈Tx⁒L𝑍subscript𝑇π‘₯𝐿Z\in T_{x}Litalic_Z ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_x end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L is any vector of unit length.

A surface f:L2β†’π•Šn+2:𝑓→superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Šπ‘›2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{n+2}italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is called rπ‘Ÿritalic_r-isotropic if it is minimal and at any x∈L2π‘₯superscript𝐿2x\in L^{2}italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and for any 1≀k≀r1π‘˜π‘Ÿ1\leq k\leq r1 ≀ italic_k ≀ italic_r the ellipses of curvature β„°kf⁒(x)subscriptsuperscriptβ„°π‘“π‘˜π‘₯{\cal E}^{f}_{k}(x)caligraphic_E start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) contained in all two-dimensional Nkfsubscriptsuperscriptπ‘π‘“π‘˜N^{f}_{k}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_k end_POSTSUBSCRIPTβ€²β€²\,{}^{\prime}start_FLOATSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_FLOATSUPERSCRIPTs are circles. We point out that there are alternative ways to define isotropy for surfaces, for instance, in terms of the vanishing of higher order Hopf differentials [v1].

We consider the open and dense subset L1subscript𝐿1L_{1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT defined by

L1={x∈L2:dimN1f⁒(x)⁒ is maximal}.subscript𝐿1conditional-setπ‘₯superscript𝐿2dimensionsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓1π‘₯Β is maximalL_{1}=\left\{x\in L^{2}:\dim N^{f}_{1}(x)\text{ is maximal}\right\}.italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT : roman_dim italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) is maximal } .

Then the 1st normal spaces along L1subscript𝐿1L_{1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT form a subbundle N1f|L1evaluated-atsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓1subscript𝐿1N^{f}_{1}|_{L_{1}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the normal bundle Nf⁒Lsubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿N_{f}Litalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L. Inductively, we define the open and dense subset

Ls={x∈Lsβˆ’1:dimNsf⁒(x)⁒ is maximal}subscript𝐿𝑠conditional-setπ‘₯subscript𝐿𝑠1dimensionsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠π‘₯Β is maximalL_{s}=\left\{x\in L_{s-1}:\dim N^{f}_{s}(x)\text{ is maximal}\right\}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = { italic_x ∈ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : roman_dim italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x ) is maximal }

and similarly the s𝑠sitalic_s-th normal spaces along Lssubscript𝐿𝑠L_{s}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT form a subbundle Nsf|Lsevaluated-atsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠subscript𝐿𝑠N^{f}_{s}|_{L_{s}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of the normal bundle. The following result was proved in [11] (see also [v, dv]).

Proposition 14.

If the surface f𝑓fitalic_f is rπ‘Ÿritalic_r-isotropic, then each L2βˆ–Ls,1≀s≀rsuperscript𝐿2subscript𝐿𝑠1π‘ π‘ŸL^{2}\smallsetminus L_{s},1\leq s\leq ritalic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ– italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_s ≀ italic_r, consists of isolated points and the vector bundle Nsf|Lsevaluated-atsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠subscript𝐿𝑠N^{f}_{s}|_{L_{s}}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT smoothly extends to a vector bundle over L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT still denoted by Nsfsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠N^{f}_{s}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT.

5.2 A class of compact 3-dimensional Wintgen submanifolds

In the sequel, let f:L2β†’π•Š2⁒n+2,nβ‰₯2:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2𝑛2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{2n+2},n\geq 2italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2, be a substantial (nβˆ’1)𝑛1(n-1)( italic_n - 1 )-isotropic surface. Then Proposition 14 implies that each plane bundle Nsf|Ls,1≀s≀nβˆ’1evaluated-atsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑠subscript𝐿𝑠1𝑠𝑛1N^{f}_{s}|_{L_{s}},1\leq s\leq n-1italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 1 ≀ italic_s ≀ italic_n - 1, smoothly extends to a plane bundle over L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. Clearly, Nnfsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑛N^{f}_{n}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is the orthogonal complement of N1fβŠ•N2fβŠ•β‹―βŠ•Nnβˆ’1fdirect-sumsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓1superscriptsubscript𝑁2𝑓⋯subscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑛1N^{f}_{1}\oplus N_{2}^{f}\oplus\dots\oplus N^{f}_{n-1}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• italic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ• β‹― βŠ• italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in Nf⁒Lsubscript𝑁𝑓𝐿N_{f}Litalic_N start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_L. There are plenty of compact (nβˆ’1)𝑛1(n-1)( italic_n - 1 )-isotropic surfaces in π•Š2⁒n+2,nβ‰₯2superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2𝑛2\mathbb{S}^{2n+2},n\geq 2blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2. This is the case of pseudoholomorphic curves in the nearly KΓ€hler π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. In fact, it is known that they are 1111-isotropic [8, 19, v1]. Moreover, there are compact substantial pseudoholomorphic curves in the nearly KΓ€hler π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of positive genus (see [8]). Additionally, all 1111-isotropic tori in π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT were described in [5].

The following result provides a method to produce new compact Wintgen ideal submanifolds.

Theorem 15.

Let f:L2β†’π•Š2⁒n+2,nβ‰₯2:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2𝑛2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{2n+2},n\geq 2italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2, be a compact oriented substantial (nβˆ’1)𝑛1(n-1)( italic_n - 1 )-isotropic surface of genus g⁒(L)𝑔𝐿g(L)italic_g ( italic_L ) and let M3superscript𝑀3M^{3}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT be the total space of the unit bundle p:U⁒Nnfβ†’L2:π‘β†’π‘ˆsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑛superscript𝐿2p\colon UN^{f}_{n}\rightarrow L^{2}italic_p : italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of the plane bundle Nnfsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑛N^{f}_{n}italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Then Ο•f:M3β†’π•Š2⁒n+2:subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑓→superscript𝑀3superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2\phi_{f}\colon M^{3}\to\mathbb{S}^{2n+2}italic_Ο• start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT given by Ο•f⁒(x,w)=wsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑓π‘₯𝑀𝑀\phi_{f}(x,w)=witalic_Ο• start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_x , italic_w ) = italic_w is a minimal Wintgen ideal submanifold, whose first Betti number satisfies b1⁒(M3)β‰₯2⁒g⁒(L)subscript𝑏1superscript𝑀32𝑔𝐿b_{1}(M^{3})\geq 2g(L)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰₯ 2 italic_g ( italic_L ).

Proof: It follows from Proposition 4.2 in [15] that the map Ο•f:M3β†’π•Š2⁒n+2:subscriptitalic-ϕ𝑓→superscript𝑀3superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2\phi_{f}\colon M^{3}\to\mathbb{S}^{2n+2}italic_Ο• start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT : italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is a minimal immersion of rank two with polar surface f𝑓fitalic_f. Moreover, Proposition 8 in [df] implies that the first curvature ellipse (as defined in [df]) of Ο•fsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑓\phi_{f}italic_Ο• start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a circle at any point. It follows from Corollary 1.2 in [GT] that a minimal n𝑛nitalic_n-dimensional submanifold of a space form with relative nullity nβˆ’2𝑛2n-2italic_n - 2 is a Wintgen ideal submanifold if and only if its first curvature ellipse is a circle at any point. Hence Ο•fsubscriptitalic-ϕ𝑓\phi_{f}italic_Ο• start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a Wintgen ideal submanifold.

Now we argue that b1⁒(M3)β‰₯2⁒g⁒(L)subscript𝑏1superscript𝑀32𝑔𝐿b_{1}(M^{3})\geq 2g(L)italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰₯ 2 italic_g ( italic_L ). Clearly, the circle bundle p:U⁒Nnfβ†’L2:π‘β†’π‘ˆsubscriptsuperscript𝑁𝑓𝑛superscript𝐿2p\colon UN^{f}_{n}\rightarrow L^{2}italic_p : italic_U italic_N start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_f end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is oriented (as defined in [BT, p.Β 114]). Then we have from [B, Theorem 13.2, p. 390] or [Hat, p.Β 438] that the cohomology rings of M3superscript𝑀3M^{3}italic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 3 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and L2superscript𝐿2L^{2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT are related by the following long exact sequence known as the Gysin sequence:

β‹―β†’Ξ¨iβˆ’1Hi⁒(L;β„€)β†’piβˆ—Hi⁒(M;β„€)β†’Ξ¦iHiβˆ’1⁒(L;β„€)β†’Ξ¨iHi+1⁒(L;β„€)β†’pi+1βˆ—β‹―subscriptΨ𝑖1β†’β‹―superscript𝐻𝑖𝐿℀subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑖→superscript𝐻𝑖𝑀℀subscriptΦ𝑖→superscript𝐻𝑖1𝐿℀subscriptΨ𝑖→superscript𝐻𝑖1𝐿℀subscriptsuperscript𝑝𝑖1β†’β‹―\!\!\!\cdots\xrightarrow{\Psi_{i-1}}H^{i}(L;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})\xrightarrow{% p^{*}_{i}}H^{i}(M;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})\xrightarrow{\Phi_{i}}H^{i-1}(L;% \mathord{\mathbb{Z}})\xrightarrow{\Psi_{i}}H^{i+1}(L;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})% \xrightarrow{p^{*}_{i+1}}\cdotsβ‹― start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT roman_Ξ¨ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_OVERACCENT β†’ end_ARROW italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ; blackboard_Z ) start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_OVERACCENT β†’ end_ARROW italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_M ; blackboard_Z ) start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_OVERACCENT β†’ end_ARROW italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ; blackboard_Z ) start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT roman_Ξ¨ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_OVERACCENT β†’ end_ARROW italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ; blackboard_Z ) start_ARROW start_OVERACCENT italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i + 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_OVERACCENT β†’ end_ARROW β‹―

The exactness gives that p1βˆ—subscriptsuperscript𝑝1p^{*}_{1}italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is a monomorphism and Im⁒p1βˆ—=ker⁑Φ1Imsubscriptsuperscript𝑝1kernelsubscriptΞ¦1{\rm{Im}}\,p^{*}_{1}=\ker\Phi_{1}roman_Im italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = roman_ker roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. On the other hand we have

Im⁒p1βˆ—β‰…H1⁒(L;β„€)/ker⁑p1βˆ—β‰…H1⁒(L;β„€)β‰…β„€2⁒g⁒(L).Imsubscriptsuperscript𝑝1superscript𝐻1𝐿℀kernelsubscriptsuperscript𝑝1superscript𝐻1𝐿℀superscriptβ„€2𝑔𝐿{\rm{Im}}\,p^{*}_{1}\cong H^{1}(L;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})/\ker\,p^{*}_{1}\cong H% ^{1}(L;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})\cong\mathord{\mathbb{Z}}^{2g(L)}.roman_Im italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰… italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ; blackboard_Z ) / roman_ker italic_p start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰… italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ; blackboard_Z ) β‰… blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g ( italic_L ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT .

Thus ker⁑Φ1β‰…β„€2⁒g⁒(L)kernelsubscriptΞ¦1superscriptβ„€2𝑔𝐿\ker\Phi_{1}\cong\mathord{\mathbb{Z}}^{2g(L)}roman_ker roman_Ξ¦ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰… blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g ( italic_L ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The desired inequality follows from the fact that H1⁒(M;β„€)superscript𝐻1𝑀℀H^{1}(M;\mathord{\mathbb{Z}})italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_M ; blackboard_Z ) contains a subgroup isomorphic to β„€2⁒g⁒(L)superscriptβ„€2𝑔𝐿\mathord{\mathbb{Z}}^{2g(L)}blackboard_Z start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_g ( italic_L ) end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT.Β Β Β 

Theorem 15 shows that each compact oriented substantial (nβˆ’1)𝑛1(n-1)( italic_n - 1 )-isotropic surface f:L2β†’π•Š2⁒n+2,nβ‰₯2:𝑓formulae-sequenceβ†’superscript𝐿2superscriptπ•Š2𝑛2𝑛2f\colon L^{2}\to\mathbb{S}^{2n+2},n\geq 2italic_f : italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 italic_n + 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT , italic_n β‰₯ 2, of positive genus g⁒(L)𝑔𝐿g(L)italic_g ( italic_L ) gives rise to a compact 3-dimensional Wintgen ideal submanifold with positive first Betti number. For instance, f𝑓fitalic_f can be chosen to be a compact substantial pseudoholomorphic curve in the nearly KΓ€hler π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of positive genus (see [8]), or a 1111-isotropic torus in π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT as described in [5]. Clearly, these Wintgen ideal submanifolds violate the inequality in Theorem 1 for k=n=3π‘˜π‘›3k=n=3italic_k = italic_n = 3.

References

  • [1]
  • AmemiyaY.On the convergence of the ordered roots of a sequence of determinantal equationsLinear Algebra and its Applications1271990531–542@article{A, author = {Amemiya, Y.}, title = {On the convergence of the ordered roots of a sequence of determinantal equations}, journal = {Linear Algebra and its Applications}, volume = {127}, date = {1990}, pages = {531–542}}
  • [3]
  • AudinM.DamianM.Morse theory and floer homologyUniversitextSpringer, London; EDP Sciences, Les Ulis2014xiv+596@book{AD, author = {Audin, M.}, author = {Damian, M.}, title = {Morse theory and Floer homology}, series = {Universitext}, publisher = {Springer, London; EDP Sciences, Les Ulis}, date = {2014}, pages = {xiv+596}}
  • [5] J. Bolton, F. Pedit and L. Woodward, Minimal surfaces and the affine Toda field model, J. reine angew. Math. 459 (1995), 119–150.
  • BottR.TuL.Differential forms in algebraic topologyGraduate Texts in MathematicsSpringer-Verlag1982@book{BT, author = {Bott, R.}, author = {Tu, L.}, title = {Differential forms in algebraic topology}, series = {Graduate Texts in Mathematics}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, date = {1982}} BredonG.E.Topology and geometryGraduate Texts in MathematicsSpringer-Verlag1993@book{B, author = {Bredon, G.E.}, title = {Topology and Geometry}, series = {Graduate Texts in Mathematics}, publisher = {Springer-Verlag}, date = {1993}}
  • [8] R. Bryant, Submanifolds and special structures on the octonians, J. Differential Geom. 17 (1982), 185–232.
  • CheegerJ.EbinD.G.Comparison theorems in riemannian geometryNorth-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 9North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-Oxford; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York1975viii+174@book{CE75, author = {Cheeger, J.}, author = {Ebin, D.G.}, title = {Comparison theorems in Riemannian geometry}, note = {North-Holland Mathematical Library, Vol. 9}, publisher = {North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam-Oxford; American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York}, date = {1975}, pages = {viii+174}} ChenH.WeiG.Rigidity of minimal submanifolds in space formsJ. Geom. Anal.3120214923–4933@article{CW, author = {Chen, H.}, author = {Wei, G.}, title = {Rigidity of Minimal Submanifolds in Space Forms}, journal = {J. Geom. Anal.}, volume = {31}, date = {2021}, pages = {4923–4933}}
  • [11] S.S. Chern, On the minimal immersions of the two-sphere in a space of constant curvature, Problems in Analysis, edited by Robert C. Gunning, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971, pp. 27-40.
  • ChernS.S.LashofR.K.On the total curvature of immersed manifoldsAmer. J. Math.791957306–318@article{CL1, author = {Chern, S.S.}, author = {Lashof, R.K.}, title = {On the total curvature of immersed manifolds}, journal = {Amer. J. Math.}, volume = {79}, date = {1957}, pages = {306–318}} ChernS.S.LashofR.K.On the total curvature of immersed manifolds, iiMichigan Math. J.519585–12@article{CL2, author = {Chern, S.S.}, author = {Lashof, R.K.}, title = {On the total curvature of immersed manifolds, II}, journal = {Michigan Math. J.}, volume = {5}, date = {1958}, pages = {5–12}} DajczerM.FloritL.A class of austere submanifoldsIllinois J. Math.452001735–755@article{df, author = {Dajczer, M.}, author = {Florit, L.}, title = {A class of austere submanifolds}, journal = {Illinois J. Math.}, volume = {45}, date = {2001}, pages = {735–755}}
  • [15] M. Dajczer, Th. Kasioumis, A. Savas-Halilaj and Th. Vlachos, Complete minimal submanifolds with nullity in Euclidean spheres, Comment. Math. Helv. 93 (2018), 645–660.
  • DajczerM.VlachosTh.A class of complete minimal submanifolds and their associated families of deformationsComm. Anal. Geom.262018699–721@article{dv, author = {Dajczer, M.}, author = {Vlachos, Th.}, title = {A class of complete minimal submanifolds and their associated families of deformations}, journal = {Comm. Anal. Geom.}, volume = {26}, date = {2018}, pages = {699–721}} De SmetP.J.DillenF.VerstraelenL.VranckenL.A pointwise inequality in submanifold theoryArch. Math. (Brno)351999115–128@article{DDVV, author = {De Smet, P.J.}, author = {Dillen, F.}, author = {Verstraelen, L.}, author = {Vrancken, L.}, title = {A pointwise inequality in submanifold theory}, journal = {Arch. Math. (Brno)}, volume = {35}, date = {1999}, pages = {115–128}} EellsJ.KuiperN.H.Manifolds that are like projective planesPubl. Math., Inst. Hautes Γ‰tud. Sci.1419625–46ISSN 0020-9910@article{EK, author = {Eells, J.}, author = {Kuiper, N.H.}, title = {Manifolds that are like projective planes}, journal = {Publ. Math., Inst. Hautes Γ‰tud. Sci.}, volume = {14}, date = {1962}, pages = {5–46}, issn = {0020-9910}}
  • [19] J.H. Eschenburg and Th. Vlachos, Pseudoholomorphic curves in π•Š6superscriptπ•Š6\mathbb{S}^{6}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 6 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and π•Š5superscriptπ•Š5\mathbb{S}^{5}blackboard_S start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 5 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina 60 (2019), No. 2, 517–537.
  • GeJ.TangZ.A proof of the ddvv conjecture and its equality casePacific J. Math.2582008187–95@article{GT, author = {Ge, J.}, author = {Tang, Z.}, title = {A proof of the DDVV conjecture and its equality case}, journal = {Pacific J. Math.}, volume = {258}, date = {2008}, number = {1}, pages = {87–95}} GuadalupeI.V.RodriguezL.Normal curvature of surfaces in space formsPacific J. Math.106198395–103@article{GR, author = {Guadalupe, I.V.}, author = {Rodriguez, L.}, title = {Normal curvature of surfaces in space forms}, journal = {Pacific J. Math.}, volume = {106}, date = {1983}, pages = {95–103}} HatcherA.Algebraic topologyCambridge University Press1993@book{Hat, author = {Hatcher, A.}, title = {Algebraic Topology}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, date = {1993}} KuiperN.H.Minimal total absolute curvature for immersionsInvent. Math.101970209–238ISSN 0020-9910@article{Kuiper, author = {Kuiper, N.H.}, title = {Minimal total absolute curvature for immersions}, journal = {Invent. Math.}, volume = {10}, date = {1970}, pages = {209–238}, issn = {0020-9910}} LuZ.Normal scalar curvature conjecture and its applications,J. Funct. Anal.26120111284–1308@article{Lu, author = {Lu, Z.}, title = {Normal scalar curvature conjecture and its applications,}, journal = {J. Funct. Anal.}, volume = {261}, date = {2011}, pages = {1284–1308}} MilnorJ.Morse theoryBased on lecture notes by M. Spivak and R. Wells. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 51Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.1963vi+153@book{Milnor63, author = {Milnor, J.}, title = {Morse theory}, series = {Based on lecture notes by M. Spivak and R. Wells. Annals of Mathematics Studies, No. 51}, publisher = {Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.}, date = {1963}, pages = {vi+153}} ShiohamaK.XuH.-W.Lower bound for Ln/2superscript𝐿𝑛2L^{n/2}italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_n / 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT curvature norm and its applicationJ. Geom. Anal.719973377–386ISSN 1050-6926@article{SX, author = {Shiohama, K.}, author = {Xu, H.-W.}, title = {Lower bound for $L^{n/2}$ curvature norm and its application}, journal = {J. Geom. Anal.}, volume = {7}, date = {1997}, number = {3}, pages = {377–386}, issn = {1050-6926}} ShiohamaK.XuH.-W.Rigidity and sphere theorems for submanifolds iiKyushu J. Math.542000103–109@article{SX2, author = {Shiohama, K.}, author = {Xu, H.-W.}, title = {Rigidity and Sphere Theorems for Submanifolds II}, journal = {Kyushu J. Math.}, volume = {54}, date = {2000}, pages = {103–109}} VlachosTh.Minimal surfaces, hopf differentials and the ricci conditionManuscripta Math.1262008201–230@article{v, author = {Vlachos, Th.}, title = {Minimal surfaces, Hopf differentials and the Ricci condition}, journal = {Manuscripta Math.}, volume = {126}, date = {2008}, pages = {201–230}} VlachosTh.Exceptional minimal surfaces in spheresManuscripta Math.150201673–98@article{v1, author = {Vlachos, Th.}, title = {Exceptional minimal surfaces in spheres}, journal = {Manuscripta Math.}, volume = {150}, date = {2016}, pages = {73–98}} WintgenP.Sur l’inΓ©galitΓ© de chen-willmoreC. R. Acad. Sc. Paris T.2881979993–995@article{Wi, author = {Wintgen, P.}, title = {Sur l'in\'egalit\'e de Chen-Willmore}, journal = {C. R. Acad. Sc. Paris T.}, volume = {288}, date = {1979}, pages = {993–995}} WolfsonJ.Manifolds with k-positive ricci curvatureVariational problems in Differential Geometry, edited by R. Bielawski, et al., LMS Lecture Notes Series 394Cambridge University Press2012@book{Wo, author = {Wolfson, J.}, title = {Manifolds with k-positive Ricci curvature}, series = {Variational problems in Differential Geometry, edited by R. Bielawski, et al., LMS Lecture Notes Series 394}, publisher = {Cambridge University Press}, date = {2012}} XieZ.X.LiT.Z.MaX.WangC.P.Wintgen ideal submanifolds: new examples, frame sequence and mΓΆbius homogeneous classificationAdv. Math.3812021107620@article{XLMW, author = {Xie, Z.X.}, author = {Li, T.Z.}, author = {Ma, X.}, author = {Wang, C.P.}, title = {Wintgen ideal submanifolds: New examples, frame sequence and M\"obius % homogeneous classification}, journal = {Adv. Math.}, volume = {381}, date = {2021}, pages = {107620}}

Christos-Raent Onti
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Cyprus
1678, Nicosia – Cyprus
e-mail: onti.christos-raent@ucy.ac.cy

Kleanthis Polymerakis
University of Ioannina
Department of Mathematics
Ioannina – Greece
e-mail: kpolymerakis@uoi.gr

Theodoros Vlachos
University of Ioannina
Department of Mathematics
Ioannina – Greece
e-mail: tvlachos@uoi.gr