Abstract
We extend the results about left-invariant Codazzi tensor fields on Lie groups equipped with left-invariant Riemannian metrics obtained by d’Atri in 1985 to the setting of reductive homogeneous spaces G/H, where the curvature of the canonical connection of second kind associated with the fixed reductive decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\) enters the picture. In particular, we show that invariant Codazzi tensor fields on a naturally reductive homogeneous space are parallel.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Whenever M is a smooth manifold equipped with a connection \(\nabla \), a twice-covariant symmetric tensor field A on M is called a Codazzi tensor field if \(\textrm{d}^\nabla A = 0\), where \(\textrm{d}^\nabla \) is the exterior derivative operator (defined with the aid of \(\nabla \)) acting on tensor bundles over M, and we regard A as a \(T^*M\)-valued 1-form. When \(\nabla \) is torsionfree, A is a Codazzi tensor field if and only if
which is to say that the covariant differential \(\nabla A\), a three-times covariant tensor field on M, is totally symmetric.
Codazzi tensors are ubiquitous in geometry, with the most prominent examples being the second fundamental form of a non-degenerate hypersurface in a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with constant sectional curvature (due to the Codazzi-Mainardi compatibility equation), and the Ricci or Schouten tensors of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold with harmonic curvature or harmonic Weyl curvature (due to the relations \(\textrm{div}\,R = \textrm{d}^\nabla \textrm{Ric}\) and \(\textrm{div}\,\textrm{W} = \textrm{d}^\nabla \textrm{Sch}\)). Whenever a Riemannian manifold \((M,\texttt{g})\) has constant sectional curvature K, every Codazzi tensor field locally has the form \(\textrm{Hess}\,f + Kf\texttt{g}\) for some smooth function f, cf. [1].
Both topological and geometric consequences of the existence of a nontrivial Codazzi tensor field on a Riemannian manifold have been studied in [1, 2], and the local structure of a Riemannian manifold carrying a Codazzi tensor field satisfying additional multiplicity assumptions on its spectra and eigendistributions is obtained in [3]. Many such results are compiled in [4, §16.6–§16.22], which then led to further work [5, 6].
In a different and more specific direction, left-invariant Codazzi tensor fields on Lie groups equipped with left-invariant Riemannian metrics have been discussed in [7], with the goal of better understanding the harmonic curvature condition in this setting. New results have been recently obtained in [8], where it is shown that solvable Lie groups equipped with left-invariant Riemannian metrics having harmonic curvature must necessarily be Ricci-parallel.
In this paper, we extend the results in [7] to the more general class of invariant Codazzi tensor fields on reductive homogeneous spaces equipped with invariant Riemannian metrics. Our approach to achieve this is straightforward: once a reductive decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\) for the homogeneous space G/H is fixed, we run the computations done in [7] in the reductive complement \(\mathfrak {m}\) (a non-associative algebra) instead of in the Lie algebra \(\mathfrak {g}\). However, unlike in some results in [7] which involve positivity and negativity of sectional and scalar curvatures, the curvatures of \((G/H,\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle )\) are now compared with curvatures of the canonical connection of second kind associated with the decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\)—with its flatness when \(\mathfrak {h} = \{0\}\) and \(\mathfrak {m} = \mathfrak {g}\) explaining its absence in [7]. Full proofs are included for the sake of completeness.
2 Organization of the Text
We work in the smooth category and all manifolds considered are connected.
In Sect. 1, we gather some well-known standard facts regarding reductive homogeneous spaces needed for the rest of the text, the most important ones being Nomizu’s Theorem [9] on invariant connections and Lemma 1.1. Section 2 generalizes [7, Proposition 1] to Proposition 2.1: the same compatibility condition (2.3) ensures that a symmetric bilinear form on \(\mathfrak {m}\) reconstructed from prescribed eigenspaces gives rise to a Codazzi tensor field on G/H.
Section 3 explores the effects of the existence of an invariant Codazzi tensor field on curvature, generalizing [7, Propositions 3 and 4] and expressing the new conclusions, Propositions 3.1 and 3.3, with the aid of the difference curvature tensor introduced in (3.1). In particular, we conclude that every invariant Codazzi tensor field on a naturally reductive homogeneous space is parallel.
3 Preliminaries
The material in this section is standard and it is included for the convenience of the reader. We refer to [10, Ch. X], [11, Ch. II], and [12, Ch. II–III] for more details.
Let G be a Lie group and H be a closed Lie subgroup of G, so that the quotient space G/H admits a unique smooth structure for which the natural projection \(\pi :G \rightarrow G/H\) is a principal H-bundle. The group G acts transitively on G/H via the “left translations” \(\tau _g:G/H \rightarrow G/H\) given by \(\tau _g(aH)= (ga)H\). Writing \(\mathfrak {g}\) and \(\mathfrak {h}\) for the Lie algebras of G and H, we assume that G/H is reductive: there is a vector space direct sum decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\) such that \(\mathfrak {m}\) is \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant. We write \((\cdot )_{\mathfrak {h}}:\mathfrak {g}\rightarrow \mathfrak {h}\) and \((\cdot )_{\mathfrak {m}}:\mathfrak {g}\rightarrow \mathfrak {m}\) for the direct sum projections, and so \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) becomes a non-associative algebra. The derivative \(\textrm{d}\pi _e\) restricts to an isomorphism \(\mathfrak {m}\cong T_{eH}(G/H)\) and, in addition,
Our guiding principle is that for any G-equivariant smooth fiber bundle \(E \rightarrow G/H\),
Indeed, any point \(\phi \in E_{eH}\) which is fixed by H defines a G-equivariant section \(\psi \) of E via \(\psi _{gH} = g\cdot \phi \). For example, taking E to be tensor powers of \(T^*(G/H)\) gives us that G-invariant covariant tensor fields on G/H are in one-to-one correspondence with \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant covariant tensors on \(\mathfrak {m}\), cf. [12, Proposition 5.1], while taking E to be Grassmannian bundles over G/H yields that G-invariant distributions on G/H are in one-to-one correspondence with \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant vector subspaces of \(\mathfrak {m}\). In addition, it has been proved in [13] that
We will also need Nomizu’s theorem [9, Theorem 8.1]:
Following [14, Section 5.2], a G-invariant connection \(\nabla \) on G/H and an \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-equivariant multiplication \(\alpha \) in \(\mathfrak {m}\) related via (1.4) determine each other by the relation
Here, we are using that every \(X\in \mathfrak {g}\) determines its corresponding action field \(X^{\#} \in \mathfrak {X}(G/H)\), with \(X^{\#}_{eH} = X_{\mathfrak {m}}\), and whose complete flow is explicitly given by \((t,aH)\mapsto \tau _{\exp (tX)}(aH)\). Note that the right-invariant vector field on G generated by X is \(\pi \)-related to \(X^{\#}\). For future reference, we also observe that this implies that
as the flow of \(X^{\#}\) leaves \(\varTheta \) invariant. The torsion and curvature of \(\nabla \) are given in \(\mathfrak {m}\) in terms of \(\alpha \) by
for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\), cf. [9, formulas (9.1) and (9.6)] or [14, formula (22)].
Lemma 1.1
For a G-invariant connection \(\nabla \) and a G-invariant k-times covariant tensor field \(\varTheta \) on G/H, corresponding to \(\alpha \) and \(\theta \) on \(\mathfrak {m}\) under (1.4)–(1.5) and (1.2), the covariant differential \(\nabla \varTheta \) is also G-invariant and corresponds under (1.2) to \(\alpha (\cdot ,\theta )\) on \(\mathfrak {m}\) given by
for all \(X,Y_1,\ldots , Y_k\in \mathfrak {m}\).
Proof
We will establish (1.8) when \(k=1\), with the general case being an exercise in notation. The identity \((\nabla _{\varvec{X}}\varTheta )(\varvec{Y}) = (\mathcal {L}_{\varvec{X}}\varTheta )(\varvec{Y}) - \varTheta (\nabla _{\varvec{X}}\varvec{Y} - [\varvec{X},\varvec{Y}])\) evaluated at the vector fields \(\varvec{X} = X^{\#}\) and \(\varvec{Y} = Y^{\#}\), with \(X,Y\in \mathfrak {m}\), reads as \((\nabla _{X^{\#}}\varTheta )(Y^{\#}) = -\varTheta (\nabla _{X^{\#}}Y^{\#} - [X^{\#},Y^{\#}])\) due to (1.6). As evaluating the relation \([X^{\#},Y^{\#}] = -[X,Y]^{\#}\) at eH yields \([X^{\#},Y^{\#}]_{eH} = -[X,Y]_{\mathfrak {m}}\), (1.8) follows from (1.5). \(\square \)
Lastly, whenever G/H is equipped with a G-invariant pseudo-Riemannian metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \), \(\alpha \) corresponding to the Levi-Civita connection under (1.4)–(1.5) is called the Levi-Civita product of \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \). The Koszul formula for \(\alpha \) becomes
for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\), cf. [14, Exercise 10].
4 The Codazzi Compatibility Condition in \(\mathfrak {m}\)
In this section, let G/H be a homogeneous space admitting a reductive decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\) equipped with a G-invariant Riemannian metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) and its Levi-Civita product \(\alpha \). By Lemma 1.1 and (\(\dagger \)) in the Introduction, a twice-covariant G-invariant symmetric tensor field A on G/H is Codazzi if and only if
for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\). As A is symmetric and \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) is positive-definite, the spectral theorem allows us to write an orthogonal direct sum decomposition
We will also write \((\cdot )_i:\mathfrak {m} \rightarrow \mathfrak {m}_i\) for the corresponding direct sum projections.
A subalgebra of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) is called totally geodesic if it is closed under \(\alpha \). By (1.3) and (1.5), an \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant totally geodesic subalgebra of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) determines a foliation of G/H by totally geodesic submanifolds. The next result generalizes [7, Proposition 1].
Proposition 2.1
Whenever A is a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field on G/H, all the factors in decomposition (2.2) are \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant totally geodesic subalgebras of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\), and the compatibility condition
holds for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\) and \(i,j,k\in \{1,\ldots ,r\}\). Conversely, if a direct sum decomposition \(\mathfrak {m} = \mathfrak {m}_1\oplus \cdots \oplus \mathfrak {m}_r\) into mutually orthogonal \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant vector subspaces is given and (2.3) holds, any choice of mutually distinct real constants \(\lambda _1,\ldots , \lambda _r\) gives rise to a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field on G/H via \(A = \bigoplus _{i=1}^r\lambda _i \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle |_{\mathfrak {m}_i\times \mathfrak {m}_i}\). In addition, \(\nabla A \ne 0\) if and only if there exists a triple (i, j, k) of mutually distinct indices with \(\langle X_i,[Y_j,Z_k]_{\mathfrak {m}}\rangle \ne 0\), in which case A has at least three distinct eigenvalues.
Proof
That each \(\mathfrak {m}_i\) is \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariant follows from \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariance of both A and \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \). Namely, if \(X\in \mathfrak {m}_i\), \(h\in H\), and \(Y\in \mathfrak {m}\), we have
so that \(\textrm{Ad}(h)X\in \mathfrak {m}_i\). Next, as (1.9) is manifestly skew-symmetric in the pair (Y, Z), we see that \(\alpha (X,\cdot ) \in \mathfrak {so}(\mathfrak {m},\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle )\) for every \(X\in \mathfrak {m}\), from which the relation
follows for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\). The Codazzi condition (2.1) now reads
Using (1.9) twice and rearranging terms, (2.5) becomes
Permuting elements, we also have
and so \((\lambda _j-\lambda _i)(2.6) + (\lambda _i-\lambda _k)(2.7) = 0\) becomes precisely (2.3). Making \(i=j\ne k\) on (2.3) leads to \([X_i,Y_i]_{\mathfrak {m}} \in \mathfrak {m}_k^\perp \) for all \(k\ne i\), so that \([X_i,Y_i]_{\mathfrak {m}}\in \mathfrak {m}_i\). Then, making \(j=k\ne i\) on (2.3) gives us that \(\big \langle [X_i,Y_j]_{\mathfrak {m}},Z_j\big \rangle + \big \langle [X_i,Z_j]_{\mathfrak {m}},Y_j\big \rangle = 0\), which combined with (1.9) implies that each \(\mathfrak {m}_i\) is closed under \(\alpha \).
Conversely, to verify that \(A = \bigoplus _{i=1}^r\lambda _i\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle |_{\mathfrak {m}_i\times \mathfrak {m}_i}\) defines a Codazzi tensor field whenever (2.3) holds, it suffices to note that it implies (2.6) (and hence (2.5), due to (1.9)). Indeed: (2.3) becomes (2.6) when \(i=k\ne j\) while, if \(i\ne j\), adding to (2.3) the expression obtained from it after permuting \((i,j,k)\mapsto (j,k,i)\) yields (2.7) (and hence (2.6)).
Finally, (2.3) also implies
whenever \(i\ne j\). Substituting (2.8) into (1.9) and simplifying it with the aid of (2.4), we obtain
which directly implies the last assertions regarding \(\nabla A\). \(\square \)
Remark 2.2
The use of the spectral theorem to obtain (2.2) relies crucially on positive-definiteness of the Riemannian metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \). When \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) has indefinite metric signature, we have Milnor’s indefinite spectral theorem [15, p. 256]:
To justify (2.10), it suffices to choose \(\varPhi = \langle T\cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) and \(\varPsi = \langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) in the notation of [15, p. 256]. With (2.10) in place, we see that A gives rise to (2.2) and satisfies (2.3) even when \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) has indefinite metric signature, provided that \(\dim \mathfrak {m}\ge 3\) and \(A(X,X) \ne 0\) whenever \(X\in \mathfrak {m}\smallsetminus \{0\}\) is null. On the other hand, that (2.2) and (2.3) together give rise to G-invariant Codazzi tensor fields on G/H remains true without any additional assumptions.
As pointed out in [7], there is a simple interpretation for the compatibility relation (2.3). For each \(k\in \{1,\ldots , r\}\), considering the inner product \(\langle \!\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \!\rangle _k\) on \(\mathfrak {m}\) defined byFootnote 1
it follows that \(\langle \!\langle [Z_k,X]_{\mathfrak {m}}, Y\rangle \!\rangle _k + \langle \!\langle X,[Z_k,Y]_{\mathfrak {m}}\rangle \!\rangle _k = 0\) for all \(Z \in \mathfrak {m}_k\) and \(X,Y\in \mathfrak {m}_k^\perp \). Indeed, it suffices to apply (2.3), assuming that \(X\in \mathfrak {m}_i\) and \(Y\in \mathfrak {m}_j\) with \(i,j\ne k\). This means that, writing \(\textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(X)(Y) = [X,Y]_{\mathfrak {m}}\) for every \(X,Y\in \mathfrak {m}\) and denoting by \(\pi _k^\perp \) the projection of \(\mathfrak {m}\) onto \(\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp \), the composition \((\pi _k^\perp \circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}})|_{\mathfrak {m}_k}\) is a representation of \(\,\mathfrak {m}_k\,\) on \(\,(\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp ,\langle \!\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \!\rangle _k)\,\) by skew-adjoint operators. Here, the representation is a representation of the vector space \(\mathfrak {m}_k\), not of the non-associative algebra \((\mathfrak {m}_k,[\cdot ,\cdot ]_k)\). As a consequence:
Recall that a non-associative algebra \(\mathfrak {a}\) is:
-
(a)
nilpotent [16, p. 18] if there is a positive integer t such that the product of t elements in \(\mathfrak {a}\), no matter how associated, equals zero.
-
(b)
split-solvable (cf. [17, p. 21]) if there is a sequence \(\mathfrak {a} = \mathfrak {a}_0 \supseteq \cdots \supseteq \mathfrak {a}_p = 0\) of ideals of \(\mathfrak {a}\) with \(\dim (\mathfrak {a}_i/\mathfrak {a}_{i+1})=1\) for every \(i=0,\ldots ,p-1\).
Following [7], we call a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field A on G/H essential if \(\nabla A\ne 0\) and none of the eigenspaces \(\mathfrak {m}_i\) is an ideal of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\). Note that \(\mathfrak {m}_k\) is an ideal of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) if and only if \(\pi _k^\perp \circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)|_{\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp } = 0\) for every \(Z_k\in \mathfrak {m}_k\). Using the above, we obtain:
Proposition 2.3
If G/H has a G-invariant essential Codazzi tensor field A, then \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) cannot be nilpotent or split-solvable.
Proof
As in the Lie category, one may define a ‘Killing form’ \(\beta \) for \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) via \(\beta (X,Y) = \textrm{tr}(\textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(X)\circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Y))\) for all \(X,Y\in \mathfrak {m}\). A direct computation shows that, for every \(Z_k\in \mathfrak {m}_k\), the relation
holds, where \(\beta _k\) stands for the Killing form of \((\mathfrak {m}_k,[\cdot ,\cdot ]_k)\).
Let \(Z_k\in \mathfrak {m}_k\) be arbitrary, and assume that \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) is nilpotent. It follows that both operators \(\textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)\) and \(\textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)|_{\mathfrak {m}_k}\) are nilpotent, and so both \(\beta (Z_k,Z_k)\) and \(\beta _k(Z_k,Z_k)\) vanish. In particular, (2.12) leads to \(\textrm{tr}\left[ (\pi _k^\perp \circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)|_{\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp })^2\right] =0\). Together with (2.11), this implies that \(\pi _k^\perp \circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)|_{\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp } = 0\).
Now, assume instead that \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) is split-solvable. By [17, Corollary 1.30], whose ‘necessity’ implication does not rely on the Jacobi identity, the characteristic roots of each \(\textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)\), for \(Z_k \in \mathfrak {m}_k\), are real. Combined with (2.11), it follows that \(\pi _k^\perp \circ \textrm{ad}_{\mathfrak {m}}(Z_k)|_{\mathfrak {m}_k^\perp } = 0\) yet again. \(\square \)
5 Codazzi Tensors Versus Difference Curvatures
In this section, we continue to work with a homogeneous space G/H equipped with a reductive decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\), G-invariant Riemannian metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \), and Levi-Civita product \(\alpha \).
We will also need the canonical connection of second kind induced by given reductive decomposition, that is, the affine connection \(\nabla ^0\) on G/H corresponding under (1.4)–(1.5) to the zero product in \(\mathfrak {m}\). By (1.7-ii), the curvature tensor \(R^0\) of \(\nabla ^0\) is given simply by \(R^0(X,Y)Z = -[[X,Y]_{\mathfrak {h}},Z]\), for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\). It follows from the Jacobi identity
and \(\textrm{Ad}(H)\)-invariance of \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) that:
-
(i)
\((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) is a Lie algebra if and only if \(R^0\) satisfies the Bianchi identity,
-
(ii)
the expression \(\,\langle R^0(X,Y)Z,W\rangle \,\) is skew-symmetric in the pair (Z, W).
TheRicci tensor \(\textrm{Ric}^0\) of \(\nabla ^0\) is defined by \(\textrm{Ric}^0(Y,Z)\!=\!\textrm{tr}(X\!\mapsto \! R^0(X,Y)Z)\), with no reference to the metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \), and it is only guaranteed to be symmetric if \(R^0\) satisfies the Bianchi identity. We also consider the sectional and scalar curvature functions \(K^0\) and \(\textrm{s}^0\) associated with \(\nabla ^0\) and \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \): for any plane \(\Pi \subseteq \mathfrak {m}\) we let \(K^0(\Pi ) = \langle R^0(X,Y)Y,X\rangle \), where \(\{X,Y\}\) is any orthonormal basis for \(\Pi \) (with its choice being immaterial due to (ii) above), and \(\textrm{s}^0 = \textrm{tr}_{\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle }\,\textrm{Ric}^0\).
The results in this section are most conveniently stated and proved in terms of
As setup for the next result, observe that whenever A is a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field on G/H and \(\mathfrak {m}\) is decomposed as in (2.2), an equivalent formulation to (2.9) is
Applying (3.2) to separately compute each term in the curvature relation (1.7-ii) for \((X,Y,Z) = (X_i,Y_j,Y_j)\), with \(i\ne j\), we obtain \(\big \langle \alpha (X_i,\alpha (Y_j,Y_j)),X_i\big \rangle = 0\) and
Choosing \(Z=[X_i,Y_j]_k\) and switching the roles of X and Y in (2.3) leads to
which, when combined with (3.3), implies that
We are ready to generalize [7, Proposition 3]:
Proposition 3.1
If G/H has a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field A with \(\nabla A \ne 0\), the difference sectional curvature \(K^d\) assumes both positive and negative values.
Proof
We claim that
If either (3.5-\(\textrm{a}\)) or (3.5-\(\textrm{b}\)) fails to hold, then \(\langle [X_i,Y_j]_{\mathfrak {m}},Z_k\rangle = 0\) whenever i, j, k are mutually distinct, so that \(\nabla A = 0\) by Proposition 2.1. Indeed, if \(\mathrm{(a)}\) fails then \(\langle [X_i,Y_j]_{\mathfrak {m}},Z_k\rangle = 0\) whenever \(k>\max \{i,j\}\) as \([\mathfrak {m}_i,\mathfrak {m}_j]_{\mathfrak {m}}\subseteq \mathfrak {m}_1\oplus \cdots \oplus \mathfrak {m}_{\max \{i,j\}}\) is orthogonal to \(\mathfrak {m}_k\), and we may apply (2.3). If \(\mathrm{(b)}\) fails instead, then again \([\mathfrak {m}_i,\mathfrak {m}_j]_{\mathfrak {m}} \subseteq \mathfrak {m}_i\oplus \mathfrak {m}_j\) is orthogonal to \(\mathfrak {m}_k\) whenever i, j, k are mutually distinct. This proves (3.5).
For \(\rho \) as in (3.5-\(\textrm{a}\)), minimality of \(\rho \) implies that \([\mathfrak {m}_i,\mathfrak {m}_j]_\rho = 0\) whenever \(i,j<\rho \), and so \([\mathfrak {m}_i,\mathfrak {m}_\rho ]_j=0\) for distinct \(i,j < \rho \) by (2.3) with \(k=\rho \). Hence, (2.2) and (3.4) yield
for \(\Pi = {\mathbb {R}}X_i \oplus {\mathbb {R}}Y_\rho \) with \(i<\rho \), \(\Vert X_i\Vert =\Vert Y_\rho \Vert =1\), and \([X_i,Y_\rho ]_{\mathfrak {m}}\ne 0\).
Lastly, for \(\mu ,\nu \) as in (3.5-\(\textrm{b}\)) chosen so that the difference \(\nu -\mu \) is maximal, we have that \(\mathfrak {m}_i\oplus \mathfrak {m}_j\) is a subalgebra of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\) for \(1\le i \le \mu < \nu \le j \le r\), provided that \(i\ne \mu \) or \(j\ne \nu \). This implies that \([\mathfrak {m}_k,\mathfrak {m}_\mu ]_{\nu } = [\mathfrak {m}_\nu ,\mathfrak {m}_k]_{\mu } = 0\) whenever \(k<\mu \) or \(k > \nu \), and thus \([\mathfrak {m}_\mu ,\mathfrak {m}_\nu ]_k=0\) by (2.3) with \((\mu ,\nu ) = (i,j)\). Choosing unit vectors \(X_\mu \) and \(Y_\nu \) with \([X_\mu ,Y_\nu ]_\ell \ne 0\), for some \(\ell \ne \mu ,\nu \), it follows from (2.2) and (3.4) that
for \(\Pi = {\mathbb {R}}X_\mu \oplus {\mathbb {R}}Y_\nu \), as required. \(\square \)
Example 3.2
Recall that a homogeneous space G/H with a G-invariant Riemannian metric \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) is called naturally reductive if it admits a reductive decomposition \(\mathfrak {g} = \mathfrak {h}\oplus \mathfrak {m}\) with the additional property that \(\langle [X,Y]_{\mathfrak {m}},Z\rangle + \langle Y, [X,Z]_{\mathfrak {m}}\rangle = 0\), for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\). Rearranging the formula in [12, Proposition 5.7] we see that, in this case, \(K^d(\Pi ) = \Vert [X,Y]_{\mathfrak {m}}\Vert ^2/4\ge 0\), where \(\{X,Y\}\) is any orthonormal basis for \(\Pi \). By Proposition 3.1, every G-invariant Codazzi tensor field on such a naturally reductive homogeneous space is necessarily parallel.
For the next result, which generalizes [7, Proposition 4], we let \(M_i\) be the leaf passing through eH of the eigendistribution of A associated with \(\lambda _i\), so that \(T_{eH}M_i = \mathfrak {m}_i\). Each \(M_i\) is a totally geodesic submanifold of G/H equipped either with the Levi-Civita connection of \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle \) (by Proposition 2.1), or with the canonical connection \(\nabla ^0\). This allows us to consider the difference Ricci and scalar curvatures \(\textrm{Ric}^d_i\) and \(\textrm{s}^d_i\) in (3.1) for each \(M_i\). More precisely, given \(Y_i,Z_i\in \mathfrak {m}_i\), the endomorphism \(X\mapsto R^d(X,Y_i)Z_i\) of \(\mathfrak {m}\) restricts to an endomorphism of \(\mathfrak {m}_i\), whose trace is \(\textrm{Ric}_i^d(Y_i,Z_i)\). Then, the trace of \(\textrm{Ric}_i^d\) computed with \(\langle \cdot ,\cdot \rangle |_{\mathfrak {m}_i\times \mathfrak {m}_i}\) is \(\textrm{s}^d_i\).
Proposition 3.3
If G/H has a G-invariant Codazzi tensor field, then:
-
(i)
\(\textrm{Ric}^d(Y_j,Y_j) \le \textrm{Ric}^d_j(Y_j,Y_j)\,\) for \(j\in \{1,r\}\) and all \(Y\in \mathfrak {m}\).
-
(ii)
\(\textrm{s}^d_1+\cdots +\textrm{s}^d_r = \textrm{s}^d\).
Proof
First, observe that the cyclic identity
holds for all \(X,Y,Z\in \mathfrak {m}\) whenever i, j and k are mutually distinct, as a direct consequence of (2.8). Now, writing \(d_i = \dim \mathfrak {m}_i\) and letting \(\{E_{i,a}\}_{a=1}^{d_i}\) be an orthonormal basis for \(\mathfrak {m}_i\), for each \(i=1,\ldots ,r\), it follows from the definition of \(\textrm{Ric}_j^d\) and (3.4) that
for every \(Y_j\in \mathfrak {m}_j\). Here, we write \(\textrm{Ric}^d(Y_j)\) as a shorthand for \(\textrm{Ric}^d(Y_j,Y_j)\), and similarly for \(\textrm{Ric}^d_j\). The summand in the right side of (3.7) vanishes when \(k=i\) and, relabeling dummy indices \((i,a) \leftrightharpoons (k,b)\) in one of the two copies of such summation, we see that (3.6) leads to
Using (2.2) and the fact that \((\lambda _k-\lambda _j)(\lambda _i-\lambda _j)\) is a product of positive (or, negative) factors when \(j=1\) (or, \(j=r\)) for all i and k, (i) follows. Finally, setting \(Y_j = E_{j,c}\) in (3.8) and summing over \(1\le c\le d_j\) and \(1\le j\le r\), we conclude that (ii) holds: the difference \(\textrm{s}_1^d+\cdots + \textrm{s}_r^d - \textrm{s}^d\) equals the sum over mutually distinct indices i, j, k of terms appearing in (3.6), and therefore it must vanish. \(\square \)
A last consequence of Proposition 3.3 is the counterpart to [7, Proposition 5]:
Corollary 3.4
Suppose that \(\textrm{Ric}^d\) itself is a Codazzi tensor field on G/H, with \(\nabla \textrm{Ric}^d \ne 0\). If \(\textrm{s}^d_i \ge 0\) for \(1\le i \le r-1\), then \(\textrm{s}^d_r \ne 0\). In particular, not all eigenspaces of \(\textrm{Ric}^d\) can be Abelian subalgebras of \((\mathfrak {m},[\cdot ,\cdot ]_{\mathfrak {m}})\).
Proof
Item (i) of Proposition 3.3 for \(A=\textrm{Ric}^d\) reads \(\textrm{Ric}^d(Y_r,Y_r) \ge \lambda _r\) for all unit vectors \(Y_r\in \mathfrak {m}_r\), so averaging over an orthonormal basis yields \(\textrm{s}^d_r/d_r \ge \lambda _r\). If it were to be \(\textrm{s}^d_r=0\), (2.2) would imply that \(\lambda _1<\cdots <\lambda _r\le 0\), and hence \(\textrm{s}^d = d_1\lambda _1+\cdots + d_r\lambda _r<0\). However, it is clear from \(\textrm{s}^d_i \ge 0\), for \(1\le i \le r-1\), and item (ii) of Proposition 3.3, that \(\textrm{s}^d \ge 0\). The last claim now follows as \(R^d_i = 0\) (and thus \(\textrm{s}^d_i=0\)) whenever \(\mathfrak {m}_i\) is Abelian, as \(\alpha |_{\mathfrak {m}_i\times \mathfrak {m}_i}=0\) in view of (1.9) and Proposition 2.1. \(\square \)
Data Availability
Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Notes
Beware of the typo in [7, formula (7)]: the formula there has \(\langle X,Y\rangle \) instead of \(\langle X_j,Y_j\rangle \).
References
Bivens, I., Bourguignon, J.-P., Derdziński, A., Ferus, D., Kowalski, O., Milnor, T.K., Oliker, V., Simon, U., Strübing, W., Voss, K.: Discussion on Codazzi-tensors. In: Global Differential Geometry and Global Analysis (Berlin, 1979). Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 838, pp. 243–299. Springer, Berlin (1981)
Derdziński, A., Shen, C.L.: Codazzi tensor fields, curvature and Pontryagin forms. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 47(1), 15–26 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3-47.1.15
Gebarowski, A.: The structure of certain Riemannian manifolds admitting Codazzi tensors. Demonstratio Math. 27(1), 249–252 (1994)
Besse, A.L.: Einstein Manifolds. Classics in Mathematics, p. 516. Springer, Berlin (2008). Reprint of the 1987 edition
Merton, G.: Codazzi tensors with two eigenvalue functions. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 141(9), 3265–3273 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9939-2013-11616-3
Catino, G., Mantegazza, C., Mazzieri, L.: A note on Codazzi tensors. Math. Ann. 362(1–2), 629–638 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-014-1135-2
D’Atri, J.E.: Codazzi tensors and harmonic curvature for left invariant metrics. Geom. Dedicata 19(3), 229–236 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00149363
Aberaouze, I., Boucetta, M.: Left invariant Riemannian metrics with harmonic curvature are Ricci-parallel in solvable Lie groups and Lie groups of dimension \(\le 6\). J. Geom. Phys. 177, 104517-14 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomphys.2022.104517
Nomizu, K.: Invariant affine connections on homogeneous spaces. Am. J. Math. 76, 33–65 (1954). https://doi.org/10.2307/2372398
Kobayashi, S., Nomizu, K.: Foundations of Differential Geometry. Vol. II. Wiley Classics Library, p. 468. Wiley, New York (1996). Reprint of the 1969 original, A Wiley-Interscience Publication
Helgason, S.: Differential Geometry, Lie Groups, and Symmetric Spaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, vol. 34, p. 641. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2001). https://doi.org/10.1090/gsm/034. Corrected reprint of the 1978 original. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1090/gsm/034
Arvanitoyeorgos, A.: An Introduction to Lie Groups and the Geometry of Homogeneous Spaces. Student Mathematical Library, vol. 22, p. 141. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2003). https://doi.org/10.1090/stml/022. Translated from the 1999 Greek original and revised by the author. https://doi-org.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/10.1090/stml/022
Tondeur, P.: Invariant subbundles of the tangentbundle of a reductive homogeneous space. Math. Z. 89, 420–421 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112270
Elduque, A.: Reductive homogeneous spaces and nonassociative algebras. Commun. Math. 28(2), 199–229 (2020). https://doi.org/10.2478/cm-2020-0014
Greub, W.H.: Linear Algebra, 3rd edn. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 97, p. 434. Springer, Berlin (1967)
Schafer, R.D.: An Introduction to Nonassociative Algebras, p. 166. Dover Publications, Inc., New York (1995). Corrected reprint of the 1966 original
Knapp, A.W.: Lie Groups: Beyond an Introduction. Progress in Mathematics, vol. 140, p. 604. Birkhäuser Boston, Inc., Boston (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-2453-0
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Andrzej Derdzinski for bringing [7] to our attention, which ultimately motivated this work. We are also grateful to the anonymous referee, whose comments improved the exposition of the text.
Funding
The authors declare that no funds, grants, or other support were received during the preparation of this manuscript.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Marshall Reber, J., Terek, I. Codazzi Tensor Fields in Reductive Homogeneous Spaces. Results Math 79, 137 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-024-02151-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00025-024-02151-1