A new structural approach to isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres
 314 Downloads
Abstract
In this paper we show that the longstanding problem of classifying all isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with six different principal curvatures is still not complete. Moreover, we develop a structural approach that may be helpful for such a classification. Instead of working with the isoparametric hypersurface family in the sphere, we consider the associated Lagrangian submanifold of the real Grassmannian of oriented 2planes in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2}\). We obtain new geometric insights into classical invariants and identities in terms of the geometry of the Lagrangian submanifold.
Keywords
Isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres Lagrangian submanifolds Weyl identitiesMathematics Subject Classification
Primary 53C40 Secondary 53C55 53C301 Introduction
Originally, isoparametric hypersurfaces were defined to be the level sets of isoparametric functions, i.e., functions on a real space form whose gradient norm and Laplacian are constant on the level sets. This condition translates into the equivalent geometric condition that the principal curvatures of the hypersurfaces are constant. The classifications of isoparametric hypersurfaces in the cases where the ambient space is Euclidean or hyperbolic space were settled soon by Somigliana [28], Segre [26], and Cartan [2, 3, 4, 5]. In contrast, when the ambient space is a sphere, the number g of distinct principal curvatures can be greater than two, which makes a classification much more difficult. In this paper we henceforth consider the case where the ambient space is a sphere.
Cartan [2, 3, 4, 5] classified isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g\le 3\) and showed that they are all homogeneous, i.e., orbits of isometric group actions on \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\). The problem was picked up again by Münzner [20, 21] who showed that the number of distinct principal curvatures g can be only 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 and gave restrictions for the multiplicities as well. The possible multiplicities of the curvature distributions were classified in [1, 21, 29] and coincide with the multiplicities in the known examples. The situation in the case \(g = 4\) is more complex since there exist infinitely many isoparametric hypersurfaces and infinitely many of them are inhomogeneous—see Cecil [6] or Thorbergsson [31] for very good recent surveys of this case. In the case \(g=6\) all multiplicities m coincide and equal either 1 or 2, and precisely two homogeneous examples are known. Dorfmeister and Neher [9] conjectured that all isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\) are homogeneous and in the same paper settled this conjecture in affirmative for \(m=1\). In the remaining open case \(m = 2\), Miyaoka [17, 19] proposed how to establish homogeneity. However, in Appendix we give a counterexample to one crucial proposition in [17, 19]. Thus, the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\) and \(m=2\) is still open.
In the present paper we develop a new structural approach to isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres, unifying many of the known geometric properties.
The tensor \(\alpha \) is one of the fundamental invariants used in the previous classification approaches though usually encoded in some much less invariant Maurer–Cartan forms \(\Lambda \). The really interesting fact is that \(\alpha \) coincides—up to a factor of two—with the second fundamental form of the Lagrangian submanifold, which gives a new, geometric interpretation for this important tensor.
Theorem A
The tensor \(\alpha \) coincides, up to a factor of two, with the second fundamental form of the Lagrangian submanifold.
The introduction of the set of invariants \(({\hat{g}},\alpha ,B\otimes B^{1})\) is justified by the fact that they allow us to formulate all relevant identities in a compact way.
For the theory of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres, the socalled Weyl identities are of utmost importance. The classical Weyl identities depend on several indices. In terms of the invariants described above, these multiple identities unify into one tensor identity, see Theorem 3.8.
Another set of equations which can easily be formulated in terms of \(\alpha \) are the symmetry identities: The pullback of \(\alpha \) under the reflections through each of the focal manifolds coincides with the negative of \(\alpha \). So far, all these considerations are completely general.
Below we restrict ourselves to the case \(g=6\), and give several reformulations for homogeneity. Here, we just mention the following reformulation, which relates homogeneity to geometric properties of the Lagrangian submanifold. For other reformulations see Sect. 4.
Theorem B
The previous theorem thus reduces the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\) to a geometric problem for Lagrangian submanifolds of the complex quadric. We hope that our approach might finally lead to a classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\). Note that up till now, for the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\), there exists only one approach suggested by Dorfmeister and Neher [9]. However, for the remaining case \(m=2\), the underlying algebraic problem turned out to be very hard, and no one was so far able to carry out their approach for \(m=2\). Therefore, a new approach seems to be needed.
Using this structural approach we can reprove many of the classical results. Most proofs become simpler and render greater geometric insight.
This paper is organized as follows: In Sect. 1 we recall a few preliminary definitions and give a survey of results needed later on. In Sect. 2 we carry out the translation from the isoparametric hypersurface family in the sphere to the Lagrangian submanifold of the real Grassmannian of oriented 2planes in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2}\). In particular, we introduce the set \(({\hat{g}},\alpha ,B\otimes B^{1})\) of structural invariants. Sect. 3 deals with the fundamental submanifold equations of the Lagrangian submanifold. Moreover, we derive the Weyl identities and the symmetry identities. In Sect. 4 we give several equivalent formulations of homogeneity. Finally, we provide a counterexample to one crucial proposition in Miyaoka’s [17, 19] approach in Appendix.
2 Preliminaries
In this section we gather the definitions and tools which we will need later on. Throughout this paper, let M be a connected, smooth manifold of dimension n.
2.1 Isoparametric hypersurface
We start by recalling the definition of an isoparametric hypersurface in a sphere.
Definition 1.1
An embedding \(F_{0}:{M}\hookrightarrow \mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) together with a distinguished unit normal vector field \(\nu _0\in \Gamma (\nu M)\) is called an isoparametric hypersurface in \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) if and only if the principal curvature functions are constant.
The data of an isoparametric hypersurface are g, the number of distinct principal curvatures, and \(m_j\) (\(1\le j\le g\)), the multiplicities of the curvature distributions.
Below we assume that \((F_0,\nu _0)\) constitutes an isoparametric hypersurface in \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\). Let \(A_0\) be the shape operator of \(F_0\) with respect to \(\nu _0\). We denote the g different eigenvalues of \(A_0\), i.e., the principal curvature functions, by \(\lambda _{j}(0)\). By assumption the \(\lambda _j(0)\) are constant on M. Without loss of generality, we assume \(\lambda _1(0)>\cdots >\lambda _g(0)\) and define \(\theta _j\in \left( \frac{\pi }{2},\frac{\pi }{2}\right) \) such that \(\lambda _j(0)=\cot (\theta _j)\).
We denote the curvature distribution associated with \(\lambda _j(0)\) by \(D_j\), i.e., we have \(D_j=\text{ Eig }(A_0,\lambda _j(0))\). Furthermore, we let \(\pi _j:TM\rightarrow D_j\) be the orthogonal projection into \(D_j\). Note that we have \(m_j=\dim D_j\). The following lemma is due to Münzner [20].
Lemma 1.2
([20]) The curvature distribution \(D_j\) is integrable, and the leaves are small spheres in \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) with curvature \(1+\cot ^2(\theta _j)\). These spheres are totally geodesic submanifolds of M.
2.2 Parallel surfaces
Isoparametric hypersurfaces always come along as families of isoparametric hypersurfaces; namely, ‘almost all’ parallel surfaces of a given isoparametric hypersurface are also isoparametric hypersurfaces.
In the next lemma we express \(A_t\) in terms of \(A_0\) since this will be needed later on.
Lemma 1.3
Proof
If \(t\ne \theta _j\,\,\text{ mod }\,\pi \), the parallel surface \(F_t(M)\) is again an isoparametric hypersurface. Lemma 1.3 implies that the principal curvatures of \(F_t(M)\) are given by \(\lambda _j(t)=\cot (\theta _jt)\).
If \(t=\theta _j\,\,\text{ mod }\,\pi \), the \(m_j\)dimensional eigenspace \(D_j(p)\) is the kernel of \(dF_{t\vert p}\) for every \(p\in M\). In other words, the leaf \(L_j(p)\) of \(D_j\) through p is focalized into the point \(\overline{p}=F_{\theta _j}(p)\). Hence, \(M_{j}:=F_{\theta _j}(M)\) is the socalled focal submanifold of dimension \((nm_j)\).
2.3 Spectrum of the focal shape operators
The fact that the spectrum of the focal shape operator of the focal submanifold is independent of \(\nu \in \nu M_{j}\) and \(p\in M_{j}\) implies that the eigenvalues \(\lambda _k(0)\), \(k\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,g\right\} \), are of the form \(\lambda _k(0)=\cot (\phi +(k1)\pi /g),\) with \(0<\phi <\pi /g \). Thus, \(\theta _k=\phi +(k1)\pi /g\) modulo \(\pi \).
The parameter \(\phi \) in the formula for \(\theta _j\) encodes the position of \(F_{0}\) in the isoparametric family. We shall choose the initial hypersurface such that \(\phi =\theta _1=\frac{\pi }{2g}\). Thus, the initial isoparametric hypersurface is the one which lies in the middle of the focal submanifolds \(F_{\pi /2g}(M)\) and \(F_{\pi /2g}(M)\).
2.4 Global structure
2.5 Topology
This topological fact was used in the papers [1, 21] and [29] to classify the number of distinct principal curvatures and their possible multiplicities.
2.6 Classification results
Classification results of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres
g  Isoparametric hypersurfaces in \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) 

1  Open subset of a great or small hypersphere in \(\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) 
2  Standard product of two spheres \(\mathbb {S}^{d_1}(r_1)\times \mathbb {S}^{d_2}(r_2)\subset \mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) with \(r_1^2+r_2^2=1\) and \(n=d_1+d_2\) 
3  \(m\in \left\{ 1,2,4,8\right\} \); tube of constant radius of a standard Veronese embedding of a projective plane \(\mathbb {FP}^2\) into \(\mathbb {S}^{3m+1}\), where \(\mathbb {F}\) equals the division algebra \({\mathbb {R}}\), \(\mathbb {C}\), \(\mathbb {H}\) or \(\mathbb {O}\), for \(m=1,2,4,8\), respectively 
4  Multiplicities coincide with those of the examples of FKM type or the two homogeneous exceptions \((m_1,m_2)=(2,2)\) and (4, 5). If \((m_1,m_2)=(2,2)\) or (4, 5) they are homogeneous. If \(m_2\ge 2m_11\) or if \((m_1,m_2)=(3,4)\), (6, 9) or (7, 8) they are of FKM type 
6  \(m\in \left\{ 1,2\right\} \). If \(m=1\), the hypersurface is homogeneous. For the remaining case \(m=2\) the classification is still open 
The classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g\le 3\) is due to Cartan [2, 3, 4, 5].
While all isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g\le 3\) are homogeneous, the situation in the case \(g =4\) is more complex since there exist infinitely many isoparametric hypersurfaces and infinitely many of them are inhomogeneous.
Ferus et al. [10] used representations of Clifford algebras to produce a class of isoparametric families with four principal curvatures, the socalled isoparametric hypersurfaces of FKM type. Stolz [29] proved that the multiplicities of an isoparametric hypersurface with four principal curvatures must coincide with those in the known examples of FKM type or two homogeneous exceptions, namely \((m_1,m_2)=(2,2)\) or (4, 5). Cecil et al. [7] proved that if the multiplicities \((m_1,m_2)\) satisfy \(m_2\ge 2m_11\), then the isoparametric hypersurfaces are necessarily of FKM type. Thus, the cases \((m_1,m_2)=(4,5), (3,4), (6,9)\), and (7, 8) were left, which were successively classified by Chi, see [8] and the references therein. For a detailed exposition to the cases \(g=4\) we refer the reader to the surveys by Cecil [6] and Thorbergsson [31].
We postpone a detailed exposition of the case \(g=6\) to Sect. 4, since in order to do so, we make use of results presented in Sects. 2 and 3.
3 The Lagrangian submanifold model and its structural invariants
As already discussed in Sect. , isoparametric hypersurfaces always come along as families of isoparametric hypersurfaces. To each family of isoparametric hypersurfaces, we associate a Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric. Thus, instead of working with a family of hypersurfaces, we can henceforth work with only one submanifold. For this submanifold we introduce a set of invariants \(({\hat{g}},\alpha ,B\otimes B^{1})\) and endow them with a geometric meaning.
This section is structured as follows: In the first subsection we recall the definition and basic properties of the complex quadric. The construction of the Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric is explained in the second subsection. Finally, we introduce the set of invariants in the third subsection. Throughout this section let \(X,Y,Z,W\in \Gamma (TM)\).
3.1 The complex quadric
In this subsection we give a very brief introduction to the complex quadric. We just cover those definitions and facts needed later on. For a detailed exposition we refer the reader to the book [11] of Gasqui and Goldschmidt which we use as a reference.
We write \(\left\langle \cdot ,\cdot \right\rangle _{\mathbb {C}^{n+2}}\) and \(\left\langle \cdot ,\cdot \right\rangle _{h}\) for the standard complex bilinear and the standard hermitian inner product of \(\mathbb {C}^{n+2}\), respectively.
Definition 2.1
Another wellknown fact is that the complex quadric \(Q_n\) is diffeomorphic to the real Grassmannian \(Gr^{+}_2({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2})\) of oriented 2planes in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2}\). From now on we shall use this identification whenever convenient.
The remaining part of this subsection aims at describing the curvature tensor of Q. In order to do so, we first have to introduce some notation.
Let \(g_Q\) denote the Kähler metric on \(Q_n\) induced from the FubiniStudy metric \(g_{FS}\) on \(\mathbb {CP}^{n+1}\) (of constant holomorphic curvature 4) by the inclusion map \(\iota :Q_n\rightarrow \mathbb {CP}^{n+1}\), i.e., \(g_Q=\iota ^{*}g_{FS}\). The associated LeviCivita connection of \(Q_n\) is denoted by \(\nabla ^Q\). For both \(\mathbb {CP}^{n+1}\) and \(Q_n\), the complex structure shall be called J and the associated Kähler form \(\omega \).
Gathering the preceding information and carrying out a straightforward calculation, one obtains the following lemma.
Lemma 2.2
For the convenience of the reader we recall the definition of the Kulkarni–Nomizu product.
Definition 2.3
 (i)of two symmetric (2, 0)tensors \(h_1\) and \(h_2\) is the (4, 0)tensor Open image in new window given by
 (ii)of the skewsymmetric form \(\omega \) with itself is given by
3.2 From families of isoparametric hypersurfaces to a Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric
In Palmer [24, 25] showed that every oriented, immersed hypersurface in the sphere naturally leads to a Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric. We will apply this construction to isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres. In particular, we prove that every isoparametric hypersurface of a given family of isoparametric hypersurfaces leads to the same Lagrangian submanifold of the sphere.
We start by recalling the definition of the Stiefel manifold.
Definition 2.4
Note that \({\mathfrak {L}}(p)\) is by construction the oriented 2plane in \({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2}\) which is spanned by \({F}_{t}(p)\) and \(\nu _{tp}.\) Since we have \(\hat{F_t}=e^{it}{\hat{F}}_0\), the immersion \({\mathfrak {L}}\) does not depend on the parameter t. Thus, we obtain the following lemma (Fig. 2).
Lemma 2.5
Let a family of isoparametric hypersurfaces in a sphere be given. For each isoparametric hypersurface in this family we obtain the same immersion \({\mathfrak {L}}\).
As already mentioned above, the next result was first proved by Palmer [24, 25]. For convenience of the reader we reprove this result.
Proposition 2.6
([24, 25]) The map \({\mathfrak {L}}:=\pi \circ {\hat{F}}_{t}:M\rightarrow Q_n\), \(p\mapsto [{\hat{F}}_0(p)]\), is a Lagrangian immersion with normal vector field \(N_Z=\pm i\,d{\hat{F}}_0Z\), where \(Z\in TM.\)
Proof
Lemma 2.7
\({\hat{F}}_{t}(M)\) is horizontal with respect to the projection \(\pi :St_2({\mathbb {R}}^{n+2})\rightarrow Q_n.\)
Proof
Remark 2.8
The above construction was used by Ma and Ohnita [22] to classify compact homogeneous Lagrangian submanifolds in complex hyperquadrics.
3.3 A set of invariants of the Lagrangian submanifold
In this subsection we introduce a set of invariants for the Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric. Furthermore, for each of these invariants, we establish some basic properties.
3.3.1 The metric \({\hat{g}}\)
In the next two lemmas we relate \({\hat{g}}\) and the associated LeviCivita connection to \(g_t\) and \(\nabla ^t\), respectively.
Lemma 2.9
Proof
Remark 2.10
The induced metric \({\hat{g}}\) is the arithmetic mean of some \(g_{t}\):
Let \(\phi \in \left( 0,\pi /2g\right) \) be given and define the arc \(\xi _k\) for \(k\in \mathbb {N}\) by \(\xi _k=\phi +k\pi /2g\). Then \({\hat{g}}=\frac{1}{2}(g_{\phi }+g_{\phi +\pi /2})\) and \({\hat{g}}=\frac{1}{2g}\sum _{k=0}^{2g1}{g_{\xi _k}}\).
We denote the LeviCivita connection associated with \({\hat{g}}\) by \(\nabla \). The next lemma relates \(\nabla \) and \(\nabla ^t\).
Lemma 2.11
Proof
3.3.2 The tensor \(\alpha \)
Definition 2.12
Lemma 2.13
The map \(\alpha ^t:\Gamma (TM)^3\rightarrow C^{\infty }(M,{\mathbb {R}})\) is symmetric and trilinear. Furthermore, for each \(j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,g\right\} \) the restriction \(\alpha ^t:D_j\times D_j\times TM \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) is zero. In particular, the map \(\alpha ^t\) is trace free.
Proof
Next we endow \(\alpha ^{t}\) with a geometric meaning by proving that \(\alpha ^{t}\) is—up to a constant factor—given by the second fundamental form of \({\mathfrak {L}}(M)\subset Q^n\). In particular, \(\alpha ^t\) is independent of \(t\in \mathcal {R}\). In other words, we associate each isoparametric hypersurface in a family of isoparametric hypersurface with same tensor.
Theorem 2.14
Proof
Since \(\alpha ^t\) is independent of \(t\in \mathcal {R}\), we will denote this tensor henceforth simply by \(\alpha \).
3.4 The invariant \(B\otimes B^{1}\)
In this section we assign to each isoparametric hypersurface \((M,g_t)\) an operator \(B_t\) and show that \(B_t\otimes B_t^{1}\) is independent of t.
Definition 2.15
In what follows we denote by \({\hat{g}}\) also the complex bilinear extension of \({\hat{g}}\). By the very definition of \(B_t\) we get the following lemma.
Lemma 2.16
\({\hat{g}}(B_tX,Y)=({\hat{F}}_t^{*}q)(X,Y).\)
In other words \(B_t\) encodes the metric \({\hat{F}}_t^{*}q\) and thus arises as a natural invariant of the Lagrangian submanifold \({\mathfrak {L}}(M)\subset Q^n\).
Lemma 2.17
Proof
At first glance it might appear wrong to work with the operator \(B_t\) since it depends on the parameter t. As it turns out, however, all relevant identities factor through the operator \(B_t\otimes B_t^{1}\), which is independent of t.
Corollary 2.18
The expression \(B_t\otimes B_t^{1}\) is independent of \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof
By the last identity of Lemma 2.17 we get \(B_t=e^{2it}B_0\), which implies \(B_t^{1}=e^{2it}B_0^{1}\). Hence, \(B_t\otimes B_t^{1}=B_0\otimes B_0^{1}\). \(\square \)
The preceding corollary allows us to introduce the tensor \(B\otimes B^{1}:=B_t\otimes B_t^{1}\) for some \(t\in {\mathbb {R}}\).
In the next lemma we express the projections on the distributions in terms of \(B_{t}\).
Lemma 2.19
Proof
From Lemma 2.13 we have that \(\alpha (X,Y,Z)\) vanishes if two of its entries lie in the same distribution, i.e., we have \(\alpha (\pi _kX,\pi _kY,Z)=0\) for each \(k\in \{1,\ldots ,g\}\). In the next corollary we express the latter condition in terms of \(B\otimes B^{1}\).
Corollary 2.20
Proof
Apply Lemma 2.19 to the identity \(\alpha (\pi _kX,\pi _kY,Z)=0\) and sum over k. \(\square \)
4 Weyl and symmetry identities
In the present section we formulate all relevant identities in terms of the invariants \({\hat{g}}, \alpha \) and \(B\otimes B^{1}\). We in particular reveal the importance of the Weyl identities and explain how they enter the existing classification approaches.
In the first subsection we establish the fundamental submanifold equations for the Lagrangian submanifold of the complex quadric, i.e., the Codazzi, Gauss, and Ricci equations. In the second and third subsection we deduce the Weyl identities and the symmetry identities, respectively.
4.1 The Codazzi, Gauss, and Ricci equations
In this subsection we provide the Gauss equation, the Codazzi equation, and the Ricci equation for the submanifold \((M,{\hat{g}})\subset (Q^n,g_Q)\). Let \(X,Y,Z,W\in \Gamma (TM)\) throughout.
Proposition 3.1
 (1)
\((\nabla _{X}\alpha )(Y,Z,W)(\nabla _{Y}\alpha )(X,Z,W)=2\left[ T(X,Z,Y,W)+T(X,W,Y,Z)\right] \), and
 (2)
Proof
Remark 3.2
The Ricci equation of the Lagrangian submanifold \((M,g)\subset (Q_n,g_Q)\) is equivalent to the Gauss equation of \((M,g)\subset (Q_n,g_Q).\)
4.2 The Weyl identity
In this subsection we first recall the classical Weyl identities. Afterward, we provide the invariant Weyl identity. Finally, we will explain the importance of the Weyl identities.
4.2.1 The classical Weyl identities
In Karcher [12] deduced the socalled Weyl identities, which he describes as ‘relations between the principal curvatures and the covariant derivatives of the shape operator derived by differentiating the Codazzi equations and combining with the Gauss equations.’ These identities, which are henceforth referred to as the classical Weyl identities, are stated in the following theorem.
Theorem 3.3
By polarizing the preceding identity twice and expressing the resulting equation in terms of \(\alpha \) we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 3.4
Remark 3.5
The classical Weyl identities depend on several indices. Taking higher covariant derivatives of these identities would consequently lead to a plethora of different cases. The importance of the higher covariant derivatives of the Weyl identities is explained in Subsect. 3.2.3.
4.2.2 Invariant Weyl identity
The classical Weyl identities depend on several indices. In terms of the invariants introduced in Sect. 2, these multiple identities can be expressed as a single tensor identity, which we shall call the invariant Weyl identity.
In this subsection we provide the invariant Weyl identity. As preparation we establish the following two lemmas.
Lemma 3.6
\({\hat{g}}((\nabla _{X}B_t)Y,Z)=\frac{i}{2}\big (\alpha (X,B_tY,Z)+\alpha (X,Y,B_tZ)\big ).\)
Proof
Lemma 3.7
Proof
In the next theorem we finally provide the invariant Weyl identity.
Theorem 3.8
Proof
In terms of the better invariants \(({\hat{g}},\alpha ,B\otimes B^{1})\), the classical Weyl identities thus condense into one structural tensor identity. This, in particular, makes it feasible to consider higher derivatives of the Weyl identity. In the classical approaches this is not possible without considering a plethora of different cases.
4.2.3 The importance of the Weyl identity
In this subsection we explain the importance of the Weyl identity. First we relate the Weyl identity to several wellknown identities, e.g., the Cartan identity. Afterward, we explain why an invariant formulation of the Weyl identities is important.
Although in most parts of the literature the Weyl identity does not occur explicitly, it, however, plays a decisive role in all papers concerned with the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres. Karcher [12] was the first to prove the classical Weyl identities; in fact, is the only source mentioning them explicitly. Karcher showed that for \(g=3\) the Weyl identities turn each curvature distribution \(D_j\) into a normed algebra and thus reproved the results of Cartan in a structural way.
Lemma 3.9
The Weyl identities imply the Cartan identity.
Proof
Clearly, the Cartan identity is weaker than the Weyl identity.
Relation to the isospectral families L ( s ). The classification of the isospectral families L(s) at one focal manifold is the central step for the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \((g,m)=(6,1)\)—also see Sect. 4.1. Next we show that the Weyl identities encode the isospectrality of L(s).
Let \(\overline{p}\in M_j\). It is well known, see, e.g., [17], that \(T_{\overline{p}}M_j\) may be identified with \(\oplus _{i\ne j}D_i(q)\) for any \(q\in F_{\theta _j}^{1}(\overline{p})\). Consequently, the normal space \(\nu _{\overline{p}}M_j\) of \(M_j\) at \(\overline{p}\) is spanned by \(\nu _{\theta _j}(p)\) and a basis of \(D_j(p)\). Recall that for each choice of pairs of orthogonal vectors \(\nu _1,\nu _2\in \nu _{\overline{p}}M_j\) one gets a isospectral family \(L(s)=\cos (s)A_{\nu _1}+\sin (s)A_{\nu _2}\). We observe that the condition that L(s) is isospectral partially encodes the Weyl identity and higher covariant derivatives thereof. In the following theorem we shall make this statement more precise in the case \((g,m)=(6,1)\) only.
Theorem 3.10
Let \((g,m)=(6,1)\) and \(e_i\in D_i\) be unit vector fields. Furthermore, let \(\overline{p}\in M_6\) and \(p\in F_{\theta _j}^{1}(\overline{p})\). Denote by \(L_0\) and \(L_1\) the shape operator of \(M_6\) at \(\overline{p}\in M_6\) with respect to \(\nu _{\theta _6}(p)\) and \(e_6(p)\), respectively. The isospectrality of \(L(s)=\cos (s)L_0+\sin (s)L_1\) is equivalent to the classical Weyl identity with \((i,j)=(3,6)\) and the first four covariant derivatives with respect to \(e_6\in D_6\) thereof.
Proof
Advantages of the invariant Weyl identity. We shall now describe the advantages of the invariant Weyl identity deduced in the previous paragraph compared to the classical Weyl identities.
The discussion above, in particular Theorem 3.10, highlights what important role the higher covariant derivatives of the Weyl identities play in the classification. Since the classical Weyl identities depend on several indices, i.e., i and j, taking higher covariant derivatives of these identities would lead to a plethora of different cases. By contrast, in terms of the invariants \(\hat{g}\), \(\alpha \), and \(B\otimes B^{1}\) it is entirely possible to consider higher covariant derivatives since the Weyl identities are condensed in a single tensor identity.
In order to prove homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\), one needs to analyze the interaction of the isospectral families that show up at different focal submanifolds (on the same normal great circle of \(M^n\))—see also Sect. 4.1 for more details. The invariant Weyl identity contains all the information of isospectral families at different focal submanifolds!
For \(g=3\) the Weyl identities turn each curvature distribution \(D_j\) into a normed algebra [12]. An interesting question is if, as for \(g=3\), there exists a geometric structure for \(g=6\) captured by the Weyl identities. The existing examples suggest a geometry closely related to \(\mathrm {G}_2\). This approach might lead to a viable strategy for completing classification.
Another open question is whether for \(g=4\) the Weyl identity reflects parts of the Clifford algebra structure, which is the central underlying structure in this case.
4.3 Symmetry identities
Throughout this section p shall denote a fixed point of the manifold M.
Lemma 3.11
For \(j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,g\right\} \), the map \(\tau _j:M\rightarrow M\) is an isometry of \((M,{\hat{g}})\). Furthermore, the differences \(\theta _j\theta _k\) generate a discrete cyclic subgroup in \({\mathbb {R}}/{\mathbb {Z}\pi }\) and the involutions \(\tau _j, 1\le j\le g\), are the reflections in the dihedral group \(D_g=\left\langle \tau _1,\tau _g\right\rangle \subset \text{ Diff }(M)\).
Proof
In the next theorem we prove the identities which we call symmetry identities.
Theorem 3.12
Proof
Remark 3.13
 (1)
Note that the symmetry identities relate \(\alpha _p\) to \(\alpha _q\), where p and q are different points of M. This means that in contrast to the Weyl identities, the symmetry identities are not pointwise identities.
 (2)
In Section 4, Lemma 4.1 in [17] Miyaoka states some identities, which she refers to as ‘global symmetry’, and which were deduced by her in [13]. These identities are presumably equivalent to the symmetry identities. However, the author does not understand the proof of the ‘global identities’ in [13].
5 A geometric interpretation of homogeneity
In this section we prove that homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\) is equivalent to a geometric property of the Lagrangian submanifold in the complex quadric. We hope that a detailed study of the geometry of the Lagrangian submanifold finally will lead to a geometric classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \(g=6\).
This section is structured as follows: In the first subsection we recall what is known for the case \(g=6\); in the second subsection we determine \(\alpha \) for the homogeneous examples with \(g=6\). Finally, in the third subsection, we give several equivalent formulations of homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\).
5.1 Isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\)
In this subsection we summarize the known results for isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \(g=6\).
For the case of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \(g=6\), all multiplicities coincide and are given either by \(m=1\) or by \(m=2\) [1]. Furthermore, exactly two examples with \(g=6\) are known, both of which are homogeneous. They are given as orbits of the isotropy representation of \(\mathrm {G}_2/\mathrm {SO}(4)\) or as orbits in the unit sphere \(\mathbb {S}^{13}\) of the Lie algebra \(\mathfrak {g}_2\) of the adjoint representation of the Lie group \(\mathrm {G}_2\) and have multiplicities \(m=1\) and \(m=2\), respectively. The following conjecture is due to Dorfmeister and Neher and is believed to be true.
Conjecture
([9]) Each maximal isoparametric hypersurface with \(g=6\) principal curvatures is homogeneous.
Dorfmeister and Neher proved this conjecture in the affirmative for the case \(m=1\). Since homogeneous isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres were classified by Takagi and Takahashi [30], this provides a classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \((g,m)=(6,1)\). Similarly, proving that isoparametric hypersurfaces with \((g,m)=(6,2)\) are homogeneous would yield a classification of such hypersurfaces. Note that the case \(m=2\) is not classified yet, see the appendix of this paper. Therefore, proving the above conjecture still remains the goal for isoparametric hypersurfaces with \((g,m)=(6,2)\).
Below we explain the approach by Dorfmeister and Neher for the case \(m=1\). The starting point of their work is the following algebraic description of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres which is due to Münzner.
Theorem 4.1
 (a)Let \(M\subset \mathbb {S}^{n+1}\) be an isoparametric hypersurface with g distinct eigenvalues. Then there exists a homogeneous polynomial \(F:{\mathbb {R}}^{n+2}\rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) of degree g and positive integers \(m_1\) and \(m_2\) such that M is an open submanifold of a level surfacefor a \(t\in (1,1)\), and the identities$$\begin{aligned} M_t=\mathbb {S}^{n+1}\cap F^{1}(t) \end{aligned}$$and \(n=\tfrac{g}{2}(m_1+m_2)\) are satisfied.$$\begin{aligned}&\langle \text{ grad }F(x),\text{ grad }F(x)\rangle =g^2\langle x,x\rangle ^{g1},\\&\Delta F(x)=\tfrac{1}{2}(m_2m_1)g^2\langle x,x\rangle ^{g/21} \end{aligned}$$
 (b)
Conversely, for each homogeneous polynomial F of degree g satisfying the three identities in a), the level surfaces \(M_t\), \(t\in (1,1)\), are isoparametric.
For the case of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \((g,m)=(6,1)\), Dorfmeister and Neher proved that there exists—up to isomorphism—only one isoparametric polynomial in \({\mathbb {R}}^8\). The central step in their proof is a partial classification of the socalled Efamilies. Dorfmeister and Neher provided homogeneity by showing that only one of the explicit examples of Efamilies is associated with an isoparametric hypersurface in a sphere.
In [27] the author gave a simplified proof of the theorem of Dorfmeister and Neher. The central step in [27] consists in classifying the isospectral families at one focal submanifold, which can be shown to be equivalent to classifying the Efamilies introduced in [9]. Below we reformulate the essential insights from [9] and [27] in terms of the isospectral families, since we use this notation throughout this paper.
The homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\) is equivalent to the property that the kernels of the isospectral families L(s) are independent of s [9, 17]. Although requiring the family L(s) have eigenvalues \(\pm \sqrt{3}, \pm 1/\sqrt{3}\), and 0, all with the same multiplicity m, is a very restrictive condition on the symmetric real \(5m\times 5m\)matrices \(A_{\nu _1}\) and \(A_{\nu _2}\), so far no one has yet succeeded in classifying such matrices for \(m\ge 2\). Examples of such matrices are provided by the irreducible representations of \(\mathrm {SU}(2)\). Among these examples one finds cases where the kernel of L(s) is not constant when varying s. To prove homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\), it thus does not suffice to study the properties of just one isospectral family. One also needs to analyze the interaction of the isospectral families that show up at different focal submanifolds (on the same normal great circle of M).
Miyaoka also worked on the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces with \(g=6\).
Her work on the case \((g,m)=(6,1)\) is contained in [15] and the corresponding erratum [18]. However, there is still a crucial gap in the erratum [18]—see [27] for details.
Miyaoka’s work on the case \((g,m)=(6,2)\) is contained in [17] and the corresponding erratum [19]. However, there is also a crucial gap in the erratum [19]—see Appendix of the present paper.
5.2 Calculation of \(\alpha \) for the homogeneous examples with \(g=6\)
In the case \(g = 6\) only two examples are known, both of which are homogeneous. They are given as orbits of the isotropy representation of \(\mathrm {G}_2/\mathrm {SO}(4)\) or the compact real Lie group \(\mathrm {G}_2\), respectively. In both cases all six principal curvatures coincide and are given by \(m=1\) and \(m=2\), respectively.
Substituting the Christoffel symbols [14] into the above equation we obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 4.2
Next we consider the case \((g,m)=(6,2).\) Following Miyaoka, we use the notation \(\overline{f}_i:=f_{6+i},i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} \). Furthermore, an entry \(\overline{e}_i\) of \(\alpha \) will be denoted by an index \(\overline{i}\), e.g., \(\alpha (\overline{e}_1,e_5,e_6)\) is denoted by \(\alpha _{\overline{1}\,5\,6}.\) Clearly, \(f_i\) and \(\overline{f}_i\) constitute an orthonormal basis of the twodimensional distribution \(D_i\).
Remark 4.3
Note, that the above choice of \(f_i\) and \(\overline{f}_i\) is not canonical. This freedom in the choice of the basis is one of the reasons why computer computations, which aim to determine the possible \(\alpha \), fail until today.
Substituting the Christoffel symbols [16] into the above equation we obtain the following lemma.
Lemma 4.4
We used the above results to guess equivalent formulations for homogeneity. The following subsection contains our results of this procedure.
5.3 Equivalent formulations of homogeneity
In this subsection we provide several equivalent formulations of homogeneity. Throughout this subsection let \(X,Y,Z\in \Gamma (TM)\) and \(i\in \left\{ 1,2,3\right\} \).
For proving an extended version of Theorem B we need two preparatory lemmas.
Lemma 4.5
Proof
An easy calculation yields Open image in new window , and thus, the claim follows from Proposition 3.1. \(\square \)
Lemma 4.6
Proof
In the next theorem we finally provide several equivalent formulations for homogeneity of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \(g=6\).
Theorem 4.7
 (i)For each \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} \) we have$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3}Y,Z)=0. \end{aligned}$$
 (ii)For \(i,j,k\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,6\rbrace \) with \(j+k+l\not \equiv 0\,\,\text{ modulo }\,\,3\) we have$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (\pi _jX,\pi _{k}Y,\pi _{l}Z)=0. \end{aligned}$$
 (iii)The following identity is satisfied$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{j=0}^5{(1)^j\alpha (B^jX,B^{j}Y,Z)}=0. \end{aligned}$$
 (iv)The following sectional curvatures of \((M,{\hat{g}})\) vanish:$$\begin{aligned} R(\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3}Y,\pi _{i+3}Y,\pi _iX),\,i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} . \end{aligned}$$
 (v)
For \(j\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} \) the direct sum \(D_j\oplus D_{j+3}\) is integrable.
 (vi)
The kernel of each linear isospectral family L(s) is independent of \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\).
Proof

\((i)\Rightarrow (ii)\). Lemma 2.13 implies that \(\alpha (\pi _jX,\pi _{k}Y,\pi _{l}Z)\ne 0\) can only hold if \((j,k,l)=(n,n+2,n+4)\) or \((j,k,l)=(n,n+1,n+2)\), up to a permutation of \(n\in \{1,\ldots ,6\}\). Since in these cases the equation \(i+j+k=0\) holds modulo 3, the claim is proved.
 \((ii)\Rightarrow (i)\). Choose \(j=i\) and \(k=i+3\) for some \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} .\) Thenunless \(l\in \left\{ i,i+3\right\} \). For \(l\in \left\{ i,i+3\right\} \) the vanishing follows from Lemma 2.13.$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3}Y,\pi _{l}Z)=0 \end{aligned}$$
 \((i)\Rightarrow (iii)\). Using Lemma 2.19 we getwhere we made use of the last identity of Lemma 2.17 and \(\theta _{\ell +3}=\theta _{\ell }+\frac{\pi }{2}\) to obtain the last equality. By Lemma 2.17 again we obtain$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{\ell =1}^6{\pi _{\ell }\otimes \pi _{\ell +3}}=\tfrac{1}{6^2}\sum _{\ell =0}^5{\sum _{k,j=0}^5{B_{\theta _{\ell }}^k\otimes B_{\theta _{\ell +3}}^j}}=\tfrac{1}{6^2}\sum _{\ell =0}^5{\sum _{k,j=0}^5{(1)^jB_{\theta _{\ell }}^k\otimes B_{\theta _{\ell }}^j}}, \end{aligned}$$where we introduced \(\xi =e^{i\frac{\pi }{3}}\). Thus, we get$$\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{6^2}\sum _{\ell =0}^5{\sum _{k,j=0}^5{(1)^jB_{\theta _{\ell }}^k\otimes B_{\theta _{\ell }}^j}}= \tfrac{1}{6^2}\sum _{\ell =0}^5{\sum _{k,j=0}^5{(1)^j\xi ^{(j+k)\ell }B_{\pi /12}^k \otimes B_{\pi /12}^j}}, \end{aligned}$$where we made use of Lemma 2.17 to get the last equality. Combined we get$$\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{6^2}\sum _{\ell =0}^5{\sum _{k,j=0}^5{(1)^j\xi ^{(j+k)\ell } B_{\pi /12}^k \otimes B_{\pi /12}^j}}= \tfrac{1}{6}\sum _{j=0}^5{(1)^jB_0^j \otimes B_0^{j}}, \end{aligned}$$Hence, (i) implies$$\begin{aligned} \sum _{\ell =1}^6{\pi _{\ell }\otimes \pi _{\ell +3}}=\tfrac{1}{6}\sum _{j=0}^5{(1)^jB_0^j \otimes B_0^{j}}. \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned} \tfrac{1}{6}\sum _{j=0}^5{(1)^j\alpha (B_0^jX,B_0^{j}Y,Z)}=\sum _{i=1}^6{\alpha (\pi _i^{t}X,\pi _{i+3}^{t}Y,Z)}=0. \end{aligned}$$(8)

\((iii)\Rightarrow (i)\). Let \(1\le k\le 6\) be given. Substitute \(X=\pi _kX_1\) and \(Y=\pi _{k+3}Y_1\), \(X_1,Y_1\in \Gamma (TM)\), in Eq. (8) and use \(\pi _i\circ \pi _j=\delta _{i,j}\) for any \(i,j\in \lbrace 1,..,6\rbrace \).

\((i)\Leftrightarrow (iv)\). One direction is immediate from Lemma 4.5 and the other follows from the fact that \(\alpha \) is real.
 \((i)\Rightarrow (v)\). Eq. (7) is equivalent to the statementfor all \(X,Y,Z\in \Gamma (TM)\). Making use of Lemma 3.6 and the equalities \(B_{\theta _j}\pi _j X=\pi _j X\) and \(B_{\theta _j}\pi _{j+3} X=\pi _{j+3} X\) one finds that the preceding equation is equivalent to$$\begin{aligned} {\hat{g}}((\nabla _{\hat{X}}B_{\theta _j}^2){\hat{Y}}(\nabla _{{\hat{Y}}}B_{\theta _j}^2)\hat{X},Z)=0 \end{aligned}$$This equation is satisfied since holds by (ii) and Lemma 2.13.$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (\hat{X},B_{\theta _j}{\hat{Y}},B_{\theta _j}Z)\alpha (B_{\theta _j}\hat{X},{\hat{Y}}, B_{\theta _j}Z)=0. \end{aligned}$$
 \((v)\Rightarrow (i)\). Making again use of the equations \(B_{\theta _j}\pi _j X=\pi _j X\) and \(B_{\theta _j}\pi _{j+3} X=\pi _{j+3} X\) one verifies easily that Eq. (7) is equivalent toApplying this equation to \(X=\pi _jX_1\) and \(Y=\pi _{j+3}Y_1\), for arbitrary \(X_1,Y_1\in \Gamma (TM)\), yields the claim.$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (\pi _jX,\pi _{j+3}Y,Z)\alpha (\pi _{j+3}X,\pi _{j}Y,Z)=0\quad \text{ for } \text{ all }\quad Z\in \Gamma (TM). \end{aligned}$$
 \((vi)\Rightarrow (i)\). We first assume \(m=1\). In the proof of Theorem 3.10, we described the linear isospectral family \(L(s)=\cos (s)L_0+\sin (s)L_1\), \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\), of the focal submanifold \(F_{\theta _6}\) for the case \(m=1\) in terms of \(\alpha _{i\,j\,\,k}\), see Eq. (6). Clearly, the kernel of \(L_0\) is given by \(e_3=(0,0,1,0,0)^{tr}\). Hence, the constancy of the kernel of L(s) implies that the kernel of \(L_1\) is also given by \(e_3\). By (6), this is equivalent to the identity \(\alpha (\pi _3X,\pi _6Y,Z)=0\). Carrying out analogous considerations for \(F_{\theta _j}, j\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,5\rbrace \), we finally get \(\alpha (\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3}Y,Z)=0\) for all \(i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,6\rbrace \). The case \(m=2\) is proved analogously. Indeed, consider again the linear isospectral family \(L(s,t)=\cos (s)L_0+\sin (s)(\cos (t)L_1+\sin (t)L_2)\), \(s,t\in {\mathbb {R}}\), of the focal submanifold \(F_{\theta _6}\) in terms of \(\alpha _{i\,j\,\,k}\). Here we havewhere$$\begin{aligned} L_2=\left( {\begin{matrix} 0_2&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{1\,2}&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,B_{1\,3}&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{1\,4}&{}\quad \sqrt{2}\,B_{1\,5}\\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{2\,1}&{}\quad 0_2&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\,B_{2\,3}&{}\quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\,B_{2\,4}&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{2\,5}\\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,B_{3\,1}&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\,B_{3\,2}&{}\quad 0_2&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\,B_{3\,4}&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,B_{3\,5}\\ \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{4\,1}&{}\quad \frac{\sqrt{2}}{3}\,B_{4\,2}&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{6}}\,B_{4\,3}&{}\quad 0_2&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{4\,5}\\ \sqrt{2}\,B_{5\,1}&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{5\,2}&{}\quad \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,B_{5\,3}&{}\quad \sqrt{\frac{2}{3}}\,B_{5\,4}&{}\quad 0_2 \end{matrix}} \right) , \end{aligned}$$As in the case \(m=1\), the constancy of the kernel of L(s, t) implies the identity \(\alpha (\pi _3X,\pi _6Y,Z)=0\). Again, the claim is established by carrying out analogous considerations for \(F_{\theta _j}, j\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,5\rbrace \).$$\begin{aligned} A_{i\,j}=\left( \begin{array}{c@{\quad }c} \alpha _{i\,j\,6}&{}\alpha _{i\,\overline{j}\,6}\\ \alpha _{\overline{i}\,j\,6}&{}\alpha _{\overline{i}\,\overline{j}\,6}\\ \end{array}\right) \quad \text{ and }\quad B_{i\,j}=\left( \begin{array}{c@{\quad }c} \alpha _{i\,j\,\overline{6}}&{}\alpha _{i\,\overline{j}\,\overline{6}}\\ \alpha _{\overline{i}\,j\,\overline{6}}&{}\alpha _{\overline{i}\,\overline{j}\,\overline{6}}\\ \end{array}\right) . \end{aligned}$$

\((i)\Rightarrow (vi)\). Let us first consider the case \(m=1\). Since \(\alpha (\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3},Y,Z)=0\) for all \(i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,6\rbrace \), all entries of the third row (and thus the third column) of L(s) are 0. Thus, \(e_3\) (the third vector of the standard basis in \({\mathbb {R}}^5\)) lays in the kernel of L(s) for all \(s\in {\mathbb {R}}\). Since the kernel of L(s) is onedimensional, the claim is established. Next, suppose \(m=2\). Since \(\alpha (\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3},Y,Z)=0\) for all \(i\in \lbrace 1,\ldots ,6\rbrace \), all entries of the fifth and the sixth rows (and thus the fifth and the sixth columns) of L(s, t) are 0. Thus, \(e_5\) and \(e_6\) (the fifth and sixth vectors of the standard basis in \({\mathbb {R}}^{10}\)) lay in the kernel of L(s, t) for all \(s,t\in {\mathbb {R}}\). Since the kernel of L(s, t) is twodimensional, the claim is established.
Using the classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \(g=6\) and \(m=1\) given by Dorfmeister and Neher [9], we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 4.8
Assume \((g,m)=(6,1).\) For all \(i\in \left\{ 1,\ldots ,6\right\} \) the sectional curvatures \(R(\pi _iX,\pi _{i+3}Y,\pi _{i+3}Y,\pi _iX)=0\) of \((M,{\hat{g}})\) vanish.
Theorem 4.7 establishes a new strategy for proving homogeneity of isoparametric surfaces in spheres with \(g=6\): We hope that a detailed study of the geometry of the Lagrangian submanifold in the complex quadric might be helpful.
Notes
Acknowledgements
Open access funding provided by Max Planck Society. It is a pleasure to thank Prof. Dr. Uwe Abresch for introducing me to isoparametric hypersurfaces and for his generous support. I benefitted enormously from numerous mathematical discussions with him. Furthermore, I am very grateful to Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Ziller and Prof. Dr. Gudlaugur Thorbergsson for their many valuable comments and for fruitful mathematical discussions. Moreover, I would like to thank the referee for carefully reading the manuscript and for giving such constructive comments which substantially helped to improve the quality of the manuscript. This work was finished while the author was supported by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft with the Grant SI 2077/11. Last, but not least, I would like to thank the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn for providing excellent working conditions.
References
 1.Abresch, U.: Isoparametric hypersurfaces with four or six distinct principal curvatures. Math. Ann. 264, 283–302 (1983)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 2.Cartan, E.: Familles de surfaces isoparamétriques dans les espaces à courbure constante. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 17, 177–191 (1938)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 3.Cartan, E.: Sur des familles remarquables d’hypersurfaces isoparamétriques dans les espaces sphériques. Math. Z. 45, 335–367 (1939)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 4.Cartan, E.: Sur quelques familles remarquables d’hypersurfaces. C. R. Congrès Math. Liège. 1, 30–41 (1939)MATHGoogle Scholar
 5.Cartan, E.: Sur des familles d’hypersurfaces isoparamétriques des espaces sphériques à \(5\) et à \(9\) dimensions. Revista Univ. Nac. Tucumán, Revista A 1, 5–22 (1940)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 6.Cecil, T.: Isoparametric and Dupin hypersurfaces. SIGMA 4, 197–211 (2008)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 7.Cecil, T., Chi, Q., Jensen, G.: Isoparametric hypersurfaces with four principal curvatures. Ann. Math. 166, 1–76 (2007)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 8.Chi, Q.: Isoparametric hypersurfaces with four principal curvatures, IV, arXiv:1605.00976
 9.Dorfmeister, J., Neher, E.: Isoparametric hypersurfaces, case \(g=6\), \(m=1\). Comm. Algebra 13, 2299–2368 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 10.Ferus, D., Karcher, H., Münzner, H.F.: Cliffordalgebren und neue isoparametrische Hyperflächen. Math. Z. 177, 479–502 (1981)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 11.Gasqui, J., Goldschmidt, H.: Radon transforms and the rigidity of the Grassmannians. Annals of Mathematics Studies, p. 384. Princeton University Press, Princeton (2004)Google Scholar
 12.Karcher, H.: A geometric classification of positively curved symmetric spaces and the isoparametric construction of the Cayley plane, Lecture Notes (Rome)Google Scholar
 13.Miyaoka, R.: Dupin hypersurfaces with six principal curvatures. Kodai Math. J. 12, 308–315 (1989)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 14.Miyaoka, R.: The linear isotropy group of \(G_2/ \text{ SO }(4)\), the Hopf fibering and isoparametric hypersurfaces. Osaka J. Math. 30, 179–202 (1993)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 15.Miyaoka, R.: The DorfmeisterNeher theorem on isoparametric hypersurfaces. Osaka J. Math. 46, 695–715 (2009)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 16.Miyaoka, R.: Geometry of \(\text{ G }_{2}\) orbits and isoparametric hypersurfaces. Nagoya Math. J. 203, 175–189 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 17.Miyaoka, R.: Isoparametric hypersurfaces with \((g, m)=(6,2)\). Ann. Math. 177, 53–110 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 18.Miyaoka, R.: Remarks on the DorfmeisterNeher theorem on isoparametric hypersurfaces. Osaka J. Math. 52, 373–377 (2015)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
 19.Miyaoka, R.: Errata of ‘Isoparametric hypersurfaces with (g, m)=(6,2)’. Ann. Math. 183, 1057–1071 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 20.Münzner, H.F.: Isoparametrische Hyperflächen in Sphären. Math. Ann. 251, 57–71 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 21.Münzner, H.F.: Isoparametrische Hyperflächen in Sphären II. Math. Ann. 255, 215–232 (1981)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 22.Ma, H., Ohnita, Y.: On Lagrangian submanifolds in complex hyperquadrics and isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres. Math. Z. 261, 749–785 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 23.Nomizu, K.: Some results in E. Cartan’s theory of isoparametric families of hypersurfaces. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 79, 1184–1188 (1973)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 24.Palmer, B.: Buckling eigenvalues, Gauss maps and Lagrangian submanifolds. Differ. Geom. Appl. 4, 391–403 (1994)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 25.Palmer, B.: Hamiltonian minimality and Hamiltonian stability of Gauss maps. Differ. Geom. Appl. 7, 51–58 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 26.Segre, B.: Famiglie di ipersuperficie isoparametriche negli spazi euclidei ad un qualunque numero di dimensioni. Atti. Accad. Naz. Lincei, Rend., VI. Ser. 27, 203–207 (1938)MATHGoogle Scholar
 27.Siffert, A.: Classification of isoparametric hypersurfaces in spheres with \((g, m)=(6,1)\). Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 144, 2217–2230 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 28.Somigliana, C.: Sulle relazioni fra il principio di Huygens e l’ottica geometrica. Atti. Acc. Sci. Torino 54, 974–979 (1919)MATHGoogle Scholar
 29.Stolz, S.: Multiplicities of Dupin hypersurfaces. Invent. Math. 138, 253–279 (1999)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
 30.Takagi, R., Takahashi, T.: On the principal curvatures of homogeneous hypersurfaces in a sphere. Differential geometry (in honor of Kentaro Yano), pp. 469–481. Kinokuniya, Tokyo (1972)Google Scholar
 31.Thorbergsson, G.: A survey on isoparametric hypersurfaces and their generalizations. Handb. Differ. Geom. I, 963–995 (2000)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
Copyright information
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.