arxiv: v2 [math.dg] 29 Jan 2015

Transcription

1 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR arxiv: v2 [math.dg] 29 Jan 2015 ABSTRACT. We study invariant submanifolds of manifolds endowed with a normal or complex metric contact pair with decomposable endomorphism field φ. For the normal case, we prove that a φ-invariant submanifold tangent to a Reeb vector field and orthogonal to the other one is minimal. For a φ-invariant submanifold N everywhere transverse to both the Reeb vector fields but not orthogonal to them, we prove that it is minimal if and only if the angle between the tangential componentξ (with respect to N) of a Reeb vector field and the Reeb vector field itself is constant along the integral curves of ξ. For the complex case (when just one of the two natural almost complex structures is supposed to be integrable), we prove that a complex submanifold is minimal if and only if it is tangent to both the Reeb vector fields. 1. INTRODUCTION It is well known that on a Kähler manifold the J-invariant submanifolds (J being the complex structure of the Kähler manifold) are minimal. On the other hand for a Sasakian manifold, and more generally for a contact metric manifold, a φ-invariant submanifold is also minimal, where φ is the endomorphism field of the contact metric structure. Similar results are known for a special class of Hermitian manifolds, that is the class of locally conformally Kähler (lck) manifolds and in particular for the subclass of Vaisman manifolds. Dragomir and Ornea [12, Theorem 12.1] have shown that a J-invariant submanifold of an lck manifold is minimal if and only if the submanifold is tangent to the Lee vector field (and therefore tangent to the anti-lee vector field). In fact this result is a slight generalization of the following result of Vaisman [15]: a J-invariant submanifold of a generalized Hopf manifold (nowadays called Vaisman manifold) inherits a generalized Hopf manifold structure if and only if it is minimal (or, equivalently, if and only if the submanifold is tangent to the Lee vector field). In [9] it was shown that the notion of non-kähler Vaisman manifold, after constant rescaling of the metric, is equivalent to the notion of normal metric contact pair [7] of type(h,0) and the Lee and anti-lee vector fields correspond to the Reeb vectors fields of the pair. Moreover this equivalence enlightened the fact that on a Vaisman manifold there is another complex structure T with opposite orientation with respect to J. In terms of normal metric contact pairs the generalization of Vaisman s result can be stated as follows: a J-invariant submanifold of a normal metric contact pair manifold of type (h,0) is minimal if and only if the submanifold is tangent to the Reeb vector fields or, equivalently, if it is also T -invariant. These observations lead to the study of the invariant submanifolds of normal metric contact pairs of type (h,k) [7] also called Hermitian bicontact structures [11]. Date: May 8, 2018; MSC 2010 classification: primary 53C25; secondary 53B20, 53D10, 53B35, 53C12. Key words and phrases. Contact Pair; Vaisman manifold; Invariant submanifold; Minimal submanifold. The first author was supported by P.R.I.N. 2010/11 Varietà reali e complesse: geometria, topologia e analisi armonica Italy. 1

2 2 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR More precisely, recall that a metric contact pair [6] of type (h,k) on a manifold M is 4-tuple (α 1,α 2,φ,g) such that (α 1,α 2 ) is a contact pair [2, 5] of type (h,k), φ is an endomorphism field ofm such that φ 2 = Id+α 1 Z 1 +α 2 Z 2, φz 1 = φz 2 = 0, where Z 1 and Z 2 are the Reeb vector fields of (α 1,α 2 ), and g is a Riemannian metric such that g(x,φy) = (dα 1 + dα 2 )(X,Y) and g(x,z i ) = α i (X), for i = 1,2. The metric contact pair is said to be normal [7] if the two almost complex structures of opposite orientations J = φ α 2 Z 1 +α 1 Z 2 and T = φ+α 2 Z 1 α 1 Z 2 are integrable. A quite important notion is the one of decomposability ofφ, which means that the tangent spaces of the leaves of the characteristic foliations of the pair are preserved by φ. The decomposability of φ is equivalent to the orthogonality of the two characteristic foliations and implies that the their leaves are φ-invariant submanifolds and moreover minimal [8]. In this paper, after giving some characterizations of normal metric contact pairs with decomposableφ, we address the problem of the minimality of the invariant submanifolds. Observe that on a metric contact pair manifold we have several notions of invariant submanifold: with respect to φ, to J or to T. We first give some general results concerning the invariant submanifolds of a metric contact pair manifold with decomposable φ, then we specialize to the normal case and we prove the following: Theorem 23. Let(M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal metric contact pair manifold with decomposable φ and Reeb vector fieldsz 1 andz 2. IfN is aφ-invariant submanifold ofm such thatz 1 is tangent and Z 2 orthogonal to N, then N is minimal. Moreover if N is connected, then it is a Sasakian submanifold of one of the Sasakian leaves of the characteristic foliation of α 2. Theorem 24. Let(M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal metric contact pair manifold with decomposable φ and Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2. Let N be a φ-invariant submanifold of M nowhere tangent and nowhere orthogonal toz 1 andz 2. ThenN is minimal if and only if the angle betweenz T 1 (Z T 1 being the tangential component of Z 1 along N) and Z 1 (or equivalently Z 2 ) is constant along the integral curves ofz T 1. Theorem 26. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a metric contact pair manifold with decomposableφ and Reeb vector fieldsz 1 andz 2. Suppose that the almost complex structurej = φ α 2 Z 1 +α 1 Z 2 is integrable. Then a J-invariant submanifoldn of M is minimal if and only if it is tangent to the Reeb distribution. The last result, applied to the case of a normal metric contact pair, gives the desired generalization of the result of Vaisman to normal metric contact pairs of type (h,k). Nevertheless it should be remarked that the full generalization of the original Vaisman result concerning the Vaisman manifolds is not true. In fact we give an example where the submanifold is bothj andt -invariant, then tangent to the Reeb distribution, and therefore minimal, but it does not inherit the contact pair structure of the ambient manifold. In what follows we denote by Γ(B) the space of sections of a vector bundle B. For a given foliation F on a manifold M, we denote by TF the subbundle of TM whose fibers are given by the distribution tangent to the leaves. All the differential objects considered are assumed to be smooth.

3 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 3 2. PRELIMINARIES A contact pair (or bicontact structure) [2, 5, 11] of type(h,k) on a manifoldm is a pair(α 1,α 2 ) of 1-forms such that: α 1 (dα 1 ) h α 2 (dα 2 ) k is a volume form, (dα 1 ) h+1 = 0 and (dα 2 ) k+1 = 0. The Élie Cartan characteristic classes ofα 1 and α 2 are constant and equal to 2h+1 and 2k +1 respectively. The distribution Kerα 1 Kerdα 1 (respectively Kerα 2 Kerdα 2 ) is completely integrable [2, 5] and then it determines the characteristic foliationf 1 ofα 1 (respectivelyf 2 ofα 2 ) whose leaves are endowed with a contact form induced by α 2 (respectivelyα 1 ). The equations α 1 (Z 1 ) = α 2 (Z 2 ) = 1, α 1 (Z 2 ) = α 2 (Z 1 ) = 0, i Z1 dα 1 = i Z1 dα 2 = i Z2 dα 1 = i Z2 dα 2 = 0, wherei X is the contraction with the vector fieldx, determine uniquely the two vector fieldsz 1 and Z 2, called Reeb vector fields. Since they commute [2, 5], they give rise to a locally free R 2 -action, an integrable distribution called Reeb distribution, and then a foliation R of M by surfaces. The tangent bundle ofm can be split as: TM = TF 1 TF 2 = H 1 H 2 V, wheretf i is the subbundle determined by the characteristic foliationf i,h i the subbundle whose fibers are given by kerdα i kerα 1 kerα 2, V = RZ 1 RZ 2 and RZ 1,RZ 2 the line bundles determined by the Reeb vector fields. Moreover we havetf 1 = H 1 RZ 2 andtf 2 = H 2 RZ 1. The fibers of the subbundleh 1 H 2 are given by the distributionkerα 1 kerα 2. Definition 1. We say that a vector field is vertical if it is a section of V and horizontal if it is a section of H 1 H 2. A tangent vector will be said vertical if it lies in V and horizontal if it lies in H 1 H 2. The subbundlesv and H 1 H 2 will be called vertical and horizontal respectively. The two distributions kerdα 1 and kerdα 2 are also completely integrable and give rise to the characteristic foliationsg i of dα i respectively. We have TG i = H i V, for i = 1,2. The contact pair onm induces on each leaf ofg 1 (respectively ofg 2 ) a contact pair of type(0,k) (respectively (h,0)). Each of them is foliated by leaves off 1 (respectively off 2 ) and also by leaves ofr. A contact pair structure [6] on a manifold M is a triple (α 1,α 2,φ), where (α 1,α 2 ) is a contact pair and φ a tensor field of type(1,1) such that: φ 2 = Id+α 1 Z 1 +α 2 Z 2, φz 1 = φz 2 = 0, wherez 1 and Z 2 are the Reeb vector fields of(α 1,α 2 ). One can see that α i φ = 0, for i = 1,2 and that the rank of φ is equal to dimm 2. The endomorphismφis said to be decomposable ifφ(tf i ) TF i, fori = 1,2. In [7] we defined the notion of normality for a contact pair structure as the integrability of the two natural almost complex structures of opposite orientations J = φ α 2 Z 1 + α 1 Z 2 and T = φ+α 2 Z 1 α 1 Z 2 on M. This is equivalent to the vanishing of the tensor field N 1 (X,Y) = [φ,φ](x,y)+2dα 1 (X,Y)Z 1 +2dα 2 (X,Y)Z 2, where[φ,φ] is the Nijenhuis tensor ofφ.

4 4 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR A compatible metric [6] with respect to a contact pair structure(α 1,α 2,φ) on a manifoldm, with Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2 is a Riemannian metric g on M such that g(φx,φy) = g(x,y) α 1 (X)α 1 (Y) α 2 (X)α 2 (Y) for all X,Y Γ(TM). A Riemannian metric g is said to be an associated metric [6] if g(x,φy) = (dα 1 +dα 2 )(X,Y) and g(x,z i ) = α i (X), for i = 1,2 and for all X,Y Γ(TM). It is clear that an associated metric is compatible, but the converse is not true. However a compatible metric always satisfies the second equation g(x,z i ) = α i (X), for i = 1,2, and then the subbundlesh 1 H 2, RZ 1, RZ 2 are pairwise orthogonal. A metric contact pair (MCP) on a manifold M is a 4-tuple (α 1,α 2,φ,g) where (α 1,α 2,φ) is a contact pair structure andg an associated metric with respect to it. The manifoldm will be called an MCP manifold or an MCP for short. For an MCP (α 1,α 2,φ,g) the endomorphism field φ is decomposable if and only if the characteristic foliationsf 1,F 2 are orthogonal [6]. In this case(α i,φ,g) induces a metric contact structure on the leaves off j, forj i. Also, the MCP induces MCP s on the leaves ofg i. It has been shown in [9] that a normal MCP structure of type(h,0) is nothing but a non-kähler Vaisman structure on the manifold. If the MCP on M is normal with decomposable endomorphism, then the leaves of F i are Sasakian. Also, those of G i are non-kähler Vaisman manifolds foliated by leaves of F i (which are Sasakian) and by leaves ofr(which are complex curves). Interesting examples and properties of such structures were given in [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Example 2. If(M 1,α 1,φ 1,g 1 ) and(m 2,α 2,φ 2,g 2 ) are two Sasakian manifolds, then the structure (α 1,α 2,φ,g) with φ = φ 1 φ 2 and g = g 1 g 2 is a normal MCP on the product M 1 M 2 with decomposable endomorphism. So we have such a structure on R 2h+2k+2 using the standard Sasakian structures on R 2h+1 and R 2k+1 given by α 1 = 1 2 (dz h y idx i ), g 1 = α 1 α h ((dx i) 2 +(dy i ) 2 ) α 2 = 1 2 (dz k j=1 y j dx j ), g 2 = α 2 α k j=1 ((dx j )2 +(dy j )2 ). The Reeb vector fields are Z 1 = 2 and Z z 2 = 2. The endomorphismφsends the vector fields z X i = y i tox h+i = x i +y i and z X j = to X y j k+j = +y x j. j z Remark 3. As already explained in [7, Section 3.4], normal MCP manifolds were already studied in [11] under the name of bicontact Hermitian manifolds and can be regarded as a generalization of the Calabi-Eckmann manifolds. An MCP is a special case of a metricf-structure with complemented frames in the sense of Yano [16]. The normality condition for such structures is well known and is in fact the same condition we have asked for an MCP to be normal. What is completely new in our context is the fact that the normality condition is equivalent to the integrability of the two almost complex structures J and T defined above. Even in the special case of the Vaisman manifolds this was not known as it was observed in [9] (see the short discussion before Proposition 2.10) where it was used for classification purposes. It should also be observed that P-manifolds introduced in [14] by Vaisman are MCP manifolds of type(h,0) with Killing Reeb vector fields. 3. NORMAL METRIC CONTACT PAIRS We are now interested on metric contact pairs which are at the same time normal. The following proposition is an immediate corollary of [4, Corollary 3.2 and Theorem 3.4].

5 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 5 Proposition 4. Let (α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal MCP on a manifold, with decomposable φ, Reeb vector fields Z 1, Z 2, and Z = Z 1 + Z 2. Let be the Levi-Civita connection of the associated metricg. Then we have (1) (2) g(( X φ)y,w) = X Z = φx. [dα i (φy,x)α i (W) dα i (φw,x)α i (Y)]; Now we want to characterize the normal MCP manifolds between the MCP s as Sasakian manifolds are between the almost contact manifolds. Theorem 5. Let(α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a contact pair structure on a manifoldm with compatible metric g, decomposableφand Reeb vector fieldsz 1,Z 2. Then(α 1,α 2,φ,g) is a normal MCP if and only if, for allx,y Γ(TM), (3) ( X φ)y = [g(x i,y i )Z i α i (Y i )X i ], wherex i andy i,i = 1,2, are the orthogonal projections ofx andy respectively on the foliation F j, withj i. Proof. Suppose that(α 1,α 2,φ,g) is a normal MCP. By (1), for all W Γ(TM) we have: g(( X φ)y,w) =g(( X1 φ)y,w)+g(( X2 φ)y,w) = [dα i (φy,x i )α i (W) dα i (φw,x i )α i (Y)] = = [(dα 1 +dα 2 )(φy i,x i )α i (W) (dα 1 +dα 2 )(φw,x i )α i (Y i )] [g(x i,y i )g(w,z i ) α i (Y i )g(w,x i )] =g(w, [g(x i,y i )Z i α i (Y i )X i ]), which is equivalent to (3). Conversely, suppose that (3) is true. PuttingY = Z j in (3), we obtain φ X Z = ( X φ)z = α 1 (X)Z 1 +α 2 (X)Z 2 X = φ 2 X,

6 6 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR where Z = Z 1 + Z 2. This gives X Z = φx since X Z is horizontal (see [4, Lemma 3.5]). Then we have: dα 1 (X,Y)+dα 2 (X,Y) = 1 2 = 1 2 [Xα i (Y) Yα i (X) α i ([X,Y])] [Xg(Z i,y) Yg(Z i,x) g(z i, X Y Y X)] = 1 2 [g( XZ,Y) g( Y Z,X)] = 1 2 [g( φx,y)+g(φy,x)] = g(x,φy), which means that the compatible metricg is even associated. To prove the vanishing of the tensor field N 1, let us compute [φ,φ]. Taking X Γ(TF 1 ) and Y Γ(TF 2 ) in (3), we obtain 0 = ( X φ)y = X (φy) φ X Y, which implies X (φy) = φ X Y. Then we obtain [φ,φ](x,y) =φ 2 [X,Y] φ[φx,y] φ[x,φy]+[φx,φy] =φ 2 ( X Y Y X) φ( φx Y φ Y X) =0 φ(φ X Y φy X)+φ φx Y φ φy X and N 1 (X,Y) = [φ,φ](x,y) = 0. Now by (3) with X,Y Γ(TF 1 ), we have ( X φ)y = g(x,y)z 2 α 2 (Y)X. Then we get [φ,φ](x,y) =φ 2 ( X Y Y X) φ( φx Y φ Y X ( Y φ)x) φ(φ X Y +( X φ)y φy X)+φ φx Y φ φy X =g(φx,y)z 2 g(x,φy)z 2 = 2dα 2 (X,Y)Z 2. Hence N 1 (X,Y) = [φ,φ](x,y)+2dα 2 (X,Y)Z 2 = 0. In the same way we obtain N 1 (X,Y) = [φ,φ](x,y)+2dα 1 (X,Y)Z 1 = 0 for allx,y Γ(TF 2 ). This shows the normality and completes the proof. Theorem 6. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be an MCP manifold with decomposable φ, Z 1, Z 2 the Reeb vector fields andz = Z 1 +Z 2. Let R be the curvature operator of g. Then the MCP (α 1,α 2,φ,g) is normal if and only if (4) R XY Z = [α i (Y i )X i α i (X i )Y i ].

7 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 7 Proof. Suppose that the MCP is normal. By (2) and (3), for allx,y Γ(TM), we have R XY Z = X (φy)+ Y (φx)+φ[x,y] = ( X φ ) Y + ( Y φ ) X = [α i (Y i )X i α i (X i )Y i ]. Conversely suppose that (4) is true. Then fory horizontal we have: R ZY Z = Y 1 Y 2 = Y. Using this in the following equation 1( RZX Z φ(r ZφX Z) ) = φ 2 X +h 2 X, 2 which holds for MCP manifolds (see [4, Proposition 4.1]), where h = 1L 2 Zφ and L Z is the Lie derivative along Z, we get 1 2 ( Y φ( φy)) = φ2 Y +h 2 Y which implies h = 0. In particular from the equation X Z = φx φhx (see [4, Theorem 3.4]), we have X Z = φx. Sinceh = 0, the vector fieldz is Killing [4, 6], then it is affine and we have: R ZX Y = X Y Z + X YZ = X φy φ X Y = ( X φ)y. Then for everyx,y,w Γ(TM), recalling that for an MCP with decomposableφthe characteristic foliations are orthogonal, we obtain: g(( X φ)y,w) = g(r ZX Y,W) = g(r YW Z,X) = g( [α i (W i )Y i α i (Y i )W i ],X) = = [g(α i (W)Y i,x i ) g(w,α i (Y i )X i )] [g(w,z i )g(y i,xi) g(w,α i (Y i )X i )] = g(w, [g(y i,x i )Z i α i (Y i )X i ]), which implies that ( X φ)y = 2 [g(x i,y i )Z i α i (Y i )X i ] and then the pair is normal by Theorem φ-invariant SUBMANIFOLDS In this section we study the φ-invariant submanifolds of MCP manifolds. We first give some general results, then we specialize to several cases concerning the submanifold position relative to the Reeb distribution. Let(α 1,α 2,φ) be a contact pair structure of type(h,k) on a manifoldm. Definition 7. A submanifoldn ofm is said to be invariant with respect toφ(orφ-invariant) if its tangent space at every point is preserved by φ, that is ifφ p T p N T p N for allp N.

8 8 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR In the same way one can define J-invariant submanifolds and T -invariant submanifolds for the two almost complex structures defined in Section 2. The simplest examples ofφ-invariant surfaces are given by the leaves of the foliationrtangent to the Reeb distribution. When we suppose the endomorphism field φ decomposable, by definition the leaves of the two characteristic foliationsf i of the1-formsα i areφ-invariant. The same is true for the leaves of the two characteristic foliationsg i of the 2-forms dα i. Observe that in the second case only one of the two Reeb vector fields is tangent to the submanifolds. In the first and third cases both the Reeb vector fields are tangent and such submanifolds are invariant with respect to J andt. Despite to the case of a metric contact manifold, where the Reeb vector field is always tangent to a φ-invariant submanifold, in our case the situation can be quite different as we have just seen. We will show several nontrivial examples in the sequel. In what follows (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) will be a given MCP manifold with Reeb vector fields Z 1, Z 2 and N a φ-invariant submanifold of M. We will denote by Zi T (respectively Zi ) the tangential (respectively normal) component of the two vector fields Z 1 andz 2 alongn. Proposition 8. Along the φ-invariant submanifold N the tangent vector fields Z1 T, ZT 2 normal vector fieldsz1, Z 2 are vertical. and the Proof. For every X Γ(TN) we have g(φzi,x) = g(z i,φx) = 0 because φx Γ(TN). Then the vector fields φzi are also orthogonal to N. As 0 = (φz i ) N = φzi T + φzi, we get φzi T = φzi = 0 because one is tangent and the other is orthogonal to N. We conclude by recalling that the distributionkerφ is spanned byz 1 andz 2. Proposition 9. There is no pointpof theφ-invariant submanifoldn such that the tangent vectors (Z 1 ) p and(z 2 ) p are both orthogonal to the tangent spacet p N. Proof. If at a point p N the two vectors (Z i ) p (for i = 1,2) are orthogonal to the tangent space T p N, we have (Z i ) p = (Z i ) p and they are linearly independent. Take an open neighborhood U of p in M such that on U N the two vector fields Z 1, Z 2 still remain linearly independent. By Proposition 8 they span RZ 1 RZ 2 along U, and then the Reeb vector fields Z 1, Z 2 are both orthogonal tot q N at each pointq U N. LetX be a vector field defined onu, tangent ton and such thatx p 0. ThenφX and[x,φx] are also tangent to N. Since for every point q U N the tangent space T q N is in the kernels of α 1 and α 2 (because it is orthogonal to (Z i ) q ), along N we have 0 = (α 1 +α 2 )([X,φX]) = 2(dα 1 +dα 2 )(X,φX) = 2g(X,X) contradicting the fact thatx p The casen tangent to only one Reeb vector field. Proposition 10. If the φ-invariant submanifold N is tangent to one of the two Reeb vector fields, sayz 1, and transverse to the other onez 2, thenn is everywhere orthogonal toz 2. Moreover the dimension of N is odd. Such submanifolds were called semi-invariant by Blair, Ludden and Yano [11] in the context of Hermitian manifolds. The semi-invariance is understood with respect to the almost complex structurej = φ α 2 Z 1 +α 1 Z 2.

9 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 9 Proof. Since Z 1 is tangent to N, we havez T 1 = (Z 1) N 0. Now 0 = g(z 1,Z 2 ) N = g(z T 1,ZT 2 ) which implies Z T 2 = 0. Indeed if at a point p N, Z T 2 0, the two vectors (Z T i ) p would be linearly independent. By Proposition 8, they will span the tangent subspacer(z 1 ) p R(Z 2 ) p, and thenz 2 will be tangent ton atp, butz 2 is supposed to be transverse to N. Now it is clear thatφis almost complex on the orthogonal complement ofrz 1 in TN. Hence the dimension ofn is odd. The following result is a restatement of [11, Propositions 4.2 and 4.3]: Proposition 11 ([11]). If the φ-invariant submanifold N is tangent to the vector field Z 1 and orthogonal to Z 2, then (α 1,φ,g) induces a metric contact structure on N. If in addition the MCP on M is normal then N is Sasakian. Proof. Let α 1 and α 2 denote the forms induced on N by α 1 and α 2. To prove that α 1 is a contact form, one has just to show thatdα 1 is symplectic onker α 1. First observe that sincez 2 is orthogonal ton we have α 2 = 0, thend α 1 = d α 1 +d α 2. Now, forp N, letx T p N such that α 1 (X) = 0 and d α 1 (X,Y) = 0 for everyy T p N. Then (d α 1 +d α 2 )(X,Y) = 0 and we get g(x,φy) = 0. As we also have 0 = α 1 (X) = g(x,z 1 ), one can say that g(x, ) = 0 on N and then X = 0. Hence α 1 is contact onn. The normality of the induced structure onn follows from the vanishing of the tensorn 1 and the fact that d α 2 = 0 onn The casen nowhere orthogonal and nowhere tangent toz 1 andz 2. Proposition 12. If the φ-invariant submanifoldn is nowhere orthogonal and nowhere tangent to Z 1 and Z 2, then it has odd dimension. Moreover its tangent bundle TN intersects the vertical subbundlev along a line bundle spanned by the vector field Z T 1 (or equivalently byzt 2 ). Proof. In this case, by Proposition 8 we have necessarily that Z1 T and Z2 T are vertical, linearly dependent and nonzero. The same holds forz1 andz2. SoZ1 T spans the intersection oftn with the vertical subbundle V. Now every vector field tangent to N and orthogonal to Z1 T is necessary orthogonal to the Reeb distribution. By the φ-invariance of TN, φ is almost complex on the orthogonal complement ofrz1 T intn and then N has odd dimension. Example 13. As a manifold consider the product H 6 = H 3 H 3 where H 3 is the 3-dimensional Heisenberg group. Let {α 1,α 2,α 3 } (respectively{β 1,β 2,β 3 }) be a basis of the cotangent space at the identity for the first (respectively second) factorh 3 satisfying dα 3 = α 1 α 2, dα 1 = dα 2 = 0, dβ 3 = β 1 β 2, dβ 1 = dβ 2 = 0. The pair (α 3,β 3 ) determines a contact pair of type (1,1) on H 6 with Reeb vector fields (X 3,Y 3 ), the X i s (respectively the Y i s) being dual to the α i s (respectively the β i s). The left invariant metric g = α 2 3 +β (α2 1 +β2 1 +α2 2 +β2 2 ) is associated to the pair with decomposable tensor structure φ given by φ(x 2 ) = X 1 and φ(y 2 ) = Y 1. The MCP manifold (H 6,α 3,β 3,φ,g) is normal because it is the product of two Sasakian manifolds. Let h 3 denotes the Lie algebra of H 3. The three vectors Z = X 3 + Y 3, X 1 + Y 1 and

10 10 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR X 2 +Y 2 span aφ-invariant subalgebra of the Lie algebrah 3 h 3 ofh 6 which determines a foliation inh 6. Each leaf isφ-invariant, nowhere tangent and nowhere orthogonal to the Reeb vector fields The casen tangent to the Reeb distribution. Proposition 14. If the φ-invariant submanifold N is tangent to both Z 1 and Z 2, then it has even dimension. Proof. If the Reeb distribution is tangent to N then on its orthogonal complement in TN the endomorphismφis almost complex and this completes the proof. Example 15. Take the same MCP on H 6 = H 3 H 3 as in Example 13. The four vectors X 3, Y 3, X 1 +Y 1 andx 2 +Y 2 span aφ-invariant Lie subalgebran 4 ofh 3 h 3 which determines a foliation on H 6. Each leaf of this foliation isφ-invariant and tangent to the Reeb distribution. Remark 16. When theφ-invariant submanifoldn is tangent to both the Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2, the contact pair (α 1,α 2 ) on M does not induce necessarily a contact pair on N. Indeed from Example 15, take any leaf L 4 of the foliation determined by the subalgebra n 4. Then L 4 is a φ- invariant submanifolds of the MCP manifoldh 6. However the contact pair(α 3,β 3 ) induces a pair of 1-forms on the4-dimensional manifoldl 4 whose Élie Cartan classes are both equal to 3. Then the induced pair onl 4 is not a contact one. From this construction one can also have a most interesting example where, in addition, the submanifold is closed without being a contact pair submanifold. Example 17. Consider once again the normal MCP on the nilpotent Lie group H 6 = H 3 H 3 defined in Example 13, and the foliation onh 6 defined by the Lie algebran 4 described in Example 15. Let L e be the leaf passing through the identity element of the Lie group H 6. One can see that the Lie subgroupl e is isomorphic toh 3 R. In fact by using the change of basis of its Lie algebra n 4, U i = X i + Y i for i = 1,2,3 and U 4 = X 3, we get [U 1,U 2 ] = U 3 and the other brackets are zero. Since the structure constants of the nipotent Lie algebran 4 are rational, there exist cocompact latticesγofl e. For example, sinceh 3 can be considered as the group of the real matrices γ(x,y,z) = 1 y z 0 1 x, takeγ Γ r Z wherezacts on the factorrandγ r = {γ(x,y,z) x Z,y rz,z Z}, withr a positive integer, acts on the first factor H 3 by left multiplication (see e.g. [13]). Because L e is a subgoup ofh 6, it is a lattice ofh 6 too. Now the closed nilmanifoldn 4 = L e /Γ is a submanifold of the nilmanifoldm 6 = H 6 /Γ. Since the MCP onh 6 is left invariant, it descends to the quotient M 6 as a normal MCP ( α 3, β 3, φ, g) of type(1,1) with decomposable endomorphism φ. Moreover the closed submanifoldn 4 is φ-invariant and tangent to the Reeb distribution. Note that the contact pair( α 3, β 3 ) onm 6 does not induce a contact pair on the submanifoldn 4, because the Élie Cartan classes of the induced1-forms are equal to3and the dimension ofn 4 is 4. We know (see [7]) that a normal MCP with decomposable endomorphism is nothing but a Hermitian bicontact manifold of bidegree (1,1) [11]. As we will see later in Paragraph 4.4, in a normal MCP a φ-invariant submanifold tangent to the Reeb distribution is a complex submanifold. So according to Example 17 we can state what follows:

11 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 11 Proposition 18. There exists a Hermitian bicontact manifold of bidegree (1, 1) carrying a closed complex submanifold which does not inherit a bicontact structure. Remark 19. This contradicts a statement of Abe (see [1, Theorem 2.2]). The construction of the MCP manifoldm 6 and its submanifoldn 4 in Example 17 gives clearly a counterexample Relationship witht andj-invariance. Putρ = α 2 Z 1 α 1 Z 2. One can easily see that a connected submanifold of M is ρ-invariant if and only if it is tangent or orthogonal to the Reeb distribution. The following holds: Proposition 20. Let M be a submanifold of the MCP manifold M. If M is orthogonal to the Reeb distribution, then none of the endomorphismsφ,j and T leaves M invariant. Proof. Let M be a submanifold of M orthogonal to the Reeb distribution. By Proposition 9, it cannot be φ-invariant. Suppose that M is invariant with respect to J or T. Since it is orthogonal to the Reeb vector fields, it is alsoρ-invariant. Now by the relationsφ = J+ρ = T ρ, we obtain thatm is φ-invariant, and this is not possible. Proposition 21. Let M be a submanifold of the MCP manifoldm. Then any two of the following properties imply the others: (a) M isφ-invariant, (b) M isj-invariant, (c) M ist -invariant, (d) M is tangent to the Reeb distribution. Proof. From the relations J = φ ρ and T = φ + ρ, one can remark that any two of the four endomorphisms fields {φ, J, T, ρ} are linear combinations of the remaining two. So if we replace the property (d) with M is ρ-invariant, then the conclusion is obvious. Suppose without loss of generality thatm is connected. We have seen that the property M isρ-invariant is equivalent to M is tangent or orthogonal to the Reeb vector fields. But by Proposition 20, the property M is orthogonal to the Reeb distribution is not compatible with Properties (a), (b) and (c), and this completes the proof. Example 22. Consider R 2h+2k+2 together with the normal MCP described in Example 2 with h > 0. For any pair of integers n 1,n 2 such that 0 < n 1 h and 0 n 2 k, the 2(n 1 + n 2 )- dimensional distribution spanned by the vector fields Y i = X i + 1 x 2 iz 1, JY i for i = 1,...,n 1 and (in the case n 2 > 0) by Y j = X j x j Z 2, JY j for j = 1,...,n 2 is completely integrable. On the open set {x i 0,x j 0} this distribution is invariant with respect to the complex structure J but it is not invariant with respect to φ. So it gives rise to a foliation by 2(n 1 + n 2 )-dimensional J-invariant submanifolds which are notφ-invariant. 5. MINIMAL φ-invariant SUBMANIFOLDS In Section 4, we observed that the leaves of the two characteristic foliations of an MCP with decomposable endomorphism φ are φ-invariant submanifolds. Moreover, in [8] we have seen that these submanifolds are minimal. In this section, we extend this result to further φ-invariant submanifolds of normal or complex MCP manifolds (the latter terminology meaning that just one of the two natural almost complex structure is supposed to be integrable).

12 12 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR Theorem 23. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal MCP manifold with decomposable φ and Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2. If N is a φ-invariant submanifold of M such that Z 1 is tangent and Z 2 orthogonal ton, thenn is minimal. Moreover ifn is connected, then it is a Sasakian submanifold of one of the Sasakian leaves of the characteristic foliation ofα 2. Proof. Denote by B the second fundamental form of the submanifold N, by the Levi-Civita connection of the metric g on M, and by its induced connection on N. By Proposition 11, (α 1,Z 1,φ,g) ( X φ) induces a Sasakian structure onn, say( α 1,Z 1, φ, g). Then for everyx,y Γ(TN) we have Y = g(x,y)z 1 α 1 (Y)X (see e.g. [10]). Using this and (3) for all X, Y Γ(TN) orthogonal toz 1, we obtain ) (5) B(X,φY) φb(x,y) = ( X φ)y ( X φ Y = g(x 2,Y 2 )(Z 2 Z 1 ) sincex,y are horizontal,x 2 andy 2 being respectively the orthogonal projections ofx andy on TF 1. But the vector field B(X,φY) φb(x,y) must be orthogonal to N by theφ-invariance of N. Then g(x 2,Y 2 ) = 0 for every X, Y Γ(TN) orthogonal to Z 1, which gives X 2 = 0. This implies that N is tangent to the characteristic distribution ofα 2. Equation (5) becomes B(X,φY) φb(x,y) = 0. If we interchange the roles of X and Y and take the difference, we get B(X,φY) = B(Y,φX) which implies B(X,Y) = B(φX,φY). Now locally, take an orthonormal φ-basis of the metric contact structure on N Z 1,e 1,φe 1,...,e s,φe s. We haveb(z 1,Z 1 ) = 0 since Z1 Z 1 = 0 (see [6]). As e j are orthogonal toz 1, we obtain: s trace(b) = B(Z 1,Z 1 )+ (B(e j,e j )+B(φe j,φe j )) = 0, which means thatn is minimal. j=1 Consider a φ-invariant submanifold N of an MCP which is nowhere tangent and nowhere orthogonal to the Reeb vector fields. In Proposition 12, we have seen that at every point its tangent space intersects the Reeb distribution giving rise to the distribution onn spanned byz1 T (or equivalently by Z2 T ). For such a submanifold we have Theorem 24. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal metric contact pair manifold with decomposable φ and Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2. Let N be a φ-invariant submanifold of M nowhere tangent and nowhere orthogonal toz 1 andz 2. ThenN is minimal if and only if the angle betweenz T 1 and Z 1 (or equivalentlyz 2 ) is constant along the integral curves of Z T 1. Proof. Putζ = 1 Z1 T ZT 1 = ± 1 Z2 T ZT 2. Using (3) for allx,y Γ(TN) orthogonal toζ, we obtain B(X,φY) φb(x,y) = (( X φ)y) = g(x 1,Y 1 )Z 1 +g(x 2,Y 2 )Z 2 since X, Y are horizontal because they are necessarily orthogonal to Z 1 and Z 2. The term on the right is symmetric on (X,Y), then we get B(X,φY) B(φX,Y) = 0.

13 MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 13 As previously this yields B(X,Y) = B(φX,φY). Now take a local orthonormal basis on N in this manner ζ,e 1,φe 1,...,e s,φe s. We obtain trace(b) = B(ζ,ζ)+ s (B(e j,e j )+B(φe j,φe j )) = B(ζ,ζ). j=1 In order to computeb(ζ,ζ), observe that there exists a smooth function θ on N taking nonzero values in ] π/2,π/2[ and for which ζ = (cosθ)z 1 +(sinθ)z 2. This function is well defined on N since ζ lies in V = RZ 1 RZ 2 and g(ζ,z 1 ) > 0. It represents the oriented angle (Z 1,ζ) in the oriented orthonormal basis (Z 1,Z 2 ) of V along N. One can easily show that Z T 1 = (cosθ)ζ, Z T 2 = (sinθ)ζ and then, since Jζ = (sinθ)z 1 + (cosθ)z 2, we have Z 1 = (sinθ)jζ and Z 2 = (cosθ)jζ. Hence Jζ is a nonvanishing section of the normal bundletn ofn in M. Using the equations Zi Z j = 0, fori,j = 1,2, concerning MCP s [6], we obtain This yields which is zero if and only ifζ(θ) = 0. ζ ζ = ζ(θ)jζ. trace(b) = B(ζ,ζ) = ζ(θ)jζ Example 25. For the φ-invariant submanifolds described in Example 13, the Reeb vector fields X 3 and Y 3 make a constant angle with their orthogonal projection 1 2 (X 3 + Y 3 ). Hence they are minimal. A theorem of Vaisman [15] states that on a Vaisman manifold a complex submanifold inherits the structure of Vaisman manifold if and only if it is minimal or equivalently if and only if it is tangent to the Lee vector field (and therefore tangent to the anti-lee one). This result has been generalized to the lck manifolds as follows (see [12, Theorem 12.1]): a complex submanifold of an lck manifold is minimal if and only if it is tangent to the Lee vector field. Non-Kähler Vaisman manifolds are special lck manifolds. According to [9] they are, up to a constant rescaling of the metric, exactly normal MCP manifolds of type(h,0), the Reeb vector fields being the Lee and the anti-lee vector field. What follows is a generalization of the theorem of Vaisman to complex MCP manifolds of any type(h,k). Theorem 26. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be an MCP manifold with decomposable φ and Reeb vector fields Z 1 and Z 2. Suppose that the almost complex structure J = φ α 2 Z 1 + α 1 Z 2 is integrable. Then a J-invariant submanifold N of M is minimal if and only if it is tangent to the Reeb distribution. We have the same conclusion if we replace J with the almost complex structure T = φ+α 2 Z 1 α 1 Z 2. Recall that for a submanifold tangent to the Reeb distribution, we have equivalence between invariance with respect to J, T and φ (see Proposition 21). Hence minimal J-invariant submanifolds of an MCP are necessarily φ-invariant and T -invariant. We can restate Theorem 26 for a normal MCP as follows: Corollary 27. Let (M,α 1,α 2,φ,g) be a normal MCP manifold with decomposable φ. Then a J-invariant submanifoldn ofm is minimal if and only if it is T -invariant.

14 14 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR TheJ-invariant submanifolds described in Example 22 are not minimal. Of course they are not tangent to the Reeb distribution. We have seen that the MCP onh 3 H 3, given in Example 13, is normal because each factor is a Sasakian manifold. The submanifolds decribed in Example 15 are tangent to the Reeb distribution and then they are minimal. The following statement gives further interesting examples. Corollary 28. Consider an MCP (α 1,α 2,φ,g) with decomposableφ on a manifold. Suppose that J (or T ) is integrable. Then the leaves of the characteristic foliations G 1 and G 2 of dα 1 and dα 2 are minimal. Proof of Theorem 26. In order to compute the normal mean curvature H of the J-invariant submanifold N, one needs the expression of the tensor field F(X,Y) = ( X J)Y where is the Levi-Civita connection ofg. Since J is integrable,g is Hermitian with fundamental2-form Φ = dα 1 +dα 2 2α 1 α 2. First observe thatα 2 J = α 1 anddα i (JX,JY) = dα i (X,Y). Moreover by the decomposability of φ we have π i J = J π i where π i : TM H j (for j i with i,j = 1,2) denote the orthogonal projections. Next, using this and the classical equation for a Hermitian structure 4g(( X J)Y,W) = 6dΦ(X,JY,JW) 6dΦ(X,Y,W), after a straightforward calculation we get: F(X,Y) = [ dα 2 (X,Y) dα 1 (X,JY)]Z 1 +[dα 1 (X,Y) dα 2 (X,JY)]Z 2 +α 2 (Y)π 1 JX α 1 (Y)π 2 JX α 1 (Y)π 1 X α 2 (Y)π 2 X. Any vectorv tangent tom at a point ofn decomposes asv = v T +v wherev T andv are tangent and orthogonal to N respectively. The J-invariance implies that J(v T ) = (Jv) T and J(v ) = (Jv). Denote by B the second fundamental form of the submanifold N. Then B(X,JY) = J B(X,Y) + F(X,Y) and B(JX,JY) + B(X,Y) = JF(Y,X) + F(JX,Y). Hence we obtain B(X,X)+B(JX,JX) = 2 π 2 X 2 Z 1 +2 π 1 X 2 Z 2 +2[ α 1 (X)π 1 JX α 2 (X)π 2 JX α 2 (X)π 1 X +α 1 (X)π 2 X] Let N be the open set of N consisting of all points where Z T 1 0. It is also a J-invariant submanifold ofm. Take an orthonormal (local)j-basis on N e 1,Je 1,...,e n,je n. One can choose it in such a way that e 1 = 1 Z T 1 ZT 1 and then Je 1 = 1 Z T 1 ZT 2. Since thee l and Je l, for l = 2,...,n, are orthogonal to Z T 1, ZT 2, Z 1 and Z 2, they are orthogonal to Z 1 and Z 2 too. So they are horizontal. Now the normal mean curvature along N is and becomes (6) H N = 1 n H N = 1 2n trace(b) = 1 2n ( n (B(e l,e l )+B(Je l,je l )) l=1 ) n n π 2 e l 2 Z1 + π 1 e l 2 Z2 +(π 2Z1 T π 1Z2 T ). l=1 l=1

15 (7) MINIMALITY OF INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS IN METRIC CONTACT PAIR GEOMETRY 15 If we supposen minimal, then H N = 0 and the scalar products withz i yield n 0 = ng(h N,Z1 ) = π 2Z1 T 2 Z1 2 π 2 e l 2 l=1 n 0 = ng(h N,Z2 ) = π 1Z2 T 2 + Z2 2 π 1 e l 2. Indeed, using (6) and the fact that Z 2 = (JZ 1 ) = JZ 1, we have n ng(h N,Z1 ) = g((π 2Z1 T π 1Z2 T ),Z1 ) Z 1 2 π 2 e l 2 The first term on the right becomes l=1 l=1 g((π 2 Z T 1 π 1Z T 2 ),Z 1 ) = g(π 2Z T 1 π 1Z T 2,Z 1 Z T 1 ) = g(π 2 Z T 1 π 1Z T 2,ZT 1 ) = π 2 Z T 1 2 +g(π 1 Z T 2,π 1Z T 1 ) = π 2 Z T 1 2, where we have used the pairwise orthogonality of the subbundles H 1, H 2, RZ 1, RZ 2, and for the last simplification the fact that π 1 Z T 2 = π 1 (JZ 1 ) T = Jπ 1 Z T 1. Thus we obtain the first equation of (7). The second one comes after an analogous computation. Now from Equations (7), we getπ 2 Z T 1 = 0 andπ 1Z T 1 = Jπ 1Z T 2 = 0 alongn, which means that Z T i = Z i at these points. HenceZ 1 and Z 2 are tangent to N. Now we have to prove thatn = N. Every pointpofn is in the closure of N inn. For otherwise, there exists an open neighborhood U p of p in N which does not intersect N, i.e. Z 1 and Z 2 are orthogonal to the J-invariant (and then also φ-invariant) submanifoldu p. But this contradicts Proposition 9. Now sincez T 1 = Z 1 on N, by continuity of Z T 1 we have (ZT 1 ) p = (Z 1 ) p and then p N. Hence N = N so that Z 1 and Z 2 = JZ 1 are tangent to N. Conversely suppose that Z 1 and Z 2 are tangent to N. Then Z T i = (Z i ) N which implies that N = N, and replacing in Equation (6) we get H = 0. This completes the proof. Remark 29. One could hope on a full generalization of the original Vaisman result, which could be stated as follows: a J and T -invariant submanifold of a normal MCP inherits the structure of normal MCP if and only if it is minimal. In fact this kind of generalization is not possible, because the submanifold in Example 17 is both J and T -invariant, therefore it is minimal, but it does not inherit the normal MCP of the ambient manifold by Proposition 18. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors are grateful to Paola Piu and Michel Goze for their helpful suggestions. They also wish to thank the referee for his useful comments that improved the paper. REFERENCES [1] Abe K.: On a class of Hermitian manifolds, Invent. Math. 51, (1979) [2] Bande G.: Formes de contact généralisé, couples de contact et couples contacto-symplectiques, Thèse de Doctorat, Université de Haute Alsace, Mulhouse, 2000.

16 16 GIANLUCA BANDE AND AMINE HADJAR [3] Bande G., Blair D. E.: Symmetry in the geometry of metric contact pairs, Math. Nachr. 286, (2013) [4] Bande G., Blair D. E., Hadjar A.: On the curvature of metric contact pairs, Mediterr. J. Math. 10, (2013) [5] Bande G., Hadjar A.: Contact Pairs, Tohoku Math. J. 57, (2005) [6] Bande G., Hadjar A.: Contact pair structures and associated metrics, Differential Geometry - Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium, World Sci. Publ., (2009) [7] Bande G., Hadjar A.: On normal contact pairs, Internat. J. Math. 21, (2010) [8] Bande G., Hadjar A.: On the characteristic foliations of metric contact pairs, Harmonic maps and differential geometry, Contemp. Math. 542, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, (2011) [9] Bande G., Kotschick D.: Contact pairs and locally conformally symplectic structures. Harmonic maps and differential geometry, 85-98, Contemp. Math. 542, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, (2011) [10] Blair D. E.: Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds, Progress in Mathematics, 2nd Ed., vol. 203, Birkhäuser (2010) [11] Blair D. E., Ludden G. D., Yano K.: Geometry of complex manifolds similar to the Calabi-Eckmann manifolds, J. Differential Geom. 9, (1974) [12] Dragomir S., Ornea L.: Locally conformal Kähler geometry, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 155, Birkhäuser (1998) [13] Gordon C. S., Wilson E. N.: The spectrum of the Laplacian on Riemannian Heisenberg manifolds, Michigan Math. J. 33, (1986) [14] Vaisman I.: Locally conformal Kähler manifolds with parallel Lee form, Rend. Mat. 12, (1979) [15] Vaisman I.: Generalized Hopf manifolds, Geom. Dedicata 13, (1982) [16] Yano K.: On a structure defined by a tensor fieldf of type(1, 1) satisfyingf 3 +f = 0, Tensor 1, (1963) DIPARTIMENTO DI MATEMATICA E INFORMATICA, UNIVERSITÀ DEGLI STUDI DI CAGLIARI, VIA OSPEDALE 72, CAGLIARI, ITALY address: gbande@unica.it LABORATOIRE DE MATHÉMATIQUES, INFORMATIQUE ET APPLICATIONS, UNIVERSITÉ DE HAUTE ALSACE - 4, RUE DES FRÈRES LUMIÈRE, MULHOUSE, FRANCE address: mohamed.hadjar@uha.fr