arxiv: v1 [math.dg] 23 Sep 2014

Transcription

1 arxiv: v1 math.dg 3 Sep 014 REAL HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS WITH COMMUTING RICCI TENSOR YOUNG JIN SUH Abstract. In this paper we first introduce the full expression of the curvature tensor of a real hypersurface M in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannians SU,m /S(U U m), m from the equation of Gauss. Next we derive a new formula for the Ricci tensor of M in SU,m /S(U U m). Finally we give a complete classification of Hopf hypersurfaces in complex hyperbolic twoplane Grassmannians SU,m /S(U U m) with commuting Ricci tensor. Each can be described as a tube over a totally geodesic SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) in SU,m /S(U U m) or a horosphere whose center at infinity is singular. Introduction Inthe geometryofrealhypersurfacesincomplexspaceformsm m (c) orin quaternionic space forms Q m (c) Kimura 8 and 9 (resp. Pérez and the author 15) considered real hypersurfaces in M n (c) (resp. in Q m (c)) with commuting Ricci tensor, that is, Sφ = φs, (resp. Sφ i = φ i S, i = 1,,3)where S and φ (resp. S and φ i, i = 1,,3) denote the Ricci tensor and the structure tensor of real hypersurfaces in M m (c) (resp. in Q m (c)). In 8 and 9, Kimura has classified that a Hopf hypersurface M in complex projective space P m (C) with commuting Ricci tensor is locally congruent to of type (A), atubeoveratotallygeodesicp k (C), oftype(b), atubeoveracomplexquadric Q m 1, cot r = m,oftype(c), atube overp 1 (C) P (m 1)/ (C), cot r = 1 m and n is odd, of type (D), a tube over a complex two-plane Grassmannian G (C 5 ), cot r = 3 5 and n = 9, of type (E), a tube over a Hermitian symmetric space SO(10)/U(5), cot r = 5 9 and m = 15. On the otherhand, in a quaternionicprojectivespaceqp m Pérezand the author 15 have classified real hypersurfaces in QP m with commuting Ricci tensor Sφ i = φ i S,i = 1,,3, where S (resp. φ i ) denotes the Ricci tensor(resp. the structure tensor) of M in QP m, is locally congruent to of A 1,A -type, that is, a tube over QP k with radius 0 < r < π, k {0,,m 1}. The almost contact structure vector fields {ξ 1,ξ,ξ 3 } are defined by ξ i = J i N, i = 1,,3, where J i, i = 1,,3, denote a quaternionic Kähler structure of QP m and N a unit normal field of M in QP m. Moreover, Pérez and Suh 14 have considered the notion of ξi R = 0, i = 1,,3, Mathematics Subject Classification : Primary 53C40; Secondary 53C15. Key words and phrases : Real hypersurfaces, Complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannians, Commuting Ricci tensor, Isometric Reeb flow, Geodesic Reeb flow, Hopf hypersurface. * This work was supported by grants Proj. Nos. NRF-01-R1AAA from National Research Foundation of Korea. 1

2 YOUNG JIN SUH where R denotes the curvature tensor of a real hypersurfacem in QP m, and proved that M is locally congruent to a tube of radius π 4 over QPk. Let us denote by SU,m the set of (m + ) (m + )-indefinite special unitary matrices and U m the set of m m-unitary matrices. Then the Riemannian symmetric space SU,m /S(U U m ), m, which consists of complex two-dimensional subspaces in indefinite complex Euclidean space C m+, has a remarkable feature that it is a Hermitian symmetric space as well as a quaternionic Kähler symmetric space. In fact, among all Riemannian symmetric spaces of noncompact type the symmetric spaces SU,m /S(U U m ), m, are the only ones which are Hermitian symmetric and quaternionic Kähler symmetric. The existence of these two structures leads to a number of interesting geometric problems on SU,m /S(U U m ), one of which we are going to study in this article. To describe this problem, we denote by J the Kähler structure and by J the quaternionic Kähler structure on SU,m /S(U U m ). Let M be a connected hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ) and denote by N a unit normal to M. Then a structure vector field ξ defined by ξ = JN is said to be a Reeb vector field. Next, we consider the standard embedding of SU,m 1 in SU,m. Then the orbit SU,m 1 o of SU,m 1 through o is the Riemannian symmetric space SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) embedded in SU,m /S(U U m ) as a totally geodesic submanifold. Everytube aroundsu,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) in SU,m /S(U U m ) has the property that both maximal complex subbundle C and quaternionic subbundle Q are invariant under the shape operator. Finally, letmbeeven,saym = n,andconsiderthestandardembeddingofsp 1,n in SU,n. Then the orbit Sp 1,n o of Sp 1,n through o is the quaternionic hyperbolic space HH n embedded in SU,n /S(U U n ) as a totally geodesic submanifold. Any tube around HH n in SU,n /S(U U n ) has the property that both C and Q are invariant under the shape operator. As a converse of the statements mentioned above, we assert that with one possible exceptional case there are no other such real hypersurfaces. Related to such a result, we introduce another theorem due to Berndt and Suh 3 as follows: Theorem A. Let M be a connected hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ), m. Then the maximal complex subbundle C of T M and the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q of TM are both invariant under the shape operator of M if and only if M is congruent to an open part of one of the following hypersurfaces: (A) a tube around a totally geodesic SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) in SU,m /S(U U m ); (B) a tube around a totally geodesic HH n in SU,n /S(U U n ), m = n; (C) a horosphere in SU,m /S(U U m ) whose center at infinity is singular; or the following exceptional case holds: (D) The normal bundle νm of M consists of singular tangent vectors of type JX JX. Moreover, M has at least four distinct principal curvatures, three of which are given by α =, γ = 0, λ = 1 with corresponding principal curvature spaces T α = TM (C Q), T γ = J(TM Q), T λ C Q JQ.

3 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 3 If µ is another (possibly nonconstant) principal curvature function, then we have T µ C Q JQ, JT µ T λ and JT µ T λ. In Theorem A the maximal complex subbundle C of TM is invariant under the shape operator if and only if the Reeb vector field ξ becomes a principal vector field for the shape operator A of M in SU,m /S(U U m ). In this case the Reeb vector field ξ is said to be a Hopf vector field. The flow generated by the integral curves of the structure vector field ξ for Hopf hypersurfaces in G (C m+ ) is said to be a geodesic Reeb flow. The classification of all real hypersurfaces in complex projective space CP m with isometric Reeb flow has been obtained by Okumura 1. The corresponding classification in complex hyperbolic space CH m is due to Montiel and Romero 11 and in quaternionic projective space HP m due to Martinez and Pérez 10 respectively. Now let us introduce a classification theorem due to Suh 19 for all real hypersurfaces with isometric Reeb flow in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmann manifold SU,m /S(U U m ) as follows: Theorem B. Let M be a connected orientable real hypersurface in the complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannian SU,m /S(U U m ), m 3. Then the Reeb flow on M is isometric if and only if M is an open part of a tube around some totally geodesic SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) in SU,m /S(U U m ) or a horosphere whose center at infinity with JX JX is singular. In the proof of Theorem A we proved that the 1-dimensional distribution ξ is contained in either the 3-dimensional distribution Q or in the orthogonal complement Q such that T x M = Q Q. The case (A) in Theorem A is just the case that the 1- dimensional distribution ξ belongs to the distribution Q. Of course, it is not difficult to check that the Ricci tensor S of type (A) or of type (C) with JX JX in Theorem A commutes with the structure tensor, that is Sφ = φs. Then it must be a natural question to ask whether real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ) with commuting Ricci tensor can exist or not. In this paper we consider such a converse problem and want to give a complete classification of real hypersurfaces in G (C m+ ) satisfying Sφ = φs as follows: Main Theorem. Let M be a Hopf hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ) with commuting Ricci tensor, m 3. Then M is locally congruent to an open part of a tube around some totally geodesic SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ) in SU,m /S(U U m ) or a horosphere whose center at infinity with JX JX is singular. A remarkable consequence of our Main Theorem is that a connected complete real hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ), m 3 with commuting Ricci tensor is homogeneous and has an isometric Reeb flow. This was also true in complex twoplane Grassmannians G (C m+ ), which could be identified with symmetric space of compact type SU m+ /S(U U m ), as follows from the classification. It would be interesting to understand the actual reason for it (See, 17 and 18).

4 4 YOUNG JIN SUH This paper is organized as follows. In Section 1 we summarize some basic facts about the Riemannian geometry of SU,m /S(U U m ). In Section we obtain some basic geometric equations for real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ). In Section 3 we study real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ) with Ricci commuting for ξ Q, and in Section 4 those with Ricci commuting for ξ Q. Finally in Section 5 we use these results to derive our classification. 1. The complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannian SU,m /S(U U m ) In this section we summarize basic material about complex hyperbolic Grassmann manifolds SU,m /S(U U m ), for details we refer to 1, 3,18 and 19. The Riemannian symmetric space SU,m /S(U U m ), which consists of all complex two-dimensional linear subspaces in indefinite complex Euclidean space C m+, becomes a connected, simply connected, irreducible Riemannian symmetric space of noncompact type and with rank two. Let G = SU,m and K = S(U U m ), and denote by g and k the corresponding Lie algebra of the Lie group G and K respectively. Let B be the Killing form of g and denote by p the orthogonal complement of k in g with respect to B. The resulting decomposition g = k p is a Cartan decomposition of g. The Cartan involution θ Aut(g) on su,m is given by θ(a) = I,m AI,m, where ( ) I 0 I,m =,m 0 m, I m I and I m denotes the identity ( )-matrix and (m m)-matrix respectively. Then < X,Y >= B(X,θY) becomes a positive definite Ad(K)-invariant inner product on g. Its restriction to p induces a metric g on SU,m /S(U U m ), which is also known as the Killing metric on SU,m /S(U U m ). Throughout this paper we consider SU,m /S(U U m ) together with this particular Riemannian metric g. The Lie algebra k decomposes orthogonally into k = su su m u 1, where u 1 is the one-dimensional center of k. The adjoint action of su on p induces the quaternionic Kähler structure J on SU,m /S(U U m ), and the adjoint action of ( mi Z = m+ I ) 0,m i 0 m, m+ I u 1 m induces the Kähler structure J on SU,m /S(U U m ). By construction, J commutes with each almost Hermitian structure J ν in J for ν = 1,,3. Recall that a canonical local basis J 1,J,J 3 of a quaternionic Kähler structure J consists of three almost Hermitian structures J 1,J,J 3 in J such that J ν J ν+1 = J ν+ = J ν+1 J ν, where the index ν is to be taken modulo 3. The tensor field JJ ν, which is locally defined on SU,m /S(U U m ), is selfadjoint and satisfies (JJ ν ) = I and tr(jj ν ) = 0, where I is the identity transformation. For a nonzero tangent vector X we define RX = {λx λ R}, CX = RX RJX, and HX = RX JX. We identify the tangent space T o SU,m /S(U U m ) of SU,m /S(U U m ) at o with p in the usual way. Let a be a maximal abelian subspace of p. Since SU,m /S(U U m ) has rank two, the dimension of any such subspace is two. Every nonzero tangent vector X T o SU,m /S(U U m ) = p is contained in some maximal

5 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 5 abelian subspace of p. Generically this subspace is uniquely determined by X, in which case X is called regular. If there exists more than one maximal abelian subspaces of p containing X, then X is called singular. There is a simple and useful characterization of the singular tangent vectors: A nonzero tangent vector X p is singular if and only if JX JX or JX JX. Up to scaling there exists a unique S(U() U(m))-invariant Riemannian metric g on SU,m /S(U U m ). Equipped with this metric SU,m /S(U U m ) is a Riemannian symmetric space of rank two which is both Kähler and quaternionic Kähler. For computational reasons we normalize g such that the minimal sectional curvature of (SU,m /S(U U m ),g) is 4. The sectional curvature K of the noncompact symmetric space SU,m /S(U U m ) equipped with the Killing metric g is bounded by 4 K 0. The sectional curvature 4 is obtained for all -planes CX when X is a non-zero vector with JX JX. When m = 1, G (C3 ) = SU 1, /S(U 1 U ) is isometric to the two-dimensional complex hyperbolic space CH with constant holomorphic sectional curvature 4. When m =, we note that the isomorphism SO(4, ) SU(, ) yields an isometry between G (C 4 ) = SU, /S(U U ) and the indefinite real Grassmann manifold G (R6 ) of oriented two-dimensional linear subspaces of an indefinite Euclidean space R 6. For this reason we assume m 3 from now on, although many of the subsequent results also hold for m = 1,. The Riemannian curvature tensor R of SU,m /S(U U m ) is locally given by R(X,Y)Z = 1 g(y,z)x g(x,z)y +g(jy,z)jx g(jx,z)jy g(jx,y)jz + {g(j ν Y,Z)J ν X g(j ν X,Z)J ν Y (1.1) g(j ν X,Y)J ν Z} + {g(j ν JY,Z)J ν JX g(j ν JX,Z)J ν JY}, where J 1,J,J 3 is any canonical local basis of J. Recall that a maximal flat in a Riemannian symmetric space M is a connected complete flat totally geodesic submanifold of maximal dimension. A non-zero tangent vector X of M is singular if X is tangent to more than one maximal flat in M, otherwise X is regular. The singular tangent vectors of SU,m /S(U U m ) are precisely the eigenvectors and the asymptotic vectors of the self-adjoint endomorphisms JJ 1, where J 1 is any almost Hermitian structure in J. In other words, a tangent vector X to SU,m /S(U U m ) is singular if and only if JX JX or JX JX. Now we want to focus on a singular vector X of type JX JX. In this paper, we will have to compute explicitly Jacobi vector fields along geodesics whose tangent vectors are all singular of type JX JX. For this we need the eigenvalues and

6 6 YOUNG JIN SUH eigenspaces of the Jacobi operator R X := R(.,X)X. Let X be a singular unit vector tangent to SU,m /S(U U m ) of type JX JX. Then there exists an almost Hermitian structure J 1 in J such that JX = J 1 X and the eigenvalues, eigenspaces and multiplicities of R X are respectively given by principal curvature eigenspace multiplicity 0 RX {Y Y HX, JY = J 1 Y} m 1 1 HX CX {Y Y HX, JY = J 1 Y} m 4 RJX 1 where RX, CX and HX denotes the real, complex and quaternionic span of X, respectively, and C X the orthogonal complement of CX in HX. The maximal totally geodesic submanifolds in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannian SU,m /S(U U m ) are SU,m 1 /S(U U m 1 ), CH m, CH k CH m k (1 k m/), G (R m+ ) and HH n (if m = n). The first three are complex submanifolds and the other two are real submanifolds with respect to the Kähler structure J. The tangent spaces of the totally geodesic CH m are precisely the maximal linear subspaces of the form {X JX = J 1 X} with some fixed almost Hermitian structure J 1 J.. Real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ) Let M be a real hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ), that is, a hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ) with real codimension one. The induced Riemannian metric on M will also be denoted by g, and denotes the Levi Civita covariant derivative of (M, g). We denote by C and Q the maximal complex and quaternionic subbundle of the tangent bundle TM of M, respectively. Now let us put (.1) JX = φx +η(x)n, J ν X = φ ν X +η ν (X)N for any tangent vector field X of a real hypersurface M in SU,m /S(U U m ), where φx denotes the tangential component of JX and N a unit normal vector field of M in SU,m /S(U U m ). From the Kähler structure J of SU,m /S(U U m ) there exists an almost contact metric structure (φ,ξ,η,g) induced on M in such a way that (.) φ X = X +η(x)ξ, η(ξ) = 1, φξ = 0, and η(x) = g(x,ξ) for any vector field X on M and ξ = JN. If M is orientable, then the vector field ξ is globally defined and said to be the inducedreeb vector fieldonm. Furthermore,letJ 1,J,J 3 beacanonicallocalbasis of J. Then each J ν induces a local almost contact metric structure (φ ν,ξ ν,η ν,g), ν = 1,,3, on M. Locally, C is the orthogonal complement in TM of the real span of ξ, and Q the orthogonal complement in TM of the real span of {ξ 1,ξ,ξ 3 }.

7 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 7 Furthermore, let {J 1,J,J 3 } be a canonical local basis of J. Then the quaternionic Kähler structure J ν of SU,m /S(U U m ), together with the condition J ν J ν+1 = J ν+ = J ν+1 J ν in section 1, induces an almost contact metric 3-structure (φ ν,ξ ν,η ν,g) on M as follows: (.3) φ ν X = X +η ν(x)(ξ ν ), φ ν ξ ν = 0, η ν (ξ ν ) = 1 φ ν+1 ξ ν = ξ ν+, φ ν ξ ν+1 = ξ ν+, φ ν φ ν+1 X = φ ν+ X +η ν+1 (X)ξ ν, φ ν+1 φ ν X = φ ν+ X +η ν (X)ξ ν+1 for any vector field X tangent to M. The tangential and normal component of the commuting identity JJ ν X = J ν JX give (.4) φφ ν X φ ν φx = η ν (X)ξ η(x)ξ ν and η ν (φx) = η(φ ν X). The last equation implies φ ν ξ = φξ ν. The tangential and normal component of J ν J ν+1 X = J ν+ X = J ν+1 J ν X give (.5) φ ν φ ν+1 X η ν+1 (X)ξ ν = φ ν+ X = φ ν+1 φ ν X +η ν (X)ξ ν+1 and (.6) η ν (φ ν+1 X) = η ν+ (X) = η ν+1 (φ ν X). Putting X = ξ ν and X = ξ ν+1 into the first of these two equations yields φ ν+ ξ ν = ξ ν+1 and φ ν+ ξ ν+1 = ξ ν respectively. Using the Gauss and Weingarten formulas, the tangential and normal component of the Kähler condition ( X J)Y = 0 give ( X φ)y = η(y)ax g(ax,y)ξ and ( X η)y = g(φax,y). The last equation implies X ξ = φax. Finally, using the explicit expression for the Riemannian curvature tensor R of SU,m /S(U U m ) in 3 the Codazzi equation takes the form ( X A)Y ( Y A)X = 1 η(x)φy η(y)φx g(φx,y)ξ (.7) { } ην (X)φ ν Y η ν (Y)φ ν X g(φ ν X,Y)ξ ν { ην (φx)φ ν φy η ν (φy)φ ν φx } { η(x)ην (φy) η(y)η ν (φx) } ξ ν.

8 8 YOUNG JIN SUH for any vector fields X and Y on M. Moreover, by the expression of the curvature tensor (1.1), we have the equation of Gauss as follows: (.8) R(X,Y)Z = 1 g(y,z)x g(x,z)y + g(φy,z)φx g(φx,z)φy g(φx,y)φz + {g(φ ν Y,Z)φ ν X g(φ ν X,Z)φ ν Y g(φ ν X,Y)φ ν Z} + {g(φ ν φy,z)φ ν φx g(φ ν φx,z)φ ν φy} {η(y)η ν (Z)φ ν φx η(x)η ν (Z)φ ν φy} {η(x)g(φ ν φy,z) η(y)g(φ ν φx,z)}ξ ν +g(ay,z)ax g(ax,z)ay for any vector fields X,Y,Z and W on M. Hereafter, unless otherwise stated, we want to use these basic equations mentioned above frequently without referring to them explicitly. 3. Some preliminaries in SU,m /S(U U m ) In this section we can introduce some preliminaries in SU,m /S(U U m ) corresponding to the formulas given in 18 from the negative curvature tensor (.8). Now let us contract Y and Z in the equation of Gauss (.8) in section. Then the curvature tensor for a real hypersurface M in SU,m /S(U U m ) gives a Ricci tensor defined by (3.1) SX = 4m 1 R(X,e i )e i = 1 + i=1 (4m+10)X 3η(X)ξ 3 η ν (X)ξ ν {(Trφ ν φ)φ ν φx (φ ν φ) X} {η ν (ξ)φ ν φx η(x)φ ν φξ ν } {(Tr φ ν φ)η(x) η(φ ν φx)}ξ ν +hax A X, where h denotes the trace of the shape operator A of M in SU,m /S(U U m ). From the formula JJ ν = J ν J, Tr JJ ν = 0, ν = 1,,3 we calculate the following for any

9 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 9 basis {e 1,,e 4m 1,N} of the tangent space of SU,m /S(U U m ) (3.) 0 =Tr JJ ν = 4m 1 k=1 g(jj νe k,e k )+g(jj ν N,N) =Tr φφ ν η ν (ξ) g(j ν N,JN) =Tr φφ ν η ν (ξ) and (3.3) (φ ν φ) X =φ ν φ(φφ ν X η ν (X)ξ +η(x)ξ ν ) =φ ν ( φ ν X +η(φ ν X)ξ)+η(X)φ ν ξ =X η ν (X)ξ ν +η(φ ν X)φ ν ξ +η(x){ ξ +η ν (ξ)ξ}. Substituting (3.) and (3.3) into (3.1), we have (3.4) SX = 1 + (4m+7)X 3η(X)ξ 3 η ν (X)ξ ν {η ν (ξ)φ ν φx η(φ ν X)φ ν ξ η(x)η ν (ξ)ξ ν } +hax A X. Now the covariant derivative of (3.4) becomes ( Y S)X = 3 (( Yη)X)ξ + 3 η(x) Yξ ( Y η ν )(X)ξ ν + 3 η ν (X) Y ξ ν { Y(η ν (ξ))φ ν φx +η ν (ξ)( Y φ ν )φx +η ν (ξ)φ ν ( Y φ)x ( Y η)(φ ν X)φ ν ξ η(( Y φ ν )X)φ ν ξ η(φ ν X) Y (φ ν ξ) ( Y η)(x)η ν (ξ)ξ ν η(x) Y (η ν (ξ))ξ ν η(x)η ν (ξ) Y ξ ν } +(Yh)AX +h( Y A)X ( Y A )X

10 10 YOUNG JIN SUH for any vector fields X and Y tangent to M in SU,m /S(U U m ). Then from the above formula, together with the formulas in section, we have ( Y S)X = 3 g(φay,x)ξ + 3 η(x)φay (3.5) + 3 {q ν+ (Y)η ν+1 (X) q ν+1 (Y)η ν+ (X) +g(φ ν AY,X)}ξ ν + 3 η ν (X){q ν+ (Y)ξ ν+1 q ν+1 (Y)ξ ν+ +φ ν AY} 1 Y(η ν (ξ))φ ν φx +η ν (ξ){ q ν+1 (Y)φ ν+ φx +q ν+ (Y)φ ν+1 φx +η ν (φx)ay g(ay,φx)ξ ν } +η ν (ξ){η(x)φ ν AY g(ay,x)φ ν ξ} g(φay,φ ν X)φ ν ξ +{q ν+1 (Y)η(φ ν+ X) q ν+ (Y)η(φ ν+1 X) η ν (X)η(AY) +η(ξ ν )g(ay,x)}φ ν ξ η(φ ν X){q ν+ (Y)φ ν+1 ξ q ν+1 (Y)φ ν+ ξ +φ ν φay η(ay)ξ ν +η(ξ ν )AY} g(φay,x)η ν (ξ)ξ ν η(x)y(η ν (ξ))ξ ν η(x)η ν (ξ) Y ξ ν +(Yh)AX +h( Y A)X ( Y A )X. Now let us take a covariant derivative of Sφ = φs. Then it gives that (3.6) ( Y S)φX +S( Y φ)x = ( Y φ)sx +φ( Y S)X.

11 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 11 Then the first term of (3.6) becomes ( Y S)φX = 3 g(φay,φx)ξ (3.7) {q ν+ (Y)η ν+1 (φx) q ν+1 (Y)η ν+ (φx)+g(φ ν AY,φX)}ξ ν η ν (φx){q ν+ (Y)ξ ν+1 q ν+1 (Y)ξ ν+ +φ ν AφX} Y(η ν (ξ))φ ν φ X +η ν (ξ){ q ν+1 (Y)φ ν+ φ X +q ν+ (Y)φ ν+1 φ X +η ν (φ X)AY g(ay,φ X)ξ ν } η ν (ξ)g(ay,φx)φ ν ξ g(φay,φ ν φx)φ ν ξ +{q ν+1 (Y)η(φ ν+ φx) q ν+ (Y)η(φ ν+1 φx) η ν (φx)η(ay) +η(ξ ν )g(ay,φx)}φ ν ξ η(φ ν φx){q ν+ (Y)φ ν+1 ξ q ν+1 (Y)φ ν+ ξ +φ ν φay η(ay)ξ ν +η(ξ ν )AY} g(φay,φx)η ν (ξ)ξ ν +(Yh)AφX +h( Y A)φX ( Y A )φx. The second term of (3.6) becomes (3.8) S( Y φ)x = S{η(X)AY g(ay,x)ξ} =η(x) 1 { (4m+7)AY 3η(AY)ξ 3 + η ν (AY)ξ ν } {η ν (ξ)φ ν φay η(φ ν AY)φ ν ξ η(ay)η ν (ξ)ξ ν } +ha Y A 3 Y g(ay,x) 1 { (4m+7)ξ 3ξ 4 η ν (ξ)ξ ν }+haξ A ξ. The first term of the right side in (3.6) becomes ( Y φ)sx = η(sx)ay g(ay,sx)ξ,

12 1 YOUNG JIN SUH and the second term of the right side in (3.6) is given by (3.9) φ( Y S)X = 3 η(x)φ AY + 3 {q ν+ (Y)η ν+1 (X) q ν+1 (Y)η ν+ (X)+g(φ ν AY,φX)}φξ ν η ν (X){q ν+ (Y)φξ ν+1 q ν+1 (Y)φξ ν+ +φφ ν AY} Y(η ν (ξ))φφ ν φx +η ν (ξ){ q ν+1 (Y)φφ ν+ φx +q ν+ (Y)φφ ν+1 φx +η ν (φx)φay g(ay,φx)φξ ν } +η ν (ξ){η(x)φφ ν AY g(ay,x)φφ ν ξ} g(φay,φ ν X)φφ ν ξ +{q ν+1 (Y)η(φ ν+ X) q ν+ (Y)η(φ ν+1 X) η ν (X)η(AY)+η(ξ ν )g(ay,x)}φφ ν ξ η(φ ν X){q ν+ (Y)φφ ν+1 ξ q ν+1 (Y)φφ ν+ ξ +φφ ν φay η(ay)φξ ν +η(ξ ν )φay} g(φay,x)η ν (ξ)φξ ν η(x)y(η ν (ξ))φξ ν η(x)η ν (ξ)φ Y ξ ν +(Yh)φAX +hφ( Y A)X φ( Y A )X. Putting X = ξ into (3.5) and using that the Reeb vector field ξ is principal, that is, Aξ = αξ, then we have (3.10) S( Y φ)ξ = + 1 { (4m+7)AY 3η(AY)ξ 3 η ν (AY)ξ ν } {η ν (ξ)φ ν φay η(φ ν φay)φ ν ξ αη(y)η ν (ξ)ξ ν } αη(y) 1 { 4(m+1)ξ 4 η ν (ξ)ξ ν }+(αh α )ξ. +ha Y A 3 Y

13 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 13 Moreover, the right side of (3.6) becomes (3.11) ( Y φ)sξ +φ( Y S)ξ =η(sξ)ay g(ay,sξ)ξ +φ( Y S)ξ = { (m+1)+hα α }+ η ν (ξ) AY + 3 φ AY { (m+1)α+hα α 3 }η(y) η ν (ξ)η ν (AY) ξ {q ν+ (Y)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (Y)η ν+ (ξ)+η ν (φay)}φξ ν η ν (ξ){q ν+ (Y)φξ ν+1 q ν+1 (Y)φξ ν+ +φφ ν AY} η ν (ξ){φφ ν AY αη(y)φ ξ ν } g(φay,φξ ν )φ ξ ν Y(η ν (ξ))φξ ν η ν (ξ)φ Y ξ ν +hφ( Y A)ξ φ( Y A )ξ. From this, putting Y = ξ into (3.11), we obtain (3.1) 0 = {q ν+ (ξ)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (ξ)η ν+ (ξ)}φξ ν + η ν (ξ){q ν+ (ξ)φξ ν+1 q ν+1 (ξ)φξ ν+ +αφ ξ ν }. Now in order to show that ξ belongs to either the distribution Q or to the distribution Q, let us assume that ξ = X 1 +X for some X 1 Q and X Q. Then it follows that (3.13) { } 0 = q ν+ (ξ)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (ξ)η ν+ (ξ) (φ ν X 1 +φ ν X ) + { η ν (ξ) q ν+ (ξ)(φ ν+1 X 1 +φ ν+1 X ) } q ν+1 (ξ)(φ ν+ X 1 +φ ν+ X ) αξ ν +αη(ξ ν )(X 1 +X ). Then by comparing Q and Q component of (3.13), we have respectively (3.14) 0 = {q ν+ (ξ)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (ξ)η ν+ (ξ)}φ ν X 1 +α η ν (ξ) X 1 + η ν (ξ){q ν+ (ξ)φ ν+1 X 1 q ν+1 (ξ)φ ν+ X 1 },

14 14 YOUNG JIN SUH (3.15) 0 = {q ν+ (ξ)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (ξ)η ν+ (ξ)}φ ν X + η ν (ξ){q ν+ (ξ)φ ν+1 X q ν+1 (ξ)φ ν+ X αξ ν +αη(ξ ν )X }. Taking an inner product (3.14) with X 1, we have (3.16) α η ν (ξ) = 0. Then α = 0 or η ν (ξ) = 0 for ν = 1,,3. So for a non-vanishing geodesic Reeb flow we have η ν (ξ) = 0, ν = 1,,3. This means that ξ Q, which contradicts to our assumption ξ = X 1 +X. Including this one, we are able to assert the following: Lemma 3.1. Let M be a Hopf hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ) with commuting Ricci tensor. Then the Reeb vector ξ belongs to either the distribution Q or to the distribution Q. Proof. When the geodesic Reeb flow is non-vanishing, that is α 0, (3.16) gives ξ Q. When the geodesic Reeb flow is vanishing, we differentiate Aξ = 0. Then by Suh (17 and 18) we know that η ν (ξ)η ν (φy) = 0. From this, by replacing Y Q by φy, it follows that (ξ)η(y) = 0. η ν So if there are some Y Q such that η(y) 0, then η ν (ξ) = 0 for ν = 1,,3. This means that ξ Q. If η(y) = 0 for any Y Q, then we know ξ Q. 4. Real hypersurfaces with geodesic Reeb flow satisfying ξ Q NowinthissectionletusshowthatthedistributionQofaHopfrealhypersurface M in SU,m /S(U U m ) with ξ Q satisfies g(aq,q ) = 0. The Reeb vector ξ is said to be a Hopf vector if it is a principal vector for the shape operator A of M in SU,m /S(U U m ), that is, the Reeb vector ξ is invariant under the shape operator A. In a theorem due to Berndt and Suh 3 we know that the Reeb vector ξ of M belongs to the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q when M is locally congruent to a real hypersurface of type (B), that is, a tube over a totally real totally geodesic HP n, m = n, or a horosphere in SU,m /S(U U m ) with JN JN whose center at infinity is singular, and a real hypersurface of type (D) in SU,m /S(U U m ). Naturally we are able to consider a converse problem. From such a view point Suh 0 has proved the following for real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ) with the Reeb vector field ξ Q.

15 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 15 Theorem C. Let M be a real hypersurface in noncompact complex two-plane Grassmannian SU,m /S(U U m ) with the Reeb vector field belonging to the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q. Then one of the following statements holds, (B) M is an open part of a tube around a totally geodesic HH n in SU,n /S(U U n ), m = n, (C ) M is an open part of a horosphere in SU,m /S(U U m ) whose center at infinity is singular and of type JN JN, or the following exceptional case holds: (D) The normal bundle νm of M consists of singular tangent vectors of type JX JX. Moreover, M has at least four distinct principal curvatures, three of which are given by α =, γ = 0, λ = 1 with corresponding principal curvature spaces T α = TM (C Q), T γ = J(TM Q), T λ C Q JQ. If µ is another (possibly nonconstant) principal curvature function, then we have T µ C Q JQ, JT µ T λ and JT µ T λ. In the proof of Theorem C we have used the equation of Codazzi in section for Hopf real hypersurfaces M in SU,m /S(U U m ), and proved that the quaternionic maximal subbundle Q is invariant under the shape operator, that is, g(aq,q ) = 0, ifthe Reeb vectorfield ξ belongsto the subbundle QofM. Soby usingatheorem due to Berndt and Suh 3 we can assert Theorem B in the introduction. Then among the classification of Theorem A the Reeb vector field ξ of real hypersurfaces in Theorem C belongs to the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q. Now let us check whether the Ricci tensor S of hypersurfaces mentioned in Theorem C satisfies the commuting condition or not. In order to do this, we should find all of the principal curvatures corresponding to the hypersurfaces in Theorem B. For cases of type (B), one of type (C) which will be said to be of type (C ), and of type (D) in Theorem B let us introduce a proposition due to Berndt and Suh 5 as follows: Proposition 4.1. Let M be a connected hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ), m. Assume that the maximal complex subbundle C of TM and the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q of TM are both invariant under the shape operator of M. If JN JN, then one of the following statements holds: (B) M has five (four for r = Arctanh(1/ 3) in which case α = λ ) distinct constant principal curvatures α = tanh( r), β = coth( r), γ = 0, λ 1 = 1 tanh( 1 r), λ = 1 coth( 1 r), and the corresponding principal curvature spaces are T α = TM C, T β = TM Q, T γ = J(TM Q) = JT β. The principal curvature spaces T λ1 and T λ are invariant under J and are mapped onto each other by J. In particular, the quaternionic dimension of SU,m /S(U U m ) must be even.

16 16 YOUNG JIN SUH (C ) M has exactly three distinct constant principal curvatures α = β =, γ = 0, λ = 1 with corresponding principal curvature spaces T α = TM (C Q), T γ = J(TM Q), T λ = C Q JQ. (D) M has at least four distinct principal curvatures, three of which are given by α = β =, γ = 0, λ = 1 with corresponding principal curvature spaces T α = TM (C Q), T γ = J(TM Q), T λ C Q JQ. If µ is another (possibly nonconstant) principal curvature function, then JT µ T λ and JT µ T λ. and On the other hand, we calculate the following SφX = 1 (4m+7)φX 3 η ν (φx)ξ ν + {η ν (ξ)φ ν φ X η(φ ν φx)φ ν ξ η(φx)η ν (ξ))ξ ν } +haφx A φx φsx = 1 (4m+7)φX 3 η ν (X)φξ ν + η(x)η ν (ξ)φξ ν } +hφax φa X. {η ν (ξ)φφ ν φx η(φ ν X)φφ ν ξ Then the Ricci commuting Sφ = φs implies that (4.1) haφx A φx = hφax φa X + η ν (X)φξ ν η ν (φx)ξ ν. First let us check that real hypersurfaces of type (B) in Theorem B satisfy the formula (4.1) or not. Putting X = ξ Q we know the formula (4.1) holds. For X = ξ i Q the left side of (4.1) becomes L = haφξ i A φξ i = 0 and the right side is given by Then β(h β) =. R =hφaξ i φa ξ i +η ν (ξ i )φξ ν η ν (φξ i )ξ ν =hβφξ i β φξ i +φξ i = (hβ β +)φξ i. On the other hand, the trace h is given by h =α+3β +3γ +(m )(λ 1 +λ ) = tanh( r)+(m 1) coth( r),

17 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 17 where we have used coth r = tanh( 1 r)+coth( 1 r). Then it follows that β(h β) =( tanh( r)+(m ) coth( r)) coth( r) =+4(m 1)coth ( r) =, which gives 4(m 1)coth ( r) = 4. This gives a contradiction. As a second, let us check whether or not a horosphere at infinity could satisfy the Ricci commuting. By Proposition 4.1, we know that the principal curvatures of the case (C ) are given by α = β =,γ = 0,λ = 1. Then the trace of the shape operator h becomes h =α+3β +3γ +4(m )λ =4 +(m ) Then by putting X = ξ i Q in (4.1), we know that (hβ β + )φξ i = 0. This gives that = β(h β) = (m 1), which gives a contradiction. As a third, we want to check that real hypersurfaces of type (D) in Theorem C satisfy the Ricci commuting or not. Then the principal curvature of type (D) becomes α = β =,γ = 0,λ = 1 and quadµ where JT µ T λ and JT µ T λ. Then the trace h becomes that h =α+3β +3γ +(m 4) 1 +(m 4)µ =(m )( +µ)+4. From this, together with β(h β) =, we have {(m )( +µ)+3 } =. This gives µ(m ) = (m+). Then the trace h becomes that h =(m )( +µ)+4 =(m ) (m+) +4 =0. On the other hand, from the Ricci commuting (4.1) we know that haφx A φx = hφax φa X for any X Q. So it follows that h = λ+µ = m. But this is a contradiction. So also the case of type (D) can not occur. Summing up all cases (B), (C ) and (D) mentioned above, we conclude that there do not exist any Hopf real hypersurfaces in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannians SU,m /S(U U m ) with commuting Ricci tensor when the Reeb vector field ξ belongs to the distribution Q.

18 18 YOUNG JIN SUH 5. Real hypersurfaces with geodesic Reeb flow satisfying ξ Q Now let us consider a Hopf real hypersurface M in SU,m /S(U U m ) with commuting Ricci tensor satisfying ξ Q, where Q denotes a quaternionic maximal subbundle in T x M, x M such that T x M = Q Q. Since we assume ξ Q = Span {ξ 1,ξ,ξ 3 }, there exists a Hermitian structure J 1 J such that JN = J 1 N, that is, ξ = ξ 1. Moreover, the right side of (3.6) can be written as follows: (5.1) ( Y φ)sξ +φ( Y S)ξ =η(sξ)ay g(ay,sξ)ξ +φ( Y S)ξ = { (m+1)+hα α }+ η ν (ξ) AY + 3 φ AY { (m+1)α+hα α 3 }η(y) η ν (ξ)η ν (AY) ξ {q ν+ (Y)η ν+1 (ξ) q ν+1 (Y)η ν+ (ξ)+η ν (φay)}φξ ν η ν (ξ){q ν+ (Y)φξ ν+1 q ν+1 (Y)φξ ν+ +φφ ν AY} η ν (ξ){φφ ν AY αη(y)φ ξ ν } g(φay,φξ ν )φ ξ ν Y(η ν (ξ))φξ ν η ν (ξ)φ Y ξ ν +hφ( Y A)ξ φ( Y A )ξ. Then ( Y S)φξ + S( Y φ)ξ = ( Y φ)sξ + φ( Y S)ξ and ξ Q, that is, ξ = ξ 1, becomes 1 { (4m+7)AY 6αη(Y)ξ 3η (AY)ξ 3η 3 (AY)ξ 3 } +φ 1 φay η(φ AY)φ ξ η(φ 3 AY)φ 3 ξ αη(y)ξ (5.) +ha Y A 3 Y αη(y){ mξ +(αh α )ξ} ={ m+hα α }AY { m+hα α }AY { m+hα α }αη(y)ξ + 3 φ AY +(q 1 (Y)η 3 (ξ) q 3 (Y)η(ξ) +η (φay)φξ )φξ +(q (Y)η(ξ) q 1 (Y)η (ξ)+η 3 (φay)φξ 3 )φξ 3 +(q 3 (Y)φξ q (Y)φξ 3 +φφ 1 AY) 1 φφ 1 AY αη(y)φφ 1 ξ g(φay,φ ξ)φφ ξ g(φay,φ 3 ξ)φφ 3 ξ φ AY +hαφ AY hφaφay α φ AY +φa φay.

19 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 19 Then (5.) can be rearranged as follows: (5.3) 5AY +5αη(Y)ξ +6η (AY)ξ +6η 3 (AY)ξ 3 +ha Y A 3 Y =3φφ 1 AY +(hα α 3 )η(y)ξ hφaφay +φa φay. Now let us use a Proposition due to Suh (see 19) as follows: Proposition 5.1. If M is a connected orientable real hypersurface in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannian SU,m /S(U U m ) with geodesic Reeb flow, then g(aφax,y) αg((aφ+φa)x,y)+g(φx,y) { = η ν (X)η ν (φy) η ν (Y)η ν (φx) g(φ ν X,Y)η ν (ξ) } η(x)η ν (φy)η ν (ξ)+η(y)η ν (φx)η ν (ξ). Then by Proposition 5.1, we know that for ξ = ξ 1 (5.4) AφAY = α(aφ+φa)y φy φ 1 Y +{η (Y)ξ 3 η 3 (Y)ξ }. So it follows that AφAY = α(aφ + φa)y φy φ 1 Y for any Y Q, where Q denotes a maximal quaternionic subbundle of T x M, x M. Then this gives the following φa φay =φa(aφay) = φa{α(aφ+φa)y φy φ 1 Y} =αφa(aφ+φa)y φaφy φaφ 1 Y. From this, together with (5.4), it follows that (5.5) (5.6) 5AY +5αη(Y)ξ +6η (AY)ξ +6η 3 (AY)ξ 3 +ha Y A 3 Y =3φφ 1 AY +(hα α )αη(y)ξ hφ{α(aφ+φa)y φy φ 1 Y} +αφa(aφ+φa)y φaφy φaφ 1 Y Then (5.5) can be written as follows: 3φφ 1 AY ha Y +A 3 Y +5AY = hαφ(aφ+φa)y +hy hφφ 1 Y +6η (AY)ξ +6η 3 (AY)ξ 3 αφa(aφ+φa)y +φaφy +φaφ 1 Y. On the other hand, the commuting Ricci tensor φs = Sφ gives for any Y Q and ξ = ξ 1 Q 1 (4m+7)φY +φ 1 φ Y +haφy A φy = 1 (4m+7)φY +φφ 1 φy = hφay φa Y Then for any Y belonging to the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q, we know haφy A φy = hφay φa Y. Fromthis, by replacingy by φy for Y Q and applying Ato the obtained equation, we have (5.7) ha Y A 3 Y = haφaφy +AφA φy.

20 0 YOUNG JIN SUH and On the other hand, by using (5.4) for any φy Q, we know AφAφY = α(aφ+φa)φy +Y φ 1 φy AφA φy = α(aφ+φa)aφy φaφy φ 1 AφY +{η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ 3 }. Then substituting these formulas into (5.7), we have ha Y +A 3 Y = haφaφy AφA φy =hα(aφ+φa)φy +hy hφ 1 φy α(aφ+φa)aφy +φaφy {η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ }. From this, together with (5.6), it follows that (5.8) 3φ 1 φay +5AY +hα(aφ+φa)φy +hy hφ 1 φy α(aφ+φa)aφy +φaφy +φ 1 AφY {η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ } =αh(aφ+φa)+hy hφφ 1 Y +6η (AY)ξ +6η 3 (AY)ξ 3 αφa(aφ+φa)y +φaφy +φaφ 1 Y. Then it can be rearranged as follows: (5.9) and 6φφ 1 AY +10AY hαay αaφaφy +φ 1 AφY 4{η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ } = αhay +1η (AY)ξ +1η 3 (AY)ξ 3 αφaφay +φaφ 1 Y. On the other hand, from (5.4) we calculate the following formulas αaφaφy = α (Aφ+φA)φY +αy αφ 1 φy αφaφay = α φ(aφ+φa)y +αy αφφ 1 Y. Substituting these formulas into (5.9), we have (5.10) 6φφ 1 AY +10AY hαay α (Aφ+φA)φY αy +αφ 1 φy +φ 1 AφY 4{η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ } = αhay +1η (AY)ξ +1η 3 (AY)ξ 3 α φ(aφ+φa)y αy +αφφ 1 Y +φaφ 1 Y. Thus it can be rearranged for any Y Q: (5.11) 6φφ 1 AY +10AY +φ 1 AφY 4{η (AφY)ξ 3 η 3 (AφY)ξ } =1η (AY)ξ +1η 3 (AY)ξ 3 +α AY +φaφ 1 Y. From this, if we take an inner product with ξ, it follows that 6η (AY)+10η (AY) η 3 (AφY)+4η 3 (AφY) = 1η (AY)+η 3 (Aφ 1 Y).

21 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 1 Then it can be arranged by (5.1) η 3 (AφY) = η (AY)+η 3 (Aφ 1 Y). Similarly, let us take an inner product (5.11) by ξ 3. Then we have 6η 3 (AY)+10η 3 (AY)+η (AφY) 4η (AφY) = 1η 3 (AY) η (Aφ 1 Y). Then it can be arranged by (5.13) η (AφY) = η 3 (AY)+η (Aφ 1 Y) for any Y Q. Note that on a maximal quaternionic subbundle Q we know that (φφ 1 ) = I, that is, φφ 1 φφ 1 X = X for any X T x M, x M and tr(φφ 1 ) = 0. By virtue of these facts, we can decompose a maximal quaternionic subbundle Q in such two eigenspaces as follows: and E +1 = {X Q φφ 1 X = X} E 1 = {X Q φφ 1 X = X}, where Q = E +1 E 1. Then we know that and X E +1 iff φφ 1 X = X iff φ 1 X = φx X E 1 iff φφ 1 X = X iff φx = φ 1 X. First let us consider on the subbundle E 1 = {Y Q φy = φ 1 Y}. Then (5.1) gives η (AY) = 0 for any Y E 1. Moreover, (5.13) implies η 3 (AY) = 0 for any Y E 1. Now let us consider a subbundle E +1 = {X Q φx = φ 1 X} in the maximal subbundle Q. Then (5.1) and (5.13) respectively gives the following (5.14) η 3 (AφY) = η (AY) and η (AφY) = η 3 (AY). From this, together with (5.11), we have (5.15) 3φφ 1 AY +5AY +φ 1 AφY 4{η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 } = φaφ 1 Y. Now let us consider eigenvectors Y,φY E +1 such that φy = φ 1 Y. Then we may put AY = λy + η ν (AY)ξ ν and AφY = λφy + φay = λφy + η ν (AφY)ξ ν η ν (AY)φξ ν. From these formulas it follows that for any Y E +1 satisfying φy = φ 1 Y φφ 1 AY = φ{λφ 1 Y + η ν (AY)φ 1 ξ ν } = λy + η ν (AY)φφ 1 ξ ν, φ 1 φaφy = φ 1 { λφy + η ν (AφY)ξ ν } = λy + η ν (AφY)φ 1 ξ ν,

22 YOUNG JIN SUH and φaφy = { λy η ν (AφY)φξ ν } = φaφ 1 Y. From these formulas, (5.15) gives the following (5.16) 3{λY + η ν (AY)φφ 1 ξ ν }+5{λY + + λy + η ν (AφY)φ 1 ξ ν =4{η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 }+{ λy η ν (AY)ξ ν } η ν (AφY)φξ ν } which gives λ = 0. Then this implies the following (5.17) AY = η ν (AY)ξ ν = g(aξ,y)ξ +g(aξ 3,Y)ξ 3. Then for any φy E +1 we know that AφY =g(aξ,φy)ξ +g(aξ 3,φY)ξ 3 = η 3 (AY)ξ +η (AY)ξ 3 φaφy =g(aξ,φy)φξ +g(aξ 3,φY)φξ 3 = g(aξ,φy)ξ 3 +g(aξ 3,φY)ξ φ 1 AφY =g(aξ,φy)ξ 3 g(aξ 3,φY)ξ. Substituting these fomulas into (5.15) and using φy = φ 1 Y for Y E +1, we have 3φφ 1 AY = 5AY φ 1 AφY +4{η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 } φaφy (5.18) = 5{η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 }+4{η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 } = {η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3 } =3φ 1 φay. Then by applying φ 1 to the second equality of the above equation, we know that for any Y E +1, which gives that 3φAY = η (AY)ξ 3 η 3 (AY)ξ 3AY = η (AY)φξ 3 η 3 (AY)φξ = η (AY)ξ +η 3 (AY)ξ 3. From this, by applying ξ and ξ 3, we get the following respectively η (AY) = 0 and η 3 (AY) = 0 for any Y E +1. Summing up the case in the subbundle E 1 and the fact that M is Hopf we proved that g(aq,q ) = 0, that is the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q is invariant under the shape operator. Then from such a view point, by Theorem A in the introduction we conclude that M is locally congruent to one of real hypersurfaces of type (A), (B), (C 1 ), (C ) and (D). Among them we know that the Reeb vector field ξ of hypersurfaces of type (A) and (C 1 ) belongs to the

23 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 3 quaternionic maximal subbundle Q, that is JN JN. This gives a complete proof of our main theorem. On the other hand, the Reeb flow of these type hypersurfaces mentioned in our theorem is isometric as in Theorem B. That is, the shape operator commutes with the structure tensor, that is Aφ = φa. So by using this property, conversely, let us check whether or not these hypersurfaces satisfy the Ricci commuting. In order to do this, let us introduce the following Proposition due to Berndt and Suh 3 : Proposition B. Let M be a connected hypersurface in SU,m /S(U U m ), m. Assume that the maximal complex subbundle C of T M and the maximal quaternionic subbundle Q of TM are both invariant under the shape operator of M. If JN JN, then one the following statements hold: (A) M has exactly four distinct constant principal curvatures α = coth(r), β = coth(r),λ 1 = tanh(r), λ = 0, and the corresponding principal curvature spaces are T α = TM C, T β = C Q, T λ1 = E 1, T λ = E +1. The principal curvature spaces T λ1 and T λ are complex (with respect to J) and totally complex (with respect to J). (C 1 ) M has exactly three distinct constant principal curvatures α =, β = 1, λ = 0 with corresponding principal curvature spaces T α = TM C, T β = (C Q) E 1, T λ = E +1. Now by using above proposition and the isometric Reeb flow, let us check real hypersurfaces of type (A) and (C ) satisfy Sφ = φs. The from Aφ = φa the Ricci commuting gives the following (5.19) 3 η ν (φy)ξ ν + {η ν (ξ)φ ν φ Y η(φ ν φy)φ ν ξ} = 3 η ν (Y)φξ ν + {η ν (ξ)φφ ν φy η(φ ν Y)φφ ν ξ}. Now let us check it for real hypersurfaces of type (A) and of type (C 1 ) in Proposition B as follows: Case 1) Put Y = ξ = ξ 1. Then the both sides equal to each other. Case ) Put Y = ξ,ξ 3. For Y = ξ in (5.19) we have 3η 3 (φξ ξ 3 )+φ 1 φ ξ η(φ φξ )φ ξ = 3φξ +φφ 1 φξ η(φ 3 ξ )φφ 3 ξ =ξ 3. Also the both sides hold for Y = ξ 3.

24 4 YOUNG JIN SUH Case 3) Put Y E 1 E +1. First let us say Y E 1 such that φy = φ 1 Y. The left side of (5.19) becomes L = η ν (ξ)φ ν φφ Y = φ 1 φ Y = φ 1 Y and the Right side is given by R = φφ 1 φy = φ 1 φφy = φ 1 φ Y = φ 1 Y. Also the both sides equal to each other for Y E +1. Remark 5.. In the paper 18 we have given a complete classification of real hypersurfaces in G (C m+ ) with commuting Ricci tensor and have proved that they are locally congruent to a tube over a totallly geodesic G (C m+1 ) in G (C m+ ). Also in 18 we have proved that they have isometric Reeb flows. Remark 5.3. In the paper 16 we have given a complete classification of pseudo- Einstein hypersurfcaes in G (C m+ ) and have found that there does not exist any Einstein real hypersurface in G (C m+ ). Remark 5.4. Our main theorem in the introduction will give a contribution to the study of Lie invariant problems for real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ) or to the classification problem of pseudo-einstein real hypersurfaces in SU,m /S(U U m ). Moreover, based on the classification of the isometric Reeb flow in 4, it will give a contribution to the study of real hypersurfaces in complex quadric Q m with commuting Ricci tensor. References 1 J. Berndt, S. Console and C. Olmos, Submanifolds and holonomy, Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 003. J. Berndt and Y.J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces with isometric Reeb flow in complex two-plane Grassmannians, Monatsh. Math. 137 (00), J. Berndt and Y.J. Suh, Hypersurfaces in noncompact complex Grassmannians of rank two, International J. Math., World Scientific Publishing, 3(01), (35 pages). 4 J. Berndt and Y. J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces with isometric Reeb flow in complex quadrics, International J. Math. 4 (013), , 18pp. 5 P.B. Eberlein, Geometry of nonpositively curved manifolds, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, London S. Helgason, Groups and Geometric Analysis, Survey and Monographs Amer. Math. Soc S. Helgason, Geometric Analysis on Symmetric Spaces, The nd Edition, Math. Survey and Monographs, Amer. Math. Soc. 39 (008). 8 M. Kimura, Real hypersurfaces and complex submanifolds in complex projective space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 96 (1986), M. Kimura, Some real hypersurfaces of a complex projective space, Saitama Math. J. 5 (1987), A. Martinez and J.D. Pérez, Real hypersurfaces in quaternionic projective space, Ann. Math. Pura Appl. 145 (1986), S. Montiel and A. Romero, On some real hypersurfaces of a complex hyperbolic space, Geometriae Dedicata 0 (1986), M. Okumura, On some real hypersurfaces of a complex projective space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1 (1975), J.D. Pérez, On certain real hypersurfaces of quaternionic projective space II, Alg. Groups Geom. 10 (1993), 13-4.

25 HYPERSURFACES IN COMPLEX HYPERBOLIC TWO-PLANE GRASSMANNIANS 5 14 J.D. Pérez and Y.J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces of quaternionic projective space satisfying Ui R = 0, Diff. Geom. and Its Appl. 7 (1997), J.D. Pérez and Y.J. Suh, Certain conditions on the Ricci tensor of real hypersurfaces in quaternionic projective space, Acta Math. Hungarica 91 (001), J.D. Pérez, Y.J. Suh and Y. Watanabe, Generalized Einstein real hypersurfaces in complex two-plane Grassmannians, J. of Geom. and Physics 60 (010), Y.J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces of type B in complex two-plane Grassmannians, Monatshefte für Math. 147 (006), Y.J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces in complex two-plane Grassmannians with commuting Ricci tensor, J. Geometry and Physics 60 (010), Y.J. Suh, Hypersurfaces with isometric Reeb flow in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannians, Advances in Applied Math., 50 (013), Y.J. Suh, Real hypersurfaces in complex hyperbolic two-plane Grassmannians with Reeb vector field, Advances in Applied Math., 55 (014), R. Takagi, On homogeneous real hypersurfaces of a complex projective space, Osaka J. Math. 10 (1973), Young Jin Suh Kyungpook National University, Department of Mathematics, Taegu , Korea address: yjsuh@knu.ac.kr