In each dimension of the form 4n-1 with n\geq 3, we construct infinitely many new examples of manifolds admitting metrics with positive sectional curvature almost everywhere. In addition, we show that if n\geq 6, infinitely many of our examples are not homotopy equivalent to any homogeneous space, providing the first infinite family of such examples.
In each dimension of the form 4n-1 with n\geq 3, there are infinitely many simply connected closed manifolds which admit a metric of almost positive sectional curvature. In addition, if n\geq 6, infinitely many of them are strongly inhomogeneous.
For any allowable integers (p,q_1,q_2) other than (0,0,1), (0, 1, 0), and (1,1,0) the generalized Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}^{4n-1}_{p,q_1,q_2} with n\geq 2 has almost positive curvature with respect to Wilking’s metric if and only if one of the following occurs:
0, p \in [\min\{q_1+q_2,q_2\}, \max\{q_1+q_2,q_2\}]
p\geq q_1 + q_2 > 0 and q_1\geq 0
In addition, for the exceptional triples, the Wilking metric is not almost positively curved.
In each dimension of the form 4n-1 with n\geq 3, there are infinitely cohomogeneity one manifolds which do not admit a cohomogeneity one metric of quasi-positive curvature but do admit a cohomogeneity two metric of almost positive curvature.
For each n\geq 2, there are at least three free isometric T^2-actions on U(n+1)/U(n-1). All three of the resulting quotient spaces inherit almost positively curved metrics.
A collection of integers p_1,...,p_{n+1}, q_1,q_2 is called admissible if (?) holds and either q_2 > 0 or both q_2 = 0 and q_1 > 0.
With respect to Wilking’s metric, there is a zero-curvature plane at [(B,I)]\in \Delta G \backslash(G\times G)/L\cong \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} if and only if there are linearly independent vectors X,Y\in \mathfrak{g} satisfying all of the following properties:
\langle X, Ad_B L_1 - L_2\rangle_0 = \langle Y, Ad_B L_1-L_2\rangle_0 for all (L_1,L_2)\in \mathfrak{l}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g}.
[X,Y]= 0
\{X_{\mathfrak{p}}, Y_{\mathfrak{p}}\} is linearly dependent.
\{ (Ad_{B^{-1}}(X))_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}(Y))_{\mathfrak{p}} \} is linearly dependent.
Suppose initially that each of these conditions is satisfied. Because X and Y satisfy the first equation, via [longkerinpaper, Equation (9), pg. 1006], the span of the vectors \widehat{X} = (-\phi_1^{-1}(Ad_{B}^{-1} X), \phi_1^{-1}(X)) and \widehat{Y} = (-\phi_1^{-1}(Ad_{B}^{-1} Y), \phi_1^{-1}(Y)) \in \mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g} lefts translates to a horizontal plane \widehat{\sigma} at (B,I)\in G\times G. We claim that this plane has zero-curvature. Believing this, it follows from Tapp’s theorem [Ta2] that the projection of this plane to [(B,I)]\in \Delta G\backslash(G\times G)/L has zero-curvature.
Because the metric on G\times G is a product of non-negatively curved metrics, to verify \widehat{\sigma} has zero-curvature, it is sufficient to verify that the projection of \widehat{\sigma} to each factor of G\times G has zero-curvature. The projection to the first factor is \widehat{\sigma}_1 = \operatorname{span} \{ \phi_1^{-1} Ad_{B^{-1}}X, \phi_1^{-1} Ad_{B^{-1}} Y\} and the projection to the second factor is \widehat{\sigma}_2 =\operatorname{span}\{ \phi_1^{-1} X, \phi_1^{-1}Y\}.
We focus on \widehat{\sigma}_2 first. From, e.g., [longkerinpaper, Example (a), pg. 1005], we see that since (G,K) is a symmetric pair, that \widehat{\sigma}_2 has zero-curvature if and only if [X,Y] = [X_{\mathfrak{k}}, Y_{\mathfrak{k}}] = [X_{\mathfrak{p}},Y_{\mathfrak{p}}] = 0. By assumption, [X,Y] = [X_{\mathfrak{p}}, Y_{\mathfrak{p}}] = 0, so we only need to verify that [X_{\mathfrak{k}},Y_{\mathfrak{k}}] = 0. However, since [\mathfrak{k},\mathfrak{p}]\subseteq \mathfrak{p} and [X_{\mathfrak{p}},Y_{\mathfrak{p}}] =0, it follows that the \mathfrak{k}-component of the equation 0 = [X,Y] is [X_{\mathfrak{k}},Y_{\mathfrak{k}}], so this must be zero as well. Thus, \widehat{\sigma}_2 has zero-curvature.
Turning to \widehat{\sigma}_1, [longkerinpaper, Example (a), pg. 1005] implies that \widehat{\sigma}_1 has zero-curvature if and only if [Ad_{B^{-1}}X, Ad_{B^{-1}}Y] = [(Ad_{B^{-1}}X)_{\mathfrak{k}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}Y)_{\mathfrak{k}}] = [(Ad_{B^{-1}}X)_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}Y)_{\mathfrak{p}}] = 0. The fact that [X,Y]=0 and that Ad_{B^{-1}} is a Lie algebra isomorphism implies that [Ad_{B^{-1}}X, Ad_{B^{-1}}Y] = 0. Further, [(Ad_{B^{-1}}X)_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}Y)_{\mathfrak{p}}]=0 by assumption, and then the fact that [(Ad_{B^{-1}}X)_{\mathfrak{k}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}Y)_{\mathfrak{k}}] = 0 now follows as it did in the case of \widehat{\sigma}_2.
Thus, \widehat{\sigma} has zero-sectional curvature, so there is a zero-curvature plane at [(B,I)].
Conversely, assume there is a zero-curvature plane at [(B,I)]. Then from the Gray-O’Neill formulas for a Riemannian submersion [Gr, On1] there must be a horizontal zero-curvature plane at (B,I). From [longkerinpaper, Equation (9), pg. 1006], left translating this plane the identity yields a horizontal zero-curvature plane of the form \widehat{\sigma}=\operatorname{span} \{\widehat{X},\widehat{Y}\} where X and Y satisfy the first condition of this proposition.
Since \widehat{\sigma} has zero-curvature, its two projections \widehat{\sigma}_i must have zero-curvature. From [longkerinpaper, Example (a) pg. 1005], we find that [X,Y] = 0 and that both [X_{\mathfrak{p}}, Y_{\mathfrak{p}}] = 0 and [(Ad_{B^{-1}} X)_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}} Y)_{\mathfrak{p}}] = 0. However, since the \mathfrak{p}-components can be interpreted as tangent vectors in the positively-curved G/K = \mathbb{C}P^{n}, their bracket vanishes if and only if they are linearly dependent.
With respect to Kerin’s metric, there is a zero-curvature plane at [(B,I)]\in \Delta G \backslash(G\times G)/L\cong \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} if and only if there are linearly independent vectors X,Y\in \mathfrak{g} satisfying all of the following properties:
\langle \phi_1(X), Ad_B L_1 - L_2\rangle_0 = \langle \phi_1(Y), Ad_B L_1-L_2\rangle_0 for all (L_1,L_2)\in \mathfrak{l}\subseteq \mathfrak{g}\oplus \mathfrak{g}.
[X,Y]= 0
\{X_{\mathfrak{p}}, Y_{\mathfrak{p}} \} is linearly dependent.
\{ (Ad_{B^{-1}}\phi_1(X))_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}}\phi_1(Y))_{\mathfrak{p}}\} is linearly dependent.
[X_{\mathfrak{m}},Y_{\mathfrak{m}}] = [X_{\mathfrak{h}}, Y_{\mathfrak{h}}] = 0
With respect to Kerin’s metric, assume there is a horizontal zero-curvature plane at (B,I)\in G\times G. Then the left translation of this plane to the identity is spanned by vectors
where X and Y can be expressed as one of the following types:
(i) X\in \mathfrak{g} and Y \in \operatorname{diag}(i, 0, ..., 0)
(ii) X\in \mathfrak{p} \oplus \mathfrak{h} and Y \in \operatorname{diag}(0, i, ..., 0)
(iii) X\in \mathfrak{p} \oplus \mathfrak{h} and Y \in \operatorname{diag}(i, i, ..., 0)
(iv) X = \left(\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}i& &-x^T& \\ \hline & & & \\x& & 0 & \\ & & & \end{tabular}\right) and Y = \left(\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc}i& & & & \\ \hline &i& &-y^T& \\ \hline & & & & \\ &y& & 0 & \\ & & & & \end{tabular}\right)
where x_2 \not= 0, \beta = 1 - \sum_{j=3}^{n+1}|y_j|^2, and x_j=-ix_2y_j for j\in \{3,...,n+1\}
(v) X = \left(\begin{tabular}{c|ccc}i& &-x^T& \\ \hline & & & \\x& & 0 & \\ & & & \end{tabular}\right) and Y = \left(\begin{tabular}{c|c|ccc}0& & & & \\ \hline &i& &-y^T& \\ \hline & & & & \\ &y& & 0 & \\ & & & & \end{tabular}\right)
where x = (0, x_3, ... , x_{n+1})^T \not= 0 and \sum_{j=3}^{n+1}x_j\overline{y_j} = 0.
For any [(B,I)]\in \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}}, there is a zero-curvature plane at [(B,I)] with respect to Kerin’s metric if and only if there is a zero-curvature plane there with respect to Wilking’s metric.
Assume initially that there is a zero-curvature plane with respect to Wilking’s metric. From Proposition 2.3, there are linearly independent vectors X,Y\in \mathfrak{g} satisfying all four conditions of Proposition 2.3.
We claim that X':=\phi_1^{-1}(X) = \frac{1}{\lambda_1} X_{\mathfrak{k}} + X_{\mathfrak{p}} and Y' = Y satisfy all 5 conditions of Proposition 2.4. Indeed, since in all 5 types of Proposition 2.5 have Y\in \mathfrak{k}, it follows that \phi_1(Y) = \lambda_1 Y is a multiple of Y. In particular, conditions 1 and 4 of Proposition 2.4 follow immediately from conditions 1 and 4 of Proposition 2.3. Moreover, since X' and X have the same \mathfrak{p} component, the same holds for condition 3.
For condition 2, we argue as follows. We already know that 0 = [X,Y] and since Y\in \mathfrak{p} and (G,K) is a symmetric pair, we see that 0 = \underbrace{[X_{\mathfrak{k}}, Y]}_{\mathfrak{p}} + \underbrace{[X_{\mathfrak{p}},Y]}_{\mathfrak{k}} so that [X_{\mathfrak{k}},Y] =[X_{\mathfrak{p}},Y]= 0. Then
confirming condition 2 of Proposition 2.4.
We finally verify condition 5. First, the condition 1 implies that Y is orthogonal to \mathfrak{h}, so that Y_{\mathfrak{h}} = 0. Thus, [X'_{\mathfrak{h}}, Y'_{\mathfrak{h}}] = [X'_{\mathfrak{h}},0] = 0. On the other hand, in types (i), (ii), and (iii), Y has vanishing \mathfrak{m} component, while in types (iv) and (v), X has vanishing \mathfrak{m} component. Since X'_{\mathfrak{m}} = \lambda_1 X_{\mathfrak{m}}, we see that in all five types, either X'_{\mathfrak{m}} = 0 or Y'_{\mathfrak{m}} = 0, so that [X'_{\mathfrak{m}}, Y'_{\mathfrak{m}}] = 0 in all cases.
Having verified all 5 conditions of Proposition 2.4, it follows that there is a zero-curvature plane with respect to Kerin’s metric.
Conversely, if X and Y satisfy all 5 conditions of Proposition 2.4, then arguing similarly, it is easy to see that X' = \phi_1(X) and Y' = Y satisfy all 4 conditions of Proposition 2.3.
Suppose X and Y fall into type (iv) or (v) of Proposition 2.5 and let \sigma = \operatorname{span}\{\widehat{X}, \widehat{Y}\}. Then the left translation of \sigma to (B,I) is a horizontal zero-curvature plane with respect to Kerin’s metric if and only if all of the following conditions are satisfied.
\operatorname{Tr}(i\phi_1(X) (Ad_B (\operatorname{diag}(p_1,p_2,..., p_{n+1})) - \operatorname{diag}(q_1,q_2,0,...,0)) = 0
\operatorname{Tr}(i Y (Ad_B (\operatorname{diag}(p_1,p_2,..., p_{n+1})) - \operatorname{diag}(q_1,q_2,0,...,0)) = 0
\{(Ad_{B^{-1}}(\phi_1(X)))_{\mathfrak{p}}, (Ad_{B^{-1}} Y)_{\mathfrak{p}}\} is linearly dependent.
From Proposition 2.4, \sigma has zero-curvature if and only if all five conditions of Proposition 2.4 hold.
Noting that all five conditions are scale invariant, and that \phi_1(Y) is a multiple of Y since Y\in \mathfrak{k}, we may replace all occurrences of \phi_1(Y) with Y. Thus, condition 4 of Proposition 2.4 yields the third condition of this proposition.
We also note that by inspection, conditions 2,3, and 5 hold automatically and that condition 1 holds for all (L_1,L_2)\in \mathfrak{u}(n-1)\subseteq \mathfrak{l} = \mathfrak{u}(1)\oplus \mathfrak{u}(n-1). Thus condition one reduces to checking orthogonality to the \mathfrak{u}(1) factor. But clearly \mathfrak{u}(1) = \operatorname{span} \{ i (\operatorname{diag}(p_1,...., p_{n+1}), \operatorname{diag}(q_1,q_2,0,...,0))\}. Thus, condition 1 of Proposition 2.4 gives conditions one and two of this proposition.
A collection p, 0, ..., 0, q_1,q_2 of integers is admissible if and only if
A triple of integers (p,q_1,q_2) is called admissible if equation (3.1) holds and if q_2 > 0 or (q_1,q_2) = (1,0).
For any admissible triple (p,q_1,q_2), the action by U(n)\times T^3 on G\times G given by
descends to an action on \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}. Every (U(n)\times T^3)-orbit intersects the image of \mathcal{F} in exactly one point, so that, in particular, the action has cohomogeneity two.
We first observe that for z\in S^1, \operatorname{diag}(z^{p_1},...,z^{p_n}) = \operatorname{diag}(z^{p}, 1,...,1) and thus \operatorname{diag}(z^p,1,...,1) commutes with \operatorname{diag}(w_1,D). In a similar fashion, \operatorname{diag}(z^{q_1}, z^{q_2}, C) with C\in U(n-1), commutes with \operatorname{diag}(w_2, w_3, I_{n-1}). It follows that that the (U(n)\times T^3)-action given by \ast commutes with the action \cdot of G\times L, described in Section ?. In particular, the (U(n)\times T^3)-action descends to an action on \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}. In fact, viewing \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} as the quotient G/\!\!/ L, the induced action by U(n)\times T^3 takes the form
We next show that every (U(n)\times T^3)-orbit intersects in image of \mathcal{F} in at least one point. It is clearly sufficient to show that every orbit of the ((U(n)\times T^3)\times (G\times L))-action on G\times G intersects \mathcal{F}. We first observe that via the G\times L action by \cdot with (g, (C,z)) = (g_2^{-1}, (I_{n-1}, 1)), every orbit contains a point of the form (g_1,I_{n+1}). Moreover, the stabilizer of the set (G\times \{ I_{n+1}\})\subseteq G\times G under the ((U(n)\times T^3)\times (G\times L))-action is given by
The induced J-action on G\cong G\times \{I_{n+1}\} is given by
We will show that this J-action can move any point in G to one in \mathcal{F}.
Write the entries of the matrix g_1 as (g_1)_{ij}. Since the standard U(n-1)-action on \mathbb{C}^{n-1} is transitive on the unit sphere, by choosing C appropriately, and selecting z=1, D=I_n, w_2 = \overline{(g_1)_{11}}, and w_3 = \overline{(g_1)_{21}}, we find that the orbit through g_1 contains a point whose first column is
This column has unit length which implies that there are unique t,r\in [0,\pi/2] for which the first three entries are (\cos t \cos r, \cos t\sin r, \sin t)^T. Thus, we assume without loss of generality that g_1 has a first column of the form of \mathcal{F}.
If we now further restrict the J-action to the action by U(n) by only allowing D to be a non-identity element, this restricted action will preserve the form of g_1. If g_1' is another element of U(n+1) with the same first column as g_1, then the element g_1^{-1} g_1' maps the standard basis vector (1,0,...,0)^T to itself, so that g_1^{-1} g_1' \in U(n). It follows that the U(n) action acts transitively on vectors in U(n+1) with the same first column. In particular, since \mathcal{F} contains a point with the same first column as g_1, the orbit through g_1 contains a point in \mathcal{F}.
We finally argue that no two distinct points in \mathcal{F} are in the same orbit. Observe that an element (g_1,I) of \mathcal{F} is determined by the lengths of (g_1)_{11}, (g_1)_{21}, and ( (g_1)_{31},..., (g_1)_{n+1,1}). Thus, it is sufficient to show that these three lengths are invariant under the J-action.
To that end, simply observe that for any (g_1,I)\in \mathcal{F}, the element
has first column given by
Thus, |(g_1')_{11}| = |(g_1)_{11}|, |(g_1')_{21}| = |(g_1)_{21}|, and, since C\in U(n-1),
as claimed.
If the set of points in \mathcal{F} of positive curvature is open and dense in \mathcal{F}, then \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is almost positively curved. If there is a non-empty open set of points of \mathcal{F} having at least one zero-curvature plane, then \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is not almost positively curved.
It is enough to establish the following two claims. First, if U\subseteq \mathcal{F} is open, the the orbit (U(n)\times T^3)\ast \pi(U) is open in \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}. Second, if U is dense in \mathcal{F} then (U(n)\times T^3)\ast \pi(U) is dense in \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}.
We begin with the first claim. Since \pi is a submersion, it is sufficient to show that the orbit X:=(U(n)\times T^3) \ast (G\times L)\cdot U is open in G\times G. We will, in fact, show that the complement X^c of this orbit is closed. So, select a sequence of points [((g_1)_i,(g_2)_i)] in X^c and suppose this sequence converges to [(g_1,g_2)]. We need to show that [(g_1,g_2)]\in X^c as well.
To that end, let g_i:= (g_2)_i^{-1} (g_1)_i, g:= g_2^{-1} g_2, and let (h_i,I), (h,I)\in \mathcal{F} denote the unique elements of \mathcal{F} which are orbit equivalent to ((g_1)_i, (g_2)_i) and (g_1,g_2). Since ((g_1)_i, (g_2)_i) converges to (g_1,g_2), it follows that the lengths of the entries |(g_i)_{11}| converge to |(g)_{11}|, and that similarly the lengths |(g_i)_{21}|\rightarrow |(g)_{21}| and |( (g_i)_{31},..., (g_i)_{n+1,1})|\rightarrow |( (g)_{31},...,(g)_{n+1,1})|. From the proof of Proposition 3.4, these lengths determine the corresponding points in \mathcal{F}. It follows, then, that h_i converges to h. As h_i\in U^c for all i and U^c is closed, h\in U^c, which then implies that [(g_1,g_2)]\in X^c.
We now prove denseness. So, suppose U\subseteq \mathcal{F} is dense and let V\subseteq \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} be any non-empty open set. We need to show that \pi((U(n)\times T^3)\ast U)\cap V\neq \emptyset. Since V\neq \emptyset, we may select [(g_1,g_2)]\in V.
Now, from the proof of Proposition 3.4, there is a diffeomorphism \rho:\mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}\rightarrow \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} induced by multiplication by elements in U(n)\times T^3, for which \rho([(g_1,g_2)]\in \pi(\mathcal{F}). Then \rho(V) is an open set intersecting \pi(\mathcal{F}). It follows that \pi^{-1}(\rho(V)) is an open set intersecting \mathcal{F}. By definition of denseness, there is an element (u,I)\in U\cap \pi^{-1}(\rho(V)). Then \pi(u,I) \in \pi(U)\cap \rho(V) so \rho^{-1}\pi(u,I)\in \pi( (U(n)\times T^3)\ast U)\cap V.
Suppose X and Y fall into type (iv) or type (v) of Proposition 2.5. Then the left translations of \widehat{X} and \widehat{Y} to (\operatorname{diag}(A(t,r), I_{n-2}, I_{n+1})\in G\times G span a horizontal zero-curvature plane if and only if all of the following conditions are satisfied, where \epsilon = 1 for type (iv) and \epsilon = 0 for type (v).
For
and
\{V,W\} is linearly dependent.
The first two bullet points are simplified versions of equations 1 and 2 of Proposition 2.7. For the last bullet point, a simple calculation shows that V and W are the (2,j) entries of the matrices (Ad_{B^{-1}} \phi_1(X)) and Ad_{B^{-1}}Y, respectively. Since the \mathfrak{p}-component is determined by these entries, condition 3 of Proposition 2.7 implies that \{V,W\} is linearly dependent.
Suppose (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible. If
then \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} only has a nowhere dense set of points containing zero-curvature planes of the following types from Proposition 2.5:
type (i), (ii), (iii), (v)
type (iv) with at least one y_j \neq 0 for some j\geq 4
type (iv) with either V=0 or W=0, which implies y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4.
On the other hand, \mathcal{E}_{0,0,1} has a non-empty open set of of points having zero-curvature planes of type (i), \mathcal{E}_{0,1,0} has a non-empty open set of points having zero-curvature planes of type (ii), and \mathcal{E}_{1,1,0} has a non-empty open set of points having zero-curvature planes of type (iv).
Suppose (p, q_1, q_2) \not\in \{(0, 1, 0), (0, 0, 1)\} is admissible. Then, on an open and dense set, \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} has no zero-curvature planes of type (i), (ii), or (iii). On the other hand, \mathcal{E}_{0,0,1} has type (i) zero-curvature planes on an open and dense set, while \mathcal{E}_{0,1,0} has type (ii) zero-curvature planes on an open and dense set.
We begin by proving the first statement. Suppose \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} has a zero-curvature plane of type (i), (ii), or (iii) at some point A(t,r)\in \mathcal{F}. We apply equation 2 of Proposition 2.7 to find that for Y in type (i), (ii) or (iii),
i) p\cos^2 r\cos^2 t-q_1 = 0,
ii) p\cos^2 t\sin^2 r-q_2 = 0, or
iii) p\cos^2 t-q_1-q_2 = 0.
The proposition now follows for any (p,q_1,q_2) for which none of these equations is an identity, so we now consider the possibility that at least one is not an identity.
First, if either of the first two is an identity, then we find that p=0 and one of q_1 or q_2 vanishes. Admissibility then implies that (p,q_1,q_2)\in \{(0,1,0), (0,0,1)\}, which is a contradiction. On the other hand, if equation (iii) is an identity, then admissibility implies (p,q_1,q_2) = (0,-1,1). However, in [Wi], Wilking showed that his metric on \mathcal{E}_{0,-1,1} is almost positively curved.
We now turn attention to \mathcal{E}_{0,0,1}. We use the type (i) vectors of Proposition 2.5 with Y = \operatorname{diag}(i,0,...,0) and where X = (x)_{ij} is the matrix whose only non-zero entries are x_{23} = -\overline{x}_{32} = -i\sin r\cot t and x_{33} = i\frac{(2-\cos^2 r)\cos^2 t-1}{\sin^2 t}. Then it is straightforward to verify that X and Y satisfy all the conditions of Proposition 2.4.
Finally, for \mathcal{E}_{0,1,0}, we argue analogously using type (ii) vectors. Here, Y = \operatorname{diag}(0,i,0,...,0) and X=(x)_{ij} with the non-zero entries x_{13} = -\overline{x}_{13} = -i\cos r\cot t and x_{33} = -i.
For any admissible (p,q_1,q_2), zero-curvature planes of type (v) with either V=0 or W=0 occur only on a nowhere dense set.
Suppose there is such a plane at a point A(t,r)\in \mathcal{F}. Assume first that V = 0. Then the last entry of V yields x_j\cos r\cos t = 0, so that either \cos r\cos t = 0 or x_j =0 for all j\geq 4 on an open and dense set. Excluding the nowhere dense set defined by \cos r\cos t = 0, we therefore may assume x_j =0 for all j\geq 4.
If we further exclude the nowhere dense subsets where \sin t =0 and where \cos^2 t-\sin^2 t = 0, we solve the first two entries of the equation V = 0 for x_3, finding
and
Equating these, we find that either \lambda_1 \alpha = 0, or a non-identity rational equation in (t,r) must be satisfied. If \lambda_1 \alpha = 0, then \alpha = x_3 = 0, thus X = 0, which contradicts the fact that \{X,Y\} are linearly independent. On the other hand, clearing denominators in the rational equation yields a non-identity polynomial equation which must be satisfied by (t,r).
We now assume W=0. As before, this implies y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4 off of a nowhere dense subset of \mathcal{F}. Off of a nowhere dense set, we may solve the first two entries of the equation W=0 for y_3, finding
and
As in the proof where V = 0, setting these equal to each other either yields the contradiction that Y = 0 or leads to a polynomial equation which must be satisfied by (t,r).
If (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible and is not one of (0,0,1) or (0,1,0), then there is a zero curvature plane of type (v) with V = sW for some non-zero s \in \mathbb{R} only on a nowhere dense subset of points in \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}.
We can rescale X so that V = W, i.e., so that s=1. The equation V=W is equivalent to equations (?), (?), and (?) below.
Taking the real parts of ? and ? separately, we get the equations
Equations ? and ? tell us that \operatorname{Re}(x_3) = \operatorname{Re}(y_3) = 0 off of a nowhere dense set. Now, the imaginary parts of ? and ? are
and
We now observe that ?, 3.6, ?, and ? form a homogeneous linear system of four equations in the four variables \lambda_1\alpha, \beta, \operatorname{Im}(x_3), and \operatorname{Im}(y_3). We let d denote the determinant of the matrix of coefficients of this system. It is given by the expression
We claim that d is not identically zero. To see this, observe that as powers of \cos t are linearly independent, it is sufficient to verify that the coefficient of \cos^6 t is non-zero. This coefficient is
which is non-zero so long as p\neq 0. On the other hand, if p=0, then d = q_1q_2(2\cos^2 t - 1)\sin t, which is not identically zero unless q_1 q_2 = 0. But then admissibility implies (p,q_1,q_2) \in \{(0,0,1), (0,1,0)\}, giving a contradiction.
We next claim that if d\neq 0, then there are zero-curvature planes of type (v) with V=W only on a nowhere dense set. Indeed, if d\neq 0, the corresponding linear system has a unique solution (\lambda_1\alpha, \beta, \operatorname{Im}(x_3), \operatorname{Im}(y_3)) = (0,0,0,0).
From equation ?, y_j = x_j\cot r for each j\in \{4,...,n+1\}. Since x_3 = y_3 = 0, the constraint \sum_{j=3}^{n+1}x_j\overline{y_j} = 0 of Proposition 2.5 can be rewritten
which cannot be satisfied unless (0,x_3,...,x_{n+1})^T = \vec{0} or \cot r =0. Thus, off of the nowhere dense set where \cot r = 0, this implies X = 0, giving a contradiction. Thus, the union of the solution set of the equations d=0 and \cot r=0 defines a nowhere dense subset of \mathcal{F} containing all the points at which zero-curvature planes of type (v) with V = sW can occur.
Suppose (p, q_1, q_2) \neq (0, 0, 1). Then there is a zero-curvature plane of type (iv) with V=0 only on a nowhere dense subset of points.
First, by inspecting the last entry of the equation V = 0, we see that off of a nowhere dense set, we must have x_j = 0 for all j\geq 4.
Considering the real and imaginary parts of the first two entries of the equation V=0 gives the following four equations:
From equations Proof and ?, we find \operatorname{Re}(x_2) = \operatorname{Re}(x_3) = 0 off of a nowhere dense set.
Now, we consider the system of three homogeneous linear equations ?, ?, and 3.6 in the three unknowns \lambda_1\alpha, \operatorname{Im}(x_2), \operatorname{Im}(x_3). Let d denote the determinant of the coefficient matrix, which has the expression
If d\neq 0, then the unique solution to the system of three equations is \lambda_1 \alpha = \operatorname{Im}(x_2) = \operatorname{Im}(x_3) = 0, which then forces X= 0, giving a contradiction. Thus, we must have d=0, giving a polynomial which must be satisfied. Thus, the proposition is proven as long as d = 0 is not an identity. The determinant is only identically 0 when p=q_1 = 0. Admissibility then implies (p, q_1, q_2) = (0, 0, 1), giving a contradiction.
Suppose (p, q_1, q_2) \neq (1, 1, 0). Then there is a zero-curvature plane of type (iv) with W=0 only on a nowhere dense subset of points. On the other hand, when (p,q_1,q_2) = (1,1,0), there is a non-empty open set of points admitting such a zero-curvature plane.
We begin with the first claim. Assume (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible and (p,q_1,q_2)\neq (1,1,0). By inspection, the last entry of the equation W = 0 implies that off of a nowhere dense set, y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4. Now, taking the real and imaginary parts of the first two entries of the equation W=0, we obtain the following equations.
From Proof and Proof, we see that we must have \operatorname{Re}(y_3) = 0 off of a nowhere dense set. Then from Proof and Proof, we find
Substituting these values in ?, we have
The proof of the first claim is complete as long as the left-hand side of ? is not identically zero. If it is identically zero, then we find that p=q_1+q_2 and q_2 = 0. Admissibility then implies (p,q_1,q_2) = (1,1,0), which is a contradiction.
We now prove the second claim, so assume (p,q_1,q_2) = (1,1,0). If we define x_j=y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4, y_3= \frac{\sin t}{\cos t\sin r}i, \beta = 1-\frac{\sin^2 t}{\cos^2 t\sin^2 r}, x_2 = 1, x_3 = -iy_3, and we define \lambda_1 \alpha by solving equation 3.6, then it is is to verify that Proposition 3.6 and equations (?), (?), and (?) are satisfied for any (t,r). Hence, there is a zero-curvature plane of type (iv) at every point.
Suppose (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible and not equal to (0,0,1). Then there can only be zero-curvature planes of type (iv) with V=sW for a non-zero real number s\neq 0 and y_j\neq 0 for some j\geq 4 on a nowhere dense set.
After rescaling X, we may assume s=1. We also assume without loss of generality that y_4\neq 0. Then the equation V=W yields the following equations.
Off of a nowhere dense set, equations (?) and ? imply x_2 = i\tan r and x_3 = y_3\tan r. Then we can substitute x_3 = y_3\tan r into equations 3.6, Proof, and ?. Taking the imaginary parts of equations Proof and ? together with ? and 3.6, we have a system of four linear equations with the three unknown values \lambda_1\alpha, \beta, \operatorname{Im}(y_3). Let d denote the determinant of the 4\times 4 matrix obtained by augmenting the coefficient matrix of this system with an extra column of the values of the system. The d is given by -\tan^2(r) multiplied by the following expression:
In order for this over-determined system to have a solution, it is necessary and sufficient that d=0. Thus, as long as d is not identically zero, we have proven the proposition.
The coefficient of \cos^5 t is 2p^2(\cos r-1)(\sin^6 r-\sin^4 r) which is only identically zero if p=0. Moreover, when p=0, we find
which is not an identity unless q_1 = 0. But if p=q_1 = 0, then admissibility implies (p,q_1,q_2) = (0,0,1), which is a contradiction.
Suppose (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible with both q_1 + q_2< 0 and p\in [q_1+q_2,q_2]. Then Wilking’s metric on \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is almost positively curved.
There are infinitely many admissible triples (p,q_1,q_2) which satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition 4.37. For example, one can take (p,q_1,q_2) = (2,1 -6k,3) for any k\geq 1. In particular, Proposition 4.37 yields infinitely many almost positively curved manifolds in each dimension of the form 4n-1 with n\geq 3.
The assumptions in p,q_1, and q_2 imply that
so Proposition 4.1 implies that the only possible zero-curvature planes which can exist on a non-empty open set are those of type (iv) with V=W and with y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4.
We will show that equations (?) and (?) are incompatible off of a nowhere dense set. Solving (?) for \beta, we find \beta = h(r,t) \operatorname{Im}(y_3) + j(r,t) where
We observe that the denominator in these expressions is not identically zero: if it were, then p=q_2 = 0, and admissibility implies (p,q_1,q_2) = (0,1,0), yielding a contradiction.
Substituting this formula for \beta into equation (?), we find
This equation is clearly equivalent to
We will show that off of a nowhere dense set, the right hand side of (?) is negative. Since the left side is clearly non-negative, this will show that these kinds of type (iv) zero-curvature planes occur only on a nowhere dense set.
We view the right hand side as a quadratic polynomial in \operatorname{Im}(y_3). The leading coefficient is negative, so the right hand side is negative if and only if the discriminant d(r,t) is negative
off of a nowhere dense set. Of course, d(r,t) is negative on such a set if and only if k(r,t):=d(r,t)(p\cos^2 t\sin^2 r-q_2)^2 is as well.
A simple calculation reveals that
If k(r,t) is a constant, then q_2 =0. Admissibility then implies that q_1 \geq 0, which contradicts the fact that q_1 + q_2 < 0. Thus, k(r,t) is non-constant. So, if we show that k\leq 0 for all (r,t), it will follow that k < 0 off of a nowhere dense set, completing the proof.
We will prove that the maximum value of k, which must either occur on the boundary of [0,\pi/2]\times [0,\pi/2] or at a interior critical point, is non-positive. We begin by checking k on the boundary.
We note that k(0,t) = 4q_2( -p\cos^2 t +q_1 + q_2). As q_2 \geq 0 and q_1 + q_2 \leq p, it follows that k(0,t)\leq 0 for all t\in [0,\pi/2].
Similarly, k(\pi/2,t) is equal to
The maximum of this expression occurs either when t\in \{0,\pi/2\} or when its derivative vanishes. But k(\pi/2,0) = (p-q_2)(p-(q_1+q_2))\leq 0 and k(\pi/2,\pi/2) = q_2(q_1+q_2)\leq 0. The derivative of k(\pi/2,t) is -2p \cos t\sin t(p-q_1-2q_2). This can only vanish for t\in (0,\pi/2) if p = 0 or p - q_1-2q_2 = 0. Both possibilities lead to k(\pi/2,t) = q_2(q_1 + q_2)\leq 0.
We also observe that k(r,0) is equal to
which is a sum of non-positive terms and therefore is non-positive.
Finally, k(r,\pi/2) = 4q_2(q_1+q_2)\leq 0. Thus, k\leq 0 on the boundary of [0,\pi/2]\times [0,\pi/2].
We now investigate critical points in the interior of the rectangle. We compute that the partial derivatives are given by
and
Since both r,t\in (0,\pi/2), there are no interior critical points unless p=0 or both p=q_1 + q_2 and q_2 = 0. Both in both of these cases, we find k(r,t) = 4q_2(q_1+q_2)\leq 0.
Suppose (p,q_1,q_2) is admissible and is not one of
(0,1,0)
(0,0,1)
(1,1,0)
(0,-1,1).
Then the Wilking metric on \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} has almost positive curvature if and only if f_{p,\vec{q}}(x,y) \leq 0 for all x,y \in [0,1].
From Proposition 4.1, we know that under the hypothesis on (p,q_1,q_2), this proposition is true if and only if the following kinds of zero-curvature planes only occur on a nowhere dense set: type (iv) with V=sW and y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4. Thus, for the duration of the proof, we restrict our attention to planes of this special form.
As in the proof of Proposition 4.32, we can rescale X so that s = 1 and V=W. The last entry of the equation V=W gives x_j = 0 for j\geq 4. The first two entries give the following two equations.
We also recall that equations (?) and (?) must be satisfied.
To begin the analysis of these equations, we multiply both sides of (?) by \cos r\sin t and both sides of (?) by \sin r and subtract. This gives
Using (?) to replace x_3 and then solving for x_2, we find
If y_3 = 0, then (?) implies \beta = 1, and \eqref{eqn:4.1} reduces to p\cos^2 t - q_2 -q_1 = 0, which is not an identity unless p=0 and q_1 = -q_2. Admissibility implies that (q_1,q_2) = (-1,1), giving the triple (p,q_1,q_2) = (0,-1,1). Since, by hypothesis, (p,q_1,q_2)\neq (0,-1,1), we conclude that y_3\neq 0. Multiplying the right hand side of (?) by 1 = \frac{y_3}{y_3} and using (?) to replace |y_3|^2 with 1-\beta, we find
The numerator factors as (-y_3\cos t\sin r + i\sin t)(-iy_3\cos t\sin r -(\beta-1)\sin t), which implies
Noting that (?) implies \frac{\beta - 1}{y_3} = -\overline{y}_3, we obtain
Substituting (?) into (?) and solving for x_3, we find
Since (p,q_1,q_2)\neq (0,0,1), we may substitute (?) and (?) into (3.6) and solve for \lambda_1 \alpha, finding
Similarly, since (p,q_1,q_2)\neq (0,1,0), we may solve (?) for \beta, finding
We may now use (?) in (?),(?), and (?) to express x_2,x_3, and \lambda_1\alpha solely in terms of y_3. As the expressions get quite long, we choose not to display them. Defining x_2,x_3,\lambda_1\alpha, and \beta by (?),(?),(?), and (?), it is easy to verify that for any y_3\in \mathbb{C}, (?), (3.6), and (?) are satisfied. Moreover, by considering the difference of (?) multiplied by \cos r\sin t and (?) multiplied by \sin r, it is also easy to verify that for any y_3\in \mathbb{C}, \eqref{eqn:eqn3} is satisfied if and only if \eqref{eqn:eqn4} is satisfied.
At this stage, we have established that there is a horizontal zero-curvature plane at (\operatorname{diag}(A(r,s),I_{n-2}),I_{n+1})\in \mathcal{F} if and only if there is y_3\in\mathbb{C} satisfying both (?) and (?).
Turning to (?), a straightforward calculation reveals that the real part of both sides of (?) is -\operatorname{Re} (y_3)\sin t\cos r. In particular, this is satisfied for any value of \operatorname{Re} (y_3). On the other hand, as long as 2p(p-2q_1 - q_2)\cos^2 r\cos^2 t + 2q_1(p - q_2) is not identically zero, the imaginary part of (?) can be solved for \operatorname{Im} (y_3), yielding a formula for \operatorname{Im} (y_3) whose numerator is
and whose denominator is
We observe that the list of excluded (p,q_1,q_2) in the proposition statement guarantee that the denominator is not identically zero. To see this, note that the denominator is identically zero if and only if p(p-2q_1-q_2) = 0 and q_1(p-q_2) = 0. If p=0, the second equation forces q_1=0 or q_2 = 0, and admissibility then implies \{q_1,q_2\} = \{0,1\}, yielding (p,q_1,q_2)\in \{(0,0,1), (0,1,0)\}. On the other hand, when p = 2q_1 + q_2 we see that both possibilities—q_1 = 0 or p = q_2—imply that q_1 = 0. When q_1 = 0, admissibility implies q_2 = 1, so (p,q_1,q_2) = (1,0,1). But this is not admissible, as \gcd(q_1,p-q_2) \neq 1.
Having determined \operatorname{Im} (y_3) solely in terms of (r,s), we observe that substituting this into (?) yields
so the denominator of \beta is a factor of the denominator of \operatorname{Im} (y_3).
At this stage, all that remains is to determine \operatorname{Re} (y_3) using the only remaining equation that is not automatically solved: \eqref{eqn:4.8}. We find that \operatorname{Re} (y_3) = \sqrt{1-\beta - \operatorname{Im} (y_3)^2}. Of course, for this to be a valid definition of \operatorname{Re} (y_3), we must have 1-\beta - \operatorname{Im} (y_3)^2 \geq 0. Expressing 1-\beta - \operatorname{Im} (y_3)^2 as a single fraction, the denominator is the square of (?), so it is automatically non-negative. On the other hand, after expressing the numerator entirely in terms of \cos^2 r and \cos^2 t, we set x = \cos^2 r and y = \cos^2 t. The numerator then is f_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,y).
We have now shown that there is a zero-curvature plane of type (iv) at [A(\sqrt{\arccos(y)},\sqrt{\arccos(x)}),I)] if and only if f=f_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,y) \geq 0. If f(x,y) > 0 for some (x,y)\in (0,1)^2, then by continuity, f> 0 in a neighborhood of (x,y). By Corollary 3.5, we can then find an open set of points containing at least one zero-curvature plane. On the other hand, if f\leq 0 on (0,1)\times (0,1), then since f is not identically zero, f = 0 only on a nowhere dense set. Thus, \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} has almost positive curvature if and only if f\leq 0 on [0,1]^2.
Suppose q_1+q_2 = 0 so that (q_1,q_2) = (-1,1). Then the Wilking metric on \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is almost positively curved if and only if p \in \{0,1\}.
Since q_1 + q_2 = 0, admissibility implies \gcd(q_1,q_2) = 1, so q_2 = 1 and q_1 = -1. If p=0, then Wilking [Wi] has already showed his metric is almost positively curved.
Thus, we assume that p\neq 0. We can therefore apply Proposition 5.1, so it is sufficient to determine when f_{p,-1,1}\leq 0 on [0,1]^2. For these values of q_1 and q_2, we first compute that f_{p,-1,1}(\frac{1}{2}, 0) = 4p(2-p). If p < 0 or p > 3, then f_{p,-1,1}(\frac{1}{2},0) > 0. Then Proposition 5.1 implies that \mathcal{E}_{p,-1,1} does not have almost positive curvature.
When p=2, we have f_{2,-1,1}(0.3,0.1) = 0.0069.... > 0, so Proposition 5.1 implies that \mathcal{E}_{2,-1,1} is not almost positively curved.
Finally, when p=1, we find f_{1,-1,1}(x,y) = -4 x^2 y^2 (xy-1)^2 \leq 0. Then Proposition 5.1 implies that \mathcal{E}_{1,-1,1} is almost positively curved in this case.
Suppose that either q_1 + q_2 < 0 and p>q_2 or that q_1 + q_2 > 0 and p<q_2. Then Wilking’s metric on \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is not almost positively curved.
We first note that the hypotheses implies that p-q_1-2q_2 \neq 0. Indeed, p-q_1-2q_2 = (p-q_2)-(q_1 + q_2) has the same sign sign as -(q_1+q_2), being a sum of two such terms.
Now, set y_0 = -\frac{q_1+q_2}{p-q_1-2q_2}, which is well-defined since the denominator does not vanish. The argument in the previous paragraph establishes that y_0 > 0.
We claim that, in addition, y_0 < 1. Indeed, simple algebra shows that, when q_1 + q_2 < 0, that this holds if and only if p > q_2, while if q_1 + q_2 > 0, that it holds if and only if p < q_2.
Now, a simple calculation reveals that f_{p,q_1,q_2}(0,y_0) = 0 while for the x-partial derivative, that (f_{p,q_1,q_2})_x(0,y_0) = 4\frac{p_1-q_2}{p-q_1-2q_2} q_1^2 ( q_1+q_2)^2 > 0. In particular, it follows that f_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,y_0)>0 for x>0 sufficiently close to 0. Thus, from Proposition 5.1, \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is not almost positively curved.
Suppose q_1 + q_2 > 0 and p=q_2. Then \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} does not have almost positive curvature with respect to Wilking’s metric.
As admissibility implies \gcd(q_1,p-q_2) = 1, we find that q_1\in \{\pm 1\}. If p = q_2 = 0, then admissibility implies (p,q_1,q_2) = (0,1,0). We already showed in Proposition 4.2 that \mathcal{E}_{0,1,0} is not almost positively curved, so we assume for the duration of the proof that p\neq 0. Admissibility then implies p = q_2> 0. We now break into two cases depending on the value of q_1\in \{\pm 1\}.
Assume initially that q_1 = 1. Then one easily verifies that (x,y) = (0,1) is simultaneously a zero and a critical point of f_{p,1,p}. That is,
A routine calculation shows that the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix at (0,1) are -2p^2 -2 \pm 2\sqrt{9p^4+24p^3+26p^2+8p+1}. We note that
so -2p^2 -2 + 2\sqrt{9p^4 + 24p^3+26p^2 + 8p + 1} is positive. This eigenvalue has \vec{v}:=\begin{bmatrix}2(3p^2 + 4p + 1) \\(-2\sqrt{9p^4 + 24p^3 + 26p^2 + 8p + 1} + 4p) \end{bmatrix} as an eigenvector. The top entry of \vec{v} is obviously positive for all p > 0. On the other hand, if p > 2, then \sqrt{9p^4} = 3p^2 > 4p, so the bottom entry is negative for p > 2. By direct substitution, it is also negative when p=1 and when p=2.
Thus, \vec{v} points into the fourth quadrant for all p > 0. Since f_{p,1,p}(0,1) = 0, it follows that f_{p,1,p}( t \vec{v}^T) > 0 for all t>0 close enough to zero. In particular, there is an interior point of [0,1]^2 for which f_{p,1,p}>0, so \mathcal{E}_{p,1,p} is not almost positively curved by Proposition 5.1.
Having concluded the case where q_1 = 1, we now assume that q_1 = -1. Since q_1 + q_2 > 0, this implies p = q_2 \geq 2.
As in the case where q_1 = 1, we observe that (x,y) = (0,1) is simultaneously a zero and a critical point of f_{p,-1,p}. In this case, the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix at (0,1) are -2p^2 - 2 \pm 2\sqrt{9p^4 - 24p^3 + 26p^2 - 8p + 1}.
We now show that -2 p^2 -2 + 2\sqrt{9p^4 - 24p^3 + 26p^2 - 8p + 1} > 0 for all p\geq 2. One easily verifies that this inequality holds if and only if 8p^4 - 24p^3 + 24 p^2 -8p>0.
When p = 2, this reduces to 16 > 0, which is obviously true. On the other hand, for p \geq 3, 8p^4 \geq 24 p^3 and 24p^2 \geq 72 p > 8 p, so the inequality is also true for p \geq 3.
This positive eigenvalue -2p^2-2+2\sqrt{9p^4 - 24p^3 + 26p^2 - 8p + 1} has v:=\begin{bmatrix}2(3p^2 - 4p + 1)\\ -(2\sqrt{9p^4 - 24p^3 + 26p^2 - 8p + 1} + 4p) \end{bmatrix} as an eigenvector. For p\geq 2, the top entry is positive while the bottom is negative, which implies that v points into the fourth quadrant. Then, just as in the case where q_1=1, it follows that f_{p,-1,p} > 0 at an interior point of [0,1]^2, so Proposition 5.1 implies that \mathcal{E}_{p,-1,p} is not almost positively curved in this case.
Suppose q_1', q_2', and q_3' are pairwise relatively prime integers satisfying all of the following conditions:
q_1'+q_2'+q_3' > 0
q_1' > q_2'
q_1' > 0
q_2' q_3'< 0
q_2' + q_3' \geq 0
Set \vec{p} = (0,0,q_1'+q_2'+q_3') and \vec{q} = (q_1',q_2',q_3'). Then, the particular Wilking metric from [DJ] on \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} = SU(3)/\!\!/ S^1_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved.
Suppose that one of the following occurs:
p<q_1 + q_2 < 0
0<q_2 < p < q_1 + q_2
0<q_1 + q_2 < q_2 < p.
Then Wilking’s metric on \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved except when p=q_1 + 2q_2.
We first prove this under the special assumption that the dimension of \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is 7.
So, assume initially that p < q_1 + q_2 < 0 and recall that q_2\geq 0. If q_2 = 0, then admissibility implies q_1 = 1, which contradicts the assumption that q_1 + q_2 < 0. Thus q_2 > 0 and q_1 < 0. To use Theorem 6.4, we must have p' > 0, so we use the equivalent action obtained by negating all of p, q_1, q_2.
We thus have q_2 < 0 < q_1 + q_2 < p and q_1 > 0. Then p' = p > 0, q_3' = q_1 > 0. Moreover, we have p-q_1-q_2 > 0 > q_2, so that q_1' = p-q_1-q_2 and q_2' = q_2.
Then, we have p' > 0, q_1' > 0 > q_2', q_2'q_3' = q_2 q_1 < 0, and q_2' + q_3' = q_2 + q_1 > 0, so case 1 of Theorem 6.4 implies \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved in this case.
Next, assume that 0<q_2 < p < q_1 + q_2. Then p-q_1-q_2 < 0 < q_2, so q_1' = q_2 and q_2' = p-q_1-q_2. Since p' = p >0 and q_3' = q_1 >0, we find that case 1 of Theorem 6.4 implies \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved.
Finally, assume that 0<q_1 + q_2 < q_2 < p. Then q_3' = q_1 < 0. We have \{q_1',q_2'\} = \{q_2, p-q_1-q_2\}. We briefly note that it is not possible for q_2 = p-q_1-q_2, for then admissibility implies q_2 = 1, contradicting the fact that both q_1 < 0 and q_1 + q_2 > 0.
As both q_2, p-q_1-q_2 > 0, we see that q_2'q_3' < 0 in either case. We now break into cases depending on the value of q_2'\in \{q_2, p-q_1-q_2\}.
Suppose initially that q_1'=q_2 > p-q_1-q_2 = q_2'. Then q_2' + q_3' = p-q_1-q_2 + q_1 = p-q_2 > 0, so \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved.
Finally, suppose that q_1'=p-q_1-q_2 > q_2 = q_2'. Then q_2'+q_3' = q_2 + q_1 >0, so \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved.
Having completing the proof when \dim \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} = 7, we now turn to the general case. In fact, we will show that for fixed \vec{p},\vec{q}, the existence of an open set of of points with zero-curvature planes on \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} implies the same on \mathcal{E}^{4n-1}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} for all n\geq 2.
Since we have already established that \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved, Corollary 3.5 yields a non-empty open set of points U\subseteq \mathcal{F} with the following property: for each (g_1,g_2)\in U, there is a horizontal zero-curvature plane \operatorname{span}\{\widehat{X},\widehat{Y}\}. In particular, each condition of Proposition 2.3 is verified by X and Y.
As \dim \mathcal{E}^7_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} = 7, X and Y are 3\times 3 matrices. Now, for each n\geq 3, let X' be the unique (n+1)\times (n+1) matrix whose top left 3\times 3 block is X, and all other entries are zero. Suppose Y' is obtained similarly from Y. Then it is straightforward to verify that X' and Y' satisfy the conditions of Proposition 2.3, so that \widehat{X'} and \widehat{Y'} span a horizontal zero-curvature on an open set of \mathcal{F}. Thus, by Corollary 3.5, \mathcal{E}^{4n-1}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is not almost positively curved in this case.
Suppose that p\geq q_1 + q_2 > 0, p> q_2, and q_1\geq 0. Assume in addition that (p,q_1,q_2) \neq (1,1,0). Then the Wilking metric on \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is almost positively curved.
Because (p,q_1,q_2) \neq (1,1,0), Proposition 5.1 implies that we need only demonstrate that f=f_{p,q_1,q_2} \leq 0 on the rectangle [0,1]^2.
We will first deal with a few special cases before moving onto the general case.
We begin with the case where q_1 = 0. Then admissibility implies q_2 = 1 and \gcd(0,p-1) = 1, so p\in \{0,2\}. Since p > q_2, we must have p=2. Then f_{2,0,1} = -4x^2y^2 (xy-1)^2 \leq 0.
We now turn to the case where p = q_1 + 2q_2. In this case, f simplifies to
which is obviously non-positive.
We henceforth assume that p\neq q_1 + 2q_2 and that q_1 > 0.
To show that f\leq 0, we will show that f\leq 0 on the boundary of the rectangle and that f has no critical points in the interior of the rectangle.
We begin with the boundary. We compute
In particular, along each boundary segment of the rectangle, f is obviously non-positive.
We now show there are no critical points in the interior. We, again, will handle a few special cases first, beginning with the case where q_2 = 0. Admissibility and the fact that p\geq q_1 + q_2 imply (p,q_1,q_2) = (2,1,0). Here we can argue directly that f has no critical points in the interior of the rectangle. Indeed, the partial derivative f_x factors as
Since we are interested in interior critical points, we find that either 2 x^{2} y^{2} - 2 x y^{2} - x y - y + 3 = 0 or 4 x y - 2 y - 1 = 0. For the first possibility, we find
giving a contradiction. On the other hand, if 4xy-2y-1 = 0, then x\neq \frac{1}{2} and y = \frac{1}{4x-2}. Substituting this into f_y = 0, we find
As x\neq \frac{1}{2}, we find x = 1 or x= \pm \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}. In order to have an interior critical point, we must have x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{5}}, which then implies that y = \frac{1}{4(1/\sqrt{5})-2} \approx -4.73..., which is not interior.
Next, we handle the special case where p=q_1+q_2. Admissibility and the hypothesis that q_1 > 0 imply q_2= q_1 = 1. We will directly show that f_{2,1,1}(x,y) has no critical points in the interior of the rectangle [0,1]^2.
To see this, we note that f_x = -4y(2xy^3 - 8xy^2 + 8xy + y^2 - 2). Since we are interested in interior points, we find that x =-\frac{y^2-2}{2y(y-2)^2}. Substituting this into f_y and solving for y, we find that y \in \{1, \frac{5\pm \sqrt{5}}{2}\} \approx \{ 1, 1.38...,3.61...\}. Thus, y is not in the interior of the rectangle, so f has no interior critical points in this case as well.
For the remainder of the proof, we assume q_2 > 0 and p\neq q_1 + q_2. Since p\geq q_1+q_2 by assumption, we will, in fact, assume that p > q_1 + q_2.
We suppose for a contradiction that f_x(x_0,y_0) = f_y (x_0,y_0) = 0 for some (x_0,y_0) \in (0,1)^2. Then (x_0,y_0) is a zero of the function xf_x(x,y) - y f_y(x,y). This function has the expression
where g(x,y) =g_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,y) =
In particular, since (x_0,y_0) is a zero of xf_x - y f_y and p\neq q_1+2q_2, it follows that g(x_0,y_0) = 0. We now show that this is impossible by showing that g< 0 on the boundary of [0,1]^2 and that g has no critical points in the interior of the rectangle [0,1]^2.
We begin by showing g has no critical points in the interior. We compute
Since p\neq q_1 + 2q_2 by assumption, this can only vanish in the interior of the rectangle if pxy = -q_1. But since q_1> 0 and p> 0, there is no solution. In particular, xg_x - y g_y is non-vanishing in the interior of the rectangle. As any interior critical point of g is a zero of x g_x - y g_y, we conclude that g has no critical points in the interior.
It remains to verify that g < 0 on the boundary of the rectangle [0,1]^2. We begin by verifying that g<0 on the four corners of the rectangle. We compute
g(0,0) = -q_1^2(q_1+q_2)
g(0,1) = -q_1^2(p-q_2)
g(1,0) = -q_1^2(q_1+q_2)
g(1,1) = -(p-q_1)^3.
In all four cases, the fact that p > q_1 + q_2 and that both q_1,q_2 > 0 implies g<0 at all four corner points.
We now turn to verifying g<0 on the interior of each of the four line segments making up the boundary of the rectangle. First, we compute g(x,0) = -q_2^2(q_1+q_2) < 0.
Next, we focus on g(0,y) with y \in (0,1). We find
Since the factor in parenthesis is linear as a function of y, to verify that g(0,y) < 0 for all y\in [0,1], we only need to verify it when y \in \{0,1\}. But these correspond to corner points, so the proof is complete in this case.
We next consider g(1,y), which is given by g(1,y) =
We claim that for fixed y\in (0,1), g_{p,q_1,q_2}(1,y) < g_{p,q_1,0}(1,y). To prove this, it is sufficient to show that g_{p,q_1,q_2+1}(1,y) < g_{p,q_1,q_2}(1,y). We compute that
Since y-1<0 and yp+q_1 \neq 0, we see that this expression is always negative.
So, to prove that g_{p,q_1,q_2}(1,y)<0, we now only need to show that g_{p,q_1,0}(1,y)\leq 0. But g_{p,q_1,0}(1,y) = -(p y - q_1)^2((-2q_1 + p)y + q_1). Observe that the linear factor (-2q_1 + p)y+q_1 ranges between q_1 > 0 and p-q_1 \geq 0, so it is non-negative for y\in (0,1). Since (py-q_1)^2\geq 0, it follows that g(1,y)\leq 0 for all y\in [0,1] when q_2 = 0, completing the proof in this case.
We finally consider g(x,1), where
Observe that the condition p> q_1 + q_2 implies q_2 < p-q_1. We claim g_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,1)< g_{p,q_1, p-q_1}(x,1) for fixed x\in (0,1). To establish this, it is sufficient to show that g_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,1) < g_{p,q_1,q_2+1}(x,1), but
Since x\in (0,1) and p,q_1 >0, it follows that (x-1)(px+q_1)^2 < 0, establishing the claim.
So, to prove that g_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,1) < 0, it is enough to show that g_{p,q_1,p-q_1}(x,1) \leq 0. But a straightforward calculation shows that
The linear factor varies between q_1 >0 and p-q_1 > 0, so g_{p,q_1,p-q_1}(x,1) \leq 0. This completes the proof that g_{p,q_1,q_2}(x,1)<0 for any q_2 < p-q_1, which, in turn, completes the proof of the proposition.
An action
is free if and only if
We begin with the backwards implication. So, assume that
and that (C,z,w)\in U(n-1)\times T^2 fixes B\in U(n+1). Then, we find that \operatorname{diag}(z^p,1...,1) = B \operatorname{diag}(z^{q_1} w^{s_1}, z^{q_2} w^{s_2}, C) B^{-1}, so \operatorname{diag}(z^p,1..,1) and \operatorname{diag}(z^{q_1} w^{s_1}, z^{q_2} w^{s_2}, C) are conjugate. Thus, these two matrices have the same multiset of eigenvalues. So, either z^{q_1} w^{s_1} = z^{q_2} w^{s_2} = 1 or
In the first case, we find that (z^{q_1} w^{s_1})^{s_2} = (z^{q_2} w^{s_2})^{s_1}. Dividing, we then conclude z^{q_1 s_2 - q_2s_1} = 1. As |q_1 s_2 - q_2s_1| = 1, we find z=1. Then w^{s_1} = w^{s_2} = 1 so w^{\gcd(s_1,s_2)} = 1. But, since |q_1s_2 - q_2s_1| = 1, we have \gcd(s_1,s_2) = 1, so w= 1 as well. The case where \{z^{q_1} w^{s_1}, z^{q_2}w^{s_2}\} = \{z^p, 1\} works similarly using |(q_1-p)s_2-q_2s_1| = |q_1 s_2 - (q_2-p)s_1| = 1.
We now prove the forwards implication. Assume that the action is free, (so it is also effective) and, for a contradiction, assume at least one of |q_1 s_2 - q_2s_1|, |(q_1-p)s_2-q_2s_1| , |q_1s_2-(q_2-p)s_1| is not 1. We will assume, in particular, that |q_1 s_2 - (q_2 - p)s_1| \neq 1, the other two possibilities being very similar. If |q_1 s_2 - (q_2 - p)s_1|= 0, then setting (z,w) = (u^{s_2}, u^{p-q_2}) for any u\in S^1, we find that (I,z,w)\ast B_0 = B_0 where B_0 is the matrix obtained by swapping the first two rows of the identity matrix I. Thus, freeness implies (u^{s_2}, u^{p-q_2}) = (1,1) for all u\in S^1, so s_2 = p-q_2 = 0. As \gcd(s_1,s_2) = 1 and s_2= 0, |s_1| = 1\neq 0. We now note that for (z,w) = (u^{s_1}, u^{-q_1}), (A,z,w)\ast B_0 = B_0. Since s_1\neq 0, we have contradicted the fact that the action is free.
We next assume that d:=|q_1 s_2 - (q_2 - p)s_1| \geq 2. Then setting (z,w) = (e^{\frac{2\pi i}{d} s_2}, e^{\frac{2\pi i}{d}(p-q_2)}, we find that B_0 is fixed. Freeness implies that d|s_2 and d|(q_2-p). Then setting (z,w) = (e^{\frac{2\pi i}{d} s_1}, e^{-\frac{2\pi i}{d} q_1}), we find that B_0 is fixed. Because the action is free, d|s_1 and d|q_1. As d|s_1 and d|s_2, we have contradicted the fact that \gcd(s_1,s_2)=1.
Assume p \not= 0. Then up to equivalence of action, there are at most two free T^2-actions on U(n+1)/U(n-1), given by
Assume that p\neq 0 and that the action is free. From Lemma 7.1,
Subtracting Proof and ?, we learn
and doing the same with Proof and ? yields
Since p \not= 0, the only way for either expression to be 0 is if s_1 = 0 or s_2 = 0. From the assumption that \gcd(s_1, s_2) = 1, only one of s_1 and s_2 can be zero, and the other must be \pm 1.
If s_1 = 0, by reparameterization of the action we may assume s_2 = 1. Moreover, replacing the coordinates (z,w) with (z,w'), where w' = z^{q_2}w, we may assume q_2 = 0. With q_2 = 0, we may further assume q_1 \geq 0.
We now find from equation (?) that q_1-p = \pm 1 and from (Proof) and (?) that q_1 = 1. Since p \not= 0, we find p = 2q_1 = 2, yielding (p,q_1,q_2,s_1,s_2) = (2,1,0,0,1). Analogously, if s_1 = 1 and s_2 = 0, we find (p,q_1,q_2,s_1,s_2) = (2,0,1,1,0). We note, however, that these two actions are equivalent.
We may now assume that neither s_1 nor s_2 is zero. Since \gcd(s_1,s_2) = 1, equations (?) and (?) imply that p = \pm 2 and |s_1|=|s_2| = 1. We may again assume s_2 = 1. We now subtract ? and ? to see that p(s_1 + s_2) \in \{0, \pm2\} and conclude that s_1 = -s_2 = -1. Equations (Proof) and (?) now imply that |q_1 + q_2| = 1 and that p and q_1 + q_2 have the same sign. Using the new coordinates (z,w') where w' =wz^{-q_1}, we find (p,q_1,q_2,s_1,s_2) = ( 2,0,1,-1,1) or (-2,0,-1,-1,1). The two actions are equivalent.
Conversely, it is easy to see that each of these choices for (p, q_1, q_2, s_1, s_2) satisfies Proof, ?, and ?, so the action is free by Lemma 7.1.
Suppose T^2 acts on U(n+1)/U(n-1) by either of the two actions in Proposition 7.2. Then the quotient space admits a metric of almost positive sectional curvature.
Consider the generalized Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}_{2,0,1}. This space admits a Wilking metric of almost positive sectional curvature by Theorem 1.1.
For both T^2-actions given by
we consider the sub-action by the S^1\subseteq T^2 defined by w=1. This S^1 acts on U(n+1)/U(n-1) with quotient \mathcal{E}_{2,0,1}. It follows that M is a free isometric S^1-quotient of \mathcal{E}_{2,0,1}. Hence, by O’Neill’s formula [On1], the induced metric is almost positively curved.
Every generalized Eschenburg space admits a metric of quasi-positive curvature.
Suppose p_1\neq p_2 and p_1 + p_2 \neq q_1 + q_2. If r is chosen so that \cos r is transcendental then there are no zero-curvature planes of type (iv).
Suppose there is such a zero-curvature plane. Then Proposition 2.7 applies. Kerin’s proof correctly handles the cases where V=0, W=0, or when y_j=0 for all j\geq 3. After rescaling X if necessary, we may assume V = W and that some y_j\neq 0. Without loss of generality, we assume y_3\neq 0. Then Proposition 2.7 gives the following equations:
Then equations (?) and (?) together give x_2 = i\tan r. Substituting this value into equation ?, we solve for \lambda_1\alpha, finding
We note that since p_1\neq p_2 by assumption, the denominator of \lambda_1 \alpha is not identically zero.
Now, we substitute the formulas for x_2 and \lambda_1\alpha into equation (?) and solve for \beta; we then substitute this formula for \beta into (?) to obtain a rational equation of the form \frac{g}{h} = 0 where
g = a\cos^4(r) + b\cos^2 r + c with
• a = (p_{1} - p_{2}) (q_{1} - q_{2}),
• b = p_{1}^{2} + 3 p_{1} p_{2} - {\left(4 p_{1} + p_{2}\right)} q_{1} + q_{1}^{2} - {\left(p_{1} + 2 p_{2} - 3 q_{1}\right)} q_{2}, and
• c = (q_1-p_2)(p_1-q_2); and
h = {\left(p_{1} - p_{2}\right)} \cos^{4}\left(r\right) + {\left(p_{2} - q_{1}\right)} \cos^{2}\left(r\right).
By assumption, h is not identically zero. So, the vanishing of \frac{g}{h} implies the vanishing of g. Since ax^4 + bx^2 + c is a polynomial with integer coefficients and the transcendental number \cos r is a zero of it, we conclude that a=b=c= 0. Since p_1\neq p_2, the fact that a=0 implies that q_1 = q_2. The fact that c=0 implies either p_2 = q_1 or p_1 = q_2. By permuting the p_i, we may assume that p_2 = q_1. Further, by subtracting q_1 from all entries of both \vec{p} and \vec{q}, we may assume that p_2 = q_1 = 0. Then 0 = b = p_1(p_1-q_2). Admissibility implies 1=\gcd(p_2-q_1, p_1 - q_2) = \gcd(0,p_1-q_2), so |p_1-q_2| = 1. Then 0 = p_1(p_1-q_2) implies p_1 = 0, which contracts the fact that p_1 = p_2.
The Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}_0, \vec{q}_0} has positive curvature at the point A_0.
For this choice of (r,t) and \vec{p}_0,\vec{q}_0, the first two equations of Proposition 2.7 yield
and
Following the same approach as in proofs of Propositions 4.20, 4.26, and 4.32, we conclude that \mathcal{E}_{\vec{p}_0,\vec{q}_0} has no zero-curvature planes of type (iv) except possibly when V=W and y_j = 0 for all j\geq 4.
Then the third condition of Proposition 2.7 gives the following equations.
Now, we solve equations (Proof), (?), (?), and (?) to express \lambda_1 \alpha, \beta, x_2, and x_3 in terms of y_3. We find:
Substituting these into equation (?) and taking the imaginary part, we find
Using the fact that \beta = 1-|y_3|^2 to express \operatorname{Re}(y_3)^2 solely in terms of \operatorname{Im}(y_3), this equation leads to \operatorname{Im}(y_3)\in \{\sqrt{2}, \frac{3\sqrt{2}}{2}\}.
Then equation (?), when solved for \operatorname{Re}(y_3)^2, gives
This contradicts the fact that \operatorname{Re}(y_3) is a real number, complteing the proof that there are no type (iv) zero-curvature planes.
Suppose M and N are 2-connected CW complexes each admitting a free circle action. Assume that the orbit spaces M/S^1 and N/S^1 are homotopy equivalent. Then M and N are homotopy equivalent.
Let \pi_M,\pi_N denote the two projection maps and let f:M/S^1\rightarrow N/S^1 be a homotopy equivalence. Let (\xi,\pi) denote the pullback of the S^1-bundle N\xrightarrow{\pi_N} N/S^1 under the map (f\circ \pi_M):M\rightarrow N/S^1. Being a pullback, there is a continuous map \tilde{f}:\xi\rightarrow N for which \pi_N\circ \tilde{f} = f\circ \pi_M\circ \pi.
The Euler class of \xi is an element of H^2(M) which vanishes by assumption, so \xi is trivial. Thus, there is a section s:M\rightarrow \xi. We therefore obtain a map \tilde{f}\circ s:M\rightarrow N. We claim that this map is a homotopy equivalence.
As M and N are 2-connected, by Whitehead’s Theorem it is sufficient to verify that \tilde{f}\circ s induces isomorphisms on the higher homotopy groups \pi_k for all k\geq 3.
To that end, we observe that from the long exact sequence in homotopy groups associated to the bundles M\rightarrow M/S^1 and N\rightarrow N/S^1, it follows that both \pi_M and \pi_N induce isomorphisms on \pi_k for all k\geq 3. Moreover, f, being a homotopy equivalence, also induces an isomorphism for all k\geq 3. But then for any k\geq 3, (\tilde{f}\circ s)_\ast = (\pi_N)_\ast^{-1}\circ f_\ast \circ (\pi_M)_\ast:\pi_k(M)\rightarrow \pi_k(N), so (\tilde{f}\circ s)_\ast is a composition of isomorphisms and hence is an isomorphism.
Suppose that \mathcal{E}_{p,q} is homotopy equivalent to a homogeneous space G/H where no proper normal subgroup of G acts transitively on G/H. If \dim \mathcal{E}_{p,q}\geq 23, then, up to finite cover, (G,H) = (SU(n+1), SU(n-1)\times S^1).
We first note that \pi_1(\mathcal{E}) = 0 and \pi_2(\mathcal{E})\cong \mathbb{Z}, which follows easily from the long exact sequence in homotopy groups associated to the bundle S^1\times U(n-1)\rightarrow U(n+1)\rightarrow \mathcal{E}.
Suppose that \mathcal{E}=\mathcal{E}_{\vec{p},\vec{q}} is homotopy equivalent to such a G/H. Then H^2(G/H)\cong \mathbb{Z}. Let N denote the total space of a principal S^1-bundle over G/H whose Euler class generates H^2(G/H). From [PS], the G-action on G/H admits a commuting lift to N. Then the G\times S^1-action on N is clearly transitive. But, in fact, the G-action on N is transitive. To see this, let H' denote the isotropy group of the G\times S^1-action on N at some point. Then H' acts on G\times S^1 by right multiplication by inverses and the quotient is (G\times S^1)/H'\cong N. Since N is simply connected, the projection of the H' action to the S^1 factor of G\times S^1 must be transitive. Let H'' denote the isotropy group of this action at the identity 1\in S^1. Then, from [KZ, Lemma 1.3], we conclude that N\cong (G\times S^1)/H' \cong G/H'', so the G-action on N is transitive.
Viewing \mathcal{E} as an S^1-quotient of U(n+1)/U(n-1) and applying Lemma 9.1 to \mathcal{E} and G/H, we deduce that U(n+1)/U(n-1) is homotopy equivalent to N= G/H''. In particular, G/H'' is at least 10-connected.
From [On, Theorem 4 pg. 268 and Theorem 5 pg. 260], we know that G is either simple or G = G_1\times G_2 is a product of two simple groups.
Assume first that G is simple. We observe that the rational homotopy groups of U(n+1)/U(n-1) are non-trivial except in degrees 2n-1 and 2n+1, where they are isomorphic to \mathbb{Q}. Further, since the even rational homotopy groups of U(n+1)/U(n-1) vanish, the same is true of N, so H'' has corank 2 in G. Since G must have non-trivial rational homotopy groups in consecutive odd degrees and \dim G/H''\geq 24, [On, Table 11, pg. 270] implies that (G,H'') is one of (SU(k),SU(k-2)), (Spin(4k+2), Spin(4k-1)), (\mathbf{E}_6,\mathbf{F}_4). In the latter case, we have \pi_9(\mathbf{E}_6/\mathbf{F}_4)\otimes\mathbb{Q}\neq 0 owing to the fact that \pi_9(\mathbf{E}_6) is rationally non-trivial while \pi_9(\mathbf{F}_4) is finite. The space Spin(4k+2)/Spin(4k-3) is a bundle over Spin(4k+2)/Spin(4k+1)\cong S^{4k+1} with fiber Spin(4k+1)/Spin(4k-1), which is diffeomorphic to the unit tangent bundle of S^{4k}. Since the unit tangent bundle is rationally S^{8k-1}, we find that Spin(4k+2)/Spin(4k-1) has the rational homotopy groups of S^{8k-1}\times S^{4k+1}. These degrees are consecutive odd numbers if and only if k=1, when the dimension is 12 < 23. Thus, the assumption that G is simple leads to the conclusion that (G,H'') = (SU(k), SU(k-2) for some k. Dimension counting implies k = n+1 and then that (G,H) = (SU(n+1), SU(n-1)\times S^1) as claimed.
It remains to show that the case where G = G_1\times G_2 cannot arise. So, assume it does. Since \dim \mathcal{E}\geq 23> 15 , it follows from [HS, Theorem 3.6] that U(n+1)/U(n-1) is not homotopy equivalent to a product, which implies that there must be a factor H''' of (a cover of) H'' which projects non-trivially to both factors of G. From inspection of all six cases of [On, Theorem 5, pg. 269], H''' is, up to cover, isomorphic to S^1, to SU(2), or to SU(2)\times SU(2). From [KZ, Lemma], we may assume the projection of this factor to both factors of G is not surjective.
If H''' is S^1, then the long exact sequence in homotopy groups implies \pi_2(N)\neq 0, which is a contradiction, so case 1 is ruled out. The assumption that \dim \mathcal{E}\geq 23 rules out cases 5 and 6, where H''' = SU(2)^2, because in these cases, G has dimension at most 28 so G/H has dimension at most 22.
Cases 3 and 4 are ruled out because in these cases, \pi_7(G/ H''') is infinite, coming from the second factor of G.
We finally handle case 2. If both G_1/H_1 and G_2/H_2 have trivial \pi_3, then the long exact sequence in homotopy groups implies G/H has non-trivial \pi_4, which is a contradiction. But if G_1/H_1 is not 3-connected, then H_1 is a torus or trivial. If it is a torus, then \pi_2(N)\neq 0, which is a contradiction. If it is trivial, the projection of H''' to G_1 is surjective, which again is a contradiction.
Assume \ell:= p \frac{q_1^n - q_2^n}{q_1-q_2} - \frac{q_1^{n+1}-q_2^{n+1}}{q_1-q_2} is non-zero. Then the 4n-1-dimensional space \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} has H^{2n}(\mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2})\cong \mathbb{Z}/\ell\mathbb{Z}.
If q_1 = q_2=1, the notation \frac{q_1^n-q_2^n}{q_1-q_2} is properly interpreted as \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} q_1^i q_2^{n-1-i} = n.
We will follow the standard procedure for computing the cohomology groups of homogeneous spaces and biquotients that was developed by Eschenburg [Esc] and is described, e.g., in [Dev3, Section 2.3]. To set up notation, for any Lie group K, we let BK denote the classifying space of K. Let T_G and T_H denote the standard maximal tori in G = U(n+1) and H = S^1\times U(n-1) respectively, so T_G and T_H consist of diagonal matrices. We let h=(h_1,h_2):H\rightarrow G\times G define the action yielding the generalized Eschenburg space, so h_1(z,C) = \operatorname{diag}(z^p,1,...,1) and h_2(z,C) = \operatorname{diag}(z^{q_1}, z^{q_2}, C).
We write H^\ast(BT_G)\cong \mathbb{Z}[x_1,...,x_{n+1}] and H^\ast(BT_H)\cong \mathbb{Z}[z, y_3,...,y_{n+1}], where z corresponds to the circle factor of H while the y_i correspond to the diagonal matrices in U(n-1).
Clearly, then, h_1^\ast(x_1) = pz while h_1^\ast(x_i) = 0 for i > 1. Similarly, h_2^\ast(x_i) = q_i z for i=1,2 while h_2^\ast(x_i) = y_i for i\geq 3.
We identify H^\ast(BG\times BG) with the subalgebra \mathbb{Z}[\sigma_j(x_i)\otimes 1, 1\otimes \sigma_j(x_i)] of H^\ast(BT_G\times BT_G)\cong \mathbb{Z}[x_i\otimes 1, 1\otimes x_i], where \sigma_i denotes the ith elementary symmetric polynomial. We can similarly identify H^\ast(BH) with \mathbb{Z}[z,\sigma_j(y_i)]\subseteq H^\ast(BT_H).
Then we find that Bh_1^\ast(\sigma_1(x_i)) = pz while Bh_1^\ast(\sigma_j(x_i)) = 0 for j>1. We also compute that Bh_2^\ast(\sigma_j(x_i)) = q_1q_2 z^2 \sigma_{j-2}(y_i) + (q_1+q_2)z \sigma_{j-1}(y_i) + \sigma_j(y_i), where we use the convention that \sigma_j is identically zero for j <0.
Having computed Bh^\ast, we can compute the differentials in the Serre spectral sequence for the bundle G\rightarrow G/\!\!/ H\rightarrow BH as follows. One chooses elements w_{2j-1} in the cohomology groups of U(n+1) in such a way that dw_{2j-1} = \sigma_{j}(x_i) in the spectral sequence for the universal principal U(n+1)-bundle U(n+1)\rightarrow EU(n+1)\rightarrow BU(n+1). Then, for the bundle G\rightarrow G/\!\!/ H\rightarrow BH, the w_{2j-1} are transgressive and one has dw_{2j-1}= Bh_1^\ast(\sigma_j(x_i)) - Bh_2^\ast(\sigma_j(x_i)) on the 2j-th page.
For 2j-1< 2n-1, the differential involves the non-zero term \sigma_j(y_i), while for k < j, dw_{2k-1} does not involve this term. It follows that on the E_{2n-1}-th page (which is equal to the E_{2n}-th page), all entries between rows 1 and 2n-2 (inclusive) vanish. In addition, the 2n-th row is also trivial. Moreover, E_{2n-2}^{2j,0}\cong \mathbb{Z} and is generated by z^j.
The differential dw_{2n-1} has the form dw_{2n-1} = \ell z^j \in E_{2n}^{2n,0} for some a\in \mathbb{Z}. We will shortly prove that \ell = p \frac{q_1^n - q_2^n}{q_1-q_2} - \frac{q_1^{n+1}-q_2^{n+1}}{q_1-q_2}. Believing this momentarily, observe that if \ell\neq 0, it follows that H^2(\mathcal{E}_{p,q}) is finite cyclic of order |\ell|, establishing the proposition.
To determine \ell, we use the differentials dw_1 = (p-(q_1+q_2)) z and dw_{2j-1} = - ( q_1 q_2 \sigma_{j-2}(y_i) z^2 + (q_1+q_2)\sigma_{j-1}(y_i)z + \sigma_j(y_i) for j>1 and a straightforward induction to establishes the formula \sigma_j(z_i) = (-1)^{j+1} \left( p \frac{q_1^j-q_2^j}{q_1- q_2} - \frac{q_1^{j+1} - q_2^{j+1}}{q_1-q_2}\right)\in H^{2j}(\mathcal{E}_{p,q}). Thus,
as claimed.
Suppose n\geq 6. Then there are infinitely many almost positively curved strongly inhomogeneous spaces of the form \mathcal{E}^{4n-1}_{p,q_1,q_2}.
We will show that for each n\geq 6, there are infinitely many choices of p for which the generalized Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}_{p,0,1} is strongly inhomogeneous. From Proposition 9.2, in order to prove that \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is strongly inhomogeneous, it is sufficient to show it is not homotopy equivalent to any generalized Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}_{0,r_1,r_2}.
We begin with the case where n is even. In this case, Proposition 9.3 implies that we observe that for any homogeneous generalized Eschenburg space \mathcal{E}_{0,r_1,r_2}, the order of H^{2n} is given by \ell:=-\frac{r_1^{n+1}-r_2^{n+1}}{r_1-r_2}. We claim this is odd. To determine the parity of \ell, we consider the possible parities of r_1 and r_2. If both r_1 and r_2 are odd, then \ell is a sum of n+1 odd numbers. As n is even, we find \ell is odd in this case. Next, observe that because r_1 and r_2 are relatively prime, at most one is even. Without loss of generality, we may assume that r_1 is even and r_2 is odd. Then all terms in the sum defining \ell are even, except for r_2^n, which is odd. Thus \ell is odd in this case as well.
Thus, to conclude the case where n is even, we will find almost positively curved examples for which H^{2n} has even order. We consider \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} with (p,q_1,q_2) = (2s+1,1,2s-1). These are admissible for every s because 2s and 2s-1 are relatively prime. From Theorem 1.1, they admit almost positive curvature whenever s\geq 0. Moreover, from Proposition 9.3, we see that H^{2n}(\mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2}) has order
This is even for any s, and thus each such \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} is strongly inhomogeneous.
We next turn to the case where n is odd. We first claim that |\ell| cannot be equal to a prime that is congruent to 3 mod 4.
Because n is odd, |\ell| factors as |q_1+q_2|\sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i}. Observe that q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i} = (q_1^{\frac{n-1}{2} - i} q_2^i)^2, so the second factor is a sum of squares. Assuming |\ell| is prime, any solution to |\ell| = |q_1+q_2|\sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i} must have either |q_1+q_2|=|\ell| and \sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i}=1, or |q_1+q_2|=1 and \sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i} = |\ell|.
The first case can never occur: if \sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i}=1, then because it is a sum of non-negative terms we must have that one of q_1 and q_2 is zero while the other is \pm 1. This, then, implies that |\ell|=|q_1+q_2| = 1, contradicting the fact that |\ell| is prime.
For the second case, the equation |q_1+q_2|=1 implies q_1 and q_2 have opposite parities. We assume without loss of generality that q_2 is even and q_1 is odd. Then q_2^i is divisible by 4 for all i\geq 2. Thus, computing \sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i}\pmod{4}, only the i=0 term remains. That is, \sum_{i=0}^{(n-1)/2} q_1^{n-1-2i}q_2^{2i}\equiv q_1^{n-1}\pmod{4}. Since n-1 is even and q_1 is odd, we find that q_1^{n-1}\equiv 1\pmod{4}. Thus, this case cannot occur if |\ell| \equiv 3\pmod{4}.
It remains to find infinitely many almost positively curved \mathcal{E}_{p,q} for which the order of H^{2n} is a prime congruent to 3\pmod{4}. For these, we consider \mathcal{E}_{p,q_1,q_2} with (p,q_1,q_2) =(p,1,1) with p\geq 2. These triples are admissible for any integer p, and they have almost positive curvature for any p \geq 2 by Theorem 1.1. By Proposition 9.3, the order of H^{2n} is |pn - (n+1)| = (p-1)n - 1. By Dirichlet’s theorem, since \gcd(-1,4n) = 1, there are infinitely many primes of the form 4kn-1 with k\in \mathbb{Z}. For each such k, letting p = 4k+1, it follows that \mathcal{E}_{p,1,1} is strongly inhomogeneous.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2511.17751v1 by Jason DeVito and Joan West, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2511/2511.17751.jsonl.