, ,

1.1 Affine manifolds

Let

A : = (M, \nabla)

be an affine manifold where

\nabla

is a torsion free connection on a smooth manifold

M

. Let

ℛ_{A}

be the associated curvature operator:

ℛ_{A} (ξ_{1}, ξ_{2}) ξ_{3} : = (\nabla_{ξ_{1}} \nabla_{ξ_{2}} - \nabla_{ξ_{2}} \nabla_{ξ_{1}} - \nabla_{[ξ_{1}, ξ_{2}]}) ξ_{3} .

Let

\nabla^{i} ℛ_{A}

be the

i^{th}

covariant derivative of the curvature operator. If

P \in M

, let

\nabla^{i} ℛ_{A, P}

be the restriction of

\nabla^{i} ℛ_{A}

T_{P} M

. Consider the following algebraic structure which encodes the covariant derivatives of the curvature operator up to order

k

A^{k} (A, P) : = (T_{P} M, ℛ_{A, P}, . . ., \nabla^{k} ℛ_{A, P}) .

We say that

φ : A^{k} (A_{1}, P_{1}) \to A^{k} (A_{2}, P_{2})

is an affine isomorphism if

φ

is a linear map from

T_{P_{1}} M_{1}

T_{P_{2}} M_{2}

satisfing

φ^{*} {\nabla_{2}^{i} ℛ_{A_{2}, P_{2}}} = \nabla_{1}^{i} ℛ_{A_{1}, P_{1}} for 0 \leq i \leq k .

1.2 Pseudo-Riemannian manifolds

ℳ : = (M, g)

is a pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature

(p, q)

and of dimension

m = p + q

, let

\nabla

be the Levi-Civita connection, let

A (ℳ) : = (M, \nabla)

be the underlying affine structure, and let

R_{ℳ} (ξ_{1}, ξ_{2}, ξ_{3}, ξ_{4}) : = g (ℛ_{A} (ξ_{1}, ξ_{2}) ξ_{3}, ξ_{4})

be the curvature tensor;

R_{ℳ} \in \otimes^{4} T^{*} M

. Similarly, let

\nabla^{i} R_{ℳ}

be the

i^{th}

covariant derivative of the curvature tensor. Let

M^{k} (ℳ, P) : = (T_{P} M, g_{P}, R_{ℳ, P}, . . ., \nabla^{k} R_{ℳ, P}) .

One says that

φ : M^{k} (ℳ_{1}, P_{1}) \to M^{k} (ℳ_{2}, P_{2})

is an isomorphism if

φ

is a linear isomorphism from

T_{P_{1}} M_{1}

T_{P_{2}} M_{2}

so that

φ^{*} {g_{2, P_{2}}} = g_{1, P_{1}} and φ^{*} {\nabla_{2}^{i} R_{ℳ_{2}, P_{2}}} = \nabla_{1}^{i} R_{ℳ_{1}, P_{1}} for 0 \leq i \leq k .

In this situation, the metric permits one to raise indices and conclude as well that

φ^{*} {\nabla_{2}^{i} ℛ_{ℳ_{2}, P_{2}}} = \nabla_{1}^{i} ℛ_{ℳ_{1}, P_{1}} for 0 \leq i \leq k .

Thus

φ

is also an isomorphism from

A^{k} (A (ℳ_{1}), P_{1})

A^{k} (A (ℳ_{2}), P_{2})

of the underlying affine structure.

We shall frequently simplify the notation by setting

ℛ = ℛ_{A}

R = R_{ℳ}

when no confusion is likely to result.

1.3 Various notions of homogeneity

One is often interested in manifolds with a great deal of geometric symmetry.

Sometimes this symmetry arises from a transitive group action; such manifolds are called homogeneous.

Definition 1.1.

(1) An affine manifold $A = (M, \nabla)$ is said to be locally affine homogeneous if given $P, Q \in M$ , there is a diffeomorphism $Φ_{P, Q}$ from a neighborhood of $P$ to a neighborhood of $Q$ so $Φ_{P, Q}^{*} \nabla = \nabla$ and so $Φ (P) = Q$ .
(2) A pseudo-Riemannian manifold $ℳ = (M, g)$ is said to be locally homogeneous if given $P, Q \in M$ , there is a diffeomorphism $Φ_{P, Q}$ from a neighborhood of $P$ to a neighborhood of $Q$ so $Φ_{P, Q}^{*} g = g$ and so $Φ (P) = Q$ .

There are, however, other less restrictive notions of symmetry arising from the curvature operator and curvature tensor:

Definition 1.2.

(1) One says that an affine manifold $A$ is affine $k$ -curvature homogeneous if $A^{k} (A, P)$ and $A^{k} (A, Q)$ are isomorphic for any $P, Q \in M$ .
(2) One says that a pseudo-Riemannian manifold $ℳ$ is $k$ -curvature homogeneous if $M^{k} (ℳ, P)$ and $M^{k} (ℳ, Q)$ are isomorphic for any $P, Q \in M$ .

One is interested finding manifolds which are affine

k

-curvature homogeneous but not locally affine homogeneous or which are

k

-curvature homogeneous but not locally homogeneous.

1.4 Previous results

There are

2

-curvature homogeneous affine manifolds which are not locally affine homogeneous [9, 14, 15, 16, 21] . In the Riemannian setting (

p = 0

), Takagi [29] constructed 0-curvature homogeneous complete non-compact manifolds which are not locally homogeneous; compact examples were exhibited subsequently by Ferus, Karcher, and Münzer [8] . Many other examples are known [7, 17, 18, 19, 30, 31, 33, 34] . There are no known Riemannian manifolds which are

1

-curvature homogeneous but not locally homogeneous. In the Lorentzian setting (

p = 1

)

0

-curvature homogeneous manifolds which are not locally homogeneous were constructed by Cahen et. al. [6] ;

1

-curvature homogeneous manifolds which are not locally homogeneous were constructed by Bueken and Djorić [4] and by Bueken and Vanhecke [5] .

1.5 Curvature homogeneity and homogeneity

It is clear that local homogeneity implies

k

-curvature homogeneity for any

k

The following result, due to Singer [26] in the Riemannian setting and to F. Podesta and A. Spiro [23] in the general context, provides a partial converse:

Theorem 1.3 (Singer, Podesta-Spiro). There exists an integer

k_{p, q}

so that if

ℳ

is a complete simply connected pseudo-Riemannian manifold of signature

(p, q)

which is

k_{p, q}

-curvature homogeneous, then

(M, g)

is homogeneous.

These constants were first studied in the Riemannian setting. Singer [26] showed

k_{0, m} < \frac{1}{2} m (m - 1)

; subsequently Yamato [35] and Gromov [13] established the bounds

3 m - 5

and

\frac{3}{2} m - 1

for

k_{0, m}

, respectively. Sekigawa, Suga, and Vanhecke [27, 28] showed any

1

-curvature homogeneous complete simply connected Riemannian manifold of dimension

m < 5

is homogeneous; thus

k_{0, 2} = k_{0, 3} = k_{0, 4} = 1

. We refer to the discussion in Boeckx, Vanhecke, and Kowalski [2] for further details concerning

k

-curvature homogeneous manifolds in the Riemannian setting; Opozda [22] has established an analogue of Theorem 1.3 in the affine setting. Observe that our definition of

k_{p, q}

differs slightly from that given elsewhere by certain authors.

We constructed [11] complete metrics of neutral signature

(p + 3, p + 3)

R^{2 p + 6}

for any

p \geq 0

which are

p + 2

-curvature homogeneous but not affine

p + 3

-curvature homogeneous [11] . The discussion there shows

k_{p, q} \geq min {p, q}

1.6 Scalar invariants

One can use the metric to contract indices in pairs and form scalar Weyl invariants.

Adopt the Einstein convention and sum over repeated indices. Let

R_{i_{1} i_{2} i_{3} i_{4}}

denote the components of the curvature tensor. The scalar curvature

τ

and the norm of the Ricci tensor

| ρ |^{2}

are given respectively by:

τ = g^{i_{1} i_{2}} g^{j_{1} j_{2}} R_{i_{1} j_{1} j_{2} i_{2}} and | ρ |^{2} = g^{i_{1} j_{1}} g^{i_{2} j_{2}} g^{i_{3} j_{3}} g^{i_{4} j_{4}} R_{i_{1} i_{2} i_{3} j_{1}} R_{i_{4} j_{2} j_{3} j_{4}} .

There is a related result concerning scalar invariants:

Theorem 1.4 (Prüfer, Tricerri, and Vanhecke [24] ). If all local scalar Weyl invariants up to order

\frac{1}{2} m (m - 1)

are constant on a Riemannian manifold

ℳ

, then

ℳ

is locally homogeneous and

ℳ

is determined up to local isometry by these invariants.

This result fails in the pseudo-Riemannian setting; Koutras and McIntosh [20] gave examples of non-flat manifolds all of whose scalar Weyl invariants vanish; see also related examples by Pravda, Pravdová, Coley, and Milson [25] .

1.7 Riemannian manifolds modeled on homogeneous spaces

One says that

ℳ

k

-modeled on a homogeneous pseudo-Riemannian manifold

N

M^{k} (ℳ, P)

and

M^{k} (N, Q)

are isomorphic for any

P \in M

and

Q \in N

; the precise

Q \in N

being irrelevant as

N

is homogeneous. One has the following results in the Riemannian and Lorentzian settings:

Theorem 1.5.

(1) (Tricerri and Vanhecke [32] ) If a Riemannian manifold $ℳ$ is $0$ -modeled on an irreducible symmetric space $S$ , then $ℳ$ is locally isometric to $S$ .
(2) (Cahen et al. [6] ) If a Lorentzian manifold $ℳ$ is $0$ -modelled on an irreducible symmetric space, then $ℳ$ has constant sectional curvature.

There is a bit of technical fuss here. Recall that a pseudo-Riemannian manifold

ℳ

is said to be irreducible if the holonomy representation is irreducible, i.e. if

T_{P} M

does not have any proper non-trivial subspace which is invariant under the holonomy representation for any (and hence for all)

P \in M

;

ℳ

is said to be indecomposible if there does not exist a non-trivial decomposition of

T_{P} M

which is invariant under the holonomy representation.

These two notions are equivalent in the Riemannian setting but are not equivalent in the higher signature setting. It is known that there are

1

-curvature homogeneous

3

-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds which are modeled on an indecomposible symmetric space (which is not irreducible) but which are not locally homogeneous; see [3, 4, 5, 6] for further details.

In this paper, we turn to the question of constructing pseudo-Riemannian manifolds which are

0

-curvature modeled on an indecomposible symmetric space and which are

k

-curvature homogeneous for arbitrarily large

k

; our construction is motivated by the examples described in [11] . We shall be defining several tensors. To simplify the discussion, we only give the non-zero entries in these tensors up to the usual symmetries.

1.8 The pseudo-Riemannian manifolds $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$

For

p \geq 1

, let

(x, z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}, {\tilde{z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}, x^{*}, z_{0}^{*}, . . ., z_{p}^{*}, {\tilde{z}}_{0}^{*}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}^{*})

be coordinates on

R^{6 + 4 p}

. If

f

is a smooth function on

R^{p + 1}

, a generalized plane wave manifold

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f} : = (R^{6 + 4 p}, g_{6 + 4 p, f})

of neutral signature

(3 + 2 p, 3 + 2 p)

may be defined by setting:

\begin{matrix} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x}) = - 2 {f (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) + z_{0} {\tilde{z}}_{0} + . . . + z_{p} {\tilde{z}}_{p}}, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x^{*}}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{z_{i}}, \partial_{z_{i}^{*}}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}}, \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}}) = 1 . \end{matrix}

A word on notation. The dual variables

{x^{*}, z_{i}^{*}, {\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}}

enter only rather trivially; Theorem 1.6 below will imply that

\nabla^{i} R (\cdot)

vanishes if any entry belongs to the span of

{\partial_{x^{*}}, \partial_{z_{i}^{*}}, \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}}}

. Thus

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

has a parallel totally isotropic distribution of maximal dimension. The dependence of the metric on the variables

{{\tilde{z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}}

is fixed and ensures that the

0

-model space is an indecomposible symmetric space.

The crucial variables are

{x, z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}}

1.9 The geometry of the manifolds $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$

Theorem 1.6.

(1) All geodesics in $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ extend for infinite time.
(2) ${exp}_{P, ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}} : T_{P} R^{6 + 4 p} \to R^{6 + 4 p}$ is a diffeomorphism for all $P \in R^{6 + 4 p}$ .
(3) The non-zero components of $\nabla^{k} R$ are: $\nabla^{k} R (\partial_{x}, \partial_{ξ_{1}}, \partial_{ξ_{2}}, \partial_{x}; \partial_{ξ_{3}}, . . ., \partial_{ξ_{k + 2}}) = - \frac{1}{2} (\partial_{ξ_{1}} \cdot \cdot \cdot \partial_{ξ_{k + 2}}) g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x})$ for $ξ_{i} \in {z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}, {\tilde{z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}}$ .
(4) All scalar Weyl invariants of $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ vanish.
(5) $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ is a symmetric space if and only if $f$ is at most quadratic.

1.10 The symmetric space $S_{6 + 4 p}$

Theorem 1.7. Let

S_{6 + 4 p} : = ℳ_{6 + 4 p, 0}

be defined by

f = 0

. Then:

(1) $S_{6 + 4 p}$ is an indecomposible symmetric space.
(2) $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ is $0$ -modeled on $S_{6 + 4 p}$ for any $f = f (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p})$ .

1.11 The homogeneous spaces $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}$

Theorems 1.6 and 1.7 show that Theorems 1.4 and 1 fail in the higher signature context. There are other interesting properties that this family of manifolds has.

Construct a sequence of pseudo-Riemannian manifolds

ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k} : = ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f_{k}}

by defining:

f_{k} (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) : = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{k} z_{0}^{k + 1} if 1 \leq k \leq p,

and as exceptional cases

\begin{matrix} f_{p + 1} (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) : = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1} + z_{0}^{p + 3}, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} f_{p + 2} (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) : = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1} + e^{z_{0}} . \end{matrix}

The following result shows that the local isometry type of a homogeneous space need not be determined by the first few covariant derivatives of the curvature tensor:

Theorem 1.8. Let

1 \leq k \leq p + 2

. Then:

(1) $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}$ is $0$ -modeled on the indecomposible symmetric space $S_{6 + 4 p}$ .
(2) If j < k , then
- (a) $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}$ is $j$ -modeled on $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, j}$ .
- (b) $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, j}$ is not $k$ -modeled on $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}$ .
(3) $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}$ is a homogeneous space which is not symmetric.

1.12 The manifolds $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$

Let

ψ \in C^{\infty} (R)

satisfy

ψ^{(p + 3)} (z_{0}) > 0 and ψ^{(p + 4)} (z_{0}) > 0 for all z_{0} \in R .

Let

N_{6 + 4 p, ψ} : = ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f_{ψ}}

where

f_{ψ} : = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1} + ψ (z_{0}) .

The following Theorem shows that

α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k} (P) : = ψ^{(k + p + 3)} {ψ^{(p + 3)}}^{k - 1} {ψ^{(p + 4)}}^{- k} (P) for k \geq 2

forms a collection of affine invariants which determines the isometry types of these manifolds; these invariants are not of Weyl type. Again, this does not happen in the Riemannian setting.

Theorem 1.9. Suppose that

ψ_{i}

are real analytic for

i = 1, 2

and that

ψ_{i}^{(p + 3)}

and

ψ_{i}^{(p + 4)}

are positive. The following assertions are equivalent:

(1) There exists a local diffeomorphism $φ$ from $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}$ to $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}$ with $φ (P_{1}) = P_{2}$ and $φ^{*} \nabla_{N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}} = \nabla_{N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}}$ .
(2) We have $α_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}^{k} (P_{1}) = α_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}^{k} (P_{2})$ for $k \geq 2$ .
(3) There exists an isometry $φ : N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}} \to N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}$ with $φ (P_{1}) = P_{2}$ .

1.13 Curvature and affine homogeneity

One has the following Theorem:

Theorem 1.10. Assume that

ψ^{(p + 3)}

and

ψ^{(p + 4)}

are positive. Then:

(1) $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$ is $0$ -modeled on the indecomposible symmetric space $S_{6 + 4 p}$ .
(2) $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$ is $j$ -modeled on the homogeneous space $ℋ_{6 + 4 p, j}$ for $1 \leq j \leq p + 2$ .
(3) $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$ is $(p + 2)$ -curvature homogeneous.
(4) The following conditions are equivalent:
- (a) $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$ is homogeneous.
- (b) $N_{6 + 4 p, ψ}$ is affine $(p + 3)$ -curvature homogeneous.
- (c) $α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{2}$ is constant.
- (d) $ψ^{(p + 3)} = a e^{b z_{0}}$ for some $a, b \neq 0$ .

Taking

ψ = e^{z_{0}} + e^{2 z_{0}}

constructs a manifold which is

(p + 2)

-modeled on the homogeneous space

N_{6 + 4 p, e^{z_{0}}}

, which is curvature

0

-modeled on the indecomposible symmetric space

S_{6 + 4 p}

, and which is not affine

(p + 3)

-curvature homogeneous and hence not affine homogeneous.

2 completeness

Proof of Theorem 1.6 . To simplify the notation a bit, we introduce the variables

\begin{matrix} s = (s_{1}, . . . ., s_{2 + 2 p}) : = (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}, {\tilde{z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}), and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} s^{*} = (s_{1}^{*}, . . ., s_{2 + 2 p}^{*}) : = (z_{0}^{*}, . . ., z_{p}^{*}, {\tilde{z}}_{0}^{*}, . . ., {\tilde{z}}_{p}^{*}) . \end{matrix}

Let

1 \leq i \leq 2 + 2 p

. The metric then takes the form

g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x}) = - 2 F (s) and g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x^{*}}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{s_{i}}, \partial_{s_{i}^{*}}) = 1 .

for

F : = f (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) + z_{0} {\tilde{z}}_{0} + z_{1} {\tilde{z}}_{1} + . . . + z_{p} {\tilde{z}}_{p}

. We compute the non-zero Christoffel symbols of the first and second kinds:

\begin{matrix} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\nabla_{\partial_{x}} \partial_{x}, \partial_{s_{i}}) = \partial_{s_{i}} F, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\nabla_{\partial_{x}} \partial_{s_{i}}, \partial_{x}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\nabla_{\partial_{s_{i}}} \partial_{x}, \partial_{x}) = - \partial_{s_{i}} F, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla_{\partial_{x}} \partial_{x} = \sum_{i} \partial_{s_{i}} F \cdot \partial_{s_{i}^{*}}, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla_{\partial_{x}} \partial_{s_{i}} = \nabla_{\partial_{s_{i}}} \partial_{x} = - \partial_{s_{i}} F \cdot \partial_{x^{*}} . \end{matrix}

The curve

γ (t) = (x (t), s (t), x^{*} (t), s^{*} (t))

is a geodesic if and only if

0 = \ddot{x}, 0 = {\ddot{s}}_{i}, 0 = {\ddot{x}}^{*} - 2 \dot{x} \sum_{i} {\dot{s}}_{i} \partial_{s_{i}} F, and 0 = {\ddot{s}}_{i}^{*} + \dot{x} \dot{x} \partial_{s_{i}} F .

We solve the geodesic equation with initial conditions

γ (0) = (α, ξ, α^{*}, ξ^{*})

and

\dot{γ} (0) = (β, η, β^{*}, η^{*})

by setting:

\begin{matrix} x (t) = α + β t, s_{i} (t) = ξ_{i} + t η_{i}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} x^{*} (t) = α^{*} + β^{*} t + 2 β \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{τ} {\sum_{i} η_{i} \partial_{s_{i}} F (ξ + t η)} d σ d τ, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} s_{i}^{*} (t) = ξ_{i}^{*} + t η_{i}^{*} - β^{2} \int_{0}^{t} \int_{0}^{τ} \partial_{s_{i}} F (ξ + t η) d σ d τ . \end{matrix}

The solution exists for all time. Furthermore, there exists a unique geodesic with

γ (0) = P

and

γ (1) = Q

; this establishes Assertions (1) and (2).

Since

\nabla \partial_{x^{*}} = \nabla \partial_{s_{i}^{*}} = 0

, Assertion (3) follows as the quadratic terms in the Christoffel symbols play no role in the covariant derivatives. Let

\begin{matrix} V_{1} : = Span {\partial_{x} - \frac{1}{2} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (\partial_{x}, \partial_{x}) \partial_{x^{*}}, \partial_{s_{1}}, . . ., \partial_{s_{p}}}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} V_{2} : = Span {\partial_{x^{*}}, \partial_{s_{1}^{*}}, . . ., \partial_{s_{p}^{*}}} . \end{matrix}

This decomposes

R^{6 + 4 p} = V_{1} \oplus V_{2}

as the direct sum of two totally isotropic subspaces. Since

\nabla^{i} R

vanishes if any entry belongs to

V_{2}

\nabla^{i} R

is supported on

V_{1}

V_{1}

is totally isotropic, Assertion (4) follows. Assertion (5) is immediate from Assertion (3). □

3 A $0$ -model for $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$

It is convenient to work in the purely algebraic setting. Let

V

be an

m

dimensional vector space. Let

M^{k} : = (V, 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉, A^{0}, . . ., A^{k})

where

〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉

is a non-degenerate inner product on

V

and where

A^{i} \in \otimes^{4 + i} V^{*}

satisfies the appropriate symmetries of the covariant derivatives of the curvature tensor; if

k = \infty

, then the sequence is infinite. We say that

M

is a

k

-model for

ℳ = (M, g)

if for each point

P \in M

, there is an isomorphism

φ : T_{P} M \to V

so that

φ^{*} 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉 = g_{P} and φ^{*} A^{i} = \nabla^{i} R_{P} for 0 \leq i \leq k .

Clearly

ℳ

k

-curvature homogeneous if and only if it admits a

k

-model as one could take

M^{k} : = M^{k} (ℳ, P)

for any

P \in M

3.1 Models for the manifolds $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$

Let

{X, Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{p}, {\tilde{Z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{Z}}_{p}, X^{*}, Z_{0}^{*}, . . ., Z_{p}^{*}, {\tilde{Z}}_{0}^{*}, . . ., {\tilde{Z}}_{p}^{*}}

be a basis for

R^{6 + 4 p}

. Define a hyperbolic inner product on

R^{6 + 4 p}

by pairing ordinary variables with the corresponding dual variables:

〈 X, X^{*} 〉 = 〈 Z_{i}, Z_{i}^{*} 〉 = 〈 {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} 〉 = 1 for 0 \leq i \leq p .

Define an algebraic curvature tensor

A^{0}

supported on

Span {X, Z_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}}

by:

A^{0} (X, Z_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, X) = 1 for 0 \leq i \leq p .

Define higher order covariant derivative curvature tensors

A^{i}

for

1 \leq i \leq p

by:

\begin{matrix} A^{i} (X, Z_{0}, Z_{i}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = 1, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} A^{i} (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{i}, Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = 1, . . ., \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} A^{i} (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}, Z_{i}) = 1 . \end{matrix}

The vectors

{Z_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}}

for

0 \leq i \leq p

are linked by

A^{0}

; the vectors

Z_{0}

and

Z_{i}

are linked by

A^{i}

for

1 \leq i \leq p

. Set

\begin{matrix} A^{p + 1} (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = 1, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} A^{p + 2} (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = 1 . \end{matrix}

For

0 \leq k \leq p + 2

, we define models:

M_{6 + 4 p}^{k} : = (R^{6 + 4 p}, 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉, A^{0}, . . ., A^{k}) .

Proof of Theorem 1.7 . Let

0 \leq i, j \leq p

. By Theorem 1.6 ,

R (\partial_{x}, \partial_{z_{i}}, \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}}, \partial_{x}) = 1 and R (\partial_{x}, \partial_{z_{i}}, \partial_{z_{j}}, \partial_{x}) = \partial_{z_{i}} \partial_{z_{j}} F

where

F = f (z_{0}, . . ., z_{p}) + z_{0} {\tilde{z}}_{0} + . . . + z_{p} {\tilde{z}}_{p}

. We set

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} X : = \partial_{x} + F \partial_{x^{*}}, & X^{*} : = \partial_{x^{*}}, \\ Z_{i} : = \partial_{z_{i}} - \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j} \partial_{z_{i}} \partial_{z_{j}} f \cdot \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{j}}, & Z_{i}^{*} : = \partial_{z_{i}^{*}}, \\ {\tilde{Z}}_{i} : = \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}}, & {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} : = \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}} + \frac{1}{2} \sum_{j} \partial_{z_{i}} \partial_{z_{j}} f \cdot \partial_{z_{j}^{*}} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.a)

We show that

M_{6 + 4 p}^{0}

is a

0

-model for

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

by noting that the non-zero components of

g_{6 + 4 p, f}

and

R

are then given by

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} g_{6 + 4 p, f} (X, X^{*}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} (Z_{i}, Z_{i}^{*}) = g_{6 + 4 p, f} ({\tilde{Z}}_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*}) = 1, and \\ R (X, Z_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, X) = 1 for 0 \leq i \leq p . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.b)

By Theorem 1.6 ,

S_{6 + 4 p}

is a symmetric space. As

M_{6 + 4 p}^{0}

is a

0

-model for

S_{6 + 4 p}

and

M_{6 + 4 p}^{0}

is a

0

-model for

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

S_{6 + 4 p}

is a

0

-model for

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

. To show complete the proof, we must only show

M_{6 + 4 p}^{0}

is indecomposible.

Suppose we have a non-trivial decomposition

R^{6 + 4 p} = V_{1} \oplus V_{2}

such that

A^{0} = A_{1}^{0} \oplus A_{2}^{0} and 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉 = 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉_{1} \oplus 〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉_{2} .

We argue for a contradiction. Denote the natural projections induced by this decomposition by

π_{i} : R^{6 + 4 p} \to V_{i}

. Since

1 = 〈 X, X^{*} 〉 = 〈 π_{1} X, X^{*} 〉 + 〈 π_{2} X, X^{*} 〉

we may assume without loss of generality

〈 π_{1} X, X^{*} 〉 \neq 0

. Set

α : = π_{1} (X)

. Let

β \in (X^{*})^{⊥} \cap V_{2}

. Then

A^{0} (α, \cdot, β, α) = 0

α \in V_{1}

and

β \in V_{2}

. Since

β

doesn't involve

X

\begin{matrix} 0 = A^{0} (α, Z_{i}, β, α) = 〈 α, X^{*} 〉^{2} 〈 β, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} 〉, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0 = A^{0} (α, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, β, α) = 〈 α, X^{*} 〉^{2} 〈 β, Z_{i}^{*} 〉 . \end{matrix}

Consequently

〈 β, X^{*} 〉 = 0

〈 β, Z_{i}^{*} 〉 = 0

, and

〈 β, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} 〉 = 0

. Thus

β \in Span {X^{*}, Z_{0}^{*}, . . ., Z_{p}^{*}, {\tilde{Z}}_{0}^{*}, . . ., {\tilde{Z}}_{p}^{*}}

(X^{*})^{⊥} \cap V_{2}

is totally isotropic. Since the restriction of

〈 \cdot, \cdot 〉

V_{2}

is non-degenerate and since

dim {(X^{*})^{⊥} \cap V_{2}} \geq dim {V_{2}} - 1,

we conclude that

dim {V_{2}} = 2

. Furthermore there must exist an element of

V_{2}

not in

(X^{*})^{⊥}

. We can therefore interchange the roles of

V_{1}

and

V_{2}

to see that

dim {V_{1}} = 2

. Consequently

6 + 4 p = dim {V_{1}} + dim {V_{2}} = 4

which provides the desired contradiction. □

Theorem 1.8 (1) and Theorem 1.10 (1) are specials cases of Theorem 1.7 (2).

Theorem 1.8 (2b) follows since

\nabla^{j} R_{ℋ_{6 + 4 p, k}} = 0

j > k

whereas

\nabla^{j} R_{ℋ_{6 + 4 p, j}} \neq 0

Theorem 1.8 (2a) and Theorem 1.10 (2, 3) will follow from the following result.

Lemma 3.1.

(1) If $f = ψ (z_{0}) + z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{k} z_{0}^{k + 1}$ for $1 \leq k \leq p$ , then $M_{6 + 4 p}^{k}$ is a $k$ -model for $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ .
(2) If $f = ψ (z_{0}) + z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1}$ and if $ψ^{(p + 3)}$ is positive on $R$ , then $M_{6 + 4 p}^{p + 1}$ is a $(p + 1)$ -model for $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ .
(3) If $f = ψ (z_{0}) + z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1}$ and if $ψ^{(p + 3)}$ and $ψ^{(p + 4)}$ are positive on $R$ , then $M_{6 + 4 p}^{p + 2}$ is a $(p + 2)$ -model for $ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}$ .

Proof. We adopt the notation of Equation ( 3.a ). The normalizations of Equation ( 3.b ) are then satisfied. Suppose

f = ψ (z_{0}) + z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{k} z_{0}^{k + 1}

. If

1 \leq i \leq k

and

1 \leq j \leq p

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = ɛ_{i}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (X, Z_{0}, Z_{j}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = ɛ_{j, i}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{j}, . . ., Z_{0}) = ɛ_{j, i} \end{matrix}

where

ɛ_{i} = (\partial_{z_{0}})^{i + 2} f

and

ɛ_{j, i} = (\partial_{z_{0}})^{i + 1} \partial_{z_{j}} f

. Note that

ɛ_{i, i} \neq 0 for 1 \leq i \leq k and ɛ_{j, i} = 0 for 1 \leq j < i \leq k .

To prove Assertion (1), we must define a new frame

{^{1} X,^{1} X^{*},^{1} Z_{i},^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i},^{1} Z_{i}^{*},^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*}}

so that in addition to the relations of Equation ( 3.b ), the only non-zero components of

\nabla^{i} R

are given by

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{i},^{1} X;^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{0}) = . . . \\ = \nabla^{i} R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{0},^{1} X;^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{i}) = 1 . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.c)

Set

^{1} X : = X {and}^{1} Z_{0} : = Z_{0} + a_{1} Z_{1} + . . . + a_{k} Z_{k} .

To ensure

\nabla^{ℓ} R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{0},^{1} X;^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{0}) = 0

for

1 \leq ℓ \leq k

, we must have:

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & ɛ_{k} + (k + 2) ɛ_{k, k} a_{k}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & ɛ_{k - 1} + (k + 1) {ɛ_{k, k - 1} a_{k} + ɛ_{k - 1, k - 1} a_{k - 1}}, . . . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & ɛ_{1} + 3 {ɛ_{k, 1} a_{k} + . . . + ɛ_{1, 1} a_{1}} . \end{matrix}

Because

ɛ_{i, i} \neq 0

for

1 \leq i \leq k

, this upper triangular system of equations is recursively solvable for

a_{k}

, ...,

a_{1}

To ensure that

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{i},^{1} X;^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{0}) = . . . = 1, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{0},^{1} Z_{j},^{1} X;^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{0}) = . . . = 0 for i \neq j, \end{matrix}

we set

^{1} Z_{i} = Z_{i}

for

k < i \leq p

, while for

1 \leq i \leq k

, we set

\begin{matrix} ^{1} Z_{1} = a_{1, 1} Z_{1},^{1} Z_{2} = a_{2, 1} Z_{1} + a_{2, 2} Z_{2}, . . .^{1} Z_{k} = a_{k, 1} Z_{1} + . . . + a_{k, k} Z_{k} . \end{matrix}

To ensure that

^{1} Z_{k}

is properly normalized, the following relations must hold:

\begin{matrix} 1 & = & a_{k, k} ɛ_{k, k}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & a_{k, k - 1} ɛ_{k - 1, k - 1} + a_{k, k} ɛ_{k, k - 1}, . . . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0 & = & a_{k, 1} ɛ_{1, 1} + . . . + a_{k, k} ɛ_{k, 1} . \end{matrix}

This determines

^{1} Z_{k}

. We continue in this fashion to determine the remaining coefficients. This ensures the proper normalizations for

\nabla^{i} R

for

1 \leq i \leq k

We now return to the relations of Equation ( 3.b ) for

g

and

R

. We regard

R (X, \cdot, \cdot, X)

as defining a neutral signature inner product on

Span {\partial_{z_{0}}, . . ., \partial_{z_{p}}, \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{0}}, . . ., \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{p}}} .

Since

^{1} X = \partial_{x} + F \partial_{x^{*}}

and since

{^{1} Z_{0}, . . .,^{1} Z_{p}} \subset Span {Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{p}}

we may choose

{^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{0}, . . .,^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{p}} \subset Span {{\tilde{Z}}_{0}, . . ., {\tilde{Z}}_{p}}

so the only non-zero components of

R

are

R (^{1} X,^{1} Z_{i},^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, X) = 1

. Finally, we choose a dual basis

{^{1} X^{*},^{1} Z_{0}^{*}, . . .,^{1} Z_{p}^{*},^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{0}^{*}, . . .,^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{p}^{*}} \subset Span {X^{*}, Z_{0}^{*}, . . ., Z_{p}^{*}, {\tilde{Z}}_{0}^{*}, . . ., {\tilde{Z}}_{p}^{*}}

so the non-zero components of the metric

g

are

g (^{1} X,^{1} X^{*}) = g (^{1} Z_{i},^{1} Z_{i}^{*}) = g (^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i},^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*}) = 1 .

Assertion (1) of the Lemma now follows.

There is a final bit of flexibility that we use in proving Assertions (2) and (3) of the Lemma. The relations of Equation ( 3.b ) continue to hold. We rescale the basis we have constructed by setting:

\begin{matrix} ^{2} X = ɛ \cdot^{1} X, & ^{2} X^{*} = ɛ^{- 1} \cdot^{1} X^{*}, & ^{2} Z_{i} = ɛ_{i} \cdot^{1} Z_{i}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} ^{2} Z_{i}^{*} = ɛ_{i}^{- 1} \cdot^{1} Z_{i}^{*}, & ^{2} {\tilde{Z}}_{i} = ɛ^{- 2} ɛ_{i}^{- 1} \cdot^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, & ^{2} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} = ɛ^{2} ɛ_{i} \cdot^{1} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*} . \end{matrix}

The non-zero components of

g

and of

R

are

\begin{matrix} g (^{2} X,^{2} X^{*}) = g (^{2} Z_{i},^{2} Z_{i}^{*}) = g (^{2} {\tilde{Z}}_{i},^{2} {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*}) = 1, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} R (^{2} X,^{2} Z_{i},^{2} {\tilde{Z}}_{i},^{2} X) = 1 . \end{matrix}

for

0 \leq i \leq p

. The non-zero components of

\nabla^{i} R

for

1 \leq i \leq p

are

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{i} R (^{2} X,^{2} Z_{0},^{2} Z_{i},^{2} X;^{2} Z_{0}, . . .,^{2} Z_{0}) = . . . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \nabla^{i} R (^{2} X,^{2} Z_{0},^{2} Z_{0},^{2} X;^{2} Z_{0}, . . .,^{2} Z_{i}) = ɛ^{2} ɛ_{i} ɛ_{0}^{i + 1} . \end{matrix}

The non-zero components of

\nabla^{p + 1} R

and

\nabla^{p + 2} R

are:

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{p + 1} R ((^{2} X,^{2} Z_{0},^{2} Z_{0},^{2} X;^{2} Z_{0}, . . .,^{2} Z_{0}) = ɛ^{2} ɛ_{0}^{p + 3} ψ^{(p + 3)}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \nabla^{p + 2} R ((^{2} X,^{2} Z_{0},^{2} Z_{0},^{2} X;^{2} Z_{0}, . . .,^{2} Z_{0}) = ɛ^{2} ɛ_{0}^{p + 4} ψ^{(p + 4)} . \end{matrix}

We set

ɛ_{i} : = ɛ^{- 2} ɛ_{0}^{- i - 1}

for

1 \leq i \leq p

to ensure

\nabla^{i} R

has the proper normalization for

1 \leq i \leq p

. Suppose that

ψ^{(p + 3)}

is positive on

R

. We normalize

\nabla^{p + 1} R

and prove Assertion (2) of the Lemma by setting:

ɛ_{0} = 1 and ɛ = {ψ^{(p + 3)}}^{- 1 / 2} .

If additionally

ψ^{(p + 4)}

is positive on

R

, we may set

ɛ_{0} : = ψ^{(p + 3)} {ψ^{(p + 4)}}^{- 1} and ɛ = {ɛ_{0}^{p + 3} ψ^{(p + 3)}}^{- 1 / 2}

to ensure that both

\nabla^{p + 1}

and

\nabla^{p + 2}

are normalized appropriately. This establishes Assertion (3) of the Lemma. □

4 Isometries

Let

M^{\infty} (ℳ, P) = (T_{P} M, g_{ℳ}, R_{ℳ, P}, . . ., \nabla^{i} R_{ℳ, P}, . . .)

be the full model at a point

P

of a pseudo-Riemannian manifold

ℳ

. This encodes complete information about the isometry type of the manifold under certain circumstances:

Lemma 4.1. Let

ℳ_{i} : = (M_{i}, g_{i})

be real analytic pseudo-Riemannian manifolds for

i = 1, 2

. Assume there exist points

P_{i} \in M_{i}

{exp}_{P_{i}, ℳ_{i}} : T_{P_{i}} M_{i} \to M_{i}

is a diffeomorphism and so there exists an isomorphism

Φ

between

M^{\infty} (ℳ_{1}, P_{1})

and

M^{\infty} (ℳ_{2}, P_{2})

. Then

φ : = {exp}_{P_{2}, ℳ_{2}} \circ Φ \circ {exp}_{P_{1}, ℳ_{1}}^{- 1}

is an isometry from

ℳ_{1}

ℳ_{2}

Proof. Belger and Kowalski [1] note about analytic pseudo-Riemannian metrics that the “metric $g$ is uniquely determined, up to local isometry, by the tensors $R$ , $\nabla R$ , ..., $\nabla^{k} R$ , ... at one point.”; see also Gray [12] for related work. The desired result now follows. □

Proof of Theorem 1.9 . Let

f = ψ (z_{0}) + z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1}

. We assume

ψ^{(p + 3)}

and

ψ^{(p + 4)}

are positive. If

k \geq p + 1

, then the non-zero components of the curvature operator

\nabla^{k} ℛ

are given by

\begin{matrix} (\nabla_{\partial_{z_{0}}})^{k} ℛ (\partial_{x}, \partial_{z_{0}}) \partial_{z_{0}} = - (\nabla_{\partial_{z_{0}}})^{k} ℛ (\partial_{z_{0}}, \partial_{x}) \partial_{z_{0}} = ψ^{(k + 2)} \partial_{x^{*}}, and \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (\nabla_{\partial_{z_{0}}})^{k} ℛ (\partial_{x}, \partial_{z_{0}}) \partial_{x} = - (\nabla_{\partial_{z_{0}}})^{k} ℛ (\partial_{z_{0}}, \partial_{x}) \partial_{x} = - ψ^{(k + 2)} \partial_{z_{0}^{*}} . \end{matrix}

Choose

X, Z_{0} \in T_{P} R^{6 + 4 p}

and

Θ \in T_{P}^{*} (R^{6 + 4 p})

so:

\begin{matrix} Θ {(\nabla_{Z_{0}})^{p + 1} ℛ (X, Z_{0}) X} \neq 0 . \end{matrix}

(4.a)

For example one could take

Θ = d z_{0}^{*}

X = \partial_{x}

and

Z_{0} = \partial_{z_{0}}

. Equation ( 4.a ) is an invariant of the affine

p + 1

-model as it does not depend on the metric and is preserved by local affine isomorphisms. Expand

\begin{matrix} X = a \partial_{x} + a^{*} \partial_{x^{*}} + \sum_{i} {a_{i} \partial_{z_{i}} + {\tilde{a}}_{i} \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}} + a_{i}^{*} \partial_{z_{i}^{*}} + {\tilde{a}}_{i}^{*} \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}}}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} Z_{0} = b \partial_{x} + b^{*} \partial_{x^{*}} + \sum_{i} {b_{i} \partial_{z_{i}} + {\tilde{b}}_{i} \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}} + b_{i}^{*} \partial_{z_{i}^{*}} + {\tilde{b}}_{i}^{*} \partial_{{\tilde{z}}_{i}^{*}}} . \end{matrix}

k \geq p + 1

\begin{matrix} Θ {(\nabla_{Z_{0}})^{k} ℛ (X, Z_{0}) X} = (a b_{0} - b a_{0}) b_{0}^{k} Θ {(\nabla_{\partial_{z_{0}}})^{k} ℛ (\partial_{x}, \partial_{z_{0}}) (a \partial_{x} + a_{0} \partial_{z_{0}}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & (b a_{0} - a b_{0}) b_{0}^{k} ψ^{(k + 2)} Θ (a \partial_{z_{0}^{*}} - a_{0} \partial_{x^{*}}) . \end{matrix}

By hypothesis this is non-zero when

k = p + 1

. Thus

a \neq 0, b_{0} \neq 0, b a_{0} - a b_{0} \neq 0, and Θ (a \partial_{z_{0}^{*}} - a_{0} \partial_{x^{*}}) \neq 0 .

Set

γ : = Θ (a \partial_{z_{0}^{*}} - a_{0} \partial_{x^{*}})

. We may now compute:

\begin{matrix} \frac{Θ {(\nabla_{Z_{0}})^{k + p + 1} ℛ (X, Z_{0}) Z_{0}} {Θ {(\nabla_{Z_{0}})^{p + 1} ℛ (X, Z_{0}) Z_{0}}}^{k - 1}}{{Θ {(\nabla_{Z_{0}})^{p + 2} ℛ (X, Z_{0}) Z_{0}}}^{k}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \frac{(b a_{0} - a b_{0}) b_{0}^{k + p + 1} ψ^{(k + p + 3)} γ) \cdot {(b a_{0} - a b_{0}) b_{0}^{p + 1} ψ^{(p + 3)} γ}^{k - 1}}{{(b a_{0} - a b_{0}) b_{0}^{p + 2} ψ^{(p + 4)} γ}^{k}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = ψ^{(k + p + 3)} {ψ^{(p + 3)}}^{k - 1} {ψ^{(p + 4)}}^{- k} = α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k} . \end{matrix}

This shows that

α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k}

is an affine invariant. Consequently Assertion (1) implies Assertion (2) in Theorem 1.9 .

We now show Assertion (2) implies Assertion (3) in Theorem 1.9 ; this will complete the proof as it is immediate that Assertion (3) implies Assertion (1).

By Lemma 3.1 (3), we can choose a basis

{X, X^{*}, Z_{i}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}, Z_{i}^{*}, {\tilde{Z}}_{i}^{*}}

which normalizes

g_{6 + 4 p, f}

and

\nabla^{i} R

appropriately for

0 \leq i \leq p + 2

. Since

\nabla^{i} R (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = 1 for i = p + 1, p + 2,

we have

\nabla^{k + p + 1} R (X, Z_{0}, Z_{0}, X; Z_{0}, . . ., Z_{0}) = α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k} for k \geq 2 .

This shows that the higher covariant derivatives are controlled by

α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k}

. Consequently if

α_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}^{k} (P_{1}) = α_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}^{k} (P_{2})

for

k \geq 2

, there is an isomorphism between

M^{\infty} (N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}, P_{1})

and

M^{\infty} (N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}, P_{2})

and hence by Lemma 4.1 an isometry between

(N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{1}}, P_{1})

and

(N_{6 + 4 p, ψ_{2}}, P_{2})

as desired. □

Proof of Theorem 1.8 (4). Let

f_{k} : = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{k} z_{0}^{k + 1}

. Let

P_{i} \in R^{6 + 4 p}

. By Lemma 4.1 ,

\begin{matrix} M^{i} (ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f_{k}}, P_{1}) \approx M^{i} (ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f_{k}}, P_{2}) \end{matrix}

(4.b)

for

i = k

. Since

\nabla^{j} R = 0

for

j > k

, we may take

i = \infty

in Equation ( 4.b ). Thus by Lemma 4.1 , there is an isometry of

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f_{k}}

taking

P_{1}

P_{2}

. This shows

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

is a homogeneous space. The argument is the same if

f = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1} + z_{0}^{p + 3}

where we start with

i = p + 1

in Equation ( 4.b ).

f = z_{1} z_{0}^{2} + . . . + z_{p} z_{0}^{p + 1} + a e^{b z_{0}}

, then

α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{k} = b^{k + p + 3} b^{(p + 3) (k - 1)} b^{(p + 4) (- k)}

is independent of the point in question. We use Theorem 1.9 (2) to see

ℳ_{6 + 4 p, f}

is a homogeneous space. □

Proof of Theorem 1.10 (4). By Theorem 1.9 , (4a) $\Rightarrow$ (4b) $\Rightarrow (4 c)$ . Set $h = ψ^{(p + 3)}$ .
If (4c) holds, then $k = α_{6 + 4 p, ψ}^{2} = h^{(2)} h {h^{(1)}}^{- 2} .$ We integrate the relation $h^{(2)} h = k h^{(1)} h^{(1)}$ to see there exist $(a, b)$ so $h (z_{0}) = {\begin{matrix} a e^{b z_{0}} & if & k = 1, \\ a (z_{0} + b)^{1 / (1 - k)} & if & k \neq 1 . \end{matrix}$ Since $a (z_{0} + b)^{1 / (1 - k)}$ vanishes when $z_{0} = - b$ , these solutions are ruled out by the assumption $h$ is always positive and smooth. Consequently $h (z_{0}) = a e^{b z_{0}}$ and (4d) holds. By Theorem 1.9 , (4d) $\Rightarrow$ (4a). □

Acknowledgments

Research of P. Gilkey partially supported by the Max Planck Institute in the Mathematical Sciences (Leipzig). Research of S. Nikčević partially supported by MM 1646 (Srbija) and by the DAAD (Germany). Both authors wish to express their thanks to the Technical University of Berlin where parts of research reported here were conducted.

References

M. Belger and O. Kowalski, Riemannian metrics with the prescribed curvature tensor and all its covariant derivatives at one point, Math. Nachr. 168 (1994), 209–225.
E. Boeckx, O. Kowalski, and L. Vanhecke, Riemannian manifolds of conullity two, World Scientific (1996).
P. Bueken, On curvature homogeneous three-dimensional Lorentzian manifolds, J. Geom. Phys. 22 (1997), 349–362.
P. Bueken and M. Djorić, Three-dimensional Lorentz metrics and curvature homogeneity of order one, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 18 (2000), 85–103.
P. Bueken and L. Vanhecke, Examples of curvature homogeneous Lorentz metrics, Classical Quantum Gravity 14 (1997), L93–L96.
M. Cahen, J. Leroy, M. Parker, F. Tricerri, and L. Vanhecke, Lorentz manifolds modeled on a Lorentz symmetric space, J. Geom. Phys. 7 (1990), 571-581.
G. Calvaruso, R. A. Marinosci, and D. Perrone, Three-dimensional curvature homogeneous hypersurfaces, Arch. Math. (Brno) 36 (2000), 269–278.
D. Ferus, H. Karcher, and H. Münzner, Cliffordalgebren und neue isoparametrische Hyperflächen, Math. Z. 177 (1981), 479–502.
E. García-Río, D. Kupeli, M. E. Vázquez-Abal, and R. Vázquez-Lorenzo, Affine Osserman connections and their Riemann extensions. Differential Geom. Appl. 11 (1999), 145–153.
P. Gilkey and S. Nikčević, Curvature homogeneous spacelike Jordan Osserman pseudo-Riemannian manifolds, Classical Quantum Gravity, 21 (2004), 497–507.
P. Gilkey and S. Nikčević, Complete $k$ -curvature homogeneous pseudo-Riemannian manifolds; math.DG/0405024.
A. Gray, The volume of a small geodesic ball of a Riemannian manifold, Mich. Math. J. 20 (1973), 329–344.
M. Gromov, Partial differential relations, Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb 3. Folge, Band 9, Springer-Verlag (1986).
O. Kowalski, B. Opozda, and Z. Vlášek, Curvature homogeneity of affine connections on two-dimensional manifolds, Colloq. Math. 81 (1999), 123–139.
—, A classification of locally homogeneous affine connections with skew-symmetric Ricci tensor on $2$ dimensional manifolds, Monatsh. Math. 130 (2000), 109–125.
—, A classification of locally homogeneous connections on 2-dimensional manifolds via group-theoretical approach, Central European Journal of Mathematics (2004) 2, 87–102.
O. Kowalski and F. Prüfer, Curvature tensors in dimension four which do not belong to any curvature homogeneous space, Arch. Math. (Brno) 30 (1994), 45–57.
O. Kowalski, F. Tricerri, and L. Vanhecke, Curvature homogeneous Riemannian manifolds J. Math. Pures Appl. 71 (1992), 471–501.
—, Curvature homogeneous spaces with a solvable Lie group as homogeneous model, J. Math. Soc. Japan 44 (1992), 461–484.
A. Koutras and C. McIntosh, A metric with no symmetries or invariants, Classical Quantum Gravity 13 (1996), L47-L49.
B. Opozda, On curvature homogeneous and locally homogeneous affine connections, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 124 (1996), 1889–1893.
B. Opozda, Affine versions of Singer's theorem on locally homogeneous spaces, Ann. Global Anal. Geom. 15 (1997), 187–199.
F. Podesta and A. Spiro, Introduzione ai Gruppi di Trasformazioni, Volume of the Preprint Series of the Mathematics Department ”V. Volterra” of the University of Ancona, Via delle Brecce Bianche, Ancona, ITALY (1996).
F. Prüfer, F. Tricerri, and L. Vanhecke, Curvature invariants, differential operators and local homogeneity, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 348 (1996), 4643–4652.
V. Pravda, A. Pravdová, A. Coley, and R. Milson, All spacetimes with vanishing curvature invariants, Classical Quantum Gravity 19 (2002), 6213–6236.
I. M. Singer, Infinitesimally homogeneous spaces, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 13 (1960), 685–697.
K. Sekigawa, H. Suga, and L. Vanhecke, Four-dimensional curvature homogeneous spaces, Commentat. Math. Univ. Carol. 33 (1992), 261–268.
K. Sekigawa, H. Suga, and L. Vanhecke, Curvature homogeneity for four-dimensional manifolds, J. Korean Math. Soc. 32 (1995), 93–101.
H. Takagi, On curvature homogeneity of Riemannian manifolds, Tôhoku Math. J. 26 (1974), 581–585.
A. Tomassini, Curvature homogeneous metrics on principal fibre bundles, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 172 (1997), 287–295.
F. Tricerri, Riemannian manifolds with the same curvature as a homogeneous space, and a conjecture of Gromov, Geometry Conference (Parma, 1988). Riv. Mat. Univ. Parma (4) 14 (1988), 91–104.
F. Tricerri and L. Vanhecke, Variétés riemanniennes dont le tenseur de courbure est celui d'un espace symétrique riemannien irréductible, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris, Sér. I 302 (1986), 233-235.
K. Tsukada, Curvature homogeneous hypersurfaces immersed in a real space form, Tohoku Math. J. 40 (1988), 221–244.
L. Vanhecke, Curvature homogeneity and related problems, Proceedings of the Workshop on Recent Topics in Differential Geometry (Puerto de la Cruz, 1990), 103–122, Informes, 32, Univ. La Laguna, La Laguna, 1991.
K. Yamato, Algebraic Riemann manifolds, Nagoya Math. J. 115 (1989), 87–104.

PG: Mathematics Department, University of Oregon, Eugene Or 97403 USA. Email: gilkey@darkwing.uoregon.edu SN: Mathematical Institute, SANU, Knez Mihailova 35, p.p. 367, 11001 Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro. Email: stanan@mi.sanu.ac.yu

P. Gilkey and S. Nikčević