 Research
 Open Access
 Published:
Inequalities for the Casorati curvatures of slant submanifolds in quaternionic space forms
Journal of Inequalities and Applications volume 2014, Article number: 123 (2014)
Abstract
In this paper we prove two sharp inequalities that relate the normalized scalar curvature with the Casorati curvature for a slant submanifold in a quaternionic space form. Moreover, we show that in both cases, the equality at all points characterizes the invariantly quasiumbilical submanifolds.
1 Introduction
In a seminal paper published in the early 1990s, Chen [1] established a sharp inequality for a submanifold in a real space form using the scalar curvature and the sectional curvature, both being intrinsic invariants, and squared mean curvature, the main extrinsic invariant, initiating the theory of δinvariants or the socalled Chen invariants; this turned out to be one of the most interesting modern research topic in differential geometry of submanifolds. These inequalities were further extended to many classes of submanifolds in different ambient spaces (for an extensive and comprehensive survey on this topic see [2]). For example, in a quaternionic Kähler setting, Chenlike inequalities were proved in [3–11] and a set of open problems in the field was proposed recently in [12]. Moreover, new optimal inequalities involving δinvariants were recently proved in [13–20]. We also note that some interesting inequalities for the length of the second fundamental form of the warped product submanifolds were obtained recently in [21–25].
On the other hand, the Casorati curvature of a submanifold in a Riemannian manifold is an extrinsic invariant defined as the normalized square of the length of the second fundamental form. It is well known that this notion extends the concept of the principal direction of a hypersurface of a Riemannian manifold to submanifolds of a Riemannian manifold and it was preferred by Casorati over the traditional Gauss curvature because corresponds better with the common intuition of curvature [26] (see also [27–30] for the geometrical meaning and the importance of the Casorati curvatures). Therefore it is of great interest to obtain optimal inequalities for the Casorati curvatures of submanifolds in different ambient spaces. We note that in [31], Decu, Haesen and Verstraelen obtained some optimal inequalities involving the scalar curvature and the Casorati curvature of a Riemannian submanifold in a real space form and the holomorphic sectional curvature and the Casorati curvature of a Kähler hypersurface in a complex space form. Moreover, the same authors proved in [32] an inequality in which the scalar curvature is estimated from above by the normalized Casorati curvatures, while Ghişoiu obtained in [33] some inequalities for the Casorati curvatures of slant submanifolds in complex space forms.
In this paper we generalize these inequalities in a quaternionic setting, proving the following result which also solves the Problem 6.7 from [12].
Theorem 1.1 Let {M}^{n} be a θslant proper submanifold of a quaternionic space form {\overline{M}}^{4m}(c). Then:

(i)
The normalized δCasorati curvature {\delta}_{c}(n1) satisfies
\rho \le {\delta}_{c}(n1)+\frac{c}{4}(1+\frac{9}{n1}{cos}^{2}\theta ).(1)Moreover, the equality sign holds if and only if {M}^{n} is an invariantly quasiumbilical submanifold with trivial normal connection in {\overline{M}}^{4m}(c), such that with respect to suitable orthonormal tangent frame \{{\xi}_{1},\dots ,{\xi}_{n}\} and normal orthonormal frame \{{\xi}_{n+1},\dots ,{\xi}_{4m}\}, the shape operators {A}_{r}\equiv {A}_{{\xi}_{r}}, r\in \{n+1,\dots ,4m\}, take the following forms:
{A}_{n+1}=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}a& 0& 0& \cdots & 0& 0\\ 0& a& 0& \cdots & 0& 0\\ 0& 0& a& \cdots & 0& 0\\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots & \vdots \\ 0& 0& 0& \cdots & a& 0\\ 0& 0& 0& \cdots & 0& 2a\end{array}\right),\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{A}_{n+2}=\cdots ={A}_{4m}=0.(2) 
(ii)
The normalized δCasorati curvature {\stackrel{\u02c6}{\delta}}_{c}(n1) satisfies
\rho \le {\stackrel{\u02c6}{\delta}}_{c}(n1)+\frac{c}{4}(1+\frac{9}{n1}{cos}^{2}\theta ).(3)
Moreover, the equality sign holds if and only if {M}^{n} is an invariantly quasiumbilical submanifold with trivial normal connection in {\overline{M}}^{4m}(c), such that with respect to suitable orthonormal tangent frame \{{\xi}_{1},\dots ,{\xi}_{n}\} and normal orthonormal frame \{{\xi}_{n+1},\dots ,{\xi}_{4m}\}, the shape operators {A}_{r}\equiv {A}_{{\xi}_{r}}, r\in \{n+1,\dots ,4m\}, take the following forms:
2 Preliminaries
2.1 Riemannian invariants
In this subsection we recall some basic concepts in Riemannian geometry, using mainly [34].
Let (\overline{M},\overline{g}) be an mdimensional Riemannian manifold. For an ndimensional Riemannian submanifold M of (\overline{M},\overline{g}), we denote by g the metric tensor induced on M. If \overline{\mathrm{\nabla}} is the LeviCivita connection on \overline{M} and ∇ is the covariant differentiation induced on M, then the Gauss and Weingarten formulas are given by
and
where h is the second fundamental form of M, {\mathrm{\nabla}}^{\perp} is the connection on the normal bundle and {A}_{N} is the shape operator of M with respect to N. The shape operator {A}_{N} is related to h by
for all X,Y\in \mathrm{\Gamma}(TM) and N\in \mathrm{\Gamma}(T{M}^{\perp}).
If we denote by \overline{R} and R the curvature tensor fields of \overline{\mathrm{\nabla}} and ∇, then we have the Gauss equation:
for all X,Y,Z,W\in \mathrm{\Gamma}(TM).
We denote by K(\pi ) the sectional curvature of M associated with a plane section \pi \subset {T}_{p}M, p\in M. If \{{e}_{1},\dots ,{e}_{n}\} is an orthonormal basis of the tangent space {T}_{p}M and \{{e}_{n+1},\dots ,{e}_{m}\} is an orthonormal basis of the normal space {T}_{p}^{\perp}M, then the scalar curvature τ at p is given by
and the normalized scalar curvature ρ of M is defined as
We denote by H the mean curvature vector, that is,
and we also set
Then the squared mean curvature of the submanifold M in \overline{M} is defined by
and the squared norm of h over dimension n is denoted by and is called the Casorati curvature of the submanifold M. Therefore we have
The submanifold M is called totally geodesic if the second fundamental form vanishes identically and totally umbilical if there is a real number λ such that h(X,Y)=\lambda g(X,Y)H for any tangent vectors X, Y on M. If H=0, then the submanifold M is said to be minimal.
The submanifold M is called invariantly quasiumbilical if there exist mn mutually orthogonal unit normal vectors {\xi}_{n+1},\dots ,{\xi}_{m} such that the shape operators with respect to all directions {\xi}_{\alpha} have an eigenvalue of multiplicity n1 and that for each {\xi}_{\alpha} the distinguished eigendirection is the same [35].
Suppose now that L is an rdimensional subspace of {T}_{p}M, r\ge 2 and let \{{e}_{1},\dots ,{e}_{r}\} be an orthonormal basis of L. Then the scalar curvature \tau (L) of the rplane section L is given by
and the Casorati curvature \mathcal{C}(L) of the subspace L is defined as
The normalized δCasorati curvature {\delta}_{c}(n1) and {\stackrel{\u02c6}{\delta}}_{c}(n1) are given by
and
2.2 Quaternionic Kähler manifolds
We give in this subsection a quick review of basic definitions and properties of manifolds endowed with quaternionic Kähler structures, using mainly [36].
Let \overline{M} be a differentiable manifold and assume that there is a rank 3subbundle σ of End(T\overline{M}) such that a local basis \{{J}_{1},{J}_{2},{J}_{3}\} exists on sections of σ satisfying for all \alpha \in \{1,2,3\}:
where Id denotes the identity tensor field of type (1,1) on M and the indices are taken from \{1,2,3\} modulo 3. Then the bundle σ is called an almost quaternionic structure on M and \{{J}_{1},{J}_{2},{J}_{3}\} is called a canonical local basis of σ. Moreover, (\overline{M},\sigma ) is said to be an almost quaternionic manifold. It is easy to see that any almost quaternionic manifold is of dimension 4m, m\ge 1.
A Riemannian metric \overline{g} on \overline{M} is said to be adapted to the almost quaternionic structure σ if it satisfies
for all vector fields X, Y on \overline{M} and any canonical local basis \{{J}_{1},{J}_{2},{J}_{3}\} of σ. Moreover, (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is said to be an almost quaternionic Hermitian manifold.
If the bundle σ is parallel with respect to the LeviCivita connection \overline{\mathrm{\nabla}} of \overline{g}, then (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is said to be a quaternionic Kähler manifold. Equivalently, locally defined 1forms {\omega}_{1}, {\omega}_{2}, {\omega}_{3} exist such that we have for all \alpha \in \{1,2,3\}:
for any vector field X on \overline{M}, where the indices are taken from \{1,2,3\} modulo 3.
We remark that any quaternionic Kähler manifold is an Einstein manifold, provided that dimM>4.
Let (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) be a quaternionic Kähler manifold and let X be a nonnull vector field on \overline{M}. Then the 4plane spanned by \{X,{J}_{1}X,{J}_{2}X,{J}_{3}X\}, denoted by Q(X), is called a quaternionic 4plane. Any 2plane in Q(X) is called a quaternionic plane. The sectional curvature of a quaternionic plane is called a quaternionic sectional curvature. A quaternionic Kähler manifold is a quaternionic space form if its quaternionic sectional curvatures are equal to a constant, say c. It is well known that a quaternionic Kähler manifold (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is a quaternionic space form, denoted \overline{M}(c), if and only if its curvature tensor is given by
for all vector fields X, Y, Z on \overline{M} and any local basis \{{J}_{1},{J}_{2},{J}_{3}\} of σ.
A submanifold M in a quaternionic Kähler manifold (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is called a quaternionic submanifold [37] (resp. a totally real submanifold [38]) if each tangent space of M is carried into itself (resp. into the normal space) by each section in σ. In [39], the author introduced the concept of slant submanifolds as a natural generalization of both quaternionic and totally real submanifolds. A submanifold M of a quaternionic Kähler manifold (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is said to be a slant submanifold if for each nonzero vector X tangent to M at p, the angle \theta (X) between {J}_{\alpha}(X) and {T}_{p}M, \alpha \in \{1,2,3\} is constant, i.e. it does not depend on the choice of p\in M and X\in {T}_{p}M. We can easily see that quaternionic submanifolds are slant submanifolds with \theta =0 and totally real submanifolds are slant submanifolds with \theta =\frac{\pi}{2}. A slant submanifold of a quaternionic Käler manifold is said to be proper (or θslant proper) if it is neither quaternionic nor totally real. We note that another natural generalization of both quaternionic and totally real submanifolds in a quaternionic Kähler manifold is given by quaternionic CRsubmanifolds. A submanifold M of a quaternion Kähler manifold (\overline{M},\sigma ,\overline{g}) is said to be a quaternionic CRsubmanifold if there exist two orthogonal complementary distributions D and {D}^{\perp} on M such that D is invariant under quaternionic structure and {D}^{\perp} is totally real (see [40]). It is clear that, although quaternionic CRsubmanifolds are also the generalization of both quaternionic and totally real submanifolds, there exists no inclusion between the two classes of quaternionic CRsubmanifolds and slant submanifolds.
We also note that we have the next characterization of slant submanifolds in quaternionic Kähler manifolds.
Theorem 2.1 [39]Let M be a submanifold of a quaternionic Kähler manifold \overline{M}. Then M is slant if and only if there exists a constant \lambda \in [1,0] such that
where {P}_{\alpha}X denote the tangential component of {J}_{\alpha}X. Furthermore, in such a case, if θ is the slant angle of M, then it satisfies \lambda ={cos}^{2}\theta.
From the above theorem it follows easily that
for X,Y\in \mathrm{\Gamma}(TM) and \alpha ,\beta \in \{1,2,3\}.
Moreover, every proper slant submanifold of a quaternionic Kähler manifold is of even dimension n=2s\ge 2 and we can choose a canonical orthonormal local frame, called an adapted slant frame, as follows: \{{e}_{1},{e}_{2}=sec\theta {P}_{\alpha}{e}_{1},\dots ,{e}_{2s1},{e}_{2s}=sec\theta {P}_{\alpha}{e}_{2s1}\}, where α is 1, 2 or 3 (see [41]).
3 Proof of Theorem 1.1

(i)
Since {\overline{M}}^{4m}(c) is a quaternionic space form, from (6) and Gauss equation (5) we can easily obtain:
{n}^{2}{\parallel H\parallel}^{2}=2\tau (p)+{\parallel h\parallel}^{2}\frac{n(n1)c}{4}\frac{3c}{4}\sum _{\beta =1}^{3}\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}{g}^{2}({P}_{\beta}{e}_{i},{e}_{j}).(9)Choosing now an adapted slant basis
\{{e}_{1},{e}_{2}=sec\theta {P}_{\alpha}{e}_{1},\dots ,{e}_{2s1},{e}_{2s}=sec\theta {P}_{\alpha}{e}_{2s1}\}of {T}_{p}M, p\in M, where 2s=n and making use of (7) and (8), we derive
{g}^{2}({P}_{\beta}{e}_{i},{e}_{i+1})={g}^{2}({P}_{\beta}{e}_{i+1},{e}_{i})={cos}^{2}\theta \phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{for}i=1,3,\dots ,2s1(10)and
g({P}_{\beta}{e}_{i},{e}_{j})=0\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\text{for}(i,j)\notin \{(2l1,2l),(2l,2l1)l\in \{1,2,\dots ,s\}\}.(11)From (9), (10), and (11) we deduce that
2\tau (p)={n}^{2}{\parallel H\parallel}^{2}n\mathcal{C}+\frac{c}{4}[n(n1)+9n{cos}^{2}\theta ].(12)We define now the following function, denoted by , which is a quadratic polynomial in the components of the second fundamental form:
\mathcal{P}=\frac{1}{2}n(n1)\mathcal{C}+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)\mathcal{C}(L)2\tau (p)+\frac{c}{4}[n(n1)+9n{cos}^{2}\theta ],where L is a hyperplane of {T}_{p}M. We can assume without loss of generality that L is spanned by {e}_{1},\dots ,{e}_{n1}. Then we have
\begin{array}{rcl}\mathcal{P}& =& \frac{n1}{2}\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}{\left({h}_{ij}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}+\frac{n+1}{2(n1)}\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}\sum _{i,j=1}^{n1}{\left({h}_{ij}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}\\ 2\tau (p)+\frac{c}{4}[n(n1)+9n{cos}^{2}\theta ].\end{array}(13)From (12) and (13), we derive
\begin{array}{rcl}\mathcal{P}& =& \frac{n+1}{2}\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}\sum _{i,j=1}^{n}{\left({h}_{ij}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}\\ +\frac{n+1}{2(n1)}\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}\sum _{i,j=1}^{n1}{\left({h}_{ij}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}{\left(\sum _{i=1}^{n}{h}_{ii}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}\end{array}and now we obtain easily that
\begin{array}{rcl}\mathcal{P}& =& \sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}\sum _{i=1}^{n1}[\frac{{n}^{2}n+2}{2(n1)}{\left({h}_{ii}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}+(n+1){\left({h}_{in}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}]\\ +\sum _{\alpha =n+1}^{4m}[\frac{n(n+1)}{n1}\sum _{i<j=1}^{n1}{\left({h}_{ij}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}2\sum _{i<j=1}^{n}{h}_{ii}^{\alpha}{h}_{jj}^{\alpha}+\frac{n1}{2}{\left({h}_{nn}^{\alpha}\right)}^{2}].\end{array}(14)From (14) it follows that the critical points
{h}^{c}=({h}_{11}^{n+1},{h}_{12}^{n+1},\dots ,{h}_{nn}^{n+1},\dots ,{h}_{11}^{4m},{h}_{12}^{4m},\dots ,{h}_{nn}^{4m})of are the solutions of the following system of linear homogeneous equations:
\{\begin{array}{c}\frac{\partial \mathcal{P}}{\partial {h}_{ii}^{\alpha}}=\frac{n(n+1)}{n1}{h}_{ii}^{\alpha}2{\sum}_{k=1}^{n}{h}_{kk}^{\alpha}=0,\hfill \\ \frac{\partial \mathcal{P}}{\partial {h}_{nn}^{\alpha}}=(n1){h}_{nn}^{\alpha}2{\sum}_{k=1}^{n1}{h}_{kk}^{\alpha}=0,\hfill \\ \frac{\partial \mathcal{P}}{\partial {h}_{ij}^{\alpha}}=\frac{2n(n+1)}{n1}{h}_{ij}^{\alpha}=0,\hfill \\ \frac{\partial \mathcal{P}}{\partial {h}_{in}^{\alpha}}=2(n+1){h}_{in}^{\alpha}=0,\hfill \end{array}(15)with i,j\in \{1,\dots ,n1\}, i\ne j, and \alpha \in \{n+1,\dots ,4m\}.
From (15) it follows that every solutions {h}^{c} has {h}_{ij}^{\alpha}=0 for i\ne j and the determinant which corresponds to the first two sets of equations of the above system is zero (there exist solutions for nontotally geodesic submanifolds). Moreover, the Hessian matrix of has the eigenvalues
\begin{array}{c}{\lambda}_{11}=0,\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{\lambda}_{22}=\frac{2{n}^{2}5n+5}{n1},\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{\lambda}_{33}=\cdots ={\lambda}_{nn}=\frac{n(n+1)}{n1},\hfill \\ {\lambda}_{ij}=\frac{2n(n+1)}{n1},\phantom{\rule{2em}{0ex}}{\lambda}_{in}=2(n+1),\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}i,j\in \{1,\dots ,n1\},i\ne j.\hfill \end{array}Thus, it follows that is parabolic and reaches a minimum \mathcal{P}({h}^{c}) for each solution {h}^{c} of the system (15). But inserting (15) in (14) we obtain \mathcal{P}({h}^{c})=0. So \mathcal{P}\ge 0, and this implies
2\tau (p)\le \frac{1}{2}n(n1)\mathcal{C}+\frac{1}{2}(n+1)\mathcal{C}(L)+\frac{c}{4}[n(n1)+9n{cos}^{2}\theta ].Hence we deduce that
\rho \le \frac{1}{2}\mathcal{C}+\frac{n+1}{2n(n1)}\mathcal{C}(L)+\frac{c}{4}[1+\frac{9}{n1}{cos}^{2}\theta ]for every tangent hyperplane L of M. Taking now the infimum over all tangent hyperplane L we obtain (1).
Moreover, we can easily see now that the equality sign holds in the inequality (1) if and only if
{h}_{ij}^{\alpha}=0,\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}i,j\in \{1,\dots ,n\},i\ne j\text{and}\alpha \in \{n+1,\dots ,4m\}(16)and
{h}_{nn}^{\alpha}=2{h}_{11}^{\alpha}=2{h}_{22}^{\alpha}=\cdots =2{h}_{n1,n1}^{\alpha},\phantom{\rule{1em}{0ex}}\mathrm{\forall}\alpha \in \{n+1,\dots ,4m\}.(17)From (16) and (17) we conclude that the equality sign holds in the inequality (1) if and only if the submanifold M is invariantly quasiumbilical with trivial normal connection in \overline{M}, such that with respect to suitable orthonormal tangent and normal orthonormal frames, the shape operators take the forms (2).

(ii)
can be proved in a similar way, considering the following quadratic polynomial in the components of the second fundamental form:
\mathcal{Q}=2n(n1)\mathcal{C}\frac{1}{2}(2n1(n1))\mathcal{C}(L)2\tau (p)+\frac{c}{4}[n(n1)+9n{cos}^{2}\theta ],
where L is a hyperplane of {T}_{p}M.
References
Chen BY: Some pinching and classification theorems for minimal submanifolds. Arch. Math. 1993, 60: 568578.
Chen BY: δ Invariants, inequalities of submanifolds and their applications. In Topics in Differential Geometry. Ed. Acad. Române, Bucharest; 2008:29155.
Deng S: Improved ChenRicci inequality for Lagrangian submanifolds in quaternion space forms. Int. Electron. J. Geom. 2012,5(1):163170.
Hong Y, Houh CS: Lagrangian submanifolds of quaternion Kaehlerian manifolds satisfying Chen’s equality. Beitr. Algebra Geom. 1998,39(2):413421.
Liu X: On Ricci curvature of totally real submanifolds in a quaternion projective space. Arch. Math. 2002,38(4):297305.
Liu X, Dai W: Ricci curvature of submanifolds in a quaternion projective space. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 2002,17(4):625633.
Mihai I, AlSolamy FR, Shahid MH: On Ricci curvature of a quaternion CRsubmanifold in a quaternion space form. Rad. Mat. 2003,12(1):9198.
Shahid MH, AlSolamy FR: Ricci tensor of slant submanifolds in a quaternion projective space. C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Paris 2011,349(9):571573.
Shukla SS, Rao PK: Ricci curvature of quaternion slant submanifolds in quaternion space forms. Acta Math. Acad. Paedagog. Nyházi 2012,28(1):6981.
Vîlcu GE: Slant submanifolds of quaternionic space forms. Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2012,81(34):397413.
Yoon DW: A basic inequality of submanifolds in quaternionic space forms. Balk. J. Geom. Appl. 2004,9(2):92102.
Vîlcu GE: On Chen invariant and inequalities in quaternionic geometry. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 66
Alegre P, Chen BY, Munteanu M: Riemannian submersions, δ invariants, and optimal inequality. Ann. Glob. Anal. Geom. 2012,42(3):317331.
AlSolamy FR, Chen BY, Deshmukh S: Two optimal inequalities for antiholomorphic submanifolds and their applications. Taiwan. J. Math. 2014,18(1):199217.
Chen BY: An optimal inequality for CRwarped products in complex space forms involving CR δ invariant. Int. J. Math. 2012.,23(3): Article ID 1250045
Chen BY, Dillen F, Van der Veken J, Vrancken L: Curvature inequalities for Lagrangian submanifolds: the final solution. Differ. Geom. Appl. 2013,31(6):808819.
Chen BY, PrietoMartín A, Wang X:Lagrangian submanifolds in complex space forms satisfying an improved equality involving \delta (2,2). Publ. Math. (Debr.) 2013,82(1):193217.
Gülbahar M, Kiliç E, Keleş S: Chenlike inequalities on lightlike hypersurfaces of a Lorentzian manifold. J. Inequal. Appl. 2013., 2013: Article ID 266
Gülbahar M, Kiliç E, Keleş S: Some inequalities on screen homotethic lightlike hypersurfaces of a Lorentzian manifold. Taiwan. J. Math. 2013,17(6):20832100.
Özgür C, Mihai A: Chen inequalities for submanifolds of real space forms with a semisymmetric nonmetric connection. Can. Math. Bull. 2012,55(3):611622.
AlSolamy FR, Khan MA: Semiinvariant warped product submanifolds of almost contact manifolds. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 127
AlSolamy FR, Khan MA: Warped product submanifolds of Riemannian product manifolds. Abstr. Appl. Anal. 2012., 2012: Article ID 724898
AlSolamy FR, Khan MA: Semislant warped product submanifolds of a Kenmotsu manifold. Math. Probl. Eng. 2012., 2012: Article ID 708191
Khan MA, Uddin S, Sachdeva R: Semiinvariant warped product submanifolds of cosymplectic manifolds. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 19
Uddin S, Khan KA: An inequality for contact CRwarped product submanifolds of nearly cosymplectic manifolds. J. Inequal. Appl. 2012., 2012: Article ID 304
Casorati F: Mesure de la courbure des surfaces suivant l’idée commune. Ses rapports avec les mesures de courbure gaussienne et moyenne. Acta Math. 1890,14(1):95110.
Albertazzi L: Handbook of Experimental Phenomenology: Visual Perception of Shape, Space and Appearance. Wiley, Chichester; 2013.
Haesen S, Kowalczyk D, Verstraelen L: On the extrinsic principal directions of Riemannian submanifolds. Note Mat. 2009,29(2):4153.
Verstraelen L: The geometry of eye and brain. Soochow J. Math. 2004,30(3):367376.
Verstraelen L: Geometry of submanifolds I. The first Casorati curvature indicatrices. Kragujev. J. Math. 2013,37(1):523.
Decu S, Haesen S, Verstraelen L: Optimal inequalities involving Casorati curvatures. Bull. Transylv. Univ. Braşov, Ser. B 2007,14(49):8593. suppl.
Decu S, Haesen S, Verstraelen L: Optimal inequalities characterising quasiumbilical submanifolds. J. Inequal. Pure Appl. Math. 2008.,9(3): Article ID 79
Ghişoiu V: Inequalities for the Casorati curvatures of slant submanifolds in complex space forms. In Riemannian Geometry and Applications. Proceedings RIGA 2011. Ed. Univ. Bucureşti, Bucharest; 2011:145150.
Chen BY: PseudoRiemannian Geometry, δInvariants and Applications. World Scientific, Hackensack; 2011.
Blair D: Quasiumbilical, minimal submanifolds of Euclidean space. Simon Stevin 1977, 51: 322.
Ishihara S: Quaternion Kählerian manifolds. J. Differ. Geom. 1974, 9: 483500.
Gray A:A note on manifolds whose holonomy group is a subgroup of Sp(n)\cdot Sp(1). Mich. Math. J. 1969, 16: 125128.
Chen BY, Houh CS: Totally real submanifolds of a quaternion projective space. Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 1979,120(1):185199.
Şahin B: Slant submanifolds of quaternion Kaehler manifolds. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 2007,22(1):123135.
Barros M, Chen BY, Urbano F: Quaternion CRsubmanifolds of quaternion manifolds. Kodai Math. J. 1981, 4: 399417.
Vîlcu GE: B.Y. Chen inequalities for slant submanifolds in quaternionic space forms. Turk. J. Math. 2010,34(1):115128.
Acknowledgements
The third author was supported by CNCSUEFISCDI, project number PNIIIDPCE201130118.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
All authors contributed equally and significantly in writing this paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
About this article
Cite this article
Slesar, V., Şahin, B. & Vîlcu, GE. Inequalities for the Casorati curvatures of slant submanifolds in quaternionic space forms. J Inequal Appl 2014, 123 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014123
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1029242X2014123
Keywords
 scalar curvature
 mean curvature
 Casorati curvature
 shape operator
 quaternionic space form
 slant submanifold
 optimal inequality