Locally symmetric contact metric manifolds (Q2503140): Difference between revisions

In 1962, M. Okumura proved that a locally symmetric Sasakian manifold is of constant curvature \(+1\) [see Tohoku Math. J. 14, 135--145 (1962; Zbl 0119.37701)]. \textit{S. Tanno} proved the same result for a locally symmetric \(K\)-contact manifold [see Proc. Japan Acad. 43, 581--583 (1967; Zbl 0155.49802)]. \textit{D. Blair} considered unit tangent sphere bundles with their standard contact metric structure, he showed that these are locally symmetric if and only if the base space is either the sphere \(S^2(1)\) or some Euclidean space [see Geometry and topology, Singapore, World Scientific 1989, 15--30]). Concerning the classification of all locally symmetric contact metric \((2n+1)\)-manifolds, Blair conjectured that ``the only two possibilities are contact metric manifolds which are locally isometric to \(S^{2n+1}(1)\) or \(E^{n+1}\times S^n(4)\)'' [see \textit{D. Blair}, Riemannian geometry of contact and symplectic manifolds, Progress in Mathematics 203. Boston, MA: Birkhäuser (2002; Zbl 1011.53001)]. In the present paper the authors prove this conjecture. Moreover, they remark that their method, which is a computational one, does not offer any geometric insight into the question why local symmetry and the presence of a contact metric structure are ``\(incompatible\)''. They raise the question to find a more conceptual proof of their result. The paper is well written, the topic is well explained and motivated.