On the connected components of the moduli space of equivariant minimal surfaces in \(\mathbb{CH}^2\) (Q6038634)

Let \(\Sigma\) be a closed oriented surface of genus \(g \geq 2\) and let \(N\) be a noncompact irreducible symmetric space. Let \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma, N)\) be the set of equivalence classes of equivariant minimal surfaces. We may assign a topology to this set by embedding it in \(\mathcal{T}_g \times \mathcal{R}\left(\pi_1 \Sigma, G\right)\) where \(\mathcal{T}_g\) is the Teichmüller space of \(\Sigma\), \(\mathcal{R}\left(\pi_1 \Sigma, G\right)\) is the moduli space of reductive representations of \(\pi_1 \Sigma\) into \(G\) up to conjugacy, and \(G\) is the isometry group of \(N\). In [Asian J. Math. 23, No. 1, 71--106 (2019; Zbl 1417.53069)], the author and \textit{J. Loftin} studied the set \(\mathcal{M}\left(\Sigma, \mathbb{C H}^2\right)\). They obtained parametrisations for certain subsets called components. Each component was equipped with the structure of a connected smooth complex manifold, most of which had the same dimension. However, in that paper the total space \(\mathcal{M}\left(\Sigma, \mathbb{C H}^2\right)\) had not a topology a priori, and so the relation between the found components and the connected components of the space cannot be established. In the paper under review, the author proves that the components identified in the cited paper are, with a few exceptions, the connected components. Let us write \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^n)\) as a disjoint union \(\mathcal{V} \cup \mathcal{W}\) where \(\mathcal{W}\) is the subvariety of \(\pm\)-holomorphic maps and \(\mathcal{V}\) is the complement. The first main result of the paper is Theorem 1.1: Theorem. Both \(\mathcal{V}\subset \mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^n)\) and \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{R}\mathbb{H}^n)\) are smooth manifolds. They have complex dimension \((g - 1)\text{dim}(G)\) for \(G = \mathrm{PU}(n, 1)\) and \(\mathrm{SO}_0(n, 1)\) respectively. The proof runs along Section 3. The author points out that this theorem fills a small gap in the proof of Theorem 4.4 of [Geom. Dedic. 201, 325--351 (2019; Zbl 1512.58007)] (also written with \textit{J. Loftin}), which gives a smooth parametrisation of the connected components of \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{R}\mathbb{H}^4)\): the proof given there that the parametrisation is a local diffeomorphism needs the fact that this space is non-singular. For the second main result, the author considers \(n=2\) and \(G= \mathrm{PU}(2,1)\). The Toledo invariant \(\tau\) plays a relevant role parametrising the connected components. Let \(\mathcal{V}(d_1, d_2)\subset \mathcal{V}\) denote the subset of those immersions whose divisors have these degrees fixed. We have Theorem 1.2: Theorem. Let \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^2)_{\tau}\) denote the space of equivariant minimal immersions with Toledo invariant \(\tau\). Then \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^2)_0\) has connected components \(\mathcal{V}(d_1, d_2)\) for \(d_2 = d_1\). For \(0 < \tau < 2(g-1)\) the connected components of \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^2)_{\tau}\) are \(\mathcal{V}(d_1, d_2)\) with \(d_1\neq 0\) and \(\mathcal{V}(0, d_2) \cup \mathcal{W}_{\tau}\), while \(\mathcal{M}(\Sigma,\mathbb{C}\mathbb{H}^2) = \mathcal{W}_{\tau}\) for \(\tau = 2(g-1)\). The proof is given in Section 5. In the final Section 6, the author provides some comments and proposes several open questions.