ISSN 1995-0802, Lobachevskii Journal of Mathematics, 2011, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 88–94.


c Pleiades Publishing, Ltd., 2011.

On Submanifolds of Sasakian Manifolds

Avijit Sarkar*

(Submitted by P.N. Ivanshin)

Department of Mathematics, University of Burdwan,
Burdwan 713104, West Bengal, India
Received September 15, 2010

Abstract—The object of the present paper is to introduce a new type of invariant submanifolds,
namely, mixed-invariant submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds and to show that every mixed-invariant
submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is totally geodesic. 2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Sasakian
space form is also studied.

DOI: 10.1134/S1995080211010045
Keywords and phrases: Key words and phrases: Mixed-invariant, Sasakian manifold, subman-
ifold, 2-quasi-umbilical, generalized quasi-Einstein.

1. INTRODUCTION
A contact manifold with contact form η carries an almost contact metric structure (φ, ξ, η, g) with
Φ = dη, where Φ(X, Y ) = g(X, φY ). This structure is referred to as an associated contact structure
or simply as a contact metric structure (φ, ξ, η, g). If it is normal, we call it a normal contact metric
structure or a Sasakian structure.
A Sasakian structure is in some sense an analogue of a Kähler structure on an almost Hermitian
manifold, that is, the almost complex structure J is parallel with respect to the Hermitian metric. This
point of view is suggested in the following formulation of the Sasakian condition [8]:
An almost contact metric structure (φ, ξ, η, g) is Sasakian if and only if
˜ X φ)Y = g(X, Y )ξ − η(Y )X,
(∇ (1.1)
where ∇ ˜ denotes the Riemannian connection of g.
In general, an invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is not totally geodesic. For example,
the circle bundle (S, Qn ) over an n-dimensional complex projective space CP (n+1) is an invariant sub-
manifold of a (2n + 3)-dimensional Sasakian space form with c > −3, which is not totally geodesic [5].
Invariant submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds have been studied by Kon [6]. He has obtained the well
known result that an invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is totally geodesic, provided that the
second fundamental form of the immersion is covariantly constant. Invariant submanifolds of contact
metric manifolds have also been studied by many authors, viz, [2, 4]. In the paper [9] the authors have
proved some necessary and sufficient conditions for an invariant submanifold of a Kenmotsu manifold
to be totally geodesic. They also studied quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Kenmotsu space form. The
aim of our present paper is to impose some conditions on invariant submanifolds of a Sasakian manifold
under which it is totally geodesic. To this end we introduce the notion of mixed-invariant submanifolds
of invariant submanifolds and prove that a mixed-invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is totally
geodesic. We also study the 2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Sasakian space form and prove that a
2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Sasakian-space-form is a generalized quasi-Einstein manifold.
The present paper is organized as follows:
*
E-mail: avjaj@yahoo.co.in
The author is supported by U. G. C. Minor Research Project, India.

88
 ON SUBMANIFOLDS OF SASAKIAN MANIFOLDS 89

In Section 2 we recall the notion of Sasakian manifolds and the results related with submanifold
theory. In Section 3, we define mixed-invariant submanifolds of Sasakian manifolds and construct an
example of such submanifolds. In this section we also prove that a mixed-invariant submanifold of a
Sasakian manifold is totally geodesic. The last section deals with 2-quasi-umblical hypersurface of a
Sasakian space form. In the last section we prove that a 2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Sasakian
space form is a generalized quasi-Einstein manifold.

2. PRELIMINARIES
Let M̃ be an almost contact metric manifold of dimension (2n + 1), that is, a (2n + 1)-dimensional
differentiable manifold endowed with an almost contact metric structure (φ, ξ, η, g). By definition, φ, ξ, η
are tensor fields of type (1, 1), (1, 0), (0, 1), respectively, and g is a Riemannian metric on M̃ such that [3]
φ2 X = −X + η(X)ξ, η(ξ) = 1, (2.1)

g(φX, φY ) = g(X, Y ) − η(X)η(Y ), (2.2)

for all differentiable vector fields X, Y on M . Then also
φ(ξ) = 0, η(φX) = 0, η(X) = g(X, ξ). (2.3)
Let Φ be the fundamental 2-form defined by Φ(X, Y ) = g(X, φY ), for all differentiable vector fields X,
Y on M̃ . If the vector field ξ is a Killing vector field, then the contact manifold is called a K-contact
manifold. In a K-contact manifold we always have ∇ ˜ X ξ = −φX, for any tangent vector X of the
manifold. A K-contact manifold is a Sasakian manifold if and only if it satisfies
(∇˜ X ξ) = g(X, Y )ξ − η(Y )X. (2.4)
It is to be noted that every Sasakian manifold is K-contact, but the converse is true only for three-
dimensional case. In a Sasakian manifold we also have
R̃(ξ, X)Y = g(X, Y )ξ − η(Y )X, (2.5)

R̃(X, Y )ξ = η(Y )X − η(X)Y, (2.6)

˜ denotes the operator of the covariant differentiation with respect to
for all vector fields X, Y , Z, where ∇
the metric g and R̃ is the Riemannian curvature tensor of the manifold M̃ .
If a Sasakian manifold M̃ 2n+1 of dimension 2n + 1 has constant φ-sectional curvature c, then it is
called a Sasakian space form and is denoted by M̃ 2n+1 (c). The curvature tensor R̃ of a Sasakian space
form M̃ 2n+1 (c) is given by [3]
c+3 c−1
R(X, Y )Z = {g(Y, Z)X − g(X, Z)Y } + {g(X, φZ)φY − g(Y, φZ)φX (2.7)
4 4
+ 2g(X, φY )φZ + η(X)η(Z)Y − η(Y )η(Z)X + g(X, Z)η(Y )ξ − g(Y, Z)η(X)ξ},
for any tangent vector fields X, Y , Z to M̃ 2n+1 (c).
Let M be a submanifold immersed in a (2n + 1)-dimensional Riemannian manifold M̃ , we denote by
the same symbol g the induced metric on M . Let T M be the set of all vector fields tangent to M and
T ⊥ M is the set of all vector fields normal to M . Then Gauss and Weingarten formula are given by [1]
∇˜ X Y = ∇X Y + B(X, Y ), (2.8)

˜ X N = −AN X + ∇X ⊥ N,
∇ (2.9)
for any X, Y ∈ T M and N ∈ T ⊥ M , where ∇⊥ is the connection in T ⊥ M . The second fundamental form
B and AN are related by
g(AN X, Y ) = g(B(X, Y ), N ). (2.10)

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011

90 SARKAR

It is also noted that B(X, Y ) is bilinear in X and Y [1] and since ∇f X Y = f ∇X Y , for a C ∞ functions
on a manifold we have
B(f X, Y ) = f B(X, Y ). (2.11)
For the unit normal vector field N of the submanifold we get
B(X, Y ) = H(X, Y )N, (2.12)
where H(X, Y ) is the second fundamental tensor and B(X, Y ) is the second fundamental form of the
submanifold. The Gauss equation is given by
R̃(X, Y, Z, W ) = R(X, Y, Z, W ) − g(B(X, W ), B(Y, Z)) + g(B(Y, W ), B(X, Z)). (2.13)

3. MIXED-INVARIANT SUBMANIFOLDS OF SASAKIAN MANIFOLDS

Before introducing mixed-invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold let us recall the following:
Definition 3.1. An invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is a submanifold for which
the structure tensor field maps tangent vectors into tangent vectors and the structure vector field
is tangent to the submanifold.
Definition 3.2. A submanifold M of a Sasakian manifold is called totally geodesic if
B(X, Y ) = 0, for X, Y ∈ T M .
Definition 3.3. Let M be an invariant submanifold of a sasakian manifold M̃ . If there exist
two differentiable orthogonal distributions D and D⊥ on M such that
T M = D ⊕ D ⊥ ⊕ ξ,
and
φ(D) ⊂ D ⊥ , φ(D⊥ ) ⊂ D,
then M will be called a mixed-invariant submanifold of the Sasakian manifold M̃ .
Remark 3.1. From the definition of mixed-invariant submanifold it is clear that all the
properties which are true for invariant submanifolds are also true for mixed-invariant sub-
manifolds. But the properties which are valid for mixed-invariant submanifolds may not be
valid for invariant submanifolds. For instance, in this paper we prove that a mixed-invariant
submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is totally geodesic though an invariant submanifold of a
Sasakian manifold is not totally geodesic, unless the second fundamental form is covariantly
constant [6].
Since every mixed-invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is invariant we have the follow-
ing [5]:
Lemma 3.1. For a mixed-invariant submanifold M of a Sasakian manifold M̃ we have, for the
two differentiable vector fields X, Y ∈ T M
B(X, ξ) = 0, (3.1)

B(X, φY ) = φB(X, Y ) = B(φX, Y ). (3.2)

Theorem 3.1. Every mixed-invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold is totally geodesic.

Proof: Let M be a mixed invariant submanifold of a Sasakian manifold M̃ . From (3.2) we have
B(X, φY ) = φB(X, Y ) = B(φX, Y ).
Let X1 , Y1 ∈ D. Then we have
B(X1 , φY1 ) = φB(X1 , Y1 ). (3.3)
Therefore by (2.1),
φB(X1 , φY1 ) = φ2 B(X1 , Y1 ) = −B(X1 , Y1 ) + η(B(X1 , Y1 ))ξ. (3.4)

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011

 ON SUBMANIFOLDS OF SASAKIAN MANIFOLDS 91

Since B(X1 , Y1 ) is a vector field normal to M , [1] it follows that B(X1 , Y1 ) and ξ are orthogonal.
Therefore, we get η(B(X1 , Y1 )) = 0. Thus in view of (3.2) and (3.4) it follows that
B(φX1 , φY1 ) = −B(X1 , Y1 ). (3.5)
Since the manifold is mixed-invariant, we note that X2 = φX1 ∈ D ⊥ and Y2 = φY1 ∈ D⊥ . Therefore,
B(X2 , Y2 ) = −B(X1 , Y1 ). (3.6)
Now B(X, Y ) is bilinear in X and Y . For X1 , Y1 ∈ D and X2 , Y2 ∈ D ⊥ , it follows that
B(X1 + X2 + ξ, Y1 ) = B(X1 , Y1 ) + B(X2 , Y1 ) + B(ξ, Y1 ). (3.7)

B(X1 + X2 + ξ, Y2 ) = B(X1 , Y2 ) + B(X2 , Y2 ) + B(ξ, Y2 ). (3.8)

B(X1 + X2 + ξ, ξ) = B(X1 , ξ) + B(X2 , ξ) + B(ξ, ξ). (3.9)

Keeping in mind that B(X, ξ) = 0, for X ∈ T M and adding (3.7), (3.8) and (3.9), we get, by virtue
of (3.6),
B(X1 + X2 + ξ, Y1 + Y2 + ξ) = B(X2 , Y1 ) + B(X1 , Y2 ).
Now T M = D ⊕ D ⊥ ⊕ ξ, so, U = X1 + X2 + ξ ∈ T M and V = Y1 + Y2 + ξ ∈ T M , where X1 , Y1 are
arbitrary vector fields of D and X2 , Y2 are arbitrary vector fields of D⊥ . Thus the above equation yields
for the arbitrary vectors U, V ∈ T M
B(U, V ) = B(X2 , Y1 ) + B(X1 , Y2 ). (3.10)
Now we shall show that for a mixed-invariant submanifold of M̃ , B(X, Y ) = 0, for X ∈ D, and Y ∈ D ⊥ .
Let X ∈ D, Y ∈ D ⊥ . In view of (3.2) we get
φB(X, Y ) = B(X, φY ) = B(X, Y ′ ), (3.11)
where Y ′ = φY ∈ D, since the manifold is mixed-invariant. Hence X and Y ′ belong to the same
distribution D. From elementary theory of inner product space it is known that two vectors of same
distribution may be collinear or perpendicular or may have an angle θ between them. In general we can
write Y ′ = cos θX, θ ∈ [0, 2π], Thus (3.11) yields
φB(X, Y ) = cos θB(X, X). (3.12)
Again using (3.2), it follows that
φ2 B(X, Y ) = cos θB(X, φX) = cos θB(X, X ′ ), (3.13)
where X ′ = φX ∈ D ⊥ , for X ∈ D, since the manifold is mixed-invariant. Now X ′ and Y both belong to
D ⊥ . Hence as before we can write X ′ = cos ψY , ψ ∈ [0, 2π]. Thus from (3.13) it can be written that
φ2 B(X, Y ) = cos θ cos ψB(X, Y ),
or,
−B(X, Y ) + η(B(X, Y ))ξ = cos θ cos ψB(X, Y ).
Since η(B(X, Y )) = 0, from the above equation, it follows that
−B(X, Y ) = cos θ cos ψB(X, Y ).
From the above equation we have
(1 + cos θ cos ψ)B(X, Y ) = 0.
It is obvious that cos θ cos ψ = −1, for all values of θ and ψ. Hence we can write B(X, Y ) = 0. Using this
result in (3.10) we write at once B(U, V ) = 0. Hence the submanifold is totally geodesic. This completes
the proof.
Now we shall give an example to show the existence of such submanifolds.

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011

92 SARKAR

Example 3.1. Let M̃ = {(x, y, z, u, v) ∈ R5 ), (x, y, z, u, v) = (0, 0, 0, 0, 0)}, where (x, y, z, u, v) are
the standard coordinates in R5 . The vector fields
   
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
ẽ1 = 2 y − , ẽ2 = 2 , ẽ3 = 2 , ẽ4 = 2 v − , ẽ5 = 2
∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z ∂u ∂v
are linearly independent at each point of M̃ . Let g be the metric defined by g(ei , ej ) = 1 if i = j,
otherwise 0. Here i and j varies from 1 to 5. Let η be the 1-form defined by η(Z) = g(Z, e3 ) for any
Z belongs to χ(M̃ ). Let φ be the (1, 1) tensor field defined by φe1 = e2 , φe2 = −e1 , φe3 = 0, φ(e4 ) = e5 ,
φ(e5 ) = −e4 . Then using the linearity of φ and g we have
η(e3 ) = 1, φ2 Z = −Z + η(Z)e3 ,
for any Z, W ∈ χ(M̃ ). Thus for e3 = ξ, M̃ (φ, ξ, η, g) defines an almost contact metric manifold.

Let ∇ ˜ be the Levi-Civita connection with respect to the metric g. Then we have [e1 , e2 ] = −2e3 ,
[e4 , e5 ] = −2e3 and [ei , ej ] = 0, for all other i, j.
Taking e3 = ξ and using Koszul’s formula for the metric g, it can be easily calculated that
∇˜ e e3 = e2 , ∇˜ e e3 = −e1 , ∇ ˜ e e3 = −e1 , ∇˜ e e3 = −e4 , ∇
˜ e e2 = −e3 , ∇˜ e e2 = −e1 ,
1 2 4 5 1 3

˜ e e1 = e2 ,
∇ ˜ e e4 = −e1 ,
∇ ˜ e e4 = −e3 ,
∇ ˜ e e5 = −e4 ,
∇ ˜ e e5 = e3 ,
∇ ˜ e e1 = e3 .
∇
3 3 5 3 4 2

and the remaining ∇ ˜ e ej = 0.

i
˜ X φ)Y = ∇
From the above results it is easy to verify that M̃ satisfies (∇ ˜ X φY − φ∇˜ X Y = g(X, Y )ξ −
η(Y )X. Hence the manifold is Sasakian.
Let us consider the 3-dimensional submanifold M of the 5-dimensional Sasakian manifold M̃ . Let
M = {(x, y, z) ∈ R3 , (x, y, z) = (0, 0, 0)}, where (x, y, z) are the standard coordinates in R3 . The vector
fields
 
∂ ∂ ∂ ∂
e1 = 2 y − , e2 = 2 , e3 = 2
∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z
are linearly independent at each point of M . Let g be the metric defined by
g(e1 , e3 ) = g(e2 , e3 ) = g(e1 , e2 ) = 0, g(e1 , e1 ) = g(e2 , e2 ) = g(e3 , e3 ) = 1.
Let η be the 1-form defined by η(Z) = g(Z, e3 ) for any Z belongs to χ(M ). Let φ be the (1, 1) tensor
field defined by φe1 = e2 , φe2 = −e1 , φe3 = 0. Then using the linearity of φ and g we have
η(e3 ) = 1, φ2 Z = −Z + η(Z)e3 ,
for any Z, W ∈ χ(M ). Thus for e3 = ξ, M (φ, ξ, η, g) defines an almost contact metric manifold.

Let ∇ be the Levi-Civita connection with respect to the metric g on M . Then we have
[e1 , e3 ] = 0, [e1 , e2 ] = −2e3 , [e2 , e3 ] = 0.
Taking e3 = ξ and using Koszul’s formula for the metric g, it can be easily calculated that
∇e1 e3 = e2 , ∇e1 e2 = −e3 , ∇e1 e1 = 0,
∇e2 e3 = −e1 , ∇e2 e2 = 0, ∇e2 e1 = e3 ,
∇e3 e3 = 0, ∇e3 e2 = −e1 , ∇e3 e1 = e2 .
From the above result we see that the (φ, ξ, η, g) structure satisfies the formula (∇X φ)Y = g(X, Y )ξ −
η(Y )X, where η(e3 ) = 1. Hence M (φ, ξ, η, g) is a three-dimensional Sasakian submanifold of M̃ .
Let us consider
T M = D ⊕ D ⊥ ⊕ ξ,
where D = e1  and D ⊥ = e2 . Then we see that φ(e1 ) = e2 ∈ D⊥ , for e1 ∈ D and φ(e2 ) = −e1 ∈ D,
for e2 ∈ D ⊥ . Hence the submanifold is mixed-invariant. From the values of ∇ ˜ e ej and ∇e ej we see that
i i
h(ei , ej ) = 0, for all i, j = 1, 2, 3. Hence the submanifold is totally geodesic.

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011

 ON SUBMANIFOLDS OF SASAKIAN MANIFOLDS 93

4. 2-QUASI-UMBILICAL HYPERSURFACE OF A SASAKIAN SPACE FORM

In this section we study 2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a Sasakian space form.
Definition 4.1. A hypersurface M 2n immersed isometrically in a Sasakian space form M̃ 2n+1 (c) is
said to be 2-quasi-umbilical [11] if the second fundamental tensor H(X, Y ) satisfies the the equation
H(X, Y ) = αg(X, Y ) + βω(X)ω(Y ) + γη(X)η(Y ), (4.1)
where α, β, γ are scalars and ω, η are 1-forms defined by ω(X) = g(X, Ũ ) and η(X) = g(X, Ṽ ), and
Ũ , Ṽ are two unit vectors such that g(Ũ , Ṽ ) = 0.
Definition 4.2. A non-flat Riemannian manifold is called a generalized quasi-Einstein manifold [10]
if its Ricci tensor S of type (0, 2) is non-zero and satisfies the condition
S(X, Y ) = ag(X, Y ) + bA(X)A(Y ) + cB(X)B(Y ),
where a, b, c are certain non-zero scalars and A, B are two non-zero 1-forms defined by A(X) = g(U, X)
and B(X) = g(X, V ), U and V are two unit vectors given by g(U, V ) = 0.
Now let us prove the following:
Theorem 4.1. A 2-quasi-umbilical hypersurface of a sasakian space form is a generalized
quasi-Einstein manifold.
Proof: From (2.7) we get
c+3
R̃(X, Y, Z, W ) = (g(Y, Z)g(X, W ) − g(X, Z)g(Y, W )) (4.2)
4
c−1
+ (η(X)η(Z)g(Y, W ) − η(Y )η(Z)g(X, W ) + g(X, Z)η(Y )η(W )
4
− g(Y, Z)η(X)η(W ) + g(φY, Z)g(φX, W ) − g(φX, Z)g(φY, W ) − 2g(φX, Y )g(φZ, W )).
In (2.13), using (2.12) we get
R̃(X, Y, Z, W ) = R(X, Y, Z, W ) − H(Y, Z)H(X, W ) + H(X, Z)H(Y, W ).
In view of (4.1) the above equation yields
R̃(X, Y, Z, W ) = R(X, Y, Z, W ) − (αg(Y, Z) + βω(Y )ω(Z) + γη(Y )η(Z))(αg(X, W ) (4.3)
+ βω(X)ω(W ) + γη(X)η(W )) + (αg(X, Z) + βω(X)ω(Z) + γη(X)η(Z))(αg(Y, W )
+ βω(Y )ω(W ) + γη(Y )η(W )).
By virtue of (4.2) and (4.3), it follows that
(c + 3) c−1
(g(Y, Z)g(X, W ) − g(X, Z)g(Y, W )) + (η(X)η(Z)g(Y, W ) (4.4)
4 4
− η(Y )η(Z)g(X, W ) + g(X, Z)η(Y )η(Z) − g(Y, Z)η(X)η(W ) + g(φY, Z)g(φX, W )
− g(φX, Z)g(φY, W ) − 2g(φX, Y )g(φZ, W )) = R(X, Y, Z, W )
− (αg(Y, Z) + βω(Y )ω(Z) + γη(Y )η(Z))(αg(X, W ) + βω(X)ω(W ) + γη(X)η(W ))
+ (αg(X, Z) + βω(X)ω(Z) + γη(X)η(Z))(αg(Y, W ) + βω(Y )ω(W ) + γη(Y )η(W )).
In the above equation contracting Y and Z, we obtain
c+3 c−1
2ng(X, W ) + (η(X)η(W ) − g(X, W ) + η(X)η(W ) − (2n + 1)η(X)η(W )
4 4
− 3g(X, W ) − η(X)η(W )) = S(X, W ) − ((2n + 1)α + β + γ)(αg(X, W )
+ βω(X)ω(W ) + γη(X)η(W )) + (α2 g(X, W ) + αβω(X)ω(W ) + αγη(X)η(W )
+ αβω(X)ω(W ) + β 2 ω(X)ω(W ) + αγη(X)η(W ) + γ 2 η(X)η(W )).
After simplification the above equation yields
 
(n + 1)c
S(X, W ) = + 1 + α(2nα + β + γ) g(X, W )
2

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011

94 SARKAR
 
(n + 1)(1 − c)
+ ((2n − 1)α + γ)βω(X)ω(Y ) + + ((2n − 1)α + β)γ η(X)η(W ).
2
Thus we see that the hypersurface is generalized quasi-Einstein. This completes the proof.

REFERENCES
1. B. Y. Chen, Geometry of submanifolds (Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, 1973).
2. C. Murathon, K. Arslan, C. Özgur, and A. Yieldiz, On invariant submanifolds satisfying a nullity
condition, An. Univ. Bucuresti Mat. Inform. 50, 103 (2001).
3. D. E. Blair, Contact manifolds in Riemannian Geometry Lecture notes in Math. (Springer, New York).
4. H. Endo, On the curvature tensor field of a type of contact metric manifolds and of its certain
submanifolds, Publ. Math. Debreceen. 48, 253 (1996).
5. K. Yano and M. Kon, Structures on manifolds, Series in Pure Mathematics (World Scientific, Singapore,
1984).
6. M. Kon, Invariant submanifolds of normal contact metric manifolds, Kodai Math. Sem. Rep. 27, 330
(1973).
7. R. Deszcz and L. Verstraelen, Hypersurface of semi-Riemannian conformally flat Riemannian mani-
folds, Geom. Topol. Submanifolds 3, 131 (1991).
8. S. Sasaki and Y. Hatakeyama, On differentiable manifolds with contact metric structure, J. Math Soc.
Japan 14, 249 (1962).
9. S. Sular and C. Özgur, On submanifolds of Kenmotsu manifolds, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals 42, 1990
(2009).
10. U. C. De and G. C. Ghosh, On generalized quasi-Einstein manifold, Kyungpook Math. J. 44, 607 (2004).
11. W. De Muelemester and L. Verstraelen, Codimension 2 submanifolds with a 2-quasi-umblical normal
direction, J. Korean Math. Soc. 15, 101 (1979).

LOBACHEVSKII JOURNAL OF MATHEMATICS Vol. 32 No. 1 2011