Contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian Space Forms
In (4) B. Y. Chen studied warped product CR-submanifolds in Kaehler manifolds. Afterward, I. Hasegawa and I. Mihai (5) obtained a sharp inequality for the squared norm of the second fundamental form for contact CR-warped products in Sasakian space form. Recently Alegre, Blair and Carriago (1) introduced generalized Sasakian space form. The aim of present paper is to study contact CR-warped product submanifolds in generalized Sasakian space form.
A CLASS OF ALMOST CONTACT RIEMANNIAN MANIFOLDS
Recently S. Tanno has classified connected almostcontact Riemannian manifolds whose automorphism groups have themaximum dimension [9]. In his classification table the almost contactRiemannian manifolds are divided into three classes: (1) homogeneousnormal contact Riemannian manifolds with constant 0-holomorphic sec-tional curvature if the sectional curvature for 2-planes which contain
Aristocratic Century: The sinews of power: political
In his excellent book on the Secretaries of State, Mark Thomson offered ‘the paradox of continuing domination of the aristocracy and the simultaneous insignificance of the House of Lords, per se ’. It is true that, by the beginning of the eighteenth century, the supremacy of the House of Commons in financial matters was a wellestablished convention. The claims of the Commons to an undisputed control over money matters, which had been urged before the Civil War, were resumed immediately after the Restoration and a protracted dispute with the House of Lords began. In 1661 the Lords resolved that there were no precedents in history for this new claim by the House of Commons. In 1671, the Commons retorted that taxation ought not to be questioned by the Lords and in 1678 they reiterated that supply was ‘the undoubted and sole right of the Commons’ and ‘ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords’. The Lords' attempt in 1692 to assess their own taxes was also abandoned, though they retired under cover of a rather insubstantial smoke-screen that they maintained their power of amendment to be a ‘fundamental, inherent and undoubted right from which their lordships can never depart’. That established, they departed. Geoffrey Holmes quotes a nice example from 1702 when the bishop of Carlisle found himself the only peer answering to a money bill, ‘no other lord in the House regarded what was doing, this being only (pro forma) to preserve a seeming right to dissent from, or amend, any part of a money bill’.