On the Nonexistence of Nontrivial Involutive n-Homomorphisms of C*-algebras
Efton Park, Jody Trout

TL;DR
This paper proves that *-preserving n-homomorphisms between C*-algebras are necessarily trivial or decomposable into simpler *-homomorphisms, resolving a question about their continuity and structure.
Contribution
It establishes that all *-preserving n-homomorphisms of C*-algebras are either ordinary *-homomorphisms or differences of two orthogonal *-homomorphisms, showing nonexistence of nontrivial cases.
Findings
All *-preserving n-homomorphisms are continuous.
For even n > 2, such maps are *-homomorphisms.
For odd n >= 3, such maps are differences of two orthogonal *-homomorphisms.
Abstract
An n-homomorphism between algebras is a linear map such that for all elements Every homomorphism is an n-homomorphism, for all n >= 2, but the converse is false, in general. Hejazian et al. [7] ask: Is every *-preserving n-homomorphism between C*-algebras continuous? We answer their question in the affirmative, but the even and odd n arguments are surprisingly disjoint. We then use these results to prove stronger ones: If n >2 is even, then is just an ordinary *-homomorphism. If n >= 3 is odd, then is a difference of two orthogonal *-homomorphisms. Thus, there are no nontrivial *-linear n-homomorphisms between C*-algebras.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Operator Algebra Research · Advanced Topics in Algebra · Advanced Banach Space Theory
††thanks: MSC Classification: Primary 46L05; Secondary 47B99, 47L30
On the nonexistence of
nontrivial involutive -homomorphisms of -algebras
Efton Park and Jody Trout
Box 298900, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, TX 76129
6188 Kemeny Hall, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Abstract
An -homomorphism between algebras is a linear map such that for all elements Every homomorphism is an -homomorphism, for all , but the converse is false, in general. Hejazian et al. [7] ask: Is every -preserving -homomorphism between -algebras continuous? We answer their question in the affirmative, but the even and odd arguments are surprisingly disjoint. We then use these results to prove stronger ones: If is even, then is just an ordinary -homomorphism. If is odd, then is a difference of two orthogonal -homomorphisms. Thus, there are no nontrivial -linear -homomorphisms between -algebras.
1 Introduction
Let and be algebras and an integer. A linear map is an -homomorphism if for all ,
[TABLE]
A -homomorphism is then just a homomorphism, in the usual sense, between algebras. Furthermore, every homomorphism is clearly also an -homomorphism for all , but the converse is false, in general. The concept of -homomorphism was studied for complex algebras by Hejazian, Mirzavaziri, and Moslehian [7]. This concept also makes sense for rings and (semi)groups. For example, an -ring is a ring such that every additive endomorphism is an -homomorphism; Feigelstock [4, 5] classified all unital -rings.
In [7], Hejazian et al. ask: Is every -preserving -homomorphism between -algebras continuous? We answer in the affirmative by proving that every involutive -homomorphism between -algebras is in fact norm contractive: . Surprisingly, the arguments for the even and odd cases are disjoint and, thus, are discussed in different sections. When , automatic continuity is reported by Bračič and Moslehian [2], but note that the proof of their Theorem 2.1 does not extend to the nonunital case since the unitization of a -homomorphism is not a -homomorphism, in general.
Using these automatic continuity results, we prove the following stronger results: If is even, every -linear -homomorphism between -algbras is in fact a -homomorphism. If is odd, every -linear -homomorphism is a difference of two orthogonal -homomorphisms . Regardless, for all integers , every positive linear -homomorphism is a -homomorphism. Note that if is a -homomorphism, then is a norm contractive -preserving -homomorphism that is not positive linear.
There is also a dichotomy between the unital and nonunital cases. When the domain algebra is unital, there is a simple representation of an -homomorphism as a certain -potent multiple of a homomorphism (discussed in the Appendix.) The nonunital case is more subtle. For example, if and are nonunital (Banach) algebras such that , then every linear map (bounded or unbounded) is, trivially, an -homomorphism (see Examples 2.5 and 4.3 of [7]).
The outline of the paper is as follows: In Section , we prove automatic continuity for the even case and in Section for the odd case. In Section , we prove our nonexistence results. A key fact in many of our proofs is the Cohen Factorization Theorem [3] of -algebras. (See Proposition 2.33 [8] for an elementary proof of this important result.) Finally, in Appendix A, we collect some facts about -potents that we need.
The authors would like to thank Dana Williams and Tom Shemanske for their helpful comments and suggestions.
2 Automatic Continuity: The Even Case
In this section, we prove that when is even, every involutive (i.e., -linear) -homomorphism between -algebras is completely positive and norm contractive, which generalizes the well-known result for -homomorphisms (). Recall that a linear map between -algebras is positive if implies or, equivalently, for every there is a such that . We say that is completely positive if, for all , the induced map , , on matrices is positive.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let be a Hilbert space. If is even, then every involutive -homomorphism from a C-algebra into is completely positive.*
Proof. Let be an involutive -homomorphism. We may assume . Let denote the inner product on . By Stinespring’s Theorem [9] (see Prop. II.6.6 [1]), is completely positive if and only for any and elements and vectors we have
[TABLE]
We proceed as follows: for each use the Cohen Factorization Theorem [3] to factor into a product of elements. Thus, their adjoints factor as . Since , we compute
[TABLE]
where . The result now follows.
Even though the previous result is a corollary of the more general theorem below, we have included it because the proof technique is different.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Let be an -homomorphism. Then, for all , the induced maps on matrices are -homomorphisms. Moreover, if is involutive , then each is also involutive.
Proof. Given matrices in , we can express their product , where the -th entry is given by the formula
[TABLE]
Since by definition and
[TABLE]
it follows that is an -homomorphism. Now suppose that is involutive. We compute for all :
[TABLE]
and hence each is involutive.
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism between C-algebras. If is even, then is completely positive. Thus, is bounded.*
Proof. We may assume . Since is linear, we want to show that for every we have . By the Cohen Factorization Theorem, for any we can find such that the factorization holds. Thus, the adjoint factors as . Since and is -multiplicative and -preserving,
[TABLE]
where . Thus, is a positive linear map. By the previous lemma, all of the induced maps on matrices are involutive -homomorphisms and are positive. Hence, is completely positive and therefore bounded [1].
We now wish to show that if is even, then an involutive -homomorphism is actually norm-contractive. First, we will need generalizations of the familiar -identity appropriate for -homomorphisms.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let be a -algebra. For all , we have that
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof. In the even case, we have easily that
[TABLE]
by the functional calculus since . In the odd case, we compute again using the -identity and functional calculus:
[TABLE]
the result follows by taking square roots.
Theorem 2.5**.**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism of -algebras. If is bounded, then is norm contractive ($$\|\phi\|\leq 1$$).
Proof. Suppose is even. Then for all we have
[TABLE]
Thus by the previous lemma,
[TABLE]
which implies that by taking -th roots.
The proof for the odd case is similar.
3 Automatic Continuity: The Odd Case
The positivity methods above do not work when is odd, since the negation of a -homomorphism defines an involutive -homomorphism that is (completely) bounded, but not positive. We need the following slight generalization of Lemma 3.5 of Harris [6].
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a -algebra and let and . If then if and only if there does not exist an element with
[TABLE]
Proof. If , then satisfies
[TABLE]
and so (1) holds.
On the other hand, if then, by the commutative functional calculus, there is a sequence in the unitization with but . Since we must have
[TABLE]
which implies . Hence, there does not exist an element that can satisfy equation (1), since this would imply that
[TABLE]
which is a contradiction. This proves the lemma.
We now prove automatic continuity for involutive -homomorphisms of -algebras for all odd values of . Note that we do not assume that is unital, nor do we appeal to the unitization of , which is not an -homomorphism, in general.
Theorem 3.2**.**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism between -algebras. If is odd, then , i.e., is norm contractive.
Proof. Let where . Given any and such that that , there is, by the previous lemma, an element such that
[TABLE]
Noting that is a product of elements in , and is a -linear -homomorphism, we compute:
[TABLE]
which yields that there is an element with:
[TABLE]
By the previous lemma, we conclude that . Thus, we have shown the following inclusion of spectra:
[TABLE]
Therefore, by the spectral radius formula [1, II.1.6.3] and the generalization of the -identity in Lemma 2.4, we must deduce that:
[TABLE]
which implies that for all , as desired.
Note that the argument in the previous proof does not work for even, since we would need to employ which is a product of elements as needed, but not self-adjoint, in general. Thus, we could not appeal to the spectral radius formula for self-adjoint elements and Lemma 3.1 would not apply. Hence, the even and odd arguments are essentially disjoint.
4 Nonexistence of Nontrival Involutive -homomorphisms of
-algebras
Our first main result is the nonexistence of nontrivial -homomorphisms on unital -algebras for all . We do the unital case first since it is much simpler to prove and helps to frame the argument for the nonunital case.
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism between the -algebras and , where is unital. If is even, then is a -homomorphism. If is odd, then is the difference of two orthogonal -homomorphisms .
Proof. In either case, by Proposition A.1, the element is an -potent () and is self-adjoint, because
[TABLE]
Also, there is an associated algebra homomorphism defined for all by the formula
[TABLE]
such that . In either case, is -linear since is -linear and is self-adjoint and commutes with the range of :
[TABLE]
Now, if is even, and so is a projection. Thus, is a -homomorphism. If is odd, then by Lemma A.8, is the difference of two orthogonal projections which must commute with both and by the functional calculus. Define by for all and . Then are orthogonal -homomorphisms, and
[TABLE]
for all , from which the desired result follows.
Corollary 4.2**.**
Let be a linear map between -algebras. If is unital, the following are equivalent for all integers :
- a.)
* is a -homomorphism.*
- b.)
* is a positive -homomorphism.*
- c.)
* is an involutive -homomorphism and .*
Proof. Clearly (a) (b) (c). If is even, then (c) (a) by the previous result. If is odd, then by the previous result, we only need to show that is positive. Let . Given any , by the Cohen Factorization Theorem, we can write . Since , by hypothesis, and , we compute:
[TABLE]
where . Thus, is positive linear and therefore a -homomorphism.
Next, we extend our nonexistence results to the nonunital case, by appealing to approximate unit arguments (which require continuity!) and the following important factorization property of -preserving -homomorphisms.
Lemma 4.3** (Coherent Factorization Lemma).**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism of -algebras. For any and any , if in , then
[TABLE]
Note that, in general, when .
Proof. Clearly, we may assume . Since is -linear, the range is a self-adjoint linear subspace of (but not necessarily a subalgebra, in general). Given any , using the Cohen Factorization Theorem, write where for . Consider the following computation:
[TABLE]
Let . Then for all , and thus for all in the -subalgebra of generated by . In particular, for the element
[TABLE]
Hence, and so by the -identity. Therefore,
[TABLE]
and the result is proven.
Definition 4.4**.**
An approximate unit for a nonunital -algebra is a net of elements in indexed by a directed set such that
- a.)
* and for all ;*
- b.)
* if in ;*
- c.)
For all ,
[TABLE]
Every -algebra has an approximate unit, which is countable () if is separable (see Section II.4 of Blackadar [1].)
Theorem 4.5**.**
Suppose is an involutive -homomorphism of -algebras, where is nonunital. Then, for all , the limit
[TABLE]
exists, independently of the choice of the approximate unit of , and defines a -homomorphism such that
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof. We may assume . Given , use the Cohen Factorization Theorem to factor . Define a map by
[TABLE]
which is well-defined by the Coherent Factorization Lemma. The continuity of implies that
[TABLE]
It follows that we can write:
[TABLE]
and so is linear since is linear. Moreover, since is -linear, it follows that is also -linear:
[TABLE]
In the computation above, we factored and set to obtain the factorization into elements. Given with factorizations and , the fact that is an -homomorphism implies:
[TABLE]
note that is a factorization of into elements. A second proof of multiplicativity goes as follows:
[TABLE]
Thus, is a well-defined -homomorphism. Finally, we compute:
[TABLE]
Using similar factorizations, the fact that is also an approximate unit for , and the fact that the strict completion of the -algebra generated by the range is the multiplier algebra , we obtain the nonunital version of Proposition A.1.
Corollary 4.6**.**
Suppose that and are -algebras with nonunital, and let be an involutive -homomorphism with associated -homomorphism . Then there is a self-adjoint -potent such that strictly for any approximate unit of , and with the property that
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof. By the previous proof, we can define on generators by
[TABLE]
for any . It follows that:
[TABLE]
which implies is -potent. The fact that follows from . The other statements follow from the previous proof.
The dichotomy between the unital and nonunital cases is now clear. If is unital, then is a unital -subalgebra of with unit (which is a projection!) and so
[TABLE]
However, for nonunital, we cannot identify the multiplier algebra as a subalgebra of , or even , unless is surjective. In general, we only have inclusions
Now that we know, as in the unital case, every involutive -homomorphism is an -potent multiple of a -homomorphism, we can prove the following general version of Theorem 4.1 and its corollary in a similar manner using Lemma A.8.
Theorem 4.7**.**
Let be an involutive -homomorphism of -algebras. If is even, then is a -homomorphism. If is odd, then is the difference of two orthogonal -homomorphisms .
Corollary 4.8**.**
For all and -algebras and , is a positive -homomorphism if and only if is a -homomorphism.
Appendix A On -homomorphisms and -potents
An element is called an -potent if . Note that if is an -homomorphism, then is also an -potent. The following important result is Proposition 2.2 [7], whose proof is included for completeness.
Proposition A.1**.**
If is a unital algebra or ring and is an -homomorphism, then there is a homomorphism and an -potent such that for all . Also, commutes with the range111Note that the range is not a subalgebra of in general. of , i.e., for all .
Proof. Note that is an -potent. Define a linear map by for all . For all ,
[TABLE]
and so is an algebra homomorphism. Furthermore,
[TABLE]
Similarly, for all . The final statement is a consequence of the fact that for all ,
[TABLE]
The following computation will be more significant when we consider the nonunital case (see the proof of Theorem 4.5.)
Corollary A.2**.**
Let and be as in Proposition A.1 and . Then for all , if with ,
[TABLE]
Proof. We compute as follows:
[TABLE]
Definition A.3**.**
Let be a unital algebra. An -partition of unity is an ordered -tuple of idempotents that sum to the identity and are pairwise mutually orthogonal, i.e., for all , where is the Kronecker delta.
Note that is completely determined by and is thus redundant in the notation for an -partition of unity.
Definition A.4**.**
Let and for . Note that and are the -th roots of unity and are the roots of the polynomial equation .
If is a complex algebra, we let denote , if is unital, or the unitization , if is nonunital.
Theorem A.5**.**
Let be a complex algebra. If is an -potent, there is a unique -partition of unity in such that
[TABLE]
If is nonunital, then .
Proof. Define the polynomials by
[TABLE]
In particular, . Each polynomial has degree and satisfies and for all . It follows that for all . We also claim that for all that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Indeed, these identities follow from the fact that these polynomial equations have degree but are satisfied by the distinct points in .
Now, given any in it follows that . Hence, for any -potent , if we define then consists of idempotents and satisfy, by (2),
[TABLE]
They are pairwise orthogonal, because for . Moreover,
[TABLE]
by Equation (3). For , note that for some polynomial . Hence, if is nonunital and , we have , since is an ideal in .
The following result is the -homomorphism version of the previous -potent result. Recall say that two linear maps are orthogonal () if
[TABLE]
for all .222Note that the zero homomorphism is orthogonal to every homomorphism.
Proposition A.6**.**
Let and be complex algebras. If is unital then a linear map is an -homomorphism if and only if there exist mutually orthogonal homomorphisms such that for all ,
[TABLE]
Proof. Let be an -homomorphism. By Proposition A.1, there is an -potent and a homomorphism such that . Using the previous result, write , where is the associated -partition of unity in defined by the polynomials . Since , we have that for . Define by
[TABLE]
Then are orthogonal homomorphisms and, for all ,
[TABLE]
Follows from the fact that for all .
Remark A.7**.**
If is nonunital, the above result does not hold. One reason is that the unitization of an -homomorphism is not, in general, an -homomorphism. Also, if , then every linear map is an -homomorphism See Examples 2.5 and 4.3 of Hejazian et al [7].
Let be the roots of the polynomial equation from Definition A.4. If is a -algebra, it follows that a normal -potent must have spectrum . Recall that a projection is an element . Two projections and are orthogonal if . A tripotent is a -potent element .
The following characterization of self-adjoint -potents in -algebras is important for our nonexistence results on -homomorphisms.
Lemma A.8**.**
Let be a -algebra.
- a.)
If is an even integer, the following are equivalent:
- i.)
* is a projection.*
- ii.)
* is a positive -potent.*
- iii.)
* is a self-adjoint -potent.*
- b.)
If is an odd integer, the following are equivalent:
- i.)
* is a self-adjoint tripotent.*
- ii.)
* is a difference of two orthogonal projections.*
- iii.)
* is a self-adjoint -potent.*
Proof. In both the even and odd cases, (i) (ii) (iii) (See Theorem A.5). Suppose (iii) holds. If is even,
[TABLE]
and so the spectrum of satisfies . Thus, is a projection. If is odd, then since we must have . Thus, for all , which implies is tripotent.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] B. Blackadar, Theory of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras and von Neumann algebras , Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, 122. Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
- 2[2] J. Bračič and S. Moslehian, On Automatic Continuity of 3 3 3 -Homomorphisms on Banach Algebras , to appear in Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc. ar Xiv: math.FA/0611287.
- 3[3] P. Cohen, Factorization in group algebras , Duke Math. J. 26 (1959) 199–205.
- 4[4] S. Feigelstock, Rings whose additive endomorphisms are N 𝑁 N -multiplicative , Bull. Austral. Math. Soc. 39 (1989), no. 1, 11–14.
- 5[5] S. Feigelstock, Rings whose additive endomorphisms are n 𝑛 n -multiplicative. II , Period. Math. Hungar. 25 (1992), no. 1, 21–26.
- 6[6] L. Harris, A Generalization of C ⋆ superscript 𝐶 ⋆ {C^{\star}} -algebras , Proc. London Math. Soc. 42 (1981) no. 3, 331–361.
- 7[7] M. Hejazian, M. Mirzavaziri, and M.S. Moslehian, n 𝑛 n -homomorphisms , Bull. Iranian Math. Soc. 31 (2005), no. 1, 13-23.
- 8[8] I. Raeburn and D. P. Williams, Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace C ⋆ superscript 𝐶 ⋆ {C^{\star}} -Algebras , Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, vol. 60, American Mathematical Society, 1998.
