This paper extends the $bbbb-theory of operator spaces to matrix ordered spaces and Banach $*$-algebras, introducing cones related to $bbbb for tensor products and analyzing ideal structures.
Contribution
It generalizes the $bbbb-theory to new algebraic and ordered contexts, including matrix regular operator spaces and operator systems.
Findings
01
Introduces cones related to $bbbb that respect matricial structures.
02
Discusses the ideal structure of $bbbb$-tensor products of $C^*$-algebras.
03
Extends the tensor norm concepts to matrix ordered spaces and Banach $*$-algebras.
Abstract
We extend the λ-theory of operator spaces given by Defant and Wiesner (2014), that generalizes the notion of the projective, Haagerup and Schur tensor norm for operator spaces to matrix ordered spaces and Banach ∗-algebras. Given matrix regular operator spaces and operator systems, we introduce cones related to λ for the algebraic tensor product that respect the matricial structure of matrix regular operator spaces and operator systems, respectively. The ideal structure of λ-tensor product of C∗-algebras has also been discussed.
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.
Full text
Polynomials in Operator space theory: Matrix ordering and algebraic aspects
We extend the λ-theory of operator spaces given in [4], that generalizes the notion of the projective, Haagerup and Schur tensor norm for operator spaces to matrix ordered spaces and Banach ∗-algebras. Given matrix regular operator spaces and operator systems, we introduce cones related to λ for the algebraic tensor product that respect the matricial structure of matrix regular operator spaces and operator systems, respectively. The ideal structure of λ-tensor product of C∗-algebras has also been discussed.
C∗-algebras are rich objects as they come along with matrix norms that are not only uniquely related to algebraic structure but are also known to have matricial cone structures being closely related to those norm. Although, operator spaces and their tensor products are primarily defined in terms of appropriate matrix norms, over the years it has been observed that some operator space tensor products of C∗-algebras still possess few algebraic properties that can be characterized in terms of the individual algebras ([1, 14]). Regarding ordering, although operator spaces may possess some order structure unrelated to the matrix norms, it was Schreiner [18] who defined matrix regular operator spaces to be the spaces where there is a relationship between norm and order. In matrix regular operator spaces, there are enough positive elements so that each element can be written as a linear combination of positive elements. Recently introduced tensor product theory for (unital) operator systems category ([13]) shows that this matrix order-matrix norm relation is successfully carried over.
Defant and Wiesner in [4] (see also [19]) have given a λ-theory which generalizes the definitions of the projective, Haagerup and Schur tensor norm for operator spaces. It is thus natural to ask for appropriate matrix ordering and algebraic structure that is compatible with this generalized λ-theory. In [9] and [17], the projective and Schur operator space tensor product of matrix ordered operator spaces are shown to be matrix ordered respectively. Further, Han in [8] successfully introduced cones at each matrix level of the tensor product of operator spaces that are closely related to projective and injective operator space tensor norms thereby, constructing two extremal tensor products of matrix regular operator space.
Section 2 discusses the prerequisites. Next, we introduce conditions (O1)-(O3) in Section 3 that enables generalization of Han’s ([8]) operator space tensor product matrix regularity results to λ-theory of operator spaces. In Section 4, we show that the cones defined in Section 3 also preserve the operator system structure. Finally in Section 5, we show that the techniques to study ideal structure of operator space tensor product of C∗-algebras can be extended to λ-theory.
Let V1,V2,…,Vm;W be operator spaces and let ϕ be an m-linear mapping on V1×V2×⋯×Vm into W. Given a sequence of matrix products λ=(λk), for each k, λk is an m-linear mapping:
[TABLE]
where τ(k)∈N is a natural number only depending on k, tensorizing λk with ϕ leads to the m-linear mapping
[TABLE]
Further
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since m-fold tensor product on V1×V2×⋯×Vm is an m-linear map onto ⊗i=1mVi, the natural map obtained as above by tensorizing with λk is represented by ⊗λk:
for any element u∈Mk(⊗i=1mVi), where the infimum is taken over arbitrary decompositions u=α⊗λj(v1,v2,⋯,vm)β, α∈Mk,τ(j), β∈Mτ(j),k, vt∈Mj(Vt).
Keeping the notations from [19, 4] unchanged, e.g. εi,j:=εi,j[k,l]∈Mk,l denotes the matrix which is 1 in the (i,j)-th coordinate and zero elsewhere, εi,j[k]:=εi,j[k,k],εi:=εi,i,εi[k]:=εi,i[k,k] and εi,j[k,l]=0 if (i,j)∈/{1,…,k}×{1,…,l}, we state the three technical conditions (E1)-(E3) that were isolated on the family λ=(λn)n∈N to assure that the ∥⋅∥λ,k, generates an operator space structure on V1⊗V2⊗⋯⊗Vm [4, Proposition 4.1]:
(E1)
For all k∈N there exist p∈N and matrices S∈Mk,τ(p) , T∈Mτ(p),k, a1,⋯,ak∈Mp such that for all j1,⋯,jm∈{1,⋯,k}:
[TABLE]
(E2)
For all r,s∈N there exist matrices P∈Mτ(r)+τ(s),τ(r+s), with ∥P∥≤1 such that for all (ik,jk)∈{1,⋯,r}2∪{r+1,⋯,r+s}2 with 1≤k≤m:
[TABLE]
(E3)
λ1(1,1,⋯,1)=1 and k∈Nsup∥λk∥<∞.
If in addition λ satisfies:
(N1)τ(1)=1and(N2)∥λj∥=1 for all j∈N,
then ⊗λC=C completely isometric [19, Proposition 4.13].
For j∈{1,…,m}, if λ further satisfy conditions:
(W1)
For all γ∈Mp there exists matrices P∈Mp,τ(p), Q∈Mτ(p),p with ∥P∥,∥Q∥≤1 such that
[TABLE]
(W2)
For all α1,⋯,αm∈Mp, β1,⋯,βm∈Mq there exist matrices S∈Mτ(p)τ(q),τ(pq),T∈Mτ(pq),τ(p)τ(q) with ∥S∥,∥T∥≤1 such that
If λ satisfies (N1)-(N2), (E1)-(E3) and (W1)-(W2) then ⊗λVi, the completion of ⊗λVi with respect to ∥⋅∥λ norm, is an operator space tensor product denoted by λ-operator space tensor product in the sense of [3].
The Kronecker product, matrix product and mixed product fulfill all the above conditions.
We assume throughout that λ satisfies all the prescribed conditions.
2.2. Matrix regular operator space and operator systems
An operator space V is called a matrix ordered operator space if:
(1)
(V,{Mn(V)+}n=1∞) is a matrix ordered vector space i.e. for each n∈N, Mn(V) is a ∗-ordered vector space with cone Mn(V)+ and A∈Mn,m implies A∗Mn(V)+A⊆Mm(V)+.
2. (2)
the ∗-operation is an isometry on Mn(V).
3. (3)
the cones Mn(V)+ are closed.
A matrix ordered
operator space V is called matrix regular [18, Definition 3.1.9] if for each n∈N and
for all v∈Mn(V)sa, the following conditions hold :
(1)
u∈Mn(V)+ and −u≤v≤u implies that ∥v∥n≤∥u∥n.
2. (2)
∥v∥n≤1 implies that there exists u∈Mn(V)+ such that ∥u∥n≤1 and −u≤v≤u.
Next result from [18] giving a necessary and sufficient for a matrix ordered operator space V to be matrix regular is quite useful:
Theorem 2.1**.**
[18, Theorem 3.4]** A matrix ordered operator space V is matrix regular if and only if the following condition holds: for all
x∈Mn(V), ∥x∥n<1 if and only if there exist a,d∈Mn(V)+, ∥a∥n<1 and ∥d∥n<1, such that (ax∗xd)∈M2n(V)+.
The positive cone of a matrix regular operator
space is always proper.
Adopting the methodology of [8], the norms on matrix regular operator spaces are not assumed to be complete.
For a matrix ordered operator space V and its dual space V∗, the positive cone on Mn(V∗) for each n∈N is defined by Mn(V∗)+=CB(V,Mn)∩CP(V,Mn).
The operator space dual V∗ with this positive cone is a matrix ordered operator space [18, Corollary 3.2].
An (abstract) operator system ([13, Definition 2.2])
is a triple (V,{Cn}n=1∞,e), where V is a complex ∗-vector space, {Cn}n=1∞ is a matrix ordering on V, and e∈Vsa is an Archimedean matrix order unit, i.e. for all v∈Mn(V)sa,
(1)
there exists a real number r>0 such that ren>v and
2. (2)
for each n∈N and en=e⋱e, sen+v∈Cn for all s>0 implies v∈Cn.
3. λ-theory and Matrix regularity
In this section, we provide three additional conditions on λ=(λn)n∈N to introduce an order structure to λ-theory that preserves matrix regularity. Further, using our conditions (O1)-(O3) defined below, we prove that the results of [8] hold true in a more general setting introduced by [4, 19].
For a sequence λ=(λn)n∈N of m-linear mappings λk∈L(mMk;Mτ(k)) consider the following three properties:
(O1) For each r∈N,
[TABLE]
for all (ik,jk)∈{1,…,r}×{1,…,r}, and k=1,2,…m.
(O2) For r∈N, the permutation matrix P∈M2τ(r),τ(2r) with
∥P∥≤1 obtained in (E2) and (ik,jk)∈R∪S, where R:={1,⋯,r}×{r+1,r+2,⋯,2r}
and S:={r+1,r+2,⋯,2r}×{1,⋯,r}
[TABLE]
adiag being an anti-diagonal matrix, where all the entries are zero except those on the diagonal going from the upper right corner to the lower left corner.
(O3) For each r∈N, the map
[TABLE]
obtained by tensorizing λr with the Kronecker product on matrix algebras Mp1,…,Mpm
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
is positive for all pi∈N(i=1,2,…,m). Thus,
[TABLE]
whenever αi⊗βi∈(Mpi⊗Mr)+, pi∈N(i=1,2,…m).
Recall from [18, Proposition 4.1] (see also [19, Proposition 4.2]), given a sequence λ=(λn) of m-linear maps and operator spaces V1,V2,…,Vm any element u∈Mk(V1⊗…Vm) has a representation u=α⊗λr(v1,v2,…,vm)β where α∈Mn,τ(r),β∈Mτ(r),n,vi∈Mr(Vi),r∈N.
Next, we analyze the above conditions in view of their applications to matrix ordered spaces:
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let λ=(λn) be sequence of m-linear maps and V1,…Vm be matrix ordered operator spaces. For any α⊗λr(v(1),v(2),…,v(m))β∈Mn(⊗λVi); α∈Mn,τ(r),β∈Mτ(r),n,v(i)∈Mr(Vi),i=1,…,m,r∈N, we have:
(i)
If λ satisfies (O1), then ∗-map defined as
[TABLE]
is a well defined involution.
2. (ii)
If λ satisfies (O2), then for u(i),u~(i)∈Mr(Vi), i=1,…,m
[TABLE]
3. (iii)
For λ and μ, if (μp)λr is a positive map (p,r∈N), then for v(i)∈Mr(Vi)+ and completely positive maps ϕ(i):Vi→Mpi, i=1,…,m, we have
[TABLE]
In particular, if λ satisfies (O3),
[TABLE]
Proof.
To obtain (i) one can easily verify that the ∗-operation is conjugate linear and involutive.
R3:={r+1,r+2,…,2r}×{1,2,…,r} and R4:={r+1,r+2,…,2r}2,
let u(t):=(kt,lt)∈R1∑εkt,lt[r]⊗ukt,lt(t), v(t):=(kt,lt)∈R2∑εkt,lt−r[r]⊗vkt,lt(t),
(v(t))∗=(kt,lt)∈R3∑εkt−r,lt[r]⊗(vkt,lt(t))∗ and u~(t):=(kt,lt)∈R4∑εkt−r,lt[r]⊗u~kt,lt(t).
Define x(t):=diag(u(t),u~(t)) and y(t):=adiag(v(t),(v(t))∗), so that
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
Also,
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Similarly, using (E2),
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
2. (iii)
Note that, if v(t):=(kt,lt)∈R∑εkt,lt[r]⊗vkt,lt(t);R:={1,…,r}2, t=1,2,…,m then,
[TABLE]
so that,
[TABLE]
If λ satisfies (O3), μp=⊗p1…pm gives the desired result.
∎
Verification of Properties (O1)-(O3):
•
Kronecker product: Property (O1) reduces to
[TABLE]
which is true.
To check for the condition (O3), recall that Kronecker product of two positive matrices is positive, but Kronecker product does not commute, in fact for any square matrices A and B, there exists a permutation matrix S such that B⊗A=S(A⊗B)S∗. Therefore, for some suitable permutation matrix S we have:
[TABLE]
whenever αi⊗βi∈Mr(Mpi)+, pi∈N(i=1,2,…m).
In order to verify (O2), we use the same notations as in proof of [4, Proposition 4.2], let Δ:M1→M1,m, x↦(x,x,…,x) and set
[TABLE]
and let P=(P1P2)
[TABLE]
•
Schur product: Here property (O1) takes the form
[TABLE]
which is true.
To check for the condition (O3), recall that Schur product of two positive matrices is positive, for any square matrices A,B,CandD of order n, (A⊙B)⊗(C⊙D)=(A⊗C)⊙(B⊗D) (see [19, Proposition 10.5]) and there exist a matrix E∈Mn,k, A′,B′∈Mk such that (A⊗B)=E(A′⊙B′)E∗. Therefore we have,
[TABLE]
whenever αi⊗βi∈Mr(Mpi)+, pi∈N(i=1,2,…m).
Again as for (E2), for r∈N and (iq,jq)∈[{1,⋯,r}×{r+1,⋯,2r}]∪[{r+1,⋯,2r}×{1,⋯,r}], let P:=I2r, we have
[TABLE]
implying that (O2) holds.
•
Matrix Product: One can easily see that this product may not satisfy (O1), (O2) and (O3).
•
Mixed Product: One can mix above listed products to construct a new one, for example [19, Chapter 9], λ=(λk)k with
[TABLE]
Clearly, it does not satisfy any of the (O1)-(O3) as ∙ does not.
One can similarly talk of λ=(λk)k with
[TABLE]
which clearly satisfies all the conditions (O1)-(O3). ∎
The self-adjoint elements in Mn(⊗λVi) have a special representation:
Proposition 3.2**.**
Let Vi, 1≤i≤m, be matrix ordered operator spaces and let λ=(λn)n∈N be a sequence of m-multilinear mappings satisfying (O1) and (O2). If u∈Mn(⊗λVi)sa, then u has a representation:
[TABLE]
where α∈Mn,τ(j), xt∈Mj(Vt)sa, t=1,2,⋯,m. Moreover,
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose u∈Mn(⊗λVi)sa. Given ϵ>0, there exist α∈Mn,τ(j), β∈Mτ(j),n, xt∈Mj(Vt) such that
[TABLE]
As u is self adjoint by Lemma 3.1(ii), for any μ>0, we have
[TABLE]
where
v^{t}=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}0&x_{t}^{*}\\
x_{t}&0\\
\end{array}\right), and
\alpha=\left(\begin{array}[]{cc}\frac{\mu^{-1}\beta^{*}}{\sqrt{2}}&\frac{\mu\alpha}{\sqrt{2}}\\
\end{array}\right), R={1,2,⋯,r}×{r+1,⋯,2r} and S={r+1,r+2,⋯,2r}×{1,⋯,r}.
Thus, ∥u∥λ,n≤21(μ2∥β∥2+μ−2∥α∥2)]∥v1∥∥v2∥⋯∥vm∥, where for each t, vt is a self adjoint element.
Since, μ>0min21(μ2∥β∥2+μ−2∥α∥2)=∥β∥∥α∥, given δ>0 we can choose μ0>0 such that ∥β∥∥α∥+δ>21(μ02∥β∥2+μ0−2∥α∥2). Therefore, ∥u∥λ,n≤∥α~∥2∥v1∥∥v2∥⋯∥vm∥≤∥β∥∥α∥∥x1∥∥x2∥⋯∥xm∥. Thus, we get the desired norm condition. ∎
We are now in a position to define an appropriate cone structure :
Definition 3.3**.**
Let V1,⋯,Vm be matrix ordered operator spaces and λ=(λn)n∈N be a sequence satisfying (O1)-(O2). We define
For matrix ordered operator spaces Vi,1≤i≤m, \big{(}\otimes_{i=1}^{m}V_{i},\{\|\cdot\|_{\lambda,n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty},M_{n}(\otimes_{\lambda}V_{i})^{+}\big{)} is a matrix
ordered operator space.
Proof.
From Proposition 3.2, the involution is an isometry on (Mn(⊗λVi))sa hence Mn(⊗λVi)+ is a cone provided Cn is.
Let u1=α1⊗λk(v1,v2,⋯,vm)α1∗∈Cn1,u2=α2⊗λl(w1,w2,⋯,wm)α2∗∈Cn, then using Lemma 3.1(ii),
[TABLE]
where xt=diag(vt,wt)∈Mk+l(V)+ and α=(α1α2), hence the family {Cn} is closed under addition. Now, for t≥0
[TABLE]
Also, for γ∈Mm,n and α⊗λk(v1,v2,⋯,vm)α∗∈Cm,
Motivated by this and Han’s [8, Definition 3.2], we relate a suitable norm to the cone Cn defined above that behaves well with matrix regular operator spaces.
Definition 3.6**.**
Let Vi,1≤i≤m be matrix ordered operator spaces and λ=(λn)n∈N be a sequence satisfying (O1)-(O3). Then for z in Mn(⊗λVi), we define:
[TABLE]
Note that if u∈Cn, then
[TABLE]
Therefore ∥⋅∥Λ,n≤∥⋅∥λ,n on Cn. The set \bigg{\{}\max\{\|u\|_{\lambda,n},\|u^{\prime}\|_{\lambda,n}\}:\left(\begin{matrix}u&z\\
z^{*}&u^{\prime}\end{matrix}\right)\in\mathcal{C}_{2n}\bigg{\}} is non empty from Proposition 3.7(i) and (ii) proved below.
Proposition 3.7**.**
If Vi,1≤i≤m are matrix regular operator spaces and λ=(λn)n∈N a sequence satisfying (O1)-(O3), then
(i)
Cn* is a proper cone in Mn(⊗i=1mVi) for all n∈N.*
2. (ii)
For z∈Mn(⊗i=1mVi), there exist elements u1, u2 in Cn such that
(u1z∗zu2)∈C2n.
3. (iii)
∥⋅∥Λ,n* is a norm on Mn(⊗i=1mVi).*
Proof.
(i)
Let z∈Cn∩−Cn, then z=α⊗λj(v1,v2,⋯,vm)α∗withvt∈Mj(Vt)+,α∈Mn,τ(j).
By Lemma 3.1(iii), for continuous c.p. maps ϕt:Vt→Mkt, t=1,…,m, we have
[TABLE]
Now each Vt being matrix regular its dual Vt∗ is also matrix regular ([18, Corollary 6.7]), hence each completely bounded linear map from Vt into a matrix algebra is actually a linear combination of some c.p. maps. Thus, even for c.b. maps f(t):Vt→Mkt, t=1,…,m;
[TABLE]
which further implies the operator space injective tensor norm is given by,
[TABLE]
2. (ii)
Using [4, Proposition 4.1], for any z∈Mn(⊗i=1mVi) can be written as:
[TABLE]
As each Vi is a matrix regular operator space, there exist vt1,vt2∈Mj(Vt)+ such that
Let z1,z2∈Mn(⊗i=1mVi) be any elements, then by (ii) above there exist ui,ui′∈Cn such that
[TABLE]
From
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
Let ∥z∥Λ,n=0. Given ϵ>0, there exist u,u′∈Cn such that
[TABLE]
Again by Lemma 3.1(iii), for c.c.p. maps f(t):Vt→Mkt, t=1,…,m;
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Thus (⊗t=1mf(t))n(z)=0 and using matrix regularity as in case (i), ∥z∥Mn(⊗ˇVi)=0, which implies z=0.
∎
The positive cones of matrix ordered operator spaces are closed. Therefore, we consider Mn(⊗ΛVi)+:=Cn−∥⋅∥Λ,n. From the definition of ∥⋅∥Λ,n, since
(uz∗zu′)∈C2n if and only if (u′zz∗u)=(0110)(uz∗zu′)(0110)∈C2n, we have ∥z∗∥Λ,n=∥z∥Λ,n. Thus, the involution is an isometry on (Mn(⊗i=1mVi),∥⋅∥Λ,n). Hence Mn(⊗ΛVi)+ is a proper cone.
Recall from [19, Definition 4.7] that an operator space matrix norm ∥⋅∥α is said to be λ-subcross if
[TABLE]
for all p∈N and vi∈Mp(Vi). In case of equality the norm is called λ-cross.
Theorem 3.8**.**
For matrix regular operator spaces Vi and λ=(λn)n∈N satisfying (O1)-(O3), (⊗i=1mVi,{∥⋅∥Λ,n}n=1∞,Mn(⊗ΛVi)+) is a matrix regular operator space with λ-subcross matrix norm.
Proof.
We first prove that Mn(⊗i=1mVi) is an operator space with the family {∥⋅∥Λ,n}n=1∞ of matrix norms.
Given z1∈Mn1(⊗i=1mVi), z2∈Mn2(⊗i=1mVi) and ϵ>0, choose ui,ui′∈Cn such that (uizi∗ziui′)∈C2ni and ∥ui∥λ,ni,∥ui′∥λ,ni<∥zi∥Λ,ni+ϵ, i=1,2.
By definition, there exist representations
[TABLE]
Since ∥⋅∥λ,n is an operator space norm, using Ruan’s first condition (M1) [5] for operator space, we have
[TABLE]
As,
[TABLE]
we have,
[TABLE]
Let z∈Mn(⊗i=1mVi) and α,β∈Mm,n, then there exist u,u′∈Cn such that
(uz∗zu′)∈C2n and ∥u∥λ,n,∥u′∥λ,n<∥z∥Λ,n+ϵ. Assuming, ∥α∥=∥β∥ by homogeneity, since
[TABLE]
we have,
[TABLE]
Hence, \big{(}\otimes_{i=1}^{m}V_{i},\{\|\cdot\|_{\Lambda,n}\}_{n=1}^{\infty}\big{)} is an operator space.
Let vi∈Mj(Vi) with ∥vi∥<1 for i=1,…,m. Then there exist ui,ui′∈Mj(Vi)∥⋅∥≤1+ such that
[TABLE]
Now,
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
Therefore, the family of matrix norms {∥⋅∥Λ,n}n=1∞ is λ-subcross.
As ∥u∥Λ,n≤∥u∥λ,n, if ∥z∥Λ,n<1 then there exist u,u′∈Cn such that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
and matrix regularity follows. ∎
4. λ-operator system tensor product
We now prove that the cones Cn associated with λ under the conditions (O1)-(O3) also preserve the operator system structure defined in [13]. The techniques are again same as that for the max operator system tensor product defined in [13].
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let (S,{Mn(S)+}n=1∞,1S) and (T,{Mn(T)+}n=1∞,1T) be operator systems. The family {Cn}n=1∞ associated with a sequence λ=(λn)n∈N satisfying (O1)-(O3), is a matrix ordering on S⊗T with order unit 1S⊗1T.
Proof.
From Proposition 3.7, we know that {Cn}n=1∞ is a family of proper compatible cones on Mn(⊗λSi). We only need to check that 1⊗1 is a matrix order unit.
Let α⊗λj(s,t)α∗∈(S1⊗S2)sa with s\in\big{(}M_{j}(\mathcal{S})\big{)}_{sa} , t\in\big{(}M_{j}(\mathcal{T})\big{)}_{sa} and α∈M1,τ(j),1S and 1T being Archimedean order unit for S and T respectively, then we can find K large enough such that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
So that,
[TABLE]
Further,
[TABLE]
which proves that 1S⊗1T is an order unit. Similarly, one can prove that 1S⊗1T is in fact a matrix order unit. ∎
Definition 4.2**.**
Let λ=(λn)n∈N fulfills conditions (O1)-(O3), and
[TABLE]
be the Archimedeanization([16]) of the matrix ordering Cn for all n≥1.
We call the operator system (S⊗T,{Cnλ}n=1∞,1S⊗1T) the λ- operator system tensor product of S and T and denote it by S⊗λT.
Theorem 4.3**.**
The mapping λ:O×O→O sending (S,T) to S⊗λT is an operator system tensor product in the sense of [13].
Proof.
Observe that,
(T1)
By definition (S⊗T,{Cnλ(S⊗T)}n=1∞,1S⊗1T) is an operator system.
2. (T2)
For P∈Mk(S)+ and Q∈Ml(T)+, since
[TABLE]
where α=(Ik+l,0,⋯,0)∈Mkl,τ(k+l), we have property (T2).
3. (T3)
For unital completely positive maps ϕ∈S→Mn and ψ∈T→Mm, using Lemma 3.1(iii) we have (ϕ⊗ψ)n(Cn)⊆Mn+, thus (T3) follows.
4. (T4)
Let ϕ∈UCP(S1,S2) and ψ∈UCP(T1,T2). Then for any element A⊗λj(P,Q)A∗∈Cn, where A∈Mn,τ(j), P∈Mj(S1)+ and Q∈Mj(T1)+:
[TABLE]
Thus, (ϕ⊗ψ)n(Cn(S1,T1))⊆Cn(S2,T2), and using [13, Lemma 2.5] ϕ⊗ψ∈UCP(S2,T2).
∎
Remark 4.4**.**
If λ is either Kronecker or Schur Product, the cone Cnλ coincides with Cnmax=Cns ([13, 15]).
5. λ-tensor product of C∗-algebras
We now move on to the algebraic structures for the λ-theory. For this we make use of the condition (W2) (Section 2.1).
An associative algebra A over C is said to be a completely contractive Banach algebra if it is a complete operator space for which the multiplication map mA:A×A→A(a,b)→ab is jointly completely contractive, i.e. ∥[aijbkl]∥≤∥[aij]∥∥[bkl]∥ for all [aij]∈Mn(A) and [bkl]∈Mn(A).
Theorem 5.1**.**
For completely contractive Banach algebras A1,A2,⋯,Am, ⊗λAi is a Banach algebra if λ satisfies (W2). Further if each Ai is a Banach ∗-algebra and λ also satisfies (O1), then ⊗λAi is a Banach ∗-algebra. Moreover if each Ai is approximately unital then ⊗λAi is also approximately unital.
Proof.
Let x, y∈⊗λAi with
[TABLE]
where for each t=1,2,⋯,m
[TABLE]
Then, using Property (W2), there exists S∈Mτ(r)τ(s),τ(rs),T∈Mτ(rs),τ(r)τ(s) with ∥S∥,∥T∥≤1 such that
[TABLE]
where z(t)=∑it,jt∑kt,ltε(it−1)s+kt,(jt−1)s)+lt[rs]⊗ui1,j1(t)vkt,lt(t)=u(t)⊗v(t);t=1,…,m.
Thus,
[TABLE]
making ⊗λmAi, and hence ⊗λAi a Banach algebra.
If λ satisfies (O1), ∗-part follows from Lemma 3.1(i) and definition of ∥⋅∥λ,1.
One can easily verify that ∥⋅∥λ,1≤∥⋅∥γ, implying that ∥⋅∥λ,1 is an
admissible cross norm on ⊗mAi . Therefore, ⊗λAi has a bounded approximate
identity whenever each Ai is approximately unital.∎
In particular, we have the following well known result (see[14, 17]):
Corollary 5.2**.**
⊗⊗Ai, the projective tensor product and ⊗⊙Ai, the Schur tensor product are Banach ∗-algebras with a bounded approximate identity, however, ⊗∙Ai, the Haagerup tensor product is a Banach algebra.
In general, λ-tensor product of operator spaces is not injective. Since, (⊗λAi)∗=CBλ(A1×A2⋯Am,C)[19, Proposition 4.11] completely isometrically, so the proof of
[14, Theorem 5] can be adopted in this case to show the injectivity of λ-tensor product for the closed ideals, i.e.
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let Ii be closed two-sided ideals in C∗-algebras Ai for i=1,2,⋯,m, then ⊗λIi is a closed two-sided ∗-ideal of ⊗λAi.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let Wi,1≤i≤m be completely complemented subspaces of the operator spaces Vi,1≤i≤m complemented by cb
projection having cb norm equal to 1, respectively, then ⊗λWi is a closed subspace of ⊗λVi.
Proof.
Using the assumption, there are cb projections P1,P2,⋯,Pm from V1 onto W1, V2 onto W2⋯, Vm onto Wm with ∥P1∥cb=∥P2∥cb=⋯=∥Pm∥cb=1. Therefore, by the functoriality of the λ- tensor product([19, Proposition 6.1], ⊗i=1mPi:⊗λVi→⊗λWi is a completely bounded map and ∥⊗i=1mPi∥cb≤1. Since, for u∈⊗i=1mVi, ⊗i=1mPi(u)=u, so ∥u∥⊗λWi≤∥u∥⊗λVi, hence ⊗λWi is a closed subspace of ⊗λVi.∎
Since, there is a conditional expectation from a C∗-algebra A onto a finite dimensional C∗-subalgebra of A, so by the above Lemma for finite dimensional C∗-algebras, λ-tensor product of operator spaces is injective. In general ∥⋅∥λ need not be injective.
However, for ⊗, we have something partial:
Proposition 5.5**.**
Let A0 and B0 be closed ∗-subalgebras of A and B, respectively, then A0⊗B0 is (isomorphic to) closed ∗-subalgebra of A⊗B.
Proof.
Let I denote the closure of A0⊗B0 in A⊗B, so that I is a closed ∗-subalgebra of
A⊗B. We first claim that ∥u∥A⊗B≤∥u∥A0⊗B0≤2∥u∥A⊗B for u∈A0⊗B0. Choose f∈(A0⊗B0)∗ such that
f(u)=∥u∥A0⊗B0 with ∥f∥=1. Let ϕ0 be the jcb bilinear form on
A0×B0 corresponding to f. By ([7, Corollary 3.10]), ϕ0:A0×B0→C
extends to a jcb bilinear form ϕ:A×B→C such that ∥ϕ∥jcb≤2∥ϕ0∥jcb. Therefore ∥f~∥≤2,
where f~ is the linear functional on A⊗B corresponding to ϕ, and thus the claim. Now
consider the identity map i:(A0⊗B0,∥⋅∥A0⊗B0)→(A⊗B,∥⋅∥A⊗B) which is linear and continuous by the last claim, so it can be extended to i:A0⊗B0→A⊗B.
We now show that A0⊗B0 is isomorphic to I. For the injectivity of i, by [10, Theorem 2], it is enough to show
that it is injective on A0⊗B0 but this follows directly by the last inequality. Again, by the last inequality,
i−1 is continuous. For onto-ness, let u∈I. There is a sequence un∈A0⊗B0
converging to u in ∥⋅∥A⊗B-norm. The sequence {un} becomes Cauchy with respect to
∥⋅∥A0⊗B0-norm by the last claim, so it converges, say, to u′. Clearly,
i(u′)=u. Thus A0⊗B0 can be regarded as a closed ∗-subalgebra of A⊗B. ∎
Proposition 5.6**.**
For C∗-algebras A and B, any λ-cb bilinear form ϕ on A×B can be extended uniquely to ϕ~ on A∗∗×B∗∗ such that ∥ϕ∥λ=∥ϕ~∥λ.
Proof.
Since ϕ:A×B→C is λ-cb bilinear form. It is in particular bounded bilinear form and thus determines a unique separately normal bilinear form ϕ~:A∗∗×B∗∗→C by [6, Corollary 2.4]. For k∈N, consider the map ϕ~k:Mk(A∗∗)×Mk(B∗∗)→Mτ(k) taking ϕ~k(a1⊗m,a2⊗m′)=λk(a1,a2)⊗ϕ~(m,m′). Let a∗∗=[aij∗∗]∈Mk(A∗∗) and b∗∗=[bij∗∗]∈Mk(B∗∗) with
∥a∗∗∥≤1 and ∥b∗∗∥≤1. Since the unit ball of Mk(A) is w∗-dense in the unit ball of Mk(A∗∗), so we obtain a net (aλ)=(aijλ) (resp., (bν)) in Mk(A) (resp., Mk(B)) which
is w∗-convergent to a∗∗ (resp., b∗∗) with ∥aλ∥≤1 (resp., ∥bν∥≤1). Therefore, aijλ is w∗-convergent to aij∗∗ for each i,j. Now by the separate normality of ϕ~, we have
∥λk⊗ϕ~(i,j∑ϵij⊗aij∗∗,p,l∑ϵpl⊗bpl∗∗)∥=∥i,j,p,l∑λk(ϵij,ϵpl)⊗ϕ~(aij∗∗,bpl∗∗)∥=∥λlimνlimi,j,p,l∑λk(ϵij,ϵpl)⊗ϕ~(aijλ,bplν)∥=λlimνlim∥i,j,p,l∑λk(ϵij,ϵpl)⊗ϕ(aijλ,bklν)∥≤∥λk⊗ϕ∥ for each k∈N. Thus ∥ϕ~k∥≤∥ϕk∥≤∥ϕ∥λ for every k∈N. Clearly, ∥ϕ∥λ≤∥ϕ~∥λ as ϕ being the restriction of ϕ~. Hence ∥ϕ∥λ=∥ϕ~∥λ.
∎
For a tensor norm α and a closed ideal J of A⊗αB, we try to find out whether a⊗b∈Jmin implies that a⊗b∈J. This question
stems from the study of the elusive nature of the Haagerup tensor product of C∗-algebras, it was resolved for the Haagerup tensor product in ([1, Theorem 4.4]) and for the operator space projective tensor product in [14, Theorem 6]. We present here a unified approach.
For C∗-algebras A and B, assume that ∥⋅∥λ≥∥⋅∥min on A⊗B, so there will be a identity map i from A⊗λB into A⊗minB.
Lemma 5.7**.**
Let M and N be von Neumann algebras and let L be a closed ideal in M⊗λN, where the sequence λ=(λn)n∈N satisfies condition (W2). If 1⊗1∈Lmin, then 1⊗1∈L and L equals M⊗λN.
Proof.
Since, 1⊗1∈Lmin, for a given ϵ=21, there exists w∈L such that ∥i(w)−1⊗1∥min<21. Let w=t=1∑∞αt⊗λrt(u(t),v(t))βt; be a norm convergent representation in M⊗λN where for t=1,2,…,rt∈N,
[TABLE]
By [11, Theorem 8.3.5], there exist sequences {xit,jt(t)}∈Z(M), {yit,jt(t)}∈Z(N),
{ϕn}∈P(M) and {ψn}∈P(N) such that
[TABLE]
where P(M) denotes the set of all mappings ϕ:M→M such that, for m∈M, ϕ(m) is in the convex hull of the set {umu∗:u∈U(M)}.
For each n∈N, using the contractive maps ϕn⊗ψn on M⊗λN ([19, Proposition 6.1]) and invariance of ideal L under ϕn⊗ψn, we have for all positive integers k≤l
[TABLE]
Therefore, one can define an element
[TABLE]
For sufficiently large choice of n and ϵ>0, we deduce easily that
[TABLE]
Since, L is left invariant by ϕn⊗ψn for each n, so
[TABLE]
It is easy to show that
i∘(ϕn⊗λψn)=(ϕn⊗minψn)∘i.
is a consequence of (5), (6) and triangle inequality, and so i(z) is invertible in
Lmin∩(Z(M)⊗minZ(N)).
Using similar arguments as in ([12, Theorem 2.11.6, Lemma 2.11.1] and the fact that Z(M) is a nuclear C∗-algebra [2, Proposition 1] we get Z(M)⊗λZ(N) is semisimple. The regularity of Z(M)⊗λZ(N) follows from [12, Lemma 4.2.19]. Since i(z) is invertible in
Lmin∩(Z(M)⊗minZ(N)), i.e. invertible in both Lmin and Z(M)⊗minZ(N), so
0∈/σZ(M)⊗minZ(N)(i(z)). So by [12, Exercise 4.8.12] 0∈/σZ(M)⊗λZ(N)(z). Hence,
z is invertible in Z(M)⊗λZ(N), so there exists w∈Z(M)⊗λZ(N) such that zw=wz=1⊗1. Since, z∈L and L being an
ideal, so 1⊗1∈L. ∎
Theorem 5.8**.**
*Let λ=(λn)n∈N fulfills (W2),
A and B be C∗-algebras and let J be a closed ideal in
A⊗λB. If a⊗b∈Jmin then a⊗b∈J. In
particular A⊗λB is a -semi-simple Banach algebra provided λ=(λn)n∈N further fulfills (O1).
Proof.
Suppose that a,b≥0 and a⊗b∈Jmin but not in J.
So by Hahn Banach theorem there exists ϕ∈(A⊗λB)∗ such that ϕ(J)=0 and ϕ(a⊗b)=0. Since,
(A⊗λB)∗=CBλ(A×B,C) so ϕ(x⊗y)=ϕ~(x,y) for some ϕ~∈CBλ(A×B,C)
and for all x∈A,y∈B. By Proposition 5.6, we have ϕ~∗∗:A∗∗×B∗∗→C
a λ-completely bounded operator satisfying ∥ϕ~∗∗∥λ=∥ϕ~∥λ .
Let L be the closed ideal in A∗∗⊗λB∗∗ generated by J. Let u=j=1∑∞αj⊗λkj(x1j,x2j)βj be a norm convergent sum in A⊗λB representing a fixed but an arbitrary
element of J. Since ϕ annihilates J, so j=1∑∞αjϕλkj(⊗λkj(x1j,x2j))βj=j=1∑∞i1,i2∑αjλkj(ai1,ai2)⊗ϕ(xi1j⊗xi2j)βj=0. Let
u,v∈A and s,t∈B then we have j=1∑∞i1,i2∑αjλkj(ai1,ai2)⊗ϕ(uxi1jv⊗sxi2jt)βj=0. Let M=A∗∗∗ and N=B∗∗ be the von Neumann algebras generated by A
and B. For each n∈N and u∈M, define wn(u)=j=1∑ni1,i2∑αjλkj(ai1,ai2)⊗ϕ(uxi1jv⊗sxi2jt)βj. We will claim that {wn} is a Cauchy sequence. To see this, let m<n,
∣wn(u)−wm(u)∣=∣j=m+1∑ni1,i2∑αjλkj(ai1,ai2)⊗ϕ(uxi1jv⊗sxi2jt)βj∣≤∥u∥∥s∥∥t∥∥v∥∥j=m+1∑nαj⊗λkj(x1j,x2j)βj∥λ, and so {wn} is a Cauchy sequence with limit w∈M∗ given by
w(u)=j=1∑∞i1,i2∑αjλkj(ai1,ai2)⊗ϕ(uxi1jv⊗sxi2jt). Again as in [1], we obtain ϕ annihilates L.
Now for ϵ>0, let pϵ∈M and qϵ∈N be the spectral projections of a and b respectively for the closed interval
[ϵ,∞). Since there is a conditional expectation from M onto pϵMpϵ, so pϵMpϵ⊗λqϵNqϵ is a closed subalgebra of M⊗λN by Lemma 5.4. Let L0=L∩(pϵMpϵ⊗λqϵNqϵ), a closed ideal in pϵMpϵ⊗λqϵNqϵ, and so (L0)min is a closed ideal in pϵMpϵ⊗minqϵNqϵ. Now as in [1, Theorem 4.4] and [14, Theorem 6], we get (L0)min contains pϵ⊗qϵ and so by the above Lemma 5.7, pϵ⊗qϵ∈L0. Hence L0=pϵMpϵ⊗λqϵNqϵ, which further implies that pϵa⊗qϵb∈L, and so
ϕ(pϵa⊗qϵb)=0. Letting ϵ→0, we have ϕ(a⊗b)=0,
contrary to the choice of ϕ.
In the case when both a and b are arbitrary elements, then one may apply the similar technique as given in [1] to
obtain the result.∎
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Andreas Defant for providing a copy of [19]. The authors would also like to thank the referee for useful comments and suggestions.
Bibliography19
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] S. D. Allen, A. M. Sinclair, and R. R. Smith. The ideal structure of the Haagerup tensor product of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 {C}^{*} -algebras. J. Reine Angew. Math , 442:111–148, 1993.
2[2] D. P. Blecher. Geometry of the tensor product of C*-algebras. In Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society , volume 104, pages 119–127. Cambridge Univ Press, 1988.
3[3] D. P. Blecher and V. I. Paulsen. Tensor products of operator spaces. J. Funct. Anal. , 99(2):262–292, 1991.
4[4] A. Defant and D. Wiesner. Polynomials in operator space theory. J. Funct. Anal. , 266(9):5493–5525, 2014.
5[5] E. G. Effros and Z. J. Ruan. Operator spaces . Clarendon Press, 2000.
6[6] U. Haagerup. The Grothendieck inequality for bilinear forms on C*-algebras. Advances in Mathematics , 56(2):93–116, 1985.
7[7] U. Haagerup and M. Musat. The Effros–Ruan conjecture for bilinear forms on C*-algebras. Inventiones mathematicae , 174(1):139–163, 2008.
8[8] K. H. Han. The predual of the space of decomposable maps from a C ∗ superscript 𝐶 {C}^{*} -algebra into a von Neumann algebra. J. Math. Anal. Appl. , 402(2):463–476, 2013.