This paper develops a comprehensive theory of inductive limits across various categories of operator systems, revealing how these limits interact with tensor products, quotients, and graph operator systems, and connecting to classical results like Glimm's theorem.
Contribution
It introduces a systematic framework for inductive limits in operator system categories, including their interaction with tensor products and graph operator systems, extending classical operator algebra results.
Findings
01
Inductive limits commute with maximal tensor products.
02
Quotient operator systems' limits are quotients of limits under certain conditions.
03
Graph operator systems' limits correspond to topological graph systems.
Abstract
We present a systematic development of inductive limits in the categories of ordered *-vector spaces, Archimedean order unit spaces, matrix ordered spaces, operator systems and operator C*-systems. We show that the inductive limit intertwines the operation of passing to the maximal operator system structure of an Archimedean order unit space, and that the same holds true for the minimal operator system structure if the connecting maps are complete order embeddings. We prove that the inductive limit commutes with the operation of taking the maximal tensor product with another operator system, and establish analogous results for injective functorial tensor products provided the connecting maps are complete order embeddings. We identify the inductive limit of quotient operator systems as a quotient of the inductive limit, in case the involved kernels are completely biproximinal. We…
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.
We present a systematic development of inductive limits in the categories of ordered -vector spaces,
Archimedean order unit spaces, matrix ordered spaces, operator systems and operator C-systems.
We show that the inductive limit intertwines the operation of passing to the maximal operator system structure
of an Archimedean order unit space, and that the same holds true for the minimal operator system
structure if the connecting maps are complete order embeddings.
We prove that the inductive limit commutes with
the operation of taking the maximal tensor product with another operator system, and
establish analogous results for injective functorial tensor products provided the connecting maps are complete order embeddings.
We identify the inductive limit of quotient operator systems as a quotient of the inductive limit,
in case the involved kernels are completely biproximinal.
We describe the inductive limit of graph operator systems as operator systems of topological graphs,
show that two such operator systems are completely order isomorphic if and only if
their underlying graphs are isomorphic, identify the C*-envelope of such an operator system,
and prove a version of Glimm’s Theorem on the isomorphism of UHF algebras in the category of operator systems.
Operator systems were first studied in the late 1960s by Arveson [2].
Over the past five decades they have played a significant role in the development of
non-commutative functional analysis and
nowadays there is an extensive body of literature on their structure and properties
[5, 8, 29].
Compared to the longer-studied category of C*-algebras, operator systems have the advantage to
capture in a more subtle way properties of non-commutative order.
It has become clear, for instance,
that they can behave very differently than C*-algebras regarding the formation of
categorical constructs such as tensor products
[30, 32].
At the same time, their simpler structure
allows one to express complexities of infinite-dimensional phenomena
through finite-dimensional objects. For example, finite dimensional operator systems
can be used to both reformulate the Connes Embedding Problem [19]
and to characterise the weak expectation property of C*-algebras [15].
Inductive limits of C*-algebras first appeared over fifty years ago in [16], and have ever since
occupied a prominent place in C*-algebra theory.
In addition to their cornerstone role in Elliott’s classification programme [13],
they have been instrumental in applications to quantum physics,
where questions of fundamental theoretical nature can be expressed in those terms
[14].
In contrast, there is no similar development in the operator system category.
While inductive limits of complete operator systems were introduced by Kirchberg in [21],
and some very recent additions have been made through [24] and [23],
no systematic study of operator system inductive limits and their applications has been conducted.
The purpose of this paper is to begin a systematic investigation of
inductive limits of ordered *-vector spaces, operator systems and related categories,
and to highlight some first applications.
Our approach differs substantially from the one of [21].
Indeed, due to the emphasis on the development of approximation techniques,
Kirchberg’s interest lies in complete operator systems.
Subsequently, his definition of the inductive limit relies
on the norm structure of the operator systems in question.
Here, we are interested in the interactions between operator system structures and inductive limits,
as well as in the tensor product theory, which was developed in [32]
in the more general case of non-complete operator systems.
This setting allows to infer all desired properties based on the (matrix) order through the
Archimedeanisation techniques introduced in [33] and [32]
and avoids to a substantial extent the use of norms.
The paper is organised as follows.
After recalling some preliminary background in Section 2,
we construct, in Section 3, the inductive limits in the categories of
ordered -vector spaces and Archimedean order unit (AOU) spaces.
We identify the state space of the inductive limit as the inverse limit of the corresponding state spaces.
In Section 4, which is the core part of the paper,
we develop in detail the inductive limit in the operator system category.
We show that the
OMAX operation, introduced in [32],
is intertwined by the inductive limit construction. A similar result holds true
for the OMIN operation, in the case the connecting morphisms are complete order embeddings.
We identify the inductive limit of quotient operator systems as a quotient of an inductive limit,
in case the involved kernels are completely biproximinal.
We then establish a general intertwining theorem for the inductive limit and any
injective functorial tensor products, provided the connecting maps are complete order embeddings.
These results apply to the minimal tensor
product to give a result, recently established in the case of complete operator systems, in
[24], and have as a consequence a corresponding commutation result
for the commuting tensor product that was also highlighted, in the case of complete operator systems, in [24].
Although this general theorem does not apply to the maximal tensor product, we show that
the inductive limit intertwines this tensor product as well.
We also develop the inductive limit for the category of operator C-systems [29], that is,
operator systems that are bimodules over a given C*-algebra and whose matrix order structure is
compatible with the module actions.
In Section 6, we
consider inductive limits of graph operator systems.
This class of operator systems was
introduced in [11] and subsequently studied in [28],
where the authors showed that the graph operator system is a complete isomorphism invariant for the
corresponding graph, and identified its C*-envelope.
In view of the importance of graph operator systems in Quantum Information Theory, where they
correspond to confusability graphs of quantum channels [11],
we establish inductive limit versions of the aforementioned results.
Namely, we show that the inductive limit of graph operator systems
can be thought of as a topological graph operator system,
and prove that two such operator systems are completely order isomorphic
precisely when their underlying topological graphs are isomorphic.
We also identify the C*-envelope of such an operator system as
the C*-subalgebra of the surrounding UHF algebra, generated by the operator system.
Finally, we prove an operator system version of the classical
theorem of Glimm’s that characterises *-isomorphism of two UHF algebras
in terms of embeddings of the intermediate matrix algebras.
Crucial for this section are Power’s monograph [34] and the development of
topological equivalence relations therein.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we gather necessary preliminary material that will be needed in the remainder of the paper.
2.1. AOU spaces
This subsection contains the basics on Archimedean order unit vector spaces,
as developed by Pauslen and Tomforde in [33].
A *-vector space is a complex vector space V equipped with an involution
∗, that is, a mapping ∗:V→V
such that x∗∗=x, (x+y)∗=x∗+y∗ and (λx)∗=λˉx∗ for all x,y∈V and all λ∈C.
Let Vh={x∈V:x∗=x} and call the elements of Vhhermitian. For any x∈V, we have that
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
are hermitian.
An *ordered -vector space is a pair (V,V+),
where V is a *-vector space and V+ is a cone in Vh
(that is, a subset of Vh closed under addition and multiplication by a non-negative scalar)
such that V+∩(−V+)={0}. For x,y∈V, we write x≤y if y−x∈V+.
Let (V,V+) be an ordered *-vector space. We say that e∈V+ is an order unit for V
if for every x∈Vh, there exists r>0 such that x≤re.
We call the triple (V,V+,e) an order unit space.
An order unit e∈V+ is called Archimedean if
[TABLE]
A triple (V,V+,e), where (V,V+) is an ordered *-vector space for which e is an Archimedean order unit,
is called an Archimedean order unit space (or an AOU space, for short). We will often denote by eV
the order unit with which an ordered *-vector space (V,V+) is equipped.
Let (V,V+) and (W,W+) be order unit spaces.
A linear map ϕ:V→W is called positive if ϕ(V+)⊆W+ and unital if ϕ(eV)=eW.
The map ϕ:V→W is called an order isomorphism if it is bijective and v∈V+ if and only if ϕ(v)∈W+.
The complex field C will henceforth be equipped with its standard AOU space structure,
and linear maps f:V→C will as usual be referred to as functionals. A state
on V is a unital positive functional.
We write S(V) for the set of all states on V and call it the state space; note that S(V) is a cone.
Let (V,V+) be an ordered *-vector space with order unit e.
We introduce a seminorm on Vh, letting
[TABLE]
We call ∥⋅∥h the order seminorm on Vh determined by e.
We note that ∥⋅∥h is a norm if e is Archimedean [33, Proposition 2.23].
An order seminorm∣∣∣⋅∣∣∣ on V is a seminorm such that ∣∣∣x∗∣∣∣=∣∣∣x∣∣∣ for all x∈V and ∣∣∣x∣∣∣=∥x∥h for all x∈Vh. The set of order
seminorms on V has a maximal and a minimal (with respect to point-wise ordering) element.
The minimal seminorm is given by letting
[TABLE]
and all order seminorms are equivalent to it.
If (V,V+,e) is an AOU space, ∥⋅∥ is in fact a norm.
By (1),
the states of V are contractive with respect to the minimal order seminorm. We denote by V′ the
space of all functionals continuous in the topology defined by any of the order seminorms. If V1 and V2 are ordered
-vector spaces with order units and ϕ:V1→V2 is a unital positive map then we let
ϕ′:V2′→V1′ be the dual of ϕ.
If (V,V+,e) is an AOU space then
S(V) is a compact topological space
with respect to the weak topology inherited from the topology generated by any order norm on V.
Thus, the map ϕ:V→C(S(V)), given by ⟨ϕ(x),f⟩=⟨f,x⟩,
is a unital injective map that is an order isomorphism onto its image.
Furthermore, ϕ is an isometry with respect to the minimal order norm on V and the uniform norm on C(S(V)).
The latter statement can be viewed as a complex version of Kadison’s representation theorem (see [18] or [1, Theorem II.1.8]); for a proof, we refer the reader to [33, Theorem 5.2].
The proof of the next remark is straightforward and is omited.
Remark 2.1**.**
Let V be an ordered *-vector space with order unit and let ∥⋅∥′
be an order seminorm on V.
If x∈V, we have that ∥x∥′=0 if and only if
∥Re(x)∥h=0 and ∥Im(x)∥h=0.
**
In order to avoid excessive notation, we will sometimes denote the ordered *-vector space (V,V+,e) simply by V.
Let us denote by OU the category whose objects are ordered *-vector spaces with order units and whose morphisms are unital positive maps, and by AOU the category whose objects are AOU spaces and whose morphisms are unital positive maps.
Clearly, we have
a forgetful functor F:AOU→OU.
In [33, Section 3.2], the process of Archimedeanisation is discussed which provides us with a left adjoint to this functor.
Let (V,V+,e) be an ordered *-vector space with order unit. Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Clearly, D is a cone, while N is a linear subspace of V.
Equip V/N with the involution given by (v+N)∗=v∗+N, and
set
[TABLE]
It was shown in [33, Theorem 3.16] that (V/N,(V/N)+,e+N) is an AOU space,
which was called therein the Archimedeanisation of (V,V+,e) and denoted by VArch.
It satisfies the following universal property.
Theorem 2.2**.**
*Let V be an ordered -vector space with order unit.
The quotient map φ:V→VArch is the unique
unital surjective positive linear map from V onto VArch
such that, whenever W is an Archimedean order unit space and ϕ:V→W is a unital positive linear map, then there exists a unique positive linear map ϕArch:VArch→W such that ϕ=ϕArch∘φ.
Furthermore, if (V~,φ~) is a pair consisting of an AOU
space V~ and a unital surjective positive linear map φ~:V→V~
such that,
whenever
W is an Archimedean order unit space and ϕ:V→W is a unital positive linear map
there exists a unique positive linear map ϕ~:V~→W with
ϕ=ϕ~∘φ~,
then there exists a unital order isomorphism ψ:VArch→V~ such that ψ∘φ=φ~.
2.2. Operator systems, operator spaces and tensor products
2.2.1. Basic concepts
For a vector space S, we let Mn,m(S) be the vector space of all n by m matrices with entries in S.
We set Mn,m=Mn,m(C), Mn(S)=Mn,n(S) and Mn=Mn,n.
Let S be a *-vector space. We equip
Mn(S) with the involution (si,j)i,j∗=(sj,i∗)i,j; it turns Mn(S) into a *-vector space.
A family {Cn}n∈N, where Cn⊆Mn(V),
is called a matrix ordering on S if
(i)
Cn is a cone in Mn(S)h for each n∈N,
2. (ii)
Cn∩(−Cn)={0} for each n∈N, and
3. (iii)
for each n,m∈N and each α∈Mn,m we have that α∗Cnα⊆Cm.
A matrix ordered *-vector space is a pair
(S,{Cn}n∈N) where S is a *-vector space and {Cn}n∈N is a matrix ordering.
We refer to condition (iii) as the compatibility of the family {Cn}n∈N
and often write Mn(S)+ for Cn.
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N) be a matrix ordered *-vector space. For each e∈S and n∈N, let
[TABLE]
where the off-diagonal entries are zero.
We say that e∈C1 is a matrix order unit if e(n) is an order unit for (Mn(S),Cn) for all n∈N.
Similarly, we say that e is an Archimedean matrix order unit
if e(n) is an Archimedean order unit for (Mn(S),Cn) for each n∈N.
An operator system is a matrix ordered *-vector space with an Archimedean matrix order unit.
In order to avoid excessive notation, we will sometimes denote the
triple (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) simply by S; the unit is denoted by
eS if there is risk of confusion.
Let S and T be matrix ordered *-vector spaces with matrix order units and ϕ:S→T be a linear map.
We define ϕ(n):Mn(S)→Mn(T) by letting
[TABLE]
n∈N. We say that ϕ is n-positive if ϕ(n) is positive and that ϕ is completely positive
if ϕ is n-positive for all n∈N. Furthermore, we say that ϕ is a complete order isomorphism
if ϕ is a bijection and both ϕ and ϕ−1 are completely positive. We say that ϕ is a
unital complete order embedding if ϕ is a unital complete order isomorphism onto its image.
Let B(H) denote the space of all bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space H.
If S is a subset of B(H), we set S∗={s∈S:s∗∈S} and call Sselfadjoint
if S=S∗.
A concrete operator system is a selfadjoint subspace of B(H) which contains the identity operator I.
If S⊆B(H) is a concrete operator system then
Mn(S)⊆Mn(B(H))≅B(H(n)) and therefore Mn(S) inherits an order structure from
B(H(n)).
Note that I is an Archimedean matrix order unit for the matrix order structure thus defined.
Hence, a concrete operator system is an operator system.
The following fundamental result [8, Theorem 4.4] establishes the converse.
Let (V,{Cn}n∈N,e) be an operator system.
Then there exists a Hilbert space H, a concrete operator system S⊆B(H) and a complete order isomorphism Φ:V→S such that Φ(e)=I.
2.2.2. Operator spaces
Let X be a Banach space and ∥⋅∥n be a norm on Mn(X), n∈N.
We call
(X,{∥⋅∥n}n∈N) an operator space if the following are satisfied:
(i)
(X00Y)n+m=max{∥X∥n,∥Y∥m} and
2. (ii)
∥αXβ∥n≤∥α∥∥X∥n∥β∥
for all X∈Mn(X),Y∈Mm(X) and α,β∈Mn.
Let (X,{∥⋅∥n}n∈N) and (Y,{∥⋅∥n}n∈N)
be operator spaces and let ϕ:X→Y be a linear map.
We let ∥ϕ∥cb=sup{∥ϕ(n)∥:n∈N} and
say that ϕ is completely bounded
if ∥ϕ∥cb is finite, ϕ is completely contractive if ∥ϕ∥cb≤1, and
a complete isometry if ϕ(n) is an isometry for every n.
Let us denote by OSp the category whose objects are operator spaces and whose morphisms are completely bounded maps.
If X is an operator space and X′ is the Banach space dual of X
then there is a natural way to induce an operator space structure on X′ as follows
[4] (for more details see [12, Section 3.2]).
If S=(si,j)i,j∈Mn(X′) then S determines a linear mapping S:X→Mn,
given by S(x)=(⟨si,j,x⟩)i,j;
we set ∥S∥n=∥S∥cb.
It follows from the Choi-Effros Theorem that every operator system is, canonically, an operator space.
The following result [29, Lemma 3.1] provides a characterisation of the
norm in operator systems in terms of the matrix order structure.
Lemma 2.4**.**
Let S be an operator system and x∈Mn(S). Then
∥x∥≤1if and only if(1nx∗x1n)∈M2n(S)+.
If ϕ is a unital map between operator systems
then ϕ is completely contractive if and only if ϕ is completely positive (see [29, Proposition 3.6]).
Thus, a unital linear map between operator systems is a unital complete isometry if and only if it is a unital complete order embedding.
It is proved in [33] that if A is a unital C*-algebra, then its C*-norm is an order norm.
Therefore, if S is an operator system, the operator system norm on S is an order norm. Indeed, if we choose a unital
C*-algebra A with unit eA such that ϕ:S→A is a unital complete order
embedding (see Theorem 2.3 for the existence of A and ϕ), then for any r∈R and s∈S,
[TABLE]
Therefore for any s∈Sh,
[TABLE]
2.2.3. Operator system tensor products
Suppose that (S,{Cn}n∈N,eS) and (T,{Dn}n∈N,eT) are operator systems.
We denote by S⊙T their algebraic tensor product.
We call a family μ={Pn}n∈N of cones, where Pn⊆Mn(S⊙T),
an operator system structure on S⊙T if it satisfies the following properties:
(i)
(S⊙T,{Pn}n∈N,eS⊗eT) is an operator system, denoted S⊗μT,
2. (ii)
Cn⊗Dm⊆Pnm for all n,m∈N, and
3. (iii)
if m,n∈N and ϕ:S→Mn, ψ:T→Mm are unital completely positive maps
then ϕ⊗ψ:S⊗μT→Mnm is a completely positive map.
An operator system tensor product [20] is a mapping
μ:OS×OS→OS such that μ(S,T) is an operator system
with an underlying space S⊙T for every S,T∈OS.
We call an operator system tensor product functorial if for any four operator systems S1,S2,T1 and T2 we have that if ϕ1:S1→T1 and ϕ2:S2→T2 are unital completely positive maps then ϕ1⊗ϕ2:S1⊗μS2→T1⊗μT2 is a unital completely positive map.
An operator system tensor product is injective if whenever ϕ1 and ϕ2 are unital complete order
embeddings then ϕ1⊗ϕ2 is a unital complete order embedding.
Let T be an operator system and μ be
an operator system tensor product. We say that T is μ-injective if for any pair of operator systems S1 and S2 we have that if ϕ:S1→S2 is a unital complete order embedding
then ϕ⊗idT:S1⊗μT→S2⊗μT is a unital complete order embedding.
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N,eS) and (T,{Dn}n∈N,eT)
be operator systems and let ιS:S→B(H) and
ιT:T→B(K) be unital complete order embeddings.
The minimal operator system tensor productS⊗minT of S and T
has operator system structure arising from the
embedding ιS⊗ιT:S⊙T→B(H⊗K).
It is proved in [20, Theorem 4.4] that the minimal operator system tensor product is injective and functorial.
Let
[TABLE]
The maximal operator system tensor product of S and T, denoted
S⊗maxT, is the Archimedeanisation of (S⊗T,{Pnmax(S,T)}n∈N,eS⊗eT).
Let H be a Hilbert space. A bilinear map ϕ:S×T→B(H) is called
jointly completely positive if, for all P=(xi,j)∈Cn and Q=(yk,l)∈Dm, the matrix
ϕ(n,m)(P,Q):=(ϕ(xi,j,yk,l)) is a positive element of Mnm(B(H)) .
Theorem 2.5**.**
Let S and T be operator systems. If ϕ:S×T→B(H) is a jointly completely positive map, then its linearisation ϕL:S⊗maxT→B(H) is completely positive.
*Furthermore if μ is an operator system structure on S⊙T with the property that the linearisation of every jointly completely positive map ϕ:S×T→B(H) is completely positive on S⊗μT then S⊗μT=S⊗maxT. *
The commuting operator system tensor product is the operator system arising from the inclusion of
S⊙T into Cu∗(S)⊗maxCu∗(T), denoted S⊗cT
(see Subsection 2.4 for the definition of the universal
C*-algebra Cu∗(R) of an operator system R).
It is proved
in [20, Theorem 5.5 and Theorem 6.3] that the maximal operator system tensor product and the commuting operator system tensor product are both functorial.
2.2.4. The Archimedeanisation of matrix ordered *-vector spaces
The process of Archimedeanisation for matrix ordered *-vector spaces was described in
[32, Section 3.1].
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) be a matrix ordered *-vector space with matrix order unit.
For each n∈N, set
[TABLE]
Recall the notation from (2); it is proved in [32, Lemma 3.14]
that Mn(N)=Nn, n∈N. Define
[TABLE]
Then (S/N,{CnArch}n∈N,e+N) is an operator system.
We call this the Archimedeanisation of S and denote it by SArch.
It has the following universal property.
*Let S be an matrix ordered -vector space with matrix order unit.
The quotient map φ:S→SArch is the unique
unital surjective completely positive map
such that,
whenever T is an operator system and
ϕ:S→T is a unital completely positive map, there exists
a unique completely positive map ϕArch:SArch→T
such that ϕ=ϕArch∘φ.
Furthermore, if (S~,φ~) is a pair consisting of an operator system and unital surjective
completely positive map φ~:S→S~
with the property that,
whenever T is an operator system and
ϕ:S→T is a unital completely positive map, there exists
a unique completely positive map ϕ~:S~→T
such that ϕ=ϕ~∘φ~,
then there exists a unital complete order isomorphism
ψ:SArch→S~ such that ψ∘φ=φ~.
Remark 2.7**.**
It is shown in [32, Remark 3.17] that the Archimedeanisation of a matrix ordered -vector space
with matrix order unit is precisely the operator system formed by taking the Archimedeanisation at every matrix level.*
We will make use of the following facts in the sequel.
Lemma 2.8**.**
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) be an operator system, V be a vector space and ϕ:S→V be an
injective linear map.
Equip ϕ(S) with the involution given by ϕ(x)∗=defϕ(x∗).
Then (ϕ(S),{ϕ(n)(Cn)}n∈N,ϕ(e)) is an operator system.
Proof.
The facts that the family {ϕ(n)(Cn)}n∈N is compatible and that ϕ(e) is matrix order unit
are straightforward.
To show that ϕ(n)(e(n)) is Archime-dean, suppose that x∈Mn(S) is a selfadjont element such that
ϕ(n)(x)+rϕ(n)(e(n))∈ϕ(Cn) for all r>0. By the injectivity of ϕ, x+re(n)∈Cn for all r>0,
and hence x∈Cn. Thus, ϕ(n)(x)∈ϕ(n)(Cn) and the proof is complete.
∎
Lemma 2.9**.**
Let S,T and P be operator systems and let ϕ:S→T and ψ:T→P be unital linear maps. If ψ and ψ∘ϕ are complete order embeddings then ϕ is a complete order embedding.
Proof.
Let n∈N and S∈Mn(S)+.
Then ψ(n)∘ϕ(n)(S)∈Mn(P)+ and therefore ϕ(n)(S)∈Mn(T)+.
Suppose that S∈Mn(S) and ϕ(n)(S)∈Mn(T)+.
Then ψ(n)∘ϕ(n)(S)∈Mn(P)+ and therefore S∈Mn(S)+.
∎
We denote by MOU
(resp. OS) the category whose objects are matrix ordered *-vector spaces with matrix order unit
(resp. operator systems) and whose morphisms are unital completely positive maps.
2.3. OMIN and OMAX
Let (V,V+,e) be an AOU space. An operator system structure on
(V,V+,e) is a family {Pn}n∈N such that
(V,{Pn}n∈N,e) is an operator system and P1=V+.
There are two extremal operator system structures [32] that will play a significant role in the sequel.
The minimal operator system structure on (V,V+,e) is the family {Cnmin(V)}n∈N,
where
[TABLE]
We set OMIN(V)=(V,{Cnmin(V)}n∈N,e).
Theorem 2.10**.**
Let (V,V+,e) be an AOU space and n∈N. Then (xi,j)i,j∈Cnmin(V) if and only if (⟨f,xi,j⟩)i,j∈Mn+ for each f∈S(V).
It follows from Theorem 2.10 that
OMIN(V) is the operator system induced by the canonical inclusion of V into C(S(V)).
We define OMAX(V) to be the Archimedeanisation of the matrix ordered space
(V,{Dnmax(V)}n∈N,e), where
[TABLE]
Let F:OS→AOU be the forgetful functor. It can be seen that OMIN:AOU→OS is a right adjoint functor to F and OMAX:AOU→OS is a left adjoint functor to F (see [25] for relevant background
in Category Theory).
2.4. C*-covers
Let S be an operator system.
A C-cover* is a pair (A,ν) consisting of a unital C*-algebra and a unital completely isometric embedding
ν:S→A such that ν(S) generates A as a C*-algebra.
The universal C-cover* (Cu∗(S),ι) of S
was defined in [22] and is characterised by the following universal property:
Proposition 2.11**.**
Let S be an operator system,
A be a C-algebra and ϕ:S→A be a unital completely positive map.
Then there exists a -homomorphism
[TABLE]
such that ϕ∘ι=ϕ. Moreover,
if (B,μ) is another C-cover of S
such that,
whenever A is a C*-algebra and ϕ:S→A be a unital completely positive map,
there exists a -homomorphism
[TABLE]
*such that ϕ∘μ=ϕ,
then there exists a -isomorphism ρ:B→Cu∗(S) with ρ∘μ=ι.
We call Cu∗(S) the universal C-algebra of S.
The C-envelope of S,
introduced in [17] (see also [5, Section 4.3])
is, on the other hand, the C*-cover (Ce∗(S),κ),
characterised by the following universal property: if
(A,ϕ) is a C*-cover of S, then there exists a *-homomorphism
[TABLE]
such that ϕ∘ϕ=κ.
Clearly, the pair (Ce∗(S),κ) is unique in the sense that if (B,μ)
is another pair with the same property then there exists a *-isomorphism ρ:B→Ce∗(S) with
ρ∘μ=κ.
The following fact is a straightforward consequence of the universal property of C*-envelopes.
Remark 2.12**.**
Let S and T be operator systems and let (Ce∗(S),ιS) and (Ce∗(T),ιT) be the
C*-envelopes of S and T, respectively. If ϕ:S→T is a unital complete order isomorphism, then there exists a
unital -isomorphism ρ:Ce∗(S)→Ce∗(T) such that ρ∘ιS=ιT∘ϕ.*
2.5. Inductive limits
We recall some basic categorical notions which will be necessary in the sequel; we refer
the reader to [25] for further details.
Definition 2.13**.**
Let C be a category. An inductive system in C is a
pair ({Ak}k∈N,{αk}k∈N) where Ak is an object in C and αk:Ak→Ak+1 is a morphism for each k∈N. An
inductive limit
of the inductive system ({Ak}k∈N,{αk}k∈N) is a pair
(A,{αk,∞}k∈N) where A is an object in C and αk,∞:Ak→A is a morphism,
k∈N, such that
(i)
αk+1,∞∘αk=αk,∞, k∈N, and
2. (ii)
if (B,{βk}k∈N) is another pair such that B is an object in C, βk:Ak→B is a morphism and βk+1∘αk=βk, k∈N, then there exists a unique morphism μ:A→B such that
μ∘αk,∞=βk, k∈N.
Suppose that ({Ak}k∈N,{αk}k∈N) is an inductive system.
If it exists, its inductive limit is unique and will be denoted by limC(Ak,αk) or limCAk when the context is clear.
We will refer to αk, k∈N, as the connecting morphisms, and set
[TABLE]
we thus have that αk,l is a morphism from Ak to Al.
If every inductive system in the category C has an inductive limit, we say that C is a category
with inductive limits.
Theorem 2.14**.**
Let C be a category with inductive limits,
and let ({Ak}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N)
(resp. ({Bk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N)) be an inductive system in C with
an inductive limit (A,{ϕk,∞}k∈N) (resp. (B,{ψk,∞}k∈N)).
Let {θk}k∈N be a sequence of morphisms such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
Then there exists a unique morphism θ:A→B such that θ∘ϕk,∞=ψk,∞∘θk,
k∈N.
Remark 2.15**.**
Let C be a category with inductive limits.
Let ({Ak}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) be an inductive system in C
with inductive limit (A,{ϕk,∞}k∈N) and let (nk)k∈N⊆N
be a subsequence. Then the inductive system
({Ank}k∈N,{ϕnk,nk+1}k∈N)
has inductive limit (A,{ϕnk,∞}k∈N). **
Proposition 2.16**.**
Let C, ({Ak}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N),
({Bk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N), A and B
be as in Theorem 2.14.
Suppose
{θ2k−1}k∈N,{φ2k}k∈N are sequences of morphisms
such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
Then A is isomorphic to B.
Remark 2.17**.**
Let C be a category with inductive limits
and let ({Ak}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N)
(resp. ({Bk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N)) be an inductive system in C
with inductive limit (A,{ϕk,∞}k∈N) (resp. (B,{ψk,∞}k∈N)).
By Remark 2.15 and Proposition 2.16, in order to show that A and B are isomorphic it suffices to find morphisms as in Proposition 2.16 for subsystems
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We next recall the notion of an inverse limit in the category
Top whose objects are topological spaces and whose morphisms are continuous maps.
Suppose we have the following inverse system in Top: X1⟵f1X2⟵f2X3⟵f3X4⟵f4⋯;
this means that Xk is a topological space and fk is a continuous map, k∈N.
The inverse limit of this inverse system, denoted limTopXk, is the set
[TABLE]
equipped with the product topology.
We note that if each of the spaces Xk is compact and Hausdorff, then limTopXk is a compact Hausdorff space.
We denote by C∗ the category whose objects are unital C*-algebras and whose morphisms are unital *-homomorphisms. Let
[TABLE]
be an inductive system in C∗. Let ∏k∈NAk be the space of sequences
a=(ak)k∈N
such that
[TABLE]
is finite.
Then ∏k∈NAk, equipped with pointwise addition, multiplication
and the norm ∥⋅∥, is a C*-algebra. Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Set
A∞=A∞0/N and let
q:A∞0→A∞ be the canonical quotient map.
Let πk,∞0:Ak→A∞0 be the (linear)
map given by πk,∞0(a)=(bi)i∈N, where
[TABLE]
and let πk,∞=q∘πk,∞0.
We note that
A∞=∪k∈Nπk,∞(Ak)
and it is possible to show that
∥πk,∞(ak)∥A∞=limm→∞∥πk,m(ak)∥Am for any ak∈Ak.
Let A∞ be the completion of A∞;
then A∞ is an inductive limit of the inductive system (3) in C∗ [3, Section II.8.2].
Following our general notation, we will denote it by limC∗Ak.
Remark 2.18**.**
If each πk is injective then πk,∞ is injective. Indeed,
suppose πk,∞(ak)=0; then
∥ak∥Ak=limm→∞∥ak∥Ak=limm→∞∥πk,m(ak)∥Am=0 and therefore ak=0. **
Remark 2.19**.**
Let X1⟵f1X2⟵f2X3⟵f3X4⟵f4⋯ be an inverse system in Top such that each Xk is compact and Hausdorff.
Let
C(X1)⟶ϕ1C(X2)⟶ϕ2C(X3)⟶ϕ3C(X4)⟶ϕ4⋯
be the associated inductive system in C∗.
We have that limC∗C(Xi) is unitally -isomorphic to
the C-algebra C(limTopXk) (see [3, II.8.2.2]).
**
3. Inductive limits of AOU spaces
We begin this section with the construction of
the inductive limit in the category OU.
In Section 3.2, we
identify the state space of such an inductive limit as the inverse limit of the state spaces of the
intermediate ordered *-vector spaces. Finally, in Section 3.3, we
consider inductive limits in the category AOU of AOU spaces.
3.1. Inductive limits in the category OU
Let (Vk,Vk+,ek)k∈N, be a sequence of ordered *-vector spaces with order units and let
ϕk:Vk→Vk+1 be a
unital positive map, k∈N; thus,
[TABLE]
is an inductive system in OU.
We let
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We simplify the notation and write N0 in the place of N(Vk)0, when the context is clear.
Clearly, N0 is a subspace of V∞0. We set
[TABLE]
let q0:V∞0→V¨∞ be the canonical quotient map
and let ϕk,∞0:Vk→V∞0 be the (linear)
map given by ϕk,∞0(x)=(yi)i∈N where
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
thus, ϕ¨k,∞ is a linear map from Vk into V¨∞.
Since
ϕk,∞0=ϕl,∞0∘ϕk,l, we have that
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Remark 3.1**.**
Let xk∈Vk and xl∈Vl;
then ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl) if and only if there exists m>max{k,l}
such that ϕk,m(xk)=ϕl,m(xl). **
If xk∈Vk and xl∈Vl are such that
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl),
choose m>max{k,l} such that ϕk,m(xk)=ϕl,m(xl).
Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, ϕ¨k,∞(xk∗)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl∗), and
we can define an involution on
V¨∞ by letting
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∗=defϕ¨k,∞(xk∗).
It follows that ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈(V¨∞)h if and only if there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)∈(Vm)h.
Let
[TABLE]
To show that V¨∞+ is well-defined,
suppose that xk∈Vk and xl∈Vl are such that
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl), and that m≥k
is such that ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+.
Let p be such that ϕk,p(xk)=ϕl,p(xl) and
q=max{m,p}. Since ϕm,q is positive, we have
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.2**.**
We have that
(i) V¨∞+ is a cone in (V¨∞)h, and
(ii) V¨∞+∩(−V¨∞+)={0}.
Proof.
(i)
Let xk∈Vk be such that
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈V¨∞+.
Then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+⊆(Vm)h,
and thus ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈(V¨∞)h.
If r∈[0,∞) then ϕk,m(rxk)=rϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+, hence rϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨k,∞(rxk)∈V¨∞+.
If ϕ¨k,∞(xk),ϕ¨l,∞(xl)∈V¨∞+ then there exist m1>k and m2>l such that ϕk,m1(xk)∈Vm1+ and ϕl,m2(xl)∈Vm2+. Set m=max{m1,m2}; then ϕk,m(xk)+ϕl,m(xl)∈Vm+. Therefore ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+ϕ¨l,∞(xl)=ϕ¨m,∞(ϕk,m(xk)+ϕl,m(xk))∈V¨∞+.
(ii) Let
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈V¨∞+∩(−V¨∞+)
for some xk∈Vk.
Then there exist m1,m2≥k such that ϕk,m1(xk)∈Vm1+ and −ϕk,m2(xk)∈Vm2+.
Choose m>max{m1,m2}; then
ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+∩(−Vm+), so
ϕk,m(xk)=0, and
hence ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨m,∞∘ϕk,m(xk)=0.
∎
Observe that ϕ¨k,∞(xk)≤ϕ¨l,∞(xl) if and only if there exists m>max{k,l} such that ϕk,m(xk)≤ϕl,m(xl).
Furthermore, (7) implies that
[TABLE]
By Remark 3.1 and the unitality of
the connecting maps,
ϕ¨k,∞(ek)=ϕ¨l,∞(el) for all k,l∈N.
Set e¨∞=ϕ¨k,∞(ek) (for any k∈N).
We next show that e¨∞ is an order unit for (V¨∞,V¨∞+).
Proposition 3.3**.**
*The triple (V¨∞,V¨∞+,e¨∞) is an ordered -vector space with order unit.
Furthermore, ϕ¨k,∞:Vk→V¨∞ is a unital positive map such that ϕ¨k+1,∞∘ϕk=ϕ¨k,∞, k∈N.
Proof.
To prove that (V¨∞,V¨∞+,e¨∞) is an ordered
*-vector space with order unit, it suffices, by Lemma 3.2,
to show that e¨∞ is an order unit. Suppose
that xk∈Vk is such that ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈(V¨∞)h;
then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)∈(Vm)h. Since em is an order unit for Vm, there exists rm>0 such that ϕk,m(xk)≤rmem=ϕk,m(rmek).
By (9),
[TABLE]
The identity ϕ¨k+1,∞∘ϕk=ϕ¨k,∞, k∈N,
is a special case of (7).
∎
So far we have ascertained that (V¨∞,{ϕ¨k,∞}k∈N) is a suitable candidate for the inductive limit in OU of the inductive system (4).
Theorem 3.5 will verify that this pair does indeed satisfy the universal property of the inductive limit.
First we take note of the special case when the maps in the inductive system are unital order isomorphisms.
Remark 3.4**.**
Let
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OU such that ϕk is an order isomorphism onto its image for all k∈N. Then ϕ¨k,∞ is an order isomorphism onto its image for all k∈N.
Proof.
Let k∈N and suppose ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=0 for some xk∈Vk.
Then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)=0.
By the assumption,
ϕk,m is injective and it follows that xk=0. Thus, ϕ¨k,∞ is injective.
Suppose ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈V¨∞+; then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+. Since ϕk,m is
an order isomorphism onto its image, xk∈Vk+.
∎
Theorem 3.5**.**
The triple (V¨∞,{ϕ¨k,∞}k∈N,e¨∞) is an inductive limit of the
inductive system
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯ in OU.
Proof.
We check that (V¨∞,{ϕ¨k,∞}k∈N) satisfies the universal property of the inductive limit.
Suppose (W,{ψk}k∈N) is a pair consisting of an ordered
*-vector space and a family of unital positive maps ψk:Vk→W such that ψk+1∘ϕk=ψk for all k∈N. Let k,l∈N, xk∈Vk, xl∈Vl and suppose that ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl).
By Remark 3.1, there
exists m>max{k,l} such that ϕk,m(xk)=ϕl,m(xl). Consequently ψk(xk)=ψm∘ϕk,m(xk)=ψm∘ϕl,m(xl)=ψl(xl).
Let ψ¨:V¨∞→W be given by
ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψk;
since V¨∞=∪k∈Nϕ¨k,∞(Vk), the map
ψ¨ is well-defined.
Since ψk is unital and ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞(ek)=ψk(ek),
the map ψ¨ is unital. Suppose that ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈V¨∞+;
then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+. Since ψm is positive and
ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ψk(xk)=ψm∘ϕk,m(xk),
we have that ψ¨(ϕ¨k,∞(xk))∈W+ and hence ψ¨ is positive.
∎
According to our general notation, denote by limOUVk the inductive limit
(V¨∞,{ϕ¨k,∞}k∈N).
Remark 3.6**.**
Let ({Vk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) and ({Wk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N) be
inductive systems in OU and let {θk}k∈N be a sequence of unital positive maps such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
It follows from Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 2.14 that there exists a unique unital positive map θ¨:limOUVk→limOUWk such that θ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψ¨k,∞∘θk for all k∈N.
(i)
If θk is injective for every k∈N then θ¨ is injective. Indeed, if
xk∈Vk and
θ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=0, then
ψ¨k,∞∘θk(xk)=0. Therefore there exists m>max{k,l} such that ψk,m∘θk(xk)=0.
Since (10) commutes, θm∘ϕk,m(xk)=0.
Since θm is injective, ϕk,m(xk)=0 and hence
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=0.
2. (ii)
If θk is an order isomorphism onto its image for every k∈N then θ¨ is an order isomorphism onto its image.
Indeed, suppose that θ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈(limOUWk)+ for some xk∈Vk. Then ψ¨k,∞∘θk(xk)∈(limOUWk)+ and it follows that there exists m>k such that ψk,m∘θk(xk)∈Wm+. Since (10) commutes, this implies that θm∘ϕk,m(xk)∈Wm+. Since θm is an order isomorphism, it follows that ϕk,m(xk)∈Vm+, and hence ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈(limOUVk)+.
3.2. The state space of the inductive limit in OU
Given the inductive system (4), one can “reverse the arrows” to obtain a sequence
[TABLE]
of dual spaces and continuous maps
(here we use the fact that unital positive maps between AOU spaces
are automatically continuous in the order norm [33, Theorem 4.22]).
Since the maps ϕk are unital, we have that ϕk′(S(Vk+1))⊆S(Vk)
for all k∈N,
and thus we obtain the following inverse system in Top:
[TABLE]
Proposition 3.7**.**
Let V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OU.
The state space S(limOUVk) is topologically homeomorphic to the inverse limit
limTopS(Vk).
Proof.
Let f∈S(limOUVk) and define
fk:Vk→C by letting
⟨fk,xk⟩=⟨f,ϕ¨k,∞(xk)⟩, xk∈Vk. For xk∈Vk,
we have
[TABLE]
Therefore ϕk′(fk+1)=fk and so (fk)k∈N∈limTopS(Vk).
Define a map θ:S(limOUVk)→limTopS(Vk) by letting θ(f)=(fk)k∈N.
Suppose f,g∈S(limOUVk) are
such that θ(f)=θ(g); that is, fk=gk for all k∈N. If xk∈Vk then
Given a sequence (fk)k∈N∈limTopS(Vk), define an element f:V¨∞→C
by setting ⟨f,ϕ¨k,∞(xk)⟩=⟨fk,xk⟩, xk∈Vk. Observe that f is well-defined,
for if ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=ϕ¨l,∞(xl) for some xk∈Vk and xl∈Vl then,
by Remark 3.1,
there exists m>max{k,l} such that ϕk,m(xk)=ϕl,m(xl).
Hence
[TABLE]
Suppose that x∈(limOUVk)+. By (9), there exist k∈N and xk∈Vk+ such that
x=ϕ¨k,∞(xk), and hence
[TABLE]
showing that f is positive.
Furthermore, ⟨f,e¨∞⟩=⟨fk,ek⟩=1 and thus f∈S(limOUVk).
Since θ(f)=(fk)k∈N, we conclude that θ is surjective.
Finally, we prove that θ a homeomorphism.
Suppose that (fλ)λ∈Λ∈S(limOUVk) is a net such that
fλ→λ∈Λf for some f∈S(limOUVk).
Write
[TABLE]
Since limTopS(Vk) is equipped with the product topology,
[TABLE]
If k∈N and xk∈Vk then
[TABLE]
It follows that θ(fλ)→λ∈Λθ(f) and so θ is continuous.
Suppose that
((fkλ)k∈N)λ∈Λ∈limTopS(Vk)
is such that (fkλ)k∈N→λ∈Λ(fk)k∈N.
For each k∈N, (fkλ)λ∈Λ→λ∈Λfk. Now,
[TABLE]
If xk∈Vk then
[TABLE]
By (8), θ−1((fkλ)k∈N)→λ∈Λθ−1((fk)k∈N)
and therefore θ is a homeomorphism.
∎
3.3. Inductive limits in the category AOU
Let (Vk,Vk+,ek)k∈N be a sequence of
Archimedean order unit spaces and
[TABLE]
be an inductive system in the category AOU.
Recall that this means that ϕk:Vk→Vk+1 is a unital positive map, k∈N.
We may apply the forgetful functor F:AOU→OU and consider
the inductive limit limOUF(Vk). This is not necessarily an AOU space; we shall see in this subsection that
its Archimedeanisation is an inductive limit in AOU.
The proof of the following remark is straightforward and we omit it.
Remark 3.8**.**
Let ∥⋅∥k be an order norm on Vk, k∈N.
For xk∈Vk, we have that
limm→∞∥ϕk,m(xk)∥m=0 if and only if
[TABLE]
Let ∥⋅∥k be any order norm on Vk and
∥⋅∥∞ be any order seminorm on limOUVk.
Let
[TABLE]
be the kernel of ∥⋅∥∞.
Proposition 3.9**.**
Let xk∈Vk and x=ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈limOUVk.
The following are equivalent:
(i)
x∈N;
2. (ii)
limm→∞∥ϕk,m(xk)∥m=0.
Proof.
By Remarks 2.1 and 3.8,
we may assume that x∈(limOUVk)h.
(i)⇒(ii)
We have that
[TABLE]
Let r>0; then there exists m∈N such that −rel≤ϕk,l(xl)≤rel for all l≥m. Therefore ∥ϕk,l(xk)∥l≤r for all l≥m.
Thus, limm→∞∥ϕk,m(xk)∥m=0.
(ii)⇒(i)
Assume,
towards a contradiction, that ∥x∥∞=μ>0.
There exists m>k such that
[TABLE]
Therefore, −2μel≤ϕk,l(xk)≤2μel for all l≥m and so
−2μϕ¨k,∞(ek)≤ϕ¨k,∞(xk)≤2μϕ¨k,∞(ek).
Thus ∥x∥∞≤2μ<μ, a contradiction.
∎
In view of Proposition 3.9, we will refer to
N defined by (13)
as the null space of the sequence(Vk,Vk+,ek)k∈N.
Let (V∞,V∞+,e∞) be the Archimedeanisation of limOUVk;
thus,
[TABLE]
the involution on V∞ is given by
(ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N)∗=ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∗+N
(for xk∈Vk),
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and e∞=e¨∞+N.
Lemma 3.10**.**
Let xk∈Vk. The following are equivalent:
(i)
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N∈(V∞)h;
2. (ii)
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N=ϕ¨k,∞(Re(xk))+N;
3. (iii)
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N=ϕ¨l,∞(xl)+N* for some l∈N and some xl∈(Vl)h.*
Proof.
(i)⇒ (ii) Suppose ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N∈(V∞)h.
Then ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N=ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∗+N=ϕ¨k,∞(xk∗)+N and therefore
[TABLE]
(ii)⇒ (iii) is trivial.
(iii)⇒ (i)
Suppose ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N=ϕ¨l,∞(xl)+N for some xl∈(Vl)h.
Then
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 3.11**.**
We have that
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
An element ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N∈(V∞)h
(where xk∈(Vk)h) belongs to V∞+ if and only if for every r>0
there exist l∈N and yl∈Vl such that ϕ¨\l,∞(yl)∈N and
ϕ¨k,∞(rek+xk)+ϕ¨l,∞(yl)∈V¨∞+.
Thus, ϕ¨k,∞(xk)+N∈V∞+ if and only if for every r>0
there exist l∈N and yl∈Vl such that ϕ¨l,∞(yl)∈N, and there exists
m>max{k,l} with rem+ϕk,m(xk)+ϕl,m(yl)∈Vm+.
We may assume without loss of generality that l>k and that yl∈(Vl)h.
**
Let qV:V¨∞→V∞ be the canonical quotient map,
and set
[TABLE]
we have that ϕk,∞ is a unital positive map and
[TABLE]
Since V¨∞=∪k∈Nϕ¨k,∞(Vk), we have that
[TABLE]
The following lemma is certainly well-known; we record it since we were not able to find a precise reference.
Lemma 3.12**.**
Let (V,V+,e) be an AOU space and W⊆V be a linear subspace containing e. Set W+=W∩V+.
Then (W,W+,e) is an AOU space and for every f∈S(W) there exists g∈S(V) such that g∣W=f.
Proof.
It is straightforward to check that (W,W+,e) is an AOU space.
Recall the correspondence between complex functionals on V and real functionals on Vh: given
a real functional ω on Vh, one defines a functional ω~:V→C by letting
ω~(x)=ω(Re(x))+iω(Im(x)), x∈V.
The second statement now follows from the fact that, by
[33, Proposition 3.11], ω is positive if and only if ω~ is positive,
and by [33, Corollary 2.15], every positive real functional on a real ordered vector
space can be extended to a positive real functional on a larger space.
∎
Proposition 3.13**.**
Let
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in AOU such that ϕk is an order isomorphism onto its image for each k∈N.
Then N={0}
and ϕk,∞ is a unital order isomorphism onto its image for all k∈N.
Proof.
Suppose that xk∈Vk and
ϕ¨k,∞(xk)∈N.
By Proposition 3.9,
limm→∞∥ϕk,m(xk)∥=0. Since each ϕk is an order isomorphism onto ϕk(Vk),
using Lemma 3.12 we obtain that
∥ϕk,m(xk)∥=∥xk∥ for all m≥k and so xk=0.
Thus, ϕ¨k,∞(xk)=0.
It now follows that
ϕk,∞=ϕ¨k,∞ and therefore, by Remark 3.4,
ϕk,∞ is a unital order isomorphism onto its image, k∈N.
∎
Theorem 3.14**.**
The triple (V∞,{ϕk,∞}k∈N,e∞) is the inductive limit
of the inductive system
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
in the category AOU.
Proof.
Suppose (W,{ψk}k∈N) is a pair consisting of an AOU space and a family of unital positive maps ψk:Vk→W such that ψk+1∘ϕk=ψk for all k∈N.
By Theorem 3.5, there exists a unique unital positive map ψ¨:limOUVk→W such that
ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψk
for all k∈N. By Theorem 2.2,
there exists a unique unital positive map ψ:V∞→W
such that ψ∘qV=ψ¨.
Therefore ψ∘ϕk,∞=ψ∘qV∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψk
for all k∈N
and the proof is complete.
∎
We recall that, according to our general notation for
inductive limits, limAOUVk will henceforth stand for the AOU space
(V∞,{ϕk,∞}k∈N,e∞).
Remark 3.15**.**
For each k∈N, let (Vk,Vk+,ek) and (Wk,Wk+,fk) be AOU spaces such that ({Vk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) and ({Wk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N) are inductive systems and let {θk}k∈N be a sequence of unital positive maps such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
It follows from Theorem 3.14 and Theorem 2.14 that there exists a unique unital positive map θ:limAOUVk→limAOUWk such that θ∘ϕk,∞=ψk,∞∘θk for all k∈N.
If θk is an order isomorphism onto its image for each k∈N
then θ is injective.
Indeed, if xk∈Vk and
θ∘ϕk,∞(xk)=0
then
ψk,∞∘θk(xk)=0.
By Proposition 3.9,
limm→∞∥ψk,m∘θk(xk)∥=0 and,
since (14) commutes,
limm→∞∥θm(ϕk,m(xk)∥=0.
Since θm is a unital order isomorphism onto its image,
it follows, using Lemma 3.12, that
limm→∞∥ϕk,m(xk)∥=0 and,
by Proposition 3.9, ϕk,∞(xk)=0.
**
Proposition 3.16**.**
Let ({Vk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) be an inductive system in AOU.
Then S(limAOUVk) is homeomorphic to limTopS(Vk).
Proof.
If f∈S(limOUVk) then, by Theorem 2.2,
there exists a unique unital positive map
f∈S(limAOUVk) such that f=f∘qV. Define θ:S(limOUVk)→S(limAOUVk) by letting
θ(f)=f; it is straightforward to check that θ is a homeomorphism
(recall that the state space is equipped with the weak* topology).
By Proposition 3.7, S(limOUVk) is homeomorphic to limTopS(Vk), and
the claim follows.
∎
4. Inductive limits of operator systems
We begin this section with the construction of the inductive limit in the category MOU
of matrix ordered spaces, and
in Section 4.2 we consider
the inductive limit in the category OS of operator systems.
We devote the remainder of the chapter to proving various “commutation theorems” for the
inductive limit in OS.
In particular, we prove that the inductive limit
intertwines OMAX and commutes with the maximal operator system tensor product. Analogous results hold
for OMIN and
the minimal operator system tensor product, provided the connecting morphisms are complete order embeddings.
We note that the commutation with the
minimal tensor product in the case of complete operator systems was
recently proved in [24].
We also establish, under certain natural conditions, the commutation of the
inductive limit with the quotient construction.
4.1. Inductive limits of matrix ordered *-vector spaces
In this subsection, let
(Sk,{Cnk}n∈N,ek)k∈N be a sequence of matrix ordered *-vector
spaces with matrix order unit and
ϕk:Sk→Sk+1 be a unital completely positive map, k∈N;
thus,
[TABLE]
is an inductive system in MOU.
For each n∈N, consider the induced inductive system in OU:
[TABLE]
Denote by ϕ¨k,∞n the unital positive map associated to
limOUMn(Sk) through (6),
so that ϕ¨k,∞n:Mn(Sk)→limOUMn(Sk) and
ϕ¨k+1,∞n∘ϕk(n)=ϕ¨k,∞n for all k∈N.
Note that ϕ¨k,∞1=ϕ¨k,∞.
We caution the reader about the difference between the maps ϕ¨k,∞n and
ϕ¨k,∞(n):
while their domains are both equal to Mn(S), their ranges are within limOUMn(Sk)
and Mn(limOUSk), respectively.
Lemma 4.1**.**
We have that
Mn(limOUSk)=⋃k∈Nϕ¨k,∞(n)Mn(Sk), n∈N.
Proof.
Fix n∈N.
It is clear that ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Mn(Sk))⊆Mn(limOUSk)
for all k. To show the reverse inclusion,
let (si,j)i,j∈Mn(limOUSk).
For all 1≤i,j≤n, we have that
si,j=ϕ¨ki,j(ski,j) for some ki,j∈N and ski,j∈Ski,j. Let k=max{ki,j:1≤i,j≤n} and si,jk=ϕki,j,k(ski,j).
We have that
si,j=ϕ¨k,∞(si,jk)
for all 1≤i,j≤n and hence (si,j)i,j∈ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Mn(Sk)).
∎
In the next lemma, Mn(limOUSk) is equipped with its
canonical involution arising from the involution of limOUSk.
Lemma 4.2**.**
The mapping
πn:Mn(limOUSk)→limOUMn(Sk) given by
[TABLE]
is well-defined, bijective and involutive.
Proof.
Fix n∈N and
let S∈Mn(limOUSk).
By Lemma 4.1,
S=ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk) for some k∈N and some Sk∈Mn(Sk).
Suppose that Sk=(si,jk)i,j∈Mn(Sk) and Sl=(si,jl)i,j∈Mn(Sl) are
such that ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)=ϕ¨l,∞(n)(Sl);
then, for all 1≤i,j≤n, there exists mi,j such that ϕk,mi,j(si,jk)=ϕl,mi,j(si,jl).
Let m=max{mi,j:1≤i,j≤n}; we have ϕk,m(n)(Sk)=ϕl,m(n)(Sl).
Therefore ϕ¨k,∞n(Sk)=ϕ¨l,∞n(Sl).
It follows that the mapping πn is well-defined.
Since the mappings ϕ¨k,∞(n) and ϕ¨k,∞n are linear,
we have that πn is linear.
Suppose Sk∈Mn(Sk)
is such that ϕ¨k,∞n(Sk)=0.
Then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(n)(Sk)=0 and therefore
ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)=ϕ¨m,∞(n)∘ϕk,m(n)(Sk)=0.
This shows that πn is injective.
Finally, let Sk=(si,jk)i,j∈Mn(Sk). Then
[TABLE]
and the proof is complete.
∎
We denote limOUSk by S¨∞ and let, as before, e¨∞=ϕ¨k,∞(ek)
for any k∈N (note that e¨∞ is thus well-defined).
For each n∈N, let Cn⊆Mn(S¨∞)h be given by
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.3**.**
*The triple
(S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞)
is a matrix ordered -vector space with matrix order unit.
Proof.
Since Cn is the inverse image of a proper cone under the injective mapping πn (Lemma 4.2),
we have that Cn is a proper cone itself.
We show that the family {Cn}n∈N is compatible.
Let n,m∈N, α∈Mn,m and ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Cn,
where Sk∈Mn(Sk).
There exists p∈N such that
ϕk,p(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Sp)+.
We conclude that α∗ϕk,p(n)(Sk)α∈Mm(Sp)+
and so ϕ¨p,∞m(α∗ϕk,p(n)(Sk)α)∈(limOUMm(Sk))+.
Therefore
[TABLE]
Thus, {Cn}n∈N is a matrix ordering for S¨∞.
Finally we show that e¨∞ is a matrix order unit. Observe that
\ddot{e}_{\infty}^{(n)}=\ddot{\phi}_{k,\infty}^{(n)}\big{(}e_{k}^{(n)}\big{)}.
Suppose that
ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈(Mn(S¨∞))h. Then there exists m>k such that
[TABLE]
Since em is a matrix order unit for Sm, there exists r>0 such that
[TABLE]
Therefore
\ddot{\phi}_{k,\infty}^{n}(S_{k})\leq\ddot{\phi}_{k,\infty}^{n}\big{(}re_{k}^{(n)}\big{)}
and thus
[TABLE]
∎
For the remainder of this section, we denote by
S¨∞
the matrix ordered *-vector space with matrix order unit (S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞).
Remark 4.4**.**
The map ϕ¨k,∞:Sk→S¨∞ is unital and completely positive. Indeed, suppose Sk∈Mn(Sk)+. Since ϕ¨k,∞n is a unital positive map,
\ddot{\phi}_{k,\infty}^{n}(S_{k})\in\big{(}\underrightarrow{\lim}_{\bf{OU}}M_{n}(\mathcal{S}_{k})\big{)}^{+} and therefore
ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Cn.
**
Proposition 4.5**.**
Let S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in MOU such that ϕk is a complete order isomorphism onto its image for each k∈N. Then ϕ¨k,∞ is a complete order isomorphism onto its image for each k∈N.
Proof.
By Remarks 3.4 and 4.4, it suffices to show that
ϕ¨k,∞−1
is completely positive.
Suppose
ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Cn
for some Sk∈Mn(Sk).
Then there exists m>k such that
ϕk,m(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Sm)+.
Since
ϕk,m is a complete order isomorphism onto its image, Sk∈Mn(Sk)+.
∎
Theorem 4.6**.**
The triple
(S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞) is an inductive limit of the inductive system
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
in MOU.
Proof.
Suppose (T,{ψk}k∈N) is a pair consisting of a matrix ordered
*-vector space with matrix order unit and a family of unital completely positive maps ψk:Sk→T
such that ψk+1∘ϕk=ψk for all k∈N.
By Theorem 3.5, there exists a unique unital positive map
ψ¨:S¨∞→T such that
ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψk
for all k∈N. We show that ψ¨ is completely positive.
Suppose ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Cn;
then there exists m>k such that ϕk,m(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Sm)+. Since ψm is completely positive,
[TABLE]
∎
Following our general convention, we denote the triple (S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞)
by limMOUSk.
Remark 4.7**.**
Let ({Sk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) and ({Tk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N) be
inductive systems in MOU and let {θk}k∈N be a sequence of unital completely positive maps such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
It follows from Theorems 4.6 and 2.14 that there exists a unique unital completely positive map θ¨:limMOUSk→limMOUTk such that θ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψ¨k,∞∘θk for all k∈N.
We note that if
θk is a complete order isomorphism onto its image for each k∈N, then θ¨ is a complete order isomorphism onto its image. Indeed, by
Remark 3.6, it remains to check that θ¨−1 is completely positive. Suppose
θ¨(n)∘ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUTk)+.
Then
ψ¨k,∞(n)∘θk(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUTk)+.
It follows that there exists m>k such that
ψk,m(n)∘θk(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Tm)+.
Since (16) commutes,
θm(n)∘ϕk,m(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Tm)+. Since θm is a complete order isomorphism,
ϕk,m(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Sm)+
and therefore
ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUSk)+.
**
4.2. Inductive limits of operator systems
We now proceed to the inductive limit in the category of operator systems.
Let (Sk,{Cnk}n∈N,ek)k∈N
be a sequence of operator systems and let
ϕk:Sk→Sk+1 be a unital completely positive map, k∈N; thus,
[TABLE]
is an inductive system in OS.
Let F:OS→MOU be the forgetful functor;
consider the inductive limit limMOUF(Sk).
We will show that its Archimedeanisation
is an inductive limit for the inductive system (17).
Write limMOUF(Sk)=(S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞)
(recall that e¨∞=ϕ¨k,∞(ek), k∈N).
Let
[TABLE]
be the null space of S¨∞.
Set
[TABLE]
write qS:S¨∞→S∞ for the canonical quotient map and let
ϕk,∞=qS∘ϕ¨k,∞.
We may identify Mn(S¨∞/N) with Mn(S¨∞)/Mn(N) in a natural way.
Note that, since N is closed under the involution of S¨∞,
the space Mn(N) is closed under the involution of Mn(S¨∞).
The proof of the next lemma is analogous to that of
Lemma 3.10 and is omitted.
Lemma 4.8**.**
Let
Sk∈Mn(Sk).
The following are equivalent:
(i)
ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈(Mn(S¨∞)/Mn(N))h;
2. (ii)
ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)=ϕk,∞(n)(Re(Sk));
3. (iii)
ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)=ϕl,∞(n)(Sl)* for some l∈N and some Sl∈(Mn(Sl))h.*
For each n∈N, define
[TABLE]
Remark 4.9**.**
Suppose ϕ¨k,∞(n)(Sk)+Mn(N)∈(Mn(S∞))h.
We have that ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈Dn if and only if
for all r>0 there exist l∈N, Tl∈Mn(Sl) and m>max{k,l} such that
ϕ¨l,∞(n)(Tl)∈Mn(N) and
rem(n)+ϕk,m(n)(Sk)+ϕl,m(n)(Tl)∈Mn(Sm)+.
We may assume without loss of generality that l>k, Tl∈(Mn(Sl))h,
and
ϕk,m(Sk)∈Mn(Sm)h.
**
Note that the space
(S∞,{Dn}n∈N,e∞),
where e∞=ϕk,∞(ek) for some (and hence any) k∈N,
is the Archimedeanisation of the matrix ordered *-vector space
(S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞).
Proposition 4.10**.**
The triple (S∞,{Dn}n∈N,e∞)
is an operator system and ϕk,∞ is a unital completely positive map.
Proof.
Since (S∞,{Dn}n∈N,e∞) is the Archimedeanisation of the matrix ordered
*-vector space (S¨∞,{Cn}n∈N,e¨∞),
it follows from [32, Proposition 3.16] that it is an operator system.
By Remark 4.4, ϕ¨k,∞ is a unital completely positive map.
Since qS is a unital completely positive map,
we have that ϕk,∞ is a unital completely positive map.
∎
Theorem 4.11**.**
The triple
(S∞,{Dn}n∈N,e∞) is an inductive limit of the inductive system
[TABLE]
in OS.
Proof.
Suppose (T,{ψk}k∈N) is a pair consisting of an operator system and a family of unital completely positive maps ψk:Sk→T such that ψk+1∘ϕk=ψk for all k∈N.
By Theorem 4.6,
there exists a unique unital completely positive map ψ¨:S¨∞→T such that
ψ¨∘ϕ¨k,∞=ψk.
By Theorem 2.6, there exists a unique unital completely positive map ψ:S∞→T such that
ψ¨=ψ∘qS.
Thus
[TABLE]
∎
Using our general notational convention, we denote by limOSSk the inductive limit
(S∞,{ϕk,∞}k∈N) of
the inductive system ({Sk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N)
in the category OS.
We often write S∞=limOSSk.
Remark 4.12**.**
Let ({Sk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) be an inductive system in OS. For each n∈N, consider the induced inductive system
[TABLE]
in AOU.
Let us denote by ϕk,∞n the unital positive map associated to limAOUMn(Sk) so that ϕk,∞n:Mn(Sk)→limAOUMn(Sk) and
ϕk+1,∞n∘ϕk(n)=ϕk,∞n for all k∈N.
As a consequence of Remark 2.7,
one can see that limOSSk is the operator system
with underlying *-vector space
limAOUSk such that ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limOSSk)+ if and only if
ϕk,∞n(Sk)∈(limAOUMn(Sk))+.
**
Proposition 4.13**.**
Let
[TABLE]
be an inductive system in OS, and suppose that ϕk is a complete order embedding for each k∈N.
Then ϕk,∞ is a complete order embedding.
Proof.
The statement follows from Proposition 3.13 and Remark 4.12.
∎
Remark 4.14**.**
Let
({Sk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) and ({Tk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N) be
inductive systems in OS and let {θk}k∈N be a sequence of unital completely positive maps such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
It follows from Theorems 4.6 and
2.14 that there exists a unique unital completely positive map θ:limOSSk→limOSTk such that θ∘ϕk,∞=ψk,∞∘θk for all k∈N.
It follows from Remark 3.15 that if
each θk is a complete order isomorphism onto its image then θ is injective.
**
Remark 4.15**.**
Let ({Sk}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) and
({Tk}k∈N,{ψk}k∈N) be inductive systems in OS, and assume that
ϕk and ψk are unital complete order embeddings, k∈N.
If {θk}k∈N is a sequence of unital complete order embeddings such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
then θ:limOSSk→limOSTk is a unital complete order embedding.
Indeed, note first that, since the connecting maps are complete oder embeddings,
the null spaces, associated with the two inductive systems, coincide with the zero spaces
(see Proposition 3.13).
Suppose that Sk∈Mn(Sk) is such that
θ(n)∘ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUTk)+.
Then
ψk,∞(n)∘θk(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUTk)+.
Thus, for every r>0,
there exists m>k such that
reT(n)+ψk,m(n)∘θk(n)(Sk)∈Mn(Tm)+.
Since (16) commutes, this means that
θm(n)(ϕk,m(n)(Sk)+reSk(n))∈Mn(Tm)+.
Since θm is a unital complete order isomorphism,
ϕk,m(n)(Sk)+reSk(n)∈Mn(Sm)+.
Thus,
ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(limMOUSk)+.
**
Proposition 4.16**.**
Let S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS. For each k∈N, let ∥⋅∥k be the norm of
Sk. If sk∈Sk then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let sk∈Sk and suppose that liml→∞∥ϕk,l(sk)∥l<1. Then there exists m>k such that ∥ϕk,m(sk)∥m<1. By Lemma 2.4,
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
is an element of M2(limOSSk)+
and therefore ∥ϕk,∞(sk)∥≤1. This proves that
∥ϕk,∞(sk)∥≤liml→∞∥ϕk,n(sk)∥l.
To establish the reverse inequality,
suppose that ∥ϕk,∞(sk)∥<1.
Then
[TABLE]
Let r>0. Then there exist q≥k, Tq∈M2(Sq) and m>q such that
ϕ¨q,∞(2)(Tq)∈M2(N) and
[TABLE]
By Proposition 3.9 and Remark 4.12,
we can choose m to have the additional property that
[TABLE]
It now follows that
[TABLE]
and hence
∥ϕk,p(sk)∥≤1+2r for every p≥m.
Since r is arbitrary, we conclude that
liml→∞∥ϕk,l(sk)∥l≤1.
∎
4.3. Inductive limits of C*-algebras
If ({Ak}k∈N,{ϕk}k∈N) is
an inductive system in C∗ then it
is also an inductive system in OS. In the following theorem, we compare limOSAk and limC∗Ak.
Theorem 4.17**.**
Let
A1⟶ϕ1A2⟶ϕ2A3⟶ϕ3A4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in C∗, A0=limOSAk and
A=limC∗Ak.
Then A0 is unitally completely order isomorphic to a dense operator subsystem of
A.
Proof.
Consider the commutative diagram
[TABLE]
By Proposition 4.16 and
the definition of the inductive limit in C∗,
there exists an isometric linear map θ:A0→A with dense range.
We show that θ is a complete order isomorphism onto its image.
Suppose that Ak∈Mn(Ak) is such that
ϕk,∞(n)(Ak)∈Mn(limOSAk)+.
Fix r>0.
There exist l>k, m>l and Bl∈Mn(Al) such that
ϕ¨l,∞(n)(Bl)∈Mn(N) and
rem(n)+ϕk,m(n)(Ak)+ϕl,m(n)(Bl)∈Mn(Am)+.
Since ϕm,∞ is a unital
*-homomorphism and therefore a unital completely positive map,
we have that
[TABLE]
Since Mn(limC∗Ak) is an AOU space, ϕk,∞(n)(Ak)∈Mn(limC∗Ak)+.
Now suppose that ϕk,∞(n)(Ak)∈Mn(limC∗Ak)+,
where Ak∈Mn(Ak).
It follows that ϕk,∞(n)(Ak)=BB∗ where B∈Mn(limC∗Ak).
Assume B=limp→∞Bp where, for all p∈N,
Bp=ϕmp,∞(n)(Bmp) for some mp∈N and some
Bmp∈Amp.
We may assume, without loss of generality, that Ak∈Mn(Ak)h and mp>k for all p∈N.
For all r>0, there exists p0∈N such that
[TABLE]
Note that
[TABLE]
Fix r>0 and choose p,q∈N such that
[TABLE]
By [33, Corollary 5.6], the norm ∥⋅∥Mn(Aq) agrees with the order norm on Mn(Aq)h; thus,
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
and 2req(n)+ϕmp,q(n)(BmpBmp∗)∈Mn(Aq)+, we have that
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
Since this holds for all r>0, we have that ϕk,∞(n)(Ak)∈Mn(limOSAk)+.
Thus, θ is a unital complete order isomorphism onto its image.
∎
Corollary 4.18**.**
Let X1⟵α1X2⟵α2X3⟵α3X4⟵α4⋯
be an inverse system in Top such that Xk is compact and Hausdorff, k∈N.
Let C(X1)⟶ϕ1C(X2)⟶ϕ2C(X3)⟶ϕ3C(X4)⟶ϕ4⋯
be the canonically induced inductive system in C∗.
Then there exists a unital completely order isomorphic embedding from limOSC(Xk) into C(limTopXk).
Proof.
This follows from Proposition 4.17 and Remark 2.19.
∎
4.4. Inductive limits of OMIN and OMAX
Let V1 and V2 be AOU spaces and
ϕ:V1→V2 be a positive map.
It follows from [32, Theorem 3.4] that
ϕ is a completely positive map from OMIN(V1) into OMIN(V2) and, from
[32, Theorem 3.22], that
ϕ is a completely positive map from OMAX(V1) into OMAX(V2).
Therefore, given an inductive system
[TABLE]
in AOU, we have associated inductive systems
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
in OS.
In this section we show that the inductive limit
intertwines OMAX and that it intertwines OMIN when the connecting maps are order embeddings.
Lemma 4.19**.**
Let V and W be AOU spaces and let ϕ:V→W be a unital order embedding.
Then ϕ:OMIN(V)→OMIN(W) is a unital complete order embedding.
Proof.
Suppose that ϕ(n)(X)∈Mn(OMIN(W))+ for some X=(xi,j)i,j∈Mn(V),
and let g∈S(V).
By Lemma 3.12, there exists
g∈S(W) such that g∘ϕ=g.
It follows that
Let
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in AOU such that each ϕk is a unital order embedding.
Then OMIN(limAOUVk) is unitally completely order isomorphic to limOSOMIN(Vk).
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
be the corresponding inverse system in Top.
Note that each ϕk′ is surjective.
By Proposition 3.16, there exists a homeomorphism
α:S(limAOUVk)→limTopS(Vk).
Let α^:C(limTopS(Vk))→C(S(limAOUVk)) be the
unital *-isomorphism induced by α.
Consider, in addition, the induced inductive system in C∗ with *-isomorphic embeddings
[TABLE]
By Corollary 4.18, there exists a unital complete order embedding
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.10, for each k∈N the natural inclusion ιk:OMIN(Vk)→C(S(Vk)) is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding.
The diagram
[TABLE]
commutes since αk∣OMIN(Vk)=ϕk. By Remark 4.15, there exists a
unital complete order embedding
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding. Thus,
limOSOMIN(Vk) is completely order isomorphic to an operator subsystem T of
the C*-algebra C(S(limAOUVk)).
By Theorem 2.10, T=OMIN(limAOUVk).
∎
Theorem 4.21**.**
Let
V1⟶ϕ1V2⟶ϕ2V3⟶ϕ3V4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in AOU. Then OMAX(limAOUVk) is unitally completely order isomorphic to limOSOMAX(Vk).
Proof.
Recall that ϕk,∞:Vk→limAOUVk is a unital positive map for all k∈N.
By [32, Theorem 3.22], the
map ϕ^k,∞ that formally coincides with ϕk,∞,
but considered from OMAX(Vk) into OMAX(limAOUVk),
is unital and completely positive, k∈N.
Denote temporarily by ϕ~k,∞ the canonical map from
OMAX(Vk) into limOSOMAX(Vk).
By Theorem 4.11, there exists
a unique unital completely positive map ι:limOSOMAX(Vk)→OMAX(limAOUVk)
such that ι∘ϕ~k,∞=ϕ^k,∞.
Note that the natural map
j:limAOUVk→limOSOMAX(Vk) is a unital positive map.
By [32, Theorem 3.22],
j:OMAX(limAOUVk)→limOSOMAX(Vk)
is a unital completely positive map.
Finally note that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows that ι is a complete order isomorphism.
∎
Remark 4.22**.**
Let OMAX:AOU→OS be the functor sending
V to OMAX(V). As pointed out
in Section 2.3, OMAX is a left adjoint to the forgetful functor F:OS→AOU. Thus,
Theorem 4.21 is a consequence of
the well-known fact that left adjoints commute with colimits [25].
We have decided to include a proof relying on the features of the considered categories since
it clarifies the concrete workings in the case of interest. **
4.5. Inductive limits of universal C*-algebras
In this section, we consider the universal C*-algebra of an inductive limit operator system;
we show in Theorem 4.24 that Cu∗ commutes with limOS
when the connecting maps are complete order embeddings.
The result is well-known in the case of closed operator systems (see [24, Proposition 2.4]).
We have decided to include complete arguments in order to keep the exposition self-contained.
Let S and T be operator systems with universal C-algebras (Cu∗(S),ιS) and (Cu∗(T),ιT),
respectively, and let ϕ:S→T be a unital complete order embedding.
Then the
-homomorphism ϕ:Cu∗(S)→Cu∗(T)
with the property that ϕ∘ιS=ιT∘ϕ is injective.
Clealry, if
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
is an inductive system in OS then
[TABLE]
is an inductive system in C∗.
Let
πk:Cu∗(Sk)→limC∗Cu∗(Sk) be the canonical unital *-homomorphism,
k∈N.
Theorem 4.24**.**
*Let S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a unital complete order embedding. Then
Cu∗(limOSSk) is -isomorphic to limC∗Cu∗(Sk).
Proof.
Set S∞=limOSSk and
let ιS∞:S∞→Cu∗(S∞) be the canonical embedding.
Consider the following commutative diagram
[TABLE]
By Lemma 4.23,
all maps in (19) are
unital complete order embeddings.
By Remark 4.15, there exists a unique unital complete order embedding
ι:S∞→limOSCu∗(Sk) such that
[TABLE]
By Proposition 4.17, the natural map
id:limOSCu∗(Sk)→limC∗Cu∗(Sk)
is a unital complete order embedding; thus,
ι:S∞→limC∗Cu∗(Sk)
is a unital complete order embedding.
By Proposition 2.11, there exists a unique unital *-homomorphism
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
Note that
ιS∞∘ϕk,∞:Sk→Cu∗(S∞)
is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding, k∈N.
By Proposition 2.11, there exists a unital *-homomorphism
for all k∈N. By the universal property of the inductive limit in the category of C*-algebras, there exists a unique unital *-homomorphism
μ:limC∗Cu∗(Sk)→Cu∗(S∞)
such that
[TABLE]
Note that μ∘ν=idCu∗(S∞) and ν∘μ=idlimC∗Cu∗(Sk). Indeed, by (20), (21), (22) and (23),
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Since μ∘ν and ν∘μ coincide with the identities on dense operator systems, generating the
corresponding C*-algebras, we have that μ is a *-isomorphism.
Finally, note that μ is unital, since
[TABLE]
∎
Corollary 4.25**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding. Then
limOSCu∗(Sk) is unitally completely order isomorphic to an operator subsystem of
Cu∗(limOSSk).
Proof.
By Theorem 4.17, id:limOSCu∗(Sk)→limC∗Cu∗(Sk)
is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding.
By Theorem 4.24, there exists a unital complete order isomorphism
μ:limC∗Cu∗(Sk)→Cu∗(limOSSk). Therefore μ∘id:limOSCu∗(Sk)→Cu∗(limOSSk) is a unital completely order isomorphic embedding.
∎
4.6. Quotients of inductive limits of operator systems
In this subsection, we relate inductive limits with the quotient theory of operator systems.
We first recall the basic facts about quotient operator systems, as
developed in [19].
Let S be an operator system and let J⊆S be a subspace. If there exists an operator system T and a unital completely positive map ϕ:S→T such that J=kerϕ, then we say that J is a kernel.
If J is a kernel, we let q:S→S/J be the quotient map and
equip the quotient vector space S/J with the involution given by (x+J)∗=x∗+J.
For n∈N, let
[TABLE]
It was shown in [19, Section 3] that
(S/J,{Cn(S/J)}n∈N,e+J) is an operator system
(called henceforth a quotient operator system); moreover, the following holds:
Theorem 4.26**.**
Let S and T be operator systems and let J be a kernel in S. If ϕ:S→T is a unital completely positive map with J⊆kerϕ then the map
ϕ:S/J→T,
defined by the identity ϕ∘q=ϕ, is unital and completely positive.
Furthermore, if P is an operator system and ψ:S→P is a unital completely positive map such that whenever T is an operator system and ϕ:S→T is a unital completely positive map with J⊆kerϕ there exists a unique unital completely positive map ϕ:P→T
with the property that ϕ∘ψ=ϕ,
then there exists a complete order isomorphism φ:P→S/J such that φ∘ψ=q.
If X is a (not necessarily complete) operator space and Y is a closed subspace of X,
then the quotient X/Y has a canonical operator space structure given by assigning Mn(X/Y) the norm arising from the identification Mn(X/Y)=Mn(X)/Mn(Y), that is, by setting
[TABLE]
If S is an operator system and J is a kernel, then S/J can be equipped,
on one hand, with the operator space structure inherited from the quotient operator system S/J
and, on the other hand, with the operator space structure given by (24). It is proved in [19, Section 4] that the matrix norms obtained
via these two methods are in general distinct.
If J is a kernel in S such that the operator space quotient and the operator system quotient are completely isometric then we call Jcompletely biproximinal.
Suppose that
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯ is an inductive system in OS and that,
for each k∈N, Jk is a kernel in Sk such that ϕk(Jk)⊆Jk+1.
Let qk:Sk→Sk/Jk be the quotient map.
By Theorem 4.26, there is a natural inductive system in OS,
[TABLE]
such that
[TABLE]
In this subsection we prove that if each of the Jk is completely biproximinal, then the inductive limit of (25) is a quotient operator system.
Lemma 4.27**.**
Let S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS.
For each k∈N, let Jk be a completely biproximinal kernel in Sk such that ϕk(Jk)⊆Jk+1.
Then limJk=def∪k∈Nϕk,∞(Jk) is a kernel in limOSSk.
Proof.
Set S∞=limOSSk and
J=limJk; clearly, J is a closed subspace of S∞.
Note that
qk+1∘ϕk:Sk→Sk+1/Jk+1 is a unital completely positive map.
Consider the commuting diagram
[TABLE]
By Theorem 4.11, there exists a (unique)
unital completely positive map
q:S∞→limOS(Sk/Jk),
such that
[TABLE]
We show that kerq=J.
Since kerq is closed, in order to prove that J⊆kerq,
it suffices to show that ∪k∈Nϕk,∞(Jk)⊆kerq.
But, if yk∈Jk then q∘ϕk,∞(yk)=ψk,∞∘qk(yk)=0.
Now suppose that
ϕk,∞(sk)∈kerq for some sk∈Sk;
then ψk,∞∘qk(sk)=q∘ϕk,∞(sk)=0.
By Proposition 4.16,
[TABLE]
For l∈N, let ml∈N be such that
[TABLE]
Since Jml is completely biproximinal, there exists yml∈Jml such that
[TABLE]
The map ϕml,∞ is unital and completely positive; therefore it is contractive
and hence, for all l∈N,
[TABLE]
Thus, ϕml,∞(yml)∈J and
ϕml,∞(yml)→l→∞ϕk,∞(sk), showing that
kerq⊆J.
∎
In view of Lemma 4.27, the operator system
(limOSSk)/(limJk) is well-defined. We let
γ:limOSSk→(limOSSk)/(limJk) be the corresponding quotient map.
Theorem 4.28**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS.
Let Jk be a completely biproximinal kernel in Sk such that
ϕk(Jk)⊆Jk+1, k∈N.
Then there exists a unital complete order isomorphism ρ:limOS(Sk/Jk)→(limOSSk)/(limJk) such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set S∞=limOSSk.
Let T be an operator system and
θ:S∞→T
be a unital completely positive map
such that limJk⊆kerθ;
then θ∘ϕk,∞:Sk→T is a unital completely positive map, k∈N.
Let k∈N and suppose yk∈Jk;
by definition, ϕk,∞(yk)∈limJk and so θ∘ϕk,∞(yk)=0.
Thus, Jk⊆ker(θ∘ϕk,∞). By Theorem 4.26, there exists a unique unital completely positive map \big{(}\widetilde{\theta\circ\phi_{k,\infty}}\big{)}:\mathcal{S}_{k}/J_{k}\rightarrow\mathcal{T} such that
where q:S∞→limOS(Sk/Jk) is the map defined through (27).
Thus, θ∘q=θ. By Theorem 4.26,
there exists a unital complete order isomorphism ρ:limOS(Sk/Jk)→(limOSSk)/(limJk)
such that ρ∘q=γ. This implies that
ρ∘q∘ϕk,∞=γ∘ϕk,∞
which, by virtue of (27), means that
ρ∘ψk,∞∘qk=γ∘ϕk,∞, k∈N.
∎
4.7. Inductive limits and tensor products
Let
[TABLE]
be an inductive system in OS. Let T be an operator system; for any functorial operator system tensor product μ, we may define the following inductive system in OS:
[TABLE]
We are interested to know if limOS(Sk⊗μT) is completely order isomorphic to (limOSSk)⊗μT.
We first discuss the canonical linear isomorphism between these vector spaces.
Recalling the notation from Subsection 3.3,
let N be the null space for the inductive system (30) and let Nμ be the null space for the inductive system (31).
Let ψk=ϕk⊗idT and
ψk,∞:Sk⊗μT→limOS(Sk⊗μT) be the unital completely positive map
associated to the inductive system (31).
Lemma 4.29**.**
If x∈(limOSSk)⊙T
then there exist k,n∈N, ski∈Sk and ti∈T, 1≤i≤n, such that
the set {ti}i=1n is linearly independent and
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since limOSSk=∪k∈Nϕk,∞(Sk),
there exists n∈N, ki∈N, ski∈Ski and ti∈T, i=1,…,n,
such that
x=∑i=1nϕki,∞(ski)⊗ti.
Let k=max{ki:1≤i≤n} and ski=ϕki,k(ski), i=1,…,n.
Choosing n to be minimal with this property ensures that {ti}i=1n is linearly independent.
∎
Proposition 4.30**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS. Let T be an operator system and μ be a functorial operator system tensor product.
Then the mapping
α:(limOSSk)⊙T→limOS(Sk⊗μT) given by
[TABLE]
is a well-defined linear bijection.
Proof.
Suppose that (ϕk,∞(sk),t1)=(ϕl,∞(sl),t2)
for some sk∈Sk,sl∈Sl where k<l and t1,t2∈T. Then
ϕl,∞(ϕk,l(sk)−sl)=0
and t1=t2.
By Proposition 4.16,
limp→∞∥ϕl,p(ϕk,l(sk)−sl)∥Sp=0 and thus
[TABLE]
where the last inequality follows from [20, Proposition 3.4].
By Proposition 4.16,
ψl,∞(ψk,l(sk⊗t1)−sl⊗t2)=0 and hence ψk,∞(sk⊗t1)=ψl,∞(sl⊗t2).
It follows that the map
α:(limOSSk)×T→limOS(Sk⊗μT), given by
α(ϕk,∞(sk),t)=ψk,∞(sk⊗t), is well-defined.
The map α is clearly bilinear, and its linearisation
α:(limOSSk)⊙T→limOS(Sk⊗μT) satisfies
[TABLE]
We show that α is bijective. To show that α is surjective, suppose that
y∈limOS(Sk⊗μT) and write
[TABLE]
where ski∈Sk, k∈N, and ti∈T, 1≤i≤n. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
To see that α is injective,
let x∈(limOSSk)⊙T with α(x)=0.
Using Lemma 4.29, write
x=∑i=1nϕk,∞(ski)⊗ti
for some k∈N,ski∈Sk, 1≤i≤n,
and a linearly independent family {ti}i=1n⊆T.
Since
Let W=span{t1,t2,…,tn}⊆T
and define, for each l=1,…,n, a linear functional fl:W→C by letting
[TABLE]
Each fl is bounded and may be extended to a bounded functional fl:T→C.
It follows from [20, Proposition 3.7] that for any k∈N and
1≤l≤n, ∥idSk⊗fl∥≤∥fl∥. Therefore, for each l=1,…,n,
[TABLE]
By Proposition 4.16, ϕk,∞(skl)=0 for each
l=1,…,n and hence x=0.
∎
Throughout this section, unless otherwise specified, we let α denote the map defined
by (32).
Remark 4.31**.**
Let k∈N and R∈Mn(Sk⊗μT). We have that
ψ¨k,∞(n)(R)∈Mn(Nμ) if and only if (ϕk,∞⊗idT)(n)(R)=0.
Proof.
If R=(ri,j)i,j∈Mn(Sk⊗μT) and ψ¨k,∞(n)(R)∈Mn(Nμ)
then
ψk,∞(ri,j)=0 for all i,j and hence, by the injectivity of the map α, established in
Proposition 4.30, we have that
(ϕk,∞⊗idT)(ri,j)=0 for all i,j. Thus, (ϕk,∞⊗idT)(n)(R)=0.
Conversely, if (ϕk,∞⊗idT)(n)(R)=0 then
ψk,∞(ri,j)=α((ϕk,∞⊗idT)(ri,j))=0 for all i,j and hence
ψ¨k,∞(n)(R)∈Mn(Nμ).
∎
Theorem 4.32**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS. Let T be an operator system and μ be a functorial operator system tensor product.
Then the inverse
α−1:limOS(Sk⊗μT)→(limOSSk)⊗μT
of the map α
is a unital completely positive map.
Proof.
Suppose ψk,∞(n)(R)∈Mn(limOS(Sk⊗T))+ for some
R∈Mn(Sk⊗μT)h, k∈N.
Then for every r>0 there exist l∈N, P∈Sl⊗μT and m>max{k,l} such that
ψ¨l,∞(n)(P)∈Mn(Nμ) and
Since α−1∘ψk,∞=ϕk,∞⊗idT, the proof is complete.
∎
Theorem 4.33**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a complete order isomorphism onto its image. Let T be an operator system and μ be a functorial, injective operator system tensor product.
Then the map α:(limOSSk)⊗μT→limOS(Sk⊗μT) is a unital complete order isomorphism.
Proof.
Note that the maps ϕk,∞⊗idT, k∈N, are completely positive and
[TABLE]
We will show that the pair
[TABLE]
satisfies the universal property of the inductive limit limOS(Sk⊗μT).
Suppose that (R,{ρk}k∈N) is another pair consisting of an operator system and a family of unital completely positive maps ρk:Sk⊗μT→R such that
[TABLE]
Suppose that (ϕk,∞(sk),t1)=(ϕl,∞(sl),t2) for some
k,l∈N,sk∈Sk,sl∈Sl and t1,t2∈T.
By Proposition 3.13,
there exists m>max{k,l} such that ϕk,m(sk)=ϕl,m(sl).
By (33),
[TABLE]
It follows that the map θ:(limOSSk)×T→R, given by
[TABLE]
is well-defined.
Clearly, θ is bilinear; let
θ:(limOSSk)⊗μT→R be its linearisation.
Thus, θ∘(ϕk,∞⊗idT)=ρk, k∈N.
Since ρk is unital, k∈N, we have that θ is unital.
We check that θ is completely positive.
Suppose that X∈Mn(Sk⊗μT) is such that
[TABLE]
By Proposition 4.13,
ϕk,∞ is a unital complete order embedding.
Since μ is an injective functorial tensor product, ϕk,∞⊗idT is a complete order embedding.
Therefore X∈Mn(Sk⊗μT)+ and, since ρk is completely positive,
[TABLE]
It follows that θ is completely positive, and the proof is complete.
∎
As a direct consequence of Theorem 4.33, we
obtain the following fact, which was observed in [24] in the case of complete operator systems.
Corollary 4.34**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a complete order isomorphism onto its image,
and let T be an operator system. Then limOS(Sk⊗minT) is unitally completely order isomorphic to (limOSSk)⊗minT.
Although the maximal operator system tensor product is not injective,
the conclusion of Theorem 4.33 still holds for it, as we show
in the next theorem. We note that, in the case where the connecting maps
are complete order embeddings, this result was first stated in [23].
Theorem 4.35**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS and let T be an operator system. Then limOS(Sk⊗maxT) is unitally completely order isomorphic to (limOSSk)⊗maxT.
Proof.
By Proposition 4.30,
α:(limOSSk)⊗maxT→limOS(Sk⊗maxT) is a linear bijection.
Set Dn=(α−1)(n)(Mn(limOS(Sk⊗maxT))+), n∈N.
By Lemma 2.8, {Dn}n∈N
is an operator system structure on (limOSSk)⊙T.
We claim that {Dn}n∈N is a tensor product operator system structure.
Suppose that P∈Mp(limOSSk)+ and Q∈Mq(T)+.
For every r>0 there exist k,l∈N, R∈Mp(Sl), S∈Mp(Sk)h and m>max{k,l} such that
ϕ¨l,∞(p)(R)∈Mp(N), ϕk,∞(n)(S)=P and
[TABLE]
We have that S⊗Q∈Mpq(Sk⊗maxT)h,
[TABLE]
and, by Remark 4.31,
ψ¨l,∞(R⊗Q)∈Mpq(Nμ). Moreover,
[TABLE]
belongs to Mpq(Sm⊗maxT)+,
that is,
[TABLE]
Since Q≤∥Q∥eT(q), we conclude that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
Since this holds for every r>0, we have that
[TABLE]
However,
ψk,∞(pq)(S⊗Q)=α(pq)(P⊗Q), and we conclude that
P⊗Q∈Dpq.
Suppose next that f:limOSSk→Mp and g:T→Mq are unital completely positive maps
and that L∈Dt, for some t∈N. We will show that (f⊗g)(t)(L)∈Mpqt+,
thus obtaining that {Dn}n∈N is an operator system tensor product structure on
(limOSSk)⊙T.
Let T=α(t)(L); we have that T∈Mt(limOS(Sk⊗maxT))+.
Fix r>0. Then there exist k,l∈N, m>max{k,l},
R∈Mt(Sl) and S∈Mt(Sk⊗maxT)h
such that ψ¨k,∞(S)=T, ψl,∞(R)∈Mt(Nmax) and
[TABLE]
By the definition of the maximal operator system structure, there exist
a,b∈N, A∈Mab,t, P∈Ma(Sm)+ and Q∈Mb(T)+ such that
Suppose H is a Hilbert space and
θ:(limOSSk)×T→B(H)
is a unital jointly completely positive map.
Let θ denote the linearisation of θ. Then
θ:(limOSSk)⊗maxT→B(H)
is a unital completely positive map.
Since
ϕk,∞⊗idT:Sk⊗maxT→(limOSSk)⊗maxT
is a unital completely positive map, we have that
θ∘(ϕk,∞⊗idT):Sk⊗maxT→B(H)
is a unital completely positive map, k∈N. Furthermore,
[TABLE]
By Theorem 4.11,
there exists a unique unital completely positive map
η:limOS(Sk⊗maxT)→B(H)
such that
η∘ψk,∞=θ∘(ϕk,∞⊗idT).
Thus,
[TABLE]
Therefore θ=η∘α; that is, θ∘α−1=η. It follows that θ∘α−1 is a unital completely positive map; that is, θ is completely positive
for the operator system structure {Dn}n∈N.
By Theorem 2.5, α is a completely positive map.
∎
Our next aim is to identify conditions that guarantee that the inductive limit intertwines the commuting tensor product.
Lemma 4.36**.**
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) be an operator system and let S be the completion of S. If
Cn is the completion of Cn, n∈N then (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) is an operator system.
Moreover, if ρ:S→B(H) is a unital complete isometry then S is
unitally completely order isomorphic to the concrete operator system ρ(S).
Proof.
Let ρ:S→B(H) is a unital complete isometry, and let T=ρ(S).
We equip T with the canonical operator system structure arising from its inclusion T⊆B(H).
We claim that
Mn(T)+=Mn(S)+, n∈N.
It suffices to establish the identity in the case n=1.
Suppose that x∈T+, r>0, and let (xk)k∈N⊆Sh be a sequence such that
rI+x=limk→∞xk. By [26, Theorem 2], there exists k0∈N such that
xk≥0, k≥k0.
It follows that rI+x∈S+, for every r>0. Thus, x∈S+.
The statements of the lemma are now evident.
∎
Lemma 4.37**.**
Let S and T be an operator systems and let S be the completion of S.
Then idS⊗idT:S⊗maxT→S⊗maxT is a complete order isomorphism onto its image.
Proof.
Fix n∈N and suppose that
U∈Mn(S⊗maxT)∩Mn(S⊗maxT)+.
Since the set of hermitian elements is closed, U=U∗.
For all r>0, we have that
r(eS⊗eT)(n)+U=α(Pr⊗Qr)α∗ where α∈Mn,km, Pr∈Mk(S)+ and Qr∈Mm(T)+ for some k,m∈N.
By Lemma 4.36,
Pr=liml→∞Plr, for some sequence (Plr)l∈N⊆Mn(S)+.
Let Xlr=α(Plr⊗Qr)α∗, l∈N. It follows that r(eS⊗eT)(n)+U=liml→∞Xlr
with Xlr∈Mn(S⊗maxT)+ for all r>0.
Fix r>0 and choose l∈N such that
[TABLE]
We have
[TABLE]
Thus
r(eS⊗eT)(n)+U∈Mn(S⊗maxT)+.
Since this holds for all r>0 and Mn(S⊗maxT) is an AOU space, U∈Mn(S⊗maxT)+.
∎
In the case the inductive limit is taken in the category of complete operator systems,
Theorem 4.39 below follows from [24, Proposition 4.1].
In our proof, we also supply some details that were not fully provided in [24].
First we need a lemma that may be interesting in its own right.
Lemma 4.38**.**
*Let S and T be operator systems, and
ι:S⊗cT→Cu∗(S⊗cT) and
j:S⊗cT→Cu∗(S)⊗maxCu∗(T)
be the canonical embeddings. Then there exists a
-isomorphism δ:Cu∗(S)⊗maxCu∗(T)→Cu∗(S⊗cT) such that
δ∘j=ι.
Proof.
Let H be a Hilbert space and ρ:S⊗cT→B(H) be a unital completely positive map.
Let ρS:S→B(H) and ρT:T→B(H) be the unital completely positive maps
such that ρ(x⊗y)=ρS(x)ρT(y), x∈S, y∈T.
Let ρ~S:Cu∗(S)→B(H) and ρ~T:Cu∗(T)→B(H)
be their canonical *-homomorphic extensions.
Since the ranges of ρS and ρT commute, so do the ranges of
ρ~S and ρ~T.
Let θ:Cu∗(S)⊗maxCu∗(T)→B(H) be the -homomorphism
given by
θ(x⊗y)=ρ~S(x)ρ~T(y), x∈Cu∗(S), y∈Cu∗(T).
Note that θ∘j=ρ.
Thus, the pair (Cu∗(S)⊗maxCu∗(T),j) satisfies the universal property of
Cu∗(S⊗cT). The conclusion follows from the uniqueness of the universal C-algebra.
∎
Theorem 4.39**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a complete order embedding, and let T be an operator system.
Assume that the map
ϕk⊗idT is a complete order embedding of Sk⊗cT into Sk+1⊗cT, k∈N.
Then limOS(Sk⊗cT) is unitally completely order isomorphic to (limOSSk)⊗cT.
Proof.
Let ιT:T→Cu∗(T) and ιk:Sk→Cu∗(Sk),
k∈N, be the corresponding canonical embeddings.
Consider the following inductive system in C∗, and therefore in OS:
[TABLE]
where ηk is the extension of ϕk, k∈N, guaranteed by the universal property of the universal C*-algebra.
By Lemma 4.23, ηk is a *-isomorphic embedding for all k∈N.
Let
[TABLE]
be the unital complete order embeddings associated with the inductive system (34).
Consider the inductive system
[TABLE]
in OS,
where ρk=ηk⊗idCu∗(T), k∈N.
By assumption, the map
ϕk⊗idT:Sk⊗cT→Sk+1⊗cT is a complete order isomorphic embedding, k∈N.
By Lemmas 4.23 and 4.38,
ρk is a complete order embedding, k∈N.
Let
[TABLE]
be the unital completely order isomorphic embeddings associated with the inductive system (35), and
let
α:(limOSSk)⊙T→limOS(Sk⊗cT)
be the linear bijection from Proposition 4.30.
Note that
[TABLE]
where {ψk,∞}k∈N are the unital completely order isomorphic embeddings associated to
limOS(Sk⊗cT) (with connecting mappings ψk=ϕk⊗id, k∈N).
Let
[TABLE]
be the unital complete order isomorphism such that
is a completely order isomorphic embedding.
By Theorem 4.24, there exists a unital
*-isomorphism
μ:limC∗Cu∗(Sk)→Cu∗(limOSSk)
such that
[TABLE]
for all k∈N, where ιS∞:limOSSk→Cu∗(limOSSk)
is the canonical embedding. We have that
[TABLE]
is a unital *-isomorphism.
By the definition of the commuting tensor product,
[TABLE]
is a unital complete order isomorphism onto its image.
We will show that
[TABLE]
since \big{(}\mu\otimes{\mathop{\rm id}}_{C_{u}^{*}(\mathcal{T})}\big{)}\circ\gamma\circ\widetilde{\beta}^{-1}\circ\iota and
ιS∞⊗ιT are complete order embeddings, it will follow
from Lemma 2.9 that
α is a complete order embedding.
By (36), (37), (39) and (40), for every k∈N, we have
[TABLE]
This establishes (41), and the proof is complete.
∎
Recall [19] that an operator system S is
said to possess the double commutant expectation property
if, for every complete order embedding S⊆B(H) (where H is a Hilbert space),
there exists a completely positive map from B(H) into the double commutant S′′ of S
that fixes S element-wise.
Corollary 4.40**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
be an inductive system in OS such that each ϕk is a completely order isomorphic embedding, and let T be an operator system.
Assume that Sk satisfies the double commutant expectation property for each k∈N.
Then limOS(Sk⊗cT) is unitally completely order isomorphic to (limOSSk)⊗cT.
Proof.
Since Sk satisfies the double commutant expectation property,
[19, Theorems 7.1 and 7.3] imply that
the map
ϕk⊗idT:Sk⊗cT→Sk+1⊗cT is a complete order embedding, k∈N.
The claim now follows from Theorem 4.39.
∎
5. Inductive limits of operator C*-systems
In this section,
we adapt our construction of the inductive limit of operator systems to
the category of operator C*-systems.
We recall some notions and results that will be required shortly.
Let (S,{Cn}n∈N,e) be a complete
operator system and A be
a unital C*-algebra such that S is an A-bimodule. Let us denote the bimodule action by ⋅ so that (a1a2)⋅s=a1⋅(a2⋅s) whenever s∈S and a1,a1∈A.
We assume that a⋅e=e⋅a, a∈A, and equip Mn(S) with a bimodule action of Mn(A) by letting
(ai,j)⋅(si,j)=(∑k=1nai,k⋅sk,j) and
(si,j)⋅(ai,j)=(∑k=1nsi,k⋅ak,j).
If
[TABLE]
we say that
S is an operatorA-system or that the pair (S,A) is an operator C-system*.
Let (S,A) and (T,B) be operator C*-systems. A pair (ϕ,π) will be
called an operator C-system homomorphism*
if ϕ:S→T is a unital completely positive map, π:A→B is a unital -homomorphism and ϕ(a1⋅s⋅a2)=π(a1)⋅ϕ(s)⋅π(a2) for all a1,a2∈A and s∈S. We write (ϕ,π):(S,A)→(T,B). We call the operator C-system homomorphism (ϕ,π) an operator C-system monomorphism* if ϕ is completely isometric.
If (ϕ,π):(S,A)→(T,B) and (ψ,ρ):(T,B)→(R,C) are operator
C*-system homomorphisms, we write (ϕ,π)∘(ψ,ρ) for the pair (ϕ∘ψ,π∘ρ);
it is straightforward to see that the latter is an operator C*-system homomorphism.
The following theorem is contained in [29, Chapter 15].
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let (S,A) be an operator C-system. Then there exists a Hilbert space H and
an operator C*-system monomorphism (Φ,Π):(S,A)→(B(H),B(H))
such that the order unit of S is mapped to the identity operator.*
We denote by OC∗S the category whose objects are operator
C*-systems and whose morphisms are operator C*-system homomorphisms.
Before considering inductive systems in OC∗S, we make some observations which we shall refer to later in the section.
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯ be an inductive system in OS.
If skn∈Skn and
(ϕkn,∞(skn))n∈N is a Cauchy sequence in limOSSk
then there exists a sequence (mn)n∈N⊆N such that (ϕkn,mn(skn))n∈N is a bounded sequence.
Proof.
Clearly,
there exists M∈N such that ∥ϕkn,∞(skn)∥limOSSk<M, n∈N.
By Proposition 4.16, for each n∈N, there exists mn∈N such that ∥ϕkn,mn(skn)∥Smn<M.
∎
We fix throughout the section an inductive system
[TABLE]
in OC∗S. Thus,
S1⟶ϕ1S2⟶ϕ2S3⟶ϕ3S4⟶ϕ4⋯
is an inductive system in OS,
A1⟶π1A2⟶π2A3⟶π3A4⟶π4⋯
is an inductive system in C∗,
Sk is an operator Ak-system and (ϕk,πk) is an operator C*-system homomorphism, k∈N.
We set
[TABLE]
and S∞ to be the completion of S∞.
By Theorem 4.17, A∞ is the completion of A∞.
We proceed with the construction of the inductive limit of (\refeq:indlimitoas1).
Let a∈A∞ and s∈S∞. Then a=limn→∞πkn,∞(akn) and s=limn→∞ϕln,∞(sln) for some akn∈Akn and sln∈Sln.
Letting
mn=max{kn,ln}, amn=πkn,mn(akn) and smn=ϕln,mn(sln), we have
[TABLE]
We let
[TABLE]
Proposition 5.3**.**
The operations (43) are well-defined and turn
S∞ into an A∞-bimodule.
Proof.
It is easy to see that \big{(}\phi_{m_{n},\infty}(a_{m_{n}}\cdot s_{m_{n}})\big{)}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is a Cauchy sequence.
Moreover, if
a=limn→∞πmn,∞(bmn)∈A∞
and
s=limn→∞ϕmn,∞(tmn)∈S∞,
a straightforward calculation shows that
[TABLE]
It follows that the left action in (43) is well-defined; similarly, the right action is well-defined.
The fact that these operations are module actions is straightforward.
We check, for example, the property (a⋅s)⋅b=a⋅(s⋅b):
writing
b=limn→∞πmn,∞(bmn)∈limC∗Ak, we have
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 5.4**.**
Note that, if k∈N, a,b∈Ak and s∈Sk then
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.5**.**
If S∈Mn(S∞)+ and A∈Mn(A∞) then A∗⋅S⋅A∈Mn(S∞)+.
Proof.
Write S=ϕk,∞(n)(Sk)∈Mn(S∞)+
and
A=πk,∞(n)(Ak)∈Mn(A∞), where Sk∈Mn(Sk) and Ak∈Mn(Ak) for some k.
Then Ak∗⋅Sk⋅Ak∈Mn(Sk)+. Since
the map ϕk,∞ is completely positive, Remark 5.4 shows that
[TABLE]
∎
Proposition 5.6**.**
The space S∞ is an operator A∞-system
and (ϕk,∞,πk,∞) is an operator C-system homomorphism
from (Sk,Ak) into (S∞,A∞)
such that (ϕk+1,∞,πk+1,∞)∘(ϕk,πk)=(ϕk,∞,πk,∞),
k∈N.*
Proof.
By Proposition 5.3, S∞ is a A∞-bimodule;
it is clear that S∞ is a complete operator system.
Suppose S∈Mn(S∞)+ and A∈Mn(A∞) so that S=limp→∞Sp
and A=limp→∞Ap
where Sp∈Mn(S∞)+ and Ap∈Mn(A∞).
Then A∗⋅S⋅A=limp→∞Ap∗⋅Sp⋅Ap
and, by Lemma 5.5,
Ap∗⋅Sp⋅Ap∈Mn(S∞)+
for all p∈N.
Since the cone Mn(S∞)+ is closed, A∗⋅S⋅A∈Mn(S∞)+.
∎
Theorem 5.7**.**
The triple (S∞,A∞,{ϕk,∞,πk,∞}k∈N)
is an inductive limit of the inductive system
[TABLE]
in OC∗S.
Proof.
Suppose \big{(}(\mathcal{T},\mathcal{B}),\{(\psi_{k},\rho_{k})\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\big{)} is a pair consisting of a complete operator C*-system and a family of operator C*-system homomorphisms
(ψk,ρk):(Sk,Ak)→(T,B) such that (ψk+1,ρk+1)∘(ϕk,πk)=(ψk,ρk) for all k∈N. By Theorem 4.11,
there exists a unique unital completely positive map ψ:S∞→T such that
ψ∘ϕk,∞=ψk.
Let ψ:S∞→T
be the continuous extension of ψ.
Lemma 4.36 easily implies that
ψ is completely positive.
By Section 2.5, there exists a unique unital
*-homomorphism ρ:limC∗Ak→B such that ρ∘πk,∞=ρk.
Suppose that
a=limn→∞πmn,∞(amn),b=limn→∞πmn,∞(bmn)∈A∞
and
s=limn→∞ϕmn,∞(smn)∈S∞;
then
[TABLE]
This completes the proof.
∎
We denote the inductive limit whose existence is established in
Theorem 5.7
by limOC∗S(Sk,Ak) or limOC∗SSk, when the context is clear.
Remark 5.8**.**
Let \big{(}\{\mathcal{S}_{k},\mathcal{A}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}},\{\phi_{k},\pi_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\big{)} and \big{(}\{\mathcal{T}_{k},\mathcal{B}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}},\{\psi_{k},\rho_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\big{)} be inductive systems in OC∗S and let {(θk,φk)}k∈N be a sequences of operator C*-system homomorphisms such that the following diagrams commute:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
It follows from Theorem 2.14 and Theorem 5.7 that there exists a unique operator C*-system homomorphism
[TABLE]
such that
(θ,φ)∘(ϕk,∞,πk,∞)=(ψk,∞,ρk,∞)∘(θk,φk)
for all k∈N.
**
Remark 5.9**.**
Suppose that
\big{(}\{\mathcal{S}_{k},\mathcal{A}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}},\{\phi_{k},\pi_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\big{)} and
\big{(}\{\mathcal{T}_{k},\mathcal{B}_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}},\{\psi_{k},\rho_{k}\}_{k\in\mathbb{N}}\big{)} are inductive systems in OC∗S, and let {(θmk,φmk)}k∈N and {(μnk,νnk)}k∈N be sequences of
operator C*-system monomorphisms such that the diagrams
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
commute.
By Theorem 5.7, limOC∗S(Sk,Ak) and limOC∗S(Tk,Bk) are isomorphic.
In particular, limOC∗SSk is unitally completely order isomorphic to limOC∗STk and limC∗Ak is unitally *-isomorphic to limC∗Bk.
**
6. Inductive limits of graph operator systems
In this section, we examine inductive limits of graph operator systems, viewing them as the operator systems
of topological graphs via the theory of topological equivalence relations [34]. We identify the C*-envelope of
such an operator system, and prove an isomorphism theorem; these can be viewed as a
topological version of recent results from [28].
We also establish a version of the Glimm Theorem for this class of operator systems.
As our results rely crucially on [34] (and thus on [35], [36], [37] and [10])),
for the convenience of the reader, we often provide the background and details.
A UHF algebra [16]
(or, otherwise, uniformly hyper-finite C*-algebra) is a C*-algebra
which is (*-isomorphic to) the inductive limit of an inductive system
[TABLE]
where πk is a unital *-homomorphism, k∈N.
UHF algebras and their classification appear extensively in the literature, see for example [9], [27] or [38]. For each k∈N, let ei,jk denote the matrix in Mnk with 1 at the
(i,j)th entry and [math] elsewhere and let lk=nknk+1.
We have that
[TABLE]
We call ei,jk the canonical matrix units.
Let A be a C*-algebra. A C*-subalgebra of A is called a maximal abelian self-adjoint algebra
(masa, for short)
if it is abelian and not properly contained in another abelian C*-subalgebra of A.
Let
[TABLE]
be the inductive system in C∗ induced by (44),
where Dk is the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in Mnk for each k∈N. A proof of the following result may be found in [34, Proposition 4.1].
Proposition 6.1**.**
The C-algebra limC∗Dk is a masa in limC∗Mnk.*
Denote by Δ(C) the Gelfand spectrum of an abelian C*-algebra C.
We call limC∗Dk the canonical masa in the UHF algebra limC∗Mnk.
Since limC∗Dk is an abelian C*-algebra, we have that limC∗Dk is
*-isomorphic to C(X∞) where X∞=Δ(limC∗Dk).
For the following remark, which is a special case of
Remark 2.19,
let Xk=Δ(Dk).
Remark 6.2**.**
The space X∞ is homeomorphic to limTopXk.
The following theorem, whose proof may be found in [16] (see [27] for an alternative proof),
characterises UHF algebras.
Theorem 6.3** (Glimm).**
*The UHF algebras limC∗Mnk and limC∗Mmk
are -isomorphic if and only if for all w∈N there exists x∈N such that nw∣mx, and for all y∈N there exists z∈N such that my∣nz.
Let X be a topological space. We define a graph to be a pair G=(X,E) of sets such that E⊆X×X
is a closed subset which is
symmetric (that is, (x,y)∈E if and only if (y,x)∈E)
and anti-reflexive (that is, (x,x)∈/E for all x∈X).
We call the elements of X the vertices of G and say that two vertices x,y∈X are
adjacent if (x,y)∈E. Given G, we set
G=(X,E) where E=E∪{(x,x):x∈X}
is the extended edge set of G.
Two graphs G=(X,E) and G′=(X′,E′) are called isomorphic if there exists a homeomorphism
φ:X→X′ such that (x,y)∈E if and only if (φ(x),φ(y))∈E′.
Let G be a graph on n vertices so that X={1,…,n}.
Denote by ei,j the n×n matrix with 1 in its (i,j)th-entry and [math] elsewhere.
We define the operator systemSG of G by letting
[TABLE]
A graph operator system is an operator system of the form SG.
Denote temporarily by D be the subalgebra of diagonal matrices in Mn.
Clearly, (SG,D) is an operator C*-system when we take the module operation
to be the usual matrix multiplication in Mn.
The following characterisation is well-known, see [31].
Proposition 6.4**.**
Let S be an operator subsystem of Mn.
Then S is a graph operator system if and only if DSD⊆S.
In this case the graph G=(X,E) is defined by letting
X={1,…,n} and E={(i,j):i=j\mboxandei,j∈S}.
The following two results about graph operator systems were proved in [28, Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.3].
Theorem 6.5** (Paulsen–Ortiz).**
Let G be a graph on n vertices. Then the C-subalgebra of Mn generated by SG is the C*-envelope of SG.*
Theorem 6.6** (Paulsen–Ortiz).**
Let G1 and G2 be graphs on n vertices. Then G1 is isomorphic to G2 if and only if SG1 is unitally completely order isomorphic to SG2.
6.1. Operator C*-systems in UHF algebras
We define a concrete operator C-system*
to be a triple (D,S,A) where
D,A∈C∗, S∈OS, (S,D)∈OC∗S,
D⊆S⊆A and DSD⊆S.
When the context is clear, we simplify the notation and call S a concrete operator D-system, without mention of A.
Throughout this chapter, we fix an inductive system
[TABLE]
in C∗.
Suppose that Gk is a graph on nk vertices, such that πk(SGk)⊆SGk+1,
and let ϕk=πk∣SGk, k∈N. We thus have inductive systems
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
since SGk is an operator Dk-system,
the latter inductive systems can
be viewed as an inductive system in OC∗S.
Note that the inductive limit limOC∗SSGk is the completion of limOSSGk or, equivalently,
the closure of limOSSGk in limC∗Ak.
(Here, and in the sequel, write Ak=πk,∞(Mnk); note that Ak≅Mnk.)
We will see that every
concrete operator (limC∗Dk)-system
(defined shortly) is the inductive limit of a sequence of graph operator systems,
and will associate to limOC∗SSGk a graph which is related to the sequence of graphs (Gk)k∈N.
We will use the following notation to denote the inductive limits:
[TABLE]
Observe that (D∞,S∞,A∞) is a concrete operator C*-system.
Since each πk is a unital injective *-homomorphism, by Remark 2.18,
πk,∞ is a unital injective *-homomorphism for all k∈N;
we therefore sometimes simplify the notation and write ak in the place of πk,∞(ak).
Recall [34] that a closed linear subspace S of A∞ is said to be inductive relative to (Ak)k∈N if
[TABLE]
We note the following fact which follows from [34, Theorem 4.7].
Proposition 6.7**.**
Let S⊆A∞ be a concrete operator D∞-system and set
Sk=S∩Ak. Then Sk⊆Ak is a concrete operator Dk-system and S=limOSSk.
The next result is an infinite dimensional analogue of Theorem 6.5.
Theorem 6.8**.**
Let S∞⊆A∞ be a concrete operator D∞-system.
The C-envelope of S∞ coincides with the
C*-subalgebra of A∞ generated by S∞.*
Proof.
Let C∗(S∞) denote the C*-subalgebra of A∞ generated by the operator system S∞ and let C∗(Sk) denote the C*-subalgebra of Ak generated by Sk.
Since πk(Sk)⊆Sk+1, we have that πk(C∗(Sk))⊆C∗(Sk+1).
Consider the following inductive system in C∗:
[TABLE]
Note that πk,∞(C∗(Sk))⊆C∗(S∞).
We denote again by πk,∞ its restriction to C∗(Sk); note that it is a
*-homomorphism and πk+1,∞∘πk=πk,∞, k∈N.
We show that C∗(S∞)=C∗(S∞), equipped with the family {πk,∞}k∈N,
satisfies the universal property of the inductive limit
limC∗C∗(Sk) and therefore they are *-isomorphic.
Suppose (B,{θk}k∈N) is a pair consisting of a
C*-algebra and a family of unital *-homomorphisms θk:C∗(Sk)→B such that θk+1∘πk=θk for all k∈N.
Note that, if s1,…,sn∈S∞ and a=s1⋯sn then,
writing si=πk,∞(xki) for some xki∈Sk, i=1,…,n, we have that a=πk,∞(x1⋯xn).
Suppose that
[TABLE]
for some k,l∈N, xsi∈Sk and ytj∈Sl.
Then
[TABLE]
and letting m=max{k,l}, we have that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
It follows from the previous paragraph that the map
θ:U→B, given by
[TABLE]
is well-defined. It is clearly bounded, and we let
θ:C∗(S∞)→B
be its continuous extension. Taking into account (45), we conclude that
[TABLE]
By Theorem 6.5,
Ce∗(Sk)=C∗(Sk), and hence (the restriction of) πk is a well-defined
*-monomorphism from Ce∗(Sk) into Ce∗(Sk+1); we can thus form the inductive system
({Ce∗(Sk)}k∈N,{πk}k∈N).
Note that, by [24, Theorem 3.2],
[TABLE]
we provide a direct argument for the equality (47) for the convenience of the reader.
Namely, we show that limC∗Ce∗(Sk) satisfies the universal property of the C*-envelope Ce∗(S∞).
Consider the following commuting diagram:
[TABLE]
Note that we have denoted by ιk the inclusion of Sk into Ce∗(Sk).
By Remark 4.15,
there exists a unital completely order isomorphic embedding
ψ:S∞→limOSCe∗(Sk) such that ψ∘ϕk,∞=πk,∞∘ιk, k∈N.
Observe that ψ(S∞) generates limC∗Ce∗(Sk); indeed,
each ak∈Ce∗(Sk)
belongs to the span of elements of the form
s1⋯sn, where si∈Sk, 1≤i≤n.
Thus, πk,∞(ak) belongs to the span of πk,∞(s1)⋯πk,∞(sn).
It follows that (limC∗Ce∗(Sk),ψ) is a C*-cover of S∞.
Suppose that
(B,α) is a C*-cover of S∞.
It follows that α∘πk,∞:Sk→B is a unital complete isometry for all k∈N.
Let Bk be the C*-subalgebra of B generated by (α∘πk,∞)(Sk).
Since α(S∞) generates B and ∪k∈Nπk,∞(Sk) generates S∞,
we have that B=∪k∈NBk. By the universal property of the C*-envelope,
for every k∈N,
there exists a unique *-homomorphism ρk:Bk→C∗(Sk) such that
ρk∘α∘ϕk,∞=ιk. Therefore
[TABLE]
for all k∈N. Thus, πk∘ρk=ρk+1, k∈N. We may thus
construct the following commuting diagram:
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.14,
there exists a *-homomorphism
ρ:B→limC∗Ce∗(Sk) such that ρ=πk,∞∘ρk for all k∈N. Note that
[TABLE]
for all k∈N. Therefore ρ∘α=ψ, and
hence limC∗Ce∗(Sk) is -isomorphic to the C-envelope of S∞.
It now follows from (46) and (47) that
Ce∗(S∞)≅C∗(S∞).
∎
6.2. Graphs associated to operator subsystems of UHF algebras
The framework required to associate a graph with the UHF algebra A∞ is established in [34].
We give some of its details here, since it will be
needed in order to define graphs associated with operator subsystems of A∞.
Recall that X∞=Δ(D∞) and Xk=Δ(Dk), k∈N.
By Remark 6.2,
X∞=limTopXk. For each k∈N and each 1≤i≤nk, we have that
ei,ik∈Dk⊆D∞.
Let
[TABLE]
Clearly, Xik is a closed and open subset of X∞ such that, for all k∈N,
[TABLE]
We note that, if [lk] denotes the set {0,1,2,…,lk−1}, the space
X∞ is homeomorphic to the Cantor space Πk=1∞[lk]
(recall that lk=nknk+1).
For each k∈N and each 1≤i,j≤nk,
let ϕi,jk:C(Xik)→C(Xjk) be the *-isomorphism given by
ϕi,jk(d)=ei,jk∗dei,jk.
Let αi,jk:Xjk→Xik be
the homeomorphism induced by ϕi,jk; thus,
[TABLE]
For k∈N and 1≤i,j≤nk, let
[TABLE]
be the graph of the partial homeomorphism αi,jk of X∞.
We have, equivalently,
[TABLE]
It will be convenient to write R(ei,jk)=Ei,jk; for a subset E of canonical matrix units in A∞, we set
R(E)=∪e∈ER(e).
In particular,
[TABLE]
In Remark 6.9,
whose statement is drawn from [34],
we point out how the sets Ei,jk reflect the properties of the matrix units ei,jk.
We set Ei,jk∗=Ej,ik.
For E,F⊆X∞×X∞, let
[TABLE]
Remark 6.9**.**
The following hold, for any k,m∈N and any 1≤i≤nk, 1≤j≤nm:
We have that R(A∞) is
an equivalence relation on X∞×X∞ and endows A∞ with an associated graph.
We define a topology on R(A∞) by specifying
{Ei,jk:k∈N,1≤i,j≤nk} as a base of open sets.
Note that each Em,nl is either disjoint from Ei,jk or is a subset of Ei,jk
(if the latter happens then l>k).
Thus, this base consists of closed and open sets. Since X∞ is compact,
the sets Ei,jk are compact, too.
If S∞ is an operator subsystem of A∞, set
[TABLE]
We specialise to the case of operator systems the Spectral Theorem for Bimodules from [34].
The following proposition follows from [34, Proposition 7.3 and Proposition 7.4].
Proposition 6.10**.**
Let S∞ and T∞ be concrete operator D∞-systems.
(i) We have that Ei,jk⊆R(S∞) if and only if ei,jk∈S∞;
(ii) If R(S∞)=R(T∞) then S∞=T∞.
Proposition 6.11**.**
Let S∞ be a concrete operator D∞-system.
Then R(S∞) is an open, reflexive and symmetric subset of R(A∞).
Proof.
We have that R(S∞) is
open since it is a union of open sets.
Since S∞ contains the identity operator, R(S∞) is reflexive.
Suppose that (x,y)∈R(S∞). Then there exists i,j,k such that (x,y)∈Ei,jk and Ei,jk⊆R(S∞).
By Proposition 6.10,
ei,jk∈S∞. Thus, ej,ik=(ei,jk)∗∈S∞ and, again by
Proposition 6.10, Ej,ik⊆R(S∞).
Thus, (y,x)∈R(S∞).
∎
By Proposition 6.11, we may view R(S∞) is a (closed and) open subgraph of R(A∞).
Conversely, if
P⊆R(A∞) is an open, symmetric and reflexive subset, let
[TABLE]
Theorem 6.12**.**
The map
P→S∞(P) is a bijective correspondence between the open subgraphs of R(A∞) and
the concrete operator D∞-systems.
Proof.
The fact that, if P is an open subgraph of R(A∞) then S∞(P) is a concrete operator D∞-system
follows easily from Remark 6.9.
It remains to show that for any open reflexive and symmetric subset P of R(A∞),
we have that R(S∞(P))=P.
It is clear that P⊆R(S∞(P)). Conversely, suppose that Ei,jk⊆R(S∞(P)),
for some i,j and k with i=j.
By Proposition 6.10, ei,jk∈S∞(P).
We claim that Ei,jk⊆P; clearly, this claim will complete the proof.
Let A~p be the D∞-bimodule, generated by Ap, p∈N.
By [34, Proposition 4.6], there exists a D∞-bimodule
surjective projection Φp:A∞→A~p.
Write
[TABLE]
We have that ei,jk=limm→∞xm, for some xm∈S0, m∈N; thus,
[TABLE]
Let Ek=∪u,vEu,vk.
Then Φk(xm)=∑Es,tp⊆P∩Ekds,tp,mes,tk,
for some ds,tp,m∈D∞
with supp(ds,tp,m)⊆Xsp.
It follows that
[TABLE]
Assume, by way of contradiction, that
[TABLE]
Letting a∈D∞ be the projection corresponding to Y, we have that a<ei,ik
and ei,jk=aei,jk, a contradiction.
It follows that Y=Ei,jk; since P is open, Ei,jk⊆P.
∎
Theorem 6.12 allows us
to view the concrete operator D∞-systems as graph operator systems;
we formalise this in the following definition.
Definition 6.13**.**
Let A∞ be a UHF algebra with canonical masa
D∞.
An open, reflexive and symmetric subset of R(A∞) will be called a Cantor graph.
If P is a Cantor graph, the operator system
S∞(P) defined in (51) will be called the
Cantor graph operator system of P.
6.3. A graph isomorphism theorem
In this section, we prove a version of Theorem 6.6 for
Cantor graph operator systems.
Let A∞ and B∞ be UHF algebras with canonical masas D∞ and E∞, respectively,
and let X∞=Δ(D∞) and Y∞=Δ(E∞).
We write ei,jk and Ei,jk (resp. fi,jk and Fi,jk) for the canonical matrix units of A∞ (resp. B∞)
and their partial graphs.
Using the notation introduced in (49), for a set P⊆R(A∞), let
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Lemma 6.14**.**
Let S∞ be a concrete operator D∞-subsystem of A∞.
Then ϵ(R(S∞))=R(C∗(S∞)).
Proof.
Write P=R(S∞) and Q=ϵ(P); it is clear that Q is the smallest open equivalence relation
containing P.
Note that C∗(S∞)=S∞(Q); indeed,
every canonical matrix unit in S∞ belongs to S∞(Q) and, since S∞(Q)
is a C*-algebra,
C∗(S∞)⊆S∞(Q).
Suppose that ei,jk∈S∞(Q).
By Theorem
6.12,
Ei,jk⊆Q;
by compactness, Ei,jk is equal to a finite disjoint
union of sets of the form E1∘⋯∘En, where, for each j, the set Ej is a graph of a
canonical partial homeomorphism contained in P.
Thus,
ei,jk is equal to the sum of
elements of the form ei1,j1k1⋯ein,jnkn,
where eir,jrkr∈S∞⊆S∞.
It follows that S∞(Q)⊆C∗(S∞), and hence
we have that C∗(S∞)=S∞(Q).
By Theorem 6.12,
Q=R(C∗(S∞)).
∎
Theorem 6.15**.**
Let A∞ and B∞ be UHF-algebras with canonical masas D∞ and E∞, respectively.
Set X∞=Δ(D∞) and Y∞=Δ(E∞).
Let P⊆X∞×X∞ and Q⊆Y∞×Y∞
be Cantor graphs.
The following are equivalent:
(i) there exists a homeomorphism
φ:X∞→Y∞ such that (φ×φ)(P)=Q;
(ii) there exists a unital complete order isomorphism
ϕ:S∞(P)→S∞(Q) such that ϕ(D∞)=E∞.
Proof.
Set S∞=S∞(P) (resp. T∞=S∞(Q)); then S∞
is a concrete operator D∞-system
(resp. a concrete operator E∞-system).
(i)⇒(ii)
For ease of notation, set φ(2)=φ×φ.
Let P=ϵ(P) and Q=ϵ(Q).
As in the proof of [34, Proposition 7.5],
φ(2) is a homeomorphism from P onto Q.
By Lemma 6.14,
P=R(C∗(S∞)) and Q=R(C∗(T∞)).
Since C∗(S∞) (resp. C∗(T∞)) is an AF C*-algebra with a canonical masa
D∞ (resp. E∞), by [34, Theorem 7.5],
there exists a *-isomorphism ψ:C∗(S∞)→C∗(T∞) such that
ψ(D∞)=E∞.
We have that the restriction ϕ of ψ to S∞ has its range in T∞.
By symmetry, ϕ is a bijection, and hence a unital complete order isomorphism.
(ii)⇒(i)
By Remark 2.12, there exists a *-isomorphism
ρ:Ce∗(S∞)→Ce∗(T∞) which extends ϕ.
By Theorem 6.8, ρ:C∗(S∞)→C∗(T∞) is a unital
*-isomorphism. Since C∗(S∞) and C∗(T∞) are subalgebras of A∞ and B∞, respectively,
using [34, Theorem 7.5]
we obtain
a homeomorphism φ:X∞→Y∞ such that,
if φ(2)=φ×φ then the map
[TABLE]
is a homeomorphism
and R(ρ(ei,jk))=φ(2)(R(ei,jk)) for any ei,jk∈C∗(S∞).
Suppose that
Ei,jk⊆P. By Proposition 6.10, ei,jk∈S∞.
Since ϕ is a (complete) isometry, [34, Proposition 7.1], along with the compactness of Y∞ shows that
ϕ(ei,jk) is a sum of canonical matrix units.
Moreover, by Theorem 6.12,
R(ϕ(ei,jk))⊆R(T∞)=Q. Thus, φ(2)(P)⊆Q;
by symmetry,
φ(2)(P)=Q.
∎
We point out that the condition ϕ(D∞)=E∞ appearing in
Theorem 6.15 (ii) is rather natural; indeed, since
the algebra D∞ uniquely determines X∞, this
condition can be thought of as
the requirement that the map ψ respect the “vertex sets” in the corresponding operator systems
in order to give rise to a bona fide Cantor graph isomorphism.
6.4. A generalisation of Glimm’s theorem
We conclude this section with a generalised version of Glimm’s theorem (see [16]).
Theorem 6.16**.**
Let A∞ and B∞ be UHF algebras with canonical masas D∞ and E∞, respectively.
Let S∞ be a concrete operator D∞-system and T∞ be a concrete operator E∞-system.
The following are equivalent:
(i)
there exists a unital complete order isomorphism ϕ:S∞→T∞ such that
ϕ(D∞)=E∞;
2. (ii)
there exist subsequences (Smk)k∈N and (Tnk)k∈N
of the sequences in the inductive systems associated with S∞ and T∞, respectively,
and unital completely positive maps {ϕk}k∈N and {ψk}k∈N such that
(a)
the diagram
[TABLE]
commutes, and
2. (b)
ϕk+1(Dmk)⊆Enk+1* and ψk(Enk)⊆Dmk, for all k∈N.*
Proof.
(ii)⇒(i)
By Remark 4.14,
there exists a unital complete order isomorphism
ϕ:limOSSk→limOSTk; let ψ:limOSTk→limOSSk be its inverse.
Let
ϕ:S∞→T∞
(resp. ψ:T∞→S∞) be the (unital completely positive)
extension of ϕ (resp. ψ). Clearly, ϕ and ψ are each other’s inverses, and thus
S∞ and T∞ are unitally completely order isomorphic.
Furthermore, condition (b) implies that
ϕ(D∞)=E∞.
(i)⇒(ii)
Suppose that ϕ:S∞→T∞ is a unital complete order isomorphism such that ϕ(D∞)=E∞.
By Remark 2.12,
there exists a *-isomorphism ϕ:Ce∗(S∞)→Ce∗(T∞) extending ϕ.
By Theorem 6.8, ϕ:C∗(S∞)→C∗(T∞) is a unital
*-isomorphism.
By [34, Theorem 7.5],
there exists a homeomorphism α:X∞→Y∞ such that
α(2):R(C∗(S∞))→R(C∗(T∞)) is a homeomorphism and
α(2)(Ei,jk)=R(ϕ(ei,jk)).
By Theorem 6.15 and its proof,
[TABLE]
Set Lk=C∗(Sk) and Mk=C∗(Tk), k∈N.
By (47) and [34, Theorem 5.3] and its proof,
there exist inductive systems of finite dimensional C*-algebras and corresponding unital *-homomorphisms
such that the following diagram commutes:
[TABLE]
The compactness of Y∞ and [34, Proposition 7.1] show that the element ϕk(ei,jmk) is a sum of
canonical matrix units.
By passing to further
subsequences if necessary, we may therefore assume that
ϕk(Smk)⊆Tnk+1,
ψk(Tmk)⊆Snk,
ϕk(Dmk)⊆Enk+1 and
ψk(Enk)⊆Dmk,
for each k.
Thus, conditions (a) and (b) are fulfilled.
∎
Bibliography39
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] M. E. Alfsen , Compact convex sets and boundary integrals , Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1971.
2[2] W. B. Arveson , Subalgebras of C*-algebras , Acta Math. 123 (1969), 141-224.
3[3] B. Blackadar , Operator algebras , Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006.
4[4] D. P. Blecher , The standard dual of an operator space , Pacific J. Math. 153 (1992), 15-30.
5[5] D. P. Blecher and C. Le Merdy , Operator algebras and their modules—an operator space approach , The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2004.
6[6] D. P. Blecher, P. S. Muhly and V. I. Paulsen , Categories of operator modules (Morita equivalence and projective modules) , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 143 (2000), no. 681.
7[7] O. Bratteli , Inductive limits of finite dimensional C*-algebras , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 171 (1972), 195-234.
8[8] M. D. Choi and E. G. Effros , Injectivity and operator spaces , J. Funct. Anal. 24 (1977), no. 2, 156-209.