This paper explores the structure of generating functionals in locally compact quantum groups, showing how symmetric functionals can be densely approximated and extended, with implications for constructing cocycles from convolution semigroups.
Contribution
It establishes core-like properties for symmetric generating functionals and provides a method to extend certain positive functionals to generating functionals in quantum groups.
Findings
01
Symmetric generating functionals admit dense subalgebras with core properties.
02
Certain positive functionals extend canonically to generating functionals.
03
Results facilitate the construction of cocycles from convolution semigroups.
Abstract
Every symmetric generating functional of a convolution semigroup of states on a locally compact quantum group is shown to admit a dense unital ∗-subalgebra with core-like properties in its domain. On the other hand we prove that every normalised, symmetric, hermitian conditionally positive functional on a dense ∗-subalgebra of the unitisation of the universal C∗-algebra of a locally compact quantum group, satisfying certain technical conditions, extends in a canonical way to a generating functional. Some consequences of these results are outlined, notably those related to constructing cocycles out of convolution semigroups.
Equations71
γ(x):=t→0+limtμt(x)−ϵ(x)
γ(x):=t→0+limtμt(x)−ϵ(x)
(id⊗ω)(\mathdsW)∈D(Su) and Su((id⊗ω)(\mathdsW))=(id⊗ω)(\mathdsW∗).
(id⊗ω)(\mathdsW)∈D(Su) and Su((id⊗ω)(\mathdsW))=(id⊗ω)(\mathdsW∗).
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
Generating functionals for locally compact quantum groups
Adam Skalski
Institute of Mathematics of the Polish Academy of Sciences,
ul. Śniadeckich 8, 00–656 Warszawa, Poland
Every symmetric generating functional of a convolution semigroup of states on a locally compact quantum group is shown to admit a dense unital ∗-subalgebra with core-like properties in its domain. On the other hand we prove that every normalised, symmetric, hermitian conditionally positive functional on a dense ∗-subalgebra of the unitisation of the universal C∗-algebra of a locally compact quantum group, satisfying certain technical conditions, extends in a canonical way to a generating functional. Some consequences of these results are outlined, notably those related to constructing cocycles out of convolution semigroups.
Key words and phrases:
locally compact quantum group; convolution semigroup of states; generating functional
Convolution semigroups of probability measures on a locally compact group on one hand are a source of a rich and interesting class of Markov semigroups on classical function spaces, and, on the other hand, form a fundamental notion in the study of Lévy processes (stochastic processes with independent and identically distributed increments). In the abstract context of measure spaces, Markov semigroups, as one-parameter semigroups of operators, are naturally studied via their generators [10].
The additional translation invariance of the operator semigroups coming from convolution semigroups of measures, afforded by the group structure, yields another, a priori simpler tool which determines the semigroup uniquely: the so-called generating functional, given by differentiating the measures themselves at t=0. The generating functional can be viewed as a ‘localised’ version of the semigroup generator (so that in the case of the heat semigroup on R the generating functional evaluated at a smooth function is just its second derivative at [math]), and plays a key role in the Lévy–Khintchine formula and its generalisations [16]. When the group in question is abelian, the Fourier transform allows us to view generating functionals equivalently as conditionally negative-definite functions on the dual locally compact group. This point of view turns out to be very useful in certain approaches to potential theory [2].
Not surprisingly, generating functionals played a key role in quantum generalisations of classical convolution semigroups to the framework of compact quantum groups, or more generally ∗-bialgebras, initially developed primarily by Schürmann and his collaborators [32]. Schürmann’s reconstruction theorem says in particular that each normalised, hermitian and conditionally positive functional on a ∗-bialgebra indeed comes from a uniquely determined convolution semigroup of states. This allows one to define and study various properties of convolution semigroups of states (for instance Gaussianity) directly via generating functionals, and was put in use with great success for example in [3].
If one wants to extend this study to the framework of locally compact quantum groups of Kustermans and Vaes [21], one encounters immediately a significant stumbling block: although in [25] Lindsay and the first-named author showed that each convolution semigroup of states on a locally compact quantum group admits a densely-defined generating functional, which moreover determines the semigroup uniquely, contrary to the classical (or dual to classical) and compact quantum cases there is no apparent canonical subalgebra inside the functional’s domain. This means that it is far from straightforward to express properties of the semigroup via the properties of its generating functional (at least in the way it was done in the compact case) and makes it very difficult to conceive of a suitable version of the reconstruction theorem. Therefore in the predecessor of this paper, [36], we discussed the generating functionals only briefly, and exploited the additional L2-symmetry assumption, using quantum Dirichlet forms as the main tool.
In this article we keep the mentioned symmetry assumption, but revisit the matter of generating functionals. Perhaps surprisingly, it turns out that in the most general locally compact quantum group context a useful path comes again, as in the abelian situation of [2], from the Fourier transform ideas, combined with the Dirichlet form techniques of [36]. Specifically, we use quantum Fourier transforms and noncommutative Dirichlet forms to realise the two aims alluded to above. Firstly, we prove that every generating functional contains in its domain a dense unital ∗-subalgebra, such that the corresponding restriction of the functional determines the semigroup uniquely. Secondly, we establish a reconstruction theorem: under certain, somewhat complicated (but satisfied in natural examples) technical conditions a conditionally positive functional on a dense unital ∗-subalgebra of the universal C∗-algebra of a locally compact quantum group admits an extension to a uniquely determined generating functional of a convolution semigroup of positive functionals. As we indicate in the text, the results of this type for example allow us to associate to every convolution semigroup of states as above certain canonically defined cocycles. At the same time the key task of finding a common dense domain for all generating functionals associated with a given locally compact quantum group remains for now beyond our reach.
The contents of the paper are as follows. After recalling some preliminary facts and notations in Section 1, in Section 2 we introduce twisted Fourier transforms, show that they are particularly amenable to verifying their belonging to the domain of generating functionals, and use this to show that the domain of every generating functional contains a dense ∗-subalgebra. Here also we discuss the relevant domain in various concrete examples. In Section 3 we indicate the consequences of the earlier results for the existence of quantum group cocycles. In Section 4 we prove two versions of the reconstruction result for conditionally positive symmetric functionals defined on a domain satisfying certain technical requirements. Finally, Section 5 discusses the consequences of the main results for the case of compact quantum groups.
1. Preliminaries
We start with some conventions. Inner products are linear in the right
variable, and all inner product spaces are complex. For a Hilbert
space \EuScriptH and ζ∈\EuScriptH, denote by ωζ the element of
B(\EuScriptH)∗ given by T↦⟨ζ,Tζ⟩,
T∈B(\EuScriptH). For a matrix (aij)1≤i,j≤n,
the element in the ith row and jth column is aij. For
a C*∗-algebra B, denote by B# its trivial unitisation,
which is B itself if the latter is unital, and by M(B) the multiplier
algebra of B. If B is unital we denote its unit by \mathds1.
For ω∈B∗, we use the same notation ω for the strict extension of ω to M(B) (or merely to B#), and do the same for slice maps.
We also let ω∈B∗ be given
by ω(x):=ω(x∗), x∈B. We denote
by ⊗min and ⊗ the minimal C∗*-algebraic and
normal von Neumann algebraic tensor products, respectively.
Let M be a von Neumann algebra acting standardly on a Hilbert space
L2(M) and φ be a normal semi-finite faithful (n.s.f.) weight on M. A (non-negative) closed densely-defined quadratic
form Q on L2(M) is called a Dirichlet form with respect
to φ if Q∘π≤Q, where π is the nearest-point
projection of L2(M) onto the key closed convex set associated with (M,φ) as defined in [15, p. 62, with terminology from pp. 42 and 53].
More generally, for n∈N, we write π(n) for the nearest-point projection of L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(M)
onto the key closed convex set associated with (Mn⊗M,Trn⊗φ), where Trn is the canonical (non-normalised) trace on Mn.
If all matrix amplifications of Q are Dirichlet, namely Q(n)∘π(n)≤Q(n) for all n∈N, we say that Q is completely
Dirichlet with respect to φ [36, Appendix].
All the related terminology can be found in [36].
The basic objects of this paper are locally compact quantum groups
in the sense of Kustermans and Vaes. The following definition and
properties are taken from [21, 22, 38]
unless otherwise indicated.
Definition 1.1**.**
A locally compact quantum group in the von Neumann algebraic
setting is a pair G=(M,Δ) that satisfies:
(a)
M is a von Neumann algebra;
2. (b)
Δ:M→M⊗M is a co-multiplication on M,
i.e. a normal unital ∗-homomorphism that is co-associative: (Δ⊗id)∘Δ=(id⊗Δ)∘Δ;
3. (c)
there exist n.s.f. weights φ,ψ on M, called the left
and right* Haar weights*, which are left and right invariant
under Δ, respectively.
Henceforth we write L∞(G) for M, L1(G) for the
predual L∞(G)∗, and L2(G) for a Hilbert space on
which L∞(G) acts standardly.
For example, each locally compact group G induces a locally compact
quantum group with M=L∞(G) and (Δ(f))(s,t):=f(st),
where we identified L∞(G)⊗L∞(G)≅L∞(G×G).
Every locally compact quantum group G admits a dual locally
compact quantum group G. This duality extends Pontryagin’s
duality for locally compact abelian groups, and satisfies the ‘double
dual property’: G=G. Objects pertaining
to G will be adorned with a hat.
Let G be a locally compact quantum group. There exists a unitary
W∈L∞(G)⊗L∞(G), called the left
regular representation of G, which implements Δ by Δ(x)=W∗(\mathds1⊗x)W (acting on L2(G)⊗L2(G))
for all x∈L∞(G). The antipode of G is a generally
unbounded, ultraweakly closed operator S on L∞(G)
such that for every ω∈L1(G) we have
(id⊗ω)(W)∈D(S) and S((id⊗ω)(W))=(id⊗ω)(W∗).
It has a ‘polar decomposition’ S=R∘τ−i/2, where
R is the unitary antipode, which is a ∗-anti-automorphism
of L∞(G), and τ−i/2 is the generator of the scaling
group(τt)t∈R, which is the action of R
on L∞(G) associated with the scaling group.
There are two other ‘faces’ of G. The first is the reduced
C∗-algebraic face, based on a C*∗-algebra C0(G) that
is ultraweakly dense in L∞(G) and satisfies W∈M(C0(G)⊗minC0(G)).
The second is the universal C∗-algebraic face [20],
based on a C∗*-algebra C0u(G), which has a special universality
property. In particular, it surjects canonically onto C0(G) and
possesses a distinguished character ϵ called the co-unit
of G. The unitary W has half-universal versions \mathds{W},\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!,
where, e.g., \text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!\in\operatorname{M}(\mathrm{C}_{0}(\mathbb{G})\mathbin{\otimes_{\mathrm{min}}}\mathrm{C}_{0}^{\mathrm{u}}(\widehat{\mathbb{G}})) and (\omega\otimes\mathrm{id})(\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!)\in\mathrm{C}_{0}^{\mathrm{u}}(\widehat{\mathbb{G}}) for all ω∈L1(G). The
co-multiplication also has a universal version Δu:C0u(G)→M(C0u(G)⊗minC0u(G)),
which induces on C0u(G)∗ a convolution product ⋆,
and we have natural isometric embeddings L1(G)↪C0(G)∗↪C0u(G)∗.
Furthermore, the maps S,R,τ have universal versions
Su,Ru,τu acting
on C0u(G).
We say that G is compact if C0(G), equivalently C0u(G), is unital [41, 30]. In this case, we write ((uijα)1≤i,j≤nα)α∈Irred(G) for a complete family of representatives of equivalence classes of (finite-dimensional) irreducible representations of G. Then Pol(G):=span{uijα:α∈Irred(G),1≤i,j≤nα} is a dense subspace of Cu(G):=C0u(G).
Let B be a C*∗*-algebra and ϵ
be a character of B. A linear functional γ:A→C,
where A is a subspace of B, is called conditionally
positive with respect to ϵ if γ(a)≥0 for every
a∈A∩kerϵ∩B+.
It is obvious that μ+sϵ is conditionally positive with
respect to ϵ for every μ∈B+∗ and s∈C;
see Remark 2.10 for the converse.
A convolution semigroup of positive functionals on C0u(G)
(or on G) is a family (μt)t≥0 in
C0u(G)+∗ such that μ0=ϵ and μs⋆μt=μs+t
for all s,t≥0. Say that (μt)t≥0 is w∗-continuous
if μtt→0+ϵ in the w∗-topology.
In this case, the generating functional of (μt)t≥0
is the (generally unbounded) linear functional γ over C0u(G)
defined by
[TABLE]
with maximal domain D(γ), consisting of all x∈C0u(G)
for which this limit exists.
The generating functional γ of a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup
of positive functionals on C0u(G) is clearly conditionally positive with respect to the co-unit. Furthermore, if the convolution semigroup consists of states and we extend γ to span(D(γ)∪{\mathds1})⊆C0u(G)# by making
it vanish at \mathds1 (which is automatic if G is compact), then the extended functional is also conditionally positive with respect to the co-unit.
To every μ∈C0u(G)∗ we associated in [36, Subsection 2.1 and Lemma 2.14]
the operators Rμ∈CB(L∞(G)) and Rμ(2,φ)∈M(C0(G)).
Recall that the first of them is defined as the adjoint of the operator on L1(G) given by the formula ω↦μ⋆ω (as L1(G),
when viewed canonically as a subspace of the completely contractive
Banach algebra C0u(G)∗, is an ideal); and the second is its natural KMS-implementation on L2(G) with respect to φ.
The maps μ↦Rμ,μ↦Rμ(2,φ) are linear and injective, with Rϵ=id,Rϵ(2,φ)=\mathds1.
More information is provided in Theorem 1.4 and Proposition 2.2 below.
We now quote one of the main results of [36].
Only the relevant parts are stated; for the rest, see [36].
We take the opportunity to fix a mistake in the statement of [36, Theorem 0.1]:
the words ‘modulo multiplication of forms by a positive number’
should have been ‘modulo subtracting a positive multiple of the quadratic
form ∥⋅∥2’, see Remark 1.5.
Let G be a locally compact quantum group.
There exist 1−1 correspondences between the following classes:
(a)
w∗-continuous convolution semigroups
(μt)t≥0 of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals on C0u(G);
2. (b)
C0-semigroups (St)t≥0
of selfadjoint completely Markov operators on L2(G) with respect
to φ that belong to L∞(G);
3. (c)
completely Dirichlet forms Q with respect
to φ that are invariant under U(L∞(G)′).
The correspondences are given by St=Rμt(2,φ)
for all t≥0 ((a)⇔(b))
and the general correspondence between selfadjoint completely Markov
semigroups and completely Dirichlet forms [36, Corollary A.8]
((b)⇔(c)); the latter means that (St)t≥0=(e−tA)t≥0, where A is the positive selfadjoint operator on L2(G) such that Q=∥A1/2⋅∥2.
Remark 1.5*.*
A w∗-continuous convolution semigroup
of contractive positive functionals can be normalised to form one
consisting of states [36, Remark 3.3].
To restate the 1−1 correspondence of Theorem 1.4(a)⇔(c)
for states one has to ‘normalise’ the completely Dirichlet form
as well; the following text should therefore be added to the statement
of (c): modulo subtracting from Q
a positive multiple of the quadratic form ∥⋅∥2.
2. The domains of generating functionals
In Sections 2–4
we let G be a locally compact quantum group. In this section we show that given a convolution semigroup of states, for certain (twisted) Fourier transforms it is particularly easy to determine whether they belong to the domain of the generating functional (see Proposition 2.5(a)). This fact is used to establish the containment of a dense ∗-subalgebra in the domain of any generating functional (Theorem 2.8). Several examples of the form of this algebra are then described.
We begin by defining our (twisted) Fourier transforms.
Definition 2.1**.**
For ω∈L1(G) denote \mathfrak{a}_{\widehat{\omega}}:=\tau_{i/4}^{\mathrm{u}}((\widehat{\omega}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}))\in\mathrm{C}_{0}^{\mathrm{u}}(\mathbb{G}), where we remind the reader that (τtu)t∈R is the universal version of the scaling group, which is an action of R on C0u(G).
One shows just as in [36, proof of Lemma 2.14]
that aω is well defined
and satisfies ∥aω∥≤∥ω∥
for every ω∈L1(G). For the convenience of the reader, we repeat the short proof.
By the properties of the antipode we have
[TABLE]
That is, (id⊗ω)(\mathdsW)∈D(τ−i/2u) and τ−i/2u((id⊗ω)(\mathdsW))=Ru((id⊗ω)(\mathdsW∗)). Taking adjoints, we obtain (\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!})\in D(\tau^{\mathrm{u}}_{i/2}) and \tau^{\mathrm{u}}_{i/2}((\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}))=\mathtt{R}^{\mathrm{u}}((\mathrm{id}\otimes\overline{\widehat{\omega}})(\mathds{W})). Thus, (\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!})\in D(\tau^{\mathrm{u}}_{i/4}), and furthermore, since \|(\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!})\|,\|\mathtt{R}^{\mathrm{u}}((\mathrm{id}\otimes\overline{\widehat{\omega}})(\mathds{W}))\|\leq\|\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\|, we infer from the Phragmen–Lindelöf three lines theorem that \|\tau^{\mathrm{u}}_{i/4}((\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}))\|\leq\|\overline{\widehat{\omega}}\|, as desired.
The map ω↦aω
is an injective homomorphism from L1(G) to C0u(G)
because the maps τi/4u:D(τi/4u)→C0u(G) and L^{1}(\widehat{\mathbb{G}})\ni\widehat{\omega}\mapsto(\widehat{\omega}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!})
are injective homomorphisms. We require the following result from
[36].
Proposition 2.2** ([36, Proposition 3.8 and its proof]).**
**
(a)
For every ν∈C0u(G)∗ and ω∈L1(G)
we have
[TABLE]
2. (b)
Consider a w∗-continuous convolution
semigroup (μt)t≥0 of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals on C0u(G). Denote by Q the completely Dirichlet form associated
to (μt)t≥0, and let γ be the generating
functional of (μt)t≥0. Then D(Q)={ζ∈L2(G):aωζ∈D(γ)}
and for every ζ∈D(Q) we have Qζ=−γ(aωζ).
The twisted Fourier transforms interact in a natural manner with the unitary antipode.
Lemma 2.3**.**
**
(a)
For every ω∈L1(G)
we have aω∗=aω∘R
and Ru(aω)=aω∘R.
2. (b)
For every ω∈L1(G)+
we have ∥aω∥=∥ω∥=ϵ(aω).
3. (c)
For every ω∈L1(G)+
we have [(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aω)=2(∥aω∥\mathds1−Re(aω))≥0
in C0u(G)#.
4. (d)
The set
[TABLE]
is a cone, and it is selfadjoint, globally Ru-invariant,
and closed under multiplication.
Proof.
(a) Let ω∈L1(G).
The second identity follows readily since Ru commutes
with τu and (\widehat{\mathtt{R}}\otimes\mathtt{R}^{\mathrm{u}})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!})=\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}.
Similarly, since Su=Ru∘τ−i/2u,
we have
[TABLE]
(b) For every ω∈L1(G)+
we have ∥aω∥≤∥ω∥=ω(\mathds1)=ϵ(aω)≤∥aω∥.
(d) Since L1(G)+ is a cone
in L1(G) that is closed under convolution and the
map L1(G)∋ω↦aω
is a homomorphism, D+ is a cone that is closed under
multiplication. Selfadjointness and global Ru-invariance
of D+ follow from (a).
∎
Although generating functionals are in general not closed in any natural topology, so that the notion of a core of these objects does not make sense as such, the cone D+ introduced above possesses certain core-like properties, as the next proposition shows.
Proposition 2.4**.**
The generating functional γ of a w∗-continuous
convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant contractive positive functionals on
C0u(G) is uniquely determined by its behaviour on D+ (namely,
by D+∩D(γ) and by γ∣D+∩D(γ)).
Proof.
Proposition 2.2(b) implies that the behaviour of γ on D+ determines uniquely the completely Dirichlet form associated to the respective convolution semigroup, and hence, by Theorem 1.4 correspondence (a)⇔(c) also the convolution semigroup itself. Thus it also determines its generator, γ.
∎
Denote by D+ the norm closure of D+
in C0u(G), which equals its w-closure in C0u(G) by Lemma 2.3(d)
and the Hahn–Banach theorem, as it is convex by Lemma 2.3(d).
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let (μt)t≥0 be a
w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals on C0u(G) and γ be its generating functional.
(a)
For every a∈D+,
the function (0,∞)∋t↦t1(ϵ−μt)(a)
is non-negative and decreasing, and a∈D(γ) if and only
if {t1(ϵ−μt)(a):t>0} is bounded.
2. (b)
The set D+∩D(γ)
is total in C0u(G).
3. (c)
The following lower semi-continuity property
of γ holds: if (ai)i∈I is
a net in D+∩D(γ) converging in
the w-topology of C0u(G) to some a∈C0u(G) and liminfi∈I(−γ(ai))<∞,
then a∈D(γ) and 0≤−γ(a)≤liminfi∈I(−γ(ai)).
Proof.
(a) Let A be the (generally unbounded)
positive selfadjoint operator on L2(G) such that Rμt(2,φ)=e−tA
for every t≥0 (see Theorem 1.4).
Let first a∈D+ and write a=aω,
ω∈L1(G)+. For every t>0 we have
t1(ϵ−μt)(a)=ω(Rt1(ϵ−μt)(2,φ))=ω(t1(\mathds1−e−tA))
by Proposition 2.2(a).
The first assertion, namely that (0,∞)∋t↦t1(ϵ−μt)(a)
is non-negative and decreasing, thus follows from functional calculus
as the function (0,∞)∋t↦t1(1−e−t)
is non-negative and decreasing. Consequently, this first assertion is readily seen
to hold for a∈D+. The second assertion
is now immediate.
(b) Suppose that ν∈C0u(G)∗
satisfies ν(D+∩D(γ))={0}.
Then by Proposition 2.2 we have ωζ(Rν(2,φ))=0
for every ζ in the dense subspace D(Q) of L2(G),
so that Rν(2,φ)=0. This is equivalent to Rν=0,
hence ν=0 by [36, Theorem 2.1 (a)] (alternatively, use [36, Lemma 2.17, (c)⟹(a)]).
(c) Let (ai)i∈I
be a net in D+∩D(γ) that converges
to a∈C0u(G) in the w-topology of C0u(G) (so that a∈D+).
By (a) we have
[TABLE]
Taking the limit (inferior) as i∈I we get 0≤t1(ϵ−μt)(a)≤liminfi∈I(−γ(ai))
for 0<t. Applying (a) again we deduce
that if liminfi∈I(−γ(ai))<∞ then a∈D(γ)
and 0≤−γ(a)≤liminfi∈I(−γ(ai)).
∎
Corollary 2.6**.**
Let (μt)t≥0
be a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals of C0u(G) and γ be its generating functional.
Also let ω1,ω2∈L1(G)+
and assume that aω2∈D(γ).
(a)
If ω1≤ω2
then aω1∈D(γ).
2. (b)
If (μt)t≥0 consists of states and [(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aω1)≤[(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aω2)
in C0u(G)# then aω1∈D(γ).
(a) By assumption, aω2−aω1=aω2−ω1∈D+.
Proposition 2.5(a) thus
implies (2.1).
(b) For all ω∈L1(G)
and t>0 we have μt{[(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aω)}=2(ϵ−μt)(aω).
Thus, the assumed inequality entails (2.1).
∎
The following lemma is elementary.
Lemma 2.7**.**
Let B be a C∗-algebra, μ∈B∗
be a state and a1,a2∈B be contractions. Write ci:=1−Reμ(ai),
i=1,2. Then 1−Reμ(a1a2)≤c1+c2+2c1c2.
Proof.
Let (\EuScriptH,ξ) be the GNS construction for (B,μ) (suppressing
the representation). Then
[TABLE]
Since a1,a2 are contractions, we have
[TABLE]
and, similarly, ∥ξ−a2ξ∥2≤2c2.
Thus, (2.2) and
the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality imply the desired inequality.
∎
The next result is the main theorem of this section.
Theorem 2.8**.**
Let G be a locally compact quantum
group, (μt)t≥0 be a w∗-continuous convolution
semigroup of Ru-invariant states of C0u(G)
and γ be its generating functional. Then span(D+∩D(γ))
is a globally Ru-invariant dense ∗-subalgebra
of C0u(G), and so is span(D+∩D(γ)).
Proof.
By Lemma 2.3(d) and Proposition 2.5(b)
it suffices to show that {a1a2:a1,a2∈D+∩D(γ)}⊆D(γ).
We shall require two properties of the elements of D+.
First, by Lemma 2.3(b), ∥a∥=ϵ(a) for all a∈D+
and thus for all a∈D+.
Second, by Proposition 2.2(a) and positivity of Rμt(2,φ)
we have μt(D+)⊆[0,∞), and thus μt(D+)⊆[0,∞),
for every t≥0.
Let a1,a2∈D+∩D(γ) be of
norm 1. The assumption that ai∈D(γ) gives 0≤C<∞
such that 1−μt(ai)=(ϵ−μt)(ai)≤Ct for
all t≥0 (i=1,2). From Lemma 2.7 we infer
that t1(ϵ−μt)(a1a2)=t1(1−μt(a1a2))≤4C
for all t>0, so Proposition 2.5(a)
implies that a1a2∈D(γ).
∎
Remark 2.9*.*
A w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant states (μt)t≥0 determines a C0-semigroup of completely positive contractions (Ttu)t≥0 on C0u(G), given simply by Ttu=(id⊗μt)∘Δu (t≥0). This semigroup admits a densely-defined generator L:D(L)→C0u(G) and it is not difficult to see that D(L)⊆{a∈C0u(G):∀ν∈C0u(G)∗(ν⊗id)(Δu(a))∈D(γ)}, where γ is the generating functional of (μt)t≥0 [25, Proposition 3.6].
Proposition 2.2(a) implies that for every ω∈L1(G) and t≥0 we have Ttuaω=aω⋅Rμt(2,φ), thus ∫0tTsuaωds=aω⋅∫0tRμs(2,φ)ds by [36, Lemma 2.17], where the left-side integral is in norm and the right-side integral is in the strict topology. The latter element belongs to span(D+)∩D(L). We conclude that span(D+)∩D(L) is a dense ∗-subspace of C0u(G). It is also (Ttu)t≥0-invariant, thus it is a core of L. We do not know however if it is an algebra.
Remark 2.10*.*
For a locally compact group G, every bounded conditionally
positive-definite function θ:G→R has the form θ=μ+m
for a positive-definite function μ on G and m∈C. This classical
statement generalises to a wider setting, as can be deduced from results of [26, Section 6]: if B is a unital C*∗*-algebra
with a character ϵ, then every (not necessarily hermitian, and a priori not necessarily bounded) conditionally positive
linear functional γ:B→C has the form γ=sμ−(s−γ(\mathds1))ϵ
for a state μ of B and s≥0.
We now check how the subalgebras span(D+∩D(γ))
and span(D+∩D(γ)) obtained
in Theorem 2.8 are related to the ‘natural’ subalgebras of D(γ)
in several examples.
Example 2.11** (continuing [36, Subsection 5.1]).**
Suppose that G:=G
for a locally compact group G. Write λu for
the canonical embedding of L1(G) into C0u(G)=C∗(G).
We have D+=λu(L1(G)+). Then
w∗-continuous convolution semigroups of Ru-invariant
states of C∗(G) correspond to w∗-continuous multiplicative
semigroups of real-valued normalised positive-definite functions on
G, as well as to hermitian conditionally negative-definite functions θ:G→R vanishing at e
(a posteriori having non-negative values), where the second
correspondence is given by sending θ to (e−tθ)t≥0.
We have λu(Cc(G))⊆D(γ) and γ(λu(f))=−∫Gf(t)θ(t)dμ(t)
for all f∈Cc(G). Since Cc(G)=span(Cc(G)+), we clearly
have λu(Cc(G))⊆span(D+∩D(γ)). In fact an easy argument, for example using Proposition 2.5(a), shows that
D+∩D(γ)=λu({f∈L1(G)+:fθ∈L1(G)}),
thus
span(D+∩D(γ))=λu({f∈L1(G):fθ∈L1(G)}).
Example 2.12**.**
Suppose that G:=G for a
locally compact group G. Then C0u(G)=C0(G). We use the standard
notation of [11]; so that A(G) stands
for the Fourier algebra of G, P(G) denotes the set of all (continuous) positive-definite functions on G, Pλ(G) the set of these elements of P(G) whose associated representations of G are weakly contained in the left regular representation, and B(G) denotes the Fourier–Stieltjes algebra of G, i.e. the linear span of P(G). We have D+=A(G)∩P(G).
We claim that D+=C0(G)∩Pλ(G).
Indeed, the inclusion ‘⊆’ is not difficult. For ‘⊇’,
recall that every f∈Pλ(G) is the limit, in the topology
of uniform convergence on compact subsets of G, of a net (fi)i∈I
in A(G)∩P(G) by [6, Proposition 18.3.5],
which is necessarily eventually bounded. This topology is equivalent
to the strict topology of Cb(G)=M(C0(G)) on bounded subsets of
this space. If f∈C0(G)∩Pλ(G), then (fi)i∈I
consequently converges to f in the w-topology of C0(G), as by
Cohen’s factorisation theorem, every continuous functional on a C∗-algebra A is of the form a↦ω(ba), where b∈A and ω∈A∗. This proves that f∈D+ and the claim follows.
Consider the generating functional γ:D(γ)⊆C0(G)→C
of a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant
states of C0(G), that is, a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup
of symmetric regular Borel measures of G. By Hunt’s theorem, when
G is a Lie group we have C02,l(G)⊆D(γ) (see
[16, Theorem 4.2.8] or [24, Theorem 1.1],
or the extended version [16, Theorem 4.5.9]
for arbitrary locally compact groups). However, it is not always true
that C02,l(G)⊆span(D+∩D(γ)),
or even that C02,l(G)⊆B(G). For instance, we have C02(R)⊈B(R),
and actually C0∞(R)⊈B(R), as shown by the following
example communicated to us by Przemysław Ohrysko. Let f∈C0∞(R)
be such that f≡0 on (−∞,0] and f(x)=lnx1
for all x∈[2,∞). Assume by contradiction that f∈B(R).
By the theorem of F. and M. Riesz [29, Theorem 8.2.7]
we then have f∈A(R). Consider the function fodd∈A(R)
given by R∋x↦f(x)−f(−x). Since it is odd, the set \bigl{\{}\int_{1}^{b}\frac{f_{\text{odd}}(x)}{x}\,\mathrm{d}x:b>1\bigr{\}}
is bounded by [37, I.4.1], contradicting the
fact that fodd(x)=lnx1 for x∈[2,∞).
Nonetheless, a smaller, yet still canonical, subalgebra of C02,l(G)⊆D(γ)
is Cc4,l(G). Let us show that Cc4(R) is contained in span(C02(R)∩P(R)),
thus in span(D+∩D(γ)). Denote
by x the identity function on R. Recall from [18, p. 143, Exercise 7]
that Cc2(R)⊆A(R); this is because for f∈Cc2(R)
the inversion formula f=g^ for g=2π1f^(−⋅)
holds, as x2f^ belongs to A(R) by [18, Chapter VI, Theorem 1.5]
and is thus bounded, so that f^∈L1(R). Let f∈Cc4(R).
Then as before, x4f^ is bounded, so that x2f^∈L1(R).
Write f^ as the linear combination of F1,…,F4∈L1(R)+
in the standard way. For 1≤i≤4 we get x2Fi∈L1(R),
and consequently [18, Chapter VI, Theorem 1.6]
implies that Fi∈C02(R). By the foregoing, f^^,
and thus also f, belong to span(C02(R)∩P(R)).
Example 2.13**.**
Suppose that G is a compact quantum group. Then Pol(G)⊆D(γ).
Since τi/4u restricts to an isomorphism of Pol(G)
we have Pol(G)=span(D+∩Pol(G)), hence Pol(G)⊆span(D+∩D(γ)).
Example 2.14**.**
We will discuss here convolution semigroups arising from closed quantum subgroups and the special instances of the Brownian motions on SUq(2) and Eμ(2).
For the notions of (closed) quantum subgroups we refer to [7].
Given a closed quantum subgroup H (in the sense of Vaes) of a locally compact quantum group G and a w∗-continuous
convolution semigroup of states (μtH)t≥0 of C0u(H) we define the associated w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of states (μtG)t≥0 of C0u(G) simply by putting μtG:=μtH∘Θ, where Θ:C0u(G)→C0u(H) is the quantum subgroup-defining surjection. Denote the respective generating functionals by γH and γG. Then D(γG)={a∈C0u(G):Θ(a)∈D(γH)}, with γG(a)=γH(Θ(a)) for a∈D(γG). By the definition of the Vaes closed quantum subgroup, see for example [7, Theorem 3.7], we have \Theta(\{(\widehat{\omega}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!^{\mathbb{G}}}):\widehat{\omega}\in L^{1}(\widehat{\mathbb{G}})\}=\{(\widehat{\omega}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!^{\mathbb{H}}}):\widehat{\omega}\in L^{1}(\widehat{\mathbb{H}})\}. Furthermore, the morphism Θ intertwines the scaling groups: Θ∘τtu,G=τtu,H∘Θ for all t∈R; indeed, using the terminology of [7], this intertwining holds true for every strong quantum homomorphism between two locally compact quantum groups, as follows by combining [27, Proposition 3.10] with [7, formula (1.12)] relating a strong quantum homomorphism to its associated bicharacter. Thus, we have
D+H=Θ(D+G). Hence
D+G∩D(γG)={a∈D+G:Θ(a)∈D(γH)},
so that span(D+G∩D(γG))=span({a∈D+G:Θ(a)∈D(γH)}). Similarly, Θ intertwines the unitary antipodes, so that if the elements of (μtH)t≥0 are Ru,H-invariant, then the elements of (μtG)t≥0 are Ru,G-invariant.
Consider then the special instance of this construction arising from the essentially unique quantum Gaussian process on SUq(2), with q∈[−1,1]∖{0}, as described for example in [33]. Our quantum group G is in this case Woronowicz’s SUq(2), and its closed quantum subgroup H will be the circle, T. We refer for the details of the construction to [14, Subsection 2.3 and Section 5]. The convolution semigroup on T we will be interested in is the classical heat semigroup, with the generating functional given formally by the second derivative at [math]. For us it will be easier to view C(T) as C∗(Z), so that we can use the techniques introduced in Example 2.11. In this picture the heat convolution semigroup (μtT)t≥0 corresponds to the conditionally negative-definite function θ(n)=n2,n∈Z. Denote the identity function in C(T) by z. Then by Example 2.11 we have
[TABLE]
Now the (equivalence classes of) irreducible representations of SUq(2) are indexed by half-integers, and each representation Us (with s∈21Z+) is (2s+1)-dimensional. Also, in the notation of [14, Subsection 2.3], for all t∈R we have τt(α)=α and τt(γ)=∣q∣2itγ by [39, formulas (5.19) and (A 1.3)] (see also [28, Example 1.7.8]), so that τt(Uijs)=∣q∣(i−j)2itUijs and τ−i/4(Ujis)=∣q∣(j−i)/2Ujis (see [14, p. 227]) for s∈21Z+ and i,j∈{−s,−s+1,…,s−1,s}.
Consequently, for ω∈L1(SUq(2))≅ℓ1–⨁s∈21Z+ℓ1(M2s+1) we have
[TABLE]
where the symbol ℓ1–⨁ is meant to indicate the ℓ1-direct sum and we view
ω=(ωs)s∈21Z+ as the direct sum of trace-class matrices.
We need the fact that if Θ:C(SUq(2))→C(T) denotes the relevant quotient map, then
[TABLE]
(see the formulas after [14, Theorem 5.1]). Thus, we have
[TABLE]
and in view of the results discussed in the first part of this example we obtain the following formula:
[TABLE]
where the expression ω2n,2ns in the last formula should be understood as equal [math] whenever 2n∈/{−s,…,s}.
Next, for a fixed a parameter μ∈(0,1), let G be the quantum Eμ(2) group [40]. It contains H:=T as a (maximal classical) closed quantum subgroup [19, Theorem 4.3] (see also [17, Propositions 2.8.32 and 2.8.36]). Write Cμ:={μkz:k∈Z,z∈T}∪{0}, and define an action α of Z on C0(Cμ) by α1(f):=f(μ⋅) for f∈C0(Cμ). Then we can and will identify C0(Eμ(2)) with C0(Cμ)⋊αZ [17, Proposition 4.1.5]. Denoting by (cn)n∈Z the canonical unitaries in M(C0(Cμ)⋊αZ), the relevant map Θ:C0(Eμ(2))→C(T) is given by
[TABLE]
Therefore, the w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of states on Eμ(2) associated with the heat semigroup on T is given by
[TABLE]
so its generating functional satisfies fcn∈D(γEμ(2)) and γEμ(2)(fcn)=−n2f(0) for all f∈C0(Cμ) and n∈Z.
Exhibiting an explicit description of D+Eμ(2) and D+Eμ(2)∩D(γEμ(2)) in terms of the canonical generators of C0(Eμ(2)) is more involved than for SUq(2) due to the complicated nature of the regular representations of Eμ(2) [17, Definition 2.3.9 and Corollary 2.3.14], and is outside the scope of the present paper.
3. Cocycles
As mentioned in the Introduction, Theorem 2.8 opens the way to associate cocycles (i.e. π–ϵ derivations) to convolution semigroups of states, and to introduce notions such as Gaussianity and Lévy–Khintchine decompositions and develop their theory (see [32, 13] for these concepts in the algebraic setting). In this section we recall the construction of cocycles, intending to continue the development of the theory in later works.
The following algebraic result is well known and follows via a GNS-type construction.
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let A be a unital ∗-algebra.
Suppose that ϵ is a character of A, and that
γ:A→C is a linear functional satisfying γ(\mathds1)=0
that is hermitian and algebraically conditionally positive in the
sense that γ({a∗a:a∈A∩kerϵ})⊆[0,∞).
Then there exists a triple (\EuScriptH,π,c), where \EuScriptH is an inner
product space, π is a unital representation of A
on \EuScriptH and c:A→\EuScriptH is a π–ϵ
derivation that induces the \prescriptϵCϵ-coboundary
of γ: it is a linear map satisfying
[TABLE]
If, in addition, A is a unital ∗-subalgebra of some
unital C∗-algebra B, and if γ is conditionally positive
(in the possibly stricter sense of Definition 1.2, namely
γ(A∩kerϵ∩B+)⊆[0,∞)),
then we can choose \EuScriptH to be a Hilbert space and π to be contractive.
If we apply Proposition 3.1 to an Ru-invariant conditionally positive functional, the resulting cocycle additionally has a symmetry property, which in the context of compact quantum groups was exploited in [23] and [5]. Specifically, in the context of Theorem 2.8, with B being C0u(G)#
and A being span((D+∩D(γ))∪{\mathds1}),
the cocycle c resulting from Proposition 3.1 is real in the sense that
[TABLE]
Finally we show how the π–ϵ derivations considered above in the dual to classical case give rise to the usual cocycles viewed as Hilbert space-valued functions on a group satisfying the suitable cocycle relation.
Suppose that G is a locally compact group and consider the locally
compact quantum group G:=G. Denote the left Haar measure
of G by μ and the co-unit of G by ϵ. Set A:=span(λu(Cc(G))∪{\mathds1})
inside C∗(G)#. Fix a unitary representation Π of G
on a Hilbert space \EuScriptH and denote by π the representation of
C∗(G) on \EuScriptH associated to Π.
A (1-) cocycle of G with respect to Π is a continuous
map b:G→\EuScriptH such that b(ts)=Π(t)b(s)+b(t) for all t,s∈G.
For such a cocycle, the linear map c:A→\EuScriptH given by
c(λu(f)):=∫Gf(t)b(t)dμ(t) for f∈Cc(G) and c(\mathds1):=0
is well defined by the continuity of b, and is a π–ϵ
derivation. Furthermore, c satisfies the following continuity property:
(\cent) For every compact K⊆G there exists
a constant 0≤mK<∞ such that ∥c(λu(f))∥≤mK∥f∥L1(G)
for all f∈Cc(G) supported by K.
Conversely, suppose that G is second countable (hence σ-compact)
and let c:A→\EuScriptH be a π–ϵ derivation
satisfying (\cent). We will prove that it is induced
by a cocycle of G as above.
For each compact set K⊆G, let Cc(G;K):={f∈Cc(G):f is supported by K}
and Cc(G∣K):={f∣K:f∈Cc(G;K)}. Also consider
the (finite) restriction of the positive measure space (G,Borel,μ)
to K, and denote by L1(K),L∞(K) the resulting L1,L∞-spaces.
Let K:={K⊆G:K is compact and Cc(G∣K) is dense in L1(K) in the L1-norm}.
As we show below, in Lemma 3.3, K
contains a sequence (Kn)n=1∞ such that
each compact subset of G is contained in some Kn.
For every K∈K, (\cent) implies that the
map Cc(G;K)∋f↦c(λu(f)) induces a bounded
linear map from L1(K) to \EuScriptH; and L1(K) is separable because
K is second countable. We deduce that the image of c in \EuScriptH
is separable, so we may and shall assume that \EuScriptH is separable.
Take again K∈K. Denote by L∞(K,\EuScriptH) the Banach space of equivalence classes of weakly measurable
essentially bounded functions from K to \EuScriptH.
Since \EuScriptH is separable, the Banach spaces L∞(K,\EuScriptH) and B(L1(K),\EuScriptH) are canonically isometrically isomorphic [9, Theorem VI.8.6].
Therefore, the bounded map from L1(K) to \EuScriptH discussed above induces an
element bK∈L∞(K,\EuScriptH) such that c(λu(f))=∫Kf(t)bK(t)dμ(t)
weakly in \EuScriptH for all f∈Cc(G;K). Using the sequence (Kn)n=1∞
in K we conclude that there exists a weakly measurable
function b:G→\EuScriptH that is bounded on each compact subset of G
and satisfies c(λu(f))=∫Gf(t)b(t)dμ(t) weakly
for all f∈Cc(G).
The assumption that c:A→\EuScriptH is a π–ϵ
derivation means that for each f,g∈Cc(G),
[TABLE]
(the left integral converges in norm). For a function h:G→C
use the notation h∨:=h(⋅−1). Let ζ∈\EuScriptH, and write
bζ:=⟨ζ,b(⋅)⟩. Then
[TABLE]
As a result, (3.1) implies
that the following equality holds almost everywhere:
[TABLE]
Notice that since bζ is bounded on compact sets, (g⋆bζ∨)∨
is continuous (for the convolution of an L1 function and an
L∞ function is continuous); and evidently so is ⟨ζ,Π(⋅)c(λu(g))⟩.
Choosing g such that ∫Gg(t)dμ(t)=0 we deduce that bζ
is equal almost everywhere to a continuous function. Since b is
bounded on compact sets, since the complement of a μ-null set
is dense, and since \EuScriptH is separable, this yields that b is equal
almost everywhere to a weakly continuous function,
so that we may and shall assume that b itself is weakly continuous.
Therefore, (3.2) holds
everywhere for all g∈Cc(G) and ζ∈\EuScriptH.
This implies, by a simple calculation using weak continuity of b, that b(ts)=Π(t)b(s)+b(t)
for all t,s∈G. Finally, as \EuScriptH is separable, b is continuous
(in norm) by [1, Exercise 2.14.3].
In conclusion, b is a cocycle.
Lemma 3.3**.**
For a second countable, locally
compact group G, the set K defined above contains a
sequence such that each compact subset of G is contained in some
element of this sequence.
Proof.
For a compact K⊆G, C(K) is dense in L1(K), hence
K∈K (namely, Cc(G∣K) is dense in L1(K)) if
and only if Cc(G∣K) is dense in C(K) (in the L1-norm).
This is equivalent to 1K lying in the closure of Cc(G∣K),
because Cc(G∣K) is an ideal in C(K) by Tietze’s theorem.
Since G is second countable, there exists a (left-invariant) metric
d on G that induces the topology on G such that each open
d-ball has compact closure [35]. Denote again
the left Haar measure of G by μ, and for r>0 write Br
for the open d-ball around e of radius r. Since the function
(0,∞)→(0,∞) given by r↦μ(Br)
is (well defined and) non-decreasing, it admits arbitrarily large
points of continuity. Thus, it suffices to prove that if r>0 is
such a point then Br∈K. For every 0<δ<r
there exists by Urysohn’s lemma fδ∈Cc(G) with values
in [0,1] satisfying fδ∣Br−δ≡1
and suppfδ⊆Br. Then fδ∈Cc(G;Br),
hence fδ∣Br∈Cc(G∣Br).
We have {x∈Br:fδ(x)=1}⊆Br\Br−δ⊆Br+δ\Br−δ,
so that
[TABLE]
by assumption. This completes the proof. ∎
4. Reconstructing convolution semigroups
from generating functionals
An important consequence of the celebrated Schürmann reconstruction
theorem [31, 32]
is that for every conditionally positive, hermitian functional γ
on a ∗-bialgebra that annihilates the unit there exists a (unique)
w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of states (μt)t≥0
such that μt=exp⋆(tγ) for all t≥0. In
particular, this theorem applies to compact quantum groups. In this
section we establish a reconstruction theorem for arbitrary locally
compact quantum groups under a symmetry assumption.
Notation 4.1*.*
Let n∈N. In the next results we use the convention that for
a Hilbert space \EuScriptH we write vectors ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗\EuScriptH
as matrices (ζij)1≤i,j≤n∈Mn(\EuScriptH) with
respect to some fixed orthonormal basis. Furthermore, we use the notation π(n) defined in the Introduction for the pair (L∞(G),φ). So π(n) is the nearest-point projection of L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G)
onto the key closed convex set associated with (Mn⊗L∞(G),Trn⊗φ).
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let n∈N. Then for every
ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) we have
[TABLE]
in C0u(G)#. Recall that the operators on both sides of this
inequality are positive by Lemma 2.3(c).
Proof.
Fix ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G). Let ν be an
Ru-invariant state of C0u(G). Since the map
Rν on L∞(G) is KMS-symmetric with respect to φ
[36, Corollary 2.8] and
completely Markov, the map Rν(2,φ) on
L2(G) is a (contractive) selfadjoint completely Markov operator
with respect to φ; see [36, Appendix]
for the terminology.
By [15, Lemma 5.2]
the quadratic form on L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) associated
with \mathds1Mn⊗(\mathds1−Rν(2,φ))
is Dirichlet with respect to Trn⊗φ, so that
[TABLE]
that is,
[TABLE]
From Proposition 2.2(a) and Lemma 2.3(b)
this is equivalent to
[TABLE]
Let now μ be an arbitrary state of C0u(G). Then, as ν:=21(μ+μ∘Ru)
is an Ru-invariant state of C0u(G), we
deduce from the last formula that
[TABLE]
and the assertion follows.
∎
In this section we will consider conditionally positive functionals as in Definition 1.2
with B being C0u(G)# and ϵ being the co-unit.
Let A be a globally
Ru-invariant unital subspace of C0u(G)#
and γ:A→C a linear functional satisfying γ(\mathds1)=0
that is Ru-invariant and conditionally positive.
(a)
For every a∈A, if [(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](a)≥0 in C0u(G)#, then −γ(a)≥0.
2. (b)
For every ω∈L1(G)+
such that aω∈A we have −γ(aω)≥0.
3. (c)
For every n∈N and ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G)
such that ∑i,j=1naωζi,j,∑i,j=1naωπ(n)(ζ)i,j∈A
we have −γ(∑i,j=1naωπ(n)(ζ)i,j)≤−γ(∑i,j=1naωζi,j).
Proof.
(a) We have [(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](a)∈A∩kerϵ
and γ{[(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](a)}=−2γ(a) for every a∈A.
The assertion thus follows from conditional positivity of γ.
The next theorem is (a first incarnation of) the main result of this section. The motivation for condition (IV)
in the next theorem is Corollary 4.3(c).
See more below.
Theorem 4.4**.**
Let G be a locally compact
quantum group and A be a globally Ru-invariant
unital subspace of C0u(G)#. Let γ:A→C
be a linear functional satisfying γ(\mathds1)=0 that is Ru-invariant
and conditionally positive. Assume further that:
(I)
A=span((D+∩A)∪{\mathds1});
2. (II)
{ζ∈L2(G):aωζ∈A}*
is a dense subspace of L2(G);*
3. (III)
γ* satisfies the following
lower semi-continuity property: if (ak)k=1∞
is a sequence in D+∩A converging in the
norm of C0u(G) to some a∈D+∩A,
then −γ(a)≤liminfk→∞(−γ(ak)) (recall
that all these numbers are non-negative by Corollary 4.3(b));*
4. (IV)
for every n∈N and ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G)
such that aωζi,j∈A for each
1≤i,j≤n there exists a sequence (ηk)k=1∞
in L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) that converges to π(n)(ζ)
such that aωηi,jk∈A for
each k∈N and 1≤i,j≤n and liminfk→∞∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωηi,jk))≤∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωζi,j)).
Then there exists a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals on C0u(G) whose generating functional extends γ on C0u(G).
Proof.
The set D:={ζ∈L2(G):aωζ∈A}
is a dense subspace of L2(G) by (II).
Corollary 4.3(b)
allows defining a map Q:D→[0,∞) by Q(ζ):=−γ(aωζ)
for ζ∈D. Then Q is a densely-defined quadratic form. By
[34, Proposition A.9], Q is closable, because
if (ζk)k=1∞ is a sequence in D that
converges to ζ∈D, then \bigl{\|}\mathfrak{a}_{\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta_{k}}}-\mathfrak{a}_{\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta}}\bigr{\|}=\bigl{\|}\mathfrak{a}_{\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta_{k}}-\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta}}\bigr{\|}\leq\left\|\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta_{k}}-\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta}\right\|\xrightarrow[k\to\infty]{}0,
so Q(ζ)=−γ(aωζ)≤liminfk→∞(−γ(aωζk))=liminfk→∞Q(ζk)
by (III). Recall that D(Q)
consists of all ζ∈L2(G) for which there is a sequence (ζk)k=1∞
in D with ζkk→∞ζ and Q(ζk−ζℓ)k,ℓ→∞0,
in which case limk→∞Q(ζk) exists and equals Q(ζ).
Since Q is obviously invariant under U(L∞(G)′),
so is Q.
We now show that Q is completely Dirichlet with respect
to φ. Fix n∈N and let (ζi,j)i,j=1n=ζ∈D(Q(n)).
By (IV) there is a sequence (ηk)k=1∞
in L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) that converges to π(n)(ζ)
such that ηi,jk∈D for every k∈N and
1≤i,j≤n and liminfk→∞∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωηi,jk))≤∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωζi,j)).
Hence, the lower semi-continuity of Q(n) implies
that
[TABLE]
For the general case, take (ζi,j)i,j=1n=ζ∈D(Q(n)),
and pick a sequence \bigl{(}\big{(}\zeta_{i,j}^{k}\big{)}_{i,j=1}^{n}\bigr{)}_{k=1}^{\infty}=\left(\zeta^{k}\right)_{k=1}^{\infty}
in D(Q(n)) such that ζkk→∞ζ and
Q(ζi,jk−ζi,jℓ)k,ℓ→∞0
for each 1≤i,j≤n. The foregoing, the continuity of π(n)
and the lower semi-continuity of Q(n) imply that
[TABLE]
This proves that Q(n) is Dirichlet with respect
to Trn⊗φ. Since n∈N was arbitrary, Q
is completely Dirichlet with respect to φ.
We conclude from Theorem 1.4
that there exists a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup (μt)t≥0
of Ru-invariant contractive positive functionals on C0u(G) whose associated
completely Dirichlet form is Q. Denoting the generating
functional of (μt)t≥0 by γ′, we obtain
γ∣D+∩A⊆γ′ from Proposition 2.2(b),
hence γ∣C0u(G)∩A⊆γ′ by (I).
∎
The disadvantage of Theorem 4.4 is that, in principle, the functional γ may extend to two different generating functionals (so it does not determine the convolution semigroup of positive functionals in question uniquely). This cannot happen if we strengthen condition (III), as we show in the next theorem.
Theorem 4.5**.**
Let G be a locally compact
quantum group and let A be a globally Ru-invariant
unital subspace of C0u(G)#. Let γ:A→C
be a linear functional satisfying γ(\mathds1)=0 that is Ru-invariant
and conditionally positive. Assume further that conditions (I),
(II) and (IV) from Theorem 4.4 hold, and that we have a stronger version of condition (III), namely
(III.a)
if (ak)k=1∞
is a sequence in D+∩A converging in the
norm of C0u(G) to some a∈D+ and liminfk→∞(−γ(ak))<∞,
then a∈A and −γ(a)≤liminfk→∞(−γ(ak)).
Then there exists a uniquew∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals on C0u(G) whose generating functional γ′ satisfies D+∩D(γ′)=D+∩A and extends γ on C0u(G).
Proof.
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 4.4. The form Q defined there is closed, for if (ζk)k=1∞
is a sequence in D that converges to ζ∈L2(G) such that
liminfk→∞Q(ζk)<∞, namely liminfk→∞(−γ(aωζk))<∞,
then as above we have aωζkk→∞aωζ
in norm, so by assumption aωζ∈A
(that is, ζ∈D) and Q(ζ)=−γ(aωζ)≤liminfk→∞(−γ(aωζk))=liminfk→∞Q(ζk).
Hence, D+∩D(γ′)=D+∩A
by Proposition 2.2(b).
The generating functional γ′′ of any other w∗-continuous
convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant contractive positive functionals on
C0u(G) such that γ′′ extends γ on C0u(G) and D+∩D(γ′′)=D+∩A
behaves just like γ′ on D+, and so γ′=γ′′
by Proposition 2.4.
∎
Remark 4.6*.*
The conditions of Theorem 4.5 are fulfilled
in the ‘model’ situation, when γ is the generating functional
of a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup (μt)t≥0
of Ru-invariant states on G and we take Aγ:=span((D+∩D(γ))∪{\mathds1})⊆C0u(G)#
for A, to which γ is extended by making it vanish at \mathds1, and the (unique, as indicated) convolution semigroup
constructed in the theorem is again (μt)t≥0.
Indeed, Aγ is globally Ru-invariant
by Lemma 2.3. Condition (I)
plainly holds; notice that D+∩Aγ=D+∩D(γ).
Condition (II) holds by Proposition 2.2(b).
Condition (III.a) follows
from Proposition 2.5(c).
And condition (IV) verifies
as for n∈N and ζ∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) such
that aωζi,j∈D(γ) for each 1≤i,j≤n
one can just consider the vector π(n)(ζ)∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G)
itself: indeed, combining Lemma 4.2
and Corollary 2.6 we get that a∑i,j=1nωπ(n)(ζ)i,j∈D(γ),
equivalently aωπ(n)(ζ)i,j∈D(γ)
for all 1≤i,j≤n, and the desired inequality follows from
Corollary 4.3(c).
Remark 4.7*.*
Assume that G is not compact. The fact that the convolution semigroup obtained in Theorem 4.4 does not necessarily consist of states may seem counter-intuitive, but it is easy to explain. Let (μt)t≥0 be a w∗-continuous convolution semigroup of Ru-invariant states of C0u(G), and denote its generating functional by γs′. Fix c≥0, and let γ′ be the generating functional of the convolution semigroup (e−ctμt)t≥0, namely γ′=γs′−cϵ. Now, extend γ′ to a linear functional γ on span(D(γs′)∪{\mathds1})⊆C0u(G)# by making it vanish at \mathds1. We assert that γ is conditionally positive. Indeed, let λ\mathds1+a∈D(γ)∩kerϵ∩C0u(G)+# (λ∈C, a∈D(γs′)⊆C0u(G)). Since C0u(G) is not unital, we have 0∈σ(a), thus λ≥0. Furthermore, λ=−ϵ(a). All in all, using the fact that the (natural) extension of γs′ to span(D(γs′)∪{\mathds1}) vanishing at \mathds1 (also denoted by γs′ in the next equation) is conditionally positive, we have
[TABLE]
as the sum of two non-negative numbers.
The restriction of γ to Aγ:=span((D+∩D(γ))∪{\mathds1}) now satisfies the conditions of Theorem 4.5, and the constructed convolution semigroup is (e−ctμt)t≥0: this follows by arguing as in the previous remark.
Remark 4.8*.*
An Ru-invariant conditionally positive linear functional γ:A→C
with γ(\mathds1)=0, where A is a globally Ru-invariant
unital subspace of C0u(G)# satisfying condition (I)
of Theorem 4.4, is automatically hermitian,
because it is hermitian on D+∩A: if ω∈L1(G)+
and aω∈A, then aω∗=Ru(aω)
by Lemma 2.3(a), thus γ(aω∗)=γ(aω),
and this number is non-positive, and in particular real, by Corollary 4.3(b).
Remark 4.9*.*
The difference between Theorem 4.4 and Theorem 4.5 raises the following question. Is it indeed possible that one can have a strict containment of two noncommutative translation-invariant (completely) Dirichlet forms (in the sense of Theorem 1.4(c))? Classically the answer is negative, as any Dirichlet form as above contains in its domain the algebra Cc2,l(G), and the Lévy–Khintchine formula shows that the restriction of the form to this algebra determines the convolution semigroup (so also the Dirichlet form in question). It is worth noting that once we drop the translation invariance, even classically one can construct Dirichlet forms strictly contained in each other, as can be seen for example in [12]. Note that a similar question can be asked about proper containment of generating functionals.
Since the appearance of π(n) in the above condition (IV)
is not desirable, let us observe that it can easily be replaced by
stronger conditions, one of which (condition (IV.b)) depends only on A and not on the values of γ.
Corollary 4.10**.**
Theorem 4.4
remains true when condition (IV) is replaced
by either of the following ones.
(IV.a)
For every n∈N and
ζ,η∈L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G) such that aωζi,j∈A
for each 1≤i,j≤n and ∑i,j=1n[(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aωηi,j)≤∑i,j=1n[(id+Ru)(ϵ(⋅)\mathds1−id)](aωζi,j) in C0u(G)#
there exists a sequence (ηk)k=1∞ in L2(Mn,Trn)⊗L2(G)
that converges to η such that aωηi,jk∈A
for each k∈N and 1≤i,j≤n and liminfk→∞∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωηi,jk))≤∑i,j=1n(−γ(aωζi,j)).
2. (IV.b)
For every η∈L2(G)
there exists a sequence (ηk)k=1∞ in L2(G)
that converges to η such that for each k∈N we
have aωηk∈A and
We close with a result connecting Property (T) and conditionally
positive functionals. One of the main results of [36]
says that if G is second countable and G does not
have Property (T), then there exists a w∗-continuous convolution
semigroup of Ru-invariant states of C0u(G)
with unbounded generator (and vice versa) [36, Theorem 4.6].
Let us establish the converse in the more general framework of this
section.
Theorem 4.11**.**
If G is a locally compact quantum group and γ satisfies
the assumptions in Theorem 4.4
and is unbounded (equivalently: unbounded after restricting to C0u(G)), then G does not have Property (T).
Proof.
Applying Theorem 4.4 we get a w∗-continuous
convolution semigroup (μt)t≥0 of Ru-invariant
contractive positive functionals of C0u(G) whose generating functional γ′ extends
γ on C0u(G). Since γ is unbounded on C0u(G), γ′ is unbounded. This means that
(μt)t≥0 is not norm continuous [25, Theorem 3.7].
By normalising, we can assume that (μt)t≥0 consists of states.
This implies that G does not have Property (T) by [8, Theorem 6.1].
∎
5. Example: compact quantum groups
In this section we show that Theorem 4.4
can be applied to prove Schürmann’s reconstruction theorem for
compact quantum groups assuming that the functional is Ru-invariant.
Our proof is analytic, and is very different from the original one. It is worth noting that a proof of the Schürmann reconstruction theorem for compact quantum groups using Dirichlet form techniques was circulated a few years ago in unpublished notes of Roland Vergnioux.
Let G be a compact
quantum group. For S⊆Irred(G) write Pol(G)S:=span{uijα:α∈S,1≤i,j≤nα}.
Also let Pol(G)α:=Pol(G){α} for α∈Irred(G).
Denote by h the Haar state of G, both on Cu(G) and on
L∞(G). Recall the orthogonality relation
[TABLE]
for suitable invertible positive matrices Qα∈Mnα, α∈Irred(G).
Let α∈Irred(G). For 1≤s,t≤nα, the functional on either Cu(G) or L∞(G)
given by
[TABLE]
maps uklβ to δαβδksδlt for all β∈Irred(G)
and 1≤k,l≤nβ. These functionals yield a bounded linear map Pα
on Cu(G) acting as the identity on Pol(G)α and annihilating
Pol(G)Irred(G)\{α}, and a similar
(normal) map exists on L∞(G) (for more information on such maps in the broader context of compact quantum group actions we refer to [4, Section 3]). Writing \upeta for the GNS map of h and pα for the (orthogonal)
projection of L2(G) onto L2(G)α:=\upeta(Pol(G)α), we clearly have
pα∘\upeta=\upeta∘Pα. Note that Pα
commutes with the scaling group of G. Furthermore, for all ζ∈L2(G),
we have P_{\alpha}((\widehat{\omega}_{\zeta}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}))=(\widehat{\omega}_{p_{\overline{\alpha}}\zeta}\otimes\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\text{\reflectbox{\mathds{W}}}\>\!}),
and consequently
[TABLE]
Finally, for S⊆Irred(G), set pS:=∑α∈Spα, and if S is finite, set PS:=∑α∈SPα.
Lemma 5.1**.**
For every η∈L2(G) and S⊆Irred(G)
we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We follow the line of proof of Lemma 4.2.
For every Ru-invariant state ν of Cu(G),
since \mathds1−Rν(2,φ) is positive and belongs
to ℓ∞(G), we have ωpSη(\mathds1−Rν(2,φ))≤ωη(\mathds1−Rν(2,φ)),
which is equivalent to (ϵ−ν)(aωpSη)≤(ϵ−ν)(aωη).
From this one readily infers the desired inequality.
∎
Theorem 5.2**.**
Let G be a compact quantum group and γ:Pol(G)→C be
a linear functional satisfying γ(\mathds1)=0 that is Ru-invariant
and conditionally positive. Then γ satisfies the assumptions
of Theorem 4.4.
Proof.
(I) and (II)
are clear (see Example 2.13, and note that aωζ∈Pol(G) if and only if ζ belongs to the algebraic direct sum of the subspaces L2(G)α, α∈Irred(G)).
(III) Let a sequence (ak)k=1∞
in D+∩Pol(G) converge to some a∈D+∩Pol(G).
Let F be a finite subset of Irred(G) such that a∈Pol(G)F.
For each k∈N, the elements ak1:=PF(ak)
and ak2:=ak−ak1 satisfy ak=ak1+ak2,
ak1,ak2∈D+∩Pol(G) by (5.1), ak1∈Pol(G)F
and ak2∈Pol(G)Irred(G)\F. Clearly ak1k→∞a.
From linearity of γ and finite dimensionality of Pol(G)F
we deduce that γ(ak1)k→∞γ(a).
Since −γ(ak1),−γ(ak2)≥0 for every k∈N
by Corollary 4.3(b),
the inequality −γ(a)≤liminfk→∞(−γ(ak))
is now obvious.
(IV) Let F denote
the set of all finite subsets of Irred(G) directed by inclusion.
For η∈L2(G), the net (pSη)S∈F
converges to η, and for each S∈F we have aωpSη∈Pol(G).
It follows from Lemma 5.1 that condition (IV.b)
of Corollary 4.10 holds.
∎
Funding
The first author was partially supported by the National Science Centre (NCN) [2014/14/E/ST1/00525].
Acknowledgements
We thank V. Runde, N. Spronk and L. Turowska for helpful correspondences
about the content of this paper. We are grateful to P. Ohrysko for
communicating to us his proof that C0∞(R)⊈B(R)
and letting us present it here (see Example 2.12).
Some of the work on this paper was done during a visit of the first author to Haifa in April 2018, and during a visit of the second author to Warsaw in September 2018; the hospitalities of the mathematics department/institute are gratefully acknowledged by both authors. We thank also the referees for their careful reading of the initial version of the paper and several comments improving the presentation and content of the text.
Bibliography41
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] B. Bekka, P. de la Harpe, and A. Valette, Kazhdan’s property (T) , New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 11, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008.
2[2] C. Berg and G. Forst, Potential theory on locally compact abelian groups , Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1975, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete, Band 87.
3[3] F. Cipriani, U. Franz, and A. Kula, Symmetries of Lévy processes on compact quantum groups, their Markov semigroups and potential theory , J. Funct. Anal. 266 (2014), no. 5, 2789–2844.
4[4] K. De Commer, Actions of compact quantum groups , Topological quantum groups, Banach Center Publ., vol. 111, Polish Acad. Sci. Inst. Math., Warsaw, 2017, pp. 33–100.
5[5] B. Das, U. Franz, A. Kula, and A. Skalski, One-to-one correspondence between generating functionals and cocycles on quantum groups in presence of symmetry , Math. Z. 281 (2015), no. 3-4, 949–965.
7[7] M. Daws, P. Kasprzak, A. Skalski, and P. M. Sołtan, Closed quantum subgroups of locally compact quantum groups , Adv. Math. 231 (2012), no. 6, 3473–3501.
8[8] M. Daws, A. Skalski, and A. Viselter, Around Property (T) for quantum groups , Comm. Math. Phys. 353 (2017), no. 1, 69–118.