This paper revises the augmented Cuntz semigroup construction to improve its functorial properties across all C*-algebras, enhancing its utility in classification problems.
Contribution
It introduces a new version of the augmented Cuntz semigroup that is stable, continuous, and split exact for all C*-algebras, broadening its applicability.
Findings
01
The revised construction is a stable, continuous, split exact functor.
02
It applies to the entire category of C*-algebras, not just those of stable rank one.
03
Enhances classification techniques for inductive limits of noncommutative CW complexes.
Abstract
We revise the construction of the augmented Cuntz semigroup functor used by the first author to classify inductive limits of 1-dimensional noncommutative CW complexes. The original construction has good functorial properties when restricted to the class of C*-algebras of stable rank one. The construction proposed here has good properties for all C*-algebras: We show that the augmented Cuntz semigroup is a stable, continuous, split exact functor, from the category of C*-algebras to the category of Cu-semigroups.
\mathrm{Cu}^{\sim}(A):=\Big{\{}\overline{[a]}-n\overline{[1]}:[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(\tilde{A}),\,n\in\mathbb{N}\hbox{ such that }\operatorname{rank}(\pi(a))=n\Big{\}}.
\mathrm{Cu}^{\sim}(A):=\Big{\{}\overline{[a]}-n\overline{[1]}:[a]\in\mathrm{Cu}(\tilde{A}),\,n\in\mathbb{N}\hbox{ such that }\operatorname{rank}(\pi(a))=n\Big{\}}.
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Operator Algebra Research · Advanced Banach Space Theory · Advanced Topics in Algebra
We revise the construction of the augmented Cuntz semigroup functor used by the first author to classify inductive limits of 1-dimensional noncommutative CW complexes. The original construction has good functorial properties when restricted to the class of C*-algebras of stable rank one. The construction proposed here has good properties for all C*-algebras: We show that the augmented Cuntz semigroup is a stable, continuous, split exact functor, from the category of C*-algebras to the category of Cu-semigroups.
1. Introduction
The Elliott classification program purports to distinguish “well behaved” simple nuclear separable C*-algebras up to isomorphism relying on essentially two kinds of data: K-groups and the cone of traces. This classification program has recently come almost to completion, culminating decades of research. In these recent developments the Cuntz semigroup plays a key role as a tool to define and exploit the regularity properties of the classifiable C*-algebras. When looking into classifying non-simple C*-algebras, the Cuntz semigroup itself becomes a good candidate for a classification invariant. One limitation of the Cuntz semigroup, however, is that it fails to capture the K0-group for non-unital C*-algebras. To remedy this, a variation on the Cuntz semigroup was introduced in [Robert]. This ordered semigroup, which we call here the augmented Cuntz semigroup, is built out of the the Cuntz semigroup of the unitization of the C*-algebra, resembling the way in which the K0-group is built out of the monoid of Murray-von Neumann classes of projections of the unitization of the C*-algebra. The augmented Cuntz semigroup was used in [Robert] to classify inductive limits of 1-dimensional noncommutative CW complexes.
A shortcoming of the construction of the augmented Cuntz semigroup given in [Robert] is that it is only a well behaved functor on the class of stable rank one C*-algebras. In the present paper we address this issue by revising the definition of this functor. The new construction agrees with the old one for C*-algebras of stable rank one (and C*-algebras of finite stable rank). But we are now able to establish the basic properties of the augmented Cuntz semigroup in greater generality.
Let Cu∼ denote the augmented Cuntz semigroup functor. We show that
(1)
Cu∼ is a functor from the category of C*-algebra to the category of Cu-semigroups (Theorem 4.4),
2. (2)
Cu∼ is stable and split exact (Theorems 5.5 and 5.3).
Further, we calculate Cu∼(A) for A simple, separable, and pure (Theorem 6.11). Again, we do this without assuming that A has stable rank one. Under more restrictive hypotheses, although also circumventing the stable rank one hypothesis, this calculation is obtained in [Linetal, Appendix A].
This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 is devoted to preliminaries on the Cuntz semigroups of C*-algebras and their abstract counterparts, Cu-semigroups. In Section 3 we describe a “formal differences” construction for Cu-semigroups, which we use to define Cu∼(A). In Section 4 we define Cu∼(A) and show, among other results, that it is a Cu-semigroup. In Section 5 we prove the functorial properties of Cu∼ mentioned above. In Section 6 we show that if A is stably finite then K0(A) and the cone of densely finite 2-quasitraces on A can be read off of Cu∼(A). Further, if A is simple and pure, Cu∼(A) can be calculated in terms of K0(A), the cone of densely finite 2-quasitraces on A, and the pairing between these two invariants.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. The Cuntz semigroup
Here we briefly recall some facts on the Cuntz semigroup of a C*-algebra and on the category of abstract Cu-semigroups. The reader is referred to [Antoine-Perera-Thiel] and references therein for more on this topic.
Let A be a C*-algebra. Let A+ denote the set of positive elements of A. Given a,b∈A+ we say that a is Cuntz smaller than b, and denote this by a≾Cub, if there exist
x1,x2,… in bA such that xn∗xn→a.
We say that a is Cuntz equivalent to b, and denote this by a∼Cub, if a≾Cub and b≾Cua. Given a∈A+ we denote by [a] the Cuntz equivalence class of a.
Let us denote by Cu(A) the set (A⊗K)+/∼Cu of Cuntz equivalence classes of positive elements of A⊗K. This set becomes an ordered semigroup when it is endowed with the order
[TABLE]
and with the addition operation
[TABLE]
where a′,b′∈(A⊗K)+ are orthogonal elements that are Cuntz equivalent to a and b, respectively (the existence of a′ and b′ is guaranteed by the stability of A⊗K). We call Cu(A) the Cuntz semigroup of the C*-algebra A.
Let ϕ:A→B be a C*-algebra homomorphism. Then Cu(ϕ):Cu(A)→Cu(B) is defined as Cu(ϕ)([a])=[(ϕ⊗idK)(a)] for all a∈(A⊗K)+, where idK:K→K denotes the identity map. This is a morphism of ordered semigroups.
By [Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu, Theorems 1], the assignments A↦Cu(A) and ϕ↦Cu(ϕ) define a functor from the category of C*-algebras to a certain category of ordered semigroups which we recall next.
2.2. Cu-semigroups
Let S be an ordered set such that every increasing sequence has a supremum. Given x,y∈S we write x≪y
if whenever y⩽supnyn for some increasing sequence (yn)n, then there exists n0∈N such that x⩽yn0. We say then that x is compactly contained in y, or way below y. An element e∈S is called compact if e≪e.
Suppose now that S is an ordered semigroup with neutral element 0. Consider the following properties on S:
**O0: **
0 is a compact element
**O1: **
Every increasing sequence in S has a supremum.
**O2: **
For each x∈S there exists an ≪-increasing sequence (xn)n such that x=supxn.
**O3: **
If (xn)n and (yn)n are increasing sequences then supxn+yn=supxn+supyn
**O4: **
If x1≪y1 and x2≪y2 then x1+x2≪y1+y2.
In the literature ([Antoine-Perera-Thiel, Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu]) a Cu-semigroup is typically understood to be a positively ordered semigroup (i.e., one for which 0⩽x for all x∈S) satisfying O1-O4. Notice that such groups automatically satisfy O0. We will consider here ordered semigroups that are not necessarily positively ordered. Instead, by a Cu-semigroup we shall understand an ordered semigroup that satisfies axioms O0-O4.
By a Cu-morphism we understand a map α:S→T between Cu-semigroups that is an ordered semigroup morphism (preserves order and addition), preserves neutral elements, the suprema of increasing sequences, and the compact containment. These last two properties mean that
**M1: **
if (xn)n=1∞ is an increasing sequence in S then α(supxn)=supα(xn),
**M2: **
if x,y∈S are such that x≪y then α(x)≪α(y).
The category Cu is defined as the category of Cu-semigroups with Cu-morphisms. If A is a C*-algebra then Cu(A) is a Cu-semigroup ([Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu, Theorem 1]).
By [Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu, Theorem 2], Cu(⋅) is a functor from the category of C*-algebras to the category Cu. Moreover, this functor preserves inductive limits.
We will make use below of an additional axiom satisfied by the Cuntz semigroup of a C*-algebra:
**O5: **
For all x′≪x⩽y and w′≪w such that x+w⩽y there exists z such that x′+z⩽y⩽x+z
and w′≪z.
We some times refer to O5 as the “almost algebraic order” axiom. That Cu(A) satisfies O5 as stated above is proven in [Antoine-Perera-Thiel]. A slightly weaker version, which does not seem to suffice for our purposes, is proven in [Rordam-Winter].
We call a positive element z∈S full if ∞⋅z:=supnnz is the largest element of S.
3. The Scc construction
Throughout this section S is a positively ordered Cu-semigroup that satisfies the almost algebraic order axiom O5.
Recall that an element e∈S is called compact if e≪e.
We denote the subsemigroup of compact elements of S by Sc, i.e., Sc={e∈S:e≪e}.
Let us define on S×Sc a relation as follows:
(x,e)≾cc(y,f) if for all x′≪x there exists g∈Sc
such that
[TABLE]
Since y is the supremum of a ≪-increasing sequence, once this inequality holds we can then choose y′≪y such that x′+f+g⩽y′+e+g. Thus, (x,e)≾cc(y,f) if and only if for all x′≪x
there exist y′≪y and g∈Sc such that x′+f+g⩽y′+e+g. Equipped with this observation it is straightforward to check that the relation
≾cc is transitive. Another observation easily checked, and which we will use frequently, is that if x′≾ccy for all x′≪x then
x≾ccy.
By anti-symmetrizing ≾cc
we obtain an equivalence relation: we write
(x,e)∼cc(y,f) if (x,e)≾cc(y,f) and (y,f)≾cc(x,e).
We denote the equivalence class of (x,e)∈S×Sc by (x,e).
Let Scc=(S×Sc)/∼cc.
Let us endow Scc with an order and an addition operation.
The order on Scc is the one induced by the pre-order ≾cc:
[TABLE]
Addition in Scc is defined in the obvious way:
[TABLE]
It is straightforward to check that addition is well defined and compatible with the order. Thus, Scc is an ordered monoid with neutral element (0,0).
Given x∈S let us denote (x,0)—the equivalence class of (x,0)—simply by x. Let us denote the neutral element (0,0) by [math].
If e is a compact element then e+(0,e)=0, i.e., (0,e) is the additive inverse of e. We can thus write
(x,e) as x−e. This is the form in which we typically write the elements of Scc:
[TABLE]
Suppose that e∈Sc is an order unit of the semigroup Sc. That is, for any f∈Sc we have f⩽ne for some n∈N.
If f⩽ne, with f,e compact, then f+f′=ne for some f′∈Sc (a consequence of the almost algebraic order axiom O5).
It follows that every element of Scc can be expressed in the form x−ne for some x∈S and n∈N.
That is,
[TABLE]
Example 3.1*.*
If S=N:=N∪{∞} then Scc≅Z:=Z∪{∞}.
Lemma 3.2**.**
The map x↦x from S to Scc is a surjection onto the set of positive elements of Scc.
Proof.
If 0⩽x−e then e+f⩽x+f for some f∈Sc. By O5, e+f is complemented in x+f. That is, there exists x′∈S such that x+f=x′+e+f. Then x′=x−e. ∎
Lemma 3.3**.**
If x⩽y and x′≪x then there exists z∈S such that x′≪z and z=y.
Proof.
Choose x′′ such that x′≪x′′≪x. Since x⩽y, there exists e∈Sc such that x′′+e⩽y+e. By O5, e is complemented in y+e and this complement may be chosen way above x′. That is, there exists z such that z+e=y+e and x′≪z. Thus, z is as desired. ∎
Theorem 3.4**.**
Every increasing sequence in Scc has a supremum. Moreover, if (xn)n=1∞ is an increasing sequence of positive elements in Scc then we can choose an increasing sequence (zn)n=1∞ in S such that zn⩽xn for all n and supnxn=supnzn.
Proof.
Let (xn)n=1∞ be an increasing sequence in Scc.
Given e∈Sc, the translation map x↦x+e is an ordered set isomorphism of Scc. Thus, applying one such translation
we may assume that x1⩾0. Then, by Lemma 3.2, for each n we can choose yn∈S such that xn=yn.
We construct recursively sequences (zn)n and (zn′)n in S satisfying that
(1)
zn′=yn for all n,
2. (2)
zn≪zn+1≪zn′ for all n,
3. (3)
if y≪ym for some m then y⩽zn for some n.
Let us first choose for each n a ≪-increasing sequence (yn,k)k⊆S such that yn=supkyn,k.
Set z1=0 and z1′=y1. Assume that z1,z1′,…,zn,zn′ have already been chosen. Since yn−1⩽yn=zn′, there exists e∈Sc such that yn−1,n+1+e⩽zn′+e. We can thus choose zn+1≪zn′ such that yn−1,n+e⩽zn+1+e. Hence, yn−1,n⩽zn+1. Moreover, increasing zn+1 along an ≪-increasing sequence with supremum zn′, we can arrange that yk,n⩽zn+1 for k=1,…,n−1 and also that zn≪zn+1 (since zn≪zn′).
Now, using that zn′=yn⩽yn+1 and Lemma 3.3, we choose zn+1′∈S such that zn+1≪zn+1′ and zn+1′=yn+1. We continue this process ad infinitum.
The sequences (zn)n
and (zn′)n obtained in this way satisfy (1), (2), and (3), above.
Observe that (zn)n is increasing.
Let z=supzn. Let us show that z=supyn. Fix ym. Let y≪ym. Then
y⩽zn for some n ans so y⩽z.
Since this holds for all y≪ym, we conclude that ym⩽z.
Thus, z is an upper bound for the sequence (yn)n. Suppose that w∈S is such that
yn⩽w for all n. Choose z′≪z. Then z′≪zn⩽zn′∼ccyn for some n.
Hence, z′≾ccw. Since z′≪z is arbitrary, it follows that z≾ccw, as desired.
∎
Lemma 3.5**.**
The map x↦x preserves suprema of increasing sequences and the compact containment relation.
Proof.
Let (xn)n be an increasing sequence in S with x=supxn. Choose z∈S such that z=supxn. Since xn⩽x for all n, we have that z⩽x. Let us prove the opposite inequality.
Let x′≪x. Then x′≪xn for some n. Since xn⩽z, there exists e∈Sc such that x′+e⩽z+e. This shows that x⩽z, as desired.
Let us now prove preservation of compact containment. Let x′,x∈S with x′≪x. Suppose that x⩽supyn, where (yn)n
is increasing. By Theorem 3.4, there exists an increasing sequence
(zn)n in S such that supzn=supyn and zn⩽yn for all n. Set z=supzn.
Since x⩽z, there exist z′≪z and e∈Sc such that x′+e⩽z′+e.
Then z′⩽zn0 for some n0.
Hence, x′⩽zn0⩽yn0. This shows that x′≪x.
∎
Theorem 3.6**.**
Let S be a positively ordered Cu-semigroup satisfying O5. Then the ordered semigroup Scc defined above is a Cu-semigroup also satisfying O5.
Proof.
We have already proven the existence of sequential suprema in Scc.
Let us prove O2. Given x−e∈Scc, we can choose an ≪-increasing sequence (xn)n in S with supremum x.
Since, by the previous lemma, the map z↦z is supremum and ≪ preserving, the sequence (xn)) is ≪-increasing and has supremum x.
Finally, the map z↦z−e is an order isomorphism. Thus, (xn−e) is ≪-increasing and has supremum x−e.
Let us prove O3. Translating the two sequences in this axiom by a suitable e, with e∈Sc,
we nay assume that their terms are positive. Let
(xn) and (yn) be increasing sequences of positive elements in Scc. One inequality is clear:
since xn+yn⩽supxn+supyn for all n,
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 3.4, choose an increasing sequences (zn)n in S
such that zn⩽xn and supzn=supxn. Similarly, choose
(wn) increasing and such that and wn⩽yn and supwn=supyn.
By O3 in S we have that
[TABLE]
Passing to Scc and applying that z↦z is supremum preserving on the left side we get
[TABLE]
Let us prove O4. Translating by a suitable e∈Sc, we may again assume that all the elements involved
are positive. Suppose that x1≪x2 and y1≪y2. Then x1⩽x2′ for some x2′≪x2
and y1≪y2′ for some y2′≪y2. By O4 in S, x2′+y2′≪x2+y2. Thus, using that z↦z preserves
compact containment,
[TABLE]
Finally, let us prove O5. Translating by a suitable e∈Sc, we may again assume that all the elements involved are positive. Suppose that we have elements x,y,w∈Scc such that x+w⩽y. Let x′≪x′′≪x, w′≪w′′≪w.
Then
[TABLE]
for some e∈Sc. By O5 in S, there exists z such that w′≪z and
[TABLE]
Passing to Scc we find that x′+z⩽y⩽x+z and w′≪z. This proves O5 in Scc.
∎
Let α:S→T be a morphism of Cu-semigroups. Since α maps compact elements
to compact elements, we have a map (x,e)↦(α(x),α(e)) from S×Sc to T×Tc.
Lemma 3.7**.**
The map (x,e)↦(α(x),α(e)) preserves the ≾cc relation.
Proof.
Let (x,e) and (y,f) be pairs in S×Sc such that
(x,e)≾cc(y,f). Let z≪α(x). Choose x′≪x such that
z⩽α(x′)≪α(x). Then x′+f+g⩽y+e+g for some g∈Sc.
Then,
[TABLE]
It follows that (α(x),α(e))≾cc(α(y),α(f)).
∎
In view of the previous lemma, we can define
αcc:Scc→Tcc by
[TABLE]
Theorem 3.8**.**
The map αcc:Scc→Tcc is a morphism of Cu-semigroups.
Proof.
Additivity, preservation of order, and preservation of 0 are straightforward to check.
Let us prove the preservation of sequential suprema.
Translating by compact elements, it suffices to consider sequences of positive elements. Let (xn)n be an increasing sequence in Scc.
The inequality supαcc(xn)⩽αcc(supxn) is clear.
Choose an increasing sequence (zn)n⊆S such that supzi=supxn and zn⩽xn for all n. Set z=supzn.
Since α is a morphism of Cu-semigroups, supnα(zn)=α(z). Passing to Scc we get
[TABLE]
where we have used that the map x↦x is supremum preserving. Thus,
αcc(z)=supαcc(xn).
Finally, let us prove preservation of compact containment: Again translating all the elements involved it suffices to deal with positive elements only.
Say x≪y in Scc. Since y=supy′≪yy′, there exists y′≪y such that x⩽y′. Now, α(y′)≪α(y).
Hence,
[TABLE]
where we have used that the map z↦z preserves ≪.
∎
It is straightforward to check that S↦Scc, α↦αcc is a functor from the category Cu to itself.
In [Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu, Theorem 2] it is shown that inductive limits exist in the category Cu. It follows from the proof of this theorem that inductive limits in the category Cu can be characterized as follows: Let (Si,αi,j)i,j∈I be an inductive system in Cu. A semigroup S with maps αi,∞:Si→S is the inductive limit of
(Si,αi,j)i,j in the category Cu if and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:
**L1: **
For every s∈S there exist si∈Si such that
[TABLE]
**L2: **
If s,t∈Si, for some i, are such that αi,∞(s)≤αi,∞(t) and s′≪s then there exists j⩾i such that αi,j(s′)≤αi,j(t).
Theorem 3.9**.**
The functor S↦Scc, α↦αcc preserves inductive limits.
Proof.
Let (Si,αi,j)i,j be an inductive system with inductive limit (S,αi,∞)i.
We must show that L1 and L2 above are satisfied after applying the cc-construction.
Let us prove L1, i.e., that every element in Scc is the supremum of an increasing sequence of elements in ⋃iim((αi,∞)cc). Let x−e∈Scc. Every compact element in S is the image of some compact element in some Si. So there exists e′∈Si such that αi,∞(e′)=e. Passing to the inductive system (Sj,ϕj,k)j,k⩾i, we can find an increasing sequence (xn)n⊂⋃j⩾iim(αj,∞) such that x=supxn. Then x−e=supxn−e, and the sequence (xn−e) is contained in ⋃iim((αi,∞)cc).
Let us prove L2. Let z,w∈(Si)cc be such that (αi,∞)cc(z)⩽(αi,∞)cc(w). Say z=x−e and w=y−e, where x,y,e∈Si and e is a compact element. If z′≪z then z′⩽x′−e for some x′≪x. So it suffices to assume that z′=x′−e. Since S is the inductive limit of the system (Sj,αj,k) in the category Cu, there exists j⩾i
such that αi,j(x′)⩽α(y). It is then clear that (αi,j)cc(x′−e)⩽(αi,j)cc(y−e), as desired.
∎
4. The augmented Cuntz semigroup
4.1. Definition and basic properties
Let A be a C*-algebra. We now turn to the definition of the ordered semigroup Cu∼(A), which we call
the augmented Cuntz semigroup of the C*-algebra A.
Since Cu(A) is a Cu-semigroup satisfying O5, we can apply the cc-functor from the previous section to it thereby obtaining a Cu-semigroup (Cu(A))cc. We shall denote by Cucc the functor obtained by first applying the Cuntz semigroup functor followed by the cc-functor. We thus write Cucc(A) and Cucc(ϕ), rather than (Cu(A))cc and (Cu(ϕ))cc, although these mean the same thing.
Let A~ denote the forced unitization of A. Observe that [1]∈Cu(A~) is a full compact element: for any compact e∈Cu(A~) there exists n∈N such that e⩽n[1]. It follows that
[TABLE]
Let π:A~→C denote the canonical quotient map. The
Cu-morphism Cu(π) from Cu(A~) to Cu(C)≅N gives rise to a Cu-morphism
Cucc(π) from Cu(A~) to Cucc(C)≅Z.
We call Cucc(π) the rank map on Cucc(A~) and we alternatively denote it by rank(⋅).
Notice that under the identification
of Cu(C) with N, Cu(π)
assigns to a Cuntz class [a]∈Cu(A~), where a∈(A~⊗K)+, the rank
of π(a)∈K. We also denote this number by rank(a), rank([a]), or rank([a]).
We define Cu∼(A) as the kernel of the rank map on Cucc(A~), i.e.,
[TABLE]
We endow Cu∼(A) with the addition and the order from Cucc(A~).
Let ι:A→A~ denote the inclusion of A in A~.
This map induces an embedding of Cu(A) as a subsemigroup (indeed, as an ideal) of Cu(A~). Let us regard Cu(A) as a subsemigroup of Cu(A~) via this embedding.
Observe then that the rank map on Cu(A~) is zero on Cu(A).
It follows that the map Cucc(A)→Cucc(ι)Cucc(A~), induced by the inclusion of Cu(A) in Cu(A~) ranges in Cu∼(A).
We thus get a map Cucc(ι):Cucc(A)→Cu∼(A),
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.1**.**
Let A be a unital C-algebra. Then the map Cucc(ι):Cucc(A)→Cu∼(A) described above
is an isomorphism of ordered semigroups.*
Proof.
Since A is unital, A~≅A⊕C via the homomorphism a+λ1~↦(a+λ1,λ)
(where 1~ is the unit in A~ and 1 the unit in A). Let us identify A~ with A⊕C via this isomorphism.
Observe then that A, as a subalgebra of A~, is A×{0}, and that the quotient homomorphism
A~→C is (a,λ)↦λ.
We have Cu(A~)=Cu(A)×N (on the right side order and addition are taken coordinatewise).
The set of compact elements of Cu(A)×N is Cuc(A)×N. It is straightforward to calculate that
Cucc(A~)≅Cucc(A)×Z. Further, the
rank map rank:Cucc(A)→Z is simply ([a]−n[1],m)↦m. In particular, the subsemigroup of rank zero elements Cu∼(A) is (Cucc(A),0). This is precisely the range of the
map Cucc(ι):Cucc(A)→Cu∼(A) described above. Indeed, this map is x−e↦(x−e,0).
∎
Example 4.2*.*
Recall that Cu(C)≅N. Thus, the preceding proposition and Example 3.1 imply that Cu∼(C)≅Z.
As remarked above, if x∈Cu(A) then x in Cucc(A~) has rank 0, and thus belongs to Cu∼(A). Let us define q:Cu(A)→Cu∼(A) as q(x)=x.
Lemma 4.3**.**
The map q is a surjection onto the positive elements of Cu∼(A).
Proof.
Let z∈Cu∼(A)⊆Cucc(A~) be a positive element. By Lemma 3.2, z=x for some x∈Cu(A~).
But rank(x)=0, so x∈Cu(A). Thus, q(x)=z. ∎
Theorem 4.4**.**
Cu∼(A)* is a Cu-semigroup. Moreover, it satisfies the following additional axioms:*
(i)
For all x∈Cu∼(A) there exists z⩾0 such that x+z⩾0.
2. (ii)
For all x′≪x there exists z such that x′+z⩽0⩽x+z.
Moreover, if x+y⩽0 for some y and y′≪y then z can be chosen such that y′⩽z.
Proof.
In Theorem 3.6 we have proved these properties for Cucc(A~). We show here that they pass on to Cu∼(A). This is essentially a consequence of the rank map being a Cu-morphism.
Let (zn)n be an increasing sequence in Cu∼(A).
Since rank(⋅) is supremum preserving, the supremum of this sequence in Cucc(A~) has rank zero, i.e., it belongs to Cu∼(A).
Hence Cu∼(A) is closed under sequential suprema and further the supremum of a sequence in Cu∼(A) agrees with the supremum
of the same sequence taken in Cucc(A~). It is now clear that O3 holds in Cu∼(A), given that it holds Cucc(A~)
Let z∈Cu∼(A). Choose an ≪-increasing sequence (zn)n in Cucc(A~) with supremum z.
Then suprankzn=0. Since [math] is a compact element of Z, rankzn=0 for large enough n, i.e., zn∈Cu∼(A)
for large enough n. Since the relation ≪ taken in Cucc(A~) is stronger than the same relation in Cu∼(A), the sequence is also ≪-increasing in Cu∼(A). This proves O2.
Let us show that the restriction of the relation ≪ in Cucc(A~) to Cu∼(A) agrees with the same relation in Cu∼(A). As already pointed out, one direction is clear.
Suppose that x,y∈Cu∼(A) are such that x≪y in Cu∼(A). Choose (yn)n⊂Cucc(A~) that is ≪-increasing and with supremum y.
As observed in the previous paragraph, yn∈Cu∼(A) for large enough n. Thus, there exists n0 such that x⩽yn0≪y, where ≪ is taken in Cucc(A~). Thus, x≪y in Cucc(A~). Axiom O4 in Cu∼(A) is now immediate
from its holding in Cucc(A~).
Let us prove property (i). Let x=[a]−n[1]∈Cu∼(A), where rank(a)=n. By the properties of the Cuntz semigroup functor under C*-algebra quotients ([Ciuperca-Robert-Santiago]), there exist [b],[c]∈Cu(A) such that
[TABLE]
Let z=[b]∈Cu∼(A), i.e., z is the image of [b] under the map q defined above.
Then, working in Cucc(A~), we have
[TABLE]
Finally, let us prove (ii). Let e=[1]∈Cucc(A~). Let x′,x∈Cu∼(A) be such that x′≪x. Choose x′′ such that
x′≪x′′≪x. Since [1] is a full element in Cucc(A~), there exists N∈N such that x′′⩽N[1].
By O5 in Cucc(A~), there exists w∈Cucc(A~) such that x′+w⩽N[1]⩽x′′+w.
Set z=w−N[1].
Then
[TABLE]
From the fact that x′ and x both have rank 0 we deduce that z has rank 0 as well, i.e.,
it belongs to Cu∼(A). Further, if y′,y are such that x+y⩽0 and y′≪y, then
[TABLE]
By O5 in Cucc(A~), w may be chosen such that y′+N[1]≤w, i.e., y′⩽z. So z is as desired.
∎
Remark 4.5*.*
If there is a greatest element in Cu∼(A) (e.g., A is separable), axiom (i) of the previous theorem boils down to saying that x+ω=ω for all x∈Cu∼(A).
Weak cancellation in a Cu-semigroup is defined as follows: x+z≪y+z implies x≪y for all x,y,z. The Cuntz semigroup of a C*-algebra of stable rank one has weak cancellation ([Rordam-Winter, Theorem 4.3]). This property, however, is not true in general for the Cuntz semigroup of a C*-algebra. On the other hand, Cu∼(A) always has weak cancellation:
Corollary 4.6**.**
If x+z≪y+z in Cu∼(A) then x⩽y.
Proof.
Let z′≪z be such that x+z⩽y+z′. Choose w∈Cu∼(A)
such that z′+w⩽0⩽z+w. Then
[TABLE]
Let ϕ:A→B be a homomorphism of C*-algebras.
Let ϕ~:A~→B~ denote the homomorphism obtained by applying the forced unitization functor.
This homomorphism gives rise to
a Cu-morphism Cu(ϕ~):Cu(A~)→Cu(B~).
Then, as shown in the previous section, we obtain
a Cu-semigroup morphism Cu(ϕ~)cc:Cucc(A~)→Cucc(B~). From the commutativity
of the diagram
[TABLE]
we deduce that Cucc(ϕ~) preserves the rank. In particular, it maps Cu∼(A) to Cu∼(B).
We define Cu∼(ϕ) as the restriction of Cu(ϕ~)cc to Cu∼(A). More concretely,
[TABLE]
(Here id is the identity on K, so that ϕ~⊗id:A~⊗K→B~⊗K.)
Theorem 4.7**.**
Cu∼(ϕ)* is a Cu-morphism.*
Proof.
In the course of the prove of Theorem 4.4 we have shown that both the suprema of increasing sequences and the compact containment
relation in Cu∼(A) agree with their counterparts taken in the larger ordered semigroup Cucc(A~). It is then clear that the preservation
of sequential suprema and of compact containment by Cu∼(ϕ) follow from the same properties for the map Cucc(ϕ~). But, indeed, Cucc(ϕ~) is a Cu-morphism by Theorem 3.8.
∎
4.2. Comparison with the original definition
Let us compare the definition of Cu∼(A) given above with the original definition in [Robert]. The main difference lies in the definition of the relation ≾cc, which in [Robert] is taken as (x,e)≾cc(y,f)
if
[TABLE]
for some compact element g. The rest of the construction is the same. Observe that the relation used in [Robert] is a stronger relation, i.e., if (x,e)≾cc(y,f) as in [Robert] then (x,e)≾cc(y,f) as defined above. If these two relations are the same in Cu(A~)×Cu(A~)c, then the two constructions of Cu∼(A) agree. In Corollary 4.10 below we show that this is the case for C*-algebras of finite stable rank. Thus, in this case the two constructions agree.
Let us recall the definition of the stable rank of a C*-algebra. Let m∈N and let A be unital C*-algebra. An m-tuple (a1,…,am)∈Am is called left invertible if
∑i=1maibi=1 for some (b1,…,bm)∈Am. The C*-algebra
A is said to have stable rank at most m if the set of left invertible m-tuples
is dense in Am. This can be rephrased in the language of Hilbert C*-modules as follows:
A has stable rank at most m if the left invertible operators from A to Am are dense in the set of bounded operators from A to Am. The stable rank of A is the least m with this property. If now such m exists then the stable rank is infinite. For non-unital C*-algebras the stable rank is defined as the stable rank of the unitization.
Theorem 4.8**.**
Let A be a unital C-algebra of stable rank at most m<∞. Let H and G be
Hilbert C*-modules over A such that Am+1⊕H≅A⊕G.
Then Am⊕H≅G.*
Proof.
Let H′=Am⊕H, so that A⊕H′≅A⊕G.
Let V:A⊕G→A⊕H′ be a Hilbert C*-module isomorphism. Let us write V in matrix form:
[TABLE]
Recall that H′=Am⊕H. Let us write V21=(U1,U2), where U1∈B(A,Am) and U2∈B(A,H). Let U1′∈B(A,Am) be left invertible and ∥U1−U1′∥<1.
Let V21′=(U1′,U2). Now V21′ is left invertible and ∥V21′−V21∥<1. If we replace V21 by V21′ in the matrix
of V we get V′ such that ∥V−V′∥<1. Thus V′ is an invertible adjointable operator. Let us assume instead that V is an invertible
adjointable operator such that V21∈B(A,H′) is left invertible. Let W∈B(A,H′) be a left inverse of V21. Set (1−V11)W=X. Then
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The map on the right side is still an invertible adjointable operator. It follows that V22′∈B(G,H) is adjointable and invertible. Hence G≅H as Hilbert C*-modules, via the polar decomposition of V22′.
∎
Theorem 4.9**.**
Let A be a unital C-algebra of stable rank at most m<∞. If x,y∈Cu(A) are such that x+(m+1)[1]⩽y+[1] then x+m[1]⩽y.*
Proof.
We rely on the Hilbert C*-modules picture of Cu(A) (see [Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu]). Suppose that x=[H] and y=[G], where H and G are countably generated Hilbert C*-modules over A. Let E⊆H be a compactly contained submodule. The assumption x+(m+1)[1]⩽y+[1] implies that E⊕Am+1 embeds as a Hilbert C*-submodule in G⊕A.
Let ϕ:E⊕Am+1→G⊕A be an embedding. Set E′=ϕ(0⊕Am+1)⊥. That is, E′ is the orthogonal complement of the image of Am+1 in G⊕A. Since Am+1 is a projective module, we have that E′⊕Am+1≅G⊕A.
By the previous theorem, E′⊕Am≅G. Since E embeds in E′ via ϕ, E⊕Am embeds in G. Hence [E]+m[A]⩽[G]. Passing to the supremum over all E compactly contained in H we get [H]+m[A]⩽[G], as desired.
∎
Corollary 4.10**.**
Let A be a C-algebra of stable rank at most m<∞. Let [a],[b]∈Cu(A~). Then [a]⩽[b] in Cucc(A~) if and only if [a]+m[1]⩽[b]+m[1] in Cu(A~).*
Proof.
Let [a′]≪[a]. Then, by the definition of ≾cc, [a′]+n[1]⩽[b]+n[1] for some n∈N. Since the stable rank of A~ is at most m, by the previous theorem we have [a′]+m[1]⩽[b]+m[1]. Passing to the supremum over all [a′]≪[a], we get [a]+m[1]⩽[b]+m[1]. ∎
4.3. Examples
Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space and let S be an ordered semigroup. Let Lsc(X,S) denote the set of lower semicontinuous functions from X to S, i.e., the set of f:X→S such that {x∈X∣f(x)>s} is open for every s∈S. Let us regard Lsc(X,S) as an ordered semigroup endowed with the pointwise order and the pointwise addition operation. Let X=X∪{∞} denote the one-point compactification
of X. Let Lsc0(X,S)={f∈Lsc(X,S):f(∞)=0}.
Example 4.11*.*
Let X be a compact metrizable space of dimension at most 1. It was shown in [Robert2, Theorem] that the map
[TABLE]
from Cu(C(X)) to Lsc(X,N) is an order isomorphism.
Notice that C(X) has stable rank one. So we are free to use the simpler form of the relation ∼cc used in [Robert]. We thus get that Cucc(C(X)) is isomorphic to Lsc(X,Z) via the map
[TABLE]
Further, since C(X) is unital,
[TABLE]
as ordered semigroups.
Example 4.12*.*
Let X be a locally compact, σ-compact, metrizable space of dimension at most one. Let X=X∪{∞} denote its one-point compactification. Then C0(X)≅C(X).
As argued in the previous example, Cucc(X~)≅Lsc(X,Z}). The rank map on Cucc(X~), after its identification with Lsc(X,Z), is simply Lsc(X,Z)∋g↦g(∞)∈Z. Therefore, Cu∼(C0(X))≅Lsc0(X,Z).
The following example illustrates how the positive and negative elements of Cu∼(A) do not always span the entire Cu∼(A)
as a semigroup:
Example 4.13*.*
Here we calculate Cu∼(C0(R2)). Let S2 denote the 2-dimensional sphere.
Let us recall the computation of the Cuntz semigroup of C(S2) obtained in [Robert2].
Let V(C(S2)) denote the Murray-von Neumann monoid of projections. Then
[TABLE]
where ∼ is defined such that n[1]∈V(S2) and the constant function n∈Lsc(S2,N) are equivalent
for all n=0,1,…. Addition on the right side is as follows: within the sets V(C(S2)) and Lsc(S2,N)
we simply use the addition operation with which these sets are endowed. If [p]∈V(C(S2)) and f∈Lsc(S2,N)
is non-constant then [p]+f=rank(p)+f∈Lsc(S2,N). The order again need only be defined for
[p]∈V(C(S2)) and f∈Lsc(S2,N): f⩽[p] if f⩽rank(p) and [p]⩽f
if rank(p)⩽f and f is non-constant.
It is straightforward to calculate that
[TABLE]
where ∼ identifies n[1]∈K0(C(S2)) and the constant function n∈Lsc(S2,Z) for all n∈Z.
Let us regard C(S2) as unitization of C0(R2) and S2≅R2∪{∞}.
The rank function on Cucc(C(S2)) coming from this unitization is then rank([p]−[q])=rank(p)−rank(p) for [p]−[q]∈K0(C(S2))
and rank(f)=f(∞) for f∈Lsc(S2,Z). We thus get
[TABLE]
where ∼ identifies 0∈Z with 0∈Lsc0(R2,Z).
Let us describe the order and addition on the set on the right. Order: The elements of Z are pairwise not comparable. They are greater than any non-zero function
in Lsc0(R2,Z) that is non-positive and smaller than any non-zero function that is non-negative. The order on Lsc0(R2,Z) is pointwise. Addition: if n∈Z and f∈Lsc0(R2,Z) then n+f=f. Observe that the subsemigroup
spanned by the positive and negative elements is Lsc0(R2,Z).
5. Properties of the functor Cu∼
By Theorems 4.4 and 4.7 of the previous section, A↦Cu∼(A), ϕ↦Cu∼(ϕ), defines a functor from the category
of C*-algebras to the category Cu. Here we investigate its properties.
5.1. Continuity with respect to inductive limits
Theorem 5.1**.**
The functor Cu∼ is continuous, i.e, it preserves inductive limits.
Proof.
Let (Ai,ϕi,j)i,j∈I be an inductive system of C*-algebras and (A,ϕi,∞)i∈I its inductive limit. Both the forced unitization functor and the Cuntz semigroup functor are continuous ([Antoine-Perera-Thiel]). Thus, we have
Cu(A~)=limCu(A~i). Moreover, by Theorem 3.9, applying the cc-construction still yields an inductive limit of Cu-semigroups: Cucc(A~)=limCucc(A~i)
For brevity of notation, let us set S=Cucc(A~), Si=Cucc(A~i), and αi,j=Cucc(ϕ~i,j). Each of the Cu-semigroups Si and the Cu-semigroup S carry a rank map into Z.
As argued in the definition of the functor Cu∼(⋅) in the previous section, the Cu-morphisms αi,j and αi,∞ map rank zero elements to rank zero elements. So their restrictions to the rank zero elements form an inductive system as well. In order to prove that the Cu-subsemigroup of rank zero elements in S is the inductive limit of the Cu-subsemigroups of rank zero elements in the Sis, we must show that conditions L1 and L2 of an inductive limit in the category Cu are valid (see Section 3). This is quite straightforward: Say x−e∈S has rank zero. By L1 applied to the inductive limit S=limSi, we can choose an increasing sequence (xn−e)n=1∞⊂⋃im(αi,∞) with supremum x−e. The terms of this sequence eventually have rank zero (since 0≪0 in Z). This proves L1. Condition L2 follows also from the same condition in the inductive limit S=limSi, bearing in mind that the compact containment relation on the the set of rank zero elements agrees with the compact containment relation on the larger set S restricted to the rank zero elements (as argued in the proof of Theorem 4.4).
∎
5.2. Split exactness
A projection p in a C*-algebra is called finite if it is not Murray-von Neumann equivalent to a proper subprojection of itself. In terms of the monoid of Murray-von Neumann classes, this is expressible as [p]MvN+[q]MvN=[p]MvN implies [q]MvN=0 for all [q]MvN∈V(A). A unital C*-algebra is called stably finite if any [p]MvN∈V(A) is finite; equivalently, if n[1]MvN is finite for all n∈N.
Lemma 5.2**.**
Let A be a stably finite unital C-algebra and let x∈Cu(A). If x∈Cucc(A) is compact then x=[p] for some projection p∈A⊗K.*
Proof.
We will make use of the characterization given in [Brown-Ciuperca] of the compact elements in the Cuntz semigroup of a stably finite C*-algebra. By [Brown-Ciuperca, Proposition 5.7], if A is unital and stably finite and [a]∈Cu(A) is compact, then [math] is an isolated point of the spectrum of a. It follows, by functional calculus, that we can choose a projection p such that [a]=[p]. It also follows that if [a]+[b] is compact then both [a] and [b] are compact. Indeed, once 0 is an isolated point of the spectrum of a⊕b, it is also an isolated point of the spectrum of a and b.
Let (xn)n be rapidly increasing with supremum x. Since the map z↦z
preserves sequential suprema, xn=x for all sufficiently large n. Assume without loss of generality that this is the case for all n. Fix n. From xn+1=x1 we get that xn+kn[1]⩽x1+kn[1] for some kn∈N. It follows that xn+kn[1]=x1+kn[1] is compact, and so, as remarked above, xn=[pn] for some projection pn. Moreover, by stable finiteness, we must have that [p1]=[pn]. Indeed, if we write [p1]+[q]=[pn], with q a projection, then [p1]+kn[1]+[q]=[p1]+kn[1], which implies that [q]=0. Thus, [p1]=[pn] for all n, and so x=[p1].
∎
Theorem 5.3**.**
Let
[TABLE]
be a short exact sequence of C∗-algebras. Apply the functor Cu∼ to it to get
[TABLE]
The following are true:
(i)
If A~/I is a stably finite C-algebra then Im(Cu∼(ι))=Ker(Cu∼(π)).*
2. (ii)
If π splits then Cu∼(π) is surjective and Cu∼(ι) is an order embedding.
Proof.
(i) Let us first go over some notation: We denote by π~:A~→A/I the unital extension of π.
Further, we also denote by π~ the homomorphism π~⊗id from A~⊗K
to A/I⊗K. The same conventions apply to ι.
Finally, we identity A/I with A/I and regard I~ as a subalgebra of A~.
From π∘ι=0 we get that Cu∼(π)∘Cu∼(ι)=0. Therefore,
Im(Cu∼(ι))⊆Ker(Cu∼(π)). Next we show the opposite inclusion.
Let [a]−n[1] be an element of Cu∼(A) mapped to 0 by Cu∼(π).
That is, [π~(a)]=n[1] in Cucc(A~/I). Since n[1] is compact, we have by Lemma 5.2 that [π~(a)] is a compact element of
Cu(A~/I). From the definition of ≾cc, this means that [π~(a)]+k[1]=n[1]+k[1] for some k∈N. Let us replace [a] by [a]+k[1] and n by n+k, which does not change [a]−n[1], so as to now have [π~(a)]=n[1] in Cu(A~/I). Since π~(a) is Cuntz equivalent to a projection and we have assumed that A~/I is stably finite, 0 is an isolated point of the spectrum of π~(a) ([Brown-Ciuperca, Proposition 5.7]). Hence, for a suitable choice of a strictly positive f∈C0(R+), π~(f(a)) is a projection. Let a′=f(a). Then [a′]=[a] (since we have chosen f strictly positive) and π~(a′) is a projection. Let us simply rename a′ as a and assume that π~(a) is a projection. Now π~(a) and 1n are Cuntz equivalent projections in (A/I)⊗K. Since A/I is stably finite, π~(a) and 1n are Murray-von Neumann equivalent. In a stable C*-algebra, if p,q are Murray-von Neumann equivalent projections then there exists a unitary u in the unitization of the algebra such that upu∗=q; moreover u may be chosen in the connected component of the identity. (Proof: If ∥p−q∥<1 this is well known. From this we deduce the case when p and q are homotopic. But in a stable C*-algebra Murray-von Neumann equivalent projections are homotopic.) Applying this fact to π~(a) and 1n, we obtain a unitary u in the unitization of (A/I)⊗K such that uπ(a)u∗=1n and u is in the connected component of the identity. Since u is connected to the identity, it has a lift to a unitary v in the unitization of A~⊗K. Set v∗av=a1∈A~⊗K. Then [a]=[a1] and π~(a1)=1n. The latter implies that a1∈I~⊗K. Thus,
[TABLE]
as desired.
(ii) Let λ:A/I→A be a homomorphism such that π∘λ=idA/I. Then Cu∼(ψ)∘Cu∼(λ)=idCu∼(A/I), which implies that Cu∼(ψ) is surjective.
Let us prove that Cu∼(ϕ) is an order embedding. We maintain the conventions introduced in the first paragraph of the proof of (i). Let a,b∈I~⊗K be positive elements such that [a]−n[1] and [b]−n[1] belong to Cu∼(A)
and [a]−n[1]⩽[b]−n[1]. Then rank(a)=rank(b)=n (these are the ranks of their images in K by the canonical map I~⊗K→K)
and [a]⩽[b] in Cucc(A~). We will show that [a]⩽[b]
in Cucc(I~). Choose [a′]≪[a]. Then there exists k∈N such that [a′]+k[1]⩽[b]+k[1] in Cu(A~). Suppose that we have shown that [a′]+k[1]⩽[b]+k[1] in Cu(I~). Since [a′]≪[a] has been chosen arbitrarily, we conclude that [a]⩽[b] in Cucc(I~). It thus suffices to show that if [a]⩽[b] in Cu(A~) and rank(a)=rankb=n, then [a]⩽[b] in Cu(I~).
We prove this next.
We may assume without loss of generality that a=1n+a′ and b=1n+b′, for some selfadjoint elements a′,b′∈I⊗K. Let ε>0. Since [a]⩽[b] in Cu(A~), there exists x∈A~⊗K such that (a−ε/2)+=x∗x and xx∗⩽Mb for some M>0. By the almost stable rank one property of A⊗K ([BRTTW, Lemma 4.3.2]) there exists a unitary u∈(A∼⊗K)∼ such that u∗(a−ε)+u⩽Mb.
Consider the elements
[TABLE]
We have (λ~∘π~)(uu1∗)=1, which implies that uu1∗ is a unitary in the unitization of I~⊗K. Thus, a and a1 are unitarily equivalent in I~⊗K, which implies that [(a−ε)+]=[(a1−ε)+] in
Cu(I~). From u∗(a−ε)+u⩽Mb and the definition of u1 we get that u1∗(a1−ε)+u1⩽Mb. Thus, on one hand we have that [(a−ε)+]=[(a1−ε)+] in Cu(I~), and on the other hand we have that u1∗(a1−ε)+u1⩽Mb. We show next that [(a1−ε)+]=[u1∗(a1−ε)+u1] in Cu(I~). In fact, we will show that a and a1 are approximately unitarily equivalent in I~⊗K (with unitaries chosen in the unitization of this C*-algebra).
Applying λ~∘π~ on both sides of u1∗(a1−ε)+u1⩽Mb, and using that (λ~∘π~)(u1)=u1, we get that u1∗1nu1=1n, i.e., u1 commutes with 1n. We also have that
[TABLE]
This implies that a1=1n+a1′ for some selfadjoint a1′∈I⊗K.
Let us choose an approximate unit (eλ)∈I+ of I. For each λ and k∈N define
[TABLE]
Then vλ,k belongs to I~⊗K for all λ and k. We have
[TABLE]
as λ,k→∞. Here we have used that (eλ⊗1k)a1′→a1′ as λ,k→∞. Similarly, we deduce that vλ,k∗a1′→u1∗a1′. Since u1−1n and eλ⊗1k commute with 1n, it is clear from its definition
that vλ,k commutes with 1n for all λ,k.
Since I~⊗K has almost stable rank 1 ([BRTTW, Lemma 4.3.2]), for each λ,k there exists a unitary wλ,k in the unitization of I~⊗K such that ∥vλ,k−wλ,k∣vλ,k∣∥<k1.
Then
[TABLE]
It follows that wλ,k∗a1wλ,k→u1∗a1u1. So a and a1 are approximately unitarily equivalent in I~⊗K. We now have
[TABLE]
where the Cuntz comparisons are all taken in I~⊗K. Since ε>0 is arbitrary, we conclude that [a]⩽[b] in Cu(I~).
∎
Corollary 5.4**.**
Let A and B be C∗-algebras. Let ιA:A→A⊕B
and ιB:B→A⊕B denote the standard inclusions. Then
γ:Cu∼(A)⊕Cu∼(B)→Cu∼(A⊕B) given by
[TABLE]
is an isomorphism of ordered semigroups.
Proof.
Consider the diagram
[TABLE]
where α(x)=(x,0), β(x,y)=y, and πB:A⊕B→B is the quotient map.
A simple diagram chase using the exactness of the rows of this diagram (in the sense of Proposition 5.3 (i) and (ii)) shows that γ
is an isomorphism, as desired.
∎
5.3. Stability
Theorem 5.5**.**
Let A be a C∗-algebra.
The inclusion A↪A⊗K (in the top corner) induces an isomorphism
of ordered semigroups
Cu∼(A)→Cu∼(A⊗K).
Proof.
Consider the inductive limit
[TABLE]
By the continuity of Cu∼ with respect to inductive limits, it suffices to show that
the inclusion in the top corner A↪M2(A) induces an isomorphism
at the level of Cu∼. We prove this next.
Let us first assume that A is unital. By Proposition 4.1, the map Cucc(ι):Cucc(A)→Cu∼(A) is an isomorphism. Similarly, the inclusion of M2(A) in M2(A)∼ induces an ordered semigroup isomorphism Cucc(ι):Cucc(M2(A))→Cu∼(M2(A)).
We thus have the diagram
[TABLE]
where the horizontal arrows are induced by the inclusion A↦M2(A) applying the functors Cucc(⋅)
and Cu∼.
It is known that A↪M2(A) induces an isomorphism in Cu (see [Coward-Elliott-Ivanescu, Appendix 6]). This in turn implies that the top horizontal arrow is an isomorphism from Cucc(A) to Cucc(M2(A)). It follows that the bottom horizontal arrow is an isomorphism as well.
The non-unital case is reduced to the unital case as follows.
Let A be a non-unital C∗-algebra. Consider the diagram
[TABLE]
where the rows form short exact sequences that split and the vertical
arrows are the natural inclusions.
Applying the functor Cu∼ we get
[TABLE]
A diagram chase—as in the proof of the five lemma—using the exactness of the rows of this diagram (in the sense of Proposition 5.3 (i) and (ii)),
and that the two rightmost vertical arrows are isomorphisms, shows that Cu∼(A)→Cu∼(M2(A))
is an isomorphism.
∎
From the stability of Cu∼ we derive the following proposition, which will be needed later on:
Proposition 5.6**.**
Suppose that A is σ-unital. Let x,y∈Cu(A) be such that q(x)⩽q(y) in Cu∼(A). Let z∈Cu(A) be a full element (i.e., such that ∞⋅z is the largest element in Cu(A)). Then for every x′≪x there exist n∈N and y′≪y such that x′+nz⩽y′+nz.
Proof.
Let z=[c], where c∈A⊗K is full. Let C=c(A⊗K)c. Then C⊗K≅A⊗K by Brown’s theorem. This isomorphism induces
isomorphisms Cu(A)≅Cu(C) and Cu∼(A)≅Cu∼(C).
Let x~,y~,z~∈Cu(C) denote the images of x,y,z via the isomorphism of Cu(A) and Cu(C). We claim that q(x~)⩽q(y~) in Cu∼(C). Indeed, consider the following diagram:
[TABLE]
All squares in this diagram commute. This is straightforward to check for the first and third squares. The middle square commutes since the horizontal maps are induced by an isomorphism at the C*-algebra level. It thus suffices to prove the proposition for x~,y~,z~,
in Cu(C). Let x′≪x~. From q(x~)⩽q(y~) we get that
[TABLE]
in Cu(C~), for some y′≪y~ and some n∈N. We can now “project” all the terms of this inequality to the ideal Cu(C) in Cu(C~). This operation is more explicit
in the Hilbert C*-modules picture of the Cuntz semigroup: given a Hilbert C*-module H over a C*-algebra B and a σ-unital closed two-sided ideal I, the map on the Cuntz semigroup [H]↦[HI] is well defined, additive, order preserving, and supremum preserving; see [Ciuperca-Robert-Santiago, Section 2 and Theorem 5]. Applying the map [H]↦[HC]
in the inequality (5.1), we get
[TABLE]
This proves the proposition.
∎
6. Compact elements and functionals
Here we investigate the compact elements and functionals on the augmented Cuntz semigroup.
6.1. Compact elements
Let A be a C*-algebra. Let V(A) denote the semigroup of Murray-von Neumann classes of projections in A⊗K. Given a projection p∈A⊗K, we denote by [p]MvN the element in V(A) with representative p. Since the Murray-von Neumann equivalence relation is stronger than the relation of Cuntz equivalence, the map V(A)∋[p]MvN↦[p]∈Cu(A) is well defined. Further, this map ranges in the subsemigroup of compact elements of Cu(A).
Recall that
[TABLE]
We thus have a map
[TABLE]
It is easy to show that this is a well defined additive map.
A unital C*-algebra is called stably finite if n[1]MvN+[q]MvN=n[1]MvN implies [q]MvN=0 in V(A~). If A is stably finite, then K0(A) is an ordered group under the order induced by the image of V(A) in K0(A).
Theorem 6.1**.**
Let Cuc∼(A) denote the set of compact elements of Cu∼(A), i.e, the set of x∈Cu∼(A) such that x≪x.
(i)
Cuc∼(A)* is a group.*
2. (ii)
If x+y∈Cuc∼(A) then x,y∈Cuc∼(A).
3. (iii)
If A is stably finite then Cuc∼(A) is isomorphic, as an ordered group, to K0(A) via the map (6.1).
Proof.
(i) Since compact elements form a subsemigroup containing [math], it suffices to show that every compact element has a compact additive inverse. Let x∈Cuc∼(A). By Theorem 4.4 (ii), there exists y∈Cu∼(A)
such that x+y=0. Since 0≪0, there exists y′≪y such that x+y′=0. Then x+y=0≪0=x+y′. We conclude by weak cancellation (Corollary 4.6) that y=y′. Hence, y is compact, as desired.
(ii) Suppose that x+y is compact. Choose x′≪x such that x′+y=x+y. By weak cancellation,
we get that x′=x. Hence, x is compact, and similarly, y is compact.
(iii) Suppose that A is stably finite. Let x∈Cu∼(A) be compact. Since the relation ≪ in Cu∼(A) is the restriction of the same relation taken in Cucc(A~), x is compact in Cucc(A~). Translation by n[1] in Cucc(A~) is an order isomorphism. Hence, x=e−n[1], where e∈Cucc(A~) is compact and lifts to e∈Cu(A~). By Lemma 5.2, there exists p∈A~⊗K such that e=[p]. It follows that x=[p]−n[1], i.e., x is in the range of the map (6.1).
Let us show that the map (6.1) is an order embedding. Suppose that [p]−n[1]⩽[q]−n[1], where p,q∈A~⊗K are projections of rank n. Then [p]⩽[q]. Since [p]≪[p], this implies that [p]+m[1]⩽[q]+m[1] for some m. Cuntz subequivalence of projections agrees with Murray-von Neumann subequivalence. We thus get that [p]MvN+m[1]MvN⩽[q]MvN+m[1]MvN, which in turn implies that [p]MvN−n[1]MvN⩽[q]MvN−n[1]MvN, as desired.
∎
6.2. Functionals
Let S be a positively ordered Cu-semigroup. A map λ:S→[0,∞] is called a functional if it maps 0 to 0, it is additive, order preserving, and preserves the suprema of increasing sequences. It is called densely finite if λ(x)<∞ whenever x≪y for some y∈S. If S=Cu(A), then the densely finite functionals are in bijective correspondence with the densely finite 2-quasitraces on A+ as well as with the densely finite rank functions ([Elliott-Robert-Santiago]).
Let λ:Cu∼(A)+→[0,∞] be a densely finite functional.
Our goal is to extend it to all of Cu∼(A). Let x∈Cu∼(A). We know, by Theorem 4.4 (i), that there exists z⩾0 such that x+z⩾0. Moreover, since 0≪0, we can choose z such that z≪z′ for some z′.
Then λ is finite on z. Let us define
[TABLE]
Clearly, this is the only possible way to extend λ additively to Cu∼(A).
Lemma 6.2**.**
Let λ:Cu∼(A)+→[0,∞] be a densely finite functional. The extension of λ to Cu∼(A) defined above is additive, order preserving, and preserves the suprema of increasing sequences.
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
Let x∈Cu∼(A). Let us show first that λ(x), defined as in (6.2), is independent of the choice of z, as long as x+z⩾0 and z∈P.
Suppose that z′ is another element with these properties. Then
[TABLE]
Hence, λ(x+z)−λ(z)=λ(x+z′)−λ(z′).
Suppose that x⩽y in Cu∼(A). Choose z∈P such that x+z⩾0.
Then x+z⩽y+z and so
[TABLE]
Thus, λ is order preserving.
Let (xn)n be an increasing sequence in Cu∼(A). Choose z
such that x1+z⩾0 and z∈P. Then
[TABLE]
Additivity of the extension of λ is handled similarly.
∎
Let R:=R∪{∞}. Let F0(Cu∼(A)) denote the set of λ:Cu∼(A)→R that are additive, preserve 0, sequential suprema, and are densely finite.
We endow F0(Cu∼(A)) with the topology such that a net (λ)i converges to λ if
[TABLE]
Given x∈Cu∼(A) we get a function x^:F0(Cu∼(A))→R defined by x^(λ)=λ(x) for all λ∈F0(Cu∼(A)).
Lemma 6.3**.**
The function x^ is linear and lower semicontinuous.
Proof.
Let λi→λ. Choose z∈P such that x+z⩾0 and z⩾0, where P
is the set defined in (6.3). Choose 0≪z′≪z such that x+z′⩾0 (it exists by the compactness of 0). Then
[TABLE]
Passing to the supremum over all z′≪z on the left side we get that λ(x)⩽liminfλi(x). That is, x^ is l.s.c.
∎
Recall that the map q:Cu(A)→Cu∼(A)+ defined as q(x)=x is an onto Cu-morphism (Lemma 4.3). It follows that λ↦λ∘q
is an embedding of F0(Cu∼(A)) into F0(Cu(A)). The topology on F0(Cu∼(A)) that we have defined above is precisely the one induced by the topology on F0(Cu(A)) via this embedding.
Lemma 6.4**.**
Suppose that A is σ-unital. Let λ:Cu(A)→[0,∞] be a functional that is finite on a full element of Cu(A). Then λ factors through q, i.e.,
λ=λ~∘q, where λ~∈F0(Cu∼(A)).
Proof.
Let z∈Cu(A) be a full element such that λ(z)<∞. Let us shows that if x,y∈Cu(A) are such that x⩽y in Cu∼(A) then λ(x)⩽λ(y).
Let x′≪x. By Proposition 5.6, x′+nz⩽y+nz for some n. It follows that λ(x′)⩽λ(y). Passing to the supremum over all x′≪x, we get that λ(x)⩽λ(y). We can thus define λ~(x)=λ(x), for x∈Cu(A). Additivity, preservation of order, and preservation of 0, are readily passed from λ to λ~. Let us show that λ~ preserves sequential suprema: Suppose that (xn)n is an increasing sequence in Cu+∼(A). By Theorem 3.4, there exists an increasing sequence zn∈Cu(A~) such that zn⩽xn for all n and supzn=supxn. Since 0⩽rank(zn)⩽rank(xn)=0, we must have that rank(zn)=0 for all n, i.e., zn∈Cu(A). Then
[TABLE]
Hence, λ~(supxn)⩽supλ~(xn). The opposite inequality is
straightforward. Thus, λ~ preserves sequential suprema. We have thus defined
a densely finite functional λ~ on Cu∼(A)+ such that λ=λ~q. Extending it to Cu∼(A) as in (6.2), we obtain a functional in F0(Cu∼(A)).
∎
Let λ be a functional on Cu(A) meeting the assumptions of the previous theorem, so that it arises as λ=λ~∘q, for λ~∈F0(Cu∼(A)). Let
x∈Cu∼(A). Then we can define a pairing of λ and x:
[TABLE]
If every densely functional on Cu(A) factors through q, then we can define this pairing
on all F0(Cu(A))×Cu∼(A). This is the case when the primitive spectrum of A is compact. We summarize the situation in the following theorem:
Theorem 6.5**.**
Let A be a σ-unital C-algebra with compact primitive spectrum. The following are true:*
(i)
The densely finite functionals on Cu∼(A) are in bijection with the densely finite functionals on Cu(A) via the map λ↦λ∘q.
2. (ii)
Given x∈Cu∼(A) the function x^:F0(Cu(A))→R defined as
[TABLE]
is additive and lower semicontinuous.
Proof.
Let z=[a]∈Cu(A) be the class of a strictly positive element of A. Then z, is full, i.e,
∞⋅z is the largest element of Cu(A). Choose a rapidly increasing sequence (zn)n with supremum z. Since the primitive spectrum of A is compact, zn is full
for large enough n. We thus find zn that is full and such that every densely finite functional on Cu(A) is finite on zn. It follows that every densely finite functional on Cu(A) factors through q by the previous lemma. This proves (i). (ii) follows from Lemma 6.3 and the agreement of the topologies on F0(Cu(A)) and F0(Cu∼(A)).
∎
6.3. Simple pure C*-algebras
A C*-algebra is said to be pure if its Cuntz semigroup is almost unperforated and almost divisible ([WinterPure, Definition 3.6 (i)]). Let us recall the definition of these properties: A Cu-semigroup S is called almost unperforated if (k+1)x⩽ky implies x⩽y for all x,y∈S and k∈N. Almost unperforation is equivalent to the property of strict comparison, defined as follows: for all x,y∈Cu(A) and ε>0 if λ(x)⩽(1−ε)λ(y) for all λ∈F(S) then x⩽y. S is called almost divisible if for all x′,x∈S with x′≪x, and n∈N, there exists y∈S such that ny⩽x and x′⩽(n+1)y. C*-algebras that tensorially absorb the Jiang-Su C*-algebra are pure ([RordamZ]).
Let us denote the cone of densely finite functionals F0(Cu(A)) simply by Q. Recall that Q may also be regarded as the cone of densely finite 2-quasitraces on A. For the remainder of this section A denotes a simple, separable, pure C-algebra such that Q={0}.* Our goal is to calculate Cu∼(A). We accomplish this in Theorem 6.11 below. This calculation, under the additional assumption that A has stable rank one, is obtained in [Robert]. We follow closely the same arguments, while circumventing the stable rank one assumption.
Lemma 6.6**.**
Cu∼(A)* is simple in the sense that for every nonzero z∈Cu∼(A)+ we have that ∞⋅z is the largest elements of Cu∼(A).*
Proof.
The subsets of Cu(A) that are closed under addition and sequential suprema are in bijection with the closed two-sided ideals of A ([CiupercaThesis]). Since A is simple, the lemma is true for Cu(A): if z∈Cu(A) is nonzero then ∞⋅z is the largest element of Cu(A). But Cu(A) is mapped onto Cu∼(A)+ by the Cu-morphism q (Lemma 4.3). This readily implies the same property for Cu∼(A).
∎
Let us call an element x∈Cu∼(A) soft if for each x′≪x there exists a nonzero z∈Cu∼(A)+ such that x′+z⩽x.
Lemma 6.7**.**
The soft elements form an absorbing subsemigroup: if x,y∈Cu∼(A) and y is soft then x+y is soft.
Proof.
If w≪x+y
then w⩽x+y′ for some y′≪y. Find z⩾0 nonzero such that y′+z⩽y. Then w+z⩽x+y′+z⩽x+y.
∎
Lemma 6.8**.**
Each x∈Cu∼(A) is either soft or compact and not both.
Proof.
Let x′≪x. Choose x′′∈Cu∼(A) such that x′≪x′′≪x. Find z⩾0 such that x′+z⩽x⩽x′′+z (Theorem 4.4 (ii)). If z=0 then x=x′′≪x, so x is compact. If it is the case that z=0 for all x′≪x then x is soft.
If x is both soft and compact, then x+z=x, with z positive and nonzero. Since densely finite functionals are finite on compact elements, λ(z)=0 for any λ∈Q. By the simplicity of Cu∼(A), z is full. Hence λ=0, which contradicts our assumption that Q={0}.
∎
Let Lsc(Q,R) denote the set of functions f:Q→R that are lower semicontinuous, linear, and map 0 to 0. We have shown in Theorem 6.5 that x^∈Lsc(Q,R) for every x∈Cu∼(A). Let Lsc++(Q) denote the
functions in Lsc(Q,R) that are strictly positive on the nonzero functionals.
By the simplicity of Cu∼(A), if x∈Cu∼(A)+ is nonzero then x^∈Lsc++(Q).
We will make use of the calculation of Cu(A) (see [Tikuisis-Toms, Theorem 6.2]). Here are the main facts that we will need:
**Fact 1: **
Every element of Cu(A) is either compact or soft (same definition as above).
**Fact 2: **
The map x↦x^ is an isomorphism of the semigroup of soft elements in Cu(A) with
Lsc++(Q).
Lemma 6.9**.**
The map x↦x^ is an ordered semigroup isomorphism from the set of positive soft elements in Cu∼(A)+ to Lsc++(Q).
Proof.
Recall that x^=q(x) for all x∈Cu(A). Further, by Fact 2 above, x↦x^ is an isomorphism from the soft elements of Cu(A) to Lsc++(Q). It thus suffices to show that q:Cu(A)→Cu∼(A)+ is an ordered semigroup isomorphism from the subsemigroup of soft element of Cu(A) to the subsemigroup of positive soft elements in Cu∼(A). We prove this next.
Suppose that y∈Cu(A) is soft. Let x′≪q(y). Choose y′≪y such that x′⩽q(y′) (recall that q is a Cu-morphism). Choose a nonzero w⩾0 such that y′+w⩽y. Then
x′+q(w)⩽q(y). Further, we cannot have q(w)=0, for otherwise w^=0, which implies that w=0 (by strict comparison of Cu(A)). Thus, q maps soft elements of Cu(A) to soft elements of Cu∼(A).
To see that q is an order embedding on the soft elements, recall that every functional on Cu(A) factors through q. Hence, q(y)=y^ for all y∈Cu(A). Further, Cu(A)∋y↦y^∈Lsc++(Q) is an order isomorphism on the soft elements (Fact 2 recalled above). Thus, q is an order embedding.
Finally, let us prove surjectivity: any x∈Cu∼(A)+ has a lift in Cu(A).
If the lift is compact, then x is compact, since q preserves ≪. Thus, soft elements in Cu∼(A) lift to soft elements in Cu(A).
∎
Lemma 6.10**.**
Let Cu∼(A)sft denote the set of soft elements in Cu∼(A).
(i)
For all x,y∈Cu∼(A), with x soft, x^⩽y^ implies x⩽y.
2. (ii)
The map x↦x^ is an isomorphism from Cu∼(A)sft to Lsc(Q,R).
Proof.
(i) Let x,y∈Cu∼(A) be such that x^⩽y^ and x is soft.
Choose a sequence of functions fn∈Lsc++(Q) that are finite-valued, continuous, and with supremum the function equal to infinity on all Q except 0. By the isomorphism of the set of positive soft elements in Cu∼(A) with Lsc++(Q), there exists an increasing sequence of positive soft elements (zn)n in Cu∼(A)+ such that z^n=fn. Since
[TABLE]
and 0∈Cu∼(A) is compact, there exists n such that x+zn⩾0 and y+zn⩾0. Set z=zn. Then x^+z^⩽y^+z^. Since x+z and y+z are soft and positive, we have x+z⩽y+z in Cu+∼(A). Let x′≪x. Let us show that x′+z≪x+z. Choose x′′ such that x′≪x′′≪x. Since x is soft, there exists a nonzero w⩾0 such that x′′+w⩽x. Then x′′+w+z⩽x+z. In Lsc++(Q), we have z^≪w^+z^, since w^ is strictly positive and z^ is continuous and finite. It follows that z≪z+w in Cu∼(A). Hence,
[TABLE]
By weak cancellation (Corollary 4.6), x′⩽y. Passing to the supremum over all x′≪x, we conclude that x⩽y.
(ii) It is clear from (ii) that x↦x^ is an order embedding. Let us prove surjectivity. We have already shown that the functions in Lsc++(Q) are in the range of this map. Any function in Lsc(Q,R) can be expressed in the form g−f, where
f,g∈Lsc++(Q) and f is continuous and finite. (If h∈Lsc(Q,R), then h is bounded from below by lower semicontinuity and the compactness of Q. Choose f0∈Lsc++(Q) continuous. Then the desired decomposition is h=(h+Cf0)−Cf0, with C>0 sufficiently large.) It thus suffices to show that if f∈Lsc++(Q) is continuous and finite then −f is in the range of the map x↦x^. Let ε>0. Choose x,y∈Cu∼(A) positive, soft, such that x^=f and y^=εf. We have (1+ε)f≪(1+2ε)f in Lsc++(Q) (since f is continuous, finite, and strictly positive). Hence x+y≪x+2y. Using Theorem 4.4 (ii), choose w∈Cu∼(A) such that
[TABLE]
Set z=y+w. Then z is soft, since y is, and
[TABLE]
Applying the construction of z for εn=1/2n, with n=1,2,…, we obtain a sequence (zn)n of soft elements such that z^n is increasing
and has supremum −f. Since the zn are soft, the sequence is increasing in Cu∼(A) (by (i)). Letting z=supzn we have z^=−f, as desired.
∎
Let Cu∼(A)c and Cu∼(A)sft denote the subsemigroups of compact and soft elements respectively. By Lemma 6.8, Cu∼(A) is the disjoint union of these two subsemigroups. By Theorem 6.1, Cu∼(A)c is isomorphic to K0(A) via the map (6.1). By Lemma 6.10, Cu∼(A)sft is isomorphic to Lsc(Q,R) via the map x↦x^, where Q=F0(Cu(A)). Let us define a bijection
[TABLE]
by combining these two isomorphisms:
[TABLE]
We obtain a map from K0(A) to Lsc(Q,R) by first regarding x∈K0(A)
as a compact element in x∈Cu∼(A) and then finding x^∈Lsc(Q,R).
Let us continue to denote this map with a hat: K0(A)∋x↦x^∈Lsc(Q,R). We can now endow K0(A)⊔Lsc(Q,R) with an order and an addition operation as follows: On the sets K0(A) and Lsc(Q,R), these are already defined. Let x∈K0(A) and f∈Lsc(Q,R). We define
[TABLE]
We define f⩽x if f⩽x^ and x⩽f if x^+h=f for some h∈Lsc++(Q).
Theorem 6.11**.**
Let A be a simple, separable, pure C-algebra such that F0(Cu(A))={0}. Then the map defined in (6.4) is an isomorphism of ordered semigroups.*
Proof.
We have already shown that this map is bijective and an isomorphism when restricted both to the subsemigroups of compact elements and of soft elements. It remains to show that it is additive and an order embedding.
Let x,y∈Cu∼(A) with x soft and y compact. Then x+y is soft. So the map is additive by the definition of addition on K0(A)⊔Lsc(Q,R).
Suppose that the image of x is less than or equal to the image of y, i.e., x^⩽y^. Then, by Lemma 6.10, x⩽y.
Suppose on the other hand that the image of y is less than the image of x. By the definition of the order in the codomain, this means that y^+h=x^, where h∈Lsc++(Q). Let z∈Cu∼(A)+ be a soft element such that z^=h. Then y+z is soft and y^+z^=x^. Hence, y+z=x, by Lemma 6.10. Since z⩾0, we have that y⩽x.
∎
Example 6.12*.*
Let W denote the Jacelon-Razak C*-algebra ([Jacelon]). Then Cu(W)≅[0,∞] and K0(W)={0}. Thus, Cu∼(W)≅{0}⊔R. Notice that the neutral element is 0∈{0} and not 0∈R, which is soft.
The calculation of Cu∼(A) in Theorem 6.11 applies to simple Z-stable, projectionless C*-algebras. Moreover, in this case Cu∼(A) agrees with the original
construction in [Robert], since these C*-algebras have finite stable rank (see Subsection 4.2), as we now show.
Theorem 6.13**.**
Let A be a simple, projectionless, Z-stable C-algebra. Then the stable rank of
A is at most two.*
Proof.
By [RobertGlasgow, Corollary 3.2], A almost has stable rank one, in the sense that A is contained in the closure of the invertible elements of A~. Let us show that if A almost has stable rank one then it has stable rank at most two. Let (α1⋅1+a1,α2⋅1+a2)∈A~×A~, where α1,α2∈C and a1,a2∈A. Our goal is to show that they are in the closure of the left invertible pairs in A~×A~. By a small perturbation, we may assume without loss of generality that (α1,α2)=(0,0). Multiplying the vector (α1⋅1+a1,α2⋅1+a2) by a suitable invertible scalar matrix, we may further assume that (α1,α2)=(1,0). The pair now has the form (1+a1,a2), with a1,a2∈A. But, by the almost stable rank one property, a2 is in the closure of the invertible elements in A~. Let a~2∈A~ be invertible. Then (1+a2,a~2) is left invertible, with left inverse (0,a~2−1). This proves the theorem.
∎