Heisenberg modules as function spaces
Are Austad, Ulrik Enstad

TL;DR
This paper demonstrates that Heisenberg modules over twisted group C*-algebras can be embedded into L^2 spaces, enabling their use as function spaces in time-frequency analysis with Gabor frames.
Contribution
It establishes a continuous embedding of Heisenberg modules into L^2(G) and characterizes their generators as multi-window Gabor frames, extending previous results.
Findings
Heisenberg modules can be embedded into L^2(G) as function spaces.
Generators of these modules correspond to multi-window Gabor frames.
Modules satisfy properties suitable for time-frequency analysis, including the fundamental identity and bounded frame operators.
Abstract
Let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of , where is a second countable, locally compact abelian group. Using localization of Hilbert -modules, we show that the Heisenberg module over the twisted group -algebra due to Rieffel can be continuously and densely embedded into the Hilbert space . This allows us to characterize a finite set of generators for as exactly the generators of multi-window (continuous) Gabor frames over , a result which was previously known only for a dense subspace of . We show that as a function space satisfies two properties that make it eligible for time-frequency analysis: Its elements satisfy the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis if is a lattice, and their associated frame…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Heisenberg modules as function spaces
Are Austad
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department of Mathematical Sciences, Trondheim, Norway.
[email protected], [email protected]
and
Ulrik Enstad
University of Oslo, Department of Mathematics, Oslo, Norway.
Abstract.
Let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of , where is a second countable, locally compact abelian group. Using localization of Hilbert -modules, we show that the Heisenberg module over the twisted group -algebra due to Rieffel can be continuously and densely embedded into the Hilbert space . This allows us to characterize a finite set of generators for as exactly the generators of multi-window (continuous) Gabor frames over , a result which was previously known only for a dense subspace of . We show that as a function space satisfies two properties that make it eligible for time-frequency analysis: Its elements satisfy the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis if is a lattice, and their associated frame operators corresponding to are bounded.
Keywords. Gabor frames, twisted group C*-algebras, Hilbert C*-modules.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
42C15, 46L08, 43A70
1. Introduction
Gabor analysis concerns sets of time-frequency shifts of functions. The field has its roots in a paper by the electrical engineer and physicist Dennis Gabor [14]. In this paper, the author made the claim that one could obtain basis-like representations of functions in in terms of the set , where denotes a Gaussian. Today, one of the central problems of the field remains understanding the spanning and basis-like properties of sets of the form for a given and .
Although Gabor analysis is usually carried out for functions of one or several real variables, the nature of time-frequency shifts makes it possible to generalize many aspects of the theory to the setting of a locally compact abelian group [15]. In this setting, elements of represent time, while elements of the Pontryagin dual represent frequency. If , then a time-frequency shift of is a function of the form for and . A Gabor system with generator will in general be any collection of time-frequency shifts of . In this paper, we will allow continuous Gabor systems over any closed subgroup of the time-frequency plane , which will be of the form . We say that such a system forms a Gabor frame if it is a continuous frame for , which means that there exist such that
[TABLE]
for every . Here, we integrate with respect to a fixed Haar measure on . More generally, if , one calls a multi-window Gabor frame if there exist such that
[TABLE]
for all . If is a discrete subgroup of , one recovers the usual notion of a (discrete) regular Gabor frame. Here, regular means that the discrete subset of has the structure of a subgroup. A basic fact of Gabor frame theory is that is a Gabor frame if and only if the associated frame operator is invertible. The operator is given weakly by
[TABLE]
for .
In [25, 26, 18], Luef and later Jakobsen and Luef discovered that the duality theory of regular Gabor frames is closely related to a class of imprimitivity bimodules constructed by Rieffel [33]. These imprimitivity bimodules are known as Heisenberg modules. In general, a Hilbert -module over a -algebra can be thought of as a generalized Hilbert space where the field of scalars is replaced with , and where the inner product takes values in rather than . Hilbert -modules were introduced by Kaplansky in [21], and have since become essential in many parts of operator algebras and noncommutative geometry [6]. An imprimitivity --bimodule is both a left Hilbert -module over and a right Hilbert -module over , with compatibility conditions on the left and right structures. If there exists an imprimitivity --bimodule, then the -algebras and are called Morita equivalent, a notion first described by Rieffel in [31, 32]. Morita equivalent -algebras share many important properties, such as representation theory and ideal structure.
For a closed subgroup of , the Heisenberg module can be constructed as a norm completion of the Feichtinger algebra [25]. The latter is an important space of functions in time-frequency analysis [10]. The Heisenberg module implements the Morita equivalence between the twisted group -algebras and . Here, denotes the adjoint subgroup of , which consists of all points for which commutes with for every . Readers familiar with Gabor analysis know that the adjoint subgroup plays a central role in results such as the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis, and this result can indeed be inferred directly from the structure of the Heisenberg modules. An important class of examples come from when and is a lattice in , in which case the twisted group -algebras and are both noncommutative -tori. Indeed, these examples were the original motivation for the construction of Heisenberg modules in [33]. However, the construction has also been applied in other contexts, such as in the construction of finitely generated projective modules over noncommutative solenoids [23, 24, 9].
For a general left Hilbert -module over a -algebra , one defines rank-one operators in analogy with the Hilbert space case. Specifically, if , the rank-one operator is given by
[TABLE]
for . Here, denotes the -valued inner product on . A central observation in [25] is that for , the rank-one operator associated to the Heisenberg module agrees with the Gabor frame operator on a dense subspace of , namely the Feichtinger algebra . This observation has an important consequence: It allows a finite generating set of the Heisenberg module coming from the dense subspace to be characterized exactly as the generators of a multi-window Gabor frame over [18, p. 14]. Moreover, such a finite generating set exists (that is, is finitely generated) if and only if is cocompact in [18, Theorem 3.9]. However, since is an abstract completion of , its elements can a priori not be interpreted as functions in any sense. Therefore, it is not straightforward to obtain a similar characterization for generators of not necessarily in .
Nonetheless, it was recently remarked in [3] that can be continuously embedded into . In the present paper, we elaborate on this embedding, and show how it arises naturally from the notion of localization of Hilbert -modules as discussed in [22]. The important extra structure on the Heisenberg module when localizing is a faithful trace on the -algebra . In the case that is a lattice in , we use the canonical tracial state on (see e.g. [4, p. 951]). If is only cocompact, we have to work a bit more, see Proposition 3.1. It was already observed in [25] that this trace plays an important role when connecting Heisenberg modules and Gabor frames. However, the consequence that the trace makes it possible to embed continuously into was first observed in [3].
Furthermore, in the language of localization, the rank-one operator for extends uniquely to a bounded linear operator on , and we show in this paper that the extension is exactly the Gabor frame operator (Theorem 3.15). As a consequence, we generalize the equivalence between generators of Heisenberg modules and generators of multi-window Gabor frames to the case when the generators belong to (Theorem 3.16). We summarize some of our main results in the following.
Theorem A** (cf. Proposition 3.12, Theorem 3.15, Theorem 3.16).**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . Denote by the subspace of consisting of those for which is a Bessel family for , that is,
[TABLE]
for every . This is a Banach space with respect to the norm
[TABLE]
The following hold:
- (i)
The Heisenberg module has a concrete description as the completion of in the Banach space . The actions are given in Proposition 3.12. 2. (ii)
For , the Heisenberg module rank-one operator extends to the Gabor frame operator . 3. (iii)
Let . Then is a generating set for as a left -module if and only if is a multi-window Gabor frame for .
Part (iii) of A gives a complete description of finite generating sets of the Heisenberg modules due to Rieffel, showing that they are the generators of a multi-window Gabor frame. Conversely, multi-window Gabor frames over with generators in give rise to finite generating sets for .
Note also that part (i) of A implies that is a Bessel family for whenever . Consequently, the Gabor analysis operator , synthesis operator , and frame operator associated to over are all bounded linear operators. This is an attractive property of as a function space in time-frequency analysis, at least when focusing on the subgroup . We also show that elements of the Heisenberg module satisfy the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis over the subgroup when it is a lattice (Proposition 3.18).
We also comment on the assumption in A that is cocompact. This is necessary for our localization techniques to work, see Proposition 3.1. However, as shown in [17, Theorem 5.1], the existence of a multi-window Gabor frame over implies that the quotient is compact, i.e. is a cocompact subgroup of . The assumption is therefore mild.
The paper is structured as follows: In Section 2, we cover the necessary background material on frames in Hilbert -modules, continuous Gabor frames and Heisenberg modules. In Section 3, we introduce the notion of the localization of a Hilbert -module with respect to a (possibly unbounded) trace on the coefficient algebra, and compute the localization of the Heisenberg module. We then give applications to Gabor analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Nadia Larsen, Franz Luef and Luca Gazdag for giving feedback on a draft of the paper. The second author would like to thank Erik Bédos for helpful discussions. The authors are also indebted to the referees for their invaluable feedback on the first draft of the paper, and to one of the referees for suggesting a simpler proof of Proposition 2.6, which we have included.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Frames in Hilbert -modules
In the interest of brevity, we will assume basic knowledge about -algebras, Hilbert -modules, imprimitivity bimodules and adjointable operators between such modules. We mention [30, 22] as references. Instead, we dedicate this section to introduce module frames.
The -valued inner product of a left Hilbert -module will in general be denoted by , while the -valued inner product of a right Hilbert -module will be denoted by . We often refer to as the coefficient algebra of . If and are left Hilbert -modules, we use to denote the Banach space of adjointable operators , or just when there is no chance of confusion. As is standard, we write for the -algebra , and for the (generalized) compact operators on .
For an (at most) countable index set , we denote by the left Hilbert -module of all sequences in for which the sum converges in , with -valued inner product
[TABLE]
There is an analogous way to make into a right Hilbert -module, by replacing with in the definition. We will work with left modules throughout this section, but obvious modifications can be made for the case of right modules as well.
We now define module frames in Hilbert -modules, introduced in [13] in the case where is unital. For a treatment of the possibly non-unital case, see [2].
Definition 2.1**.**
Let be a -algebra and be a left Hilbert -module. Furthermore, let be some countable index set and let be a sequence in . We say is a module frame for if there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
for all , and the middle sum converges in norm. The constants and are called lower and upper frame bounds, respectively.
Remark 2.2*.*
If in the above definition then is a Hilbert space, and we recover the definition of frames in Hilbert spaces due to Duffin and Schaeffer [8].
Remark 2.3*.*
We will never treat frames over different index sets simultaneously, so to ease notation we will sometimes leave the index set implied.
Let be a sequence in that satisfies the upper frame bound condition in Definition 2.1 but not necessarily the lower frame bound condition. Such a sequence is called a Bessel sequence and every constant for which (1) is true is called a Bessel bound for . To a Bessel sequence we associate the module analysis operator given by
[TABLE]
for . It is an adjointable -linear operator, and its adjoint is known as the module synthesis operator, and is given by
[TABLE]
for . Now let be another Bessel sequence. We then define the module frame-like operator by . That is, for all we have
[TABLE]
In case we write and call it the module frame operator (associated to ). Since , we see that is always a positive operator.
A special case of the above situation is when we consider a sequence consisting of a single element , i.e. . It follows by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for Hilbert -modules that such a sequence is automatically a Bessel sequence. We write , , for another sequence where , and . Note that in this case, , and are given by
[TABLE]
for , . Also, for a finite Bessel sequence , we have that , and similar equalities for the synthesis and frame-like operators. The operator is often called a rank-one operator, and we have the following proposition, which is immediate by [30, Lemma 2.30, Proposition 3.8].
Proposition 2.4**.**
Let be an element of a full left Hilbert -module . Then
[TABLE]
More generally, if is an imprimitivity --bimodule, then
[TABLE]
for every . Hence, the norm of as a left Hilbert -module coincides with the norm of as a right Hilbert -module.
The frame property of a Bessel sequence can be characterized in terms of the invertibility of the associated frame operator . For a proof, see [2, Theorem 1.2].
Proposition 2.5**.**
Let be a Bessel sequence in . Then the frame operator associated to is invertible if and only if is a module frame for .
The following proposition shows that finite module frames are nothing more than (algebraic) generating sets, and conversely.
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let be a left Hilbert -module, and let . Then is a module frame for if and only if it is a generating set for , i.e. for every there exist coefficients such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be the module frame operator corresponding to . If is a frame for , then by [2, Theorem 1.2] one has the expansion for every . This shows that is a generating set for .
We now prove the converse. Denote by the map . This is an adjointable -module map, with . By assumption is a surjection. [22, Theorem 3.2] then gives that the image of is a complementable submodule of . The usual Hilbert space argument then gives that is invertible, and it follows from Proposition 2.5 that is a module frame for .
∎
2.2. Gabor analysis on locally compact abelian groups
For the rest of the paper (unless stated otherwise), will denote a second countable, locally compact abelian group with group operation written additively and with identity , and will denote a closed subgroup of the time-frequency plane . We fix a Haar measure on and equip with the dual measure [12, Theorem 4.21]. Furthermore, we pick a Haar measure on , and let have the unique measure such that Weil’s formula holds [17, equation (2.4)]. We can then associate to the quantity , known as the size of [17, p. 235]. Here denotes the chosen Haar measure. The size of is finite precisely when is compact, that is, is cocompact in .
Given and , we define the translation operator and modulation operator on by
[TABLE]
for and . The translation and modulation operators are unitary linear operators on . Moreover, a time-frequency shift is an operator of the form for and .
The adjoint subgroup of , denoted by , is the closed subgroup of given by
[TABLE]
We use the identification of with in [17, p. 234] to pick the dual measure on corresponding to the measure on induced from the chosen measure on . If is cocompact in , then is discrete, and the induced measure on will be the counting measure scaled by the constant [18, equation (13)].
We consider the two following important examples:
Example 2.7**.**
Suppose is a lattice in , namely a discrete, cocompact subgroup of . Then is also a lattice in [33, Lemma 3.1]. In this situation, we will usually equip with the counting measure. The size of is then the measure of any fundamental domain for in [17, Remark 1]. Since in particular is cocompact, the measure on will not be the counting measure in general, but rather the counting measure scaled by .
Example 2.8**.**
Let . is then cocompact in , since is trivial. The natural choice of measure on in this situation is the product measure coming from the chosen measure on and the dual measure on . The induced measure on is then the normalized measure assigning the value 1 to .
2.3. Gabor frames.
We will need a continuous version of Gabor frames, and so we cannot treat our Gabor frames as a special case of Definition 2.1. However, note the similarities between the definitions and results given here and in Section 2.1.
Given , the family is called a Gabor system over with generator . More generally, given , the family is called a multi-window Gabor system over with generators .
The multi-window Gabor system is called a multi-window Gabor frame if it is a (continuous) frame [1, 20, 17] for in the sense that both of the following hold:
- (i)
The family is weakly measurable, that is, for every and each , the map is measurable. 2. (ii)
There exist positive constants such that for all we have that
[TABLE]
The numbers and are called lower and upper frame bounds respectively. We may also refer to the upper frame bound as a Bessel bound in analogy with Section 2. If the family is weakly measurable and has an upper frame bound but not necessarily a lower frame bound, we call it a Bessel family. A (single-window) Gabor system which is a frame is called a Gabor frame.
The analysis operator associated to a Bessel family is the bounded linear operator given by
[TABLE]
for . Its adjoint is called the synthesis operator and is given weakly by
[TABLE]
for . The frame-like operator associated to two Bessel families and is the operator which is given weakly by
[TABLE]
for . In particular, the frame operator associated to the Bessel family is the operator . This is a positive operator.
If is a multi-window Gabor Bessel family, then its analysis, synthesis and frame operators are given respectively by , and .
Note how the following proposition is analogous to Proposition 2.5. The result is well-known in frame theory.
Proposition 2.9**.**
Let be such that is a Bessel family for . Then is a multi-window Gabor frame if and only if the associated frame operator is invertible on .
The Feichtinger algebra is the set of for which
[TABLE]
See [16] for a comprehensive introduction to . For us, the Feichtinger algebra will play a key role in the construction of Heisenberg modules as in [25], see Proposition 2.12. Note that in the original paper [33], the Schwartz-Bruhat space was used instead. The Schwartz-Bruhat space has a more technical definition. Although it will not be important to us, we mention that the Feichtinger algebra has a natural Banach space structure [10, Theorem 1].
Proposition 2.10**.**
The following properties hold for the Feichtinger algebra:
- (i)
If , then is a Bessel family for . 2. (ii)
If is discrete, then .
For a proof of these results, see [17, Corollary A.5] and [16, Lemma 4.11].
2.4. Twisted group -algebras and Heisenberg modules
For the moment, let be a general second countable, locally compact abelian group. A (normalized) continuous 2-cocycle on is a continuous map that satisfies the following two identities:
- (i)
For every we have that
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
If [math] denotes the identity element of , then
[TABLE]
Note that if is a continuous 2-cocycle, then its pointwise complex conjugate is a continuous 2-cocycle as well.
Given a continuous 2-cocycle on , one can equip the Feichtinger algebra with a multiplication and involution as follows: For and , one defines
[TABLE]
The -enveloping algebra of is called the -twisted group -algebra of and is denoted by . Note that this definition is equivalent to the usual definition of as the -enveloping algebra of , as is dense in and the -norm dominates the universal -norm on .
Let be a Hilbert space, and denote by the unitary operators on . A map is called a -projective unitary representation of on if the following two properties hold:
- (i)
is strongly continuous, i.e. for every , the map , is continuous. 2. (ii)
For every , we have that
[TABLE]
The twisted group -algebra captures the -projective unitary representation theory of in the following sense: For every -projective unitary representation on a Hilbert space , there is a nondegenerate -representation which for is given weakly by
[TABLE]
The above representation is called the integrated representation of . Conversely, if is any nondegenerate -representation of on , then there exists a unique -projective unitary representation such that . This correspondence can be seen as a consequence of e.g. [28, Proposition 2.7].
Note also that if is a -projective unitary representation, then defined by is -projective. This follows from taking the adjoint of both sides of (14) (it is essential that we are working with abelian groups in this situation).
When is discrete, we have by Proposition 2.10 (ii) that . If we equip with the counting measure, there is a canonical tracial state on [4, p. 951]. On the dense -subalgebra , it is given by
[TABLE]
for .
We now return to the situation where is a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and is a closed subgroup of . The map given by
[TABLE]
for is a continuous 2-cocycle on called the Heisenberg 2-cocycle [33, p. 263]. Moreover, the time-frequency shifts define a -projective unitary representation of on , and so we have that
[TABLE]
This representation is often called the Heisenberg representation. Restricting to the closed subgroup of , we obtain a -projective unitary representation of on . We denote the restriction by . This representation then induces a -representation of on , which we also (by slight abuse of notation) denote by . We have the following result, see [33, Proposition 2.2].
Proposition 2.11**.**
The integrated representation is faithful, i.e. implies for all .
In the following proposition, we give the definition of Heisenberg modules. For a proof, see the proof of [18, Theorem 3.4] or Rieffel’s arguments from [33] which are similar.
Proposition 2.12**.**
Let be a locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed subgroup of , both with chosen Haar measures. Equip with the Haar measure determined as in Section 2.2. The Heisenberg module is an imprimitivity --module obtained as a completion of the Feichtinger algebra . The actions and inner products are given densely as follows:
- (i)
If , and , then , with
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
If , then and , with
[TABLE]
for and .
We can rewrite the left and right actions of Proposition 2.12 as follows: Since is a -projective unitary representation, it follows that is -projective. We restrict and to and respectively and obtain the representations and . Passing to the integrated representations, we obtain -representations of and which we also denote by and respectively. We can then write the left and right module actions given in (18) as
[TABLE]
for , and .
3. Results
3.1. Localization of Hilbert -modules.
We will use localization of Hilbert -modules with respect to positive linear functionals as defined in [22, p. 7]. Localization is a technique reminiscent of the GNS construction. It uses a positive linear functional on the coefficient algebra of a Hilbert -module to embed the module continuously into a Hilbert space. The authors are not aware of many uses of localization in the literature, but an example is found in [19]. We will focus exclusively on the case of faithful traces, but we will need a version for (possibly) unbounded traces, which we develop after reviewing the case of finite faithful traces.
Let denote a finite trace on , i.e. a positive linear functional on that satisfies for all . Assume also that is faithful, that is, implies for all . If is a left Hilbert -module, it is easily verified that
[TABLE]
for defines a (-valued) inner product on , and we denote the Hilbert space completion of in the norm coming from by . For , the chain of inequalities
[TABLE]
shows that the embedding is continuous. Moreover, if is a state, that is, , then the embedding is norm-decreasing. The Hilbert space is called the localization of with respect to .
If and are left Hilbert -modules, we obtain localizations and with respect to . Let be an adjointable linear operator. Then in particular, is a bounded linear operator when viewing the Hilbert -modules as Banach spaces, and we denote its norm by . For all we have that [30, Corollary 2.22]. Applying on both sides, we obtain
[TABLE]
which shows that extends to a bounded linear operator of Hilbert spaces . If denotes the norm of as a Hilbert space operator, then (22) also shows that . Hence we have a norm-decreasing (hence continuous) inclusion of Banach spaces . If , then more is true: We obtain an injective -homomorphism of -algebras [22, p. 58] . Since injective -homomorphisms of -algebras are necessarily isometries [27, Theorem 3.1.5], we deduce that is an isometry. Hence in this case we have
[TABLE]
for all .
We can define the localization of a right Hilbert -module at a faithful trace similarly, except in this situation we have to set the inner product to be for to get linearity in the first argument instead of the second. Just as with left modules, we obtain a Hilbert space together with an injective bounded linear map .
In the following, we develop a version of localization with respect to a possibly unbounded trace that works for our purposes. Denote by the positive elements of the -algebra . By a weight on , we will mean a function that satisfies for all , for all and , and . The weight is lower semi-continuous if whenever is a net in converging to , then . A weight on is a trace if for all , and is faithful if implies for every .
For a weight on , let . The weight is called densely defined if is dense in (in the norm topology). Moreover, let . By [29, Lemma 5.1.2], has a unique extension to a positive linear functional on , and is densely defined if and only if is dense in . A weight on is called finite if . In that case, extends uniquely to a positive linear functional on , and so we obtain a positive linear functional on the whole of . Conversely, any positive linear functional on restricts to a finite weight on . If is a unital -algebra, then is finite if and only if if and only if is densely defined.
Now let be a left Hilbert -module, and a (possibly unbounded) trace on . There are two problems with localizing with respect to : The first one is that might not be finite for , which means that we do not get a well-defined inner product by setting . The other problem is that we might not get a continuous embedding even if the inner product is well-defined. However, the following set-up is sufficient for our purposes, and solves the aforementioned problems. The essential ingredient in the proof is a result due to Combes and Zettl [5].
Proposition 3.1**.**
Let and be -algebras, and suppose is a faithful finite trace on . Then the following hold:
- (i)
If is an imprimitivity --bimodule, then there exists a unique lower semi-continuous trace such that
[TABLE]
for all . Moreover, is faithful and densely defined, with , and setting
[TABLE]
for defines an inner product on , with for all . Consequently, the Hilbert space obtained by completing in the norm is just the localization of with respect to . 2. (ii)
If and are imprimitivity --bimodules, then every adjointable -linear operator has a unique extension to a bounded linear operator . Furthermore, the map given by sending to its unique extension is a norm-decreasing linear map of Banach spaces. Finally, if , the map is an isometric -homomorphism of -algebras.
Proof.
Suppose is an imprimitivity --bimodule. By [5, Proposition 2.2], there is a unique lower semi-continuous trace on such that the relation in equation (24) holds for all . Since is finite, it is densely defined, and so is densely defined by the same proposition. The same goes for faithfulness. Since , we have that . By the polarization identity for Hilbert -modules, elements of the form are in , and so the unique extension of to a positive linear functional on is defined on all elements of the form with . Thus, in this situation the inner product proposed in (25) is well-defined. Again by the polarization identity, the relation in (24) implies that for all , and so .
If , then we have that for every . Taking the trace , we obtain that , just as in the discussion of localization with respect to finite traces. This shows that extends to a bounded linear map , and that the inclusion is norm-decreasing. In particular, if , it becomes an isometric -homomorphism of -algebras. ∎
We will refer to the localization of with respect to in Proposition 3.1 above also as the localization of with respect to .
Remark 3.2*.*
If both and are unital in Proposition 3.1, then , being a densely defined trace on a unital -algebra, has to be finite. In that case, we can localize as a left -module with respect to in the usual fashion, and then Proposition 3.1 tells us that the localization is exactly the same as when done with respect to .
3.2. Localization of the twisted group -algebra
The following proposition shows that for a discrete group with a 2-cocycle , the localization of as a left Hilbert module over itself with respect to the canonical trace can be identified in a natural way with .
Proposition 3.3**.**
Let be a discrete group equipped with the counting measure and a 2-cocycle . Denote by the localization of as a left module over itself with respect to its canonical faithful tracial state. Then can be identified with in such a way that the following diagram of inclusions commutes:
\ell^{1}(\Delta)$$C^{*}(\Delta,c)$$\ell^{2}(\Delta)$$H$$\cong
Moreover, the inclusion map is norm-decreasing, that is, for all we have that
[TABLE]
Proof.
We have that is dense in in the Hilbert space norm on , and that is dense in in the -norm on . Since the -norm on dominates the Hilbert space norm of , we get that is also dense in in the Hilbert space norm. Moreover is also dense in in the -norm.
Denote by the inner product on . The -valued inner product on as a left Hilbert -module over itself is given by for , and so the inner product with respect to is given by . If , then
[TABLE]
This shows that and agree on the subspace which is dense in both of the Hilbert spaces as argued. It follows that can be identified with in such a way that the inclusions of into and are preserved. Moreover, since is a state, we have that the inclusion is norm-decreasing. ∎
Remark 3.4*.*
In the sequel the following situation will be relevant: Let be a discrete group, and denote by the counting measure on . Let be a constant. Then we can consider the -algebra defined with respect to the measure rather than , and so all sums involved in formulas for convolutions and norms will have a factor of in front. In this situation there is still a faithful trace on given by for . However, note that this is not a state when . Indeed, the multiplicative identity of is rather than , and so
[TABLE]
If we rescale by , we obtain a state.
3.3. Localization of the Heisenberg module
We will need a trace on the left -algebra of the Heisenberg module in Proposition 2.12. When is a lattice in , we will just consider the canonical faithful trace on . Note that by Proposition 3.1 and Remark 3.2, there exists a finite faithful trace on the right -algebra such that for all . If , then
[TABLE]
But there is a canonical trace on such that whenever . Since , this shows that and agree on . Since the latter is dense in , we conclude that . Note however by Remark 3.4 that the faithful trace which satisfies (25) is not a state unless .
In the case when is only cocompact and not necessarily discrete, is discrete, and we obtain a (possibly unbounded) trace on by the following proposition. Note that we use the measures as chosen in the beginning of this section, and that is equipped with the canonical trace that is not a state in general.
Proposition 3.5**.**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . Let and . Denote by the canonical faithful trace on as in Remark 3.4. Then the induced trace on via the Heisenberg module as in Proposition 3.1 is given by
[TABLE]
for . In particular, if is a lattice in , then is the canonical faithful tracial state on .
Proof.
By Proposition 3.1, the induced trace satisfies
[TABLE]
for all . If , then by Proposition 2.12 and Proposition 2.10 (ii), and so
[TABLE]
If is a lattice, then is the twisted group -algebra of a discrete group, and in this case we know that the canonical faithful tracial state on is given by for . In particular, . By fullness of as a left Hilbert -module, it follows that and agree on a dense subspace of , hence on all of . This shows that is indeed the faithful canonical tracial state on . ∎
Based on the above proposition, we make the following convention for the rest of the paper:
Convention 3.6**.**
We fix a second countable, locally compact abelian group , and a closed, cocompact subgroup of . We fix Haar measures on and . If is a lattice in , we assume the counting measure on . From these measures, we obtain measures on , and as in Section 2.2. Note that the measure on will be the counting measure scaled by a factor of . Let and , so that the Heisenberg module is an imprimitivity --bimodule. We assume the canonical faithful trace on given by for . We equip with the possibly unbounded trace induced from as in Proposition 3.5. In particular, if is a lattice, then is the canonical faithful tracial state on .
In the following proposition, we compute the localization of the Heisenberg module associated to a cocompact subgroup .
Proposition 3.7**.**
Let denote a second countable locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . Then the localization of the Heisenberg module with respect to either of the traces on and can be identified with in such a way that the diagram of inclusions commutes:
S_{0}(G)$$\mathcal{E}_{\Delta}(G)$$L^{2}(G)$$H$$\cong
Thus, the Heisenberg module can be continuously embedded into , with
[TABLE]
for all . In particular, if is a sequence in that converges to an element in the -norm, then also converges to in the -norm.
Proof.
Let . Then by Proposition 2.12, and so by (19) and Proposition 3.5 we obtain
[TABLE]
This shows that and agree on the dense subspace of . Hence, the localization can be identified with in such a way that the above diagram commutes. Moreover, since , see 3.4, we have
[TABLE]
This implies (26). ∎
Proposition 3.7 embeds the Heisenberg module as a dense subspace of , and allows us to think of as a function space.
3.4. Applications to Gabor analysis
In light of Proposition 3.7 and Proposition 3.1, it follows that every adjointable -module operator has a unique extension to a bounded linear map . The following lemma states that when , the extension of the adjointable operator on to a bounded linear operator on is equal to . This will be generalized to functions in Theorem 3.15. The lemma was observed in [25] in the case of , but without using the language of localization. It was also covered in greater generality in [18, Theorem 3.14].
Lemma 3.8**.**
Let . Then the module frame-like operator extends to the Gabor frame-like operator .
Proof.
Suppose . To begin with, let . Then by Proposition 2.12, , and consequently . Moreover, equations (19) and (18) give that
[TABLE]
Now let , and suppose is a sequence in that converges to in the -norm. Then by continuity, in the -norm. By 3.7, the sequence also converges to in the -norm, and so by continuity, in the -norm. From what we already proved for functions in , we obtain that (as elements of ).
But this shows that , and since the extension of to is , we conclude that the extension of to is . ∎
The following lemma was also noted in [18, Lemma 3.6]. We give a different proof here which uses localization.
Lemma 3.9**.**
Let . Then the Heisenberg module norm of can be expressed in the following ways:
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Proposition 2.4, the Heisenberg module norm of is given by . Since , we get from Lemma 3.8 and (23) that
[TABLE]
Now from the equality it follows that . This takes care of (27) and (28). The expressions in (29) and (30) are well-known for the operator norm . ∎
We are now ready to prove the first of our main results:
Theorem 3.10**.**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . If , then is a Bessel family for . That is, there exists a such that
[TABLE]
for all . Consequently, the analysis, synthesis and frame-like operators , , are all well-defined, bounded linear operators for .
Proof.
Let , and let be a sequence in with
[TABLE]
Since for all , is a Bessel family for all by Proposition 2.10. Denote by the optimal Bessel bound of for each , which by (30) in Lemma 3.9 is equal to . Since is convergent in the Heisenberg module norm, it follows that is bounded, and so is bounded, by say. We then have that
[TABLE]
for every and every . Since in , we have from Proposition 3.7 that in as well. Hence, continuity of the inner product gives for each and each that
[TABLE]
By Fatou’s lemma, we obtain for every that
[TABLE]
This proves that is a Bessel family. ∎
We are now able to extend the description of the Heisenberg module norm given in Lemma 3.9 for functions in to all of .
Proposition 3.11**.**
Let . Then the module norm of can be expressed in the following ways:
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . We will show that . Once this is shown, the rest of the expressions for follow just as in the proof of Lemma 3.9.
Let be a sequence in such that
[TABLE]
Then is a Cauchy sequence in the Heisenberg module norm, and so for every there exists such that for all we have that
[TABLE]
Since for all and is a subspace of , we have that for all , and so by Lemma 3.9, we can write
[TABLE]
But then by the above, we obtain that the sequence of operators is Cauchy in , and so by completeness, there exists such that
[TABLE]
Now fix . Then we have that
[TABLE]
It is well-known that this implies the existence of a subsequence that converges pointwise almost everywhere to (see for instance [34, Theorem 3.12]). However, since converges to in the -norm by 3.7, we have that
[TABLE]
for every . Hence converges pointwise to , and it follows that converges pointwise to as well. This shows that almost everywhere, and so they represent the same element in . Since was arbitrary, it follows that , and so we have that
[TABLE]
This implies that
[TABLE]
∎
Let denote the set of such that is a Bessel family for . Then is a Banach space when equipped with the norm
[TABLE]
By Proposition 2.12, the Heisenberg module is the completion of with respect to the Heisenberg module norm. But by using our embedding of into in Proposition 3.7 and the expression of the Heisenberg module norm provided in Proposition 3.11, we obtain a concrete description of as a subspace of . In the following proposition, we use the notation from (20).
Proposition 3.12**.**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . Then the Heisenberg module is the completion of in . The bimodule structure can be described as follows: Let , and . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Proposition 2.12, we know that is the completion of with respect to the Heisenberg module norm. By Proposition 3.7, we know that is continuously embedded into in a way that respects the embedding of into . By Proposition 3.11, we have a description of the Heisenberg module norm as . It follows that is the completion of with respect to the norm of .
To see that (36) holds, let and . Let be a sequence in such that in . Let be a sequence in such that in . Then by continuity of the left action of on , we have that
[TABLE]
in . The last equality follows from the description of for and as (see Proposition 2.12). Since in the Heisenberg module norm, we have that in the -norm. Also, since in the operator norm, we have that in the -norm. Hence, interchanging the -limit in the equation above with an -limit, we obtain that .
The argument for (37) is similar, as for and , the definition of in Proposition 2.12 is equal to . A similar approximation argument to the one above shows that also holds for and . ∎
Example 3.13**.**
If one sets , the Heisenberg module is all of . To see this, note that . Thus, we have the identification , where a sequence is identified with its value at [math]. In this situation, the Heisenberg module is a --imprimitivity bimodule. But then is a right Hilbert -module over , so it must be a Hilbert space (with linearity in the second argument of the inner product). The right action is given by
[TABLE]
which under the identification becomes for and , i.e. ordinary scalar multiplication. Furthermore, the inner product at the value [math] is given by , i.e. the right inner product is just the conjugate of the ordinary -inner product.
It follows immediately from Proposition 2.4 that the Heisenberg module norm in this case is just the -norm, and so . The statement when is the whole time-frequency plane is well known. Indeed, in this case the analysis operator is the short-time Fourier transform. This is a bounded operator for all , and is invertible for any , see [15, Theorem 6.2.1].
Example 3.14**.**
Suppose is a discrete group, and that is a cocompact subgroup of (which must then be a lattice). Then (Proposition 2.10, (ii)), and so the Heisenberg module satisfies . In particular, if is finite, then .
The following theorem extends Lemma 3.8 and is one of our main results.
Theorem 3.15**.**
*Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of . Let . Then the module frame-like operator extends via localization to the Gabor frame-like operator . *
Proof.
Let and be sequences in that converge towards and respectively in the Heisenberg module norm. Let . Then converges towards in the Heisenberg module norm. By Lemma 3.8, we have that for each , and since convergence in the Heisenberg module norm implies convergence in the -norm, we have that
[TABLE]
By Proposition 3.11 and the identity , the sequences of operators and converge in the operator norm to and respectively, and so converges in the operator norm towards . It follows that the sequence converges to in the -norm. But then by (38), we have that . This shows that the restriction of to is equal to , and so the unique extension of to a bounded linear operator on must be . ∎
We now arrive at another one of our main results. The following result was previously only known for generators in [25, 17]. It states that finite module frames for are exactly the generators of multi-window Gabor frames for , where the generators are allowed to come from . This gives a complete description of generators of Heisenberg modules in terms of multi-window Gabor frames.
Theorem 3.16**.**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, let be a closed, cocompact subgroup of , and let be elements of the Heisenberg module . Then the following are equivalent:
- (i)
The set generates as a left -module. That is, for all there exist such that
[TABLE] 2. (ii)
The system
[TABLE]
is a multi-window Gabor frame for .
Proof.
By Proposition 2.6, the set is a generating set for if and only if the sequence is a module frame for . By Proposition 2.5, this happens if and only if is invertible as an element of . By Theorem 3.15 and linearity of the localization map , this operator extends via localization to the Gabor multi-window frame operator on . Since the localization map is an inclusion of unital -subalgebras, it follows by inverse closedness [27, Theorem 2.1.11] that is invertible in if and only if is invertible in . But by Proposition 2.9, the latter happens if and only if is a frame for . ∎
3.5. The fundamental identity of Gabor analysis
So far we have considered a closed subgroup of , and from this we built the Heisenberg module , which is a --imprimitivity bimodule. We focused specifically on the case when is cocompact, since this implies is discrete and hence is unital. By [17, p. 5], is identical to the annihilator (also defined in the same article) up to a measure-preserving change of coordinates, and it is also the case that by [7, Proposition 3.6.1]. Hence . Imposing the restriction that also be cocompact, which implies that both and are lattices, we could build and ask how it relates to . The following proposition shows that the relationship is just about as good as we could hope for.
Proposition 3.17**.**
Let be a lattice in . Then as subspaces of , and for all .
Proof.
Note first that since is a lattice, so is . In particular, is a cocompact subgroup, so all the results in this section for apply just as well for . Hence, by Proposition 2.12 and Proposition 3.12, one obtains the Heisenberg module as a completion of in , which is a --imprimitivity bimodule. Note that in the construction of we put on the counting measure, and on the counting measure scaled with as per 3.6. Denote the left inner product on by and the right inner product by .
Let . Denote by the -algebra representation as in the discussion following Proposition 2.12. Denote by the representation in the same discussion, but with replaced with . In other words, is a representation of on , while is a representation of on . Keeping in mind the right measures, we have that
[TABLE]
From the above we see that
[TABLE]
Using the faithfulness of the integrated representations (Proposition 2.11), we obtain for all that
[TABLE]
By the above, we have that a sequence in is Cauchy in the -norm if and only if it is Cauchy in the -norm. Thus, the sequence has a limit in -norm if and only if it has a limit in -norm. Since both of these norms dominate the -norm, it follows if is Cauchy in either of the norms, the limit in either of the norms give the same element in . It follows that , with for all . ∎
Finally, we show that the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis (or FIGA) [11, Theorem 4.5] holds when all involved functions are in when is a lattice. In the following we let be the operator of (8), and let denote the operator of (8) but with instead of . It is already known that FIGA holds for functions in even when is just a closed subgroup of the time-frequency plane [17, Corollary 6.3]. However, in the proof of Proposition 3.18 below we shall need to apply Theorem 3.15 to frame operators with respect to and with respect to . This then requires that both and are cocompact, hence they are both lattices. With these restrictions, FIGA is the statement
[TABLE]
for . In short form it is just the statement
[TABLE]
for . With the restriction that is a lattice in , the following proposition extends the range for the FIGA (for the particular lattice ) to functions in .
Proposition 3.18**.**
Let be a second countable, locally compact abelian group, and let be a lattice in . Then (41) holds for .
Proof.
Let , and be sequences in that converge to , and , respectively, in the -norm. By 3.17, the same is true in -norm. Then, since the fundamental identity of Gabor analysis applies for functions in by [17, Corollary 6.3], we have
[TABLE]
for all . By Theorem 3.15 we have
[TABLE]
Since convergence in the Heisenberg module norm implies convergence in the -norm, we conclude that the following equality holds in , were the limits are taken in :
[TABLE]
∎
Remark 3.19*.*
As already mentioned, the FIGA holds for functions in even when is only a closed subgroup for . The techniques in this paper are based on localization of --imprimitivity bimodules, which requires that we have a finite trace on at least one of the algebras and . Therefore the assumption that is a lattice in is necessary for our approach to the FIGA. There might be another technique that allows for an extension of the FIGA to for only a closed subgroup of that the authors are not aware of. We remark again that for the existence of Gabor frames over a closed subgroup of , it is necessary that is cocompact in , which is the setting for most of the results in the paper.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] S. T. Ali, J.-P. Antoine, and J.-P. Gazeau. Continuous frames in Hilbert space. Ann. Physics , 222(1):1–37, 1993.
- 2[2] L. Arambašić and D. Bakić. Frames and outer frames for Hilbert C ∗ superscript 𝐶 ∗ C^{\ast} -modules. Linear Multilinear Algebra , 65(2):381–431, 2017.
- 3[3] A. Austad and F. Luef. Modulation spaces as a smooth structure in noncommutative geometry. preprint, ar Xiv.org:1809.11063, 2018.
- 4[4] E. Bédos and T. Omland. On reduced twisted group C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras that are simple and/or have a unique trace. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 12(3):947–996, 2018.
- 5[5] F. Combes and H. Zettl. Order structures, traces and weights on Morita equivalent C ∗ superscript 𝐶 ∗ C^{\ast} -algebras. Math. Ann. , 265(1):67–81, 1983.
- 6[6] A. Connes. Noncommutative geometry . Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994.
- 7[7] A. Deitmar and S. Echterhoff. Principles of harmonic analysis . Universitext. Springer, Cham, second edition, 2014.
- 8[8] R. J. Duffin and A. C. Schaeffer. A class of nonharmonic Fourier series. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. , 72:341–366, 1952.
