Partially Positive Semidefinite Maps on $*$-Semigroupoids and Linearisations
Aurelian Gheondea, Bogdan Udrea

TL;DR
This paper generalizes classical dilation theorems to operator-valued partially positive semidefinite maps on $*$-semigroupoids and algebroids, extending their applicability to graph-related systems and groupoid representations.
Contribution
It introduces a unifying framework for dilation theorems on $*$-semigroupoids and algebroids, including unbounded operator representations and bounded characterizations, generalizing Stinespring's theorem.
Findings
Generalization of Sz-Nagy's Dilation Theorem for $*$-semigroupoids
Characterization of $*$-representations with bounded operators
Extension of Stinespring's Dilation Theorem to $B^*$-algebroids
Abstract
Motivated by Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz systems associated to undirected graphs and representations of groupoids, we obtain a generalisation of the Sz-Nagy's Dilation Theorem for operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -semigroupoids with unit, with varying degrees of aggregation, firstly by -representations with unbounded operators and then we characterise the existence of the corresponding -representations by bounded operators. By linearisation of these constructions, we obtain similar results for operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -algebroids with unit and then, for the special case of -algebroids with unit, we obtain a generalisation of the Stinespring's Dilation Theorem. As an application of the generalisation of the Stinespring's Dilation Theorem, we show that some natural questions on -algebroids are equivalent.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Topics in Algebra · Advanced Operator Algebra Research · Advanced Topology and Set Theory
Partially Positive Semidefinite
Maps on -Semigroupoids and Linearisations
Aurelian Gheondea
Department of Mathematics, Bilkent University, 06800 Bilkent, Ankara, Turkey, and Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy, Calea Griviţei 21, 010702 Bucureşti, România
[email protected] and [email protected]
and
Bogdan Udrea
Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy, Calea Griviţei 21, 010702 Bucureşti, România
Abstract.
Motivated by Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz systems associated to undirected graphs and representations of groupoids, we obtain a generalisation of the Sz-Nagy’s Dilation Theorem for operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -semigroupoids with unit, with varying degrees of aggregation, firstly by -representations with unbounded operators and then we characterise the existence of the corresponding -representations by bounded operators. By linearisation of these constructions, we obtain similar results for operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -algebroids with unit and then, for the special case of -algebroids with unit, we obtain a generalisation of the Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem. As an application of the generalisation of the Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem, we show that some natural questions on -algebroids are equivalent.
Key words and phrases:
-semigroupoid, -algebroid, positive semidefinite, completely positive, dilation, -representation
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 47L75; Secondary 43A35, 47A20, 47L60, 46L99
1. Introduction
The modern theory of -algebras was heavily influenced by the seminal paper of J. Cuntz and W. Krieger [5] that, in particular, shows how to associate -algebras to certain undirected graphs; see, for example, the monograph of I. Raeburn [25] and the bibliography cited there. This association has an important combinatorial trait and it is usually performed by a so-called Cuntz-Krieger system associated to an undirected graph , and its generalisation, the Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz system associated to , see Definition 2.28. Roughly speaking, these are systems of partial isometries satisfying certain conditions on a Hilbert space , that should be infinite dimensional in most of the relevant cases. Our main question, concerning these systems, asks whether they can be viewed as special cases of representations of certain mathematical objects onto some concrete forms. In this respect, one of the main motivation for this article is to show that indeed, these mathematical objects can be taken as -semigroupoids and that the concrete forms can be taken as -algebroids made up by linear operators, with a special concern on -algebroids. In order to put these words into meaningful ideas, in the following we firstly recall the main sources and connections that lead us to our answer.
Another very important influence on the modern theory of -algebras was done by the work of J. Renault [26] that associated -algebras to certain groupoids. This can be seen, for example, in the monographs of A.L.T. Paterson [22] and of D.P. Williams [34] and the rich bibliography cited there. In this case, one usually considers locally compact groupoids and the main tool for the construction of the associated -algebras is the so-called Haar system of measures. Haar systems of measures are necessary in order to produce certain spaces on which the left regular representation acts. But the existence of Haar systems of measures on locally compact groupoids does not hold in general and this imposes heavy restrictions in the theory. From this point of view, questions referring to existence of representations of groupoids on Hilbert spaces are natural to ask. There are many relations between groupoids and graph algebras, for example see A. Kumjian, D. Pask, I. Raeburn, and J. Renault [15].
Dilation theory is a domain that shows up in both operator theory and operator algebras, see the survey article of W.B. Arveson [2], for example. Two of the most important landmarks in the domain of noncommutative dilation theory are that of B. Sz.-Nagy [31], that generalises, on the one hand, the dilation theorem for positive semidefinite maps on commutative groups of M.A. Naimark [20] to operator valued maps on -semigroups with unit and, on the other hand, the B. Sz.Nagy’s unitary dilation theorem [30], and that of W.F. Stinespring [27], that generalises the other commutative dilation theorem for semispectral measures of M.A. Naimark [19] to operator valued completely positive maps on -algebras. A big difference between these two theorems is that in the Sz-Nagy’s Dilation Theorem, in order to obtain representations by bounded operators, a boundedness condition is needed, while in the Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem there is no boundedness condition at all.
The fact that Sz-Nagy’s Dilation Theorem implies Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem is rather simple and, essentially, it is based, on the one hand, on the fact that the dilation -representation corresponding to a -semigroup has an inherent linearity property and, on the other hand, on the existence of square roots for positive elements in -algebras. Although considered as rather distinct results referring to the nonlinear dilation theory and the linear dilation theory, respectively, these two dilation theorems have been eventually proven to be logically equivalent by H.F. Szafraniec [29]; this equivalence holds even in a larger generality, see A. Gheondea and B.E. Uğurcan [9]. The dificult implication, from Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem to Sz-Nagy’s Dilation Theorem, passes through a step for constructing a weight function (here is where the boundedness condition is used), then a second step of linearisation on a weighted type space that can be organised as -algebra with unit, and a final step of passing to the enveloping -algebra. This last step can be shortcut, as shown in [9], by using an idea of W.B. Arveson [1] on replacing -algebras with -algebras.
On the one hand, the classical Sz-Nagy’s Dilation Theorem triggered a whole domain of investigations in operator theory by the monumental work of B. Sz-Nagy and C. Foiaş [32] on contractions on Hilbert spaces but, explicitly, it was not pursued for further investigations: on Mathscinet the original paper of B. Sz.-Nagy has only citations by papers. However, multidimensional generalisations of Sz.-Nagy and Foiaş investigations, such as G. Popescu [23], were followed by other investigations on multidimensional dilation theory. From the point of view that we use in this article, we mention here the articles of M.T. Jury and D.W. Kribs [11], E. Katsoulis and D.W. Kribs [12], A. Dor-On and G. Salomon [6], to cite a few. On the other hand, the Stinespring’s Dilation Theorem made a remarkably successful career (Mathscinet reports citations only in mathematical papers, but there are many more in quantum physics) especially because the concept of completely positive map turned out to be extraordinarily useful in operator algebras, operator systems, and in modelling quantum operations, for example, see V.R. Paulsen [21], M. Hayashi [10].
In this article we consider some aspects of dilation theory that may establish yet one more bridge between graph algebras and groupoid algebras and, in the same time, shed some light on Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz systems. Our aim is to obtain analogous results to Sz-Nagy’s and Stinespring’s dilation theorems and their interplay. The fundamental concepts that we found useful in this enterprise are that of a -semigroupoid with unit and that of operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -semigroupoids. This is because, on the one hand, -semigroupoids clearly generalise groupoids while, on the other hand, we observe, see Example 2.28, that each Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz system associated to an undirected graph is actually a fully aggregated -representation of the free -semigroupoid . In the following we explain the concept of aggregation that plays a major role in this enterprise.
A semigroupoid, as introduced by B. Tilson [33], is sometimes called either a semicategory, or a naked category, or a precategory, because it is very close to a small (that is, both the class of objects and morphisms are sets) category, except the assumption that there is an identity morphism to each object. However, a small category is a semigroupoid with unit, and this is basically the object that we are interested in. In this article, we use semigroupoid in the sense of Tilson, although there is a different definition introduced by R. Exel [8] which is not of categorial character, but catches better the original approach of J. Cuntz and W. Krieger [5]. The idea of semigroupoid is heavily related to that of partial action, in the sense that only some pairs of elements can be multiplied, while a Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz system consists of a system of operators acting on the same Hilbert space and hence any two of these operators can be multiplied. It is in this sense that we use the concept of full aggregation. To be more precise, we allow a certain freedom of aggregation to representations of semigroupoids by introducing an aggregation map, ranging from full aggregation, corresponding to a single Hilbert space, when the range of the aggregation map is a singleton, to no aggregation at all, corresponding to the widest bundle of Hilbert spaces, when the aggregation map is injective.
In the following we briefly explain the organisation of this article and point out the main results. In Section 2 we review the basic concepts related to semigroupoids with an emphasise on -semigroupoids, present two operator models, one by unbounded operators and another one by bounded operators, and many relevant examples, and then define operator valued -representations of -semigroupoids by unbounded operators and bounded operators, respectively. A special case of a -semigroupoid that turns out to be very useful for our investigations is that of an inverse semigroupoid, see V. Liu [16], for example. We also show that Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz systems associated to undirected graphs can be regarded as fully aggregated -representations of free -semigroupoids generated by those graphs. This observation provides one of the motivations for this research.
The main results of this article are obtained in Theorem 3.13 and Theorem 4.7 that refer to dilation of a partially positive semidefinite map on a -semigroupoid with unit to a -representation of the -semigroupoid, generalising the classical dilation theorem of B. Sz.-Nagy. The reason that there are two dilation theorems is that we separated the case of representation by unbounded operators, see for the example the monograph of K. Schmüdgen [28] and the rich bibliography cited there, from the representation by bounded operators, which requires an additional boundedness condition. This boundedness condition shows up since the classical paper of B. Sz-Nagy [31] article and is quite natural, if -representations with bounded operators is what we want. At this level of generality, the dilations that are obtained have a certain orthogonality property that is closely related to the characteristics of a Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz system. In general, the fashion in which different pieces of the representation are aggregated within a bundle of Hilbert spaces makes technical obstructions. This is clearly seen by the interpretation of the Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz systems, see Example 2.28, as a fully aggregated representation of the -semigroupoid . This orthogonality property shows its importance because, when combined with a minimal property, it implies uniqueness up to unitary equivalence. Also, it is shown that for the case of inverse semigroupoids with unit, in particular for groupoids, positive semidefiniteness is equivalent to existence of dilations with bounded operators and, in addition, the dilation is a -representation made up by mutually orthogonal partial isometries, see Corollary 4.8, that resembles very much a Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz system.
Algebroids have been considered since J. Pradines [24], for the special case of a Lie algebroid, and G.H. Mosa [17], for the purely algebraic counterpart. In view of the interest for graph algebras generated through free semigroupoids, e.g. see A. Kumjian, D. Pask, and I. Raeburn [14], here we want to connect these investigations to graph algebras via the free -semigroupoid of an undirected graph. Our interest is also related to connecting semigroupoid algebras with dilation theory, and here we have to mention the pioneering work of D.W. Kribs and S.C. Power [13], and the connection of semigroups algebras with interpolation problems, cf. M.A. Dritschel, S. Marcantognini, and S. McCullogh [7]. In the last section we examine linearisations of partially positive semidefinite maps and this leads to considering -algebroids and -algebroids, the latter being Banach algebroids with isometric involutions. For the general case of -algebroids with unit we obtain an analogue of the Stinespring’s dilation with unbounded operators in Theorem 5.8. For the special case of partially positive semidefinite maps of -algebroids with unit we obtain Stinesprig’s dilations with bounded operators in Theorem 5.22. For this, we need generalisations of the concept of amplification of a -algebroid, the concept of amplification of a certain linear map between -algebroids, and the concept of operator valued completely positive map on -algebroids, in the spirit of the classical result of Stinespring [27]. The point here is that, in a -algebroid, positivity is defined by means of a convex cone and that, even for a -algebroid, this cone may be larger than the cone of positive elements in the isotropy algebras.
We end by a subsection where we firstly single out the concept of a -algebroid which, roughly speaking, is a -algebroid for which the norms satisfy a certain -algebra condition. The model is the -algebroid defined by a bundle of Hilbert spaces and their bounded operators but there are some fundamental questions that one has to answer on this issue. Firstly, on each isotropy -algebra there are two cones of positive elements, one intrinsic to the -algebra structure and a second one induced by the concept of partially positive semidefiniteness, and the first question is whether the two cones coincide. The second question refers to the amplifications of the fibers and asks to which extent are they -algebroids. Lastly, one has to find to which extent an analogue of the Gelfand-Naimark Theorem does hold for -algebroids, that is, whether any -algebroid can be embedded in a -algebroid defined by a bundle of Hilbert spaces. As an application of Theorem 5.22, these questions are shown to be equivalent. We show in Proposition 5.32 that a positive result to these questions might depend on how rich the fibres are, but the general problems remain open for now.
Finally, an observation on terminology. In this article we use the word bundle or fibration to denote simply a family of objects, called fibres, indexed on some nonempty set, without any other structure, topological property, or measurability property, required. In general, we will use the notation , where is the index set and ’s are the fibers of the bundle. An equivalent way of defining a bundle, and this is often seen in the literature, is by a surjective function , for some nonempty sets and . Obviously, letting the fibre this is equivalent to the notation . The fibres may be sets, spaces, operators, and so on.
2. Preliminaries on Semigroupoids
In this section we review the basic definitions, relevant examples, and some simple facts on semigroupoids and, especially, -semigroupoids with unit. We also introduce two types of operator models for -semigroupoids with unit, by unbounded and bounded operators, respectively, that will play a major role in this article.
2.1. Semigroupoids and Examples.
We firstly recall some basic definitions and examples on semigroupoids, with an emphasise on -semigroupoids.
Definition 2.1**.**
A semigroupoid [33] is a quintuple subject to the following conditions.
- (SG1)
and are nonempty sets.
- (SG2)
and are maps.
- (SG3)
For every such that there exists a unique element , with and .
- (SG4)
For any such that and we have
[TABLE]
The map is called the domain map or the source map and is called the codomain map or the range map.
Remark 2.2**.**
For simplicity, we will say that is a semigroupoid and, by this, we mean that there exist the set , the maps and , and the operation such that the quintuple satisfies the properties (SG1) through (SG4). When there is no danger of confusion, we will drop the lower index .
Also, for simplicity we will write instead of , whenever the operation is possible. In this respect, we denote
[TABLE]
the set of composable pairs in .
In addition, for each we consider the fibres
[TABLE]
In general, any of these fibres can be empty. Let , the set of isolated points in . By replacing with we remove those points in that are neither the domain nor the codomain of any element . Without loss of generality, we can thus assume that for any either or is nonempty.
If for all then is a partition of and hence it defines an equivalence relation on : if . Similarly, if for all then is a partition of and hence it defines an equivalence relation on : if .
Also, may be empty for some . If is not empty for each , equivalently, the map is surjective, the semigroupoid is called transitive and, in this case, is a partition of which defines the equivalence relation: if and . If and is not empty then is a semigroup, called the isotropy semigroup at .
Example 2.3**.**
(Transformation Semigroupoids) Let be a semigroup which acts on a nonempty set to the right, with the right action denoted , for and . In order to keep the construction away of trivial cases, without loss of generality we can assume that for any there exist and such that . Let be defined by and defined by . By definition, is composable with if and, in this case, we define . Then is a semigroupoid called the transformation semigroupoid induced by the right action of the semigroup on the set .
Definition 2.4**.**
A semigroupoid has a unit if there exists an injective map , for which we use the notation , subject to the following conditions.
- (U1)
For every , .
- (U2)
For any and any we have .
- (U3)
For any and any we have .
Remark 2.5**.**
It is easy to see that, a unit of the semigroupoid , if it exists, is unique. In addition, since the unit is an injective map this yields an embedding of in . In this case, one usually denotes , and call it the set of units of . Clearly, is in a bijective correspondence with and, because of that, for semigroupoids with unit, one usually identifies them.
If the semigroupoid has a unit then, for each the isotropy semigroup has a unit.
A semigroupoid with unit can be defined, equivalently, as a small category, that is, a category in which the classes of objects and arrows are sets.
Remark 2.6**.**
(Semigroupoids as Directed Graphs) A directed graph is, by definition, a quadruple , where is the set of vertices, is the set of edges, and are the source map and the range map, respectively. We allow that between two vertices there may be several edges. Any semigroupoid can be viewed as a directed graph in which the vertex set , the edge set , the source map and the range map , and such that the edge set is endowed with a partial binary operation denoted by juxtaposition satisfying the following conditions.
- (i)
If then exists if , equivalently, .
- (ii)
If then and .
- (iii)
If and then .
Definition 2.7**.**
A semigroupoid is free if there exists a set , called the set of symbols, such that for every that is not a unit, there exist unique such that . The elements are then called words and, if , with for all , then is the length of . If then its length is . If the free semigroupoid has a unit then for any , the length of is [math].
Example 2.8**.**
(Free Graph Semigroupoids) Let be a directed graph. Without loss of generality, we assume that any vertex is either the source or the range of some edges, so there are no isolated vertices.
Let [13] denote the set of all finite paths of the directed graph . More precisely, if is a sequence of edges such that , , through , then denotes the corresponding path. Then and . The length of is . Two finite paths and can be concatenated if and only if and then the concatenation is defined in an obvious fashion, so the length of is . Here we have to observe that concatenation is following the same rule as juxtaposition as defined in Example 2.6.
It is easy to see that, letting , the domain map be the source map , the codomain map be the range map , and the operation of concatenation, we have a semigroupoid structure on , called the free semigroupoid associated to the graph . The set of edges , identified with the set of paths of length , is the set of symbols of . If we allow any vertex to have a special loop such that for any edge with and for all edge with , then is the unit of . In this case, we actually identify the set of vertices with the unit .
Definition 2.9**.**
Given a semigroupoid , an involution on is a map subject to the following conditions.
- (I1)
For any we have and .
- (I2)
For any we have .
- (I3)
For any we have .
A semigroupoid with a specified involution will be called a -semigroupoid.
Remark 2.10**.**
By property (I3), involutions are bijective maps. Also, if the -semigroupoid has a unit then
[TABLE]
Also, for any such that , the isotropy semigroup has an involution.
Example 2.11**.**
(Free Graph -Semigroupoids) With notation and assumptions as in Example 2.8, assume that the graph is directed and we extend it to a graph as follows: to any edge which is not a unit we add a unique companion edge with and . For the units we let . Also, we define for any companion edge . Let denote the collection of all edges added in this way from the edges in and let . We let be the free semigroupoid with unit induced by . Then, for any finite path we can uniquely define the finite path and, in this way, the free -semigroupoid with unit is obtained.
Definition 2.12**.**
A semigroupoid is called an inverse semigroupoid, e.g. see [16], if for any there exists a unique such that and . Note that, in particular, this means that and , for all .
Remark 2.13**.**
It is easy to see that if is an inverse semigroupoid then for any we have and for any we have . In particular, any inverse semigroupoid is a -semigroupoid with .
Definition 2.14**.**
Let be a semigroupoid and a nonempty set. A left action of on is a pair subject to the following conditions.
- (A1)
is a map.
- (A2)
For any and any there exists a unique element such that .
- (A3)
For any and any such that we have
[TABLE]
If, in addition, has a unit then the left action is called unital if
[TABLE]
Remark 2.15**.**
(1) If we replace with , in this way we remove those points in on which no action of occurs and hence, without loss of generality, we can assume that the map is surjective. The map is called anchor.
(2) Any semigroupoid has a natural left action on itself. To see this, let be defined by . In addition, for any and any the action is defined by .
(3) The definition of a left action of a semigroupoid over a set is natural. For the case of topological groupoids, more conditions are assumed, see e.g. [18].
Example 2.16**.**
(Semigroupoids Modelled by Bounded Operators on Hilbert Spaces) Let be a nonempty set and a bundle of Hilbert spaces over (either or ) for some nonempty set . An element such that for all will be called a cross-section of the bundle . Let
[TABLE]
where denotes the vector space of all bounded linear operators .
For every , there exists uniquely such that and then we define and . In this way, and are surjective maps.
The operation of composition in is defined by operator composition: if are such that then for some and for some . Then is the composition of the operators and , in this order. Thus, is a semigroupoid.
The semigroupoid has the unit defined by , where denotes the identity operator on , for all . It also has a natural involution: where, if by we denote the Hilbert space adjoint operator.
In addition, the semigroupoid has a natural left action on defined by , where .
Example 2.17**.**
(Semigroupoids Modelled on Vector Spaces) Let be a nonnempty set and be a bundle of vector spaces over . We let
[TABLE]
where by we understand the vector space of all linear operators . As in the previous example, for any there exists uniquely such that and we let and , hence and are surjections. The partial composition is defined as in the previous example and, in this way, becomes a semigroupoid with unit , . As in the previous example, there is a natural left action of onto .
Example 2.18**.**
(Semigroupoids Modelled by Unbounded Operators in Hilbert Spaces.)
Let us assume, with notation as in the previous example, that for each the vector space is a dense subspace of a Hilbert space and let
[TABLE]
where, for each , we let denote the vector space of all linear operators subject to the following assumptions.
- (i)
.
- (ii)
and .
Here, by we understand the adjoint operator (possibly unbounded) defined in the usual sense,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that, in this way, any operator in is closable. The involution on is defined by , for all .
Then, it is easy to see that is an involution which makes a -semigroupoid with unit. As in the previous example, there is a natural left action of onto .
Definition 2.19**.**
A semigroupoid is called a groupoid [3] if it has a unit and there exists a map such that, for every , we have , , and
[TABLE]
If is a groupoid then its unit set is naturally identified with the set , and there is no need to specify beforehand, which is done by some authors.
Any groupoid is an inverse semigroupoid with unit, when defining , in particular a -semigroupoid with unit, when defining the involution .
Example 2.20**.**
(Transitive Relations as Semigroupoids) Let be a nonempty set and consider a relation on . Let , . Define the domain map by and, similarly, the codomain map by , for any . A pair is composable, by definition, if and, in this case, let .
With respect to these maps and composition, the relation is a semigroupoid if and only if is transitive. In addition, assuming that the relation is a semigroupoid as above, in particular is transitive, then:
- •
has a unit if and only if it is reflexive.
- •
is a groupoid if and only if it is reflexive and symmetric, equivalently, it is an equivalence relation.
Example 2.21**.**
(Free Graph Groupoids) Let be an undirected graph. This means that any edge can be considered in a double manner, and we denote the companion of any edge by , with and . For any vertex we have the loop such that . Let denote the set of all finite paths over the undirected graph , as in Example 2.8, but in such a way that, when considering a arbitrary edge as a finite path of length , for the operation of concatenation we have the cancellation rules and , by definition. Then, with any finite paths , whenever the concatenation is possible, we apply the cancellation rules as before. In this way, is a groupoid, called the free groupoid generated by the undirected graph .
2.2. Morphisms of Semigroupoids and Representations.
Since the semigroupoids considered in this article are modelled by small categories, the concept of semigroupoid morphism is modelled by that of a functor, hence it has two components, the map between objects and the map between arrows.
Definition 2.22**.**
Let and be two semigroupoids. A pair is a semigroupoid morphism from to if the following conditions hold.
- (SM1)
and are maps.
- (SM2)
For any we have and .
- (SM3)
For any we have and
[TABLE]
The map is called the aggregation map.
On the other hand, if both and are -semigroupoids, the semigroupoid morphism is called a -morphism if
[TABLE]
The pair is called a monomorphism, epimorphism, isomorphism, of semigroupoids if both and are injective, surjective, and bijective, respectively.
Remark 2.23**.**
With notation as in the previous definition, assuming that both semigroupoids and have units and , what would be a correct definition for a unital morphism from to ? Let us first observe that, for all we have , that is, is an idempotent in the semigroupoid . In the special case when both and are -semigroupoids, then for all for all we have , that is, is a selfadjoint idempotent in the -semigroupoid . But, because the aggregation map might not be injective, the tentative definition of unitality
[TABLE]
might not be the correct one, for example, if is not injective. A possible answer to this question can be formulated in case the semigroupoid is modelled by operators, see Remark 3.15.
A semigroupoid with the property that, for any , the set has at most one element is called principal. Equivalently, this means that the map is injective.
Remark 2.24**.**
A semigroupoid is isomorphic to a semigroupoid defined by a relation , see Example 2.20, if and only is a principal semigroupoid.
Indeed, if is a relation on a set and is an isomorphism of onto , then, for any , maps bijectively the set to the set , which has at most one element.
Conversely, assume that for any the set has at most one element. Let and define the relation on in the following way: if . Then is transitive, hence defines a semigroupoid. Let be the identity map and be defined in the following way: for any we define . Then is an isomorphism of onto .
Definition 2.25**.**
Let be a semigroupoid. A representation of on a bundle of Hilbert spaces is a semigroupoid morphism of to the semigroupoid , see Example 2.16. More precisely:
- (R1)
and are maps.
- (R2)
For any we have .
- (R3)
For any we have .
The representation is called orthogonal if, in addition, the following property holds:
- (R4)
For any such that but , we have that .
If is a -semigroupoid then the morphism is called a -representation of on a bundle of Hilbert spaces if it is a -morphism of -semigroupoids from to .
Example 2.26**.**
(Aggregated Left Regular Representations) Let be a semigroupoid and let be an aggregation map. For each we consider the Hilbert space with orthonormal basis , if the set is not empty, and let be the null space, in the opposite case. Thus, in case the set is not empty, the vectors in are all complex functions such that
[TABLE]
where the convergence of the sum is in the sense of summability. We consider the bundle of Hilbert spaces and let be the semigroupoid defined as in Example 2.16, see (2.1).
The left regular representation induced by the aggregation map is the pair where is defined in the following way. For each the operator , with its domain in and its range in , is defined by
[TABLE]
for all such that , and then extended by linearity to the subspace of all functions with finite support.
(a) We assume, in addition, that satisfies the following condition.
[TABLE]
This condition holds, for example, if is a free semigroupoid, see Definition 2.7, or if it is a groupoid. It is easy to see that, under the assumption (2.5), is a partial isometry on its domain and hence, since its domain is dense in , it is uniquely extended to a partial isometry on the whole space . Then, it follows that the pair is an orthogonal representation of on the bundle of Hilbert spaces , in the sense of Definition 2.25. If has a unit , then is an orthogonal projection for each .
In case of full aggregation, that is, has the range a singleton, the construction described before, for the special case of a free semigroupoid associated to an undirected graph, can be seen in [13].
(b) If condition (2.5) is not satisfied, the left regular representation may concern unbounded linear operators. More precisely, for each , let be the linear subspace of spanned by all functions with finite support, and consider the bundle . Recalling the notation as in Example 2.17, the pair is a semigroupoid morphism of to the semigroupoid . For , denote by the map given by , . We make the following remarks.
(c) For one has the set infinite if and only if Dom. Consequently, is closable if and only if is finite for all .
Indeed, suppose that is infinite and consider an arbitrary finite subset . Then
[TABLE]
For each choose having cardinality and for all . Then while , so there can be no constant such that
[TABLE]
for all such subsets and finite linear combinations unless . This shows that the functional
[TABLE]
cannot be bounded unless , i.e. unless the vector is orthogonal to . Conversely, if the cardinality of is , it is rather easy to see that the functional
[TABLE]
is bounded with norm , hence Dom.
(d) is bounded with if and only if there exists such that the cardinality of is for all .
(e) If has an inverse , then is a partial isometry with .
Example 2.27**.**
(Representations of Free Graph -Semigroupoids) Let be a directed graph and let be the associated free graph -semigroupoid with unit defined as in Example 2.11. Let be a bundle of Hilbert spaces and consider the -semigroupoid with unit defined as in Example 2.16. Let be an aggregation map. For each edge that is not a loop, let and . For each vertex , let be an orthogonal projection such that for any with we have . We then extend in the natural fashion: for any finite path , we have . It is easy to see that is a representation of the unital -semigroupoid on the unital -semigroupoid .
Example 2.28**.**
(Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz -Families as Representations of Free Graph -Semigroupoids) Let be a directed graph such that both the vertex set and the edge set are countable. A Cuntz-Krieger-Toeplitz (CKT) -family, e.g. see [15], consists in a pair , where is a bundle of mutually orthogonal projections on a Hilbert space and is a bundle of partial isometries on subject to the following conditions.
- (I)
for all .
- (CKT)
for any and any finite set .
From (I) it follows that the right support and then from property (CKT) it follows that for all and that whenever are such that and then . Let be the full aggregation map on , that is, is a singleton. Then we observe that the CKT -family satisfies the conditions in Example 2.27 and hence it induces a representation of the -semigroupoid on the Hilbert space (the bundle of Hilbert spaces with only one element). More precisely, for each we have and and for each we have , and then extending on in the natural way.
In general, the -representation defined before is not orthogonal. However, if we consider only its restriction to the free semigroupoid , it is an orthogonal representation. This is because, if are such that then and have ranges in orthogonal subspaces of , as a consequence of the condition (CKT), as explained before.
The CKT -family is called nondegenerate if the span of the ranges of the orthogonal projections , , is dense in . This implies that
[TABLE]
where the sum converges in the strong operator topology (recall that we assumed that is countable, so the sum is actually a series). This fact is important since it gives us an idea of what a unital representation of a semigroupoid might be.
If, in addition,
- (CK)
for any such that ,
the pair is called a Cuntz-Krieger (CK) -family. For most of the investigations on CK -families, is assumed to be a row-finite graph, that is, for any we have , and sourceless, that is, for any we have .
In this article we will use a more general concept of representation of a -semigroupoid on -semigroupoids of type , see Example 2.18. For the moment, this concept is motivated by the fact, see Example 2.26, that, in general, the left regular representation is made by unbounded operators. It will show its significance during the next section.
Definition 2.29**.**
Let be a semigroupoid and consider two bundles of vector spaces and , where is a dense subspace in the Hilbert space , for all . With notation as in Example 2.18, a generalised representation of on the pair of bundles is a pair of maps subject to the following conditions.
- (UR1)
and are maps.
- (UR2)
For any we have a linear operator such that and .
- (UR3)
For any we have .
We call the generalised representation orthogonal if the following property holds
- (UR4)
For any such that , but , it follows that .
Also, if, in addition, is a -semigroupoid, then we call a generalised -representation of on the bundles if the following conditions hold.
- (UR6)
For any we have .
- (UR7)
For any we have .
Let us firstly observe that in case the representation is aggregation free, that is, is injective, it is automatically orthogonal. In general, the fashion in which different pieces of the representation are aggregated within a bundle of Hilbert spaces makes technical obstructions. This is clearly seen in the interpretation of the Toeplitz–Cuntz–Krieger systems as in Example 2.28, as a fully aggregated representation of the -semigroupoid . The orthogonality condition on generalised -representations is essential in this article and will show its importance in the next section. Now, we record a first consequence of this condition.
Lemma 2.30**.**
If is an orthogonal generalised -representation of the -semigroupoid on the pair of bundles , with and , then, for any such that but , we have .
Proof.
Let us first observe that, since we have . We consider and observe that but hence, by the orthogonality condition, on the one hand we have
[TABLE]
and, on the other hand, by (UR7) we have
[TABLE]
hence, for any and any we have
[TABLE]
Since is dense in , from here we get . ∎
3. Generalised Dilations of Positive Semidefinite Maps on -Semigroupoids
In this section we will get dilations of operator valued partially positive semidefinite maps on -semigroupoids by unbounded operators, in the spirit of Definition 2.29. The fundamental concept in this enterprise is that of partially positive semidefiniteness.
Let be a -semigroupoid with unit, consider a bundle of Hilbert spaces over the field , where can be either or , for some , and let be an aggregation map.
Definition 3.1**.**
The class of Hermitian -valued maps on and -coherent, consists in all maps subject to the following conditions.
- (HM1)
is -coherent in the sense that, , for all .
- (HM2)
is Hermitian, in the sense that for all .
Definition 3.2**.**
A map is called partially -positive semidefinite, for some , if for any , any , and any such that for all , we have
[TABLE]
The map is called partially positive semidefinite if it is partially -positive semidefinite for all , equivalently, if, for any and for any finitely supported cross-section , where for all , we have
[TABLE]
We denote by the class of all maps that are partially positive semidefinite.
Remark 3.3**.**
A partially positive semidefinite map is actually a bundle of positive semidefinite maps , where , for all . Because of this, in the following we will drop partially whenever it will be clear from the context and hence, a partially positive semidefinite map will be simply called positive semidefinite.
Remark 3.4**.**
For a given , the map is -positive semidefinite if and only if for any and any the matrix operator is positive semidefinite as an operator in the Hilbert space .
In particular, the Hermitian condition (HM2) in Definition 3.1 is needed only when . This is because, if then any -positive semidefinite pair automatically satisfies the Hermitian condition (HM2). Indeed, for any letting , , and , the block operator matrix
[TABLE]
when viewed as an operator on . This implies that this block operator matrix is Hermitian, hence .
If then the statement from before is not true, so we have to assume the Hermitian condition (HM2) additionally.
Positive semidefiniteness of the map is a necessary condition for it to admit dilations in a rather general sense, that we make precise in the following.
Definition 3.5**.**
Given a map , a quadruple is called a generalised dilation of if it satisfies the following conditions.
- (UD1)
is a bundle of Hilbert spaces.
- (UD2)
is a bundle of vector spaces such that, for each , is a dense subspace of .
- (UD3)
is a bundle of operators, where is such that for all .
- (UD4)
The pair is an unbounded -representation of on the pair , in the sense of Definition 2.29, such that
[TABLE]
Remark 3.6**.**
An equivalent formulation of (3.3) is that, for all , , and , we have
[TABLE]
This is because, by axiom (UD3), we have and, see Example 2.18, , hence we have . In this fashion, although, in general, the operator is not everywhere defined on , the operator on the right side in (3.3) is everywhere defined.
Positive semidefiniteness of the map is a necessary condition for it to admit generalised dilations.
Proposition 3.7**.**
If has a generalised dilation then it is positive semidefinite.
Proof.
Let be a dilation of . Then, for any and for any finitely supported cross-section , where for all , we have
[TABLE]
where we have used the axioms (UR3) and (UR4), see Definition 2.29, as well as the axiom (UD3) in Definition 3.5. ∎
Definition 3.8**.**
A generalised dilation of the map is called minimal if
[TABLE]
Remark 3.9**.**
In order to put the previous definition in perspective, let and let be a generalised dilation of the pair . It is a simple exercise to see that, for any , the operator has a unique extension to an orthogonal projection in , yet denoted by . Indeed, on the one hand, and , and then it is easy to see that is the restriction to of an orthogonal projection, yet denoted by .
In addition,
[TABLE]
Indeed, for any we have
[TABLE]
hence acts like the identity operator on the space and, consequently, on its closure. This proves (3.5).
At this level of generality there is one more special condition on the dilation which we have to consider, and that will play a very important role.
Definition 3.10**.**
A generalised dilation of the map is called orthogonal if the representation is orthogonal, see Definition 2.29, that is, whenever are such that but , we have .
The following proposition provides a set of assumptions on a generalised dilation that contains a minimal one.
Proposition 3.11**.**
Let , with and , be an orthogonal generalised dilation of the map . For arbitrary let
[TABLE]
provided that the set is not empty, and let be the null space, in the opposite case, and let . We assume that for any
[TABLE]
Then, letting , , for all , and for all , the quadruple is a minimal orthogonal generalised dilation of the pair .
Proof.
From Definition 3.5 and Definition 2.29 it is easy to see that , for all . Then observe that, for any we have that
[TABLE]
Indeed, let be such that . If we have
[TABLE]
If then, in view of orthogonality, we can apply Lemma 2.30 and get
[TABLE]
In conclusion, the first inclusion in (3.8) is proven. A similar argument proves the latter inclusion in (3.8).
These show that, on the one hand, letting for all , the pair is a -representation of on the pair of bundles . On the other hand, letting for all , these show that, for any , , and , see (3.4), we have
[TABLE]
Also, for any , a similar reasoning as before shows that
[TABLE]
hence the generalised dilation is minimal. ∎
Minimal dilations have special properties and it is preferable to work with them, instead of the general dilations, in view of a uniqueness property in the following sense.
Definition 3.12**.**
Two generalised dilations and of the map are called unitarily equivalent if there exists a bundle of operators subject to the following conditions.
- (UE1)
For each , is unitary.
- (UE2)
For each , .
- (UE3)
The bundle intertwines the representations and in the sense that
[TABLE]
- (UE4)
The bundle maps the bundle to the bundle in the sense that for all .
The main theorem of this section says that, in general, in order for a map to admit an unbounded dilation it is sufficient to be positive semidefinite, that is, , hence the converse of Proposition 3.7 holds. Also, for positive semidefinite maps , one can always find an orthogonal and minimal generalised dilation, which is unique up to unitary equivalence. In view of Remark 3.3, the proof follows by firstly constructing the dilations on each fibre , for each and then we have to put all these together in such a way that uniqueness holds and, for this, the idea of orthogonality shows its importance.
Theorem 3.13**.**
Let . The following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* is positive semidefinite, in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (2)
* has a generalised dilation .*
In addition, if assertion (1) holds then a dilation of can always be obtained orthogonal in the sense of Definition 3.10, and minimal in the sense of Definition 3.8 and, in this case, it is unique up to a unitary equivalence, in the sense of Definition 3.12.
Proof.
. This implication is the content of Proposition 3.7.
. We divide the proof in six steps.
Step 1. Construction of the bundles and .
For each , let denote the vector space of all cross-sections subject to the condition that , for all , and let be the subspace of of all families of finite support. If are two vectors in such that at least one of them is in , we define
[TABLE]
We observe that the definition in (3.9) yields an inner product when restricting to .
Let be the linear operator defined by
[TABLE]
We denote by the range of , that is, belongs to if, by definition, there exists such that
[TABLE]
For every we have
[TABLE]
where we took into account that the sums have only a finite number of nonzero terms and hence we can change the summation order and that is Hermitian, in the sense of (HM2) in Definition 3.1. In conclusion, has the following symmetry property
[TABLE]
On we define the pairing by
[TABLE]
which, due to the positive semidefiniteness assumption (a), is positive semidefinite. Also, due to (3.12), it is (conjugate) symmetric, and linear in the first variable. In particular, satisfies the Schwarz inequality and hence
[TABLE]
Let be arbitrary, hence there exist such that and . Then, by (3.12) we have
[TABLE]
This observation enables us to show that the definition of the pairing given by
[TABLE]
where , , for some , is correct, that is, it does not depend on the particular representations and , for .
Clearly, the pairing defined at (3.15) is positive semidefinite, (conjugate) symmetric, and linear in the first variable. In the following we show that it is positive definite as well, hence an inner product. Indeed, let be such that . By the positive semidefiniteness assumption (1), it follows that for all . For any and any , let be defined by
[TABLE]
Letting , by (3.12) and (3.15) it follows
[TABLE]
hence for all , that is, .
Finally, let be the completion of the inner product space to a Hilbert space and then, for any define
[TABLE]
that is, is the orthogonal sum of all Hilbert spaces , where the sum is taken over all such that . Then, when considering as subspaces of , for all such that , we define
[TABLE]
Clearly, is dense in for all . Also, let us observe that the spaces , when viewed as subspaces of , for all such that , are mutually orthogonal.
Step 2. Construction of the bundle of operators .
For each we define the linear operator by
[TABLE]
We show that, by this definition, the range of is in .
Indeed, for any and any , with notation as in (3.16), we have
[TABLE]
in particular, in view of the definition of the operator as in (3.10), this implies that
[TABLE]
where is the unit of , hence .
Since , which, modulo the canonical embedding of in , see (3.17), is regarded as a subspace of , we actually have . We observe that, for each , we have
[TABLE]
hence is bounded.
We can also calculate, for later use, the adjoint . In order to do this, for any and any , we have
[TABLE]
hence,
[TABLE]
Also, for all .
Step 3. Construction of the -representation .
For the bundle of Hilbert spaces , see (3.17), and the bundle of subspaces , see (3.18), recall the definition of the -semigroupoid with unit in Example 2.18. For any , we define by
[TABLE]
We have firstly have to show that the range of is indeed in , that is, we have to show that, for any there exists such that . To this end, since , by definition there exists such that , that is,
[TABLE]
Then, define in the following way: for each let
[TABLE]
We observe that, since has finite support, the sum in the definition of has only a finite number of nonzero terms, hence always makes sense, and that itself has finite support, more precisely,
[TABLE]
Then, for any , we have
[TABLE]
hence .
We now show that is a -representation of on the bundle of vector spaces . Indeed, for any , let and hence, in view of (3.23), we have for all and then, since , we have , hence
[TABLE]
which proves that
[TABLE]
Further on, for any , let and be arbitrary. Then there exist and such that and hence
[TABLE]
This shows that , as a densely defined linear operator from to , has the property
[TABLE]
Finally, we lift now the operator to the operator , yet denoted by , in the following way: with respect to the decompositions
[TABLE]
letting
[TABLE]
Then, it follows that (3.26) and (3.28) hold for the lifted operators and as well, hence is a -representation of to .
In addition, it is clear from the construction, see (3.17), that, whenever are such that but , we have . Hence the orthogonality property as in Definition 3.10 holds.
Step 4. for all .
Indeed, let and be arbitrary. Then, in view of (3.19), (3.23), and (3.22), we have
[TABLE]
Step 5. The dilation is minimal in the sense of Definition 3.8.
Let be arbitrary. In view of the definition of the linear manifold as in (3.18) and the definition of the inner product space for arbitrary , see (3.11), it is sufficient to show that
[TABLE]
We first observe that, due to the fact that the range of is in and maps to for any , the direct inclusion in (3.31) follows.
In order to prove the converse inclusion, let be arbitrary, hence there exists such that and then
[TABLE]
where, at the last equality, we used (3.23) and (3.19) and observe that, since has finite support, the sums have only a finite number of nonzero terms. Thus, (3.31) is proven and the assertion follows.
Step 6. The orthogonal minimal dilation is unique, up to a unitary equivalence.
Let be another orthogonal minimal dilation of , hence, for any , we have
[TABLE]
and, whenever are such that but we have .
Then, for any , any such that , and any finitely supported cross-sections , with for all , and , with for all , in view of the property (UD3) we have
[TABLE]
hence, the operator
[TABLE]
defined by
[TABLE]
for any finitely supported cross-section , with for all , is correctly defined and an isometry. Note that defined as in (3.33) is bijective and hence it is uniquely extended to a unitary operator, yet denoted by
[TABLE]
We now use the fact that both unitary dilations are orthogonal and minimal and define the unitary operator by
[TABLE]
Then, from (3.18), (3.31), (3.33), and (3.32), it follows that for all . From definitions (3.35) and (3.34) it follows that the bundle intertwines the -representations and , that is,
[TABLE]
By Remark 3.9, for any , the operator acts like the identity operator on the subspace and, similarly, the operator acts like the identity operator on the subspace , hence, by the definitions of and , see (3.34) and (3.35), it follows that, for all such that and all , we have
[TABLE]
Remark 3.14**.**
The construction of the spaces in the proof of Theorem 3.13, see (3.17), is performed in such a way that it is a space of functions on the fibres , for such that , more precisely a reproducing kernel Hilbert space on , and not just an abstract completion. To see this, in the following we show that the completion of the inner product space can always be performed inside of , and hence is a function space on .
Indeed, recall that, for each , denotes the vector space of all cross-sections subject to the condition that for all . On we can consider , the weakest locally convex topology that makes continuous all operators of point evaluation , for , where , for all . Clearly, is complete. Thus, in order to see that the completion of the inner product space can always be performed inside of , it is sufficient to observe that the strong topology on induced by the inner product is stronger than the topology .
Remark 3.15**.**
The orthogonal minimal generalised dilation constructed during the proof of the implication (1)(2) of the proof of Theorem 3.13 has yet another property. Namely, for any the operator is the orthogonal projection onto , the completion of the inner product space to a Hilbert space. In view of (3.31) and Remark 3.9, it follows that
[TABLE]
Consequently, by the definition of the space , for arbitrary , see (3.17), the orthogonal projections are mutually orthogonal and then, by the minimality property we have
[TABLE]
If is such that is infinite, the meaning of the sum in (3.36) is in the sense of summability with respect to the strong operator topology on .
In the next corollary we show that the usage of the term dilation in Definition 3.5 is correct in the sense that, when the map is unital then the Hilbert space is actually an isometric extension of the Hilbert space , for all , and that is a compression of .
Corollary 3.16**.**
With notation and assumptions as in Theorem 3.13, if is unital in the sense that, for each the set consists in mutually orthogonal projections in such that
[TABLE]
where the meaning of the sum is in the sense of summability with respect to the strong operator topology on , then the generalised dilation constructed during the proof of the implication (1)(2) has the property that, for each , the Hilbert space is naturally embedded in and, with respect to this embedding, we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We observed in Remark 3.15, that, for any we have . Note that, by construction of the operators , see (3.19), we have hence,
[TABLE]
hence is a partial isometry with initial space . Then, on the one hand, we observe that for arbitrary the set consists in partial isometries on with mutually orthogonal initial spaces and then, by assumption (3.37), these initial spaces sum up to . On the other hand, since and taking into account (3.17), it follows that the final spaces of , , are mutually orthogonal. From here it follows that the operator
[TABLE]
exists, in the sense of summability with respect to the strong operator topology, if is infinite, and is an isometry. Identifying with for any , we have
[TABLE]
4. Dilations with Bounded Operators
We continue with notation as in the previous section and consider a map as in Definition 3.1. In this section we want to get characterisations of those maps that admit dilations with bounded operators.
Definition 4.1**.**
Given , a triple is called a dilation of if it satisfies the following conditions.
- (D1)
is a bundle of Hilbert spaces.
- (D2)
is a bundle of operators, where for all .
- (D3)
The pair is a -representation of on such that
[TABLE]
An analogue of Remark 3.9 holds as well.
The concept of a minimal dilation can be obtained from Definition 3.8 and can be formalised as follows.
Definition 4.2**.**
Given , a dilation of is minimal if
[TABLE]
The concept of unitarily equivalent dilations is derived from Definition 3.12.
Definition 4.3**.**
Two dilations and of the map are called unitarily equivalent if there exists a bundle of operators subject to the following conditions.
- (UE1)
For each , is unitary.
- (UE2)
The bundle intertwines the representations and in the sense that
[TABLE]
- (UE3)
The bundle maps the bundle to the bundle in the sense that for all .
The concept of orthogonal dilation is derived from that in Definition 3.10.
Definition 4.4**.**
A dilation of the map is called orthogonal if the representation is orthogonal, see Definition 2.25, that is, whenever are such that but we have .
In order to connect the concept of dilation with that of generalised dilation we restrict the discussion to orthogonal dilations, due to technical obstructions as seen during the previous section.
Remark 4.5**.**
A dilation of the map should be viewed as a special type of generalised dilation but, in view of Definition 3.8, we cannot simply take . We assume in addition that the dilation is orthogonal. Firstly, for arbitrary , recall the notation, see (3.6),
[TABLE]
which is a linear manifold in that may be neither closed nor dense. Then we take
[TABLE]
which may not be closed but it is dense in . We show that is a -representation of in the sense of Definition 2.29, on the pair , where .
Indeed, inspecting the Definition 2.29, the only thing that we have to prove is that for any we have . To see this, we observe that due to the orthogonality assumption, and , see (3.8). Thus, the quadruple is a generalised dilation as in Definition 3.5.
In the context of dilations with bounded operators, as in Definition 4.1, and comparing with generalised dilations that involve unbounded operators, the possibility of extracting a minimal dilation has a better answer, when compared with that provided in Proposition 3.11.
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let , with , be an orthogonal dilation of the map . For arbitrary let
[TABLE]
provided that the set is not empty, and let be the null space, in the opposite case, and let . Then, letting , for all , and for all , the triple is a minimal orthogonal dilation of the pair .
Proof.
We observe that, for any we have that
[TABLE]
These follow as in the proof of (3.8) by using orthogonality.
These show that, on the one hand, letting for all , the pair is a -representation of on the pair of bundle . On the other hand, letting for all , these show that, for any , , and , we have
[TABLE]
Also, for any , a similar reasoning as before shows that
[TABLE]
hence the dilation is minimal. ∎
The main theorem of this section says that, in general, in order for a map to admit a dilation, in addition to the condition of being positive semidefinite, it should satisfy one more condition of boundedness type, that is rather natural, see [31] and [9].
Theorem 4.7**.**
With notation as before, let . The following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* satisfies the following conditions.*
- (a)
* is positive semidefinite, in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (b)
For any there exists such that for any finitely supported cross-section , where for all , we have
[TABLE]
- (2)
* has a dilation .*
In addition, if assertion (1) holds then a dilation of can always be obtained to be orthogonal, in the sense of Definition 4.4, and minimal in the sense of Definition 3.8 and, in this case, it is unique up to a unitary equivalence, in the sense of Definition 4.3.
Proof.
. According to the proof of the implication of Theorem 3.13 we only have to prove that, for any , the operator defined at (3.23) is bounded and hence it has a unique extension to a bounded linear operator, denoted yet by . Indeed, for a fixed , let be arbitrary and let be such that . Then, in view of (3.26), (3.28), and the condition (b), we have
[TABLE]
which proves the claim.
Finally, we lift the operator to a bounded linear operator from to , yet denoted by , in the following way: with respect to the decompositions
[TABLE]
letting
[TABLE]
Then, it follows that (3.26) and (3.28) hold for the bounded operators and as well, hence is a -representation of to .
. Let be a dilation of . It follows from Proposition 3.7 that is positive semidefinite. Also, for any and for any finitely supported cross-section , where for all , we have
[TABLE]
This proves the boundedness condition (b). ∎
Also, Remark 3.15 holds for the orthogonal minimal dilation constructed during the proof of Theorem 4.7, namely that
[TABLE]
Similarly to Remark 3.14, the construction of the spaces in the proof of Theorem 4.7 is performed in such a way that it is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space on each fibre , for such that . Similarly, Corollary 3.16 can be translated word-for-word to the current setting of dilations.
There are special cases of -semigroupoids for which the boundedness condition (b) in Theorem 4.7 holds automatically. Clearly this is the case when is a groupoid, but there is a more general case as well, that of an inverse semigroupoid with unit.
Corollary 4.8**.**
With notation as before, let and, assume, in addition, that is an inverse semigroupoid with unit. Then the following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* is positive semidefinite, in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (2)
* has a dilation .*
In addition, if is positive semidefinite then we can always obtain an orthogonal minimal dilation such that is a partial isometry, for all .
Proof.
Assume that is positive semidefinite. With notation as in the proof of Theorem 3.13, for an arbitrary element , we consider the operator as in (3.23) and we want to prove that it is bounded.
Indeed, in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 3.13, see (3.28), it is shown that the operator has the property , when viewing as a densely defined linear operator from the Hilbert space to the Hilbert space . Also, as a consequence of (3.26), (3.28), and of the fact that is an inverse semigroupoid, hence , it follows that, for any we have
[TABLE]
hence, for any , letting , we have
[TABLE]
that is, the operator is a projection. This implies that has a decomposition
[TABLE]
In addition,
[TABLE]
which follows easily from the fact that holds for all , see (3.28) and (3.26). Also from here we get that . Then, letting be arbitrary, hence , where and hence,
[TABLE]
where we have taken into account that is a projection and acts like dentity operator on its range. Thus, we have proven that the operator is bounded and hence it can be extended to a linear bounded operator . Then, proceeding as in (3.29) and (3.30), we lift the operator to a bounded linear operator , and it is easy to see that it is a partial isometry. ∎
5. Linearisations of Positive Semidefinite Maps
In this section we pass from semigroupoids to algebroids and hence perform a linearisation of the concepts that have been studied in the previous sections. Our goal is to obtain dilation theorems of Stinespring type. Here the main concept is that of a -algebroid. As in the previous sections, we will do this in two steps, firstly by dilation with possibly unbounded operators and then by bounded operators that involve the boundedness condition on the representation of the algebroid. We show that in the case of -algebroids, the boundedness condition is automatically satisfied and, in addition, we relate the positive semidefiniteness to complete positivity, in the spirit of the original version of Stinespring’s Theorem [27]. Finally, we single out the concept of a -algebroid and tackle some natural questions on it.
5.1. Positive Semidefinite Maps on -Algebroids
Definition 5.1**.**
An algebroid, see [24] and [17], over the field is a semigroupoid with the following additional properties.
- (a1)
For each , the fibre is a complex vector space.
- (a2)
For each the following distributivity properties hold.
- (i)
for all , , and .
- (ii)
for all , , and .
The algebroid has a unit if the underlying semigroupoid has a unit.
Example 5.2**.**
With notation as in Example 2.17, letting
[TABLE]
the semigroupoid has a natural structure of algebroid with unit.
Let us observe that, if is an algebroid, then for each , the fibre is a complex algebra, called the isotropy algebra of at . If the algebroid has a unit then each isotropy algebra has a unit .
Definition 5.3**.**
Given an algebroid, an involution on is a map that turns the underlying semigroupoid into a -semigroupoid and subject to the following property
- (ai)
For any , , , we have .
Example 5.4**.**
With notation and assumptions as in Example 2.18, letting
[TABLE]
we have a -algebroid with unit.
Definition 5.5**.**
Let and be two algebroids. A pair is an algebroid morphism from to if the following conditions hold.
- (am1)
The pair is a semigroupoid morphism from to , in the sense of Definition 2.22.
- (am2)
For every the map is linear.
If the two algebroids and are -algebroids, the pair is a -algebroid morphism, or a -morphism if, in addition to (am1) and (am2) it is Hermitian
- (am3)
for all .
Definition 5.6**.**
Let be a -algebroid, a bundle of vector spaces, and a bundle of Hilbert spaces, where is a dense subspace of the Hilbert space for all . An unbounded -representation of on the pair of bundles is a pair of maps , where and , subject to the following conditions.
- (uar1)
For any and , is a linear operator such that and .
- (uar2)
For any , any , and any we have .
- (uar3)
For any and any we have .
- (uar4)
For any we have and .
We call the unbounded -representation orthogonal if the following property holds
- (uar5)
For any and with and such that it follows that .
Definition 5.7**.**
Let be a -coherent and Hermitian map, for some bundle of Hilbert spaces and some aggregation map . A generalised dilation of on is a quadruple subject to the following conditions.
- (ad1)
is a bundle of Hilbert spaces, is a bundle of vector spaces such that is a dense subspace of for all .
- (ad2)
is a bundle of operators, with such that for each .
- (ad3)
is an unbounded -representation of on , in the sense of Definition 5.6, such that
[TABLE]
In addition, a generalised dilation of is called orthogonal in the sense of Definition 5.6, more precisely, for any and with and , we have .
The generalised dilation is minimal in the sense of Definition 3.8, more precisely, for each we have
[TABLE]
Two generalised dilations and of are unitarily equivalent if there exists a bundle subject to the following conditions.
- (au1)
For each the operator is unitary.
- (au2)
For each , .
- (au3)
The bundle intertwines the -representations and , that is,
[TABLE]
- (au4)
The bundle maps the bundle to , that is, .
Theorem 5.8**.**
Let be a -algebroid with unit, a bundle of Hilbert spaces, an aggregation map, and a Hermitian and -coherent map. The following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* is positive semidefinite in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (3)
There exists a generalised dilation of .
In addition, if exists, the generalised dilation can be chosen orthogonal and minimal. Moreover, any two generalised dilations and , that are minimal and orthogonal, are unitarily equivalent.
Proof.
This is a consequence of Theorem 3.13, with the observation that, during the construction of the -representation , from (3.25) it follows that the linearity of implies the linearity of . ∎
Given a -algebroid , a bundle of Hilbert spaces , an aggregation map , and a Hermitian and -coherent map , from the previous definitions it is clear what a dilation of should be. For example, with notation as in Definition 5.7, this means that for all and hence is a bounded linear operator from to , where . For this reason, a dilation of is denoted by a triple . Then, as a consequence of Theorem 5.8 and of Theorem 4.7, we have the following result.
Corollary 5.9**.**
Let be a -algebroid with unit, a bundle of Hilbert spaces, an aggregation map, and a Hermitian and -coherent map. The following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* satisfies the following conditions.*
- (a)
* is positive semidefinite in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (b)
For any , for some , there exists such that, for any , any , for some , and all , and all cross-sections with for all , we have
[TABLE]
- (2)
There exists a dilation of .
In addition, if exists, the generalised dilation can be chosen orthogonal and minimal. Moreover, any two generalised dilations and , that are minimal and orthogonal, are unitarily equivalent.
5.2. Completely Positive Maps on -Algebroids
Definition 5.10**.**
Let be a -algebroid. For each we consider the convex cone in generated by all elements , where , that is, for some . An element is called positive if and, for this, we simply write . More precisely, given , we have if and only if there exist and such that .
Remark 5.11**.**
Let be a bundle of Hilbert spaces and let
[TABLE]
Then, see Example 2.16, is a -algebroid with unit. It is well known, e.g. see [4] or [1], that, in this case, for any and any , the following assertions are equivalent.
- (i)
is positive in the sense of Definition 5.10.
- (ii)
for some .
- (iii)
for some .
Definition 5.12**.**
Given an algebroid, a system of submultiplicative norms on is a collection subject to the following conditions.
- (an1)
For each , is a norm on the vector space .
- (an2)
For each we have
[TABLE]
An algebroid endowed with a system of submultiplicative norms on it is called a normed algebroid. A normed algebroid such that, for all the norm is complete, is called a Banach algebroid. Note that, in this case, the isotropy algebra is a Banach algebra, for all .
Example 5.13**.**
With notation as in Example 2.17, assume that is a bundle of normed spaces. Then, letting
[TABLE]
where denotes the vector space of all bounded linear operators , becomes in a natural fashion a normed algebroid, where for each , is the operator norm on . If is a Banach space for all , then is a Banach algebroid with unit.
Definition 5.14**.**
If is a normed algebroid with an involution that is isometric, that is, , for all and , we call an involutive algebroid.
If is a Banach algebroid with an isometric involution , we call a -algebroid. Note that, in this case, for each , the isotropy algebra is a -algebra, in the sense that it is a Banach algebra with isometric involution. The definition of positive elements is as in Definition 5.10.
Example 5.15**.**
With notation and assumptions as in Remark 5.11, see also Example 2.16, is a -algebroid with unit.
Definition 5.16**.**
If and are -algebroids, the algebroid morphism from to is called a -morphism if for all .
An algebroid morphism from an algebroid to the algebroid , for some bundle of Hilbert spaces, see Example 5.4, is called a representation of on . In case is a -algebroid, an algebroid -morphism from to is called a -representation of on .
Definition 5.17**.**
If is an algebroid and , we define the -fold amplification in the following way. The symbol set consists in all possible -tuples with for all . For each the fibre consists in all matrices with entries for all . Clearly, is a vector space. If and then the matrix multiplication is possible and .
If is a -algebroid then, for any , by matrix transposition and elementwise involution, we define .
Remark 5.18**.**
If is an algebroid then, for each , the -th amplification , with the algebraic structure described in the previous definition, is an algebroid.
If is a -algebroid then, for each , is a -algebroid.
Definition 5.19**.**
If and are two algebroids over , let be an aggregation map, and let be a map that is -coherent.
For any , we define the -th amplification in the following way. For any , let , hence for all , and we define
[TABLE]
where the aggregation map is lifted to in the natural fashion: for all .
Definition 5.20**.**
Assume that and are -algebroids and the rest of notation as in the previous definition. The map is called -positive if is Hermitian, in the sense that for all , and maps positive elements in to positive elements in , in the sense of Definition 5.10. More precisely, for any and any such that , it follows that is positive in .
The map is called completely positive if it is -positive for all .
Remark 5.21**.**
Assume the notation as in Definition 5.20. If is -positive for some then it is -positive for all .
The main result of this section is a Stinespring type theorem. Following a generalisation obtained by W.B. Arveson in [2], the dilation is obtained at the general level of -algebroids with unit.
Theorem 5.22**.**
Let be a -algebroid with unit, a bundle of Hilbert spaces, an aggregation map, and a Hermitian and -coherent map. The following assertions are equivalent.
- (1)
* is completely positive in the sense of Definition 5.20.*
- (2)
* is positive semidefinite in the sense of Definition 3.2.*
- (3)
There exists a dilation of .
In addition, if exists, the dilation can be chosen orthogonal and minimal. Moreover, any two dilations and of , that are minimal and orthogonal, are unitarily equivalent.
Proof.
(1)(2). For arbitrary , let with , for some and all , and let for . We consider the matrix , where and , defined by
[TABLE]
and note that
[TABLE]
Since and is completely positive, it follows that in hence
[TABLE]
where . We have shown that is positive semidefinite.
(2)(3). Let . We first observe that, by replacing with , without loss of generality we can assume that . Let us consider the power series expansion of the complex function by means of the principal branch of the square root,
[TABLE]
that converges in the open unit disc of the complex plane, where are real for all . Let
[TABLE]
and observe that, since , the series converges absolutely. Also, because are all selfadjoint, the involution is continuous, and the coefficients , , are all real. Then, we observe that this definition complies with the requirements of the functional calculus with holomorphic functions in Banach algebras, e.g. see [1], and then, by multiplicativity we see that . Consequently, since is positive semidefinite, for arbitrary , arbitrary , for some , and arbitrary , we have
[TABLE]
This shows that the condition (b) in Corollary 5.9 holds with and hence has a dilation .
The last statements on orthogonality, minimality, and uniqueness of the dilation with these properties are consequences of Theorem 4.7 as well.
(3)(1). If is a dilation of then, for any , the triple is a dilation of the -th amplification , where
[TABLE]
is the -fold amplification of as in (5.2), and , where
[TABLE]
Then, for any , any , and any , we have
[TABLE]
hence is completely positive. ∎
Remark 5.23**.**
The implications (1)(2) and (3)(1) in Theorem 5.22 hold true for the general case of a -algebroid . This is easily observed by an inspection of the proofs. Only the implication (2)(3) is problematic in the general setting.
5.3. -Algebroids.
The linearisations to -algebroids become of more interest for the special case of -algebroids but, in this special case some obstructions show up. In the previous subsection, we somehow circumvented the main obstruction for the more general case of -algebroids. Once the concept of a -algebroid is defined, it is rather natural to consider -algebroids: the model is taken from Example 2.16 and Remark 5.11. In this subsection we tackle some natural questions related to -algebroids, as applications of Theorem 5.22.
Definition 5.24**.**
If is a Banach algebroid, with its system of submultiplicative norms , and with an involution such that for all and all , we call a -algebroid. Note that, in this case, for each , the isotropy algebra is a -algebra.
Clearly any -algebroid is a -algebroid.
Example 5.25**.**
With notation and assumptions as in Example 2.16, letting
[TABLE]
we have a -algebroid with unit.
Remark 5.26**.**
Let be a -algebroid. If is a nonempty subset of then the intersection of all -subalgebroids of that contain is a -subalgebroid, that we can call the -subalgebroid of generated by . In particular, let be a semigroupoid and be an aggregation map. Recalling the definition of the aggregated left regular representation as in Example 2.26 and under the additional assumption (2.5), we can consider the -subalgebroid generated by the set in the -algebroid . If we consider a directed graph , the free semigroupoid , see Example 2.8, and the aggregation map is a singleton range map, hence we have full aggregation, then the -algebroid generated by is the graph -algebra of , see [13].
As in Definition 5.10, given a -algebroid and , if then it is called positive if for some , and in this case we write . This definition is needed in view of the concept of positive semidefiniteness as in Definition 3.2. However, the cone of positive elements in the isotropy -algebra, with the classical definition, is positive if for some , may be smaller than what we have here. So, a natural question is:
Question 1. Are the two concepts of positivity in a -algebroid equivalent?
A positive answer to this question would imply that, for the case of a -algebroid with unit, the proof of the implication (2)(3) in Theorem 5.22 can be obtained by the classical fact that in any -algebra the existence of the square root for positive elements is guaranteed.
Also, with notation as in Definition 5.17, let be a -algebroid and for an arbitrary , let be the -fold amplification of , which is a -algebroid. Clearly, for any and any , for each , there is a canonical embedding of into and, with respect to this embedding, we have
[TABLE]
Question 2. Is there a system of submultiplicative norms on , that extend the submultiplicative norms of with respect to the embedding (5.4), with respect to which becomes a -algebroid?
In view of the Question 1, a positive answer to Question 2 would imply that the cone of positive elements is known and hence the concept of complete positivity is better understood. Let us recall that for the case of a -algebra, what we denote by is , which is a -algebra, but the proof of this fact either goes through tensor products of -algebras or by the Gelfand-Naimark Theorem. Consequently, a Gelfand-Naimark Theorem for -algebroids would be also of interest.
Question 3. Is it true that for any -algebroid with unit there exists a bundle of Hilbert spaces and a faithful -representation of on ?
Definition 5.27**.**
If and are normed algebroids and is an algebroid morphism from to , see Definition 5.5, we call it bounded if for every the linear map is bounded.
Recall that, see Definition 5.5, if and are -algebroids, the algebroid morphism from to is called a -morphism if for all . Also, recall that, see Definition 5.16, an algebroid morphism from an algebroid to the algebroid , for some bundle of Hilbert spaces, see Example 5.4, is called a representation of on . In case is a -algebroid, an algebroid -morphism from to is called a -representation of on .
The rigidity of -algebra morphisms holds for -algebroids as well.
Proposition 5.28**.**
If and are -algebroids and is an algebroid -morphism from to , then is contractive, that is, for any we have
[TABLE]
in particular, it is a bounded algebroid morphism.
In addition, if the algebroid -morphism is injective then it is isometric, that is, for any we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Taking into account that any -morphism of -algebras is contractive, we have
[TABLE]
The latter statement follows since any injective -morphism of -algebras is isometric, hence the inequality becomes an equality. ∎
Definition 5.29**.**
Let be a -algebroid. A map is called a linear form, or simply, a form, if for any the restriction of to the vector space is linear. The form is called positive if for all .
Proposition 5.30**.**
If is a -algebroid with unit and is a positive form, then the following assertions hold true.
- (i)
* is positive semidefinite.*
- (ii)
* is completely positive.*
- (iii)
There exists a triple subject to the following conditions.
- (1)
* is a Hilbert space, is a bundle of vectors in , and is a fully aggregated -representation of .*
- (2)
* for all .*
- (3)
For any such that we have .
- (4)
* is the closed linear span of .*
- (iv)
* is bounded in the sense that, for each , the restriction of to the normed space is bounded.*
Proof.
(i) Let , , and be arbitrary. Then,
[TABLE]
hence is positive semidefinite.
(ii) This assertion follows from Theorem 5.22.
(iii) This assertion follows from Theorem 5.22 since the triple is simply an orthogonal minimal dilation of .
(iv) In view of Proposition 5.28, the -representation is bounded and hence, by (4) it follows that is bounded as well. ∎
In the following theorem we show that Question 1, Question 2, and Question 3 are equivalent.
Theorem 5.31**.**
Let be a -algebroid with unit. The following assertions are equivalent.
(1)* For any and any there exists such that .*
(2)* There exists a bundle of Hilbert spaces and an injective -representation of on , with the aggregation map the identity map on .*
(3)* For each there exists a system of submultiplicative norms on , that extends the system of submultiplicative norms of with respect to the embedding (5.4), with respect to which becomes a -algebroid.*
(3’)* There exists a system of submultiplicative norms on , that extends the system of submultiplicative norms of with respect to the embedding (5.4), with respect to which becomes a -algebroid.*
Proof.
. With notation and assumptions as in Proposition 5.30, from the orthogonal minimal dilation one can obtain a minimal dilation that is aggregation free, in the sense that the aggregation map is one-to-one. Indeed, letting be the unit of , it was observed in Remark 3.15 that , for , is a bundle of mutually orthogonal projections in that sum up to the identity. So, letting denote the range of , we have a bundle of Hilbert spaces . Then we observe that, for any the right support of is in and its left support is in , hence we can consider . Taking the aggregation map the identity map on , in this way we obtain a minimal dilation of that is aggregation free.
Given a positive form on the -algebroid , we call the triple , defined in the previous remark, the cyclic -representation induced by , to be in accordance with the classical concept for -algebras.
So, let and be nontrivial but arbitrary. Since , it follows that the selfadjoint element in the isotropy -algebra is not trivial and hence its spectrum . Let and let be the commutative -algebra generated by and . Note that, by the spectral permanence of spectra in unital -algebras, the spectrum of is the same with respect to as to . Also, see e.g. [1] at page 26, , where denotes the set of all nontrivial characters . From here we conclude that there exists such that . Then, extend to a state on , denoted again by , see e.g. [1] at page 128. Since for every and every there exists such that , it follows that for all and all . This enables us to extend to a positive form on in the sense of Definition 6.6, denoted again by , such that, for any such that at least one of and is not , we have .
We consider a collection of positive forms on such that for each nontrivial, there exists such that . One can define the orthogonal sum of these -representations in natural fashion. For each , we consider the Hilbert space and the bundle of Hilbert spaces . Then let the -representation
[TABLE]
be defined by
[TABLE]
In the following we show that is an injective -representation of on , where the aggregation map is the identity map on .
To see this, let , for some , be nontrivial, hence is nontrivial, as explained before. Let be such that and consider the cyclic -representation . Since
[TABLE]
if follows that , hence . In view of the definition of it follows that . Assertion (2) is proven.
. Indeed, if (2) holds, without loss of generality we can assume that is a -subalgebroid of a -algebroid , for some bundle of Hilbert spaces . Since the elements of are bounded linear operators between appropriate Hilbert spaces and, consequently, for arbitrary , the elements of are matrices with entries operators on appropriate Hilbert spaces. Then, on we consider the operator norms inherited from the operator norms of which is a system of submultiplicative norms on , that extends the system of submultiplicative norms of with respect to the embedding (5.4), with respect to which becomes a -algebroid, hence assertion (3) follows.
. Clear.
. Let , for some , . Since is a Hermitian element in the isotropy -algebra , it follows that , with positive elements in the isotropy -algebra and such that . We show that and hence that is positive in the isotropy -algebra . Indeed,
[TABLE]
hence, replacing with , we can therefore without loss of generality assume that , hence . We consider the element defined by and note that
[TABLE]
Since is a C*-algebroid, this implies , hence . ∎
The following result shows that a positive answer to these questions may depend on how rich the fibres are.
Proposition 5.32**.**
Let be a -algebroid with unit and let be such that the unit of the isotropy -algebra belongs to the closure of the convex cone generated by the set . Then, for any the element is positive in the isotropy -algebra .
Proof.
The convex cone generated by the set is the subset of the isotropy -algebra described by
[TABLE]
If is an arbitrary element then, for any , letting , where , and , since , it follows that the element
[TABLE]
is positive in the isotropy -algebra . By assumption, the unit can be approximated by a sequence with and then
[TABLE]
is a positive element in the isotropy -algebra , since the cone of its positive elements is closed. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] W.A. Arveson , A Short Course on Spectral Theory , Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 209, Springer-Verlag, Berlin – Heidelberg – New York 2002.
- 2[2] W.B. Arveson , Dilation theory yesterday and today, in A Glimpse at Hilbert Space Operators , pp. 99–123, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., vol. 207, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel 2010.
- 3[3] H. Brandt , Über eine Verallgemeinerung des Gruppenbegriffes, Mat. Ann. 96 (1926), 360–366.
- 4[4] J.B. Conway , A Course in Operator Theory , Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 21, American Mathematical Society, Providence RI 2000.
- 5[5] J. Cuntz, W. Krieger , A class of C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras and topological Markov chains, Invent. Math. 56 (1980) 251–268.
- 6[6] A. Dor-On, G. Salomon , Full Cuntz-Krieger dilations via non-commutative boundaries, J. London Math. Soc. 98 (2018), 416–438.
- 7[7] M.A. Dritschel, S. Marcantognini, S. Mc Cullogh , Interpolation in semigroupoid algebras, J. Reine Angew. Math. 606 (2007), 1–40.
- 8[8] R. Exel , Semigroupoid C ∗ superscript 𝐶 C^{*} -algebras, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 377 (2011), 303–318.
