This paper explores the structure and topology of doubly commuting semigroups of isometries, providing new proofs and analyzing differences between finite and infinite dimensions, including the failure of Wold decomposition.
Contribution
It offers a new proof of Cooper's theorem in the Hilbert module setting and examines the Fell topology on irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of , highlighting dimension-dependent topological properties.
Findings
01
Fell topology is T0 for finite d
02
Wold decomposition fails for with infinite d
03
Topology is not T0 in the infinite-dimensional case
Abstract
In this paper, we discuss the structure of doubly commuting semigroups of isometries. We record a new proof of Cooper's theorem in the Hilbert module setting. We discuss the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of R+d. We show that if d is finite, the topology is T0. We indicate the pathologies that occur when d=∞. In particular, we show that Wold decomposition fails for isometric representations of R+∞ and prove that the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞ is not T0
Equations250
KV:={ξ∈H:V∗nξ=0for all n≥1}.
KV:={ξ∈H:V∗nξ=0for all n≥1}.
U:ℓ2(N0)⊗KV∋δn⊗ξ→Vnξ∈H
U:ℓ2(N0)⊗KV∋δn⊗ξ→Vnξ∈H
U(S⊗1)=VU.
U(S⊗1)=VU.
Kz:={ξ∈H:Vt∗ξ=e−ztξfor all t>0}.
Kz:={ξ∈H:Vt∗ξ=e−ztξfor all t>0}.
U(St⊗1)=VtU
U(St⊗1)=VtU
VteiVsej∗=Vsej∗Vtei
VteiVsej∗=Vsej∗Vtei
U(St⊗1)U∗=Vt
U(St⊗1)U∗=Vt
Stf(x):={f(x−t),0 if x−t∈R+d,otherwise.
Stf(x):={f(x−t),0 if x−t∈R+d,otherwise.
Mϕ(f)=ϕf.
Mϕ(f)=ϕf.
Ts(i)Tt(j)∗=Tt(j)∗Ts(i)\mboxforalls,t∈R+.
Ts(i)Tt(j)∗=Tt(j)∗Ts(i)\mboxforalls,t∈R+.
Stf(x):={f(x−t),0, if x−t∈R+d,otherwise.
Stf(x):={f(x−t),0, if x−t∈R+d,otherwise.
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 · Holomorphic and Operator Theory · Commutative Algebra and Its Applications
Full text
Doubly Commuting Semigroups of Isometries
C.H. Namitha*†*
† (Formerly) The Institute of Mathematical Sciences (HBNI), 4th cross street, CIT Campus, Taramani, Chennai, India, 600113
In this paper, we discuss the structure of doubly commuting semigroups of isometries. We record a new proof of Cooper’s theorem in the Hilbert module setting. We discuss the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of R+d. We show that if d is finite, the topology is T0. We indicate the pathologies that occur when d=∞. In particular, we show that Wold decomposition fails for isometric representations of R+∞ and prove that the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞ is not T0.
Keywords : Semigroups of isometries, Doubly Commuting Semigroups, Fell topology
1. Introduction
The study of semigroups of isometries (also called isometric representations) on Hilbert spaces is an active area of research, and they can be studied from various perspectives leading to a rich interaction between several branches of functional analysis. For example, the role of the Hardy space H2(D) and the associated complex analysis tools in the study of the shift operator S on ℓ2(N0) is well known (see [14]). Similary, the C∗-algebra associated with S, i.e. the Toeplitz algebra T plays a crucial role in Cuntz’ approach ([5]) to Bott periodicity in K-theory.
Over the last couple of decades, there have been many papers on C∗-algebras associated with discrete semigroups (we merely cite [6] and refer the reader to the references therein) and also on its representation theory, or in other words isometric representations of discrete semigroups. Isometric representations in the continuous case and the associated C∗-algebras have also been studied by many authors ([1], [2], [3], [9], [11], [12]).
In this paper, we revisit some aspects of isometric representations in the continuous case. We focus only on the doubly commuting semigroups of isometries of R+d and R+∞. The goal of this paper is to give a self contained exposition to the structure of doubly commuting semigroups of isometries. We do not take recourse to C∗-algebras but adopt a purely operator theoretic viewpoint. For, we believe that it is interesting to study isometric representations of semigroups that are not locally compact (like the case of R+∞ and ℓ+2), where the operator algebraic techniques may not work. Hence, we think that it will be of some use to record our approach for future reference.
We start with a new proof of Cooper’s theorem in the Hilbert module setting.
Cooper’s theorem is a fundamental result in the theory of semigroups of isometries, and it asserts that if {Vt}t≥0 is a strongly continuous, pure isometric representation of R+ on a Hilbert space H, then H≅L2(R+)⊗L for some Hilbert space L and Vt≅St⊗1, where {St}t≥0 is the usual shift semigroup. There are many proofs of this result. The older proofs ([4], [8]) rely on the theory of unbounded operators which is delicate with domain issues. There are also operator algebraic proofs ([13], [15]), and this demands building enough machinery (crossed products/groupoids/Stone-von Neumman theorem) a priori to force the proof.
The proof that we present in this paper relies only on basic operator theory and functional analysis. Another such proof can be found in [2]. We believe that our proof is simple and will be of independent interest. Moreover, our proof is extremely analogous to the proof in the discrete case.
The main ideas are explained next. First, let us recall the proof in the discrete case for the structure of a single isometry V on a Hilbert space H which is pure, i.e. V∗n→0 in SOT as n→∞. The proof has three steps, and they are follows:
Step 1:
Set
[TABLE]
We first observe that KV=0.
2. Step 2:
In this step, we show that the map
[TABLE]
is an isometry by computing inner products on a total set of vectors. Moreover, by definition, it follows that
[TABLE]
Also, the range of U is reducing for {Vn:n≥1}.
3. Step 3:
Consider the restriction W:=V∣(UH)⊥ which is again a pure isometry by hypothesis. Applying Step 1 to W, we get 0=KW⊂KV⊂UH which is a contradiction unless (UH)⊥=0. Hence, U is a unitary, and now the proof is over.
We cannot adapt the above strategy step by step for a 1-parameter strongly continuous semigroup of isometries V={Vt}t≥0 as LV=0 in this case as V is strongly continuous. The modification required is that rather than seeking a common eigenvector corresponding to the eigenvalue [math], we look for a common eigenvector corresponding to a non-zero eigenvalue (or a non-zero character in the continuous case). Then, the steps are as follows.
Let V={Vt}t≥0 be a strongly continuous pure (i.e. VtVt∗→0 in SOT as t→∞) semigroup of isometries on a Hilbert space H.
(1)
Let z be a complex number such that Re(z)>0. Set
[TABLE]
We show that Kz is non-zero by appealing to the discrete case, and by an averaging trick.
2. (2)
Let {St}t≥0 be the shift semigroup on L2((0,∞)), and set fz(t):=2Re(z)e−zt. Then, it is straightforward to compute inner products on the total set {Stfz⊗ξ:t≥0,ξ∈Kz} to deduce that there exists an isometry
U:L2((0,∞))⊗Kz∋Stfz⊗ξ→Vtξ∈H such that
[TABLE]
for every t≥0. The rest of the arguments are exactly the same as in the discrete case. Note that the role played by ‘δ0’ in the discrete case is now played by fz in the continuous case.
We generalise the above to the doubly commuting case and to the Hilbert module setting. Here, we consider strictly continuous semigroups as the strict topology is a more appropriate topology for Hilbert modules. The module version creates a few issues at Step 3 but the main idea remains the same.
Thus, we obtain a proof of the following theorem; the case d=1 is first due to Bhat and Skeide ([2]) in the module setting (see also [13] for a groupoid proof).
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let d≥1 be a natural number. Let A be a separable C∗-algebra, and let E be a countably generated Hilbert A-module. Suppose V={Vt}t∈R+d is a strictly continuous semigroup of isometries which is doubly commuting, i.e. for i=j,
[TABLE]
for s,t∈R+. Here, {ej}j=1d is the standard basis for Rd. Suppose V is strongly pure, i.e. for every i∈{1,2,⋯,d}, t→∞limVteiVtei∗=0 in the strict topology. Then, there exists a Hilbert A-module K and a unitary U:L2(R+d)⊗K→E such that
[TABLE]
for every t∈R+d, where {St}t∈R+d is the shift semigroup on L2(R+d) defined by
[TABLE]
The above theorem together with an application of Wold decomposition gives a complete list of irreducible doubly commuting isometric representations of R+d on Hilbert spaces. For example, for d=2, the set of irreducible doubly commuting isometric representations can be identified with R2⊔R⊔R⊔{⋆}, where ⋆ corresponds to the shift semigroup on L2(R+2). The above forms the content of Section 2.
In the remaining sections, we focus our attention on the study of the Fell topology on the set of irreducible doubly commuting isometric representations of R+d on Hilbert spaces when d is finite as well as when d is infinite. To understand how complex the representation theory of a group G (or a C∗-algebra A), it is classical to consider the dual G (or A) which is the set of equivalence classes of irreducible representations of G with the Fell topology. Whether the topology on G is good or pathological indicates whether the representation theory of G is ‘tractable’ (type I) or ‘wild’. We consider a similar notion for isometric representations of R+d and R+∞. We show that if restrict attention to the doubly commuting case, then the topology is T0 for R+d when d<∞. However, the topology is not T0 for R+∞. In fact, by considering the analogue of shift semigroups on subspaces of L2(RN,⨂n=1∞γ) (where γ is the standard Gaussian measure), we construct a continuum of irreducible, strongly pure doubly commuting isometric representations which are mutually inequivalent but whose equivalence classes have the same closure in the Fell topology. This says that the representation theory of R+∞ is ‘wild’.
We must mention here that in the finite case, i.e. the case of R+d with d<∞, the Fell topology can be analysed via C∗-algebraic methods by considering the associated Wiener-Hopf algebra (see Thm. 7.8 of [12]). This is quite well known for d=1. However, up to the authors’ knowledge, the details have not been explicitly spelt out for d>1. We chose to work directly with the isometric representations and avoid the language of C∗-algebras. One reason is that C∗-algebraic techniques do not adapt well in the non-locally compact space, and for semigroups like R+∞ that are not locally compact.
As yet another pathology, we show by an example that doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞ need not admit Wold decomposition.
The organisation of this paper is described below.
After this introduction, in Section 2, we record our new proof of Cooper’s theorem, and prove Thm. 1.1. In Section 3, we consider the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible isometric representations of a semigroup S. We follow [7] and make use of railway representations to define the Fell topology. We show that if we restrict to the doubly commuting case and when S=R+d with d finite, then the Fell topology is T0. In Section 4, we indicate the pathologies that appear when d=∞. We prove that the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞ is not T0. We also give an example of a doubly commuting isometric representation of R+∞ which does not have a Wold decomposition.
Notation:
•
For a measure space (X,B,μ), and for ϕ∈L∞(X,B,μ), Mϕ stands for the multiplication operator on L2(X,μ) defined by
[TABLE]
•
The Hilbert spaces that we consider are assumed to be separable.
•
We denote N={1,2,⋯}, N0=N∪{0}, and R+=[0,∞).
•
We set \mathbb{R}^{\infty}=\{(x_{n})\in\mathbb{R}^{\mathbb{N}}:\textrm{x_{n}=0 eventually}\} and endow R∞ with the inductive limit topology. For d∈{1,2,⋯}∪{∞}, {ei}i=1d denotes the standard basis for Rd.
2. Cooper’s theorem
Let A be a C∗-algebra, and let E be a Hilbert A-module. For d∈N, let Id={1,2,,⋯,d}. Let
T={Tt}t∈R+d be a strictly continuous semigroup of adjointable operators (also called a strictly continuous representation of R+d) on E. For each i∈Id and t∈R+, denote Ttei by Tt(i), where ei is the i-th standard basis vector in Rd. A strictly continuous representation T is said to be doubly commuting if, for all distinct i,j∈Id,
[TABLE]
The strictly continuous semigroup T is said to be strongly pure if t→∞limTt(i)∗=0 in the strong operator topology (SOT) for all i∈Id. The representation T is said to be isometric if Tt is an isometry for all t∈R+d.
Since we consider only strictly (strongly) continuous isometric representations on Hilbert modules (Hilbert spaces), we often drop the adjective ‘strictly (strongly) continuous’ and merely call them isometric representations.
For d∈N, define an isometric representation S:={St}t∈R+d on the Hilbert space L2(R+d) by
[TABLE]
It is straightforward to verify that S is doubly commuting and for each i∈Id, {St(i)}t≥0 is pure. We call S={St}t∈R+d the shift semigroup of R+d on L2(R+d). Let
[TABLE]
For z∈H+d, define the unit vector fz in L2(R+d) by
[TABLE]
Observe that, for t∈R+d,
[TABLE]
The vector fz and the above equation will play a crucial role in what follows.
Let A be a separable C∗-algebra, and consider a Hilbert A-module K which we assume is countably generated. Let L2(R+d)⊗K denote the external tensor product of the Hilbert modules L2(R+d) (viewed as a Hilbert C-module) and K. The representation S⊗1K={St⊗1}t∈R+d is a doubly commuting isometric representation of R+d on the Hilbert A-module L2(R+d)⊗K. Moreover, it is strongly pure. In this section, we will demonstrate that every doubly commuting isometric representation V={Vt}t∈R+d on a Hilbert A-module E which is strongly pure is unitarily equivalent to the representation S⊗1K={St⊗1K}t∈R+d for some Hilbert A-module K.
The proof of the following proposition is included for completeness as it is probably known.
Proposition 2.1**.**
Let T={Tt}t∈R+d be a semigroup of bounded linear operators on a separable Banach space E. Suppose that T is weakly continuous, i.e. for every ϕ∈E∗, the map
[TABLE]
is continuous for every ξ∈E. Assume that T is Nd-periodic, i.e. Tt+n=Tt for all n∈Nd. For n∈Zd, let
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
In particular, En is non-zero for some n∈Zd.
Proof.
For n∈Zd, define a linear operator Pn on E by
[TABLE]
Since T is periodic, we have for ξ∈E and s∈R+d,
[TABLE]
Therefore, Ran(Pn)⊂En. It is clear that if ξ∈En, then Pnξ=ξ. Hence, En=Ran(Pn) for all n∈Zd. Next, we prove that span{En:n∈Zd}
is dense in E. If not, then there exists a non-zero linear functional ϕ∈E∗ that vanishes on span{En:n∈Zd}. Then, for every n∈Zd and ξ∈E,
[TABLE]
Since T is weakly continuous, and since the Fourier coefficients of the continuous function
[TABLE]
vanish for every ξ∈E,ϕ(Tsξ)=0 for every s∈[0,1]d and ξ∈E. In particular, for s=0, we get ϕ(ξ)=0 for all ξ∈E. This contradicts the fact that ϕ is nonzero. Therefore, E=span{En:n∈Zd}.
□
Fix a separable C∗-algebra A, and a countably generated Hilbert A-module E. Suppose V={Vt}t∈R+d is a strictly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation on the Hilbert A-module E. We further assume that V is strongly pure, i.e. for every i, VteiVtei∗→0 (in SOT) as t→∞. The isometric representation V is fixed until further mention.
Lemma 2.2**.**
For s,t∈R+d, there exist p,q∈R+d such that t−s=p−q, and
[TABLE]
Proof. Let I={i∈Id:ti≥si}. Set p:=∑i∈I(ti−si)ei and q:=∑i∈Ic(si−ti)ei. Thanks to the fact that V is doubly commuting, Vs∗Vt=VpVq∗. □.
For z∈H+d, define the submodules Kz and Lz as
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Note that Kz is invariant for the representation V∗={Vt∗}t∈R+d, i.e. Vt∗Kz⊂Kz for all t∈R+d.
By Lemma 2.2, Lz is reducing for V, i.e. Lz is invariant under both the representations V and V∗. To prove the main theorem (Theorem 2.7), we show that for all z∈H+d,Kz is nonzero and Lz is independent of z.
Proposition 2.3**.**
If Kz0=0 for some z0∈H+d, then Kz=0 for all z∈H+d.
Proof.
Assume that Kz0 is nonzero for some z0∈H+d. Let ξ be a nonzero vector in Kz0. Define the submodule W by
[TABLE]
Using Eq. 2.4 and the fact that ξ∈Kz0, we see that W is reducing for V. Let Lξ be the submodule of E generated by ξ, i.e. Lξ=span{ξa:a∈A}. We claim that V∣W is unitarily equivalent to the shift representation S⊗1Lξ={St⊗1}t∈R+d on L2(R+d)⊗Lξ. The proof will be over once we show this. For, we can then restrict V to the submodule W and assume without loss of generality that V is the shift representation S⊗1={St⊗1Lξ}t∈R+d on L2(R+d)⊗Lξ. However, it follows from Eq. 2.3 that the subspace Kz for the shift representation S⊗1={St⊗1}t∈R+d is nonzero for every z∈H+d.
Let s,t∈R+d. Thanks to Lemma 2.2, there exists p,q∈R+d such that t−s=p−q and Vs∗Vt=VpVq∗. Then, for a,b∈A,
Note that {Vtξa:a∈A,t∈R+d} and {Stfz0⊗ξa:a∈A,t∈R+d} are total sets in W and L2(R+d)⊗Lξ, respectively. Thus, thanks to Eq. 2.5, there exists a unitary module map U:W→L2(R+d)⊗Lξ such that
[TABLE]
for all a∈A and s∈R+d. Moreover, for t∈R+d,
[TABLE]
for all a∈A and s∈R+d.
Since {Vtξa:a∈A,t∈R+d} is a total set in W, UVt=(St⊗1)U for all t∈R+d, i.e. U intertwines the representations V∣W and S⊗ILξ.□
Remark 2.4**.**
Let {V1,V2,⋯,Vd} be a family of isometries on E such that each Vi is pure for every i, i.e. Vi∗n→0 in the strong operator topology (SOT). Suppose that {V1,V2,⋯,Vd} is doubly commuting, i.e. ViVj=VjVi for all i,j and Vi∗Vj=VjVi∗ for i=j.
Note that
[TABLE]
From this, we can decompose E as
[TABLE]
for each i∈Id.
For each i∈Id, by the definition of doubly commuting isometries, the submodule kerVi∗ is Vj-reducing for all j∈Id with i=j, and the restriction of Vj to kerVi∗ is a pure isometry. Thus, by induction and by applying Eq. 2.6, we get
[TABLE]
Hence, ⋂i∈IdkerVi∗ is non-zero .
Proposition 2.5**.**
For every z∈H+d,Kz=0.
Proof.
In view of Prop. 2.3, it is sufficient to show that Kz=0 for some z∈H+d. Let z∈H+d.
Let
[TABLE]
First, we prove that E0 is non-zero. Since V is strongly pure, for each i∈Id,V1(i) is a pure isometry and {V1(1),V1(2),⋯,V1(d)} is doubly commuting. By Remark 2.4,
there exists ξ∈⋂i∈IdkerV1(i)∗ such that ξ=0. It is easily verifiable that ∑n∈Z+de−⟨β,n⟩Vnξ∈E0. Hence, E0 is nonzero.
Note that the submodule E0 is invariant for the representation V∗={Vt∗}t∈R+d. For t∈R+d, define an operator Tt:E0→E0 by
[TABLE]
Then, T={Tt}t∈R+d is a strongly continuous semigroup on the Banach space E0. Moreover, T is Nd-periodic. By Prop. 2.1, there exists a nonzero vector ξ∈E0 and n∈Zd such that
[TABLE]
for all t∈R+d, i.e. Vt∗ξ=e−⟨z+2πin,t⟩ξ. This shows that Kz+2πin=0.□
Proposition 2.6**.**
For z1,z2∈H+d,Lz1=Lz2.
Proof.
Let z1,z2∈H+d. Since Lzi,i=1,2, is a reducing submodule for V, it is sufficient to show that Kz1⊂Lz2. Let ξ∈Kz1, and define the submodule Wξ of E by
[TABLE]
Then, thanks to Lemma 2.2, Wξ is reducing for the representation V.
Let Lξ:=span{ξa:a∈A}. As in Lemma 2.3, (using Eq. 2.5), we see that there exists a unitary U:Wξ→L2(R+d)⊗Lξ such that
[TABLE]
for t∈R+d. Moreover, U intertwines the representations V∣Wξ on Wξ and S⊗1Lξ on L2(R+d)⊗Lξ, i.e. UVtη=(St⊗1)Uη for all η∈Wξ.
Since span{Stfz2:t∈R+d} is dense in L2(R+d), there exists a sequence (htn)n∈N in L2(R+d) converging to fz1 and is of the form
[TABLE]
Now,
[TABLE]
This simplifies to
[TABLE]
where the last equality follows from the fact that U intertwines the representation V∣Wξ and S⊗1Lξ. Furthermore, since
[TABLE]
for all t∈R+d, we conclude that U∗(fz2⊗ξa)∈Kz2. This implies that ξa∈Lz2 for all a∈A. For an approximate identity {eλ}λ∈Λ of A, ξeλ→ξ. Hence, ξ∈Lz2. Therefore, Kz1⊂Lz2. This completes the proof.
□
We next prove Thm. 1.1. In fact, we show that we can take K=Kz.
Notation: For ϵ∈{0,1}d, let ∣ϵ∣=∑i=1dϵi.
Theorem 2.7**.**
Keep the foregoing notation. For every z∈H+d, there exists a unitary operator U:E→L2(R+d)⊗Kz such that
(1)
for t∈R+d,UVt=(St⊗1)U, and
2. (2)
for ξ∈Kz, U(ξ)=fz⊗ξ.
Proof.
Let z∈H+d. Let E0 be the submodule of E
and T={Tt}t∈R+d the representation defined as in Eq. 2.7 and Eq. 2.8, respectively. By applying Prop. 2.1 to the representation T on E0, we see that span{(E0)n:n∈Zd} is dense in E0, where
[TABLE]
For n∈Zd and ξ∈(E0)n, we have
[TABLE]
This implies that (E0)n⊂Kz+2πin. Furthermore, By Prop. (2.6)
[TABLE]
Therefore, E0⊂Lz for every z∈H+d.
Let ξ∈⋂i∈IdkerV1(i)∗, and define η:=∑n∈Z+de−⟨z,n⟩Vnξ. It is routine to verify that η∈E0 and ξ=ϵ∈{0,1}d∑(−1)∣ϵ∣e−⟨z∣ϵ⟩Vϵη. Hence,
ξ∈span{VnE0:n∈Z+d}⊂Lz which implies that ⋂i∈IdkerV1(i)∗⊂Lz. Since the submodule Lz is reducing for the representation V, by Remark 2.4, E=⨁n∈Z+dVn(⋂i∈IdkerVi∗)⊂Lz. Therefore, E=Lz for every z∈H+d.
Fix z∈H+d. A calculation similar to the one used to deduce Eq. 2.5 shows that for ξ,η∈Kz and s,t∈R+d, we have
[TABLE]
Since E=Lz, the set {Vsξ:ξ∈Kz,s∈R+d} is total in E. Also, {Ssfz⊗ξ:ξ∈Kz,s∈R+d} is total in L2(R+d)⊗Kz. It follows from the preceding equation that there exists a unitary map U:E→L2(R+d)⊗Kz such that
[TABLE]
Furthermore, for t∈R+d, we have
[TABLE]
where ξ∈Kz and s∈R+d. Since {Vsξ:ξ∈Kz,s∈R+d} is a total set in E, it follows that UVt=(St⊗1)U for all t∈R+d. The proof is over.
□
In the Hilbert space setting, we can replace strict continuity of V by strong continuity. Notice that in the course of the proof, the only place where we required strict continuity is in Prop. 2.5, where we needed strict continuity to ensure that {Vt∗}t∈R+d on the Banach space E0 is weakly continuous in order to apply Prop. 2.1.
However, if {Vt}t∈R+d is a strongly continuous semigroup of isometries on a Hilbert space H, then {Vt∗}t∈R+d is weakly continuous. The rest of the arguments do not require any modification. Thus, we get the following theorem which we call Cooper’s theorem. The case d=1 (due to Cooper ([4])) is called Cooper’s theorem in the literature.
Theorem 2.8**.**
Let V={Vt}t∈R+d be a strongly continuous doubly semigroup of isometries on a separable Hilbert space H. Suppose that V is strongly pure. Then, there exists a Hilbert space K and a unitary operator U:L2(R+d)⊗K→H such that
[TABLE]
for every t∈R+d.
2.1. Wold Decomposition for doubly commuting semigroups of isometries
For the rest of this paper, we restrict ourselves to the Hilbert space setting, and we do not consider Hilbert modules.
In this subsection, we discuss the Wold decomposition of doubly commuting semigroup of isometries which allows us to deduce the structure of irreducible doubly commuting representations. If S is a topological semigroup and V={Vs}s∈S is a strongly continuous semigroup of isometies, we call Virreducible if V has no reducing subspaces, or equivalently, {Vs,Vs∗:s∈S}′=C.
The proof of the following lemma, which is well known, is included for completeness.
Lemma 2.9**.**
For every d≥1, the isometric representation {St}t∈R+d on L2(R+d) is irreducible.
Proof. Let M:={St,St∗:t∈R+d}′. We prove that M=C. Clearly, it suffices to prove when d=1.
Let d=1, and let T∈M be given. Then, T commutes with Et:=StSt∗=M1[0,t] for every t∈R+. This implies that T commutes with M1[a,b] for every a,b∈(0,∞). Hence, T commutes with {Mϕ:ϕ∈L∞(R+)}. Thus, T must be a multiplication operator Mϕ for some ϕ∈L∞(R+). The equation
[TABLE]
for every t>0 implies that for every t>0, ϕ(x+t)=ϕ(x) for almost all x. Hence, ϕ is constant which implies that T is a scalar. This completes the proof. □
Let V={Vt}t∈R+d be a strongly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation on a Hilbert space H.
For each i∈Id, define the projection Pi on H by Pi=limt→∞Vt(i)Vt(i)∗ (in SOT) which exists as {Vt(i)Vt(i)∗} is decreasing. Using the fact that V is doubly commuting, we have
[TABLE]
From this commutation relation, it follows that the projections Pi and Pj commute:
[TABLE]
For α⊂Id, define a projection
Pα on H by
[TABLE]
From the commutation relation in Eq. 2.10 and the definition of Pα in Eq. 2.11, it follows that that VtPα=PαVt for all t∈R+d. Thus, PαH is a reducing subspace for the representation V. Let α1,α2⊂Id be such that α1=α2; one can readily verify that Pα1Pα2=0, and the identity operator I can be expressed as
[TABLE]
Consequently, the Hilbert space H decomposes as
H=⨁α⊂IdHα, where Hα=PαH.
For i∈α and ξ∈Hα, we have
[TABLE]
as t→∞.
For i∈/α and t∈R+,Vt(i)Vt(i)∗Pj=PjVt(i)Vt(i)∗=lims→∞Vs+t(j)Vs+t(j)∗=Pj for all j∈/α, so the semigroup {Vt(i)}t∈R+ acts unitarily on PjH. Moreover, since Vt(i) leaves each Pj invariant for j∈/α and due to the commutation relation in Eq. 2.10, it also preserve PαH, and thus, Vt(i)Hα=Hα. Therefore, we conclude the following:
(1)
for i∈α, the semigroup {Vt(i)}t∈R+ is strongly pure on Hα, and
2. (2)
for i∈/α,{Vt(i)}t∈R+ is a unitary representation on Hα.
Combining Thm. 2.8, Lemma 2.9 with the above discussion, we get the following theorem.
Theorem 2.10**.**
V={Vt}t∈R+d* be a strongly continuous doubly commuting semigroup of isometries on a Hilbert space H. Then, there exist unique 2d orthogonal V-reducing subspaces {Hα:α⊂Id} such that*
(1)
H=⨁α⊂IdHα;**
2. (2)
for each α⊂Id, the representation Vα∣Hα is strongly pure and doubly commuting, and the representation Vαc∣Hα is unitary, where for β⊂Id, Vβ is the representation of R+β defined by Vβ(t)=∏i∈βVti(i),t=(ti)i∈β∈R+β.
Suppose that H is separable. Then, for each α⊂Id, there exists a Hilbert space Kα and a strongly continuous unitary representation Wαc={Wαc(t)}t∈R+αc on Kα such that the restriction of V=(Vα,Vαc) to Hα is unitarily equivanet to (S⊗1Kα,1⊗Wαc) on L2(R+α)⊗Kα.
If V is irreducible, then there exists a unique α∈Id such that Hα=0, and in this case, Kα is one-dimensional and Wαc is given by a character of Rαc.
3. Fell topology
Let S be a topological semigroup. We follow [7] to define the Fell topology on the ‘set of equivalence classes of irreducible isometric representations of S’ by making use of railway representations. Recall that an isometric representation V of S on a separable Hilbert space H is said to be irreducible if the commutant {Vs,Vs∗:s∈S}′=C. For two isometric representations V and W, we write V∼W if V and W are unitarily equivalent.
Definition 3.1**.**
An isometric representation V of S on a separable infinite dimensional Hilbert space H is called a railway representation if V is unitarily equivalent to n=1⨁∞V0 for an irreducible isometric representation V0 of S.
If V is a railway representation and V=n=1⨁∞V0 for an irreducible representation V0, then, by Schur’s lemma, V0 is unique (up to a unitary equivalence). We call V0 the irreducible isometric representation that corresponds to V.
Let H be an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space that is fixed once and for all. The set of (strongly continuous) railway representations of S on H is denoted by R(S,H). By an abuse of notation, we write R(S,H) as R(S). The quotient ∼R(S) will be denoted by R(S). As railway representations and irreducible representations are in one-one correspondence, we call R(S) ‘the set of equivalence classes of irreducible isometric representations of S’.
We introduce the following topology on R(S).
Let V∈R(S), ϵ>0, K a compact subset of S, and let F be a non-empty finite subset of H. Define
[TABLE]
The sets of the form X(V,K,ϵ,F) form a basis for a topology on R(S). The Fell topology on R(S) is defined as the quotient topology.
Let [V]∈R(S), ϵ>0, K a compact subset of S, and let F⊂H be a finite set of unit vectors. Define
[TABLE]
Notice that the sets of the form B([V],K,ϵ,F) form a basis for the Fell topology on R(S).
For d∈N∪{∞},
Let
[TABLE]
In this section, we assume that d is finite. We study R0(R+d) with the subspace topology inherited from R(R+d). We call the subspace topology on R0(R+d) the Fell topology on the set of equivalence classes of irreducible, doubly commuting representations of R+d. We prove that R0(R+d) is T0.
For a subset A⊂Id, let YA denote the set of all maps from Ac:=Id∖A into R+. For A⊂Id and λ∈YA, define an isometric representation V(A,λ) of R+d on L2(R+d) by
[TABLE]
for t=(t1,t2,⋯,td)∈R+d. The usual convention of interpreting an empty sum as [math] applies to the above formula when either A or Ac is empty.
For A⊂Id and λ∈YA, set m:=∣A∣, and define an isometric representation V(A,λ,m) of R+d on L2(R+m) by
[TABLE]
for t=(t1,t2,⋯,td)∈R+d. Note that V(A,λ,m)⊗1L2(R+d−m) is unitary equivalent to V(A,λ).
Let K be an infinite dimensional Hilbert space, and we take L2(R+d)⊗K to be the Hilbert space H that is fixed so far.
Theorem 3.2**.**
With the foregoing notation, the map
[TABLE]
is a bijection.
Also, the Fell topology on R0(R+d) is T0.
Proof.
Let V be a doubly commuting irreducible representation of R+d on a Hilbert space K. Thanks to Thm. 2.10, Thm. 2.8 and the fact that an irreducible unitary representation of Rn is one dimensional and is given by a character of Rn, it follows that there exists a unique A⊂Id and a unique λ∈YA such that, up to a unitary equivalence, K=L2(R+m) (where m=∣A∣) and Vt=V(A,λ,m) for t∈R+d.
Since V(A,λ,m)⊗1L2(R+d−m) is unitarily equivalent to V(A,λ), it follows that a doubly commuting railway representation of R+d is of the form V(A,λ)⊗1K for a unique A⊂Id and a unique λ∈YA. Also, for A⊂Id and λ∈YA, thanks to Lemma 2.9, V(A,λ,∣A∣) is irreducible. Hence, V(A,λ)⊗1K is a railway representation for every A⊂Id and λ∈YA. Hence, Ψ is a bijection.
Next, we show that the Fell topology on R0(R+d) is T0. Let A,B⊂Id, let λ∈YA and μ∈YB be given. Denote V(A,λ)⊗K by V and V(B,μ)⊗1K by W.
Suppose k∈A∩Bc. Let ξ be a unit vector in L2(R+d)⊗K. We claim that there exists t>0 such that [W]∈/B([V],{tek},21,{ξ}). Otherwise, for every t>0, there exists a unitary operator Ut∈B(L2(R+d)⊗K) such that
[TABLE]
However, Wtek=eiμkt. Hence, for every t>0,
[TABLE]
Notice that since k∈A, {Vsek}s≥0 is pure. Thus, letting t→∞ in the above inequality, we get 1≤21 which is a contradiction.
Thus, if A∩Bc=∅, then we can find an open set that contains [V] but does not contain [W].
For the same reason, if Ac∩B=∅, we can find an open set that contains [W] but does not contain [W].
Now, consider the case A=B. Suppose there exists k>0 such that λk=μk. Choose t>0 such that
[TABLE]
Let ξ∈L2(R+d)⊗K be a unit vector. Then, [W]∈/B([V],{tek},21,{ξ}). Hence, if λ=μ, then there exists an open set that contains [V] but that does not contain [W].
We can now conclude that given two distinct points [V],[W]∈R0(R+d), there exists an open set which contains one of them but not the other. Hence, R0(R+d) is not T0.
□
The following proposition says a bit more regarding the Fell topology. We can compute the closure of each point explicitly.
Proposition 3.3**.**
For a subset A⊂Id and λ∈YA, we have
[TABLE]
We can also see using the above proposition that the Fell topology on R0(R+) is not T0. For, a space being T0 is the same as saying that distinct points have distinct closures. We do not prove the above proposition but only compute the closure of the singleton {[V(A,λ)⊗1K]} when d=1 and A={1}. This forms the content of the following proposition.
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let {St}t≥0 be the shift semigroup on L2(R+).
For t≥0, let St=St⊗1K. Let λ∈R, ϵ>0 and a>0 be given. Suppose F is a finite set of unit vectors in L2(R+)⊗K. Then, there exists a unitary W on L2(R+)⊗K such that for ξ∈F and t∈[0,a],
[TABLE]
Hence, [S] is dense in R0(R+).
Proof.
Choose δ>0 such that
[TABLE]
Let
[TABLE]
for x∈R+. Note that g is a unit vector in L2(R+), and St∗g=e−(δ+iλt)g. Hence, for t∈[0.a],
[TABLE]
It may similarly be observed that for t∈[0,a],
[TABLE]
Suppose F={ξ1,ξ2,⋯,ξr}. We can assume without loss of generality that F is orthonormal.
Let U1 be a unitary from L2(R+)⊗K onto ⊕n=1∞L2(R+) such that U1ξj lies in the j-th summand. We identify L2(R+)⊗K with
[TABLE]
under this unitary, and ξj with gj:=U1ξj for j=1,2,⋯,r. Let {St(n)}t≥0 denote the shift semigroup on the n-th summand of L, and let
[TABLE]
for t∈R+.
For j=1,2,⋯,r, let Wj:L2(R+)→L2(R+) be a unitary such that Wjgj=g. Let W:=⨁n=1∞Wj, where Wj:=1L2(R+) for j≥r+1. Then,
[TABLE]
Similarly,
[TABLE]
Since S′ is unitarily equivalent to {St⊗1K}t≥0, the proposition is proved.
□
4. Pathologies when d=∞
In this section, we indicate the pathologies that occur when d=∞. Let
[TABLE]
We consider R∞ as the inductive limit nlim(Rn,ιn), where the connecting map ιn:Rn→Rn+1 is given by (x1,x2,⋯,xn)→(x1,x2,⋯,xn,0). Recall that a subset K⊂R∞ is compact if and only if there exists n≥1 such that K is a compact subset of Rn. After an abuse of notation, we view Rn as a subset of R∞.
Let R+∞:={(xn)∈R∞:xn≥0}. Note that R+∞ is a closed subsemigroup of R+∞. Let ei=(0,0,⋯,1,0,⋯), where 1 occurs at the i-th position.
As in the finite case (d<∞), an isometric representation V={Vt}t∈R+∞ (which is always assumed to be strongly continuous) is said to be doubly commuting if
[TABLE]
for every s,t≥0 and i=j. For an isometric representation V={Vt}t∈R+∞ and for i∈N, we set
[TABLE]
for t≥0.
We show some pathological properties concerning the structure of isometric representations, even the doubly commuting ones, of R+∞. In particular, we show that R0(R+∞) is not T0 and also prove that Wold decomposition fails. First, we show that R(R+∞) is not T0 by exhibiting two distinct points in R0(R+∞) which have the same closure in R0(R+∞). In the process, we also construct a continuum of strongly pure, irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞. This is in contrast to the finite case, where Cooper’s theorem states that there is only one strongly pure, irreducible, doubly commuting isometric representation
Let us first fix some notation.
Let γ be the standard Gaussian distribution on R, i.e. γ is the probability measure on R given by
[TABLE]
Let μ be the product measure ⊗n=1∞γ on RN.
For x∈Rn, the map Rn∋y→y+x∈Rn will be denoted by Tx(n). For x∈RN, let Tx:RN→RN be defined by
[TABLE]
In what follows, we consider RN as a measure space endowed with the probability measure μ=⊗k=1∞γ. The Lebesgue measure on Rn will be denoted by the same letter λ for every n. For n≥1, let μ(n)=⨂k=1nγ which is a probability measure on Rn.
Remark 4.1**.**
For x∈RN, the measure μ is quasi-invariant for Tx, i.e. μ∘Tx−1 and μ are absolutely continuous w.r.t. each other if and only if x∈ℓ2(N). This is well known and can be proved by applying Prop. III-1-2. of [10].
Let X denote the set of all sequences (an)n∈N∈RN such that an≤0 for each n∈N and
[TABLE]
Lemma 4.2**.**
The set X is non-empty.
Proof.
It suffices to exhibit a sequence a=(an)∈RN with an<0 for each n∈N such that
[TABLE]
converges.
Note that if t<0, then 21<2π1∫t∞e2−x2dx<1. Let −log2<t<0. For each n∈N, let tn:=et2n+1. Then, 21<tn<1, and ∑n=1∞log(tn) converges.
For n∈N, choose an<0 such that
[TABLE]
Such a choice is possible since the function
[TABLE]
is continuous. Now, it is clear that the series
[TABLE]
converges. This completes the proof.
□
Let a:=(a1,a2,⋯)∈X. Let
[TABLE]
Then, A has positive measure. We consider L2(A) as a subspace of L2(RN). For n≥1, we let
[TABLE]
For x=(x1,x2,⋯,xk,⋯)∈R+∞, define Tx:RN→RN by
[TABLE]
Note that Tx is a measurable, invertible map and the measure μ is quasi-invariant for Tx.
Consider the Koopman operator Ux:L2(RN)→L2(RN) defined by
[TABLE]
Since A+R+∞⊂A, Ux leaves L2(A) invariant for every x∈R+∞. For x∈R+∞,
let VxA denote the restriction of Ux to L2(A).
Then, VA:={VxA}x∈R+∞ is a doubly commuting isometric representation of R+∞ on L2(A). Note that VA is strongly pure, i.e. for every i, VteiA∗→0 as t→∞ in SOT.
For x=(x1,x2,⋯,xk,0,0,⋯)∈R+∞, VxA is given by
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.3**.**
With the foregoing notation, the isometric representation VA is irreducible.
Proof.
We denote VtA by Vt. Denote the commutant of {Vt,Vt}t∈R+N by M(VA). For ϕ∈L∞(A), let Mϕ be the multiplication operator on L2(A) defined by
[TABLE]
Suppose T∈M(VA).
Claim: The operator T commutes with Mϕ for every ϕ∈L∞(A).
Note that the σ-algebra of RN is generated by cylindrical sets of the form ∏n∈NXn, where each Xn is an interval in R, and Xn=R except for finitely many n∈N. Thus, it suffices to prove that T commutes with the multiplication operators corresponding to the indicator functions of these cylindrical sets.
Consider a cylindrical set of L2(RN) of the form X:=∏n∈NXn, where each Xn is an interval in R and Xn=R except for finitely many n. Let k be such that Xn=R for n≥k+1. Let MX denote the multiplication operator corresponding to the indicator function of X.
Let μ(k)=⊗n=1kμ. We may identify L2(R+k,μ(k))⊗L2(A(k,μ) with L2(A,μ) via the unitary U:L2(R+k,μ(k))⊗L2(A(k,μ)→L2(A,μ) defined by
[TABLE]
Let W:L2(R+k,μ(k))→L2(R+k,λ) be the unitary defined by
[TABLE]
Set W0=(W⊗1)U∗.
Then, for each t∈R+k,
[TABLE]
Since {St}t∈R+k is an irreducible isometric representation (Lemma 2.9),
[TABLE]
for some Tk∈B(L2(A(k,μ)). Note that
[TABLE]
for some ϕ∈L∞(R+k).
It follows from Eq. 4.1 and Eq. 4.2 that W0TW0∗ and W0MXW0∗ commutes. Hence, T commutes with MX. This proves the claim.
Since T commutes with the multiplication operator Mf for every f∈L∞(A), T must itself be a multiplication operator Mg corresponding to some g∈L∞(A).
We now prove that g is constant almost everywhere. For n∈N, let πn:A→R be the projection onto the n-th coordinate.
For n∈N, let Gn be the smallest (complete) σ- algebra which makes πn,πn+1,⋯ measurable. Let
[TABLE]
It follows from Eq. 4.1 that given k∈R, there exists gk∈L∞(A(k) such that for almost all x∈∏i=1∞[ai,∞),
[TABLE]
Thus, g is F∞-measurable. By Kolmogorov’s zero-one law, g must be constant almost everywhere. In other words, T=λ for some λ∈C. The proof is over.
□
Let a=(an)n∈N,b=(bn)n∈N∈X. Let A:=n=1∏∞[an,∞) and B:=n=1∏∞[bn,∞).
Proposition 4.4**.**
The isometric representations VA and VB are unitarily equivalent if and only if (an−bn)n∈N∈l2(N).
Proof.
Suppose c:=(bn−an)∈l2(N). Then, μ is quasi-invarinat under the translation Tc. Define the Koopman operator U:L2(RN)→L2(RN) by
[TABLE]
Note that U is a unitary operator, U maps L2(A) onto L2(B) and intertwines VA and VB.
Conversely, suppose that VA and VB are unitarily equivalent. Let U:L2(A)→L2(B) be a unitary such that UVtAU∗=VtB for every t∈R+∞.
Claim: For every ϕ∈L∞(A),
[TABLE]
For n≥1, we identify L∞(An]) as a subalgebra of L∞(A) via the map
[TABLE]
Here, πn] is the projection onto the first n-coordinates.
Note that ⋃n=1∞L∞(An]) is weak ∗-dense in L∞(A). Thus, it suffices to verify Eq. 4.3 when ϕ∈L∞(An]) for some n.
Let n≥1 and let ϕ∈L∞(An]) be given. Let a(n)=(a1,a2,⋯,an), b(n)=(b1,b2,⋯,bn) and c(n)=a(n)−b(n). Let U1:L2(An],μ(n))→L2([0,∞)n,μ(n)) be the unitary defined by U1f(x)=f(x+a(n)). Let W:L2([0,∞)n,μ(n))→L2([0,∞)n,λ) be the unitary defined by
[TABLE]
Define another unitary U2:L2(Bn],μ)→L2([0,∞)n,μ(n)) by U2(f)(x)=f(x+b(n)). Let U3:L2(A(n,μ)→L2(B(n,μ) be a unitary operator.
Note that for t∈R+n,
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Hence, W0:=(WU1⊗U3)U∗(WU2⊗1)∗ lies in the commutant of {St⊗1,St∗⊗1:t∈R+n}. Hence, W0 is of the form 1⊗W1 for some unitary operator W1:L2(A(n)→L2(B(n). This implies U=U2∗U1⊗W1∗U3. Calculate as follows to observe that
[TABLE]
Therefore, Eq. 4.3 holds for every ϕ∈⋃n=1∞L∞(An]), and hence it holds for every ϕ∈L∞(A).
Thus, for every Borel subset E⊂A, UM1EU∗=M1E+c. This implies that μ(E)=0 if and only if μ(E+c)=0. Thus, the push-forward measure μ∘Tc−1 and μ are equivalent.
It follows from Prop. III-1-2. of [10] that I:=n→∞lim∫Bn]dμd(μ(n)∘Tc(n)−1)dμ>0. Note that
[TABLE]
A routine computation of the integrals involving Gaussian distributions shows that
[TABLE]
Hence, c∈ℓ2(N). This completes the proof.
□
Theorem 4.5**.**
Let H be an infinite dimensional Hilbert space. Let a,b∈X be such that a−b∈/ℓ2(N). Set A:=∏n=1∞[an,∞) and B:=∏n=1∞[bn,∞).
The following statements are true:
(1)
The singletons {[VA⊗1H]} and {[VB⊗1H]} have the same closure in R0(R+∞), and
2. (2)
R0(R+∞)* is not a T0- space.*
Proof.
(1)
Let ϵ>0, K⊂R+∞ be compact. We recall that a compact subset of R+∞ is necessarily finite dimensional, i.e. there exists n∈N such that K⊂R+n. We may identify L2(A,μ) with L2(An],μ(n))⊗L2(A(n,μ). Let a(n)=(a1,a2,⋯,an), and let Ta(n):Rn→Rn be the translation given by
[TABLE]
Let
Ua(n):L2(Rn,μ(n))→L2(Rn,μ(n)) be the Koopman operator associated with T−a(n). Then, Ua(n)⊗1 maps L2(A) onto L2([0,∞)n×A(n,μ(n)⊗μ), and we identify the latter Hilbert space with L2([0,∞)n,μ(n))⊗L2(A(n,μ).
Let W:L2([0,∞)n,μ(n))→L2([0,∞)n,λ) be the unitary defined by
[TABLE]
Set W0=(W⊗1)(Ua(n)⊗1). A routine verification implies that for t∈R+n,
[TABLE]
where L0=L2(A(k,μ)⊗H. After identifying L0 with H via a unitary, we see that there exists a unitary operator W1 such that, for t∈R+n,
[TABLE]
A similar argument shows that there exists a unitary W2 such that, for t∈R+n,
[TABLE]
Setting W:=W1∗W2, we see that
[TABLE]
for every t∈K.
It is now clear that every basic open set containing [VA⊗1H] also contains [VB⊗1H] and vice versa. In other words, the closures of {[VA⊗1H]} and {[VB⊗1H]} in R0(R+∞) are the same.
2. (2)
Thanks to Prop. 4.3 and Prop. 4.4, VA⊗1H and VB⊗1H are railway representations that are inequivalent. By (1),
[VA⊗1H] and [VB⊗1H] cannot be separated by open sets, and hence, it follows that R0(R+∞) is not T0.
□
We finish our paper by showing that Wold decomposition fails for doubly commuting isometric representations of R+∞.
Definition 4.6**.**
Let V={Vt}t∈R+∞ be a strongly continuous, isometric representation of the semigroup R+∞ on a Hilbert space H. The representation V is said to admit a Wold decomposition if the Hilbert space H decomposes as an orthogonal direct sum:
[TABLE]
such that each Hg is a reducing subspace for V, and for each i∈N, the restriction of the representation {Vt(i)}t∈R+ to Hg satisfies:
•
if g(i)=0, then {Vt(i)}t∈R+ on Hg is a unitary representation,
•
if g(i)=1, then {Vt(i)}t∈R+ on Hg is a pure isometric representation.
A similar definition applies to isometric representations V={Vn}n∈N0∞ of the semigroup N0∞={(mi):mi∈N0,mi=0eventually}.
Proposition 4.7**.**
There exists a strongly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation of the semigroup R+∞ on a Hilbert space which does not admit a Wold decomposition.
Proof.
Let ν be a probability measure on the set {0,1}, and consider the infinite product measure μ:=⊗n=1∞ν on {0,1}N. For each x∈{0,1}N, define H(x)=H, where H is a fixed Hilbert space. The direct integral of the family of Hilbert spaces {H(x)}x∈{0,1}N with respect to the measure μ is
[TABLE]
Let S={St}t∈R+∞ be a strongly continuous, strongly pure, doubly commuting isometric representation of R+∞ on the Hilbert space H, and let U={Ut}t∈R+∞ be a strongly continuous, unitary representation of R+∞ on H such that U doubly commutes with S. This means that for all s,t∈R+,
[TABLE]
Let x=(xi)∈{0,1}N, i∈N and t∈R+. Define an isometry on H(x) by
[TABLE]
Since Vt(i)(x) is an isometry on each fiber H(x), the decomposable operator ∫⊕Vt(i)(x)dμ(x) of the μ-measurable operator valued function x→Vt(i)(x) is an isometry on L2({0,1}N,H). We denote it by Vt(i). Since U doubly commutes with S, the resulting semigroup V={Vt}t∈R+∞ constructed from {Vt(i)}t∈R+,i∈N defines a strongly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation of R+∞ on the Hilbert space L2({0,1}N,H).
For any d∈N, the restricted family Vd:={Vt}t∈R+d defines a strongly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation of R+d on the Hilbert space L2({0,1}N,H).
Applying the Wold decomposition theorem (Thm. 2.10) to the representation Vd on the Hilbert space L2({0,1}N,H), we get an orthogonal decomposition
[TABLE]
where Xg={x∈{0,1}N:xi=g(i),i∈Id} such that for each g∈{0,1}d:
(1)
L2(Xg,H) is a reducing subspace for the representation Vd.
2. (2)
For each i∈Id, the isometric representation {Vt(i)}t∈R+ restricted to L2(Xg,H) is pure if g(i)=1 and unitary if g(i)=0.
Furthermore, for every i∈Id and t∈R+, the isometry Vt(i) can be expressed as
[TABLE]
Suppose that the strongly continuous, doubly commuting isometric representation V over R+∞ admits a Wold decomposition, meaning that the Hilbert space L2({0,1}N,H) decomposes as
[TABLE]
where each Hg is a reducing subspace of V such that the representation {Vt(i)}t∈R+ restricted to Hg is pure if g(i)=1 and unitary if g(i)=0.
Now, for g∈{0,1}N and d∈N, define gd as the restriction of g to the index set Id, i.e. gd=g∣Id. By the uniqueness of Wold decomposition (Thm. 2.10) for the doubly commuting isometric representation Vd
on L2({0,1}N), if follows that Hg⊂L2(Xgd,H) for all d∈N, where Xgd is defined as in Eq. 4.4. Since d∈N is arbitrary, we have Hg⊂L2(Xg,H),
where
[TABLE]
Observe that μ({(g(i))i∈N})=0, which implies that L2(Xg,H)=0, and therefore Hg={0}. This leads to the conclusion that L2({0,1}N,H)={0}, which is a contradiction. Hence, V does not admit a Wold decomposition.
□
Remark 4.8**.**
Let \mathbb{N}_{0}^{\infty}=\{(n_{i})\in\mathbb{N}_{0}^{\mathbb{N}}:\textrm{n_{i}=0exceptforfinitelymanyi}\}.
Let S={Sn}n∈N∞ and U={Un}n∈N∞ be doubly commuting isometric representations of N0∞ on the Hilbert space H such that S is strongly pure, U is unitary and U doubly commutes with S.
For x=(xn)∈{0,1}N and n∈N, define an isometry on H(x) by
[TABLE]
Since Vi(x) is an isometry on H(x), the decomposable operator ∫⊕Vi(x)dμ(x) of the μ-measurable operator valued function x→Vi(x) is an isometry on L2({0,1}N,H) and it is denoted by Vi. For n∈N0∞, set Vn=∏i=1∞Vini. As U doubly commutes with S, it follows that the isometric representation V={Vn}n∈N∞ of N∞ on the Hilbert space L2({0,1}N,H) is also doubly commuting.
Arguing similarly as in Prop. 4.7, together with the discrete analogue of Thm. 2.10, we can show that the doubly commuting isometric representation V={Vn}n∈N∞ of N∞ on L2({0,1}N,H), as defined above, does not admit a Wold decomposition.
Bibliography15
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] William Arveson, C ∗ C^{*} -algebras associated with sets of semigroups of isometries , Internat. J. Math. 2 (1991), no. 3, 235–255.
2[2] B. V. Rajarama Bhat and Michael Skeide, Pure semigroups of isometries on Hilbert C ∗ C^{*} -modules , J. Funct. Anal. 269 (2015), no. 5, 1539–1562.
3[3] Tirthankar Bhattacharyya, Shubham Rastogi, and U. Vijaya Kumar, Doubly commuting and dual doubly commuting semigroups of isometries , J. Operator Theory 93 (2025), no. 1, 217–228.
4[4] J. L. B. Cooper, One-parameter semigroups of isometric operators in Hilbert space , Ann. of Math. (2) 48 (1947), 827–842.
5[5] Joachim Cuntz, K K -theory and C ∗ C^{\ast} -algebras , Algebraic K K -theory, number theory, geometry and analysis (Bielefeld, 1982), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1046, Springer, Berlin, 1984, pp. 55–79.
6[6] Joachim Cuntz, Siegfried Echterhoff, Xin Li, and Guoliang Yu, K K -theory for group C ∗ C^{*} -algebras and semigroup C ∗ C^{*} -algebras , Oberwolfach Seminars, vol. 47, Birkhäuser/Springer, Cham, 2017.
7[7] John Ernest, On the topology of the spectrum of a C ∗ C^{*} -algebra , Math. Ann. 216 (1975), no. 2, 149–153.
8[8] P. Masani, Isometric flows on Hilbert space , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 68 (1962), 624–632.