You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘C*-Algebras & Operator Theory’ category.

*This sandbox is going to take from a variety of sources, mostly Shuzhou Wang.*

## C*-Ideals

Let be a closed (two-sided) ideal in a non-commutative unital -algebra . Such an ideal is self-adjoint and so a non-commutative -algebra . The quotient map is given by , , where is the equivalence class of under the equivalence relation:

.

Where we have the product

,

and the norm is given by:

,

the quotient is a -algebra.

Consider now elements and . Consider

.

The tensor product . Now note that

,

by the nature of the Tensor Product (). Therefore .

### Definition

A WC*-ideal (W for *Woronowicz*) is a C*-ideal such that , where is the quotient map .

Let be the algebra of functions on a classical group . Let . Let be the set of functions which vanish on : this is a C*-ideal. The kernal of is .

Let so that . Note that

and so

.

Note that if . It is not possible that both and are in : if they were , but , which is not in by assumption. Therefore one of or is equal to zero and so:

,

and so by linearity, if vanishes on a subgroup ,

.

In this way, WC*-ideals generalise functions which vanish on distinguished subgroups. In fact, without checking all the details, I imagine that first isomorphism theorem can show that . Let be the ring homomorphism

.

Then , , and so we have the isomorphism of rings, which presumably carries forward to the algebras of functions level…

*Just some notes on the pre-print. I am looking at this paper to better understand this pre-print. In particular I am hoping to learn more about the support of a probability on a quantum group. Flags and notes are added but mistakes are mine alone.*

#### Abstract

From this paper I will look at:

- lattice operations on , for a LCQG (analogues of intersection and generation)

## 1. Introduction

Idempotent states on quantum groups correspond with “subgroup-like” objects. In this work, on LCQG, the correspondence is with *quasi-subgroups *(the work of Franz & Skalski the correspondence was with *pre-subgroups *and *group-like projections*).

Let us show the kind of thing I am trying to understand better.

Let be the algebra of function on a finite quantum group. Let be concentrated on a pre-subgroup . We can associate to a group like projection .

Let, and this is another thing I am trying to understand better, this support, the support of be ‘the smallest’ (?) projection such that . Denote this projection by . Define similarly. That are concentrated on is to say that and .

Define a map by

(or should this be or ?)

We can decompose, in the finite case, .

**Claim: **If is concentrated on , … I don’t have a proof but it should fall out of something like together with the decomposition of above. It may also require that is a trace, I don’t know. Something very similar in the preprint.

From here we can do the following. That is a group-like projection means that:

Hit both sides with to get:

.

By the fact that are supported on , the right-hand side equals one, and by the as-yet-unproven claim, we have

.

However this is the same as

,

in other words , that is remains supported on . As a corollary, a random walk driven by a probability concentrated on a pre-subgroup remains concentrated on .

In May 2017 I wrote down some problems that I hoped to look at in my study of random walks on quantum groups. Following work of Amaury Freslon, a number of these questions have been answered. In exchange for solving these problems, Amaury has very kindly suggested some other problems that I can work on. The below hopes to categorise some of these problems and their status.

## Solved!

- Show that the total variation distance is equal to the projection distance. Amaury has an a third proof. Amaury suggests that this should be true in more generality than the case of being absolutely continuous (of the form for all and a unique ). If the Haar state is no longer tracial Amaury’s proof breaks down (and I imagine so do the two others in the link above). Amaury believes this is true in more generality and says perhaps the Jordan decomposition of states will be useful here.
- Prove the Upper Bound Lemma for compact quantum groups of Kac type. Achieved by Amaury.
- Attack random walks with conjugate invariant driving probabilitys: achieved by Amaury.
- Look at quantum generalisations of ‘natural’ random walks and shuffles. Solved is probably too strong a word, but Amaury has started this study by looking at a generalisation of the random transposition shuffle. As I suggested in Seoul, Amaury says: “One important problem in my opinion is to say something about analogues of classical random walks on (for instance the random transpositions or riffle shuffle)”. Amaury notes that “we are blocked by the counit problem. We must therefore seek bounds for other distances. As I suggest in my paper, we may look at the norm of the difference of the transition operators. The -estimate that I give is somehow the simplest thing one can do and should be thought of as a “spectral gap” estimate. Better norms would be the norms as operators on or even better, the completely bounded norm. However, I have not the least idea of how to estimate this.”

## Results to be Improved

- I have recently received an email from Isabelle Baraquin, a student of Uwe Franz, pointing out a small error in the thesis (a basis-error with the Kac-Paljutkin quantum groups).
- Recent calculations suggest that the lower bound for the random walk on the dual of is effective at while the upper bound shows the walk is random at time order . This is still a very large gap but at least the lower bound shows that this walk does converge very slowly.
- Get a much sharper lower bound for the random walk on the Sekine family of quantum groups studied in Section 5.7. Projection onto the ‘middle’ of the factor may provide something of use. On mature reflection, recognising that the application of the upper bound lemma is dominated by one set of terms in particular, it should be possible to use cruder but more elegant estimates to get the same upper bound except with lighter calculations (and also a smaller — see Section 5.7).

## More Questions on Random Walks

- Irreducibility is harder than the classical case (where ‘not concentrated’ on a subgroup is enough). Can anything be said about aperiodicity in the quantum case? (U. Franz).
- Prove an Ergodic Theorem (Theorem 1.3.2) for Finite Quantum Groups. Extend to Compact Quantum Groups. It is expected that the conditions may be more difficult than the classical case. However, it may be possible to use Diaconis-Van Daele theory to get some results in this direction. It should be possible to completely analyse some examples (such as the Kac-Paljutkin quantum group of order 8).This will involve a study of subgroups of quantum groups as well as
*normal*quantum subgroups and cosets. - Look at a random walk on the Sekine quantum groups with an -dependent driving probability and see if the cut-off phenomenon (Chapter 4) can be detected. This will need good lower bounds for , some cut-off time.
- Convolutions Factorisations of the Random Distribution: such a study may prove fruitful in trying to find the Ergodic Theorem. See Section 6.5.
**Amaury**mentions the problem of considering random walks associated to non-central states (in the compact case). “The difficulty is first to build non-central states (I do not have explicit examples at hand but Uwe Franz said he had some) and second to be able to compute their Fourier transform. Then, the computations will certainly be hard but may still be doable.”- A study of the Cesaro means: see Section 6.6.
- Spectral Analysis: it should be possible to derive crude bounds using the spectrum of the stochastic operator. More in Section 6.2.

## Future Work (for which I do not yet have the tools to attack)

**Amaury/Franz**Something perhaps more accessible is to investigate quantum homogeneous spaces. The free sphere is a noncommutative analogue of the usual sphere and a quantum homogeneous space for the free orthogonal quantum group. We can therefore define random walks on it and the whole machinery of Gelfand pairs might be available. In particular, Caspers gave a Plancherel theorem for Gelfand pairs of locally compact quantum groups which should apply here yielding an Upper Bound Lemma and then the problem boils down to something which should be close to my computations. There are probably works around this involving Adam Skalski and coauthors.**Amaury:**If one can prove a more general total variation distance equal to half one norm result, then Amaury suggests one can consider random walks on compact quantum groups which are not of Kac type. The Upper Bound Lemma will then involve matrices measuring the modular theory of the Haar state and some (but not all) dimensions in the formulas must be replaced by quantum dimensions. The main problem here is to define explicit central states since there is no Haar-state preserving conditional expectation onto the central algebra. However, there are tools from monoidal equivalence to do this.

## Distances between Probability Measures

Let be a finite quantum group and be the set of states on the -algebra .

The algebra has an invariant state , the dual space of .

Define a (bijective) map , by

,

for .

Then, where and , define the total variation distance between states by

.

(Quantum Total Variation Distance (QTVD))

Standard non-commutative machinary shows that:

.

(supremum presentation)

In the classical case, using the test function , where , we have the probabilists’ preferred definition of total variation distance:

.

In the classical case the set of indicator functions on the subsets of the group exhaust the set of projections in , and therefore the classical total variation distance is equal to:

.

(Projection Distance)

In all cases the quantum total variation distance and the supremum presentation are equal. In the classical case they are equal also to the projection distance. Therefore, in the classical case, we are free to define the total variation distance by the projection distance.

## Quantum Projection Distance Quantum Variation Distance?

Perhaps, however, on truly quantum finite groups the projection distance could differ from the QTVD. In particular, a pair of states on a factor of might be different in QTVD vs in projection distance (this cannot occur in the classical case as all the factors are one dimensional).

Just back from a great workshop at Seoul National University, I am just going to use this piece to outline in a relaxed manner my key goals for my work on random walks on quantum groups for the near future.

In the very short term I want to try and get a much sharper lower bound for my random walk on the Sekine family of quantum groups. I believe the projection onto the ‘middle’ of the might provide something of use. On mature reflection, recognising that the application of the upper bound lemma is dominated by one set of terms in particular, it should be possible to use cruder but more elegant estimates to get the same upper bound except with lighter calculations (and also a smaller — see Section 5.7).

I also want to understand how sharp (or otherwise) the order convergence for the random walk on the dual of is — sounds awfully high. Furthermore it should be possible to get a better lower bound that what I have.

It should also be possible to redefine the quantum total variation distance as a supremum over projections subsets via . If I can show that for a positive linear functional that then using these ideas I can. More on this soon hopefully. No, this approach won’t work. (I have since completed this objective with some help: see here).

The next thing I might like to do is look at a random walk on the Sekine quantum groups with an -dependent driving probability and see if I can detect the cut-off phenomenon (Chapter 4). This will need good lower bounds for , some cut-off time.

Going back to the start, the classical problem began around 1904 with the question of Markov:

Which card shuffles mix up a deck of cards and cause it to ‘go random’?

For example, the perfect riffle shuffle does not mix up the cards at all while a riffle shuffle done by an amateur will.

In the context of random walks on classical groups this question is answered by the Ergodic Theorem 1.3.2: when the driving probability is not concentrated on a subgroup (irreducibility) nor the coset of a normal subgroup (aperiodicity).

Necessary and sufficient conditions on the driving probability for the random walk on a *quantum *group to converge to random are required. It is expected that the conditions may be more difficult than the classical case. However, it may be possible to use Diaconis-Van Daele theory to get some results in this direction. It should be possible to completely analyse some examples (such as the Kac-Paljutkin quantum group of order 8).

This will involve a study of subgroups of quantum groups as well as *normal *quantum subgroups.

It should be straightforward to extend the Upper Bound Lemma (Lemma 5.3.8) to the case of compact Kac algebras. Once that is done I will want to look at quantum generalisations of ‘natural’ random walks and shuffles.

I intend also to put the PhD thesis on the Arxiv. After this I have a number of options as regard to publishing what I have or maybe waiting a little while until I solve the above problems — this will all depend on how my further study progresses.

*Taken from C*-Algebras and Operator Theory by Gerald J. Murphy.*

Although the principal aim of this section is to construct direct limits of C*-algebras, we begin with direct limits of groups.

If is a sequence of groups, and if for each we have a homomorphism , then we call a *direct sequence of groups. *Given such a sequence and positive integers , we set and we define inductively on by setting

.

If , we have .

If is a group and we have homomorphisms such that the diagram

commutes for each , that is , then for all .

*Taken from C*-Algebras and Operator Theory by Gerald Murphy.*

This section is concerned with positive linear functionals and representations. Pure states are introduced and shown to be the extreme points of a certain convex set, and their existence is deduced from the Krein-Milman theorem. From this the existence of irreducible representations is proved by establishing a correspondence between them and the pure states.

If is a representation of a C*-algebra , we say is a *cyclic vector for *if is cyclic for the C*-algebra (This means that cyclic vector is a vector such that the closure of the linear span of equals ). If admits a cyclic vector, then we say that it is a *cyclic representation.*

We now return to the GNS construction associated to a state to show that the representations involved are cyclic.

## Theorem 5.1.1

*Let be a C*-algebra and . Then there is a unique vector such that*

*, for* .

*Moreover, is a unit cyclic vector for and*

,* for *.

*Taken from C*-algebras and Operator Theory by Gerald Murphy.*

If and are vector spaces, we denote by their algebraic tensor product. This is linearly spanned by the elements (, ).

One reason why tensor products are useful is that they turn bilinear maps (a bilinear map has ) into linear maps (). More precisely, if is a bilinear map, where and are vector spaces, then there is a unique linear map such that for all and .

If are linear functionals on the vector spaces respectively, then there is a unique linear functional on such that

since the function

, ,

is bilinear.

Suppose that the finite sum , where and . If are linearly independent, then . For, in this case, there exist linear functionals such that . If is linear, we have

.

Thus for arbitrary and this shows that all the .

Similarly if the finite sum with the linearly independent, implies that all the are zero.

*Taken from C*-algebras and Operator Theory by Gerald Murphy.*

We prepare the way for the density theorem with some useful results on strong convergence.

## Theorem 4.3.1

*If is a Hilbert space, the involution is strongly continuous when restricted to the set of normal operators of .*

### Proof

Let and suppose that are normal operators in . Then

If is a net of normal operators strongly convergent to a normal operator , then the net is convergent to and the net is convergent to , so is convergent to . Therefore, is strongly convergent to

*Taken from C*-algebras and Operator Theory by Gerald Murphy.*

Preparatory to our introduction of the weak and ultraweak topologiesm we show now that is the dual of , and is the dual of .

Let be a Hilbert space, and suppose that . It follows from Theorem 2.4.16 (https://jpmccarthymaths.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/c-algebras-and-operator-theory-2-4-compact-hilbert-space-operators/) that the function

, ,

is linear and bounded, and . We therefore have a map

, ,

which is clearly linear and norm-decreasing. We call this map the *canonical map from to .*

## Theorem 4.2.1

*If is a Hilbert space, then the canonical map from to is an isometric linear isomorphism.*

## Recent Comments