Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Given a discrete group $G$ and a $G$-$C^*$-algebra $A$ we can form the reduced crossed product $A\rtimes_r G$. I want to define it by the closure of $C_c(G,A)$ in $\mathcal{B}(\ell^2(G,A)$ where this inclusion is given by the twisted left regular representation. Does anyone know a reference whether this is functorial in the $C^*$-algebra? It is in generally not in the group variable. Any ideas are appreciated.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

Take a look at these notes from the Lisboa Summer School Course on Crossed Product C*-Algebras written by N. Christopher Phillips, available here. The following is taken from there.

Let $G$ be a locally compact group. A C$^*$-algebra $A$ equipped with an action $G \to Aut(A)$ will be called a $G$-algebra. We sometimes refer to $(G,A,\alpha)$ as a $G$-algebra.

Definition

If $(G,A,α)$ and $(G,B,β)$ are $G$-algebras, then a homomorphism $\phi: A \to B$ is said to be equivariant (or G-equivariant if the group must be specified)if for every $g\in G$, we have $$ \phi \circ \alpha_g =\beta_g \circ \phi. $$ For a fixed locally compact group G, the G-algebras and equivariant homomorphisms form a category.

The crossed product construction is functorial for equivariant homomorphisms

Theorem

Let G be a locally compact group. If (G,A,α) and (G,B,β) are G-algebras and φ: A → B is an equivariant homomorphism, then there is a homomorphism $\psi: C_c(G,A,α) → C_c(G,B,β)$ given by the formula $ψ(a)(g) = φ(a(g))$ for $a \in C_c(G,A,α)$ and $g \in G$, and this homomorphism extends by continuity to a homomorphism $L_1(G,A,α) \to L1(G,B,β)$, and then to homomorphisms $$ C^∗(G,A,α) → C^∗(G,B,β)\ and\ C_r^∗(G,A,α) → C_r^∗(G,B,β). $$

This construction makes the crossed product and reduced crossed product constructions functors from the category of G-algebras to the category of C*-algebras.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. They seem to be working with a different definition, which I wanted to avoid, and I do not yet really understand their argument and how it translates to my case. –  mland May 20 '12 at 8:11

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.