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.

It seems something is going wrong with the preview I linked in some of my previous questions, so I will just type out the question. I am having trouble with Dixmier's proof of Corollary 5 on p. 46. That one states "Let $A$ be a Von Neumann Algebra, and $m$ a two-sided ideal of A, and $\bar m$ its weak closure. For each $T \in (\bar m)^+$ there exists an increasing [net] $F \subset m^+$ such that $T$ is the supremum of $F$." He then proves it as follows:

"Let $(T_i)_{i \in I}$ be a maximal family of non-zero operators of $m^+$ such that $\sum_{i \in J} T_i \leq T$ for every finite subset $J$ of $I$. The operators $\sum_{i \in J} T_i \leq T$ form an increasing [net in $m^+$] whose supremum $S$ is an element of $(\bar m )^+$ majorized by $T$. Let $R=T-S \in (\bar m)^+$. As $A \in m$ converges weakly to the greatest projection $E$ of $\bar m$, $R^{1/2}AR^{1/2}$ converges weakly to $R^{1/2}ER^{1/2}=R$; hence if $R \neq 0$, we have $R^{1/2}AR^{1/2}\neq 0$ for some $A \in m$, hence for some $A \in m^+$, such that $0 \leq A \leq I$. But we then have $R^{1/2}AR^{1/2}\leq R$, $R^{1/2}AR^{1/2} \in m^+$ and this contradicts the maximality of the family $(T_i)_{i \in I}$. Hence $R=0$."

Everything here is fine in my book until he speaks at the very end as if the $R^{1/2}AR^{1/2}$ he furnishes is not redundant with any of the $T_i$. That is where I don't understand why this proof works.

Another question I have is on the first page of Chapter 4. Let $A$ be a *-algebra of operators on $H$. He says that all positive linear functionals on $A$ $\phi$ (not necessarily norm continuous) turn out to be norm continuous, with norm $\phi(I)$ He argues for this using the following string of inequalities. I disagree with the second inequality:

$|\phi(T)|^2 \leq \phi(I)\phi(T^*T) \leq \phi(I)^2 ||T^*T||=\phi(I)^2||T||^2$.

Can you explain why the second inequality holds?

share|improve this question
    
The second inequality follows from the fact that $\phi(T^{\ast} T)$ is a spectral value of $T^{\ast} T$ and from the fact that the spectral radius is at most the norm. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jul 22 '12 at 1:33
    
The $\phi(I)$ is squared in the 3rd expression. I don't see why $\phi(T^*T)$ must belong to the spectrum of $T^*T$ –  Jeff Jul 22 '12 at 1:39
    
Ah, sorry, I made some extra assumptions about $\phi$. –  Qiaochu Yuan Jul 22 '12 at 2:10
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

As to the first part, the redundancy is not an issue, I think, because the initial family is allowed to have repetitions.

As to your second question, it is true in any C*-algebra, containing a positive element $A$ (i.e., $A=S^*S$ for some element $S$), that $A\leq \|A\|I$. Indeed, the identity function $z\mapsto z$ is smaller than the constant function $z\mapsto \|A\|$ on the spectrum of $A$. Thus the continuous functional calculus implies that $A\leq \|A\|I$.

Thus, if $\phi$ is a positive linear functional, it follows from the above inequality that $\phi(A)\leq \phi(I)\|A\|$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.