# A question about pure state

For every unit vector $x$ in a Hilbert space $H$,let $F_x$ be the linear functional on $\mathcal B(H)$ (bounded linear operators) defined by $F_x(T)=(Tx,x)$. Prove that each $F_x$ is pure state and $\mathcal B(H)$ has pure states which are not like this.

-
How are pure states defined in your textbook? – Raskolnikov Nov 1 '11 at 11:20
It is a extreme point of state space. – Strongart Nov 2 '11 at 10:54

Consider an orthonormal basis $\{x_j\}$ of $H$ with $x_1=x$, and consider $\{E_{kj}\}$ the corresponding matrix units (we don't really need matrix units, just the projection onto the span of $x$, but it might help understand). Assume that you can write $F_x=\alpha f + (1-\alpha)g$, for some $\alpha\in[0,1]$ and states $f,g$. Then, since $0\leq E_{11}\leq I$, $$1=\langle e_{11}x,x\rangle = F_x(E_{11})=\alpha f(E_{11}) + (1-\alpha) g(E_{11})\leq \alpha+1-\alpha = 1.$$ So $\alpha f(E_{11}) + (1-\alpha) g(E_{11})=1$. But as $f(E_{11})\leq1$, $g(E_{11})\leq1$, we conclude that $f(E_{11})=g(E_{11})=1$. In particular, $f(I-E_{11})=0$. Then, for any $T\in B(H)$, $$0\leq|f(T(I-E_{11}))|\leq f(T^*T)^{1/2} f((I-E_{11})^2)^{1/2}=f(T^*T)^{1/2}f(I-E_{11})^{1/2}=0.$$ Thus $f(T)=f(T\,E_{11})$ for all $T$. Taking adjoints, $f(T)=f(E_{11}T)$. But then $f(T)=f(TE_{11})=f(E_{11}TE_{11})$. As $E_{11}TE_{11}=\langle Tx,x\rangle\,E_{11}=F_x(T)E_{11}$, $$f(T)=f(E_{11}TE_{11})=F_x(T)\,f(E_{11})=F_x(T).$$ Similarly with $g$, so $F_x$ is an extreme point.
Let $\pi_0:B(H)\to B(H)/K(H)$ be the quotient map onto the Calkin algebra $C(H)$. Let $\pi_1:C(H)\to B(K)$ be an irreducible representation of $C(H)$. Then $$\pi=\pi_1\circ\pi_0:B(H)\to B(K)$$ is an irreducible representation. Using the correspondence between irreps and pure states, there exists a pure state $\varphi$ on $B(H)$ such that its GNS representation is unitarily equivalent to $\pi$. But this tells us that $\varphi(T)=0$ for all $T\in K(H)$, and so $\varphi$ cannot be a point state.
In the final paragraph, I'm worried that to get all states, you'd want to take weak$^*$ limits in $\mathcal{B}(H)^*$, and that there is no reason why this should preserve normality? Or did I make a mistake? – Matthew Daws Mar 28 '12 at 13:25