4
$\begingroup$

Suppose we are given a C$^*$-algebra $A$ and a family of C$^*$-ideals $\mathfrak{I}$ that is upwards directed when ordered by reverse inclusion (i.e. for any $I_1,I_2\in\mathfrak{I}$ there exists a $J\in\mathfrak{I}$ such that $J\subseteq I_1\cap I_2$). Moreover the intersection $I_0=\bigcap_{I\in\mathfrak{I}} I$ is nonempty. To simplify the notation let's write $A_0$ for $A/I_0$ and $A_I$ for $A/I$. Furthermore we will write $p_I:A\twoheadrightarrow A_I$ and $\tilde{p}_I:A_0\twoheadrightarrow A_I$ for the natural quotient maps. Consider the inverse limit $\lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I$ of the $A_I$. This inverse limit can be defined by a universal property (see for instance the diagram here: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/InverseLimit.html, which we consider for C$^*$-algebras).

Concretely the inverse limit is given by \begin{equation} \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I = \{ (a_I)_I \in \prod_{I\in\mathfrak{I}} A_I \mid \sup\|a_I\|<\infty, p_{IJ}(a_J)=a_I \text{ if } J\subseteq I\} \end{equation} where $p_{IJ}$ is the natural quotient map $A_J\twoheadrightarrow A_I$ when $J\subseteq I$. My questions are the following:

(1) Is it true that $A_0\cong \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I$? It is easy to see that the map \begin{equation} P:A_0\rightarrow \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I: a\mapsto (\tilde{p}_I(a))_I \end{equation} is an injection. It seems logical that $A_0\cong \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I$, but I have not been able to show that the above map is surjective as well.

(2) Given any other C$^*$-algebra $B$, is it true that $B\otimes_{min}\lim\limits_{\leftarrow} A_I \cong \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} (B\otimes_{min} A_I)$? Maybe this is even true in general, but if not, it maybe is in this specific situation. Together with (1) this would imply that $B\otimes_{min} A_0 \cong \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} (B\otimes_{min} A_I)$. Again we have a canonical map \begin{equation} \Psi:B\otimes_{min} A_0\rightarrow \lim\limits_{\leftarrow} (B\otimes_{min} A_I): x\mapsto ((id\otimes\tilde{p}_I)(x))_I \end{equation} but I have not been able to prove that it is an isomorphism (assumed it really should be, which I am not sure of either).

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Concerning 1, yes. This is an example where abstract nonsense is the most useful: An inverse limit is a categorical limit in the category of $C^*$-algebras, and those are unique up to unique isomorphism. If you check that $A_0$ fulfills the universal property, that means automatically that $A_0 \cong \lim{A_I}$.

A proof goes like that: Assume there's a $C^*$-algebra $C$ and maps $f_I : C \rightarrow A_I$ such that $f_J = p_{IJ} \circ f_I$. You can define $f : C \rightarrow A_0$ by $f(x) := y$ for any $y$ such that $ \tilde{p}_I(y) = f_I(x)$. This is well-defined (since $\tilde{p}_I$ is surjective such a $y$ must exist and the directedness of the family of ideals guaranties that the choice of $y$ doesn't matter). It is also the only possible option under the conditions $\tilde{p}_I \circ f = f_I$, hence unique.

Concerning 2, this holds by the adjoint functor theorem iff the tensor product functor $B \otimes_{min} -$ has a left adjoint, i.e., there's a functor such that $\begin{equation} \text{hom}(C, B \otimes_{min} A) \cong \text{hom}(F(C), A). \end{equation}$ I do not have much experience with tensorproducts in $C^*$-algebras, but maybe you are aware of such a property. It is usually easier to find the left adjoint $F$ (which is unique up to natural isomorphism, if it exists) than to try to prove the limit preservation property directly.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Concerning 1: I don't see why the existence of such a $y$ is assured. We need that $\tilde{p}_I(y) = f_I(x)$ for all $I$ and the surjectivity of the individual $\tilde{p}_I$'s seems not enough to conclude that. On the other hand, if we fix an $I$, we can find $y$, but then it seems not necessary that $\tilde{p}_J(y) = f_J(x)$ for other $J$. Concerning 2: I'm quite new to the subject, so I'm not aware of such a result, but I'll have a look at it. $\endgroup$ – This Is Me Jul 28 '15 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ We have $f_J(x) = p_{IJ} \circ f_I (x) = p_{IJ} \circ \tilde{p}_I (y) = \tilde{p}_J (y)$, since $p_{IJ} \circ \tilde{p}_I = \tilde{p}_J$ for $J \subset I$. $\endgroup$ – Georg Lehner Jul 28 '15 at 10:42
  • $\begingroup$ But $p_{IJ}$ is a map from $A_J$ to $A_I$ if $J\subset I$, so in this case $p_{IJ}\circ\tilde{p}_J = \tilde{p}_I$ and we can only conclude that $p_{IJ}(\tilde{p}_J(y))=p_{IJ}(f_J(x))$. $\endgroup$ – This Is Me Jul 28 '15 at 12:23
  • $\begingroup$ The condition on the $f_I$ was that $f_J = p_{IJ} \circ f_I$. I should have been more clear, my apologies: The intuition is that for any candidate for a limit, $A_0$ is the best possible one, that means more precisely, for any other candidate $C$ there is a map $f : C \rightarrow A_0$ "commuting with everything in sight". Now, what does candidate for a limit mean? It's an object $C$ together with maps $f_I$ that "commute with every thing in sight". That's the condition I wrote here. $\endgroup$ – Georg Lehner Jul 28 '15 at 14:29

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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