The algebras I'm working with are defined as follows

Let $\mathcal{H}$ be a Hilbert space of finite dimension and denote by $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$ the bounded operators on $\mathcal{H}$. A matrix algebra $\mathcal{M}$ is a *-subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H})$.

Am I correct in saying that these are exactly the finite-dimensional von Neumann-algebras?

I need to prove the following:

The set of minimal projections in a commutative matrix algebra $\mathcal{M}$ is a finite set $\{p_1,\dots,p_k \}$ of pairwise orthogonal projections.

Note that I am working with the following definitions:

A projection $p$ is called minimal if there are no non-zero projections $q$ such that $q < p$, where $q < p$ means $q \mathcal{H} \subset p \mathcal{H}$ (strictly) and $\leq$ is defined similarly.

My proof is as follows. First I show that $\mathcal{M}$ contains minimal projections. Since $\mathcal{M}$ is finite-dimensional, we define $rank(p) = \dim p \mathcal{H}$. Because for any $p$ this is a finite number, we can either find $q \in \mathcal{M}$ such that $q < p$ or $p$ is minimal. Since $\mathcal{M}$ contains a unit, we know that $\mathcal{M}$ also has minimal projections. Now let $p$ and $q$ be two minimal projections. Because $\mathcal{M}$ is commutative, $pq$ is also a projection and $pq \leq p$ and $qp \leq q$. Because $p$ and $q$ are minimal, we then have that either $pq = 0$ or $p=(pq=qp=)q$, so $p$ and $q$ are orthogonal. I still need to show that there are only finitely many and intuitively, this seems natural because of the orthogonality and the finite-dimensionality of $\mathcal{M}$, but I can't seem to put my finger on the exact argument.

My question is this: The way I show that there are minimal projections in $\mathcal{M}$, is that correct? Because I know that there are von Neumann-algebras without minimal projections, but then, I think, you should be able to costruct an infinite sequence $(p_1,\dots)$ so that $p_{i+1} \leq p_i$, otherwise there would be a minimal projection. This is probably way beyond what I'm capable of, but is this true?


Yes, the finite-dimensional von Neumann algebras, the finite-dimensional C$^*$-algebras, and the finite-dimensional $*$-algebras are exactly the same.

Your argument is correct, but there is no need to use the inclusion $\mathcal M\subset B(\mathcal H)$. Simply if $\mathcal M$ has no minimal projections, you would have a strict sequence $p_1\geq p_2\geq\cdots$ Now take $p_1-p_2, p_2-p_3, p_3-p_4,\ldots $ and show that they are linearly independent.

Then you need to show that there is a maximal family of pairwise orthogonal minimal projections. Because $\mathcal M$ is finite, this is trivial: keep adding new orthogonal minimal projections until you run out of space.

And then you show that the sum of a maximal family of minimal projections is the identity: if such sum is $p$ and $I-p\ne0$, then there is a minimal projection $q\leq I-p$, contradicting the maximality.

  • $\begingroup$ Do you maybe have a hint how to show the linear independence? I can't seem to find it. $\endgroup$ – user353840 Aug 2 '18 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ It's a sequence of pairwise orthogonal projections, so what you need to show is that such a sequence is linearly independent. If that's still not obvious to you, try to show that pairwise orthogonal projections in, say, $\mathbb C^3$ are linearly independent. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Aug 2 '18 at 21:16
  • $\begingroup$ But I find that $(p_1-p_2)^2 = p_1 + p_2 - 2p_1p_2$, so even if I assume they commute, they are not even projections. What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – user353840 Aug 2 '18 at 21:44
  • $\begingroup$ That $p_2\leq p_1$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Aug 2 '18 at 22:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No thanks. I don't use chat. $\endgroup$ – Martin Argerami Aug 3 '18 at 15:11

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.