4
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ and $B$ be $C^*$-algebras and consider a $*$-homomorphism $\varphi: A \to B$. Then the biduals $A^{**}$ and $B^{**}$ carry natural $C^*$-structures (coming from the enveloping von Neumann algebra) so that the map $$\varphi^{**}: A^{**}\to B^{**}$$ is again a $*$-morphism.

If $\varphi$ is isometric (i.e. injective), it is easily verified (using general properties of adjoint maps on normed spaces) that $\varphi^{**}: A^{**}\to B^{**}$ is again isometric.

I'm now wondering if surjectivity of $\varphi$ implies surjectivity of $\varphi^{**}$.

We can't use the straightforward route: we have $\varphi$ surjective $\implies $ $\varphi^*$ injective but this does not allow us to conclude that $\varphi^{**}$ is surjective. I'm starting to think there may be a counterexample!

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

6
$\begingroup$

The map $\phi^{\ast\ast}$ is indeed surjective. First note that the image of $\phi^{\ast\ast}$ contains $B$, which is weak$^\ast$ dense in $B^{\ast\ast}$ by Goldstine's theorem. Moreover, as $\phi^{\ast\ast}$ is weak$^\ast$ continuous, its image is weak$^\ast$ closed by Proposition 1.16.2 of Sakai's $C^\ast$-Algebras and $W^\ast$-algebras. Thus it must equal $B^{\ast\ast}$.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Ah nice! I didn't know a W*-homomorphism has closed image! $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 7:47
4
$\begingroup$

Generally, let $A$,$B$ be Banach spaces and $T:A\to B$ be a bounded linear operator. If $T(A)$ is norm-closed in $B$, then

  1. $T$ is surjective $\Leftrightarrow T^*$ is injective.
  2. $T$ is injective $\Leftrightarrow T^*$ is surjective.

Thus, $\phi$ is surjective iff $\phi^{**}$ is surjective.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ Ok: $\phi$ is surjective implies $\phi^*$ is injective. But why does $\phi^*$ have closed range so that we can go further and deduce that $\phi^{**}$ is surjective. $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ If one of the operators $T, T^*, T^{**}$ has closed range, so do the other two. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Jan 21, 2022 at 12:46
  • $\begingroup$ Ok Why does $T$ have closed range imply that $T^*$ has closed range? A proof sketch is ok to me. $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 12:54
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ $(\ker{T})^{\perp}\supseteq T^{*}(B^{*})$ must be clear. On the other side, $f\in (\ker{T})^{\perp} \Leftrightarrow\ker{T}\subseteq\ker{f} \Leftrightarrow f = gT$ for some linear $g:T(A)\to\mathbb{C}$. Since $T(A)$ is closed, then $g$ is continuous, so $g$ has an extension to $B$ by Hahn-Banach theorem. Thus $f=T^{*}g\in T^{*}(B^{*})$. Consequently, $(\ker{T})^{\perp} = T^{*}(B^{*})$. Clearly $(\ker{T})^{\perp}$ is closed. $\endgroup$
    – Onur Oktay
    Jan 21, 2022 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ Alright! Thanks for sharing! Your solution is definitely the most elementary one! $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 15:56
1
$\begingroup$

For completeness of the post and as a small adition to MaoWao's excellent answer, I would like to include an argument for the proof that if $M,N$ are von Neumann algebras and $\phi:M\to N$ is a w$^*$-continuous $^*$-homomorphism, then $\phi(M)$ is $w^*$-closed. The proof below is in the same spirit as the one in Sakai's book.

Note that we can assume without loss of generality that $\phi$ is injective. For that, one needs to observe that $I:=\ker(\phi)$ is a $w^*$-closed ideal and consider the quotient $M/I$, which is also a von Neumann algebra$^{\text{note1}}$. Now the map $\psi:M/I\to N$ defined by $\psi(x+I)=\phi(x)$ is a well-defined, injective $*$-homomorphism that is $w^*$-continuous$^{\text{note2}}$ and $\psi(M/I)=\phi(M)$.

So assume that $\phi$ is also injective. As a $*$-homomorphism between $C^*$-algebras, $\phi$ is isometric. Let $y\in(\overline{\phi(M)}^{w^*})_{sa}$ with $\|y\|=1$. By Kaplansky's density theorem we can find a net $(x_i)\subset M$ with $\|\phi(x_i)\|\le1$ for all $i$ such that $\phi(x_i)\to y$ ultraweakly. But then $\|x_i\|=\|\phi(x_i)\|\le1$, so $(x_i)$ is a net in the closed unit ball of $M$, which is $w^*$-compact (by Banach-Alaoglu). Thus there exists a subnet $(x_{i_j})$ and some $x\in M$ with $x_{i_j}\to x$ ultraweakly. But then $\phi(x_{i_j})\to y$ and $\phi(x_{i_j})\to\phi(x)$. Uniqueness of the ultraweak limit yields $y=\phi(x)$. As $\overline{\phi(M)}^{w^*}$ is a $C^*$-algebra it is spanned by its self-adjoint elements of norm $1$ which we already proved that are included in $\phi(M)$, hence $\overline{\phi(M)}^{w^*}\subset\phi(M)$ as we wanted.

  • note 1: one actually shows that if $I$ is a $w^*$-closed ideal then there exists a projection $e\in Z(M)$ such that $I=eM=eMe$ and thus the map $x+I\mapsto(1-e)x(1-e)$ gives an isomorphism $M/I\cong (1-e)M(1-e)$, which is a von Neumann algebra as a corner of $M$. Note also that since $e\in Z(M)$ we have $(1-e)x(1-e)=(1-e)x=x(1-e)$ for all $x\in M$.

  • note 2: let $x_i+I\to x+I$ in $M/I$ ultraweakly. Transfer everything through the above isomorphism to $(1-e)M(1-e)$, so $(1-e)x_i(1-e)\to(1-e)x(1-e)$ ultraweakly. Apply $\phi$ which is known to be $w^*$-continuous to get $\phi(x_i(1-e))\to\phi(x(1-e))$. But $\phi(x_ie)=0=\phi(xe)$, so we have $\phi(x_i)\to\phi(x)$ ultraweakly.

$\endgroup$
11
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't this more difficult than Sakai's proof? $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Andromeda Because I'm using Kaplansky's theorem? Isn't such an argument implied in Sakai's proof when he says that the image of the unit ball is the unit ball of the range? Besides that everything else is the same but in different presentation I think $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2022 at 10:36
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know, I still have to go in detail through Sakai's proof. $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 10:38
  • $\begingroup$ @Andromeda I think my answer is basically the details to Sakai's proof but if something I use is unnecessary let me know and I will edit my post $\endgroup$ Jan 21, 2022 at 10:45
  • $\begingroup$ Sure, I'll get back to you soon! $\endgroup$
    – Andromeda
    Jan 21, 2022 at 10:46

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .