Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In this post, without further mention all C*-algebras are assumed to have an identity element and subalgebras inherit the identity.

Question: Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a C*-subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}$. Suppose that for every C*-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ containing $\mathcal{C}$ as a C*-subalgebra and every $\mathcal{C}$-bimodule map $\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$, $\|\phi\| = \|\phi\|_{cb}$. Does it follow that $\mathcal{C}$ is matricially norming for $\mathcal{B}$?

Definitions:

  • Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be C*-algebras and let $\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$ be a linear map. Define, for each $n\in\mathbb{N}$, $\phi_n:M_n(\mathcal{A})\to M_n(\mathcal{B})$ by $\phi_n((a_{ij}))=(\phi(a_{ij}))$. The cb norm of $\phi$ is defined by $\|\phi\|_{cb}=\sup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\|\phi_n\|$. (The "cb" stands for completely bounded, and $\phi$ is called completely bounded when its cb norm is finite.)

  • A C*-subalgebra $\mathcal{C}$ of a C*-algebra $\mathcal{B}$ is called matricially norming for $\mathcal{B}$ if for every $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and every $n$-by-$n$ matrix $(b_{ij})$ in the C*-algebra $M_n(\mathcal{B})$, $$\|(b_{ij})\|=\sup\left\{ \left\| \sum_{i,j=1}^n x_i b_{ij} y_j \right\|: x_i,y_j\in\mathcal{C}, \left\| \sum_{i=1}^n x_i x_i^* \right\|\leq1, \left\| \sum_{j=1}^n y_j^* y_j \right\|\leq1\right\}.$$

Remarks:

  • The matricially norming condition says that matrices over $\mathcal{B}$ are "normed" by contractive row and column matrices over $\mathcal{C}$. That is, for $B\in M_n(\mathcal{B})$, $\|B\|=\sup\|RBC\|$, where the sup is taken over all rows $R$ and columns $C$ of length $n$ of elements of $\mathcal{C}$ such that $\|RR^*\|\leq1$ and $\|C^*C\|\leq1$. (So that, for instance, it is readily seen that $\mathbb{C}$ is matricially norming for $\mathbb{C}$.) Sometimes just "norming" is used instead of "matricially norming", but I am using the more descriptive term found in Paulsen's book.

  • The converse to the question holds. That is, if $\mathcal{C}$ is a matricialy norming C*-subalgebra of $\mathcal{B}$, then for every C*-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ containing $\mathcal{C}$ as a C*-subalgebra and every $\mathcal{C}$-bimodule map $\phi:\mathcal{A}\to\mathcal{B}$, $\|\phi\| = \|\phi\|_{cb}$. This is what inspired the question, brought to me by a fellow graduate student after we had studied chapter 8 in Paulsen's book.

  • The subalgebra of scalars is matricially norming for a commutative C*-algebra, so if there is a counterexample it is with a noncommutative $\mathcal{B}$.

  • I believe that results in this paper by Smith can be used to show that there is no counterexample when $\mathcal{C}=\mathbb{C}$. It is shown there that if all bounded linear maps from all C*-algebras into $\mathcal{B}$ are completely bounded, then $\mathcal{B}$ must be isomorphic to a subalgebra of $M_n(C(X))$ for some $n\in\mathbb{N}$ and some compact Hausdorff space $X$. But then if $\mathcal{B}$ is noncommutative, the transpose map should give an example of a map whose cb norm is bigger than its operator norm.

  • For more on matricially norming C*-subalgebras, the paper by Pop, Sinclair, and Smith is a good place to start.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

Dear Jonas, My colleague Bill Johnson has drawn this to my attention. Your question has a positive answer after noting that a $C$-bimodule map lifts to a $C\otimes M_n$-bimodule map on $A\otimes M_n$ If $X$ is an $n\times n$ matrix over $A$ of norm 1 then for any row and column contractions $R$, $C$ over $C$ we have $$\|\phi_n(X)\|=sup\{\|R\phi_n(X)C\|: \|R\|,\|C\|\leq 1\} =sup\{\|\phi(RXC)\|: \|R\|,\|C\|\leq 1\} \leq \|\phi\|$$ showing that $\|\phi_n\|\leq \|\phi\|. Of course, the reverse inequality holds and we have proved that the norm and cb-norm coincide. Best of luck with your studies, Roger Smith

Sorry, I (mis)read your question rather quickly so the answer above is not an answer at all. Will think about it.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for thinking about it! –  Jonas Meyer Feb 19 '10 at 17:22

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.