The Gelfand-Neumark theorem for commutative von Neumann algebras states that the following three categories are equivalent: (1) The opposite category of the category of commutative von Neumann algebras; (2) The category of hyperstonean spaces and hyperstonean maps; (3) The category of localizable measurable spaces and measurable maps.

[Apparently one more equivalent category can be defined using the language of locales. Unfortunately, I am not familiar enough with this language to state this variant here. Any help on this matter will be appreciated.]

While its more famous version for commutative unital C*-algebras is extensively covered in the literature, I was unable to find any complete references for this particular variant.

The equivalence between (1) and (2) follows from the Gelfand-Neumark theorem for commutative C*-algebras via restriction to the subcategory of von Neumann algebras and their morphisms (σ-weakly continuous morphisms of unital C*-algebras).

Takesaki in his Theory of Operator Algebras I, Theorem III.1.18, proves that compact Hausdorff spaces corresponding to von Neumann algebras are precisely hyperstonean spaces (extremally disconnected compact Hausdorff spaces that admit sufficiently many positive normal measures). Is there a purely topological characterization of the last condition (existence of sufficiently many positive normal measures)? Of course we can require that every meagre set is nowhere dense, but this is not enough.

I was unable to find anything about morphisms of hyperstonean spaces in Takesaki's book or anywhere else. The only definition of hyperstonean morphism that I know is a continuous map between hyperstonean spaces such that the map between corresponding von Neumann algebras is σ-weakly continuous. Is there a purely topological characterization of hyperstonean morphisms? I suspect that it is enough to require that the preimage of every nowhere dense set is nowhere dense. Is this true?

To pass from (2) to (3) we take symmetric differences of open-closed sets and nowhere dense sets as measurable subsets and nowhere dense sets as null subsets. Is there any explicit way to pass from (3) to (2) avoiding any kind of spectrum construction (Gelfand, Stone, etc.)?

Any references that cover the above theorem partially or fully and/or answer any of the three questions above will be highly appreciated.

think, anyway). – Matthew Daws May 4 '10 at 8:14