MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

A $\star$-ring is a ring with an involutive anti-automorphism. The simplest example of a noncommutative $\star$-ring is perhaps $B(l^2)$, the ring of bounded linear functions on the sequence space $l^2$. (This ring is in fact a C$\star$-algebra.)

Is there a characterization of the commutative $\star$-subrings of $B(l^2)$?

share|cite|improve this question
thank you Ricky. There really some trouble with formatting the stars. – Colin Tan Aug 14 '11 at 5:11
(2-by-2 matrices seems simpler than $B(\ell^2)$.) You want no additional structure beyond being commutative $\star$-subrings? That is, you don't require them to be algebras (closed under scalar multiplication), and you don't require them to be closed in any topology? – Jonas Meyer Aug 14 '11 at 5:29
You can note is that any abelian $*$-sub-ring of $B(\ell^2)$ will be contained in a unital abelian $C^*$-algebra and so will be a $*$-subring of the ring of continuous complex-valued functions on a compact topological space. So your question reduces to finding a characterization of such $*$-rings -- I am not sure if there is an algebraic one. One positive thing that can be said is that the maximal abelian $*$-subalgebras of $B(\ell^2)$ can be completely understood; they are obtained by choosing an isomorphism $\ell^2\cong L^2(X,\mu)$ and considering $L^\infty(X,\mu)\subset B(L^2(X,\mu))$. – Dima Shlyakhtenko Aug 14 '11 at 5:29
In light of Dima Shlyakhtenko's comment, I suggest that the title be changed to reflect the fact that $B(\ell^2)$ is superfluous. – Yemon Choi Aug 14 '11 at 6:54
Downvoting since I increasingly feel that the question should have had more thought put into it (see my previous comment) – Yemon Choi Aug 26 '11 at 8:35

A unital $*$-ring $A$ (commutative or not) is a subring of $B(H)$ if and only if for each $a \in A$, there exists a linear functional $\varphi \colon A \to \mathbb R$, such that

1) $\varphi(1)=1$ and $\varphi(b^*b) \geq 0$, for all $b \in A$,

2) For all $b \in R$, there exists a constant $C(b)$ (not depending on $\varphi$), such that for all $c \in R$ $$\varphi(c^*b^*bc) \leq C(b) \cdot \varphi(c^*c),$$

3) $\varphi(a) \neq 0$.

In principle, this a condition on the cone of sums of hermitean squares $\Sigma^2 A$ inside $A$. For example, you clearly need $\Sigma^2 A \cap (- \Sigma^2 A) = \{0\}$. However, in practice it is difficult to check directly whether $A$ satisfies this property or not.

share|cite|improve this answer
Are things noticeably simpler in the commutative case? – Yemon Choi Aug 26 '11 at 8:35
In concrete commutative cases, one can sometimes describe the cone of sums of squares. In general, commutativity does not help as far as I can see. – Andreas Thom Aug 26 '11 at 17:02

Let $A$ be a (say finitely generated, unital) commutative complex $\star$-subalgebra of $B(H)$. Then, the self-adjoint elements form a real subalgebra $B:=A_h \subset A$, such that $B[i] = A$. Moroever, in $B$, we have $$a_1^2 + \cdots a_n^2 =0 \quad \Rightarrow \quad a_1= \cdots=a_n =0,\quad \forall n.$$

The second condition is sometimes called real-reduced. (It implies in particular, that there are no nilpotent elements, hence the terminology.) I claim that these two conditions are also sufficient.

Theorem: Let $B$ be any finitely generated, unital, real and real-reduced algebra (with trivial involution). Then, $B[i]$ (with the obvious conjugate-linear involution) is a $\star$-subalgebra of $B(H)$.

Sketch of proof: The $\mathbb R$-points of $B$ form a closed real-algebraic variety, contained in $\mathbb R^n$ for some $n$. We may pick a bounded subset $X \subset \mathbb R^n$ and find $B[i] \subset C(X,\mathbb C) \subset B(L^2(X,\mu))$, for some suitable measure on $X$. q.e.d.

Finite generation of $B$ is necessary to give an easy characterization. Indeed, if $\bf R$ is some proper real closed extension of $\mathbb R$, then $B=\bf R$ is real-reduced, but ${\bf R} \not \subset B(H)$ by Mazur's theorem, which says that every subfield of $B(H)$ is either $\mathbb R$ or $\mathbb C$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.