MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

In their paper: "Addition of $C^*$-algebra extensions", G. A. Elliott and D. E. Handelman have discussed some relation between traces and equivalence of projections in $M(A)$, where $M(A)$ is the multiplier algebra of $A$. One result is the following:

2.4. COROLLARY. Let $A$ be a separable AF algebra, and let $e$ and $f$ be projections in $M(A)$. Suppose that neither $eAe$ nor $fAf$ has a nonzero unital quotient. The following two conditions are equivalent:

(i) $e$ is equivalent to $f$ in $M(A)$.

(iii) $\tau(e) = \tau(f)$ whenever $\tau$ is a semifinite lower semicontinllous trace on $A_{+}$.

In their paper, they did not give the definition of "non zero unital quotient". I can't find the definition in the literature. Do it mean that the quotient algebra is not unital? specially, when it is simple(has no ideal)? I don't know.

But I also learn the following result in the literature:

If $A$ is a separable nonunital matroid algebra(this is also a special AF algebras), then there always exist projections $p \in M(A)\backslash A$ and $q \in A$ such that $\tau(p) = \tau(q)$, p and q can not be equivalent. where $\tau$ is the (unique) trace of $A$.

Do we have some contradiction between the two results above? Since the matroid algebra is simple. Hope some help!

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted

It seems that "$A$ has a nonzero unital quotient" should mean: there exists a proper ideal $J$ of $A$ (possibly $J=0$) such that $A/J$ is unital. You would be correct to say that, if $A$ is nonunital and simple, then it has no nonzero unital quotient.

Elliott-Handelman's result does not contradict the second result that you cited, because in that case, $qAq$ is unital.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much! If that is the definition, then there is no problem, also no contradiction. But can you suggest me some reference about this concept? – Aviv Mar 10 '12 at 15:02
Although I can't offer a reference, I would justify the definition I gave based simply on the wording of "$A$ has a nonzero unital quotient". A quotient of $A$ is simply $A/J$ for some ideal $J$, and the quotient is nonzero so long as $J$ is a proper ideal. – Aaron Tikuisis Mar 10 '12 at 19:01
Some basic examples of classes of $C^∗$-algebras which have no nonzero unital quotients are: nonunital simple $C^∗$-algebras and stable $C^∗$-algebras (i.e. $C^∗$-algebras of the form $A \otimes \mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ denotes the algebra of compact operators of a separable Hilbert space). – Aaron Tikuisis Mar 10 '12 at 19:12
Oh, I am very sorry for my delay! Thank you very much, Aaron! I think I have understanded this concept by your interpretation. I see in another paper written by Prof. K. R. Goodearl.(I am sure you know which paper.) In his paper, Goodearl called this cencept for "no nonzero unital $C^*$-homomorphic images", and under some additional assumption, he generalized many results in Elliott-Handelman's paper. Thanks again! – Aviv Mar 18 '12 at 4:44

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.