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

(I asked this on math.stackexchange, without response).

Let $A$ be a C$^*$-algebra, concretely acting on a Hilbert space $H$. Suppose that $\xi_0\in H$ is cyclic and separating for $A$ (that is, the map $A\rightarrow H, a\mapsto a(\xi_0)$ is injective with dense range). Let $M=A''$ the von Neumann algebra generated by $A$.

Need $\xi_0$ still be separating for $M$? That is, $x\in M, x(\xi_0)=0 \implies x=0$?

It is standard (and easy to prove) that this is equivalent to $\xi_0$ be cyclic for $M'$. However, the usual proof breaks down, and does not show this to be equivalent to $\xi_0$ being separating for $A$.

I think I can prove this using left Hilbert algebras. We turn $\mathfrak A = \{ a(\xi_0) : a\in A \}$ into a left Hilbert algebra algebra in the obvious way. Then run the Tomita-Takesaki machinery (actually not needed in full generality as we start with a state, not a weight). Then the von Neumann algebra generated by $\mathfrak A$ is nothing but $M$, and so the general theory tells us that $\varphi(x) = \|x\xi_0\|$ will be a faithful weight on $M$, which is what we need. Actually, it's not at all clear to me that this is correct-- I don't see why the map $S:\mathfrak A \rightarrow \mathfrak A; a\xi_0 \mapsto a^*\xi_0$ is preclosed. So now I suspect there might be a counter-example...

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 10 down vote accepted

The answer is yes for trace vectors, but no in general. Take a closed nowhere dense subset $C\subset[0,1]$ with positive measure and consider the state $\phi$ on $C([0,1],M_2)$ defined by $$\phi(f)=\int_C f(x)_{11}\, dx + \int_{[0,1]\setminus C}\mathrm{tr}f(x)\,dx.$$ Here $f(x)_{11}$ is the $(1,1)$-entry of $f(x) \in M_2$. Then, $\phi$ is a faithful state, and the GNS vector is a cyclic separating vector. However it is not separating for the double commutant (which is $L^\infty([0,1],M_2)$).

share|improve this answer
I took the liberty of correcting the LaTeX. This looks good for me! Many thanks... –  Matthew Daws Apr 7 '12 at 6:33
add comment

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.