Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Link
YCor
YCor
  • 63.9k
  • 5
  • 187
  • 286
deleted 1 character in body; edited title
Source Link
condexp
condexp
  • 159
  • 4

Why are ultraweak *-homomorphisms the `right' morphisms for von Neumann algebras (and say, not ultra-strongultrastrong)?

Both the ultraweak and ultrastrong topologies are intrinsic topologies in the sense that the image of a continuous (unital) $*$-homomorphism between von Neumann algebras (in either topology) is a von Neumann subalgebra of the target von Neumann algebra, unlike say just norm-continuous $*$-homomorphisms. One may then speak of the category of von Neumann algebras with morphisms as ultra-strongultrastrong $*$-homomorphisms.

Why do we predominantly think of the ultraweak topology as the intrinsic one when presumably there could be many more topologies that are intrinsic in the above sense? I understand that the ultraweak topology is the weak-topology coming from the pre-dual and hence quite natural to study. But is there a guiding logical or category-theoretic principle that tells us to make this choice?

Thank you.

Why are ultraweak *-homomorphisms the `right' morphisms for von Neumann algebras (and say, not ultra-strong)?

Both the ultraweak and ultrastrong topologies are intrinsic topologies in the sense that the image of a continuous (unital) $*$-homomorphism between von Neumann algebras (in either topology) is a von Neumann subalgebra of the target von Neumann algebra, unlike say just norm-continuous $*$-homomorphisms. One may then speak of the category of von Neumann algebras with morphisms as ultra-strong $*$-homomorphisms.

Why do we predominantly think of the ultraweak topology as the intrinsic one when presumably there could be many more topologies that are intrinsic in the above sense? I understand that the ultraweak topology is the weak-topology coming from the pre-dual and hence quite natural to study. But is there a guiding logical or category-theoretic principle that tells us to make this choice?

Thank you.

Why are ultraweak *-homomorphisms the `right' morphisms for von Neumann algebras (and say, not ultrastrong)?

Both the ultraweak and ultrastrong topologies are intrinsic topologies in the sense that the image of a continuous (unital) $*$-homomorphism between von Neumann algebras (in either topology) is a von Neumann subalgebra of the target von Neumann algebra, unlike say just norm-continuous $*$-homomorphisms. One may then speak of the category of von Neumann algebras with morphisms as ultrastrong $*$-homomorphisms.

Why do we predominantly think of the ultraweak topology as the intrinsic one when presumably there could be many more topologies that are intrinsic in the above sense? I understand that the ultraweak topology is the weak-topology coming from the pre-dual and hence quite natural to study. But is there a guiding logical or category-theoretic principle that tells us to make this choice?

Thank you.

Source Link
condexp
condexp
  • 159
  • 4

Why are ultraweak *-homomorphisms the `right' morphisms for von Neumann algebras (and say, not ultra-strong)?

Both the ultraweak and ultrastrong topologies are intrinsic topologies in the sense that the image of a continuous (unital) $*$-homomorphism between von Neumann algebras (in either topology) is a von Neumann subalgebra of the target von Neumann algebra, unlike say just norm-continuous $*$-homomorphisms. One may then speak of the category of von Neumann algebras with morphisms as ultra-strong $*$-homomorphisms.

Why do we predominantly think of the ultraweak topology as the intrinsic one when presumably there could be many more topologies that are intrinsic in the above sense? I understand that the ultraweak topology is the weak-topology coming from the pre-dual and hence quite natural to study. But is there a guiding logical or category-theoretic principle that tells us to make this choice?

Thank you.