Skip to main content
16 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Feb 8 at 13:22 comment added Emil Jeřábek @YCor Obliged. $ $
Feb 8 at 12:23 answer added Mohammad Golshani timeline score: 2
May 8, 2020 at 14:45 comment added YCor @LSpice "Stone-Cech corona" yields 20 times less Google occurences than "Stone-Cech remainder". One advantage of "Stone-Cech remainder" is that you can guess the meaning assuming that you know what "Stone-Cech compactification" is. I've actually encountered "corona" never in the meaning of this Wikipedia page (to which I'd recommend renaming), but in generalizations such such as the Higson-Roe corona, or binary corona of a metric space.
May 8, 2020 at 14:36 comment added LSpice Although it's maybe less palatable these days, I think that the usual terminology for what you call the "Stone–Čech remainder" is the corona.
Feb 25, 2020 at 19:04 comment added Nik Weaver Ah, I was mistaken as well --- as you seem to have guessed, I read "${\rm Aut}(S_\omega/{\rm fin})$" as "${\rm Aut}(P(\omega)/{\rm fin})$".
Feb 25, 2020 at 17:17 comment added YCor @NikWeaver oops, sorry, actually $\mathrm{Aut}_{\mathrm{grp}}(S_\omega/\mathrm{fin})$ has cardinal $c$, not $2^c$ (which is not trivial by the way – Alperin-Covington-MacPherson/Truss). So my "immediate" argument fails in any case. Whether $\mathrm{Aut}_{\mathrm{BA}}(2^\omega/\mathrm{fin})$ embeds into $\mathrm{Aut}$(Calkin), I would have expected it too but without serious grounds. Sorry again!
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:58 comment added Nik Weaver Is that why everyone has heard of Ilias's direction and no one has heard of mine? Because they assume my direction was trivial? Yikes.
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:55 comment added Nik Weaver (Look again at whether ${\rm Aut}(S_\omega/{\rm fin})$ embeds in ${\rm Aut}(Q(l^2))$.)
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:54 comment added Nik Weaver No, it's a lot harder for the Calkin algebra. Phillips and Weaver, The Calkin algebra has outer automorphisms, Duke Math. J. 139 (2007), 185–202.
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:46 comment added YCor @NikWeaver But isn't existence of nontrivial outer automorphisms immediate from Rudin? Rudin proved under CH that $|\mathrm{Aut}(S_\omega/\mathrm{fin})|=2^c$. It immediately implies (since $\mathrm{Aut}(S_\omega/\mathrm{fin})$ embeds into $\mathrm{Aut}$(Calkin)) that $\mathrm{Aut}$(Calkin) has the same cardinality (and hence has Out of the same cardinality, since $\mathrm{Inn}$(Calkin) has cardinal $c$).
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:43 comment added Nik Weaver Yes ... I'm aware of Ilias's paper. It followed a paper by Chris Phillips and me where we showed that CH implies outer automorphisms exist. Our techniques wouldn't be helpful for this problem though.
Feb 25, 2020 at 15:40 comment added YCor @NikWeaver Nice question. Farah has results in this direction. For instance (Ann. Math. 2011 link) he proved the consistency of ZFC + all automorphisms are inner. In such a (quite exotic) model, they're non-conjugate since the Fredholm index distinguishes them. I don't know whether CH implies they're conjugate (if true this might be easier than the set-theoretic counterpart).
Feb 25, 2020 at 14:29 comment added Nik Weaver YCor, have you looked at the analogous C*-algebra question: are the unilateral shift and its adjoint related by an automorphism of the Calkin algebra? Will Brian lists several facts about $\beta\omega\setminus\omega$ whose Calkin algebra analogues aren't familiar to me (but maybe experts would know better).
Feb 18, 2020 at 16:20 answer added Will Brian timeline score: 16
Feb 18, 2020 at 15:49 history edited Martin Sleziak
added the (stone-cech-compactification) tag; if you don't consider it a good fit for the question, feel free to remove it
Feb 18, 2020 at 15:42 history asked YCor CC BY-SA 4.0