Timeline for Example of a ternary $C^{\ast}$-ring which is not an operator space
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
15 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
May 20, 2022 at 3:52 | vote | accept | Math Lover | ||
May 19, 2022 at 7:35 | vote | accept | Math Lover | ||
May 20, 2022 at 3:51 | |||||
Oct 30, 2021 at 21:39 | comment | added | Ruy | @MathLover, I don't think there is a meaningful linking C*-algebra for an anti-TRO $X$. If there was one, then that algebra would embedd into $B(H)$, and hence so would $X$, but we know $X$ cannot be represented in $B(H)$ (unless you are willing to disregard its ternary product). | |
Oct 30, 2021 at 1:19 | comment | added | Math Lover | @Ruy: Thank you very much for an informative answer. Do you any notion of “linking $C^*$-algebra” for Ternary $C^*$-rings like we have for TROs? Zettl’s $C^*$-algebra does not quite qualify to be “linking $C^*$-algebra” as two non isomorphic ternary $C^*$-rings also can have isomorphic $C^*$-algebras. | |
Oct 29, 2021 at 23:34 | history | edited | Ruy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
Oct 29, 2021 at 23:31 | comment | added | Ruy | @LSpice, the last paragraph in my latest edit might help one to see what is wrong with anti-TRO's. | |
Oct 29, 2021 at 23:29 | history | edited | Ruy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Added last paragraph
|
Oct 29, 2021 at 17:00 | comment | added | LSpice | Thanks! This definitely makes clear that you might obtain a new algebra from the old one in a particularly simple fashion. But is it clear that this new, different algebra does not embed in some new, different operator algebra? I think I must be misreading your description, because it seems to me that you are saying that every ternary $C^*$-ring does embed in an operator algebra in a particularly rigid way. | |
Oct 29, 2021 at 14:31 | comment | added | Ruy | @LSpice, I've edited my answer hopping to clarify my point. Indeed my original answer was a bit terse! | |
Oct 29, 2021 at 14:27 | history | edited | Ruy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Complete rewriting
|
Oct 29, 2021 at 11:51 | comment | added | LSpice | @WlodAA, thanks! I have deleted my wrong comments about parity. | |
Oct 29, 2021 at 2:27 | history | edited | LSpice | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Typo
|
Oct 29, 2021 at 2:26 | comment | added | LSpice | Is it clear that this does not embed in some (possibly different) operator algebra? Maybe this is what you mean by decomposing uniquely into a positive part and a negative part, but I don't know what that means. | |
Oct 28, 2021 at 23:31 | history | edited | Ruy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 258 characters in body
|
Oct 28, 2021 at 23:26 | history | answered | Ruy | CC BY-SA 4.0 |