4
$\begingroup$

Let $R$ be the hyperfinite $II_1$ factor and let $X$ be any $R$-$R$-bimodule.

Question: Is $X$ completely reducible (i.e. a direct integral of irreducible $R$-$R$-bimodules)?

Example: If $(N \subset M)$ is an irreducible, finite depth and finite index (hyperfinite $II_1$) subfactor, then $_NL^{2}(M)_N$ is completely reducible.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You will need direct intgerals. $\endgroup$
    – Marc Palm
    Nov 25, 2013 at 10:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your example $_NL^2M_N$ has finite statistical dimension and is therefore completely reducible. $\endgroup$
    – André Henriques
    Nov 25, 2013 at 16:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's certainly well known. I don't know the original reference, but it appears as Lemma 4.10 of my paper arxiv.org/pdf/1110.5671v1.pdf $\endgroup$
    – André Henriques
    Nov 25, 2013 at 19:29
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, this is proven in my paper. The relevant definitions and propositions are: Definition 5.1, Definition 5.10, Warning 5.11, Lemma 5.16, Proposition 7.5, and Corollary 7.14. $\endgroup$
    – André Henriques
    Nov 25, 2013 at 20:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $_NL^2M_N = _NL^2M\boxtimes_M L^2M_N$. $\endgroup$
    – André Henriques
    Nov 25, 2013 at 22:29

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

Let $_RM_R:={}_R(L^2R\otimes_{\mathbb C} L^2R)_R$, where the first $R$ acts on the first $L^2R$ and the second $R$ acts on the second $L^2R$. Its algebra of $R$-$R$-bimodule endomorphisms is $R^{\mathrm{op}}\,\bar\otimes\, R$.

Using (misleading!) intuition from the representation theory of separable $C^*$-algebras, one might guess that every MASA in $R^{\mathrm{op}}\bar\otimes R$ gives rise to a direct integral decomposition of $_RM_R$ into irreducible $R$-$R$-bimodules. But that is not true. There is no way of writing $_RM_R$ as a direct integral of irreducible bimodules.

Indeed, suppose that ${}_R(M_x)_R$, $x\in X$, are irreducible bimodules, and that $\int^\oplus_{x\in X} {}_R(M_x)_R dx$ is an $R$-$R$-bimodule that is isomorphic to $_RM_R$. Then for every $M_x$, the left and right actions of $R$ induce an action of $R\,\bar\otimes\, R^{\mathrm{op}}$ on $M_x$. But $R\,\bar\otimes\, R^{\mathrm{op}}$ is type $II$ and does not admit irreducible representations. Contradiction.

My argument above is not valid. Nevertheless, I still maintain that there is no way of writing $_RM_R$ as a direct integral of irreducible bimodules.

Here is where my intuition comes from:

Let $R_1$ and $R_2$ be two factors such that one type II (or III) while the other is of type I.
Let $_{R_1}M_{R_2}:={}_{R_1}(L^2{R_1}\otimes_{\mathbb C} L^2{R_2})_{R_2}$, where the first $R_1$ acts on the first $L^2R_1$ and the second $R_2$ acts on the second $L^2R_2$. Its algebra of bimodule endomorphisms is $R_1^{\mathrm{op}}\,\bar\otimes\, R_2$.

Using (misleading!) intuition from the representation theory of separable $C^*$-algebras, one might guess that every MASA in $R_1^{\mathrm{op}}\bar\otimes R_2$ gives rise to a direct integral decomposition of $_{R_1}M_{R_2}$ into irreducible $R_1$-$R_2$-bimodules. But that is not true. There is no way of writing $M$ as a direct integral of irreducible bimodules as... there are no irreducible $R_1$-$R_2$-bimodules!

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Andre, I trust you about $_RM_R$, but if your argument is not valid, how do you know that $_RM_R$ is not completely reducible? Is it intuition or do you read this result somewhere ? $\endgroup$
    – Sebastien Palcoux
    Nov 25, 2013 at 21:41
  • $\begingroup$ @André: I think you're correct. If you look at the coarse correspondence as an $M=R\otimes R^{op}$ module, then sub $M$-modules correspond to projections in the commutant $M'\cong R\otimes R$, which is type II$_1$. Irreducible sub $M$-modules should correspond to minimal projections, of which there are none. Or am I missing something here? $\endgroup$
    – Dave Penneys
    Nov 25, 2013 at 22:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Dave: That's not how things work. The "summands" in a direct integral decomposition are not sub(bi)modules. $\endgroup$
    – André Henriques
    Nov 25, 2013 at 22:32
  • $\begingroup$ @AndréHenriques: can you complete your answer? Anyway I will accept it thanks to this meta-post: Acceptation of partial answers $\endgroup$
    – Sebastien Palcoux
    Sep 4, 2014 at 12:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.