I have an idea for a possible counterexample to the noncommutative Stone-Weierstrass problem. A good answer to the following question would really help.

Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the C*-algebra of $2\times 2$ complex matrices, let $\mathcal{B}$ be the C*-subalgebra of $2\times 2$ diagonal matrices, and let $v$ and $w$ be the unit vectors $\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$ and $\left(\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\right)$, respectively. Then $f: A \mapsto \langle Av,v\rangle$ and $g: A \mapsto \langle Aw,w\rangle$ are pure states on $\mathcal{A}$. They are distinct, but $f(A) = g(A)$ for all $A \in \mathcal{B}$: we say that $\mathcal{B}$ fails to separate $f$ and $g$.

I would like to find a C*-algebra $\mathcal{A}'$ which (unitally) contains $\mathcal{A}$ together with a C*-subalgebra $\mathcal{B}'$ which contains $\mathcal{B}$, such that $\mathcal{B}'$ separates any extensions $f'$ and $g'$ of $f$ and $g$ to states on $\mathcal{A}'$. This could be trivially accomplished by setting $\mathcal{A}' = \mathcal{B}' = \mathcal{A}$, so let me add one more condition. Let $P = \left[\matrix{1&1\cr1&1}\right]$ and observe that the distance from $P$ to $\mathcal{B}$ is $1$. (Evaluation in the $(1,2)$ matrix entry is a norm one linear functional on $\mathcal{A}$ which takes the value $1$ on $P$ and is zero on $\mathcal{B}$. Conversely, the distance from $P$ to the identity matrix is $1$.) To prevent trivial solutions to my problem, I impose the additional requirement that the distance from $P$ to $\mathcal{B}'$ must still be $1$.

Can we find a C*-algebra $\mathcal{A}'$ which unitally contains $\mathcal{A}$ together with a C*-subalgebra $\mathcal{B}'$ which contains $\mathcal{B}$, such that (1) the distance from $P$ to $\mathcal{B}'$ is $1$ and (2) $\mathcal{B}'$ separates any two states on $\mathcal{A}'$ which extend $f$ and $g$, respectively?

  • $\begingroup$ Would you be interested in a partial solution where $\mathcal B'$ only separated pure extensions of $f$ and $g$? $\endgroup$ – Chris Ramsey Aug 2 '15 at 17:50
  • $\begingroup$ @ChrisRamsey: Sure, although I ultimately will need the stronger result. $\endgroup$ – Nik Weaver Aug 2 '15 at 20:57

The answer to my question is no. Let $\mathcal{A} = M_2$ be the algebra of $2\times 2$ complex matrices, let $\mathcal{B}$ be the subalgebra of diagonal matrices, let $\mathcal{A}'$ be a C*-algebra which unitally contains $\mathcal{A}$, and let $\mathcal{B}'$ be a C*-subalgebra of $\mathcal{A}'$ which contains $\mathcal{B}$.

$\mathcal{A}$ contains the matrix units $e_{11}$, $e_{12}$, $e_{21}$, $e_{22}$, and hence so does $\mathcal{A}'$. So we have $\mathcal{A}' \cong M_2\otimes \mathcal{C}$ for some other unital C*-algebra $\mathcal{C}$. Also, since $\mathcal{B}$ contains $e_{11}$ and $e_{22}$, we have $$\mathcal{B}' = e_{11}\mathcal{B}'e_{11} + e_{11}\mathcal{B}'e_{22} + e_{22}\mathcal{B}'e_{11} + e_{22}\mathcal{B}'e_{22} = \mathcal{B}'_{11} + \mathcal{B}'_{12} + \mathcal{B}'_{21} + \mathcal{B}'_{22}.$$ We have $P = e_{11} + e_{12} + e_{21} + e_{22}$. There are two cases.

Case 1. $\mathcal{B}'_{12}$ contains an element $x$ satisfying $\|x - e_{12}\| < 1$. Then $\mathcal{B}'$ contains the element $y = e_{11} + x + x^* + e_{22}$, and we have $$\|y - P\| = \|(x - e_{12}) + (x^* - e_{21})\| = \|x - e_{12}\| < 1.$$ So in this case the distance from $\mathcal{B}'$ to $P$ is strictly less than 1.

Case 2. We have $\|x - e_{12}\| \geq 1$ for all $x \in \mathcal{B}'_{12}$. By the Hahn-Banach theorem, we can find a norm one linear functional on $e_{11}\mathcal{A}'e_{22}$ which takes $e_{12}$ to $1$ and vanishes on $\mathcal{B}'_{12}$. By the isomorphism $e_{11}\mathcal{A}'e_{22} \cong \mathcal{C}$, this yields a state $h$ on $\mathcal{C}$. Then $f\otimes h$ and $g\otimes h$ are two states on $\mathcal{A}'$ which respectively extend $f$ and $g$, but $\mathcal{B}'$ does not separate them, because they agree on $\mathcal{B}'_{11} \subseteq e_{11}\mathcal{A}'e_{11}$ and $\mathcal{B}'_{22} \subseteq e_{22}\mathcal{A}'e_{22}$, and they both vanish on $\mathcal{B}'_{12}$ and $\mathcal{B}'_{21}$. So in this case $\mathcal{B}'$ fails to separate all extensions of $f$ and $g$.


This is long. I originally thought this would work but it does not separate all extensions of $f$ and $g$ (see Nik's comment).

Consider the unital embedding $\mathcal A = M_2 \subset M_4$ given by $$A = \left[\begin{array}{cc}a&b\\c&d\end{array}\right] \mapsto A \otimes I_2 = \left[\begin{array}{cccc} a &&b\\&a&&b \\ c&&d\\&c&&d\end{array}\right]$$ and for $\gamma_n = -\sqrt \frac{n-1}{n} + \frac{i}{\sqrt{n}}\in\mathbb T$ let $$\mathcal B_n \equiv \left\{ \left[\begin{array}{cccc}a &&b \\ &a&&\gamma_nb\\c&&d\\&\bar{\gamma}_nc&&d\end{array}\right] : a,b,c,d\in \mathbb C\right\}$$ Then $\mathcal B$ is embedded in $\mathcal B_n$ which is a C$^*$-subalgebra of $M_4$. Finally, define $\mathcal B' \equiv \oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mathcal B_n \subset \oplus_{n=1}^\infty M_4 \equiv \mathcal A'$ with $A\in \mathcal A$ embedded as $\oplus_{n=1}^\infty (A\otimes I_2) \subset \mathcal A'$.

Claim 1: The distance from $P$ to $\mathcal B'$ is 1.

Let $\gamma_\infty = -1 = \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \gamma_n$ and define $\mathcal B_\infty$ in the same manner as above. What is the distance between $\mathcal B_\infty$ and $P\otimes I_2$? This is the same as calculating the minimum norm of $\left[\begin{array}{cc} 1+b&\\&1-b\end{array}\right], b\in\mathbb C$ which is 1 since $2 = |1 + b + 1 - b| \leq |1 + b| + |1 -b|$. Because of the definition of these matrix algebras it is straightforward to see that $\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} d(\mathcal B_n, P\otimes I_2) = d(\mathcal B_\infty, P\otimes I_2) = 1$. Therefore, $$d(\mathcal B', \oplus_{n=1}^\infty (P\otimes I_2)) = 1$$

Claim 2: $\mathcal B'$ separates any two states on $\mathcal A'$ extending $f$ and $g$.

Let $v' = (v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4)\in \mathbb C^4$ such that $\langle (A\otimes I_2) v',v'\rangle = \langle Av,v\rangle$ for all $A\in M_2$. An easy calculation gives that $\|(v_1,v_2)\| = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}$ and $(v_1,v_2) = (v_3,v_4)$. The $w'$ case follows similarly except with $(w_1,w_2) = -(w_3,w_4)$.

Now for the general case, $\mathcal A'$ is naturally represented on the Hilbert space $\mathcal H = \oplus_{n=1}^\infty \mathbb C^4$. Let $v', w'\in \mathcal H$ be unit vectors such that $f'(C) = \langle Cv',v'\rangle$ and $g'(C) = \langle Cw',w'\rangle$ are states extending $f$ and $g$ respectively. From the previous paragraph they must have a particular form, namely $v' = (r_1,s_1,r_1,s_1, r_2,s_2,r_2,s_2,\cdots)$ and $w' = (t_1,u_1,-t_1,-u_1, t_2,u_2, -t_2,-u_2,\cdots)$.

Define $B_n = \left[\begin{array}{cccc}0&&1\\&0&&\gamma_n \\ \gamma_n&&0\\ &1&&0\end{array}\right] \in \mathcal B_n$ and let $B' = \oplus_{n=1}^\infty B_n \in \mathcal B'$. Now, $$Im\left\langle B_n\left(\begin{array}{c} r_n\\s_n\\r_n\\s_n\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c} r_n\\s_n\\r_n\\s_n\end{array}\right)\right\rangle = Im(1+\gamma_n)(\|r_n\|^2 + \|s_n\|^2) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\|r_n\|^2 + \|s_n\|^2)$$ whereas $$Im\left\langle B_n\left(\begin{array}{c} t_n\\u_n\\-t_n\\-u_n\end{array}\right),\left(\begin{array}{c} t_n\\u_n\\-t_n\\-u_n\end{array}\right)\right\rangle = Im(1+\gamma_n)(-\|t_n\|^2 - \|u_n\|^2) = -\frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\|t_n\|^2 + \|u_n\|^2).$$ Hence, $$Im\langle B'v',v'\rangle = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}(\|r_n\|^2+\|s_n\|^2) > 0$$ and $$Im\langle B'w',w'\rangle = -\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}} (\|t_n\|^2 + \|u_n\|^2) < 0.$$ Therefore, $f'(B') \neq g'(B')$.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is really clever, but it doesn't quite work --- your characterization of states on $\mathcal{A}'$ is faulty. There are states which aren't vector states. Let $\phi_n$ and $\psi_n$ be the states corresponding to the sequences $(r_1, s_1, \ldots)$ and $(t_1, u_1, \ldots)$ where $r_n = u_n = 1$ and all other terms are zero. Then you see that $\mathcal{B}'$ just barely separates them, so that if $\phi$ and $\psi$ are respectively cluster points of the sequences $(\phi_n)$ and $(\psi_n)$ then $\mathcal{B}'$ doesn't separate $\phi$ and $\psi$. $\endgroup$ – Nik Weaver Aug 2 '15 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ Oh dear, you are absolutely correct. $\endgroup$ – Chris Ramsey Aug 2 '15 at 10:52

I showed in my other answer that there are no $\mathcal{A}'$ and $\mathcal{B}'$ such that ${\rm dist}(\mathcal{B}',P) = 1$ and $\mathcal{B}'$ separates any states on $\mathcal{A}'$ which extend $f$ and $g$. In a comment Chris Ramsey asked about a weaker result where $\mathcal{B}'$ separates all pure extensions of $f$ and $g$. This can be done. The construction is similar to the one given by Chris in his answer.

Let $\mathcal{A}' = M_2 \oplus M_2 \oplus M_2$, with the embedded copy of $\mathcal{A}$ given by $\{A \oplus A \oplus A: A \in M_2\}$. Thus $P$ embeds as the element $\left[\begin{matrix}1&1\cr 1&1\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}1&1\cr 1&1\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}1&1\cr 1&1\end{matrix}\right]$. Let $\mathcal{B}' = \left\{\left[\begin{matrix}a&b\cr c&d\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}a&b\omega\cr c\omega^2&d\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}a&b\omega^2\cr c\omega&d\end{matrix}\right]: a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{C}\right\}$ where $\omega$ is a primitive cube root of unity. This is just the embedded copy of $\mathcal{A}$ conjugated by a unitary, so it is a C*-subalgebra of $\mathcal{A}'$. Setting $b = c = 0$ shows that it contains the embedded copy of $\mathcal{B}$.

(1) ${\rm dist}(\mathcal{B}',P) = 1$. This is because any element of $\mathcal{B}'$ has upper right entries $b$, $b\omega$, $b\omega^2$, at least one of which must lie in the left half-plane of $\mathbb{C}$. Thus any element of $\mathcal{B}'$ minus the embedded $P$ has a matrix entry which is at least $1$ in absolute value.

(2) $\mathcal{B}'$ separates the pure extensions of $f$ from the pure extensions of $g$. Any pure state on $M_2 \oplus M_2 \oplus M_2$ must be a pure state on one of the summands and zero on the other two summands. So the pure extensions of $f$ are $f \oplus 0 \oplus 0$, $0 \oplus f \oplus 0$, and $0 \oplus 0\oplus f$, and similarly for $g$. Apply these extensions to the element $\left[\begin{matrix}0&1\cr 0&0\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}0&\omega\cr 0&0\end{matrix}\right] \oplus \left[\begin{matrix}0&\omega^2\cr 0&0\end{matrix}\right] \in \mathcal{B}'$. The pure extensions of $f$ take the values $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{\omega}{2}$, $\frac{\omega^2}{2}$ and the pure extensions of $g$ take the values $-\frac{1}{2}$, $-\frac{\omega}{2}$, $-\frac{\omega^2}{2}$, and the two sets do not overlap. So any pure extension of $f$ and any pure extension of $g$ applied to this element yield different results.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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