6
$\begingroup$

Let $A$ and $B$ simple $C^*$-algebras. One can prove that the minimal tensor product $A\otimes _{min}B$ is simple. This is wrong for the maximal tensor product $A\otimes_{max}B$ .

1.Do you know an explicit example?

One idea is to consider (non-nuclear) $C^*$-algebras $A$ and $B$, which are simple and then consider the canonical map $i:A\otimes_{max} B\to A\otimes_{min}B$. One can take $A$ and $B$ such that the map has non-trivial kernel to obtain $\ker(i)\subseteq A\otimes_{max} B$ as a non-trivial closed ideal. Also the example should satisfy: $\ker(i)\neq A\otimes_{max} B$.

Therefore if you take this idea, for example, $A=K(H)=B$ for a separable Hilbert space $H$ doesn't work because these $C^*$-algebras are nuclear, simple and the minimal tensor product is simple.

Then I tried to take (non-nuclear) group $C^*$-algebras. But I'm not sure for which groups $\Gamma$ the reduced group $C^*$-algebra $C_r^*(\Gamma)$ is non-simple, my knowledge is still very limited. For example, there is a result in a paper that if $\Gamma$ is a nonabelian free group, the $C_r^*(\Gamma)$ is simple (R.T. Powers, "Simplicity of the $C^*$-algebra associated with the free group on two generators.").

Therefore, my 2. question is: Do you know a (non-abelian) group $\Gamma$, such that $C_r^*(\Gamma)$ is not amenable and non-simple?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If a group has a nontrivial amenable normal subgroup than its reduced C*-algebra is non-simple. You have many non-amenable groups like that. Moreover, quite recently an example was given (by Le Boudec, following a criterion by Kalantar-Kennedey) of a group which has no nontrivial normal amenable subgroup and yet, its reduced C*-algebra is nonsimple. But wait: what exactly is the question here? $\endgroup$ – Uri Bader Aug 13 '16 at 12:40
  • $\begingroup$ There seem to be two separate questions here. Your first question asks about non-simplicit of the maximal tensor product $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Aug 13 '16 at 12:48
  • $\begingroup$ Then, in the question near the end, you seem to ask for a non-amenable discrete group $\Gamma$ whose C*-algebra is non-simple. Just take $F_2\times ({\bf Z}/2{\bf Z})$, surely? $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Aug 13 '16 at 12:50
  • $\begingroup$ @Uri Bader thank you. I didn't know that (my knowledge about $C^*$-algebras is still very limited). Maybe this example by Boudec will be useful for me, I will have a look. Yes, but the questions relate to each other I think. Maybe I should edit my question to clearify what I want to know. $\endgroup$ – Sabrina Gemsa Aug 13 '16 at 12:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would also like to point out that just because you know $A$ and $B$ are non-nuclear, this does not allow you to deduce that $A\otimes_{\rm max} B \to A\otimes_{\rm min} B$ has a non-trivial kernel. Think about the quantifiers in the definition of nuclearity... $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi Aug 13 '16 at 12:52
4
$\begingroup$

Here is an answer to the second question: yes, there exist such groups. Yemon Choi already gave you one in a comment: take $F_2\times \mathbb{Z}/2$, a product of the free group on 2 generators and a nontrivial finite group. More generally, take any nonameanble group which has a nontrivial amenable normal subgroup. For a very interesting related discussion take a look at the papers by Kalantar-Kennedey and Breuillard-Kalantar-Kennedy-Ozawa (well defined by lists of authors).

Moreover, following the papers above Adrien Le Boudec gave a first example of a group which has no non-trivial normal amenable subgroup which reduced C*-algebra is not simple.

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

An explicit example to question 1 is given by $A=B=C^*_r(G)$ where $G$ is the free group on two generators.

Takesaki produced the first systematic study of nuclearity (then called Property (T)) in his 1964 paper "On the cross-norm of the direct product of C*-algebras." In Theorem 6 (actually look at the discussion preceding Theorem 6) he shows that $A\otimes_{max} B\neq A\otimes_{min}B.$ And, as you mentioned, Powers showed that $A$ is simple.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Great, thanks! First I wasn't sure if this example works. $\endgroup$ – Sabrina Gemsa Aug 14 '16 at 12:48

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.