The homotopy relation of Kasparov-Cycles is definied in Blackadar's book in 17.2.2. It is an equivalence relation. However, I really don't see a good argument for transitivity and can't find any proof in the literature. It is always ommitted, so I assume it's pretty straight forward. Could somebody roughly outline the argument for me or maybe give me a good source.

Thank you


1 Answer 1


It is really the same thing as for ordinary homotopy. Mainly a concatenation.

I will write for a space $X$, $XB$ the algebra of continous functions from $X$ to $B$. All the other notations follow those from Blackadar. Suppose you have

$(E_{1 2}, \phi_{1 2}, F_{1 2}) \in E(A, [1, 2]B) $ connecting $(E_{1 }, \phi_{1 }, F_{1 }) $ and $(E_{2}, \phi_{ 2}, F_{ 2}) $ in $E(A, B) $ $(E_{23}, \phi_{23}, F_{23}) \in E(A, [2,3]B) $ connecting $(E_{2 }, \phi_{2 }, F_{2 }) $ and $(E_{3}, \phi_{ 3}, F_{ 3}) $ in $E(A, B) $

You have two maps $ev_2 : E_{12} \to E_2$ and $ev_2 : E_{23} \to E_2$ and you can consider the $(A, [1,2]B \times_B [2,3]B)$ bimodule $E_{12} \times_{E_2}E_{23}$. It is the sub $ [1,2]B \times [2,3]B$ module of $E_{12} \times E_{23} $ given by $\{(x, y) \in E_{12} \times E_{23}, f(x) = g(y) \}$.

It is in fact a $[1,2]B \times_B [2,3]B$ module. But this algebra is nothing more than $[1, 3]B$

$(E_{12} \times_{E_2}E_{23}, \phi_{12} \times_{E_2}\phi_{23}, F_{12} \times_{E_2}F_{23})$ then connects $(E_{1 }, \phi_{1 }, F_{1 }) $ and $(E_{3}, \phi_{ 3}, F_{ 3}) $ and showing that it is indeed in $ E(A, IB) $ is straightforward


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.