I have some struggles with understanding theorem 25 in the paper "Hecke algebras, type III factors and phase transitions with spontaneous symmetry breaking in number theory".

More precisely, there is a construction of the universal C*-dynamic system $(A, \sigma_t)$, where the algebra of observables $A$ is generated by the elements $\mu_n, e_{\gamma}\;n \in \mathbb{N}_+, \gamma \in \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}$, subject to relation:

(a) $\mu^*_n\mu_n = 1\;\forall n$

(b) $\mu_n\mu_m = \mu_{nm}\;\forall n,m$

(c) $\mu_n\mu^*_m = \mu_m^*\mu_n\;$ if (m,n) = 1

(d) $e_{\gamma}^* = e_{-\gamma}, e_{\gamma_1 + \gamma_2} = e_{\gamma_1}e_{\gamma_2}\; \forall \gamma, \gamma_1, \gamma_2$

(e) $e_{\gamma}\mu_n = \mu_n e_{n\gamma}$

(f) $\mu_n e_{\gamma} \mu_n^* = \frac{1}{n} \sum_{n\delta = \gamma} e_{\delta}$,

and time evolution is uniquely defined by:

$\sigma_t(\mu_n) = n^{it}\mu_n,\; \sigma_t(e_{\gamma}) = e_{\gamma}$.

Consider the representation $\pi$ of this system on $l_2(\mathbb{N})$, given by the rule:

$\pi(\mu_n)\epsilon_k = \epsilon_{nk},\; \pi(e_{\gamma})\epsilon_k = exp(2\pi ik\gamma) \epsilon_k$.

There is a unbound operator $H$ (Hamiltonian) on $l_2(\mathbb{N}): H(\epsilon_k) = log(k)\epsilon_k.$

Consider the following KMS-state on $A$: $\phi_\beta(a) = \frac{Tr(\pi(a)e^{-\beta H})}{Tr(e^{-\beta H})}$, where $\beta > 1$ to ensure that corresponding operators are of Trace-class.

My question is the following: in the flow of the proof of theorem 25, there is a remark that this state is a factor state of type $I_{\infty}$, and this fact is somehow deduced from $\phi_\beta$ being a KMS-state and the representation $\pi$ being irreducible. As far as I am concerned state is a factor state by definition, if the Von Neumann algebra closure of the GNS representation for the state is a factor, but I do not see any obvious relations between representaion $\pi$ and GNS space for $\phi_\beta.$ What have I missed?


$\pi$ is an irreducible representation. So because of Schur lemma and the double commutant theorem the map $\pi:A \rightarrow B(H)$ is surjective.

Now the state $\phi$ is defined as a normale state on $B(H)$, and one easily see from this that this implies that his GNS representation factor through the map $\pi:A \rightarrow B(H)$ and the corresponding GNS representation of $B(H)$. But normale representations of B(H) are all type $I$, and as the map is surjective they are still type $I$ when seen as representation of $A$.

With a little bit of work you should be able to see that these GNS representations are isomorphic to a sum of copies of the representation $\pi$.


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.