1
$\begingroup$

Is there a simple $C^*$ algebra $A$, not isomorphic to $M_2(\mathbb{C})$, such that for every commutator element $x=ab-ba$, $x^2$ is an scalar element?

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, over $\mathbb{R}$ the quaternions qualify, but if you complexify them you'll get $M_2(\mathbb{C})$ which you already ruled out. $\endgroup$
    – Vincent
    May 9, 2018 at 8:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Vincent Yes I mean complex $C^*$ algebra. In particular I wonder whether there is an infinite dimensional one? $\endgroup$ May 9, 2018 at 9:03
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Such an algebra satisfies the identity $[[X,Y]^2,Z]$ and hence is a PI-algebra (Polynomial Identity). Simplicity probably implies that it's primitive (a little doubt, because of the topological vs purely algebraic setup). In encyclopediaofmath.org/index.php/PI-algebra it is said that a primitive PI-algebra is a matrix algebra over a skew-field, which would entail a negative answer to your question. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    May 9, 2018 at 10:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YCor I learn a lot from your great comment. however the topological simplicity is not equivalent to the algebraic one. I know a non unital example: The algebra of compact operators is a simple $C^*$ algebra but it has dense ideal of finite rank operator or trace class operatores or Hilbert Schmidt operators. $\endgroup$ May 10, 2018 at 9:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes I know, this is why my comment is rather a sort of expectation. Still, topological simplicity implies the existence of a (topologically) irreducible faithful Hilbert module. Then one would need a substitute for the Jacobson density theorem, it does not sound hopeless to me. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    May 10, 2018 at 9:31

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

The answer is no:

A simple C*-algebra in which $[x,y]^2$ is central for all $x,y$ is isomorphic to $M_n(\mathbf{C})$ for $n\in\{1,2\}$.

Let $A$ be a C*-algebra. Let $H$ be an irreducible representation of $A$. By irreducibility its commutant is reduced to scalars, and hence its double commutant is equal to the whole algebra $B(H)$, and the double commutant is knows (von Neumann's bicommutant theorem) to be the strong operator topology ($\mathsf{SOT}$) closure.

Recall that an associative algebra $A$ is a PI-algebra if it satisfies some nontrivial identity $\forall x\in A^n,$ $F(x_1,\dots,x_n)=0$, where $F$ is nonzero in the free associative algebra $\mathbf{C}\langle X_1,\dots,X_n\rangle$ - $F$ can be then chosen homogeneous.

In the above setting, we have a continuous algebra homomorphism with dense image $A\to (B(H),\mathsf{SOT})$. If $A$ satisfies the identity $F$ (say of degree $d$) so is $B(H)$. This implies (by a theorem of Kaplansky, see §2.1 in Procesi's book) that $H$ has dimension $\le d/2$. Note that in the precise case in consideration, we have $F(x,y,z)=[[x,y]^2,z]$, which is clearly not an identity in $B(H)$ when $\dim(H)\ge 3$.

Now if $A$ is a simple C*-algebra, not reduced to scalars, then $A$ admits a nontrivial irreducible representation (cf §2.5 in Dixmier's book), in a Hilbert space $H$. Since $A$ is simple, this is a faithful representation. If $A$ is a PI-algebra, this forces, by the above, $H$ to be finite-dimensional, so $A$ is a matrix algebra.

This yields the complement result:

A simple C*-algebra is a PI-algebra if and only if it is isomorphic to a matrix algebra.

This follows from Kaplansky's theorem, but also directly follows if one can embed the free associative $\mathbf{C}$-algebra on countably many variables into $B(H)$ for $H$ separable infinite-dimensional.

Actually from Dixmier's book, §2.9, the intersection of kernels of irreducible representations is reduced to 0. Hence one gets a stronger result:

A C*-algebra that is a PI-algebra admits a family of finite-dimensional representations of bounded dimension, whose intersection of kernels is trivial.

(In the case of the identity $[[x,y]^2,z]$ these are of dimension $\le 2$. I'm not sure if one can strengthen the latter conclusion to a more explicit description, but in any case this is beyond what is asked, since the simple case is clear-cut now.)

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your great answer. BTW, according to your first statement, I think "central" is equivalent to "scalar" since the algebra is simple. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2018 at 19:49
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Possibly but "central" is enough and is the good point of view to develop the argument. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    May 13, 2018 at 21:10

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.