3
$\begingroup$

I found the following theorem (Proposition 4.5) in the paper of E. Kirchberg and M. Rørdam: Non-simple purely infinite $C^\ast$-algebras. Amer. J. Math. 122(3) (2000), 637-666 (MR1759891, jstor, author's homepage).

Let $A$ be a unital, simple, separable, nuclear, purely infinite $C^\ast$-algebra, and let $B$ be any $C^\ast$-algebra. Then $A\otimes B$ is purely infinite.

My question is that can we drop the condition of nuclearity or separability of $A$ but the same conclusion still hold? Is there some known results?

I have searched in the literature but nothing founded.

Thank you very much for all helps!

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ For a reference (of a similar version) check Rordams book 'classification of nuclear C∗-algebras', chapter 4. There is a similar version with a proof, where A is assumed to be simple, separable, not stably finite and B is simple and not of type I. This indicates that your stated version is probably wrong if you drop these conditions. $\endgroup$ – Sabrina Gemsa Jun 10 '18 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ I guess one can try the following (or a suitible modification of it): Try the calkin algebra $A=B(\ell^2)/K(\ell^2)$ together with the suspension of the complex numbers, $B=S\mathbb{C}$, as an counterexample. $\endgroup$ – Sabrina Gemsa Jun 10 '18 at 23:17
1
$\begingroup$

Kirchberg announced quite a lot of years ago that $A\otimes_{\min{}} B$ is strongly purely infinite if $A$ is strongly purely infinite and $B$ is exact. Unfortunately, I don't think this result has ever been published.

Different results of the same nature are contained in [Blanchard, Etienne; Kirchberg, Eberhard Non-simple purely infinite C∗-algebras: the Hausdorff case. J. Funct. Anal. 207 (2004), no. 2, 461–513.]. For instance, Corollary 3.9 gives 8 different criteria for when $A\otimes_{\min{}} B$ is locally purely infinite, e.g. when $A$ is locally purely infinite and $B$ is exact.

In particular, if $A = B(\ell^2)/K(\ell^2)$ and $B = S\mathbb C$ (as suggested in the comments by S. Ge), then $A\otimes_{\min{}} B$ is locally purely infinite. By Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 5.8 from the before mentioned paper it follows that $A\otimes_{\min{}} B$ is strongly purely infinite.

EDIT: The following is an example of separable, simple, unital, exact $C^\ast$-algebras $A$ and $B$ such that $A$ is purely infinite, but $A\otimes_{\max{}} B$ is not (locally) purely infinite. Hence it is important to work with minimal tensor products if one wants to preserve pure infiniteness.

Let $F_2$ be the free group on two generators, and let $C^\ast_r(F_2)$ denote the reduced group $C^\ast$-algebra. Let $D$ be a separable, simple, unital, nuclear, finite $C^\ast$-algebra which is not stably finite (the existence of such is due to Rørdam [Rørdam, Mikael A simple C∗-algebra with a finite and an infinite projection. Acta Math. 191 (2003), no. 1, 109–142.]). Then $A = D \otimes C^\ast_r(F_2)$ and $B = C^\ast_r(F_2)$ does the trick.

By well-known results $A$ and $B$ are separable, simple, unital and exact. By Theorem 4.1.10 in Rørdam's book "Classification of nuclear, simple C∗-algebras" it follows that $A$ is purely infinite. By a result of Akemann and Ostrand, there is a tensor product $C^\ast_r(F_2) \otimes_\nu C^\ast_r(F_2)$ which contains a two-sided closed ideal isomorphic to the compact operators $\mathcal K(\ell^2(F_2))$. In particular, $C^\ast_r(F_2) \otimes_\nu C^\ast_r(F_2)$ contains a hereditary $C^\ast$-algebra isomorphic to $\mathbb C$. Hence $$ A\otimes_{\max{}} B \cong D \otimes (C^\ast_r(F_2)\otimes_{\max{}} C^\ast_r(F_2)) $$ has a quotient isomorphic to $D \otimes (C^\ast_r(F_2) \otimes_\nu C^\ast_r(F_2))$ which contains a hereditary $C^\ast$-subalgebra isomorphic to $D \otimes \mathbb C = D$.

As (local) pure infiniteness passes to quotients and hereditary $C^\ast$-subalgebras, and as $D$ is not (locally) purely infinite, it follows that $A\otimes_{\max{}} B$ cannot be (locally) purely infinite.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hello Jamie! Welcome to Mathoverflow! $\endgroup$ – Ulrich Pennig Jun 29 '18 at 11:29
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, Jamie. It seems that the result you mentioned at first appears in a recent paper of Kirchberg-Sierakowski on arXiv: Filling families and strong pure infiniteness, arXiv:1503.08519. $\endgroup$ – Targaryen Jul 2 '18 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ Ah fantastic, this paper had (unreasonably) slipped my attention! I also see that the example I gave above is exactly Example 6.3 of said paper. $\endgroup$ – Jamie Gabe Jul 4 '18 at 7:50

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.