3
$\begingroup$

If $A=K(H)$, where $H$ is an infinite dimensional separable Hilbert space, then $A$ is simple and nuclear, and the multiplier algebra $M(A)$ of $A$ is not nuclear.

My question is: can we find a non-unital simple nuclear $\mathbb C$ $*$- algebra $B$ such that the multiplier algebra of $B$ is also nuclear?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ My instinct is that multiplier algebras of any non-unital Cstar-algebra $B$ are usually "too big" to be nuclear, unless $B$ is close to being commutative e.g. $C_0(X; {\bf M}_2)$ which of course is very far from being simple. So I suspect the answer to your question is "no" but I don't see a proof at the moment $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Apr 3, 2019 at 17:45
  • $\begingroup$ One possible idea for an attempted proof that the answer is "no": since $\prod_n {\bf M}_n$ is not exact as a $C^*$-algebra, one could try to show that $B$ being non-unital and simple implies that $M(B)$ contains a subalgebra isomorphic to $\prod_n {\bf M}_n$... $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Apr 4, 2019 at 0:07

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

If $A$ is a $\sigma$-unital, simple, non-unital $C^\ast$-algebra, then $M(A)$ is non-exact (in particular, it is non-nuclear). The following argument is modelled after Yemon's idea in the comments above. Also, it uses the very deep theorem of Kirchberg, that quotients of exact $C^\ast$-algebras are exact (this can probably be avoided).

If $A$ is type I, this is the fact that $B(H)$ is not exact, so we assume that $A$ is not type I. Assume for contradiction that $M(A)$ is exact.

Let $h\in A$ be strictly positive, $\| h \|=1$, let $t_1 > t_2 > \dots$ be in the spectrum of $h$, with $\lim t_n =0$, and let $f_n\colon [0,1] \to [0,1]$ be continuous functions of norm 1, supported only close to $t_n$ (so that all supports are mutually disjoint), such that $f_n(t_n) = 1$. Let $d_n = f_n(h)$. It is easily seen that the map $(a_n)_{n\in \mathbb N} \mapsto \sum a_n$ (strict convergence) induces an embedding $\prod_{n\in \mathbb N} \overline{d_n A d_n} \hookrightarrow M(A)$. As exactness passes to $C^\ast$-subalgebras, it follows by our assumption that $M(A)$ is exact, that $\prod \overline{d_n A d_n}$ is exact.

As each $\overline{d_n A d_n}$ is not type I, a theorem of Glimm (Cor. 6.7.4 in Pedersen's book "$C^\ast$-algebras and their automorphism groups") implies that there are $C^\ast$-subalgebras $B_n \subseteq \overline{d_n A d_n}$ such that $B_n$ has a quotient isomorphic to the UHF algebra $M_{n^\infty}$. Hence $\prod_{n\in \mathbb N} B_n$, which is exact since it embeds into $\prod \overline{d_n A d_n}$, has a quotient isomorphic to $\prod_{n\in \mathbb N} M_{n^\infty}$. As quotients of exact $C^\ast$-algebras are exact (by a deep theorem of Kirchberg), $\prod M_{n^\infty}$ is exact. However, this has a $C^\ast$-subalgebra $\prod_{n\in \mathbb N} M_n$ which is then exact, hence a contradiction.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Is the conclusion also true in the non-$\sigma$-unital case? $\endgroup$
    – math112358
    Apr 5, 2019 at 1:05
  • $\begingroup$ Nicely done! It seems like you only need simplicity to get each $d_nAd_n$ having non-Type I closure -- are there natural weakenings of the simplicity condition which allow the same argument to go through? $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Apr 5, 2019 at 1:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I have no idea what happens in the non-$\sigma$-unital case. As for $\overline{d_n A d_n}$ not being type I, this is the only thing that is needed. So for instance, simplicity could be replaced by "$A$ has no $\sigma$-unital hereditary $C^\ast$-subalgebras of type I". In particular, this applies to any $C^\ast$-algebra that absorbs the Jiang-Su algebra tensorially (a normal criterion in the classification programme of Elliott). $\endgroup$
    – Jamie Gabe
    Apr 5, 2019 at 2:15

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.