2
$\begingroup$

Recall that a ternary $C^*$-ring is a complex Banach space $X$, equipped with a associative ternary product $[.,.,.]:X^3 \to X$ which is linear in outer variables and conjugate linear in middle variable, $\|[a,a,a]\|= \|a\|^3$ and $$\|[a,b,c]\| \leq \| a \| \| b\|\| c\|$$

Does there exist a unique $C^*$-algebra corresponding to each ternary $C^*$-ring?

$3.2$ Proposition of this paper seems to answer what i am looking for. The construction given in paper goes as follows: For $y,z \in X$, consider the bounded linear map $D_{y,z}: X \to X$ defined as $D_{y,z}(x)= [x,y,z]$. Let $V=$ span $\{D_{y,z}: y,z \in X \} \subset L(X)$. After defining like this, the author shows that $V$ is pre $ C^*$-algebra. Finally, author considers the opposite algebra of the norm closure of $V$ to construct the required $C^*$-algebra.

Can someone please explain me why do we need to consider opposite algebra and the motivation behind this proof?

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ The title could perhaps be a bit more explicit: It suggests to me more a general question on how to read a difficult proof, a question of Shakespearean nature in my opinion. $\endgroup$ Sep 1 at 7:10
  • $\begingroup$ @RolandBacher: Edited, thanks! $\endgroup$
    – Math Lover
    Sep 1 at 7:18
  • $\begingroup$ You can also complete $V$ and obtain a $C^*$-algebra. The opposite $C^*$-algebra of this $C^*$-algebra is then simply the $C^*$-algebra constructed in the paper. $\endgroup$
    – MathQED
    Sep 1 at 8:44
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Your terminology is not correct, if you look closely at the Zettl paper that you link to. What you call a "ternary Banach algebra" is what Zettl calls a "ternary Cstar ring", and the key point is the axiom $\Vert [x,x,x,] \Vert= \Vert x\Vert^3$ which is an analogue of the Cstar condition that is one of the axioms for a Cstar algebra. Calling these objects "ternary Banach algebras", as you have done, is misleading since that name should be reserved for an object which does not have the "3-variable Cstar condition" $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Sep 2 at 2:29
  • $\begingroup$ It would be good if you could fix the wording of your title and your question. Note also that you have written that X is a "complex associative Banach space" which does not make sense. $\endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    Sep 2 at 2:30
1
$\begingroup$

Yes, Proposition 3.2 from the article [MR0700979] that you link to gives you the answer for ternary $\rm C^*$-rings. The reason for taking the opposite algebra is that the algebra $V$ acts on the right of $X$ rather than on the left. A right action is the same thing as a left action by the opposite algebra. You can see this right action directly in (3) of this proposition.

As a special case, suppose $X$ is a right Hilbert $\rm C^*$-module over a $\rm C^*$-algebra $A$. Denoting the $A$-valued inner product on $X$ by $\langle x|y\rangle_A$ (which is linear on the right), we get a ternary $\rm C^*$-ring by $[x,y,z] := x\langle y|z\rangle_A$. In this setting, $D_{y,z}$ is right multiplication by $\langle y|z\rangle_A$. All ternary $\rm C^*$-rings are essentially like this one, except that the $A$-valued form need not be positive. (See the intro of the cited article, bottom of p118 after the displayed equation.)

$\endgroup$
0

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.