2
$\begingroup$

In their paper: "Addition of $C^*$-algebra extensions", G. A. Elliott and D. E. Handelman have discussed some relation between traces and equivalence of projections in $M(A)$, where $M(A)$ is the multiplier algebra of $A$. One result is the following:

2.4. COROLLARY. Let $A$ be a separable AF algebra, and let $e$ and $f$ be projections in $M(A)$. Suppose that neither $eAe$ nor $fAf$ has a nonzero unital quotient. The following two conditions are equivalent:

(i) $e$ is equivalent to $f$ in $M(A)$.

(iii) $\tau(e) = \tau(f)$ whenever $\tau$ is a semifinite lower semicontinllous trace on $A_{+}$.

In their paper, they did not give the definition of "non zero unital quotient". I can't find the definition in the literature. Do it mean that the quotient algebra is not unital? specially, when it is simple(has no ideal)? I don't know.

But I also learn the following result in the literature:

If $A$ is a separable nonunital matroid algebra(this is also a special AF algebras), then there always exist projections $p \in M(A)\backslash A$ and $q \in A$ such that $\tau(p) = \tau(q)$, p and q can not be equivalent. where $\tau$ is the (unique) trace of $A$.

Do we have some contradiction between the two results above? Since the matroid algebra is simple. Hope some help!

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

It seems that "$A$ has a nonzero unital quotient" should mean: there exists a proper ideal $J$ of $A$ (possibly $J=0$) such that $A/J$ is unital. You would be correct to say that, if $A$ is nonunital and simple, then it has no nonzero unital quotient.

Elliott-Handelman's result does not contradict the second result that you cited, because in that case, $qAq$ is unital.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! If that is the definition, then there is no problem, also no contradiction. But can you suggest me some reference about this concept? $\endgroup$
    – Aviv
    Mar 10, 2012 at 15:02
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Although I can't offer a reference, I would justify the definition I gave based simply on the wording of "$A$ has a nonzero unital quotient". A quotient of $A$ is simply $A/J$ for some ideal $J$, and the quotient is nonzero so long as $J$ is a proper ideal. $\endgroup$ Mar 10, 2012 at 19:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Some basic examples of classes of $C^∗$-algebras which have no nonzero unital quotients are: nonunital simple $C^∗$-algebras and stable $C^∗$-algebras (i.e. $C^∗$-algebras of the form $A \otimes \mathcal{K}$, where $\mathcal{K}$ denotes the algebra of compact operators of a separable Hilbert space). $\endgroup$ Mar 10, 2012 at 19:12
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, I am very sorry for my delay! Thank you very much, Aaron! I think I have understanded this concept by your interpretation. I see in another paper written by Prof. K. R. Goodearl.(I am sure you know which paper.) In his paper, Goodearl called this cencept for "no nonzero unital $C^*$-homomorphic images", and under some additional assumption, he generalized many results in Elliott-Handelman's paper. Thanks again! $\endgroup$
    – Aviv
    Mar 18, 2012 at 4:44

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.