Exponential map in $C^{*}$-algebra and unitary invariance

257 Views Asked by At

Let $A$ be a unital $C^{*}$-algebra. Let $X$ be a closed vector subspace of $A$ which is unitarily invariant in the sense that $uXu^{*}\subseteq X$ for all unitaries $u$ of $A$. I want to show that $ba-ab\in X$ whenever $a\in X$ and $b\in A$.

A previous part of the problem was to show that the map $f:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow A,f(\lambda)=e^{i\lambda b}ae^{-i\lambda b}$, where $a,b\in A$, is differentiable and $f'(0)=i(ba-ab)$. I've done this part but I can't get the connection between this and the problem above. The expression I got for the derivative is $f'(\lambda)=ie^{i\lambda b}bae^{-i\lambda b}-ie^{i\lambda b}abe^{-i\lambda b}$. The main problem is that I don't see a unitary that allows me to use the assumption on $X$.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

2
On BEST ANSWER

Good question, +1! Interesting . . .

The way I see it, the main difficulty here is that, for general $b \in A$ and $\lambda \in \Bbb C$, $e^{i \lambda b}$ is not a unitary element of $A$; thus we have no assurance that $e^{i \lambda b} a (e^{i \lambda b})^* = e^{i \lambda b} a e^{-i \bar \lambda b^*} \in X$. Indeed, we can't even conclude that $e^{i \lambda b} e^{-i \bar \lambda b^*} = e^{i \lambda b -i \bar \lambda b^*}$ without for example the assurance that $bb^* - b^*b = [b, b^*] = 0$, i. e., that $b$ is a normal element of $A$. If, however, we restrict $b$ to being Hermitian, i. e., assume that $b^* = b$, and $\lambda$ to being real, $\lambda \in \Bbb R$, then progress can be made, as follows:

For $b \in A$ such that $b^* = b$ and $\lambda \in \Bbb R$, it is evident that $e^{i \lambda b}$ is a unitary in $A$, since in this case $(e^{i \lambda b})^* = e^{-i \lambda b^*} = e^{-i \lambda b}$, whence $e^{i \lambda b} (e^{i \lambda b})^* =1$. Thus we have, by hypothesis, the entire path $f(\lambda) = e^{i \lambda b} a e^{-i \lambda b} \in X$ for all $\lambda \in \Bbb R$. Furthermore, $f'(\lambda) \in X$ for all $\lambda \in \Bbb R$ as well. This follows since for $\lambda \ne \mu$ distinct elements of $\Bbb R$, then

$(f(\lambda) -f(\mu)) / (\lambda - \mu) \in X \tag{1}$

by the linearity of $X$; we also have that, if it exists,

$f'(\lambda) = \lim_{\mu \to \lambda}((f(\lambda) - f(\mu)) / (\lambda - \mu)) \in X, \tag{2}$

since $X$ is closed. The remarks of our OP learner affirm that this limit does exist and that additionally

$f'(\lambda)=ie^{i\lambda b}bae^{-i\lambda b}-ie^{i\lambda b}abe^{-i\lambda b}; \tag{3}$

more immediately, both assertions follow from the Leibniz rule for the derivative of a product and the definition of the exponential function on $A$. In any event, by (2) and (3) we have, upon taking $\lambda = 0$,

$i[b, a] = iba-iab = f'(0) \in X, \tag{4}$

which in turn shows that

$[b, a] \in X, \tag{5}$

again by the linearity of $X$. Thus we have established that for all $a \in X$ and $b = b^* \in A$, $[b, a] \in X$; the case of $b$ self-adjoint or Hermitian is thus resolved in the affirmative.

Next, we consider the case of $b$ skew-adjoint or skew-Hermitian, that is, $b^* = -b$. We observe that, for such $b$, $ib$ is in fact self adjoint, for

$(ib)^* = -ib^* = -i(-b) = ib, \tag{6}$

and similarly, for $b = b^*$, $ib$ is skew:

$(ib)^* = -ib^* = -ib. \tag{7}$

We exploit (6) for skew-adjoint $b$: for all $\lambda \in \Bbb R$, we have

$f(\lambda) = e^{i \lambda (ib)} a e^{-i \lambda (ib)} \in X, \tag{8}$

and

$f'(\lambda)=ie^{i\lambda (ib)}(ib)ae^{-i\lambda (ib)}-ie^{i\lambda (ib)}a(ib)e^{-i\lambda (ib)} \in X; \tag{9}$

again taking $\lambda = 0$ we see that

$-[b, a] = i[ib, a] \in X, \tag{10}$

whence

$[b, a] \in X, \tag{11}$

again by the linearity of the subspace $X$. We now have $[b, a] \in X$ for $a \in X$ and all $b^* = b \in A$ and $b^* = -b \in A$.

Finally, for arbitrary $b \in A$, we set

$b_+ = (1 / 2)(b + b^*), \tag{12}$

and

$b_- = (1 / 2)(b - b^*); \tag{13}$

it is manifestly evident that

$b_+^* = b_+, \; b_-^* = -b_-, \tag{14}$

and

$b = b_+ + b_-. \tag{15}$

Also,

$[b, a] = ba - ab = (b_+ + b_-)a - a(b_+ + b_-) = [b_+, a] + [b_-, a] \in X, \tag{16}$

since $X$ is closed under addition. We have thus proved that $[b, a] \in X$ for all $a \in X$, $b \in A$, as per request. QED.

Hope this helps. Yuletide Joy to One an All,

and as always, especially on these cold, dark days,

Fiat Lux!!!