arXiv:2101.00782v1 [math.OA] 4 Jan 2021
B.V. RAJARAMA BHAT AND MANISH KUMAR
Abstract. A subalgebraAof aC∗-algebraMis logmodular (resp. has factorization) if the
set{a∗a;ais invertible witha, a−1∈ A}is dense in (resp. equal to) the set of all positive and
invertible elements ofM. There are large classes of well studied algebras, both in commutative and non-commutative settings, which are known to be logmodular. In this paper, we show that the lattice of projections in a von Neumann algebraMwhose ranges are invariant under a logmodular algebra inM, is a commutative subspace lattice. Further, ifMis a factor then this lattice is a nest. As a special case, it follows that all reflexive (in particular, completely distributive CSL) logmodular subalgebras of type I factors are nest algebras, thus answering a question of Paulsen and Raghupathi [18]. We also discuss some sufficient criteria under which an algebra having factorization is automatically reflexive and is a nest algebra.
1. Introduction
The well-known Cholesky factorization theorem states that any positive and invertible n×n matrix can be written asU∗U for some invertible upper triangularn×nmatrixU (so the inverse U−1 is also upper triangular). We then say that the algebra of upper triangular matrices has
factorizationinMn, the algebra of alln×ncomplex matrices. Using this or otherwise, one can show
that an algebra consisting of block upper-triangular matrices (with respect to some orthonormal basis) also admits such factorization in Mn. Is there any other algebra inMn with this property?
Paulsen and Raghupathi [18] showed that any algebra inMncontaining all diagonal matrices, has
factorization in Mn if and only if it is unitarily equivalent to an algebra of block upper triangular
matrices (they actually studied the notion called logmodular algebra, which is our interest in this paper as well). The general characterization was settled by Juschenko [14] who showed that upto a change of basis, all algebras with factorization inMn contain the diagonal algebra, thus showing
that algebras of block upper triangular matrices are all which have factorization.
A natural question that arises is up to what extent these results generalize to infinite-dimensional setting. Let Hbe a complex and separable Hilbert space, and letB(H) denote the algebra of all bounded operators on H. Let E be a collection of closed subspaces of H totally ordered with respect to inclusion (such a collection is called anest), and let AlgE (callednest algebra) denote the algebra of all operators inB(H) which leave all subspaces inEinvariant. Note that an algebra of block upper triangular matrices is nothing but AlgE for some nestEinCn, and vice versa. So a
generalization of Cholesky factorization would be to ask whether AlgE has factorization in B(H) for a nestE inH. Gohberg and Krein [9] appear to be the first who studied factorization along nest algebras, mainly examining positive and invertible operators ‘close’ to identity operator. Arveson [3] considered factorization property of nest algebras arising out of nests of order typeZ. It was Larson [15] who investigated factorization property of arbitrary nest algebras, and he proved in particular that ifEis a countable complete nest inH, then AlgEhas factorization inB(H). Again what can be said about the converse? That is, if a subalgebra A has factorization in B(H), are they of the form AlgE for some countable complete nestE? In this paper, we show that this is indeed the case if we also assume thatAis reflexive.
More generally, factorization property of subalgebras of arbitrary von Neumann algebras are considered. A classical result says that the Hardy algebraH∞(T) on the unit circle has factorization in L∞(T) i.e. for any non-negative element f ∈ L∞(T) with 1/f ∈L∞(T), there is an element
2020Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 47L35. Secondary: 47L30, 46K50.
Key words and phrases. Logmodular algebra, factorization, nest, commutative subspace lattice, nest algebra, CSL algebra.
h ∈ H∞
(T) with 1/h ∈ H∞
(T) such that f = ¯hh. Some other function algebras like weak∗ -Dirichlet algebras introduced by Srinivasan and Wang [25] have factorization property. Taking cue from analytic function algebras, Arveson [2] introduced the theory of finite maximal subdiagonal algebras as noncommutative variant and considered many results analogous to the classical Hardy space theory, showing in particular that they have factorization property. Later several authors have examined such algebras in different settings. For more about algebras with factorization see [2,3,15, 16,19, 23,17,7,9], and for some closely related properties see [20,21, 1, 13,17,24] to name a few.
An algebra with factorization property is a particular case oflogmodular algebras. The notion of logmodularity was first introduced by Hoffman [11] for subalgebras of commutativeC∗
-algebras, whose main idea was to generalize some classical results of analytic function theory in the unit disc. Blecher and Labuschagne [4] extended this notion to subalgebras of non-commutativeC∗
-algebras. They studied completely contractive representations on such algebras and their extension proper-ties. Paulsen and Raghupathi [18] also studied representations of logmodular algebras and explored conditions under which a contractive representation is automatically completely contractive. In [14], Juschenko gave a complete characterization of all logmodular subalgebras of Mn. See [5]
for a beautiful survey on logmodular algebras arising out of tracial subalgebras and their relation to finite subdiagonal algebras among others. They show how most results generalized in 1960’s from the Hardy space on the unit disc to more general function algebras generalize further to the non-commutative situation, though more sophisticated proof techniques had to be developed for the purpose. We list some additional references on logmodular algebras in [11,12,8,4, 5,18,14]. In this article, our aim is to understand the behaviour of lattice of subspaces (or projections) invariant under logmodular algebras, and use it to characterize reflexive logmodular algebras. The main result answers a conjecture by [18] in the affirmative, which asks whether every completely distributive CSL logmodular algebra of B(H) is a nest algebra. In fact, we show more generally that any M-reflexive logmodular subalgebra of a factor M is a nest subalgebra. Moreover, we explore some sufficient criteria under which an algebra with factorization is automatically reflexive and is a nest algebra. In particular it is proved that a subalgebra ofB(H) with factorization, whose lattice consists of finite dimensional atoms, is reflexive and so it is a nest algebra. Also we show that any subalgebra with factorization in a finite dimensional von Neumann algebra must be a nest subalgebra. Finally we give an example of a subalgebra in a von Neumann algebra (certainly infinite dimensional), which has factorization but it is not a nest subalgebra.
2. Definitions, examples and main results
All Hilbert spaces considered in this paper are complex and separable. ThroughoutB(H) denotes the algebra of all bounded operators on a Hilbert spaceH. By subspaces, projections and operators onH, we mean closed subspaces, orthogonal projections and bounded operators respectively. For any subspaceF contained in a subspaceE, we denote the orthogonal complement of F in E by E ⊖F. We write E⊥ for the orthogonal complement of E i.e. E⊥ = H ⊖E. The projection onto a subspace E is denoted byPE. For any projectionp, we write p⊥ for the projection 1−p,
where 1 is the identity operator onH. If{pi}i∈Λis a collection of projections, then∨i∈Λpidenotes
the projection onto the smallest subspace containing ranges of all p′
is, and ∧i∈Λpi denotes the
projection onto the intersection of ranges of allp′
is. For any operatorxin B(H), kerxandR(x)
denote the kernel and range ofxrespectively. All algebras considered will be subalgebras ofB(H), which are always assumed to be norm closed, and contain the identity operator which we shall denote by 1. Unless said otherwise, convergence of any sequence of operators is taken in norm topology.
We briefly recall some basic notions of von Neumann algebra theory. A von Neumann algebra is a self-adjoint subalgebra of B(H) containing 1 and closed in weak operator topology (WOT). A von Neumann algebra M is called factor if its center M ∩ M′ is trivial. Here M′ denotes the commutant of M in B(H). Let p, q be two projections in M. Thenp and q are said to be (Murray-von Neumann) equivalent, and denoted p∼q, if there exists a partial isometry v ∈ M such that v∗v =pand vv∗ =q. We say pq if there is a projectionq
andp∼q1. Here≤denotes the usual order of self-adjoint operators, and<will denote the strict
order. A projectionp∈ Mis calledfiniteif the only projectionqinMsuch thatq≤pandq∼p isp. The von Neumann algebraMis calledfiniteif 1∈ Mis finite. Note that ifpis a projection in M, then pMpis a von Neumann algebra which is∗-isomorphic to a von Neumann subalgebra ofB(K), whereKis the range subspace of the projectionp. See [6] for more details on these topics. We now define some notations relevant to our results. Fix a von Neumann algebra M, which is always assumed to be acting on a separable Hilbert space. Let Abe a norm closed subalgebra (not necessarily self-adjoint) of M. We denote byA∗ the set{x∈ M;x∗∈ A}, and byA−1 the
set {x∈ A;xis invertible withx−1 ∈ A}. LetM−1
+ denote the set of all positive and invertible
elements of M. Note that all these notations make sense for anyC∗
-algebra. But our main focus in this paper is on von Neumann algebras.
ForMandAas above, let LatMAdenote the lattice of all projections inMwhose ranges are invariant under every operator in Ai.e.
LatMA={p∈ M;p=p2=p∗ andap=pap∀a∈ A}.
IfM=B(H), we denote LatMAsimply by LatA. Note that ifAis also considered as a subalgebra of B(H) (whereM ⊆ B(H)), then we have LatMA=M ∩LatA. Also note that 0,1 ∈LatMA and LatMAis closed under the operations∨and∧of arbitrary collection as well as closed under strong operator topology (SOT).
Dually, let E be a collection of projections in M (not necessarily a lattice), and let AlgME (or AlgE when M=B(H)) denote the algebra of all operators in Mwhich leave range of every projection ofE invariant i.e.
AlgME={x∈ M;xp=pxp ∀p∈ E}.
Again we note that AlgMA=M ∩AlgE. Also it is clear that AlgME is a unital subalgebra of M, which is closed in weak operator topology.
Following [11,4], we now consider the following definitions. Definition 2.1. LetAbe a subalgebra of a C∗
-algebraM. Then Ais calledlogmodular or has logmodularity in M if the set {a∗
a;a ∈ A−1} is norm dense in M−1
+ . The algebra A is said to
havefactorization or strong logmodularityin Mif{a∗a;a∈ A−1}=M−1 + .
It is clear that any algebra having factorization is logmodular. Below we collect some known and straightforward results about logmodular algebras whose proof is simple, so it is left to the reader. (See Proposition 4.6, [4]).
Proposition 2.2. Let φ : M → N be a ∗-isomorphism between two C∗-algebras, and let A be a subalgebra of M. Then A has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in M if and only if φ(A) has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in N. In particular if U is an appropriate unitary, then U∗AU has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in U∗MU if and only ifA has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in M.
Proposition 2.3. (Proposition 4.1, [4]) Let A be a subalgebra of a C∗-algebra M. We have the following:
(1) Ahas factorization in Mif and only ifA∗ has factorization inMif and only if for every invertible elementx∈ M, there exist unitariesu, v∈ Mand invertible elementsa, b∈ A−1
such that x=ua=bv.
(2) Ais logmodular inMif and only ifA∗is logmodular inMif and only if for each invertible elementx∈ M, there exist sequences{un},{vn}of unitaries inMand invertible elements
{an},{bn} inA−1 such thatx= limnunan = limnbnvn.
There are plenty of such algebras known in literature. The following are examples of logmodular algebras in commutativeC∗-algebras.
Example 2.4. (Function algebras) A classical result of Szeg¨o (Theorem 25.13, [6]) says that the Hardy algebra H∞(T) has factorization in L∞(T, µ). Here T is the unit circle, µ is the one-dimensional Lebesgue measure onTandH∞(T) is the algebra of all essentially bounded functions onTwhose negative Fourier coefficients are zero.
More generally, let m be a probability measure, and let A be a unital subalgebra of L∞ (m) satisfying the following: (i) R f gdm=Rf dmR gdmfor all f, g ∈ A, and (ii) if h∈ L1(m) with
h≥0 a.e. and R f hdm=R f dmfor allf ∈ A, thenh= 1 a.e. LetH2(m) be the closure ofAin
the Hilbert spaceL2(m), and letH∞(m) =H2(m)∩L∞(m). Then the proof of Theorem 4 in [12] says thatH∞
(m) has factorization inL∞
(m). The algebraH∞
(m) satisfies many other equivalent conditions analogues to classical Hardy space theory (see Theorem 3.1, [25] for details). Also see [11, 12,25] for more concrete examples of such measures and algebras.
Example 2.5. (Dirichlet algebras) A closed unital subalgebra A of a commutative C∗-algebra C(X) is calledDirichlet algebraifA+ ¯Ais uniformly dense inC(X) (equivalently, ReAis uniformly dense in ReC(X)), where ReA[ReC(X)] denotes the set of real parts of the functions inA[C(X)]. If A is a Dirichlet algebra, then since log|A−1| ⊆ ReA, it is immediate that log|A−1| is dense
in ReC(X); henceA is a logmodular subalgebra ofC(X). But some Dirichlet algebras may not have factorization. For example, consider the algebra A(D) of all continuous functions on the closed unit discDwhich is holomorphic on the open unit discD. ThenA(D) is a Dirichlet algebra when considered as the subalgebra of C(T), which is a consequence of Fej´er-Riesz Theorem on factorization of positive trigonometric polynomials, butA(D) does not have factorization inC(T). On the other hand,H∞(T) is an example of an algebra which has factorization, but which is not a Dirichlet algebra. See [11] for details of these facts and more concrete examples of Dirichlet algebras.
To see some examples and other properties of noncommutative algebras having factorization, we recall some notions to this end. Let M be a von Neumann algebra, and let E be a lattice of projections in M (i.e. E is closed under usual lattice operations ∨ and ∧ of finite family of projections). Then E is called completeif 0,1∈ E, and ∨i∈Λpi and ∧i∈Λpi ∈ E for any arbitrary
family{pi}i∈Λin E. The latticeE is calledcommutative subspace lattice (CSL) if projections ofE
commute with one another. Moreover, E is callednest ifE is ordered by usual operator ordering i.e. for anyp, q∈ E, eitherp≤qor q≤pholds true. We remark here that some authors assume a nest or a CSL to be always complete.
A subalgebra A is called a nest subalgebra of M (or nest algebra when M = B(H)) if A = AlgME for a nestE inM. Further, a subalgebraAofMis calledM-reflexive(orreflexivewhen M=B(H)) ifA= AlgMLatMA. It is clear that any subalgebra of Mof the form AlgME for some collection E of projections inM is alwaysM-reflexive. In particular, a nest subalgebra of M isM-reflexive. It should be noted here that ifM ⊆ B(H), then a subalgebra AofMcan be reflexive inB(H), but it need not beM-reflexive.
The following is a well-known result by Larson [15] regarding factorization property of nest algebras.
Theorem 2.6. (Theorem 4.7,[15]) LetE be a complete nest in a separable Hilbert spaceH. Then AlgE has factorization in B(H)if and only ifE is countable.
The following are some examples of algebras having factorization in noncommutative von Neu-mann algebras.
Example 2.7. (Nest subalgebras) As already mentioned above, AlgE has factorization inB(H) for any countable complete nest E in B(H). More generally, Pitts proved that if E is a complete nest in a factorM, then AlgME has factorization inMif and only if “certain” subnestErofE is
countable (Theorem 6.4, [19]).
Moreover, if E is a nest (not necessarily countable) in a finite von Neumann algebra M (not necessarily a factor), then AlgME has factorization inM(Corollary 5.11, [19]).
Example 2.8. (Subdiagonal algebras) LetAbe a subalgebra of a von Neumann algebraM, and letφ:M → Mbe a faithful normal expectation (i.e. φis positive,φ(1) = 1 andφ◦φ=φ). Then A is called asubdiagonal algebrawith respect to φif it satisfies: (i)A+A∗ is σ-weakly dense in M, (ii)φ(ab) =φ(a)φ(b) for alla, b∈ A, and (iii)φ(A)⊆ A ∩ A∗. Moreover, if the von Neumann algebraMis finite with a distinguished traceτ, then the subdiagonal algebraAis calledfiniteif τ◦φ=τ. Arveson proved that ifAis a maximal (with respect toφ) finite subdiagonal algebra of
M, thenAhas factorization inM(Theorem 4.2.1, [2]). A nest subalgebra of a finite von Neumann algebra is an example of maximal finite subdiagonal algebras (Corollary 3.1.2, [2]). See 4.10for another concrete example of a finite subdiagonal algebra.
There are other subdiagonal algebras (not necessarily finite) as well, which are known to have factorization. For example, all subdiagonal algebras arising out of periodic flow have factorization. See [23] for more details of these notions and Corollary 3.11 therein.
We believe that some known facts about subdiagonal algebras can also be deduced from our result. One such is Theorem 5.1 in [17], which follows directly from Corollary2.11. But we have not explored other possible consequences in depth.
Below we have some concrete examples of nest algebras which do not have factorization. Example 2.9. LetE be the nest{pt;t∈[0,1]} of projections onL2([0,1]), whereptdenotes the
projection ontoL2([0, t]), considered as subspace ofL2([0,1]). ThenEis complete and uncountable;
hence AlgE does not have factorization in B(L2([0,1])) by Theorem2.6. Additionally, letF =
{pi;i∈Q}be the nest of projections onℓ2(Q), wherepidenotes the projection onto the subspace
span{ej;j≤i} for the canonical basis{ei;i∈Q} ofℓ2(Q). AlthoughF is a countable nest, it is
easy to verify that its completion is not countable (actually indexed byR⊔Q) and hence AlgF does not have factorization inB(ℓ2(Q)). At this point, we do not know whether these algebras are
logmodular.
We now state the main result of this paper. This gives us the understanding of behaviour of the lattices of logmodular algebras.
Theorem 2.10. Let Abe a logmodular algebra in a von Neumann algebraM. ThenLatMAis a commutative subspace lattice. Moreover ifM is a factor, thenLatMAis a nest.
We postpone the proof of Theorem2.10to the next section, and instead look at some of its con-sequences first. Note that since any algebra having factorization is also logmodular, the following corollary is immediate.
Corollary 2.11. Let an algebraAhave factorization in a von Neumann algebraM. ThenLatMA is a commutative subspace lattice. Moreover ifM is a factor, thenLatMAis a nest.
Remark 2.12. If M is an arbitrary von Neumann algebra which is not a factor, and A is a subalgebra of M, then we can never expect LatMA to be a nest irrespective of whether A is logmodular or has factorization. In fact ifPZdenotes the lattice of all projections in the centerZ of M, then it is always true that PZ ⊆LatMA. So LatMAcan never be a nest if the center Z is non-trivial.
Now let M be a factor, and letA be anM-reflexive subalgebra ofM. IfA is logmodular in M, then LatMAis a nest by Theorem2.10. But since A= AlgMLatMA, it follows thatA is a nest subalgebra ofM.
We now answer an open question posed by Paulsen and Raghupathi (see pg. 2630, [18]) using above observation. They conjectured that every completely distributive CSL logmodular algebra in B(H) is a nest algebra. Here a (completely distributive) CSL algebra means an algebra of the form AlgE, whereE is a (completely distributive) commutative subspace lattice (see [7] for more on completely distributive CSL algebras). Note that all nests are completely distributive. Since any CSL algebra is a special case of reflexive algebras, we have thus answered their question in affirmative. We record it below.
Corollary 2.13. AnM-reflexive logmodular algebra in a factorMis a nest subalgebra of M. In particular, all reflexive (hence completely distributive CSL) logmodular algebras in B(H)are nest algebras.
If an algebra Ahas factorization in B(H), then Alg LatAalso has factorization in B(H) asA is contained in Alg LatA. Since LatA is a complete nest, it then follows from Theorem2.6 that LatAis a countable nest. In particular, ifA= AlgE for a latticeE of projections inH, thenE is a countable nest becauseE ⊆LatA. Thus we get the following corollary, which is a strengthening of Theorem 2.6of Larson.
Corollary 2.14. Let E be a complete lattice of projections on a separable Hilbert space H. Then AlgE has factorization in B(H)if and only ifE is a countable nest.
3. Proof of the main result
This section is devoted to the proof of our main result (Theorem2.10). We first discuss some general ingredients required for this. A simple observation that we shall be using throughout the article is the following remark. Recall thatp⊥ denotes the projection 1−pfor any projectionp. Remark 3.1. For any subalgebra A of a von Neumann algebra M, p ∈ LatMA ⇐⇒ ap = pap ∀a∈ A ⇐⇒ pa∗ =pa∗ p∀a∈ A ⇐⇒ a∗ p⊥ =p⊥ a∗ p⊥ ∀a∈ A ⇐⇒ p⊥ ∈LatMA∗ . The following proposition says that logmodularity and factorization are preserved under com-pression of algebras by appropriates projections. Here pApdenotes the subspace {pap;a∈ A}for any projectionpand an algebraA. Note that pApneed not always be an algebra.
Proposition 3.2. Let an algebraA have logmodularity (resp. factorization) in a von Neumann algebra M, and letp, q∈LatMA be such thatp≥q. Then the following statements are true:
(1) pAp(=Ap) has logmodularity (resp. factorization) inpMp. (2) p⊥Ap⊥ has logmodularity (resp. factorization) inp⊥Mp⊥.
(3) (p−q)A(p−q)has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in(p−q)M(p−q).
Proof. We shall prove only part (3). Part (1) follows from (3) by taking q = 0, and (2) follows from (3) by taking p= 1 and q=p. Also we shall prove only the case of logmodularity. That of factorization follows similarly. So assume that Ais logmodular inM.
First we show that (p−q)A(p−q) is an algebra. For alla∈ A, sinceap=papandaq=qaq, we note that
(p−q)aq= (p−q)qaq= 0, and
pa(p−q) =pap−paq=ap−pqaq=ap−qaq=ap−aq=a(p−q). (3.1) Combining the two expressions above, it follows for alla, b∈ Athat
(p−q)a(p−q)b(p−q) = (p−q)apb(p−q)−(p−q)aqb(p−q) = (p−q)ab(p−q), (3.2) which shows that (p−q)A(p−q) is an algebra.
To show that (p−q)A(p−q) is logmodular in (p−q)M(p−q), fix a positive and invertible elementxin (p−q)M(p−q) and set ˜x=x+q+p⊥
. Note thatx= (p−q)˜x(p−q). It is clear that ˜
xis positive inM. Since xis positive and invertible in (p−q)M(p−q), there is someα∈(0,1) such thatx≥α(p−q), from which we get
˜
x=x+q+p⊥≥α(p−q) +αq+αp⊥=α.
This shows that ˜x is invertible in M. We then use logmodularity of A in M to get a sequence {˜an} inA−1 such that ˜x= limn˜a∗n˜an. So for each n, we have ˜anq=q˜anq and ˜a−n1q=q˜a
−1
n q. It
then follows that
(q˜anq)(q˜a−n1q) =q˜an˜a−n1q=q and (q˜a
−1
n q)(q˜anq) =q˜a−n1a˜nq=q,
which is to say that q˜anq is invertible in qMq with (q˜anq)−1 = q˜a−n1q ∈ qAq. In particular,
since the sequence{˜a−1
n }is bounded (as{(˜a
∗
n˜an)−1} is a convergent sequence), it follows that the
sequence{(q˜anq)−1}is bounded. Note thatqx(p˜ −q) = 0, and sinceq˜a∗n =q˜a
∗
nqfor alln, we have
0 =q˜x(p−q) = lim n q˜a ∗ n˜an(p−q) = lim n (q˜a ∗ nq)(q˜an(p−q)).
Multiplying to the left of the sequence by (q˜a∗
nq)
−1 yields
lim
using which and the expression ˜an(p−q) =p˜an(p−q) from (3.1), we get the following: x= (p−q)˜x(p−q) = lim n (p−q)˜a ∗ n˜an(p−q) = lim n (p−q)˜a ∗ np˜an(p−q) = lim n (p−q)˜a ∗ n[q˜an(p−q)] + lim n (p−q)˜a ∗ n[(p−q)˜an(p−q)] = lim n (p−q)˜a ∗ n(p−q)˜an(p−q) = lim n a ∗ nan,
where an = (p−q)˜an(p−q)∈(p−q)A(p−q). Also for eachn, we have from (3.2) that
p−q= (p−q)˜a−1
n (p−q)˜an(p−q) = (p−q)˜an(p−q)˜a−n1(p−q),
which shows thatan= (p−q)˜an(p−q) is invertible with inverse (p−q)˜a−n1(p−q) in (p−q)A(p−q).
Thus we get a sequence{an} of invertible elements withan, an−1 ∈(p−q)A(p−q) for allnsuch
that x = limna∗nan. Since x is an arbitrary positive and invertible element, we conclude that
(p−q)A(p−q) is logmodular in (p−q)M(p−q).
We now recall some basic facts about subspaces in a separable Hilbert space. Following Halmos [10], we say two non-zero subspaces E and F of a Hilbert space are in generic position if all the following subspaces
E∩F, E∩F⊥ , E⊥
∩F andE⊥ ∩F⊥
are zero. We are going to use the following characterization of subspaces in generic position. Recall thatPEdenotes the projection onto a subspaceE. Also recall that kerxdenotes the kernel of any
operatorx.
Lemma 3.3. (Theorem 2, [10]) Let E and F be two subspaces in generic position in a Hilbert space H. Then there exist a Hilbert spaceK, a unitary U :H → K ⊕ K, and commuting positive contractions x, y∈ B(K)such thatx2+y2= 1 andkerx= kery= 0and
U PEU∗= 1 0 0 0 and U PFU∗= x2 xy xy y2 .
The following lemma is very easy to verify, whose proof is left to the readers.
Lemma 3.4. Let E andF be two subspaces in a Hilbert spaceH, and let H1 denote the subspace
of Hgiven by
H1=H ⊖ E∩F+E∩F⊥+E⊥∩F+E⊥∩F⊥.
If E1=E∩ H1 andF1=F∩ H1, then exactly one of the following holds true:
(1) H1={0}, and henceE1, F1= 0.
(2) E1 and F1 are non-zero, and they are in generic position as subspaces ofH1.
Moreover, the projections PE andPF commute if and only if the first condition is satisfied (i.e.
H1= 0).
The subspaces E1 and F1 as in Lemma 3.4 are calledgeneric part of the subspaces E andF.
The structure of general subspaces can now be described using the two lemmas above.
Proposition 3.5. Let E and F be two subspaces in a Hilbert space H. Then there is a Hilbert spaceK(could be zero), and commuting positive contractionsx, y∈ B(K)withx2+y2= 1,kerx=
kery= 0 such that, upto unitary equivalence H=E∩F⊕E∩F⊥ ⊕E⊥ ∩F⊕E⊥ ∩F⊥ ⊕ K ⊕ K, and PE = 1⊕1⊕0⊕0⊕1⊕0 and PF = 1⊕0⊕1⊕0⊕ x2 xy xy y2 .
Here any of the components in the decomposition could be0. Moreover,PEPF =PFPE=PE∩F if
We are now ready to give proof of our main result through a series of lemmas. The next two lemmas deal with factor von Neumann algebras only, where we use the following comparison theo-rem of projections (see Corollary 47.9, [6]): IfMis a factor andp, qare two non-zero projections inM, then eitherpqorqpi.e. there is a non-zero partial isometryv∈ Msuch thatv∗
v≤p andvv∗≤q. The same is clearly not true for arbitrary von Neumann algebras.
Lemma 3.6. Let M be a factor, and let p, q be mutually orthogonal projections in M. Then AlgM{p, q} is not logmodular inM.
Proof. Since Mis a factor and p, q∈ M are non-zero, it follows that there is a non-zero partial isometry v ∈ M such thatv∗
v ≤pand vv∗ ≤
q. In particular, we have v=qv =vp, and since pq= 0 it follows thatpv=pqv= 0.
Assume to the contrary that AlgM{p, q} is logmodular inM. Letx= 1 +ǫ(v+v∗
) for some ǫ >0, whereǫis chosen small enough so thatxis positive and invertible inM. Then there exists a sequence{an}of invertible elements in AlgM{p, q}such thatx= limna∗nan. Now sincev∗p= 0
and pq = 0, we note thatqxp =ǫqvp=ǫv. We also haveanp=panpand qa∗n =qa
∗ nqfor all n; thus we get ǫv=qxp= lim n qa ∗ nanp= lim n qa ∗ nqpanp= 0, which is a contradiction, asv6= 0.
We recall here a simple fact that ifpandqare commuting projections, thenpq is a projection such thatp∧q=pqandp∨q=p+q−pq.
Lemma 3.7. Let Mbe a factor, and let p, q ∈ Mbe two commuting projections. If AlgM{p.q} is logmodular in M, then either p≤q orq≤pholds true.
Proof. Since p and q commuting projections, it follows that the operators pq, pq⊥ and p⊥q are projections. From Lemma 3.6, we know that pq6= 0. Note that the required assertion will follow by the following argument once we show that either pq⊥ = 0 or p⊥q = 0: say pq⊥ = 0, then p=p(q+q⊥
) =pqwhich implies thatp≤q. Similarly,p⊥
q= 0 will implyq≤p. Assume to the contrary that both the projectionspq⊥
andp⊥
qare non-zero. SinceMis a factor, there is a non-zero partial isometry v∈ M such thatv∗
v≤pq⊥ and vv∗ ≤p⊥ q; in particular we have, v=vpq⊥ =p⊥ qv. (3.3)
Now letx= 1+ǫ(v+v∗) forǫ >0, where we chooseǫsmall enough so thatxis positive and invertible in M. Since AlgM{p, q} is logmodular inM, there exists a sequence{an} of invertible elements
in M such that an, a−n1 ∈ AlgM{p, q} for all n and x = limna∗nan. Note that pqanpq = anpq
and pqa−1
n pq = a
−1
n pq for all n; hence pqanpq is invertible in pqMpq with inverse pqa−n1pq. In
particular, the sequence {(pqanpq)−1} is bounded, as the sequence {a−n1} is bounded. Also note
from (3.3) thatvpq= 0 and p⊥ qv∗ = 0; hence we get p⊥ qxpq=p⊥ qpq+ǫp⊥ q(vpq) +ǫ(p⊥ qv∗ )pq= 0. Thus we have 0 =p⊥ qxpq= lim n p ⊥ qa∗ nanpq= lim n p ⊥ qa∗ npqanpq,
and so by multiplying by {(pqanpq)−1} to right side of the sequence, we get limnp⊥qa∗npq = 0;
using which and the expressionsqa∗
n=qa
∗
nq andanp=panpfor alln, it follows that
p⊥ qxpq⊥ = lim n p ⊥ qa∗ nanpq⊥= lim n (p ⊥ qa∗ nqp)anpq⊥ = 0.
On the other hand, we again use the equationp⊥ qv∗ = 0 to get p⊥ qxpq⊥ =p⊥ qpq⊥ +ǫp⊥ qvpq⊥ +ǫp⊥ qv∗ pq⊥ =ǫp⊥ qvpq⊥ =ǫv6= 0.
So we get a contradiction, which arose because we assumed that both pq⊥ andp⊥qare non-zero. Thus one of them is zero and we have the required result.
Lemma 3.8. Let{an}be a sequence of invertible elements in aC∗-algebraMsuch thatlimna∗nan =
1. Then{a−1
n } is bounded andlimnana∗n= 1.
Proof. Since limna∗nan= 1, it follows that limn(a∗nan)−1= 1 and so{(a∗nan)−1} is bounded. This
implies the first assertion that{a−1
n }is bounded. Further we have limna∗nana∗nan = 1, and hence
0 = lim n (a ∗ nana∗nan−a∗nan) = lim n a ∗ n(ana∗n−1)an.
Since the sequence {a−1
n } is bounded, it follows by multiplying a
∗
n
−1
to the left and a−1
n to the
right of the sequence that limn(ana∗n−1) = 0,as to be proved.
Next we consider lattices of logmodular algebras in arbitrary von Neumann algebras, where our aim is to prove that the generic part of any two invariant subspaces is zero. Recall that R(x)
denotes the range of an operatorx.
Lemma 3.9. LetMbe a von Neumann subalgebra ofB(H)for some HilbertH, and letp, qbe two non-zero projections inMsuch thatR(p)andR(q)are in generic position inH. ThenAlgM{p, q}
is not logmodular in M.
Proof. Assume to the contrary that the algebra AlgM{p, q}is logmodular in M. SinceR(p) and R(q) are in generic position inH, it follows from Lemma 3.3 that there exist a Hilbert space K
and commuting positive contractions x, y∈ B(K) satisfying kerx= 0, kery = 0 and x2+y2= 1
such that upto unitary equivalence, we haveH=K ⊕ K and
p= 1 0 0 0 and q= x2 xy xy y2 . (3.4)
Since logmodularity is preserved under unitary equivalence by Proposition 2.2, we can assume without loss of generality that Mis a von Neumann subalgebra ofB(K ⊕ K), andp, q are of the form as in (3.4).
Now let S be an invertible operator such that S, S−1 ∈ AlgM{p, q}. Then Sp = pSp and
S−1p=pS−1p, which imply thatS andS−1have the following form:
S= a b 0 c and S−1= a′ b′ 0 c′ , for some operatorsa, b, c, a′
, b′ , c′
∈ B(K). It is then clear from the expressionSS−1= 1 =S−1S
that aandcare invertible in B(K) with respective inversesa′ andc′ . Note that Sq= ax2+bxy axy+by2 cxy cy2 andqSq=
x2ax2+x2bxy+xycxy x2axy+x2by2+xycy2
xyax2+xybxy+y2cxy xyaxy+xyby2+y2cy2
. SinceSq=qSq, we equate (2,1) entries of the matricesSqandqSq, and use the equation 1−y2=x2
to get the expressionx2cxy =xyax2+xybxy. Sincexis injective (and hence xhas dense range,
as xis positive),xcan be cancelled from both the sides to get the following:
xcy=yax+yby. (3.5)
Now fixα≥1, and letZ =
1 α
α α2+ 1
∈ B(K ⊕ K). It is clear thatZ is a positive and invertible
operator. We claim that Z ∈ M. Since p and q are in M, it follows that
x2 0 0 0 = pqp ∈ M. Similarly 0 0 0 y2 = p⊥ qp⊥ ∈ M. Thus x2 0 0 y2 ∈ M and hence 0 xy xy 0 ∈ M. Set T = 0 xy xy 0
and let T =U|T| be its polar decomposition, where |T| denotes the square root of the operator T∗
T. It is clear that T is one-one (as xy is one-one), and so U is unitary. It is straightforward to check (using uniqueness of polar decomposition) that |T| =
xy 0 0 xy
U =
0 1 1 0
. SinceMis a von Neumann algebra, it follows thatU ∈ Mand so
0 α α 0 =αU ∈ M. Also since 1 0 0 α2+ 1 =p+ (α2+ 1)p⊥∈ M, we conclude that Z ∈ M, as claimed.
Thus by logmodularity of AlgM{p, q}inM, we get a sequence{Sn}of invertible operators with
Sn, Sn−1 ∈AlgM{p, q} for all nsuch that Z = limnSn∗Sn. It then follows from above discussion
that for eachn,Sn is of the form
Sn= an bn 0 cn ,
foran, bn, cn∈ B(K) such thatan andcn are invertible operators, and from (3.5) we have
xcny=yanx+ybny. (3.6) Now we have 1 α α α2+ 1 =Z = lim n S ∗ nSn= lim n a∗ nan a∗nbn b∗ nan b∗nbn+c∗ncn . (3.7)
So we get limna∗nan = 1, and since eachan is invertible, it follows from Lemma3.8that
lim
n ana
∗
n= 1. (3.8)
We also get from (3.7) that limna∗nbn=α, which further yields by multiplying an to the left side
of the sequence and using (3.8) that lim
n (bn−αan) = 0. (3.9)
Setdn=bn−αan for alln. Then limndn= 0, and since limna∗nan= 1 we have
lim n b ∗ nbn= lim n (dn+αan) ∗ (dn+αan) = lim n α 2 a∗ nan=α2.
We further get from (3.7) thatα2+ 1 = lim
n(b∗nbn+c∗ncn), which yields limnc∗ncn = 1. Again as
eachcn is invertible, it follows from Lemma3.8that
lim
n cnc
∗
n= 1. (3.10)
Now from (3.6) and usingbn=αan+dn, we have
xcny =yanx+ybny=yanx+αyany+ydny=yan(x+αy) +ydny=yanu+ydny,
where u=x+αy. Sinceα≥1, we note thatuis positive and invertible (in factu2= 1 + (α2−
1)y2+ 2αxy≥1), and thus we get
yan=xcnyu−1−ydnyu−1. (3.11)
Note that
u2= (x+αy)2=x2+α2y2+ 2αxy≥α2y2 and sincey anducommutes, it follows that
y2u−2≤1/α2. (3.12)
Thus we use the expression limndn= 0 from (3.9), and equations in (3.8), (3.10), (3.11) and (3.12)
to get the following: y2= lim n yana ∗ ny= lim n (yan)(yan) ∗ = lim n (xcnyu −1− ydnyu −1 )(xcnyu −1− ydnyu −1 )∗ = lim n (xcnyu −1)(xc nyu−1)∗= lim n xcny 2u−2c∗ nx≤lim n 1 α2xcnc ∗ nx= 1 α2x 2.
Since α≥1 is arbitrary, it follows by letting αtend to ∞that y = 0, which is clearly not true. Thus our assumption that AlgM{p, q}is logmodular is false completing the proof. Finally we prove our main theorem in full generality, for which we consider the following lemma. Lemma 3.10. Let an algebra A have logmodularity (resp. factorization) in a von Neumann algebra M, and letp, q∈LatMA. Ifr= (p∧q)∨(p⊥∧q⊥), then r⊥Ar⊥ has logmodularity (resp. factorization) in r⊥Mr⊥.
Proof. Set r1 = p∧q and r2 = p⊥ ∧q⊥. It is clear that r1r2 = 0 and r = r1+r2. Since
p, q ∈ LatMA, it follows that r1 ∈ LatMA. Also we note that p⊥, q⊥ ∈ LatMA∗ and hence
r2∈LatMA∗, which is to say thatr⊥2 ∈LatMA. Note that r
⊥
= 1−r2−r1=r2⊥−r1, and so
r1 ≤r⊥2. Both the assertions about logmodularity and factorization now follow from part (3) of
Proposition3.2.
Proof of Theorem 2.10. LetAbe a logmodular subalgebra of a von Neumann algebraM, and let p, q∈LatMA. We have to show thatpq=qp. The second assertion thatp≤qorq≤pwhenever Mis a factor, will then follow from Lemma 3.7.
Setr= (p∧q)∨(p⊥∧q⊥). Then r⊥Ar⊥ is a logmodular algebra inr⊥Mr⊥ by Lemma3.10. Note that the projections pandq commute withr, and hence withr⊥. So if we setp′ =r⊥pr⊥ andq′=r⊥qr⊥, then it is immediate thatp′, q′ are projections inr⊥Mr⊥, and we havep′ =p∧r⊥ andq′ =q∧r⊥. Note thatpq(p∧q) =p∧q=qp(p∧q) andpq(p⊥∧q⊥) = 0 =qp(p⊥∧q⊥); hence pqr=p∧q=qpr, which further yields
pq=pq(r+r⊥) =pqr+pqr⊥ =p∧q+ (r⊥pr⊥)(r⊥qr⊥) =p∧q+p′q′, qp=qpr+qpr⊥ =p∧q+ (r⊥ qr⊥ )(r⊥ pr⊥ ) =p∧q+q′ p′ .
Therefore, in order to show the required assertion it is enough to prove that p′q′ =q′p′. Also we note that p′ ∧q′ =p∧q∧r⊥ ≤r∧r⊥ = 0, and (r⊥− p′ )∧(r⊥− q′ ) = (r⊥− pr⊥ )∧(r⊥− qr⊥ ) =p⊥ r⊥∧ q⊥ r⊥ = (p⊥∧ q⊥ )∧r⊥ ≤ r∧r⊥ = 0. Here r⊥−p′ andr⊥−q′ are the orthogonal complement of the projectionsp′ and q′ in r⊥Mr⊥ respectively. Thus if necessary, by replacing the algebras M and A by r⊥Mr⊥ and r⊥Ar⊥ respectively, and the projections p, q by p′, q′ respectively we assume without loss of generality that p∧q= 0 =p⊥ ∧q⊥ , (3.13) so thatr= 0 andM=r⊥ Mr⊥
. The purpose of reducingMtor⊥ Mr⊥
is just to avoid multiple cases, and work with 4×4 matrices rather than 6×6 matrices as we shall see.
Now assume to the contrary that pq 6=qp. Then the generic part ofR(p) and R(q) in Hare
non-zero by Proposition3.5, whereHis the Hilbert space on which the von Neumann algebraM acts. Further if bothp∧q⊥
andp⊥∧
qare also zero, then (asp∧q= 0 =p⊥∧ q⊥
)R(p) andR(q)
will be in generic position, which is not possible by Lemma 3.9since AlgM{p, q}is logmodular in M as well. Therefore at least one of the projectionsp∧q⊥
andp⊥∧
qis non-zero. Thus for the remainder of the proof, we assume that both p⊥∧
q andp∧q⊥
are non-zero (the case of exactly one of them being non-zero follows similarly). It then follows from Proposition3.5that there exist a non-zero Hilbert spaceKand commuting positive contractionsx, y∈ B(K) satisfyingx2+y2= 1
and kerx= 0 = kery such that upto unitary unitary equivalence, we have H=R(p∧q⊥ )⊕ K ⊕ K ⊕R(p⊥∧ q) (3.14) and p= 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 and q= 0 0 0 0 0 x2 xy 0 0 xy y2 0 0 0 0 1 . (3.15)
Since logmodularity is preserved under unitary equivalence by Proposition2.2, we assume without loss of generality thatMis a von Neumann subalgebra ofB(R(p∧q⊥)⊕ K ⊕ K ⊕R(p⊥∧q)), and
p, q have the form as in (3.15). Now set
e
K1=R(p∧q⊥)⊕ K and Ke2=K ⊕R(p⊥∧q)
so that
Throughout the proof, we make use of both the decomposition of Hin (3.14) and (3.16), which should be understood according to the context. Now fix α≥1 and define the operatorZ∈ B(H) by Z= 1 0 0 0 0 1 α 0 0 α α2+ 1 0 0 0 0 1 = 1 Z2 Z∗ 2 Z3 , where Z2= 0 0 α 0 andZ3= α2+ 1 0 0 1 . (3.17)
It is clear thatZ is a positive and invertible operator. In the similar fashion as in Lemma3.9, it is easy to show, by usingp, q∈ M, thatZ ∈ M. SinceAis logmodular inM, we get a sequence{Sn}
of invertible operators in A−1 such thatZ = lim
nS∗nSn. Then for each n, we have Snp=pSnp
andS−1
n p=pS
−1
n p; hence the operatorsSn andSn−1 have the form
Sn = an bn pn qn cn dn rn sn 0 0 en fn 0 0 gn hn =: An Bn 0 Cn and Sn−1= a′ n b ′ n p ′ n q ′ n c′ n d ′ n r ′ n s ′ n 0 0 e′ n f ′ n 0 0 g′ n h ′ n =: A′ n B ′ n 0 C′ n , (3.18)
for appropriate operatorsan, bn, ., a′n, b
′
n, ..etc. In particular, we have AnA′n = 1 =A
′
nAn i.e. An
is invertible inB(Ke1). SimilarlyCn is invertible inB(Ke2). Now 1 Z2 Z∗ 2 Z3 =Z= lim n S ∗ nSn = lim n A∗ nAn A∗nBn B∗ nAn B∗nBn+Cn∗Cn . (3.19)
Then we have limnA∗nAn= 1 and sinceAn is invertible, it follows from Lemma3.8that
lim
n AnA
∗
n = 1. (3.20)
We also have limnA∗nBn=Z2, which after multiplied byAn to left side of the sequence and using
(3.20) yields limn(Bn−AnZ2) = 0; but we have
Bn−AnZ2= pn qn rn sn − an bn cn dn 0 0 α 0 = pn−αbn qn rn−αdn sn , and thus we get the following equations:
lim
n (pn−αbn) = 0, (3.21)
lim
n (rn−αdn) = 0. (3.22)
Also ifDn =Bn−AnZ2 for alln, then limnDn= 0 and since limnA∗nAn= 1, we have
lim n B ∗ nBn= lim n (Dn+AnZ2) ∗ (Dn+AnZ2) = lim n Z ∗ 2A ∗ nAnZ2=Z2∗Z2.
Further, we have from (3.19) that limn(Bn∗Bn+Cn∗Cn) =Z3which yields
lim n C ∗ nCn =Z3−lim n B ∗ nBn =Z3−Z2∗Z2= α2+ 1 0 0 1 − α2 0 0 0 = 1 0 0 1 . (3.23) In particular, by computing the matricesC∗
nCn, we get limn(e∗nen+gn∗gn) = 1; hence there exists
m∈Nsuch that ke∗
nenk ≤2, which in turn yields
ene ∗ n≤2 for alln≥m. (3.24) Now Snq= 0 bnx2+pnxy bnxy+pny2 qn 0 dnx2+rnxy dnxy+rny2 sn 0 enxy eny2 fn 0 gnxy gny2 hn
and qSnq= 0 0 0 0 0 x2d
nx2+x2rnxy+xyenxy x2dnxy+x2rny2+xyeny2 x2sn+xyfn
0 xydnx2+xyrnxy+y2enxy xydnxy+xyrny2+y2eny2 xysn+y2fn
0 gnxy gny2 hn
.
Since Snq=qSnqfor eachn, by equating (3,2) entries of the respective matrices and then using
1−y2=x2we get the expressionx2e
nxy=xydnx2+xyrnxy; but sincexis one-one and hencex
has dense range,xcancels from both sides of the equation to yield xeny =ydnx+yrny.
If we set tn=rn−αdn for alln, then above equation further yields
xeny=ydnx+yrny=ydnx+y(αdn+tn)y=ydn(x+αy) +ytny,
which in other words says that
ydn=xenyu
−1
−ytnyu
−1
(3.25) where u=x+αy, which is clearly positive and invertible asu2≥1. In a similar vein as in (3.12)
in Lemma3.9,uandy commute and we have y2u−2≤
1/α2. (3.26)
Also by equating (1,2) entries ofSnq andqSnq, we getbnx2+pnxy= 0; again sincexhas dense
range, it follows that bnx+pny= 0 for alln, which by using (3.21) further yields
0 = lim
n (bnx+pny) = limn bn(x+αy) + limn (pn−αbn)y= limn bn(x+αy).
Butx+αyis invertible as seen before, so the above equation yields lim
n bn= 0. (3.27)
Similarly since S−1
n also has all these properties, we have
lim
n b
′
n= 0. (3.28)
Note that the (2,2) entry of the matrixSnS−n1(with respect to the decompositionR(p∧q
⊥ )⊕ K ⊕ K ⊕R(p⊥∧
q))) iscnb′n+dnd′n; hence we havecnb′n+dnd′n= 1 for all n. Since limnb′n= 0 from
(3.28), it follows that limndnd′n = 1. Hence there existsn0 ∈N such thatkdnd′n−1k <1 for all
n≥n0, which in particular says thatdnd′n is invertible for alln ≥n0. Thus dnd′n(dnd′n)
−1 = 1,
which is to say that dn is right invertible for alln≥n0. Likewise, from (2,2) entry ofSn−1Sn and
using limnbn = 0 from (3.27), we get limndn′dn = 1. Again this implies that d′ndn is invertible,
and hence dn is left invertible for large n. Thus we have shown that dn is both left and right
invertible, which is to say that dn is invertible for largen.
Now for eachn, note that the (2,2) entry of the matrixS∗
nSn(with respect to the decomposition
R(p∧q⊥)⊕ K ⊕ K ⊕R(p⊥ ∧q))) is b∗
nbn+d∗ndn. Since limnSn∗Sn = Z, it then follows that
limn(b∗nbn +d∗ndn) = 1, and since limnbn = 0 from (3.27), we get limnd∗ndn = 1. But dn is
invertible for largen, so it follows from Lemma3.8that lim
n dnd
∗
n= 1. (3.29)
Now using limntn = 0 from (3.22), and equations (3.24), (3.25), (3.26) and (3.29), we get the
following: y2= lim
n ydnd
∗
ny= limn (ydn)(ydn)∗= lim
n (xenyu −1−yt nyu−1)(xenyu−1−ytnyu−1)∗ = lim n (xenyu −1)(xe nyu−1)∗= lim n xeny 2u−2e∗ nx≤ 1 α2limn xene ∗ nx≤ 2 α2x 2.
Since α≥1 is arbitrary, it follows by taking α→ ∞ that y = 0, which is a contradiction. The
4. Reflexivity of algebras with factorization
Our main result of this article says that lattice of any algebra with factorization property in a factor is a nest. A natural question that arises is whether algebras with factorization are also nest subalgebras i.e. are they reflexive? Certainly, we cannot always expect automatic reflexivity of such algebras (See Example 4.10). But then what extra condition can be imposed in order to show that they are reflexive? A result due to Radjavi and Rosenthal [22] says that a weakly closed algebra inB(H) whose lattice is a nest, is a nest algebra if and only if it contains a maximal abelian self-adjoint algebra (masa). In this section, we show that if the lattice of an algebra with factorization inB(H) has finite dimensional atoms, then it contains a masa and hence it is reflexive. We recall some terminologies to this end. Let M be a von Neumann algebra, and let E be a complete nest inM. For any projectionp∈ E, let
p− =∨{q∈ E;q < p}andp+=∧{q∈ E;q > p}.
An atom of E is a nonzero projection of the form p−p− for some p∈ E with p6= p−. Clearly two distinct atoms are mutually orthogonal. The nest E is called atomic if there is a finite or countably infinite sequence {rn} of atoms of E such that Pnrn = 1, where the sum converges
in weak operator topology (WOT). Further an algebra A in M is called M-transitive (simply transitivewhenM=B(H)) if LatMA={0,1}. We now consider the following simple lemma. Lemma 4.1. Let Abe an algebra in a von Neumann algebraMsuch that LatMAis a nest, and let p, q∈LatMAwith p < q. If r=q−p, thenLatrMr(rAr) ={s∈rMr;p+s∈LatMA}. In
particular, if p=q− then rArisrMr-transitive.
Proof. As seen in Proposition3.2,rAris a subalgebra ofrMr. Now lets∈LatrMr(rAr), and let
a∈ A. Note that (rar)s=s(rar)s, and sincers=s, it follows thatras= (rar)s=s(rar)s=sas, using which, and the expressionaq=qaq, we have
as=aqs=qaqs=qas=pas+ras=pas+sas= (p+s)as. (4.1) Also since sp= 0 and ap=pap, we havesap=spap= 0, which along with (4.1) yield
(p+s)a(p+s) =pap+sap+ (p+s)as=ap+as=a(p+s).
Sinceais arbitrary inA, it follows that p+s∈LatMA. Conversely lets∈rMrbe a projection such that p+s∈LatMA, and fixa∈ A. Thena(p+s) = (p+s)a(p+s), and sinceps= 0 =pr andrs=s, we have
(rar)s=ras=ra(p+s)s=r(p+s)a(p+s)s=s(rar)s.
Again as a∈ A is arbitrary, we conclude that s∈ LatrMr(rAr). Thus we have proved the first
assertion. Note that ifp=q−then for anys∈rMr,p+s∈LatMAif and only ifs= 0 ors=r.
The second assertion then follows from the first.
The following lemma is the crux of this section. Recall our convention that all algebras are unital and norm closed.
Lemma 4.2. Let an algebra A have factorization in a von Neumann algebra M, and let p, q ∈ LatMA such thatp < q. If q−phas finite dimensional range, then q−p∈ A. In particular, if either porp⊥ has finite dimensional range, thenp∈ A.
Proof. The second assertion clearly follows from the first. For the first assertion, set r =q−p. LetMbe a von Neumann subalgebra ofB(H) for some Hilbert spaceH. Note that
H=R(p)⊕R(r)⊕R(q⊥),
and we consider operators ofB(H) with respect to this decomposition. For eachn∈N, set
Xn=r+ 1 nr ⊥ = 1/n0 01 00 0 0 1/n .
It is clear that each Xn is a positive and invertible operator, and since r ∈ M it follows that
such thatXn=Sn∗Sn. Then eachSn leavesR(p) andR(q) invariant, which equivalently says that
Sn has the form
Sn= an bn cn 0 dn en 0 0 fn , (4.2)
for appropriate operatorsan, bn..etc. We claim that the off diagonal entriesbn, cn, en are 0 for all
n. Note that sinceS−1
n ∈ A, eachS
−1
n leavesR(p) and R(q) invariant, meaning thatS
−1
n is also
upper triangular. Consequently, the diagonal entriesan, dn, fnofSn are invertible. Now for alln,
we have 1/n0 01 00 0 0 1/n =Xn=Sn∗Sn= a ∗ nan a∗nbn a∗ncn b∗ nan b∗nbn+d∗ndn b∗ncn+d∗nen c∗ nan c∗nbn+e∗ndn c∗ncn+e∗nen+fn∗fn . By equating (1,2) entries of the matrices above, we havea∗
nbn = 0 and since an is invertible, it
follows that bn = 0. Similarly from (1,3) entries, we have a∗ncn = 0, from which we again use
invertibility of an to getcn = 0. Further from (2,3) entries, we havebn∗cn+d∗nen = 0. But since
bn = 0 and dn is invertible, it follows that en = 0. This proves the claim that for all n, the
operatorsbn, cn anden are 0.
Next equating (1,1) entries ofS∗
nSn andXn we havea∗nan = 1/nfor alln, which implies that
limnan= 0. Also from equating (3,3) entries we havec∗ncn+e∗nen+fn∗fn = 1/n, so it follows that
f∗
nfn ≤1/nfor all n; hence limnfn = 0. Further sinceR(r) is finite dimensional by hypothesis,
fromd∗
ndn= 1,dnis a unitary for everyn.By compactness of the unitary group in finite dimensions
we get a subsequence {dnk} converging to a unitaryd ∈ B(R(r)). Thus we have limkSnk = S,
where S= 00 0d 00 0 0 0 .
Since eachSnk ∈ AandAis norm closed, it follows thatS∈ A. Note that limkd
−1
nk = limkd
∗
nk =
d∗
=d−1, using which we have
lim k S −1 nkS= lim k a−1 nk 0 0 0 d−1 nk 0 0 0 f−1 nk 0 0 0 0 d 0 0 0 0 = lim k 0 0 0 0 d∗ nkd 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 =r. SinceS−1 nkS ∈ A(asS −1
nk andS∈ A) for allk, we conclude thatr∈ A, as required to prove.
We now discuss a sufficient criterion imposed on the dimension of atoms of the lattice to prove the reflexivity of an algebra having factorization inB(H). It is clearly not necessary as any nest algebra arising out of a countable nest has factorization and is reflexive.
To this end, letE be a complete nest inB(H). Let{rn}be the collection of all atoms ofE, and
let r =Pnrn in WOT convergence. If r 6= 1, then it is straightforward to check that the nest
{p∧r⊥
; p∈ E}in B(R(r⊥
)) is complete and has no atom (such nests without any atom are called continuous). But then any continuous complete nest has to be uncountable (in fact indexed by [0,1]; see Lemma 13.3 in [7]). In particular, if the nestE is countable, then r= 1 and hence E is atomic. Thus we have the following lemma:
Lemma 4.3. Let an algebraA have factorization inB(H). Then LatAis an atomic nest. Proof. Since Ahas factorization inB(H), Alg LatAalso has factorization inB(H) as it contains A. Consequently LatAis a countable nest by Corollary2.14, so it is atomic. Theorem 4.4. Let Abe a weakly closed algebra having factorization in B(H). If all atoms of the lattice LatAhas finite dimensional range, thenAis reflexive and henceA is a nest algebra. Proof. We shall show thatAcontains a masa. As noted above, this claim along with the fact that LatAis a nest (from Corollary2.11) will imply the required assertion thatAis reflexive and a nest algebra (see Theorem 9.24, [22]). Let{ri}i∈Λbe the collection of all the atoms of LatAfor some at
most countable indexing set Λ. Since LatAis atomic from Lemma4.3, it follows thatPi∈Λri= 1
in WOT; hence H=⊕i∈ΛHi, where Hi =R(ri) which satisfies Hi ⊥ Hj for all i6=j. For each
i∈Λ sinceri is an atom, we note thatri =pi−qi for somepi, qi ∈LatA(whereqi=pi−), and
sinceri has finite dimensional range by hypothesis, it follows from Lemma4.2thatri∈ A.
Now recognize the von Neumann algebra riB(H)ri with B(Hi) for each i ∈Λ. Since ri is an
atom, we know from Lemma 4.1that riAri is a transitive subalgebra of B(Hi). Therefore, as Hi
is finite-dimensional, it follows from Burnside’s Theorem (Corollary 8.6, [22]) thatriAri =B(Hi).
In particular, this implies thatriB(H)ri=riAri, and sinceri ∈ A, it follows that
riB(H)ri⊆ A. (4.3)
Now for eachi, letLibe a masa inB(Hi), and letL=Li∈ΛLi, which is considered a subalgebra
of B(H). It is clear that Lis a masa in B(H). Note thatLri =riL for alli∈Λ. Also it follows
from (4.3) thatLi=riLri⊆ A, and sinceAis WOT closed we have
L=X i∈Λ Lri= X i∈Λ riLri⊆ A,
where the sum above is taken in WOT. Thus we have shown our requirement that Acontains a
masa, completing the proof.
A nest of projections on a Hilbert space is called maximal or simple if it is not contained in any larger nest. It is easy to verify that a nest E is maximal if and only if all atoms in E are one-dimensional. Thus we have the following corollary.
Corollary 4.5. Let an algebra A have factorization in B(H), and let LatA be a maximal nest. Then A is reflexive, and so it is a nest algebra.
We emphasize the importance of above corollary in the following example.
Example 4.6. Consider the Hilbert spaceH=ℓ2(Γ), for Γ =NorZ, and let Abe the reflexive
algebra of upper-triangular matrices in B(H) with respect to the canonical basis{en}n∈Γ. Note
that LatA={pn;n∈Γ}, wherepn is the projection onto the subspace span{em;m≤n}. Clearly
LatAis a maximal nest. So if Bis any subalgebra of A with LatB a nest, then LatA ⊆LatB, which implies by maximality that LatA= LatB. Thus it follows from Corollary4.5that the only subalgebra ofAthat has factorization inB(H) isA.
Next we consider the consequence of above results for subalgebras of finite dimensional von Neumann algebras. Let Mn denote the algebra of all n×n complex matrices for some natural
number n. LetAbe a logmodular subalgebra ofMn. It can easily be verified by the compactness
argument of unit ball of Mn that the algebra A also has factorization in Mn. Since all atoms
of LatA are clearly finite dimensional, it follows from Theorem 4.4 that A is a nest algebra in Mn. Thus we have shown that upto unitary equivalence,Ais an algebra of block upper-triangular
matrices in Mn. This assertion was put as a conjecture in [18], and an affirmative answer was
given in [14]. We have provided a different solution, and we state it below.
Corollary 4.7. Let A be a logmodular algebra in Mn. Then A is an algebra of block upper
triangular matrices upto unitary equivalence.
Moreover, the corollary above generalizes to any logmodular subalgebras of finite dimensional von Neumann algebras.
Corollary 4.8. Let Mbe a finite dimensional von Neumann algebra, and let Abe a logmodular algebra in M. Then Ais a nest subalgebra ofM, and AisM-reflexive.
Proof. SinceMis a finite dimensional von Neumann algebra, there exist natural numbersn1, . . . , nk
such thatMis∗-isomorphic toMn1⊕. . .⊕Mnk. In view of Proposition2.2, we assume without loss
of generality thatM=Mn1⊕. . .⊕Mnk, which acts on the Hilbert spaceH=C
n1⊕. . .⊕Cnk. Using
compactness of the unit ball in finite dimensional algebras, we note that Aalso has factorization in M.
Now for i = 1, . . . , k, let pi denote the orthogonal projection of H onto the subspace Cni
(considered as a subspace ofH), and let Ai =piApi. We claim thatA=A1⊕. . .⊕ Ak. Firstly
note thatpi∈ M ∩ M′; hencepi∈LatMA. This in particular says thatAi is an algebra. Since
pi has finite dimensional range, it follows from Lemma4.2that pi∈ A. This implies thatAi ⊆ A
for eachi; hence we haveA1⊕. . .⊕ Ak⊆ A. On the other hand, sinceP k i=1pi= 1 we get A=A k X i=1 pi⊆ k X i=1 Api= k X i=1 piApi=⊕ki=1Ai,
proving our claim thatA=⊕k
i=1Ai. Now if we recognizeMni as a subalgebra ofM(∗-isomorphic
to piMpi) for eachi, then the algebra Ai has factorization inMni by Proposition3.2; hence the
lattice Ei = LatMniAi is a nest in C
ni by Corollary2.11, and that A
i = AlgMniEi by Theorem
4.4. Now consider the lattice E=⊕k
i=1Ei={⊕ki=1qi; qi∈ Ei,1≤i≤k}
in M.It is clear thatE= LatMA, which impliesA ⊆AlgME. Note thatE is not a nest ifk≥2. Choose a sublattice, namely F, of E such that F is a nest and each element qi in Ei appears at
least once as the ith coordinate of an element of F. SuchF can always be chosen: for example consider the nestFi for eachigiven by
Fi={e1⊕. . .⊕ei−1⊕qi⊕0⊕. . .⊕0; qi∈ Ei} ⊆ E,
where ei denotes the identity ofMni, and letF =∪
k
iFi. Since each Ei is a nest andF1 ⊆ F2 ⊆
. . .⊆ Fk, it follows that the sublatticeF is a nest in M, and note thatF fulfils the requirement.
We claim that A = AlgMF, which will prove that A is a nest subalgebra of M. Clearly as F ⊆ E, we haveA ⊆AlgME ⊆AlgMF. Conversely letx∈AlgMF, and letx=⊕k
i=1xifor some
xi∈Mni, 1≤i≤k.The wayF has been chosen, each element ofEiappears as theith coordinate
of some element of F, so it follows thatxiq =qxiq for all q ∈ Ei and for each 1≤i ≤k. This
shows that xi ∈AlgMniEi =Ai; hence x∈ A. Thus we conclude that AlgMF ⊆ Aproving the
claim.
Finally sinceF ⊆ E = LatMA, it follows that AlgMLatMA ⊆AlgMF =A. Since the other inclusion is obvious, we haveA= AlgMLatMAwhich is to say that AisM-reflexive. More generally, Corollary4.8can easily be extended to any direct sum of finite-dimensional von Neumann algebras, whose proof goes on the same lines. We record the statement here.
Corollary 4.9. Let M be a (possibly countably infinite) direct sum of finite dimensional von Neumann algebras, and let A be a logmodular algebra in M. Then A is a nest subalgebra of M andA isM-reflexive.
In general, Corollary4.8fails to be true for algebras having factorization (or logmodularity) in infinite dimensional von Neumann algebra, as the following example suggests.
Example 4.10. LetAbe an algebra having factorization in a von Neumann algebraMsuch that A 6=MandD=A ∩ A∗ is a factor. We claim thatAis notM-reflexive. Assume otherwise that A= AlgMLatMA. Note that LatMA ⊆ D. Also it is easy to verify that LatMA ⊆ D′ and thus we have LatMA ⊆ D ∩ D′ =C. It then follows that LatMA={0,1}, soA= AlgM{0,1}=M which is not true.
There are plenty of such algebras. To see one, let Gbe a countable discrete ordered group. Let ℓ2(G) = {f : G → C;P
g∈G|f(g)|
2 <∞}, and for eachg ∈ G, let U
g : ℓ2(G) → ℓ2(G) be the
unitary operator defined byUgf(g′) =f(g−1g′) forf ∈ℓ2(G) andg′ ∈G. LetMbe the finite von
Neumann algebra in B(ℓ2(G)) generated by the family{U
g}g∈G, called the group von Neumann
algebra ofG. Note that each elementXofB(ℓ2(G)) has a matrix representation (x
gh) with respect
to the canonical basis of ℓ2(G). Let
A={X = (xgh)∈ M;xgh= 0 forg > h}.
ThenAis an example of afinite maximal subdiagonal algebrainMwith respect to the expectation φ : M → M given by φ((xgh)) = xee1 for (xgh) ∈ M, where e denotes the identity of G (see
Example 3, [2]). In particular, A has factorization in M (Theorem 4.2.1, [2]). But note that A ∩ A∗
=C (in fact if X = (xgh)∈ A ∩ A∗, then xgh = 0 for all g 6=hand xgg =xg′g′ for all
g, g′ ∈
G), soAcannot beM-reflexive as discussed above. Moreover, we can choose the ordered groupG to be countable with ICC property (e.g. G=F2, the free group on two generators), so
that Mis a factor. In this case although LatMAis a nest, Acannot be a nest subalgebra ofM, otherwiseA ∩ A∗ will contain the nest and so cannot be equal toC.
5. Concluding remarks
In this paper we have discussed ‘universal’ or ‘strong’ factorization property for subalgebras of von Neumann algebras. But there are weaker notions of factorization which can also be explored. Say a subalgebra A hasweak factorization property (WFP) in a von Neumann algebraM if for any positive element x∈ M, there is an elementa∈ Asuch that x=a∗
a. Here the invertibility assumption is relaxed.
Power [20] has studied WFP of nest algebras where he proved that if a nestE of projections on a Hilbert space His well-ordered (i.e. p6=p+ =∩q>pq for all p∈ E and p6= 1), then AlgE has
WFP inB(H). Inspired from our result on lattices of algebras with factorization, it appears that lattices of algebras with WFP in a factor should also be a nest. But it is not clear to us at this point. However, for a subalgebra in a finite von Neumann algebra we can certainly say so. We can follow the similar lines of proof along with the fact that any left (or right) invertible element in a finite von Neumann algebra is invertible. We record it here.
Theorem 5.1. Let Abe a subalgebra of a finite von Neumann algebra (resp. factor)Msatisfying WFP. Then LatMAis a commutative subspace lattice (resp. nest).
So a natural question is the following:
Question 5.2. Is the lattice of a subalgebra satisfying WFP in a von Neumann algebra (resp. factor) is a commutative subspace lattice (resp. nest)?
We conclude with the question of reflexivity of algebras with factorization. We showed that an algebra with factorization in B(H) has masa and hence is reflexive if we impose some dimension-ality condition on the atoms of its lattice. But we still do not know whether every algebra with factorization in B(H) has masa. Thus the following question is open.
Question 5.3. Is a weakly closed algebra having factorization inB(H)automatically reflexive? In particular, is a weakly closed transitive algebra with factorization equal to B(H)?
Acknowledgments. The first author thanks SERB(India) for financial support through J C Bose Fellowship.
References
[1] M. Anoussis and E. Katsoulis,Factorisation in nest algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 125 (1997), no. 1, 87–92. [2] W. B. Arveson,Analyticity in operator algebras, Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967), 578–642.
[3] W. Arveson,Interpolation problems in nest algebras, J. Funct. Anal. 20 (1975), no. 3, 208–233.
[4] D.P. Blecher and L.E. Labuschagne,Logmodularity and isometries of operator algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no. 4, 1621–1646.
[5] D.P. Blecher and L.E. Labuschagne,Von Neumann algebraicHp theory, Function spaces, 89–114, Contemp.
Math., 435, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2007.
[6] J.B. Conway,A Course in Functional Analysis, second edition, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 96. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1990.
[7] K.R. Davidson, Nest algebras, Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, 191. Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, New York, 1988.
[8] C. Foia¸s and I. Suciu,On operator representation of logmodular algebras, Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. S´er. Sci. Math. Astronom. Phys. 16 (1968), 505–509.
[9] I.C. Gohberg and M.G. Krein,Theory and applications of Volterra operators in Hilbert space, Trans. Math. Monographs, Vol. 24, Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, 1970.
[10] P.R. Halmos,Two subspaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 144 (1969), 381–389.
[11] K. Hoffman,Analytic functions and logmodular Banach algebras, Acta Math. 108 (1962), 271–317.
[12] K. Hoffman and H. Rossi,Function theory and multiplicative linear functionals, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 116 (1965), 536–543.
[13] G. Ji and K.-S. Saito,Factorization in subdiagonal algebras, J. Funct. Anal. 159 (1998), no. 1, 191–202. [14] K. Juschenko, Description of logmodular subalgebras in finite-dimensionalC∗-algebras, Indiana Univ. Math.
J. 60 (2011), no. 4, 1171–1176.
[15] D.R. Larson,Nest algebras and similarity transformations, Ann. of Math. 121 (1985), no. 2, 409–427. [16] D.R. Larson, Triangularity in operator algebras, Surveys of some recent results in operator theory, Vol. II,
121–188, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., 192, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1988.
[17] M. McAsey, P.S. Muhly and K.-S. Saito,Nonselfadjoint crossed products (invariant subspaces and maximality), Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 248 (1979), no. 2, 381–409.
[18] V.I. Paulsen and M. Raghupathi,Representations of logmodular algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 363 (2011), no. 5, 2627–2640.
[19] D.R. Pitts, Factorization problems for nests: factorization methods and characterizations of the universal factorization, J. Funct. Anal. 79 (1988), no. 1, 57–90.
[20] S.C. Power,Factorization in analytic operator algebras, J. Funct. Anal. 67 (1986), no. 3, 413–432.
[21] S. Power,Analysis in nest algebras, Surveys of some recent results in operator theory, Vol. II, 189–234, Pitman Res. Notes Math. Ser., 192, Longman Sci. Tech., Harlow, 1988.
[22] H. Radjavi and P. Rosenthal,Invariant subspaces, Second edition. Dover Publications, Inc., Mineola, NY, 2003. [23] B. Solel,Analytic operator algebras (factorization and an expectation), Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 287 (1985),
no. 2, 799–817.
[24] B. Solel,Cocycles and factorization in analytic operator algebras, J. Operator Theory 20 (1988), no. 2, 295–309. [25] T.P. Srinivasan and J-K. Wang, Weak∗-Dirichlet algebras, Function Algebras (Proc. Internat. Sympos. on
Function Algebras, Tulane Univ., 1965) Scott-Foresman, Chicago, 1966, pp. 216–249.
Email address: [email protected]
Email address: manish [email protected]
