Why is the Rational Rotation Algebra not a Matrix Algebra?
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.
I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.
Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
$$
U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
end{pmatrix}
quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
end{pmatrix}
$$
in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.
Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.
functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.
I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.
Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
$$
U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
end{pmatrix}
quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
end{pmatrix}
$$
in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.
Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.
functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.
I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.
Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
$$
U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
end{pmatrix}
quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
end{pmatrix}
$$
in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.
Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.
functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras
Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.
I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.
Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
$$
U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
end{pmatrix}
quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
end{pmatrix}
$$
in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.
Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.
functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras
functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras
asked Nov 20 at 15:41
ervx
10.3k31338
10.3k31338
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.
The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.
The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.
The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
up vote
3
down vote
accepted
As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.
The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.
As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.
The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.
answered Nov 20 at 17:20
Martin Argerami
122k1174172
122k1174172
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006477%2fwhy-is-the-rational-rotation-algebra-not-a-matrix-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown