What is the Gelfand-Naimark representation of functions that don't vanish at infinity?
$begingroup$
The Gelfand-Naimark theorem says that every commutative C*-algebra is isometrically isomorphic to $C_0(X)$, the set of continuous functions $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{C}$ that vanish at infinity, for some locally compact Hausdorff space $X$.
What happens when we apply this construction to a commutative C*-algebra that looks almost like $C_0(X)$, but we relax one of the requirements? For example, we can consider the C*-algebra $C_b(Y)$, the set of bounded continuous functions $f:Yrightarrowmathbb{C}$, with no requirement they vanish at infinity. Is there any relation between the the space $Y$ of the original C*-algebra and the space $X$ that we generate using Gelfand-Naimark?
Bonus followup: What if Y is not Hausdorff? Or not locally compact?
abstract-algebra functional-analysis algebras gelfand-representation
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Gelfand-Naimark theorem says that every commutative C*-algebra is isometrically isomorphic to $C_0(X)$, the set of continuous functions $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{C}$ that vanish at infinity, for some locally compact Hausdorff space $X$.
What happens when we apply this construction to a commutative C*-algebra that looks almost like $C_0(X)$, but we relax one of the requirements? For example, we can consider the C*-algebra $C_b(Y)$, the set of bounded continuous functions $f:Yrightarrowmathbb{C}$, with no requirement they vanish at infinity. Is there any relation between the the space $Y$ of the original C*-algebra and the space $X$ that we generate using Gelfand-Naimark?
Bonus followup: What if Y is not Hausdorff? Or not locally compact?
abstract-algebra functional-analysis algebras gelfand-representation
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The Gelfand-Naimark theorem says that every commutative C*-algebra is isometrically isomorphic to $C_0(X)$, the set of continuous functions $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{C}$ that vanish at infinity, for some locally compact Hausdorff space $X$.
What happens when we apply this construction to a commutative C*-algebra that looks almost like $C_0(X)$, but we relax one of the requirements? For example, we can consider the C*-algebra $C_b(Y)$, the set of bounded continuous functions $f:Yrightarrowmathbb{C}$, with no requirement they vanish at infinity. Is there any relation between the the space $Y$ of the original C*-algebra and the space $X$ that we generate using Gelfand-Naimark?
Bonus followup: What if Y is not Hausdorff? Or not locally compact?
abstract-algebra functional-analysis algebras gelfand-representation
$endgroup$
The Gelfand-Naimark theorem says that every commutative C*-algebra is isometrically isomorphic to $C_0(X)$, the set of continuous functions $f:Xrightarrowmathbb{C}$ that vanish at infinity, for some locally compact Hausdorff space $X$.
What happens when we apply this construction to a commutative C*-algebra that looks almost like $C_0(X)$, but we relax one of the requirements? For example, we can consider the C*-algebra $C_b(Y)$, the set of bounded continuous functions $f:Yrightarrowmathbb{C}$, with no requirement they vanish at infinity. Is there any relation between the the space $Y$ of the original C*-algebra and the space $X$ that we generate using Gelfand-Naimark?
Bonus followup: What if Y is not Hausdorff? Or not locally compact?
abstract-algebra functional-analysis algebras gelfand-representation
abstract-algebra functional-analysis algebras gelfand-representation
edited Jan 4 at 19:31
Jahan Claes
asked Jan 4 at 19:15
Jahan ClaesJahan Claes
917310
917310
2
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31
2
2
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Since $C_b(Y)$ has a unit, if it is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(X)$ then $C_0(X)$ must also have a unit, so $X$ is compact. This is intuitively why $X$ will need to be some sort of compactification of $Y$. To be exact, we will get the Stone Cech compactification.
The Stone Cech compactification $beta Y$ of $Y$ comes with an embedding $Delta:Ytobeta Y$ such that $Delta(Y)$ is dense in $beta Y$. The important property is that $fmapsto fcircDelta:C(beta Y)to C_b(Y)$ is an isometric $^*$-isomorphism. Since $beta Y$ is by definition also compact, we have $C_0(beta Y)=C(beta Y)$, so $C_b(Y)$ is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(beta Y)$.
Do note that $Y$ is required to be completely regular for the Stone Cech compactification to be well-defined. I do not know about the case where $Y$ is not completely regular.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a slight elaboration of the previous answer. Lets us look at a system $mathcal F$ of (bounded) continuous functions on $X$ that do not vanish at infinity and "include" these in our algebra, what space do we get with the Gelfand isomorphism?
To be more concrete, let $A$ be the $C^*$ sub-algebra of $C_b(X)$ generated by $C_0(X)$ and $mathcal F$, what is $sigma(A)$?
There are two such completions I can always write down. The simplest case is $mathcal F = {1}$ (the constant function $1$) from which $A=C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1$ follows, the second ist $A=C_b(X)$. The first case will give you the one-point compactification of $X$, ie $sigma(C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1)cong Xcup{infty}$ (either this is clear to you or its a very illustrative exercise). Meanwhile the second will return the Stone-Cech compactification, to see this note that any bounded function $f:XtoBbb C$ extends to a function $beta Xto Bbb C$ by the universal property of $beta X$ (note that $mathrm{im}(f)$ is contained in a compact set), furthermore the extension is unique by denseness of $X$ in $beta X$. From this $C_b(X)subset C(beta X)$ follows and the other direction is clear.
Both of the spaces we got back were compact, which is not a coincidence. Note that in both cases we added the constant functions, which results in the unit of $C(X)$ being added to the algebra. I believe that it is more or less clear that the Gelfand isomorphism results in a compact space iff the original algebra was unital, ie it gives a correspondence
$$text{unital commutative $C^*$ algebras} leftrightarrow text{compact locally compact Hausdorff spaces}$$
in particular we find via this correspondence another correspondence (for $X$ locally compact Hausdorff):
$$text{unitisations of $C_0(X)$}leftrightarrowtext{compactifications of $X$}.$$
So basically when you add functions at infinity you are compactifying $X$, provided you add enough functions so you can reconstruct $1$. Lets consider another example.
For $X=(0,1)$ you can choose to add the function $xmapsto x$ and the function $xmapsto 1-x$. If you do this you will get a unital algebra and indeed you will get all polynomials, so by Stone-Weierstrass your algebra will have all functions in $C([0,1])$. Since you also don't have more functions than that you see that adding these two functions results in taking the closure of $(0,1)$ in $Bbb R$.
Indeed if $X$ is a bounded open subset of $Bbb R^n$, the compactification you get by considering its closure will correspond to the unitsation you get by adding the $n$ coordinate functions $x_i$ to the algebra.
What if you don't add enough functions to recover identity? In our example $X=(0,1)$ if we just add $xmapsto x$ the space we get is $(0,1]$. Indeed this is what always will happen: You will get an open subspace of a compactification of $X$.
The general lesson is thus: If you add functions at infinity you are basically extending $X$ by points at infinity.
To address your follow up: Continuous functions from a non-Hausdorff space into $Bbb C$ cannot distinguish two non-separated points, ie if $x,y$ are such that every neighbourhood of $x$ intersects every neighbourhood of $y$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ for any continuous $f$. For that reason $C(X)=C(X/sim)$ if $X$ is not Hausdorff and $sim$ is the relation that glues all points that are not separated together. So basically continuous functions to $Bbb C$ do not actually the non-Hausdorff parts of your space.
For spaces that are not locally compact I believe $C_0(X)$ will be entirely inadequate. Notice for example that $C_0(V)=0$ if $V$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space (for me the model of non locally compact spaces). I have no idea what the space associated to $C_b(V)$ looks like.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f3061990%2fwhat-is-the-gelfand-naimark-representation-of-functions-that-dont-vanish-at-inf%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Since $C_b(Y)$ has a unit, if it is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(X)$ then $C_0(X)$ must also have a unit, so $X$ is compact. This is intuitively why $X$ will need to be some sort of compactification of $Y$. To be exact, we will get the Stone Cech compactification.
The Stone Cech compactification $beta Y$ of $Y$ comes with an embedding $Delta:Ytobeta Y$ such that $Delta(Y)$ is dense in $beta Y$. The important property is that $fmapsto fcircDelta:C(beta Y)to C_b(Y)$ is an isometric $^*$-isomorphism. Since $beta Y$ is by definition also compact, we have $C_0(beta Y)=C(beta Y)$, so $C_b(Y)$ is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(beta Y)$.
Do note that $Y$ is required to be completely regular for the Stone Cech compactification to be well-defined. I do not know about the case where $Y$ is not completely regular.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $C_b(Y)$ has a unit, if it is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(X)$ then $C_0(X)$ must also have a unit, so $X$ is compact. This is intuitively why $X$ will need to be some sort of compactification of $Y$. To be exact, we will get the Stone Cech compactification.
The Stone Cech compactification $beta Y$ of $Y$ comes with an embedding $Delta:Ytobeta Y$ such that $Delta(Y)$ is dense in $beta Y$. The important property is that $fmapsto fcircDelta:C(beta Y)to C_b(Y)$ is an isometric $^*$-isomorphism. Since $beta Y$ is by definition also compact, we have $C_0(beta Y)=C(beta Y)$, so $C_b(Y)$ is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(beta Y)$.
Do note that $Y$ is required to be completely regular for the Stone Cech compactification to be well-defined. I do not know about the case where $Y$ is not completely regular.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since $C_b(Y)$ has a unit, if it is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(X)$ then $C_0(X)$ must also have a unit, so $X$ is compact. This is intuitively why $X$ will need to be some sort of compactification of $Y$. To be exact, we will get the Stone Cech compactification.
The Stone Cech compactification $beta Y$ of $Y$ comes with an embedding $Delta:Ytobeta Y$ such that $Delta(Y)$ is dense in $beta Y$. The important property is that $fmapsto fcircDelta:C(beta Y)to C_b(Y)$ is an isometric $^*$-isomorphism. Since $beta Y$ is by definition also compact, we have $C_0(beta Y)=C(beta Y)$, so $C_b(Y)$ is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(beta Y)$.
Do note that $Y$ is required to be completely regular for the Stone Cech compactification to be well-defined. I do not know about the case where $Y$ is not completely regular.
$endgroup$
Since $C_b(Y)$ has a unit, if it is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(X)$ then $C_0(X)$ must also have a unit, so $X$ is compact. This is intuitively why $X$ will need to be some sort of compactification of $Y$. To be exact, we will get the Stone Cech compactification.
The Stone Cech compactification $beta Y$ of $Y$ comes with an embedding $Delta:Ytobeta Y$ such that $Delta(Y)$ is dense in $beta Y$. The important property is that $fmapsto fcircDelta:C(beta Y)to C_b(Y)$ is an isometric $^*$-isomorphism. Since $beta Y$ is by definition also compact, we have $C_0(beta Y)=C(beta Y)$, so $C_b(Y)$ is isometrically $^*$-isomorphic to $C_0(beta Y)$.
Do note that $Y$ is required to be completely regular for the Stone Cech compactification to be well-defined. I do not know about the case where $Y$ is not completely regular.
answered Jan 4 at 19:45
SmileyCraftSmileyCraft
3,561518
3,561518
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a slight elaboration of the previous answer. Lets us look at a system $mathcal F$ of (bounded) continuous functions on $X$ that do not vanish at infinity and "include" these in our algebra, what space do we get with the Gelfand isomorphism?
To be more concrete, let $A$ be the $C^*$ sub-algebra of $C_b(X)$ generated by $C_0(X)$ and $mathcal F$, what is $sigma(A)$?
There are two such completions I can always write down. The simplest case is $mathcal F = {1}$ (the constant function $1$) from which $A=C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1$ follows, the second ist $A=C_b(X)$. The first case will give you the one-point compactification of $X$, ie $sigma(C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1)cong Xcup{infty}$ (either this is clear to you or its a very illustrative exercise). Meanwhile the second will return the Stone-Cech compactification, to see this note that any bounded function $f:XtoBbb C$ extends to a function $beta Xto Bbb C$ by the universal property of $beta X$ (note that $mathrm{im}(f)$ is contained in a compact set), furthermore the extension is unique by denseness of $X$ in $beta X$. From this $C_b(X)subset C(beta X)$ follows and the other direction is clear.
Both of the spaces we got back were compact, which is not a coincidence. Note that in both cases we added the constant functions, which results in the unit of $C(X)$ being added to the algebra. I believe that it is more or less clear that the Gelfand isomorphism results in a compact space iff the original algebra was unital, ie it gives a correspondence
$$text{unital commutative $C^*$ algebras} leftrightarrow text{compact locally compact Hausdorff spaces}$$
in particular we find via this correspondence another correspondence (for $X$ locally compact Hausdorff):
$$text{unitisations of $C_0(X)$}leftrightarrowtext{compactifications of $X$}.$$
So basically when you add functions at infinity you are compactifying $X$, provided you add enough functions so you can reconstruct $1$. Lets consider another example.
For $X=(0,1)$ you can choose to add the function $xmapsto x$ and the function $xmapsto 1-x$. If you do this you will get a unital algebra and indeed you will get all polynomials, so by Stone-Weierstrass your algebra will have all functions in $C([0,1])$. Since you also don't have more functions than that you see that adding these two functions results in taking the closure of $(0,1)$ in $Bbb R$.
Indeed if $X$ is a bounded open subset of $Bbb R^n$, the compactification you get by considering its closure will correspond to the unitsation you get by adding the $n$ coordinate functions $x_i$ to the algebra.
What if you don't add enough functions to recover identity? In our example $X=(0,1)$ if we just add $xmapsto x$ the space we get is $(0,1]$. Indeed this is what always will happen: You will get an open subspace of a compactification of $X$.
The general lesson is thus: If you add functions at infinity you are basically extending $X$ by points at infinity.
To address your follow up: Continuous functions from a non-Hausdorff space into $Bbb C$ cannot distinguish two non-separated points, ie if $x,y$ are such that every neighbourhood of $x$ intersects every neighbourhood of $y$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ for any continuous $f$. For that reason $C(X)=C(X/sim)$ if $X$ is not Hausdorff and $sim$ is the relation that glues all points that are not separated together. So basically continuous functions to $Bbb C$ do not actually the non-Hausdorff parts of your space.
For spaces that are not locally compact I believe $C_0(X)$ will be entirely inadequate. Notice for example that $C_0(V)=0$ if $V$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space (for me the model of non locally compact spaces). I have no idea what the space associated to $C_b(V)$ looks like.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a slight elaboration of the previous answer. Lets us look at a system $mathcal F$ of (bounded) continuous functions on $X$ that do not vanish at infinity and "include" these in our algebra, what space do we get with the Gelfand isomorphism?
To be more concrete, let $A$ be the $C^*$ sub-algebra of $C_b(X)$ generated by $C_0(X)$ and $mathcal F$, what is $sigma(A)$?
There are two such completions I can always write down. The simplest case is $mathcal F = {1}$ (the constant function $1$) from which $A=C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1$ follows, the second ist $A=C_b(X)$. The first case will give you the one-point compactification of $X$, ie $sigma(C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1)cong Xcup{infty}$ (either this is clear to you or its a very illustrative exercise). Meanwhile the second will return the Stone-Cech compactification, to see this note that any bounded function $f:XtoBbb C$ extends to a function $beta Xto Bbb C$ by the universal property of $beta X$ (note that $mathrm{im}(f)$ is contained in a compact set), furthermore the extension is unique by denseness of $X$ in $beta X$. From this $C_b(X)subset C(beta X)$ follows and the other direction is clear.
Both of the spaces we got back were compact, which is not a coincidence. Note that in both cases we added the constant functions, which results in the unit of $C(X)$ being added to the algebra. I believe that it is more or less clear that the Gelfand isomorphism results in a compact space iff the original algebra was unital, ie it gives a correspondence
$$text{unital commutative $C^*$ algebras} leftrightarrow text{compact locally compact Hausdorff spaces}$$
in particular we find via this correspondence another correspondence (for $X$ locally compact Hausdorff):
$$text{unitisations of $C_0(X)$}leftrightarrowtext{compactifications of $X$}.$$
So basically when you add functions at infinity you are compactifying $X$, provided you add enough functions so you can reconstruct $1$. Lets consider another example.
For $X=(0,1)$ you can choose to add the function $xmapsto x$ and the function $xmapsto 1-x$. If you do this you will get a unital algebra and indeed you will get all polynomials, so by Stone-Weierstrass your algebra will have all functions in $C([0,1])$. Since you also don't have more functions than that you see that adding these two functions results in taking the closure of $(0,1)$ in $Bbb R$.
Indeed if $X$ is a bounded open subset of $Bbb R^n$, the compactification you get by considering its closure will correspond to the unitsation you get by adding the $n$ coordinate functions $x_i$ to the algebra.
What if you don't add enough functions to recover identity? In our example $X=(0,1)$ if we just add $xmapsto x$ the space we get is $(0,1]$. Indeed this is what always will happen: You will get an open subspace of a compactification of $X$.
The general lesson is thus: If you add functions at infinity you are basically extending $X$ by points at infinity.
To address your follow up: Continuous functions from a non-Hausdorff space into $Bbb C$ cannot distinguish two non-separated points, ie if $x,y$ are such that every neighbourhood of $x$ intersects every neighbourhood of $y$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ for any continuous $f$. For that reason $C(X)=C(X/sim)$ if $X$ is not Hausdorff and $sim$ is the relation that glues all points that are not separated together. So basically continuous functions to $Bbb C$ do not actually the non-Hausdorff parts of your space.
For spaces that are not locally compact I believe $C_0(X)$ will be entirely inadequate. Notice for example that $C_0(V)=0$ if $V$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space (for me the model of non locally compact spaces). I have no idea what the space associated to $C_b(V)$ looks like.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Here is a slight elaboration of the previous answer. Lets us look at a system $mathcal F$ of (bounded) continuous functions on $X$ that do not vanish at infinity and "include" these in our algebra, what space do we get with the Gelfand isomorphism?
To be more concrete, let $A$ be the $C^*$ sub-algebra of $C_b(X)$ generated by $C_0(X)$ and $mathcal F$, what is $sigma(A)$?
There are two such completions I can always write down. The simplest case is $mathcal F = {1}$ (the constant function $1$) from which $A=C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1$ follows, the second ist $A=C_b(X)$. The first case will give you the one-point compactification of $X$, ie $sigma(C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1)cong Xcup{infty}$ (either this is clear to you or its a very illustrative exercise). Meanwhile the second will return the Stone-Cech compactification, to see this note that any bounded function $f:XtoBbb C$ extends to a function $beta Xto Bbb C$ by the universal property of $beta X$ (note that $mathrm{im}(f)$ is contained in a compact set), furthermore the extension is unique by denseness of $X$ in $beta X$. From this $C_b(X)subset C(beta X)$ follows and the other direction is clear.
Both of the spaces we got back were compact, which is not a coincidence. Note that in both cases we added the constant functions, which results in the unit of $C(X)$ being added to the algebra. I believe that it is more or less clear that the Gelfand isomorphism results in a compact space iff the original algebra was unital, ie it gives a correspondence
$$text{unital commutative $C^*$ algebras} leftrightarrow text{compact locally compact Hausdorff spaces}$$
in particular we find via this correspondence another correspondence (for $X$ locally compact Hausdorff):
$$text{unitisations of $C_0(X)$}leftrightarrowtext{compactifications of $X$}.$$
So basically when you add functions at infinity you are compactifying $X$, provided you add enough functions so you can reconstruct $1$. Lets consider another example.
For $X=(0,1)$ you can choose to add the function $xmapsto x$ and the function $xmapsto 1-x$. If you do this you will get a unital algebra and indeed you will get all polynomials, so by Stone-Weierstrass your algebra will have all functions in $C([0,1])$. Since you also don't have more functions than that you see that adding these two functions results in taking the closure of $(0,1)$ in $Bbb R$.
Indeed if $X$ is a bounded open subset of $Bbb R^n$, the compactification you get by considering its closure will correspond to the unitsation you get by adding the $n$ coordinate functions $x_i$ to the algebra.
What if you don't add enough functions to recover identity? In our example $X=(0,1)$ if we just add $xmapsto x$ the space we get is $(0,1]$. Indeed this is what always will happen: You will get an open subspace of a compactification of $X$.
The general lesson is thus: If you add functions at infinity you are basically extending $X$ by points at infinity.
To address your follow up: Continuous functions from a non-Hausdorff space into $Bbb C$ cannot distinguish two non-separated points, ie if $x,y$ are such that every neighbourhood of $x$ intersects every neighbourhood of $y$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ for any continuous $f$. For that reason $C(X)=C(X/sim)$ if $X$ is not Hausdorff and $sim$ is the relation that glues all points that are not separated together. So basically continuous functions to $Bbb C$ do not actually the non-Hausdorff parts of your space.
For spaces that are not locally compact I believe $C_0(X)$ will be entirely inadequate. Notice for example that $C_0(V)=0$ if $V$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space (for me the model of non locally compact spaces). I have no idea what the space associated to $C_b(V)$ looks like.
$endgroup$
Here is a slight elaboration of the previous answer. Lets us look at a system $mathcal F$ of (bounded) continuous functions on $X$ that do not vanish at infinity and "include" these in our algebra, what space do we get with the Gelfand isomorphism?
To be more concrete, let $A$ be the $C^*$ sub-algebra of $C_b(X)$ generated by $C_0(X)$ and $mathcal F$, what is $sigma(A)$?
There are two such completions I can always write down. The simplest case is $mathcal F = {1}$ (the constant function $1$) from which $A=C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1$ follows, the second ist $A=C_b(X)$. The first case will give you the one-point compactification of $X$, ie $sigma(C_0(X)oplusBbb CBbb1)cong Xcup{infty}$ (either this is clear to you or its a very illustrative exercise). Meanwhile the second will return the Stone-Cech compactification, to see this note that any bounded function $f:XtoBbb C$ extends to a function $beta Xto Bbb C$ by the universal property of $beta X$ (note that $mathrm{im}(f)$ is contained in a compact set), furthermore the extension is unique by denseness of $X$ in $beta X$. From this $C_b(X)subset C(beta X)$ follows and the other direction is clear.
Both of the spaces we got back were compact, which is not a coincidence. Note that in both cases we added the constant functions, which results in the unit of $C(X)$ being added to the algebra. I believe that it is more or less clear that the Gelfand isomorphism results in a compact space iff the original algebra was unital, ie it gives a correspondence
$$text{unital commutative $C^*$ algebras} leftrightarrow text{compact locally compact Hausdorff spaces}$$
in particular we find via this correspondence another correspondence (for $X$ locally compact Hausdorff):
$$text{unitisations of $C_0(X)$}leftrightarrowtext{compactifications of $X$}.$$
So basically when you add functions at infinity you are compactifying $X$, provided you add enough functions so you can reconstruct $1$. Lets consider another example.
For $X=(0,1)$ you can choose to add the function $xmapsto x$ and the function $xmapsto 1-x$. If you do this you will get a unital algebra and indeed you will get all polynomials, so by Stone-Weierstrass your algebra will have all functions in $C([0,1])$. Since you also don't have more functions than that you see that adding these two functions results in taking the closure of $(0,1)$ in $Bbb R$.
Indeed if $X$ is a bounded open subset of $Bbb R^n$, the compactification you get by considering its closure will correspond to the unitsation you get by adding the $n$ coordinate functions $x_i$ to the algebra.
What if you don't add enough functions to recover identity? In our example $X=(0,1)$ if we just add $xmapsto x$ the space we get is $(0,1]$. Indeed this is what always will happen: You will get an open subspace of a compactification of $X$.
The general lesson is thus: If you add functions at infinity you are basically extending $X$ by points at infinity.
To address your follow up: Continuous functions from a non-Hausdorff space into $Bbb C$ cannot distinguish two non-separated points, ie if $x,y$ are such that every neighbourhood of $x$ intersects every neighbourhood of $y$ then $f(x)=f(y)$ for any continuous $f$. For that reason $C(X)=C(X/sim)$ if $X$ is not Hausdorff and $sim$ is the relation that glues all points that are not separated together. So basically continuous functions to $Bbb C$ do not actually the non-Hausdorff parts of your space.
For spaces that are not locally compact I believe $C_0(X)$ will be entirely inadequate. Notice for example that $C_0(V)=0$ if $V$ is an infinite dimensional Banach space (for me the model of non locally compact spaces). I have no idea what the space associated to $C_b(V)$ looks like.
answered Jan 7 at 11:19
s.harps.harp
8,57012250
8,57012250
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.
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%2f3061990%2fwhat-is-the-gelfand-naimark-representation-of-functions-that-dont-vanish-at-inf%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
2
$begingroup$
I think you need $C_b(Y)$ since $C(Y)$ is not necessarily a $C^*$-algebra if $Y$ is not compact. And if $Y$ is compact, then $C(Y)=C_0(Y)$.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:24
$begingroup$
I believe Stone Cech compactification has something to do with this en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone%E2%80%93%C4%8Cech_compactification
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:25
$begingroup$
@SmileyCraft You mean the functions need to be bounded to have a c*-compatible norm?
$endgroup$
– Jahan Claes
Jan 4 at 19:30
$begingroup$
Exactly. At least for the standard norm (the supremum norm) to be $C^*$-compatible.
$endgroup$
– SmileyCraft
Jan 4 at 19:31