- #1

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

What's a good intro text on (noncommutative) C* Algebras?

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Hurkyl
- Start date

- #1

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

What's a good intro text on (noncommutative) C* Algebras?

- #2

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

i'll ask around.

- #3

matt grime

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 9,420

- 4

try www.math.psu.edu/roe or the same with higson instead of roe and poke around, maybe you can get something from their teaching stuff. oh and they call the study of C* algebras geometric functional analysis

- #4

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

William Arveson has a pretty basic book, called just C*-algebras, I think,

although it is a bit old fashioned. Ken Davidson has a more modern book

called C*-algebras by Example, which is quite good.

- #5

matt grime

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 9,420

- 4

That's it, C* algebras by example, that's the one we used for the course.

- #6

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Yay, library at work had "An Invitation to C*-Algebras" (Arveson's book). "C*-Algebras by Example" was checked out, though.

Last edited:

- #7

- 746

- 13

- #8

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

All right, I have some questions already.

I'm looking at the spectrum A^ of a commutative C*-algebra A which is given on page 2 as being the set of all nonzero complex homomorphisms of A, with its usual topology. (It seems to say it's treating A as a Banach algebra)

I'm presuming a complex homomorphism is a continuous homomorphism into C. What exactly is the "usual topology" on the set of such things?

It then considers C(A^) as the continus maps A^ → C vanishing at ∞. What does it mean to vanish at ∞?

Oh wait, I found my first question on Wikipedia: a net f_{λ} of elements in A^ converges to f iff it converges pointwise. It will take a bit of work to really understand that, but at least I know what it is now!

I'm looking at the spectrum A^ of a commutative C*-algebra A which is given on page 2 as being the set of all nonzero complex homomorphisms of A, with its usual topology. (It seems to say it's treating A as a Banach algebra)

I'm presuming a complex homomorphism is a continuous homomorphism into C. What exactly is the "usual topology" on the set of such things?

It then considers C(A^) as the continus maps A^ → C vanishing at ∞. What does it mean to vanish at ∞?

Oh wait, I found my first question on Wikipedia: a net f

Last edited:

- #9

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

uniform convergence on compact sets is nice, and convergence of all sets of values is typical and weak. there is weak convergence and weak star convergence and so on. good luck.

we should probaly ask my friend the expert again but I hate to do so too often. maybe i'll ask a different expert.

- #10

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

vanishing at infinity usually means approaching zero off compact subsets, i.e. for every epsilon there exists a compact subset off which the value is less than epsilon.

but that definition is for locally compact spavces which most banach spaces are not so maybe off bounded sets, instead of off compact sets.

but that definition is for locally compact spavces which most banach spaces are not so maybe off bounded sets, instead of off compact sets.

Last edited:

- #11

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

Arveson says that A^ is locally compact, so your definition should be applicable.

Should that be "off closed, bounded sets" in your guess for arbitrary Banach spaces?

- #12

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

If I let elements of A act on elements of A^ via:

xω := ω(x)

It's just saying that each

- #13

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

- #14

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

- #15

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

Banach Algebra Techniques in Operator Theory, Vol. 179

Ronald*G.*Douglas

Ronald*G.*Douglas

- #16

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,950

- 19

So, I guessed that ||ω|| might mean its operator norm, and had proved the statement that gave me pause (that ω must have norm 1).

And I finally got through the rest of the proof, having only to take one item on faith: for a self-adjoint

But then another question surfaces! I know what the spectrum of an operator acting on a Hilbert space is, but the text is speaking mainly of the spectrum with respect to a

Specifically, if

Any ideas on what that is? I had a guess as to what it might be, but I think I'm wrong because I was unable to work out something the book said should take "a moment's thought".

- #17

matt grime

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 9,420

- 4

sp_A(x) is the set of complex numbers y for whcih x-yI is not invertible, i'd guess. this isnt' quite the same thing as being an eigenvalue. for instance if we take the trasformation of l^2 the space of square summable sequences that sends x_n to (x_n)/n then 0 is in its spectrum since it is not invertible but is not an eigenvalue.

and the other statement is easy enouigh to prove (about norm being the sup of that thing) and if i recall correctly (ie i don't know ti off the opt of my head exactly so it isnt' obvious, but the proof is easy to understand when you read it. should appear in any functional analysis/hilbert space book worth its salt).

and the other statement is easy enouigh to prove (about norm being the sup of that thing) and if i recall correctly (ie i don't know ti off the opt of my head exactly so it isnt' obvious, but the proof is easy to understand when you read it. should appear in any functional analysis/hilbert space book worth its salt).

Last edited:

- #18

mathwonk

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

2020 Award

- 11,242

- 1,447

a basic tool is path integration around parts of the spectrum, as i recall from a course i did not follow 40 years ago, based on the book of edgar lorch, spectral theory.

Share: