Krzysztof Jarosz
Editor
CONTEMPORARY
MATHEMATICS
328
Function Spaces
Fourth Conference on Function Spaces
May 1419,2002
Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Krzysztof Jarosz
Editor
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 32H02, 46E25, 46H05, 46JlO, 46J15,
46L07, 47AlO, 47B38, 47LlO, 54D05.
QA323.C66 2002
515'.73dc21 2003045306
Copying and reprinting. Material in this book may be reproduced by any means for edu
cational and scientific purposes without fee or permission with the exception of reproduction by
services that collect fees for delivery of documents and provided that the customary acknowledg
ment of the source is given. This consent does not extend to other kinds of copying for general
distribution, for advertising or promotional purposes, or for resale. Requests for permission for
commercial use of material should be addressed to the Acquisitions Department, American Math
ematical Society, 201 Charles Street, Providence, Rhode Island 029042294, USA. Requests can
also be made byemail to reprintpermissionalams. ~rg.
Excluded from these provisions is material in articles for which the author holds copyright. In
such cases, requests for permission to use or reprint should be addressed directly to the author(s).
(Copyright ownership is indicated in the notice in the lower righthand corner of the first page of
each article.)
2003 by the American Mathematical Society. All rights reserved.
The American Mathematical Society retains all rights
except those granted to the United States Government.
Printed in the United States of America.
@) The paper used in this book is acidfree and falls within the guidelines
established to ensure permanence and durability.
Visit the AMS home page at http://www . ams. org/
10987654321 08 07 06 05 04 03
Contents
Preface v
Components of resolvent sets and local spectral theory
PIETRO AlENA AND FERNANDO VILLAFANE 1
The FejerRiesz inequality and the index of the shift
JOHN R. AKEROYD 15
On adual algebras
HUGO ARIZMENDI, ANGEL CARRILLO, AND LOURDES PALACIOS 31
iii
iv CONTENTS
Some more examples of subsets of Co and L1 [0, 1] failing the fixed point
property
P. N. DOWLING, C. J. LENNARD, AND B. TURETT 171
Homotopic composition operators on HOC) (Bn)
PAMELA GORKIN, RAYMOND MORTINI, AND DANIEL SUAREZ 177
Characterization of conditional expectation in terms of positive projections
J. J. GROBLER AND M. DE KOCK 189
The Krull nature of locally C* algebras
MARINA HARALAMPIDOU 195
Characterizations and automatic linearity for ring homomorphisms on
algebras of functions
OSAMU HATORI, TAKASHI ISHII, TAKESHI MIURA, AND SINEI
TAKAHASI 201
Carleson embeddings for weighted Bergman spaces
HANS JARCHOW AND URS KOLLBRUNNER 217
Weak *extreme points of injective tensor product spaces
KRZYSZTOF JAROSZ AND T. S. S. R. K. RAO 231
Determining sets and fixed points for holomorphic endomorphisms
KANGTAE KIM AND STEVEN G. KRANTZ 239
Localization in the spectral theory of operators on Banach spaces
T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN 247
Abstract harmonic analysis, homological algebra, and operator spaces
VOLKER RUNDE 263
Relative tensor products for modules over von Neumann algebras
DAVID SHERMAN 275
Uniform algebras generated by unimodular functions
STUART J. SIDNEY 293
Analytic functions on compact groups and their applications to almost
periodic functions
THOMAS TONEV AND S. A. GRIGORYAN 299
Preface
The Fourth Conference on Function Spaces was held at Southern Illinois Uni
versityat Edwardsville from May 14 to May 19, 2002. It was attended by over 100
participants from 25 countries. The lectures covered a broad range of topics, in
cluding spaces and algebras of analytic functions of one and of many variables (and
operators on such spaces), LPspaces, spaces of Banachvalued functions, isometries
of function spaces, geometry of Banach spaces, and other related subjects. The
main purpose of the conference was to bring together mathematicians interested
in various problems within the general area of function spaces and to allow a free
discussion and exchange of ideas with people working on exactly the same problems
as well as with people working on related questions. Hence, most of the lectures,
and therefore the papers in this volume, have been directed to nonexperts. A num
ber of articles contain an exposition of known results (known to experts) and open
problems; other articles contain new discoveries that are presented in a way that
should be accessible also to mathematicians working in different areas of function
spaces.
The conference was the fourth in a sequence of conferences on function spaces at
SlUE, with the first held in the spring of 1990, the second in the spring of 1994, and
the third one in the spring of 1998. The proceedings of the first two conferences
were published with Marcel Dekker in the Lecture Notes in Pure and Applied
Mathematics series (#136 and #172); the proceedings of the third conference were
published by the AMS in the Contemporary Mathematics series (#232).
The abstracts, the schedule of the talks, and other information, as well as
the pictures of the participants, are available on the conference Web page at
http://www.siue.edu/MATH/conference/.
The conference was sponsored by grants from Southern Illinois University and
from the National Science Foundation. The editor would like to thank everyone
who contributed to the proceedings: the authors, the referees, the sponsoring in
stitutions, and the American Mathematical Society.
The editor would also like to express very special thanks to his wife, Dorota,
for her active professional help during all of the stages of the organization  without
her help the conference and the proceedings would not have been possible.
Krzysztof Jarosz
Contemporary Mathematics
Volume 328, 2003
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47AlO, 47A11. Secondary 47A53, 47A55.
Key words and phrases. Single valued extension property, semiregular operators, Kato de
composition property .
The research was supported by the International Cooperation Project between the University
of Palermo (Italy) and the University of Barquisimeto.
property, see [18] for definition and results. Recall that an operator T E L(X)
on a Banach space X is said to be decomposable if for every open cover {UI , U2 }
of C there exist Tinvariant closed linear subspaces Xl and X 2 of X for which
X = Xl + X 2 , a(T IXd ~ Ul and a(T IX2 ) ~ U2 The class of decomposable
operators contains, for instance, all normal operators, all spectral operators, all
operators with a nonanalytic functional calculus and all compact operators, or
more generally all operators with a totally disconnected spectrum. Note that T
is decomposable if and only if T and its dual T* have property ((3), see Theorem
2.5.19 [18]. Consequently, if T is decomposable, then both T and T* have SVEP.
For an arbitrary subset F of C let XT(F) be the local spectral subspace associated
with F, defined by XT(F) := {x EX: aT(x) ~ F}. If F is a closed subset of C,
let XT(F) be the glocal spectral subspace associated with F, defined as the set of
all x E X for which there exists an analytic function f : C \ F + X which satisfies
(>.J  T)f(A) = x for all A E C \ F. Clearly, XT(F) and XT(F) are (not necessarily
closed) linear subspaces of X with XT(F) ~ XT(F) for all closed sets F ~ C. Note
that, by Proposition 3.3.2 of [18], the identity XT(F) = XT(F) holds for all closed
sets F ~ C precisely when Thas SVEP, and this is the case if and only if X T (0) =
{O}, see Proposition 1.2.16 of [18]. The SVEP at a point Ao may be characterized
in a similar way: T has SVEP at Ao if and only if ker (AoI  T) n X T (0) = {O}, cf.
[1, Theorem 1.9].
In the following lemma by A.L and its proof we denote the annihilator of a
subset A ~ X, and by .L B the preannihilator of a subset B ~ X*.
LEMMA 1.2. For every T E L(X), the following statements hold
(i) Ho(T) ~.L K(T*) and K(T) ~.L Ho(T*).
(ii) If T is a Kato type operator and the pair (!vI, N) is a GKD for T then
PROOF. The equivalence of (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) has been established in [3,
Theorem 2.6 and Corollary 2.7]. The equivalence (i) {:} (v) has been proved in
Theorem 2.6 of [2], see also Theorem 2.1 of the present paper.
Assume now that AoI  T is essentially semiregular. We may assume that AO = O.
(i) {:} (vi) Obviously, if Ho(T) is finitedimensional then Ho(T) is closed, so T
has SVEP at 0, by the equivalence (i) {:} (iii).
Conversely, if T has SVEP at 0 then also TIM has SVEP at 0, since the
local SVEP is inherited by the restrictions to closed invariant subspaces. The semi
regularity of TIM then implies that TIM is injective, see Theorem 2.14 of [1]
and therefore NO(T) = {O}. By part (iii) of Lemma 1.2 we then conclude that
Ho(T I M) = NO(T 1M) = {O}. From part (ii) of Lemma 1.2 it follows that
Ho(T) = {O} EB N = N is finitedimensional.
Finally, if T is essentially semiregular then also Tn is essentially semiregular
and therefore, the ranges Tn(x) are closed for all n E N. From Theorem 4.3 of
[5] it then follows that the condition (i) is equivalent to each one of the conditions
(vii), (viii) and (ix).
It remains to establish that (i) implies that AoI  T E ~+(X). Clearly, if
Ho(AoI  T) is finite dimensional then also its subspace ker (AoI  T) is finite
dimensional. Since (AoI T)(X) is closed we then conclude that AoI T E ~+(X).
o
The next Theorem 2.1 will show that, if AoI  T of Kato type, then Ho(AoI 
T) n K(AoI  T) = NO(AoI  T) n (AoI  T)OO(X).
The following characterizations of SVEP for the dual T* are dual, in a sense, to
those given in Theorem 1.3.
THEOREM 1.4. Suppose that AoI  T is of Kato type. Then the following
statements are equivalent:
(i) T* has SVEP at AO;
(ii) X = Ho(AoI  T) + K(AoI  T);
(iii) AoI  T has finite descent;
(iv) X = NO(AoI  T) + (AoI  T)OO(X);
(v) Ho(AoI  T) + K(AoI  T) is normdense in X;
(vi) NO(AoI  T) + (AoI  T)OO(X) is normdense in X;
Furthermore? if AoI  T E L(X) is a essentially semiregular then the assertions
(i)(vi) are equivalent to the following conditions:
(vii) K(AoI  T) is finitecodimensional;
(viii) No (AoI  T) + (AoI  T) (X) is normdense in X;
(ix) Ho(AoI  T) + (AoI  T)(X) is normdense in X.
In this case AoI  T E ~_(T).
PROOF. Also here we may assume that AO = 0 and T is of Kato type.
The equivalence of (i), (ii) and (iii) has been established in Theorem 2.9 of
[3]. The equivalence of (i) and (iv) has been proved in Theorem 2.9 of [2], see
also Theorem 2.1 of the present paper. Clearly, (ii) ::::} (v), (iv) ::::} (vi). The
implications (v) ::::} (i) and (vi) ::::} (i) have been proved in Corollary 4.2 of [5], so
that the statements (i)(vi) are equivalent.
Now, assume that T is essentially semiregular. Then Tn(x) is closed for
6 PIETRO AlENA AND FERNANDO VILLAFANE
all n E N, so that, by Theorem 4.3 of [5], the statements (i), (viii) and (ix) are
equivalent.
To conclude the proof note first that if (M, N) is a GKD for T then the pair
(Nl.,Ml.) is a GKD for T*. Now, if T* has SVEP at 0, then, as observed in the
proof Theorem 1.3, T* I Nl. is injective and therefore, see Lemma 2.8 of [2], TIM
is surjective. Therefore K(T) = K(T I M) = M is finitecodimensional, so that the
implication (i) => (vii) is proved.
Conversely, suppose that the analytical core K(T) is finiteco dimensional. From
K(T) = TOO(X) ~ Tn(x) we deduce that q(T) < 00, so that (vii) implies (iii), and
the proof of the equivalences is complete .
Finally, from the inclusion K(>"ol T) ~ (>"01 T)(X) we infer that, if K(>"o/
T) finiteco dimensional, then also (>"01  T)(X) is finitecodimensional, so that
>"01  T E <L(X). D
Recall that T E L(X) is called bounded below if T is injective and has closed
range T(X). It is easily seen from definition of SVEP that, if the approximate point
spectrum
l7ap (T) := {>.. E C : >..I  T is not bounded below}
does not cluster at >"0, then T has SVEP at >"0 and, dually, if the surjectivity
spectrum
l7 su (T) = {>.. E C : >..I  T is not surjective}
does not cluster at >"0, then T* has SVEP at >"0'
The next result shows that for Kato type operators these implications may be
reversed.
THEOREM 1.5. If >"01  T is of Kato type, then the following equivalences hold:
(i) T has the SVEP at >"0 precisely when l7ap(T) does not cluster at >"0, [6,
Theorem 2.2];
(ii) T* has the SVEP at >"0 precisely when l7su(T) does not cluster at >"0,' [6,
Theorem 2.5].
2. Components
In this section we shall take a closer look at the components of some resol
vent sets associated with the various spectra originating from Fredholm theory. In
particular, we shall obtain a classification of these components, by using the con
stancy of some mappings and the equivalences between the SVEP at a point and
the kerneltype and range type conditions, established in the previous section.
For an operator T E L(X), we consider the following parts of the ordinary
spectrum: the Kato spectrum
l7k(T) := {>.. E C : >..I  T is not semiregular},
and the essential Kato spectrum
l7ke(T) := {>.. E C : >..I  T is not essentially semiregular}.
Moreover, we define
l7kt(T) := {>.. E C : >..I  T is not of Kato type}.
COMPONENTS OF RESOLVENT SETS AND LOCAL SPECTRAL THEORY 7
It is known that the three sets O'k(T), O'kt(T) and O'ke(T) are closed, for the first
set see [18, Proposition 3.1.9], for the other two sets see [4, Corollary 1]. Moreover,
O'k(T) and O'ke(T) are nonempty, since the first spectrum contains the boundary of
O'(T), see [18, Proposition 3.1.6], while the second spectrum contains the boundary
of the Fredholm spectrum O'f(T) := p, E C : >.J  T ~ cJ>(X)}, see [24, Theorem
3.8]. Next we shall show that O'kt(T) is nonempty precisely when O'(T) is not a
finite set of poles.
Let Pk(T) := C \ O'k(T), Pkt(T) := C \ O'kt(T) and Pke(T) := C \ O'ke(T) be
the resolvents associated with these spectra. The sets Pk(T), Pkt(T) and Pke(T)
are open subsets of C, so they may be decomposed in connected disjoint open
nonempty components. Clearly,
(2.1)
Note that for every T E L(X) we have Pk(T) = Pk(T*) and Pke(T) = Pke(T*).
In [29] 6 Searcoid and West showed the constancy of the mappings
PROOF. (i) Throughout this proof we may take>. = O. Let (M, N) be a GKD
for T such that (T I N)d = 0 for some integer dEN. By part (ii) of Lemma 1.2 we
know that K(T) = K(T I M) = K(T) n M. Moreover, by part (iv) of Lemma 1.2,
the semiregularity of TIM implies that Ho(T I M) ~ K(T I M) = K(T). From
this we obtain
n K(T) = Ho(T) n (K(T) n M) = (Ho(T) n M) n K(T)
Ho(T)
= Ho(T I M) n K(T) = Ho(T 1M),
From the constancy of the mappings>. + Ho(>.J  T)nK(>.J T), or, which is
the same, of the mappings>. + Noo(>.J  T) n (>.J  T)OO(X), on the components
of Pkt(T) and the results established in the previous section we now obtain the
following classification.
COMPONENTS OF RESOLVENT SETS AND LOCAL SPECTRAL THEORY 9
THEOREM 2.2. LetT E L(X) and 0. a component ofpkt(T). Then the following
alternative holds:
either
(i) T has SVEP for every point ofn. In this case p(>.J  T) < 00 for all A E n.
Moreover, aap(T) does not have limit points in 0.; every point of 0., except possibly
for at most countably many isolated points, is not an eigenvalue of T.
or
(ii) T has SVEP at no point of n. In this case p(>.J  T) = 00 for all A E n.
Every point of 0. is an eigenvalue of T,
PROOF. (i) Suppose that T has SVEP at AO E n. Then, by Theorem 1.3,
Ho(>.J  T) is closed and
HO(AoI  T) n K(AoI  T) = HO(AoI  T) n K(AoI  T) = {O}.
Since the mapping A + Ho(>.J  T) n K(>.J  T) is constant on the component
0., then Ho(>.J  T) n K(>.J  T) = {O} for all A E 0. and this implies, again by
Theorem 1.3, that T has SVEP at every A E n. This is equivalent, also by Theorem
1.3, to saying that p(AI  T) < 00 for all A E n. Moreover, from Theorem 1.5,
aap(T) does not cluster in 0. and, consequently, every point of 0. is not an eigenvalue
of T, except a subset of 0. which consists of at most count ably many isolated points.
i=l
n
i=l
where the last equality follows since T has SVEP and Ail  T is of Kato type, see
Theorem 2.9 of [3). But the last intersection is {O}, since, by the local spectral
characterization of the analytical core (1.2), if x E K(Ai1  T) n K(Ajl  T), with
Ai =1= Aj, then aT(x) ~ {Ai} n {Aj} = 0 and hence x = 0, since T has SVEP.
Therefore h(T) = O.
(v)* (i) As in the proof of (iv)* (i) it suffices to show that AI  T is of Kato
type for all A E a(T). Let h be a polynomial such that h(T) = O. From the spectral
mapping theorem we easily deduce that a(T) is a finite set {AI, ,An}. The
points AI, ,An are zeros of finite multiplicities of h, say k 1 , ,kn' respectively,
so that h(A) = (AI  A)kl ... (An  A)kn and hence
n
X = ker h(T) = $ker (Ail  T)ki,
i=l
COMPONENTS OF RESOLVENT SETS AND LOCAL SPECTRAL THEORY 11
We have
M := ker ho(T) = EB ker (Ail  T)ki
i"lj
and if N := ker (Ail  T)kj, then X = M EEl Nand M, N are invariant under
Ail  T. From the inclusion ker (Ail  T) ~ ker (Ail  T)k j = N, we infer that
the restriction of Ail  T on M is injective. It is easily seen that
(Ail  T)(ker (AJ  T)ki) = ker (AJ  T)ki, i =I j,
so that (Ai 1 T)( M) = M. Hence the restriction of Ai 1 T on M is also surjective
and therefore bijective. Obviously, (Ajl  T) I N)k j = 0, so that Ajl  T is of Kato
type, as desired. 0
A bounded operator on a Banach space X is said to satisfy a polynomial growth
condition, if there exists a K > 0, a 8 > for which
IIexp(iAT)II ::; K(1 + IAleS) for all A E JR,
Examples of operators which satisfy a polynomial growth condition are her
mitian operators on Hilbert spaces, nilpotent and projection operators, algebraic
operators with real spectra, see Barnes [1]. In Laursen and Neumann [18, Theo
rem 1.5.19] it is shown that the class P(X) of operators which satisfy a polynomial
growth condition coincides with the class of all generalized scalar operators having
real spectra. As noted in Barnes [1], if T E P(X) and Aol  T has closed range
for some Ao E C then q(Aol  T) is finite. From Theorem 2.4 it follows that,
if T E P(X), then the condition (AI  T)(X) closed for all A E C implies that
O"kt(T) = 0. Other classes of operators for which O"kt(T) = 0 may be found in [23].
The classification of the components of Pes(T) may be easily obtained from
Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.3, once it has been observed, that the two sets Pes (T)
and Pkt(T) may be different only for a denumerable set, see for instance Corollary
1 of [4].
We now look at the components of PSf(T). Recall that for a semiFredholm
operator T E <P+(X) U <p_(X) we can consider the index defined by ind T :=
dim ker T  codim T(X). Clearly, from Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.3, T, as well
as T*, has SVEP either for every point or no point of a component n of PSf(T).
We can classify the components of Psf (T) as follows:
THEOREM 2.5. Let T E L(X) and n a component of PSf(T). For the BVEP,
the index, the ascent and the descent on 0 there are exactly the following four
possibilities:
(i) Both T and T* have BVEP at every point of n. In this case we have
ind (AI  T) = and p(AI  T) = q(AI  T) < 00 for every A E o. The eigenvalues
and deficiency values do not have a limit point in O. This case occurs exactly when
o intersects the resolvent p(T).
(ii) T has BVEP at the points of 0, while T* fails to have BVEP at the points
of o. In this case we have ind (AI  T) < 0, p(AI  T) < 00 and q(AI  T) = 00
12 PIETRO AlENA AND FERNANDO VILLAFANE
for every A E n.The eigenvalues do not have a limit point in n and every point of
n is a deficiency value.
(iii) T* has SVEP at the points of n, while T fails to have SVEP at the points
of n. In this case we have ind (AI  T) > 0, p(AI  T) = 00 and q(AI  T) < 00
for every A E n. The deficiency values do not have a limit point in n, while every
point of n is an eigenvalue.
(iv) Neither T or T* has SVEP at the points of n. In this case we have
p(AI  T) = q(AI  T) = 00 for every A E n. The index may assume every value
in Z; all the points of n are eigenvalues and deficiency values.
PROOF. The case (i) is clear from the results established in the previous section,
Theorem 2.2 and Theorem 2.3. The index ind (AI  T) = 0 by Proposition 38.6 of
[15J. In the case (ii) the condition p(AI  T) < 00 implies that AI  T has index less
or equal to 0, while the condition q(AI  T) = 00 excludes that ind (AI  T) = 0,
see Proposition 38.5 of [15J.
A similar argument shows in the case (iii) that ind (AI  T) > O.
The statements of (iv) are clear. 0
The following corollary establishes that a very simple classification of the com
ponents of semiFredholm resolvent may be obtained in the case that T, or T* has
SVEP. Recall that the case that both T and T* have SVEP applies in particular
to the decomposable operators.
COROLLARY 2.6. Let T E L(X) and n any component of PSf(T). If T has
SVEP then only the case (i) and (ii) of Theorem 2.5 are possible, while if T* has
SVEP only the case (i) and (iii) are possible. Finally, if both T and T* have SVEP
then only the case (i) is possible.
In the next result we consider the components of Pk(T), which is the smallest
of the resolvent sets that we have considered.
THEOREM 2.7. Let T E L(X) and n any component of Pk(T). Then one of the
following possibilities occurs:
(i) Both T and T* have SVEP at every point of n. In this case we have
n ~ p(T).
(ii) T has SVEP at the points of n, while T* fails to have SVEP at every point
of n. In this case we have n n aap(T) = 0 and n ~ asu(T).
(iii) T* has SVEP at the points of n, while T* fails to have SVEP at the points
of n. In this case we have n n asu(T) = 0 and n ~ aap(T).
(iv) Neither T or T* have SVEP at the points of n. In this case we have
n ~ aap(T) n asu(T).
PROOF. (i) Let Ao E n. The subspaces M:= X and N := {O} give a GKD for
T and the subspaces ..L N = X and ..L M = {O} give a GKD for T*. As observed in the
proof of Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.4 if T has SVEP at Ao then Ho(AoI  T) =
N = {O} and if T* has SVEP at Ao then K(AoI  T) = M = X. Therefore
Ao E p(T).
(ii) In this case Ho(AI  T) = {O} and (AI  T)(X) is closed for every A E n.
If A ~ asu(T) then A E p(T) = p(T*) and this is impossible, since T* does not have
SVEP at A.
COMPONENTS OF RESOLVENT SETS AND LOCAL SPECTRAL THEORY 13
(iii) In this case K(M  T) = X for every A E n, so A f/. O'su(T). If A f/. O'ap(T)
then A E p(T) and this is impossible, since T does not have SVEP at the point A.
(iv) Use the same arguments as in part (ii) and (iii).
o
References
[IJ P. Aiena, o. Monsalve Operators which do not have the single valued extension property. J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 250, (2000),435448.
[2J P. Aiena, O. Monsalve The single valued extension property and the generalized Kato de
composition property. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 67, (2001), 461477.
[3J P. Aiena, M. L. Colasante, M. Gonzalez Operators which have a closed quasinilpotent part,
Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130, (2002), 27012710.
[4J P. Aiena, M. Mbekhta Characterization of some classes of operators by means of the Kato
decomposition. (1996), Boll. Un. Mat. It. 10A, 60921.
[5J P. Aiena, T. L. Miller, M. M. Neumann On a localized single valued extension property,
(2001), to appear on Proc. Royal Irish Acad.
[6J P. Aiena, E. Rosas The single valued extension property at the points of the approximate
point spectrum. to appear on J. Math. Anal. Appl.
[7J B. A. Barnes Operators which satisfy polynomial growth conditions. Pacific. J. Math. 138
(1989), 20919.
[8J N. Dunford Spectral theory I. Resolution of the identity. Pacific J. Math. 2 (1952), 559614.
[9J N. Dunford Spectral operators. Pacific J. Math. 4 (1954), 321354.
[lOJ N. Dunford, J. T. Schwartz Linear operators, Part Ill. (1971), Wiley, New York.
[I1J J. K. Finch The single valued extension property on a Banach space Pacific J. Math. 58
(1975), 6169.
[12J K. H. Forster Uber die Invarianz eineger Riiume, die zum Operator T  >'A gehoren. Arch.
Math. 17 (1966), 5664.
[13J M. A. Goldman, S. N. Kraekovskii Invariance of certain subspaces associated with A  >'1.
Soviet Math. Doklady 5, (1964), 1024.
[14J M. A. Goldman, S. N. Krackovskii Behaviour of the space of zero elements with finite
dimensional salient on the zero kernel under perturbations of the operator. Soviet Nath.
Doklady 16, (1975), 3703.
[15J H. Heuser Functional Analysis (1982), Marcel Dekker, New York.
[16J R. H. Homer Regular extensions and the solvability of operator equations. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 12 (1961), 41518.
[17J T. Kato Perturbation theory for nullity, deficiency and other quantities of linear operators.
J. Anal. Math. 6 (1958), 261322.
[18J K. B. Laursen, M. M. Neumann Introduction to local spectral theory, Clarendon Press,
Oxford 2000.
[19J M. Mbekhta Sur I 'unicite de la decomposition de Kato generalisee. Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged)
54 (1990), 36777.
[20J M. Mbekhta Sur la theorie spectrale locale et limite des nilpotents. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
110 (1990), 621631.
[21J M. Mbekhta, A. Ouahab Operateur sregulier dans un espace de Banach et theorie spectrale.
Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 59 (1994), 52543.
[22J M. Mbekhta, A. Ouahab Perturbation des operateurs sreguliers . Topics in operator theory,
operator algebras and applications, Timisoara (1994), Rom. Acad. Bucharest, 239249.
[23J M. Mbekhta Ascent, descent et spectre essential quasiFredholm., Rendiconti Circ. Mat.
Palermo (2), 46, (1997), 175196.
[24J V. Miiller On the regular spectrum., J. Operator Theory 31 (1994), 363380.
[25J V. Rakocevic Generalized spectrum and commuting compact perturbation. Proc. Edinburgh
Math. Soc. 36 (2), (1993), 197209.
[26J P. Saphar Contribution a l'etude des applications lineaires dans un espace de Banach. Bull.
Soc. Math. France 92 (1964), 36384.
[27J C. Schmoeger On isolated points of the spectrum of a bounded operator. Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 117 (1993), 71519.
14 PIETRO AlENA AND FERNANDO VILLAFANE
[28] C. Schmoeger (1995). SemiFredholm opemtors and local spectml theory., Demonstratio
Math. 4, 9971004.
[29] M. 6 Searc6id , T. T. West Continuity of the genemlized kernel and mnge for semiFredholm
opemtors. Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 105, (1989), 513522.
[30] P. Vrbova On local spectml properties of opemtors in Banach spaces. Czechoslovak Math.
J. 23(98) (1973a), 48392.
[31] T. T. West A RieszSchauder theorem for semiFredholm opemtors. Proc. Roy. Irish. Acad.
87 A, N.2, (1987), 137146.
John R. Akeroyd
Let I" be a finite, positive Borel measure with support in {z : Izl ::; I} (~ := {z :
Izl < I}) and let p2(1") denote the closure of the polynomials in L2(1")' We assume
throughout that p2(1") is irreducible (i.e., it contains no nontrivial characteristic
functions). From this it follows that:
a) I"lalIJl m (normalized Lebesgue measure on 8~), and
b) for any w in ~, f f+ f(w) defines a bounded linear functional for poly
nomials f with respect to the L2(1") norm, that is bounded independent
of w in any compact subset of~; cf. [15], Theorem 5.8. In other words,
~ = abpe(p2(1"))  the collection of analytic bounded point evaluations
for P2(1")'
In the case that 1"(8~) > 0 and I"llIJl is radially weighted area measure, there is
much in the literature concerning which weights have the property that p2(1") is
irreducible; for instance, cf. [9] and [10]. Returning to our general setting, notice
that multiplication by the independent variable z is a bounded operator on p2 (1").
We call this operator the shift (on p2 (1")) and denote it by M z, suppressing reference
to 1". Let Lat(Mz ) denote the collection of closed invariant subspaces for the shift
(on p2(1"))' If {O} "I M E Lat(Mz), then, since 0 E abpe(p2(1")), zM is a closed
subspace of M and in fact dim(M e zM) 2: 1. In the case that 1"(8~) = 0,
C. Apostol, H. Bercovici, C. Foias and C. Pearcy have shown that for any natural
number n, and for n = 00, there exists Min Lat(Mz ) such that dim(MezM) = n;
cf. [3], and for related work see [7]. This result is an indication of how very large
Lat(Mz ) is in the case that 1"(8~) = O. In fact, it is large enough to "model"
the general invariant subspace problem for bounded operators on a Hilbert space;
again, cf. [3] and [7]. A classical example that falls under this heading (1"(8~) = 0)
is the Bergman space L~(~), which equals p2(1") when I" = A  area measure on
~. At the other extreme, if I" = m, then P2(1") represents the Hardy space H2(~)
and so, by Benrling's Theorem, dim(M e zM) = 1 for all nontrivial members M
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47 A53, 47B20, 47B38; Secondary 30ElO,
46E15.
of Lat(Mz ). It has been conjectured that for any measure I" with mass on the
unit circle (i.e., 1"(8lI))) > 0), the outcome mimics that of Hardy space case and
dim(M8 zM) = 1 whenever {OJ =I M E Lat(Mz ); cf. [5]. There are a number of
results in the literature that support this conjecture. The first of these is found in a
paper ofR. Olin and J. Thomson (cf. [12]) who show that it holds whenever I" that
has a socalled "outer hole" in its support. Subsequently (in [11]), L. Miller shows
that it also holds in the case that I" = A + mi.,!' where 'Y is some nontrivial sub arc
of 8lI)). In [17], L. Yang extends this result of L. Miller to the case: I" = A + mlE,
where E is any compact subset of 8lI)) of positive Lebesgue measure that satisfies
the Carleson condition
1
Ln m(In)log(m(In)) < 00;
{In} are the intervals that are complementary to E in 8lI)). And then (in [16])
J. Thomson and L. Yang obtain this extension of L. Yang in the more general
context of the shift on pt(I"), for 1 < t < 00. The conjecture has recently been
established for any measure I" for which there is a nontrivial subarc 'Y of 8lI)) such
that
with no special assumption made concerning 1"10; cf. [2]. In [2], the author makes
use ofresults in an earlier paper (cf. [1]) that are intricately related to the seminal
work of R. Olin and J. Thomson in [12]. Specifically, in [1] the author defines what
it means for I" to be strongly inscribed and shows that if I" is such, then indeed
dim(M 8 zM) = 1 for each nontrivial member M of Lat(Mz ). To be explicit, I" is
said to be strongly inscribed if there is a Jordan subregion W of lI)) with rectifiable
boundary (we let Ww denote harmonic measure on 8W for evaluation at some point
in W) with the properties:
i) ww(8lI))) > 0, and
With z fixed in ][)), ( f+ Pz (() := 1~=~J~2 is the Poisson kernel on 8][)) for
evaluation at z. It is wellknown that falf Pz(()dm(() = 1 independent of z, and
that if hE L1(m), then (by Fatou's Theorem)
( Pz(()h(()dm(() ~ h(~)
lalf
as z nontangentially approaches ~ for ma.a. ~ in 8][)). One may consult [6] and
[8] as good references for these results. We begin with a rather straightforward
observation whose proof appears in [4]; see the proof of Lemma 3.1 in this reference.
LEMMA 2. Let rJ be a finite, positive Borel measure with support in ll} such that
rJ(8][))) = O. Then
1  r2
lim 1m drJ(w) = 0
r+1 If 11r~wI2
for ma.a. ~ in 8][)).
Our next result can be viewed as the converse of the FejerRiesz inequality.
THEOREM 3. Let v be a finite, positive Borel measure with support in ll} such
that vlalf m and][)) = abpe(p2(v)). For c > 0, let Bv(c) be the set of all ~ in 8][))
such that
11 If(t~Wdt J ::; c Ifl2dv
for all polynomials f. Then Bv (c) is a closed subset of 8][)) and :~ ;::: ~ (a. e. m) on
Bv(c). Furthermore, if E is a Lebesgue measurable subset of Bv(c) and m(E) > 0,
then XE p 2(v).
Proof. That Bv(c) is closed is an immediate consequence of the fact that any
polynomial is uniformly continuous on ll}. Now if 0 < r < 1 and I~I = 1, then
v'f=T2
g(w) := =
1r~w
is analytic in a region containing ll} and so, by Runge's Theorem, is the uniform
limit (on ll}) of polynomials. Therefore we can apply our hypothesis to get that
which yields:
l+r= 1o
1 1  r2
(1
 rt
)2 dt ::;c.
JI 1  r2
1 r~wl
2 dv (W),
for 0 < r < 1 and any ~ in Bp.(c). Letting r + 1 and applying Lemma 2, we
find that :~ ;::: ~ (a.e. m) on Bv(c). To finish the proof of this theorem, let
E be a Lebesgue measurable subset of Bv(c) such that m(E) > 0, and suppose
18 JOHN R. AKEROYD
It turns out that if f.L is strongly inscribed, then in fact there exists c > 0 such
that rn(BJ.L(c)) > o. En route to this result (Theorem 5, below), we make the
following observation.
PROPOSITION 4. Let f.L be a finite, positive Borel measure with support in iID
such that p2 (f.L) is irreducible. Then the following are equivalent.
1) f.L is strongly inscribed.
2) There is a Jordan subregion V ofH}, where 8V is rectifiable and rn((8V) n
(8H})) > 0, and there is a positive constant M, such that
ID>U{'l/J(~)} defined by ')'(t) = 'l/J(t~), s::; t::; 1. Then, by (i)  (iii), there are positive
constants Ck (k = 1,2,3) independent of to in [s, 1) such that
lengthb([to, l]))
=
It: W(t~)ldt
1  b(to)1 1 1'l/J(to~)1
I~  to~1
< C1 . 1  I'l/J(to~) I
I~  to~1
<
C2 I'l/J(O  'l/J(to~)1
< C3
From this it follows that arclength measure on ')'([s, 1)) is a Carleson measure for
H2(1D. And so there are positive constants Ck (k = 3,4) such that, for any poly
nomial f,
< C4 [ IU 0 cpWdm
laI)
C4 [ IfI 2ru.vv;
lav
by Harnack's inequality, we may assume that cp(O) is the point in V of evaluation
for wv. Once again recalling (2) (of Proposition 4), we can now find a positive
constant C5 such that
for all polynomials f. Since ID> = abpe(p2(jj)), we may apply Lemma 2.6 of [13]
and find another positive constant C6 such that, for all polynomials f,
1If(t~Wdt J
s
::; C6 Ifl 2djj.
REMARK 7. There are other more general forms of the FejerRiesz inequality,
where the integral on the left is taken over chords of the unit circle and not just over
diameters. A converse to this FejerRiesz inequality (for chords) can be established,
and involves integrals over segments that have nontangential approach in lI} to
certain points in alI}. Thus, analogues of B/I(c) can be defined, where the integral
on the left is taken over segments in various Stolz angles. All of this leads to
a counterpart of Theorem 5, whose converse appears to be manageable. To this
author it seems most likely that if m(B/I(c)) > 0, then there is a sizeable subset E
of B/I(c) that is contained in these collections that are analogous to B/I(c), and thus
the converse of Theorem 5 is likely a consequence of its counterpart in the context
of the FejerRiesz inequality for chords.
References
[1] J. Akeroyd, Another look at some index theorems for the shift, Indiana Univ. Math. J., 50
(2001),705718.
[2] J. Akeroyd, A note concerning the index of the shift, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 130, No.
11 (2002), 33493354.
[3] C. Apostol, H. Bercovici, C. Foias, C. Pearcy, Invariant subspaces, dilation theory, and the
structure of the predual of a dual algebra, I, J. Functional Analysis, 63 (1985),369404.
[4] A. Aleman, S. Richter, C. Sundberg, The majorization function and the index of invariant
subspaces in the Bergman spaces, J. Analyse Math., 86 (2002), 139182.
[5] J. B. Conway, L. Yang, Some open problems in the theory of subnormal operators, Holomor
phic spaces, Cambridge University Press, 33 (1998), 201209.
[6] P. L. Duren, Theory of HP Spaces, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
[7] H. Hedenmalm, S. Richter, K. Seip, Interpolating sequences and invariant subspaces of given
index in the Bergman spaces, J. Reine Angew. Math., 477 (1996), 1330.
[8] K. Hoffman, Banach Spaces of Analytic Functions, PrenticeHall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.,
1962.
[9] S. Hruscev, The problem of simultaneous approximation and removal of singularities of
Cauchy type integrals, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov 130 (1978), 124195; English transl., Proc.
Steklov Inst. Math. 130 (1979), no. 4, 133203.
[10] T. L. Kriete, B. D. MacCluer, Meansquare approximation by polynomials on the unit disk,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., vol. 322, no. 1 (1990), 134.
[11] T. L. Miller, Some subnormal operators not in A2, J. Functional Analysis, 82 (1989), 296302.
[12] R. F. Olin, J. E. Thomson, Some index theorems for subnormal operators, J. Operator Theory,
3 (1980), 115142.
[13] R. F. Olin, L. Yang, A subnormal operator and its dual, Canad. J. Math., 48 (1996), 381396.
[14] Ch. Pommerenke, Boundary Behaviour of Conformal Maps, SpringerVerlag, Berlin
Heidelberg, 1992.
[15] J. E. Thomson, Approximation in the mean by polynomials, Ann. Math., 133 (1991), 477507.
[16] J. E. Thomson, L. Yang, Invariant subspaces with the codimension one property in Lt(J.I),
Indiana Univ. Math. J., vol. 44, no. 4 (1995),11631173.
[17] L. Yang, Invariant subspaces of the Bergman space and some subnormal operators in Al\A2,
Mich. Math. J., 42 (1995), 301310.
1. Introduction
Let n be a domain in the plane, with smooth boundary r. The classical
CauchyGreen formula states that for any c/> E C 1 (0') and zEn,
(1.1 ) c/>( z) = _1
27l'i
r c/>( () d( _ _ lnr o~ d(
lr (  Z
1
27l'i o( (
1\ d(
Z
Note that the first term on the right of (1.1) is a holomorphic function 4> of Z in
the domain n. In fact, 4> extends continuously to 0', and hence defines an element
of the algebra A(O') consisting of functions holomorphic in n and continuous on 0'.
Of course, if c/> E A(O'), (1.1) reduces to the Cauchy integral formula and 4> = c/>.
The representation (1.1) has many applications in complex analysis. In the
theory of approximation of continuous functions on a compact set K c C by
rational functions with poles off K, one is led by considerations of duality to examine
measures supported on K. The Cauchy transform of such a measure J.l is defined
by
(1.2) p,(Z) = r
dJ.l(()
lK (z
The integral defining [J, converges absolutely for almost all z E C. Using (1.1), one
can easily show that for any smooth compactly supported function C/>,
(1.3)
lK
rc/>(z) dJ.l(z) = ~ r
o~ p,(z) di 1\ dz
27l'zlc z
That is, [J, satisfies the equation
0[J,
(1.4) oi =7l'J.l
(1.5) x = Z2
a  Zl.
a
aZl aZ2
x is welldefined 011 C l (S) and for any relatively open subset n of S, annihilates
the restrictions to n of functions holomorphic in a neighborhood of n in e 2 The
solutions to X = 0 on n are known as CR functions on n. A good general reference
for the theory of CR functions is the book [2].
One would like an analogue of the Cauchy transform for measures on S. Given
a measure JL on S, G. Henkin in 1977 [4] constructed a function KJ1.' summable
with respect to threedimensional Hausdorff measure da on S, satisfying
 2
(1.6) abKJ1. = 27r JL
in the sense of distributions, i.e.,
a: H((, z) is continuous on S x S \ {z = 0;
b: For all unitary transformations U of determinant 1, H (U (, U z) = H ((, z);
c: Is
jH((, el)j da(() < 00, where el = (1,0), and da is threedimensional
Hausdorff measure 1 on S.
Properties (b) and (c) together with the unitary invariance of da imply that H
is uniformly summable with respect to da, Le., there exists a constant C so that
Kz) = r
ls.(z)
H((, z) a(() /\ w(()
jK(z)  K,(z)j = I r
ls~(z)
H((, z) a(() /\ W(()I ::; M r
ls~(z)
jH((, z)jda(()
r
ls~(z)
jH((, z)j da(() = r
lS~(e,)
jH(Ury, Uel)j da(Ury) = r
lS:(e')
jH(ry, el)j da(ry)
LEMMA 1.2. A kernel H((, z) satisfying (a), (b) and (c) satisfies (1.8) if and
only if for each measure J.L on 8 orthogonal to polynomials
(1.14) Is dJ.L = cis K,.. 8 A w
for all E C1(8).
PROOF. Suppose first that H((, z) satisfies (a), (b), (c) and (1.8). Let J.L be a
measure on 8 orthogonal to polynomials. Fix E C 1 (8). and let <fl E A(B) be as
in (1.8). Since polynomials are dense in A(B), Is
<fl dJ.L = O. Hence by (1.8),
1.1. Acknowledgment. The first author wishes to thank Joseph Cima for
helpful conversations on the results in section 3.
For a E int(6), put r = Jl lal 2 and denote by "fa the circle Z2 = rT, ITI = 1 in
the z2plane.
LEMMA 2.1. Fix a E 6. For n = 0,1,2, ... we have, putting z = (a, Z2),
(2.1)
PROOF.
We denote the inner integral by J((). Multiplying both numerator and denom
inator of the integrand by T, we get
Let
r(2
and T2 = 1 a1
(
Thus
(2.2)
1 'Ya
K(Z)Z2 dZ 2
lim [ 84> /\ w . I
<+0 Js,
= lim [ d(4) wI)
e+O Js,
since I is holomorphic on Se for f > O. By Stokes' Theorem, the latter integral
equals
 [ 4> wI
JT,
proving the claim.
Note that T, is the torus
(1 = a + fe ifJ , (2 = JI 1(II 2ei .p, 0::; 0, 'IjJ ::; 27l'.
A CAUCHYGREEN FORMULA ON THE UNIT SPHERE IN C 2 27
1K(z)z~
"fa
= lim [27ri [ (()r2n+2 (
<>0 Jr, 1 a(~1 )
n
+1 (( 1
1  a) d(11\. d(2]
For fixed f, we rewrite the expression in brackets as
27ri [ (a, rei1/J)rnein1/JidB I\. irei'IjJd'lj; + O(f)
Jr.
1K(z)z~
"fa
dZ2 =
LEMMA 2.2. Fix E C 1 (8). Let L be a complex line in C2. Then the restriction
ofT() to L n 8 extends analytically to L n B.
PROOF. Lemma 2.1 gives us, for each a E int(h.), that
(2.5) 1(T)(z)z~
"fa
dZ 2 = 0, n = 0,1,2, ...
Note that "fa = La n 8, where La is the line {Z1 = a}. Then (2.5) implies
that T extends analytically to the disk La n B. Using the unitary invariance of
H,cr, and X, it is not hard to check that for all E C 1 (8),
(2.6) (T)oU=T(oU)
Fix a complex line L. Let N denote the complex line passing through the origin
which is orthogonal to L, and let zO denote the intersection point N n L. Write
L = {zO + (t I t E C} for some unit vector (. If U is a unitary transformation with
Ue2 = (, where e2 = (0,1) then U maps the line {Z2 = O} to N, and maps some
28 JOHN T. ANDERSON AND JOHN WERMER
point (a,O) to zOo Then U((a,O) + t(O, 1)) = zO + t(, for all t E C. So U maps
the line La to L and maps the disk La n B to L n B. By (2.6), T I Lns extends
analytically to the disk L n B if and only if (T) 0 U 1La ns extends to La n B. This
last is true by (2.5), as we have noted earlier, and so the proof is complete. 0
By Lemma 1.1, since H satisfies properties (a), (b) and (c) of section 1, K
and thus T are continuous on S. By Lemma 2.2, T has the "onedimensional
extension property" as defined by Stout in [7], p. 105. A theorem of Agranovskii
and Val'skii [1] then gives that T lies in the ball algebra A(B). Putting cP = T(),
we have arrived at
THEOREM 2.3. Let E C 1 (S). Then there exists cP E A(B) such that
REMARK 3.2. Since C(z,) rt. Ll(du), it is not immediate that the limit in
Theorem 3.1 exists.
PROOF. As in sections 1 and 2, set
K(z) = lim [
+O
r
Jr,(z)
H((, z) </>(() 1\ w(()  2 r
JS\N,(z)
C((, z) </>(()dO"(()]
Since
cI>(z) = 41r 2</>(z)  K(z)
by Theorem 2.3, the proof will be complete if we can show that
(3.1) lim
+O
r
Jr,(z)
H((, z) </>(() 1\ w(() = 41r2</>(z)
To establish (3.1), choose a unitary map U with Ue1 = z. Then for fixed E > 0,
r
Jr,(z)
H((, z) </>(() 1\ w(() = r
Jr,(et}
H(TJ, ed (</> 0 U)(TJ) 1\ w(TJ)
The torus r e(e1) = {TJ : ITJ11 = 1  E}, oriented as the boundary of S \ Ne(ed, is
parametrized by
where
Then on re(ed,
and
which gives
r
Jr,(z)
H((, z) </>(() 1\ w(()
(3.2)
where
r r
IIel ::; C Jo Jo
27r 27r r2
11  (1 .: )ei9112d(hd{;l2
for some C > o. An application of the Poisson integral formula shows that the first
integral in (3.2) converges to 41r2(</>oU)(e1) = 41r2</>(z) as E + 0, while lime+o Ie = O.
This completes the proof. D
30 JOHN T. ANDERSON AND JOHN WERMER
4. An Approximation Theorem
Fix E C 1 (S). The quantity
dist(, A(B)) = inf{ll  gil : g E A(B)}
where I . II is the uniform norm on S measures how closely can be approximated
by polynomials on S.
THEOREM 4.1. There exists C > 0 so that/or all E C1(S),
dist(, A(B)) ~ CIIXII
PROOF. Let IIHl11 denote the L1  drr norm of Henkin's kernel H(, z) (which
is independent of z E S). By the representation in Theorem 2.3, there exists
<i> E A(B) so that for z E S,
On adual Algebras
ABSTRACT. Let Ti(D) and TieD) be the algebras which consist of all holo
morphic functions in the open unit disc D and in the closed unit disc 75,
respectively. These algebras, considered as algebras of sequences, are denoted
by A and B. Let A" and B" be the adual spaces of A and B, respectively;
we have that A" = Band B" = A, and these sequence spaces with their nor
mal topologies are topological algebras. A similar treatment can be applied to
the algebra c of all entire functions and its adual space c" consisting of all
complex functions that are analytic in some neighborhood of the origin.
Here we examine a more general situation. If A(ap,n) is a matrix algebra,
we establish conditions under which the adual space A" (ap,n) is a topological
algebra relative to the normal topology. We also analyse some other important
examples of topological algebras with such properties.
1. Introduction
A sequence space), is a vector space of complex sequences x = (Xi)~O' The
vector space operations are the usual operations on the coordinates. ), can be
considered as a linear subspace of the space w of all complex sequences.
To each sequence space ), we assign another sequence space N", its adual.
),01. is the set of all complex sequences Y = (Yi)~O for which the scalar product
<Xl
Ilxlly = 2: IXkYkl
k=O
where Y runs over all ),01..
An important class of sequence spaces are the echelon and coechelon spaces
which have been studied by G. Kothe and O. Toeplitz. They are defined as follows:
Let (ap,n), p = 1,2, ... , n = 0,1, ... be an infinite matrix of nonnegative
numbers such that
(1) 0:::; ap,n :::; ap+1,n
(2) For every n, there exists p such that ap,n > O.
Let A = {(Xn) E W : E JXnJ ap,n < 00, p = 1,2, ... }. A is called an echelon space
n
and N" a coechelon space. We note that A = fu!!ll(ap,n)'
p
In the following we denote the echelon space A by A(ap,n)' In [1] it is proved
that if A(ap,n) is an algebra under the convolution product, then this product is
jointly continuous and A(ap,n) is a topological algebra. As a matter of fact, it is a
metrizable locally convex complete algebra, i.e. aBoalgebra.
It can be seen that a necessary and sufficient condition under which A(ap,n) is
an algebra is the following:
(3) For each pEN, there exists q E N such that ap,n+m S aq,n aq,m;
for n, m = 0, 1,2, ....
If (ap,n) satisfies (1), (2) and (3), we call A(ap,n) a matrix algebra.
Let
00
(Xk)k=O ~ L Xk zk
k=O
identifies those sequence algebras A and B with the function algebras H(D) and
H(D) consisting of all holomorphic functions in the open unit complex disc D and
in the closed unit complex disc D, respectively. Through this identification we shall
00
indistinctly write x = (Xk)k=O or x = E
Xkzk to refer to an element x of A or B.
k=O
By the same fact we can consider in A the compactopen topology that is originally
defined for H(D).
We note that A ~ A(r;), n = 0,1, ... , p = 0,1, ... , where (rp) is an increasing
sequence of positive numbers converging to 1, and the compactopen topology on
A can be given by the sequence of seminorms
00 00
If ap n > 0, n
,
= 0,1,2, ... , p = 1,2, .... then A"'(ap n) = limlOO(1)
, ap,n
as sets.
t
p
The inductive limit topology is stronger than the normal topology in A"'(ap,n)'
Prom now on we are going to assume: ap,n > 0, n = 0,1,2, ... ,p = 1,2, ....
If A(ap,n) is nuclear, then A"'(ap,n) ~:::'n~lOO(a:.J ~ l~l1(a:.J as topological
p p
vector spaces.
Here we prove that l~l1(a:.J is an algebra if A(ap,n) satisfies:
p
(*) for each p there exist q > p and Mp such that ap,n ap,m :::; Mpaq,n+m (or
equivalentely _ 1 _ :::; Mp_1___1_) for all n,m.
aq,n+m a p . n ap,rn
And then the convolution product is jointly continuous. We also prove that if
(ap,n) does not satisfy (*), then l~l1(a:.J is not an algebra. Therefore l~l1(a:.J
p p
is an algebra if, and only if, it is a topological algebra. Thus, if A(ap,n) is nuclear,
then A"'(ap,n) is an algebra if, and only if, it satisfies (*). Therefore A(ap,n) and
A"'(ap,n) are topological algebras under the normal topology. This is a generaliza
tion of the properties of (A, B) and (c, c"'). We also study some other important
examples of topological algebras with such properties.
(2.1)
(2.2)
for all x, y EX, then we say that X is locally multiplicatively convex (shortly
mconvex) algebra.
X is called a Boalgebra if it is a complete metrizable locally convex algebra. In
this case its topology can be given by means of a sequence (1I.lIn)~=1 of seminorms
satisfying
The matrix algebra A(a/"k) associated with the matrix (a/"k) is the algebra of
00
all formal complex power series x = L Xkzk such that, for each "I E r,
k=O
00
M = sup
n
IYnII,
ap,n
we have that IYn 1 :s M ap,n for each n. Therefore, for
00 00
x E A(ap,n)' L IXnYnl :s M L
Ixnap,nl = M Ilxlip and hence Y E AO(ap,n)'
n=O n=O
Conversely, let us suppose that there exists Y E AO(ap,n) such that
yrf.liml
+
oo (_I_); that is, yrf.loo(_I_) for each p. Since for each p, sup IYn
ap,n Qp,n n ap,n
= 00, _1_1
I'
then there exists an increasing sequence (np) such that IYn p ap,np _1_1 > p2. Let us
0 ifn#np
define the sequence x = (xn);:"=o as follows: Xn = { _I_~ =n .
if n
ap,np P P
We claim that x E A(ap,n):
f: f:
00
if, and only if, for each p, there exists a constant Cp such that
Ilyll ~ Cp lIylll"" = Cps~p IYna:.n I for every Y E loo(a:.J
Let Y E 100 (_1_),
ap,n
then sup
n
1
IYn
ap,n
1 = AI < 00 and therefore IYnl1
ap,n
~ AI
00
for each n. Hence, for x E A(ap,n) we have that IIYllx = I: IXnYnl ~ <
n=O
n~o AI IXnl ap,n = AI n~o IXnl aq,n = AI IIxllp = s~p IYna:.n Illxll p = Ilxllp Ilyllloo' D
In [4] it is proved that an echelon space A(ap,n) is nuclear if, and only if, for
each p there exist q > p and a sequence u = (un);:::'=o E II such that ap,n = Un aq,n,
n = 0,1, ...
PROPOSITION 3.3. If A(ap,n) is nuclear, then AO(ap,n), endowed with the nor
mal topology, is such that AO(ap,n) ~ limloo(I) ~ limll(I).
+ ap,n + ap,n
p p
Cq I: Un < 00
n=1
Therefore, for any Y E loo(a:.J, IlylI = 1L~1 ynenll ~ n~IIYnlllenll =
00
I: IYnllxnl = IIYllx < 00. SO II . II is continuous with respect to the normal topol
n=1
ogy. D
Let A(ap,n) be a matrix algebra. We define the following condition:
DEFINITION 3.4. (*) for each p there exist q > P and AIp such that
ap,n ap,m ~ AIp aq,n+m for all n,m.
Let us recall that the absolutely convex hull of a subset V of a vector space is the
set r(V) = {I: .Aiai, I finite, ai EV, .Ai EC and I: l.Ail ~ I}. It is a straight for
iEI iEI
ward matter to check that if V and Ware two subsets of an algebra, then the
property (x, Y E V ~ xy E W) implies the property (x, Y E r(V) ~ xy E r(W)).
PROPOSITION 3.5. If the matrix algebra A(ap,n) satisfies (*), then l~ll(a:.J
p
PROOF. Let x, Y E 11(_1_). From condition (*), let q > p and Mp be such that
.;," <; Mp.: ":_,, The:'il:YII, ~ "~O I(xy)" I .;," ~ I Ikt IXk!lnkll;" <;
f
n=O k=O
t IXkYnkl a:
q,n
f (t
:s n=O k=O
Mp IXka:k IIYnk
". a l_k
p.n
I) =
Mp C~O IXnl a:,n) C~O IYnl a:. n) = Mp IIxlip IIYllp < 00.
So far, limll( a:) is an algebra. From the previous proof it is easy to see that
+ p.rt.
p
if x E II (a:.J
and Y E II 1 then xy E II (a..J, (a:.J
and IIxYllq ::; MpllxllrllYIIs,
where q and Mp are any two numbers that satisfy (*) for p = max(r, s).
Now let n be a neighborhood of the origin in limll(I);
+ ap,n
then
"
n= r CQl V(O, IIIIp' ep)), where ep > 0 for all p ~ 1.
For each p ~ 1, let qp and Mp be two numbers that satisfy (*) for p and let us
take 0 < t5p < min ~). (1,
If x E V(O, II.IIr,er) and Y E V(O, IIIIs,es), then IIxYllqp MpllxllrilYlls, where :s
p = max(r,s); therefore IIxyllq" < eq", thus xyEV(O, II.IIqp,eq,,)'
From the result stated before this proposition, it follows that,
PROOF. The hypothesis gives a Po with the property that for each q > Po
and Mq there exist m and n such that apo,n apo,m > !llq aq,n+m, or, equivalently,
_ 1 _ > M _1_ _ _ 1_.
aq,n+m q a pQ n apQ,m .
Fix an i > Po and choose Mi = 22i. There are positive integers mi, ni such
that 1 > Mi _1_ _ _1_.
ai,ni+mi apQ,ni a'PO1'1~i
00 00
IIyllpo = ~
.=1
2'lIz;'ql" IIzm; IIpo
0
= 1; but, since xy= ?:
J=O
anbmzi = L: anibm;zni+m;
.=1
n+m=j
00
3.1). o
ON ",,DUAL ALGEBRAS 37
COROLLARY 3.9. If A(ap,n) is nuclear, then it satisfies (*) if, and only if,
A""(ap,n) is a topological algebra under the convolution product.
EXAMPLES 3.10.
(1) Let us consider the matrix algebra A(ap,n) where
References
[IJ R. Arizmendi. "Matrix Algebras and mconvexity". Demostratio Mathematica, Vol. XVII, no.
3, 1984.
[2J R. Arizmendi; A. Carrillo; L. Palacios. "On continuous multiplicative Mappings on Ananlytic
Sequence Spaces". Commentatione Mathematicae, XXXIX (1999).
[3] G. Kothe. Topological Vector Spaces l. A series of Comprehensive Studies in Mathematics,
SpringerVerlag, 1966.
[4] A. Pietsch. Nuclear Locally Convex Spaces. SpringerVerlag, 1969.
[5] O.Toeplitz. Die linearen volkommenen Riiume der Funktionentheorie. Comment. Math. Relv.
23 (1949), 222242.
38 HUGO ARIZMENDI, ANGEL CARRILLO, AND LOURDES PALACIOS
ABSTRACT. We construct a subset of the unit ball of foo that is connected but
not separably connected.
the following equivalence relation on [0, 1], which is used to prove the existence of
a nonLebesgue measurable subset of [0,1]:
x '" y if and only if x  y E Q.
We denote the equivalence classes of [0,1] defined by this relation by {x : x E
[0, I]}. By applying the Axiom of Choice, we can choose one element from each
class, in particular taking E O. Let us denote the set so obtained by A.
LEMMA 1.1. The following properties hold:
(1) Card (A) = Card([O, 1]).
(2) Given x, yEA, x =1= y and r, SEQ, x + r =1= y + s.
(3) If a E [0,1]' then there exist a unique x E A and a unique r E Q with
a = x+r.
(4) Given a < b E JR and x E JR, the family {x +r : r E Q} n (a, b) is a dense
subset of [a, b].
The proof of the above properties is immediate. Let us remark that (4) can be
obtained by using the fact that for each x E JR, the map : JR + JR defined by
(t) := x + t is a homeomorphism and the fact that Q n (a  x, b  x) is always a
dense subset of [a  x, b  x].
Also it is very easy to construct a bijection R : A + , R(x) = ex. We define our
set C as C = C 1 U C2 , where
C1 = U re+ [O,eo]
rE[O,l]nQ
and
U
xEA\{O}.rEQ,x+rE[O,l]
(x + r)e + (0, ex].
For an intuitive, geometric idea of what C is, consider a type of "comb" set in the
plane given by {(s, t) : 0::; s ::; 1, s ~ Q,
Q,O>t~I}.
: ;
t ::; I} U {(s, t) : 0::; s ::; 1, s E
We endow C with the metric induced by the norm of loc. Our goal in this note
is to prove the following:
THEOREM 1.2. C is a connected metric space that is not separably connected.
PROOF. By Lemma 1.1.(2), given x, YEA, x =1= y, r, SEQ and any u, v E
Ker rp we have that rp((x + r)e + u) = x + r =1= y + s = rp((y + s)e + v). Hence for
x E A \ {O} and r E Q with x + r E [0,1]' we will have that
(1.1) C \ {(x + r)e + (0, ex]} c + r)) U rpl((x + r, +00)).
rpl(( 00, X
Consider a connected subset DeC such that 0, e + eo E D. If there exist x E
A \ {O} and r E Q with x + r E (0,1) and D n ((x + r)e + (0, ex]) = 0, then, from
rp(O) = < x + r < 1 = rp(e + eo) and (1.1), we obtain that D is not connected.
Hence for all x E A \ {O} and r E Q with x + r E (0,1) we have that there exists
< Ax ::; 1 with
(x + r)e + Axex E D.
Thus, {ex}xEA\{O} C span{e, D}. However, the family {ex}xEA\{O} is uncountable,
and Ile x  ey II = 1 for all x, yEA \ {O}, x =1= y. As a consequence span {e, D} is not
A CONNECTED METRIC SPACE THAT IS NOT SEPARABLY CONNECTED 41
Thus, it only remains to show that C is connected. If C were not connected, then
there would exist a separation of C by subsets U and V; that is, there would exist
open (and closed) sets U and V such that
U =I 0 =I V, U U V = C, UnV = 0.
To simplify the notation, given Z E [0,1] we denote by z the only x E A such that
z = X, and we denote by Iz = ze + (0, e z] if z fj. Q and I z = ze + [0, eo] if Z E Q.
Since Iz is connected we have that given Z E [0,1] if I z n U =I 0 then Iz C U
(and the same with respect to V). As eo E U U V, we will assume that eo E U and
hence 10 C U.
Consider Z E Q n [0,1] such that I z C U. Since U is open, there exists TJ =
TJ(z) > a such that the closed ball B(ze,2TJ) n C c U and moreover such that
(z  TJ, z + TJ) C [0,1] if Z E (0,1) n Q. Now it is immediate that for every u E f(X),
Ilull = 1, every y E (zTJ, z+TJ)n[O, 1] and every A, 0:$ A:$ TJ, lIye+Auzell :$ 2TJ.
By Lemma 1.1.(3), there exist unique Xl E A and rl E Q with y = Xl +rl. If Xl = 0,
then ye + [0, TJeo] = rle + [0, TJeo] C B(ze, 2TJ) n C l c U and hence rle + [0, eo] C U.
Alternatively, if Xl E A\ {a}, then ye+(O, TJe X1 ] = (Xl +rl)e+(O, TJe X1 ] C B(ze, 2TJ)n
C2 c U, and again it follows that (Xl + rde + (0, eX!] C U. In either case, we see
that Iy C U for all y E (z  TJ,Z +TJ) n [0,1].
Let A:= {z E Qn [0,1] : Iz C U} and B:= {z E Qn [0,1] : Iz C V}.
Let K := UzEA(Z  TJ, Z + TJ) n [0,1] and L := UzEB(Z  TJ, z + TJ) n [0,1] where
TJ = TJ(z) is given above. K and L are open sets in [0,1] and Q n [0,1] c L U K.
If t is in k, the closure of K, then given n E N we can find Zn E A such that
(Zn  TJn, Zn + TJn) n (t  ~, t + ~) n [0, 1] =I 0, where 1Jn = TJ(zn). Hence there exists
a < b such that (a, b) C (zn  TJn, Zn + TJn) n (t  ~, t + ~) n [0, 1]. By Lemma 1.1.(4)
there exists r n E Q such that t + r n E (a, b). Thus, the preceding paragraph shows
that I Hrn C U and as t + rn = f, we have (t + rn)e + ef E U. Since Irnl < ~ for all
nand U is closed in C we have that te + er E U, thus It cU. The same argument
applied to L implies that if S E L, then Is C V. Hence k and L are two closed
disjoint sets. But as Q n [0,1] c K U L c [0,1] we have [0,1] = k U L. Since [0,1]
is a connected set and a E A c K we have that k = [0,1] and hence C = U, a
contradiction. Therefore C is connected. 0
REMARK 1.3. This result extends to any nonseparable Banach space. To see
this, consider a nonseparable Banach space F. As above we can take e E F with
lIell = 1 and a continuous, linear functional <p : F ~ II{ with <p(e) = 1. Once
again, Ker <p is a nonseparable Banach space. An immediate application of Zorn's
e
Lemma yields the existence of a i5 > a and an uncountable set c Ker <p such that
lIuli = 1 for all u E e and lIu  vII ~ i5 for all u, vEe, u =I v. As above, we take
e
a map R: A ~ with uncountable range {ex := R(x) : X E A}, and we define
our set C by C = C l U C 2 , where
C l := U re + [0, eo] and C2 := U (X + r)e + (0, ex].
rEQn[O,l] x+rE[O,l]
xEA\{O}, rEQ
If C is endowed with the metric induced by the norm of F, then, by a proof similar
to the one given in Theorem 1.2, C is a connected metric space that is not separably
connected.
42 RICHARD M. ARON AND MANUEL MAESTRE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. This note evolved during visits the first author made
to the Departamento de Amilisis Matematico of the Universidad de Valencia, and
while the second author was a Visiting Professor in the Department of Mathematical
Sciences at Kent State University for the 199899 academic year. The authors
express their thanks to the Departments concerned for their hospitality. In addition,
the authors are very grateful to the Referee, whose careful reading of the original
version of this paper led to the present considerably simplified proof of Theorem
1.2.
References
[A] Balbas, A., Estevez, M., Herves, C., and Verdejo, A. Espacios separablemente conexos, Rev.
R.Acas. Cien. Exact. Fis. Nat. (Spain), 92, 1, (1998), 3540.
[B] J. Candeal, C. Herves and E. Indurain, Some results on representation and extension of
preferences, Journal of Mathematical Economics 29 (1998), 7581.
[C] R. Pol, Two examples of nonseparable metrizable spaces, ColI. Math. 33, (1975),209211.
DEPARTMENT OF MATHEl\IATICS, KENT STATE UNIVERSITY, KENT. OH 44242 USA
Email address: aronClmcs. kent. edu
ABSTRACT. Vesely has studied Banach spaces that admit weighted Chebyshev
centres for finite sets. Subsequently, Bandyopadhyay and Rae had shown, inter
alia, that Ltpreduals have this property. In this work, we investigate why
and to what extent are these results true and thereby explore when a more
general family of sets admit weighted Chebyshev centres. We extend and
improve upon some earlier results in this general setup and relate them with
a modified notion of minimal points. Special cases when we consider the family
of all finite, or more interestingly, compact subsets lead to characterizations of
Ltpreduals. We also consider some stability results.
1. Introduction
Let X be a Banach space. We will denote by Bx[x,r] the closed ball ofradius
r > 0 around x EX. We will identify any element x E X with its canonical image
in X**. Our notations are otherwise standard. Any unexplained terminology can
be found in either [6] or [10).
In this paper we continue the study of Banach spaces that admit weighted
Chebyshev centres that began with [3).
DEFINITION 1.1. Let Y be a subspace of a Banach space X. For A ~ Y and
p:A ? ~+, define
(a) Ifrl, r2, ... , rn > 0 and ni=IBx " [ai, riJ =10, then ni=IBx[ai, riJ =10.
(b) {al,a2, ... ,an } admits weighted Chebyshev centres for all weights
rl,r2, ... ,rn > O.
(c) {aI, a2,' .. , an} admits fcentres for every continuous monotone coer
cive f : IR+. 4 IR (see [18J for the definitions).
In this work, we investigate why and to what extent are these results true
and thereby explore when a more general family of sets admit weighted Chebyshev
centres. Extending the notion of central subspaces introduced in [3], we define an
ACsubspace Y of a Banach space X with the centres of the balls coming from a
given family A of subsets of Y, the typical examples being those of finite, compact,
bounded or arbitrary sets. The first gives us the central subspace a la [3J and
the last one is related to the Finite Infinite Intersection Property (I Pj,oo) [8J. We
extend and improve upon some results of [3, 18J in this general setup and relate
them with a modified notion of minimal points. We also improve upon one of the
main results of [4J on the structure of the set of minimal points of a compact set. As
in [3], special cases when we consider the family of all finite, or more interestingly,
compact subsets lead to characterizations of Llpreduals. We also consider some
stability results.
2. General Results
We first extend VeselY's result in [18J on dual spaces from finite sets to all the
way upto bounded sets and also strengthens its conclusions. We need the following
notions.
DEFINITION 2.1. Let X be a Banach space and A ~ X.
(a) We define a partial ordering on X as follows : for Xl, X2 EX, we say
that Xl :SA X2 if IlxI  all :s
IIx2  all for all a E A. We will denote
by mx (A) the set of points of X that are minimal with respect to the
ordering :SA and often refer to them as :SAminimal points of X.
Note that :SA defines a partial order on any Banach space containing
A and we will use the same notation in all such cases.
(b) A function f : X 4 IR+ is said to be Amonotone if f(xd :s
f(x2)
whenever Xl :SA X2
(c) Let Y be a subspace of X and A ~ Y. Following [9], we say X E X is
a minimal point of A with respect to Y if for any y E Y, Y :SA X implies
y=x.
We denote the set of all minimal points of A with respect to Y in
X by Ay,x, Note Ay,x ;2 A. For A ~ X, the set Ax,x will be called
minimal points of A in X, and will be denoted simply by min A.
(d) For A ~ X bounded, the Chebyshev radius of A in X is defined by
r(A) = inf sup Ilx  all.
xEX aEA
REMARK 2.3. (a) It follows that for any bounded set A, minA C
A + r(A)B(X). This improves the estimates in [9] or [18].
(b) Apart from cPA,p, there are many examples of Amonotone and w*
lsc f : X = Z*  lR+. One particular example that has been treated
extensively in [4] is the function cPf.,l defined by cPf.,l(x) = fA Ilx  aI1 2 dJ.L(a),
where J.L is a probability measure on a compact set A ~ X.
(c) Observe that though minimal points of A are ::;Aminimal, there is
some distinction between the two notions. The two notions coincide if X
is strictly convex. See Proposition 3.1 below.
Now, if A is a bounded subset of a Banach space X, then by Theorem 2.2, A
has a weighted Chebyshev centre in X**. But what about a weighted Chebyshev
centre in X?
When A is finite, Vesely [18] has shown that the infimum of cPA,p over X and
X** are the same, and A admits weighted Chebyshev centres in X for any weight
p if and only if X satisfies Theorem 1.2(a). We now show that both of these are
special cases of more general results. We need the following definition.
DEFINITION 2.4. Let Y be a subspace of a Banach space X. Let A be a family
of subsets of Y.
(a) We say that Y is an almost ACsubspace of X if for every A E A,
X E X and c > 0, there exists y E Y such that
Some of the special families that we would like to give names to are :
(i) F = the family of all finite sets,
(ii) K = the family of all compact sets,
(iii) B = the family of all bounded sets,
(iv) 'P = the power set.
Since these families depend on the space in which they are considered, we will
use the notation F(X) etc. whenever there is a scope of confusion.
REMARK 2.5. (a) Note that FCsubspaces were called central (C)
subspaces in [3], 'PCsubspaces were called almost constrained (AC) sub
spaces in [1, 2]. Also if X has the FIP, it was said to belong to the class
(GC) in [18, 3], and the 'PIP was called the Finite Infinite Intersection
Property (IPj,oo) in [7, 2].
(b) The definition of almost ACsubspace is adapted from the definition
of almost central subspace defined in [17]. The exact analogue of the
definition in [17] would have, in place of condition (1),
sup Ily  all::; sup Ilx  all + c.
aEA aEA
Clearly, our condition is stronger. We observe below (see Proposition 2.7)
that this definition is more natural in our context.
(c) By the Principle of Local Reflexivity (henceforth, PLR), any Banach
space has the almost FIP. More generally, if Y is a!l ideal in X (see
definition below), then Y is an almost FCsubspace of X.
DEFINITION 2.6. A subspace Y of a Banach space X is said to be an ideal in
X if there is a norm 1 projection P on X* with ker(P) = y.l.
PROPOSITION 2.7. Let Y be a subspace of a Banach space X. Let A be a family
of bounded subsets of Y. Then the following are equivalent:
(a) Y is an almost ACsubspace of X
(b) for all A E A and p : A t lR.+, if naEABx [a, p(a)]  0, then for every
e > 0, naEABy[a, p(a) + c]  0.
(c) for every bounded p, the infimum of A,p over X and Yare equal.
PROOF. Equivalence of (a) and (b) is immediate and does not need A to be
bounded.
(a) ::::} (c). Let Y be an almost ACsubspace of X, A E A and p : A t lR.+
be bounded. Let M = supp(A). Let e > O. By definition, for x E X, there exists
y E Y such that
lIy  all::; Ilx  all + e for all a E A.
It follows that
p(a)lly  all ::; p(a)llx  all + p(a)e ::; p(a)llx  all + Me for all a E A.
and hence,
A,p(Y) ::; A,p(X) + Me.
Therefore,
inf A,p(Y) ::; inf A,p(X) + Me.
As e is arbitrary, the infimum of A,p over X and Yare equal.
CHEBYSHEV CENTRES AND INTERSECTION PROPERTIES OF BALLS 47
(c) =} (a). Let A E A, x E X and e > O. We need to show that there exists
y E Y such that
Ily  all sIIx  all + e for all a E A.
If x E Y, nothing to prove. Let x E X \ Y. Let N = sUPaEA IIx  all. Let
p(a) = l/llx  all. Since x r/: Y and A ~ Y, p is bounded. Then A.p(X) = 1,
and therefore, inf A,p(X) S 1. By assumption, inf A,p(Y) = inf A,p(X) S 1,
and so, there exists y E Y, such that A,p(y) s
1 + e/N. This implies Ily  all S
Ilx  all + ell x  all/N S Ilx  all + e for all a E A. 0
As noted before, by PLR, any Banach space has the almost FIP. And therefore,
the result of [18J follows.
PROPOSITION 2.8. Let A and Al be two families of subsets of Y such that for
every A E A and e > 0, there exists Al E Al such that A ~ Al + cB(Y). If Y is
an almost AICsubspace of X, then Y is an almost ACsubspace of X as well.
Consequently, any ideal is an almost KC subspace and any Banach space has
the almost KIP. In particular, if A is a compact subset of X and p : A + lR+ is
bounded, then the infimum of A,p over X and X** are the same.
PROOF. Let A E A and e > O. By hypothesis, there exist Al E Al such that
A ~ Al + eB(Y). Let x E X. Since Y is an almost AICsubspace of X, there
exists y E Y such that
lIy  alii S Ilx  alII + e/3 for all al E AI.
Now fix a E A. Then there exists al E Al such that lIa  alii < e/3. Then
Ily  all Ily  alii + lIa  alii S Ilx  alii + 2e/3
S
Ilx  all + Iia  alii + 2e/3 S IIx  all + e.
S
Therefore, Y is an almost ACsubspace of X as well.
Since any Banach space has the almost FIP, by the above, it has the almost
KIP too. The rest of the result follows from Proposition 2.7. 0
EXAMPLE 2.9. Vesely [18J has shown that if A is infinite, the infimum of A,p
over X and X** may not be the same. His example is X = co, A = {en: n ;::: I}
is the canonical unit vector basis of Co and p == 1. Then inf A,p(X) = 1 and
inf A,p(X**) = 1/2. The example clearly also excludes countable, bounded, or,
taking Au {O}, even weakly compact sets. Thus Co fails the almost BIP, almost
PIP and if A is the family of countable or weakly compact sets, then Co fails the
almost AIP too.
Stronger conclusions are possible for AIP.
LEMMA 2.10. Let Y be a subspace of a Banach space X. For A ~ Y, the
following are equivalent :
(a) For every Amonotone f : A + lR+ and x E X, there exists y E Y
such that f(y) S f(x).
( b) For every p : A + lR+ and x EX, there exists y E Y such that
A,p(Y) S A,p(X).
(c) For every continuous p : A + lR+ and x EX, there exists y E Y such
that A,p(Y) S A,p(X).
(d) For every bounded p : A + lR+ and x EX, there exists y E Y such
that A,p(Y) S A,p(X).
48 BANDYOPADHYAY AND DUTTA
(b) for every x E X and A E A, there exists y E Y such that U(y, A, x*) ::;
U(x,A,x*) for every x* E B(X*).
(c) for any A E A, Ay,x ~ Y.
PROOF. This follows from Lemma 2.13 and the definition of Ay,x. 0
COROLLARY 2.16. X has the PIP if and only if for every x** E X**, there
exists x E X such that x is dominated on B(X*) by the 1~pper envelop of x**
considered as a function on B(X*) equipped with the w*topology.
PROOF. Observe that for any x E X, U(x,X,) == x on B(X*) and for x** E
X**, U(x**, X, x*) is the upper envelop of x** considered as a function on B(X*)
equipped with the w*topology (see [8]). 0
PROPOSITION 2.17. (a) Let X be a Banach space and let Y be a sub
space of X. Let A be a family of subsets of Y and let Al be a subfamily
of A. If Y is a AC subspace of X, then Y is a Al C subspace of X as
well. In particular, PIP implies BIP implies /CIP implies FIP.
(b) 1complemented subspaces are ACsubspaces for any A.
(c) Let Z ~ Y ~ X and let A be a family of subsets of Z. If Z is an
ACsubspace of X, then Z is an ACsubspace of Y. And, if Y is an
ACsubspace of X, then the converse also holds.
PROOF. The proof follows the same line of argument as in [3, Proposition 2.2].
We omit the details. 0
PROPOSITION 2.18. For a family A of subsets of a Banach space X, the fol
lowing are equivalent :
(a) X has the AIP
(b) X is a ACsubspace of some dual space.
(c) for all A E A and p : A + lR+, ni=l Bx [ai, p(ai) + c] =f. 0 for all finite
subset {aI, a2, ... ,an} ~ A and for all c > 0 implies naEABx [a, p(a)] =f. 0.
In particular, any dual space has the AIP for any A. Let S be any of the
families F, /C, B or P. The SIP is inherited by SCsubspaces, in particular, by
1complemented subspaces.
PROOF. Clearly, (a) =} (b), while (c) =} (a) follows from the PLR.
(b) =} (c). Let X be an ACsubspace of Z*. Consider the family {Bz. [a, p(a)+
c] : a E A, c > O} in Z*. Then, by the hypothesis, any finite subfamily intersects.
Hence, by w*compactness, naEABz [a, p(a)] =f. 0. Since X is an ACsubspace of
Z*, we have naEABx[a,p(a)] =f. 0. 0
The following result significantly improves [3, Proposition 2.8] and provides yet
another characterization of the AIP.
PROPOSITION 2.19. Let Y be an almost FC subspace of a Banach space X.
Let A be a family of subsets of Y. If Y has the AIP, then Y is an AC subspace
of X. In particular, the conclusion holds when Y is an ideal in X.
PROOF. Let x EX, A E A. Since Y be an almost FC subspace of X, for all
finite subset {aba2, ... ,an} ~ A and for all c > 0, nb:IBy[ai, Ilx.,... aill + c] =f. 0.
Since Y has the AIP, by Proposition 2.18(c), naEABy[a, Ilx  alll =f. 0. 0
Since X is always an ideal in X**, the following corollary is immediate.
50 BANDYOPADHYAY AND DUTTA
all distinct. By Remark 2.3 (a), mx(A) ~ A + r(A)B(X) is bounded. Let x** be
a w*cluster point of {x n } in Xu. It suffices to show that x** EX.
Suppose x** E X** \ X. Since X has the KIP, there exists Xo E mx(A)
such that Ilxo  all ::; Ilx**  all for all a E A. Since X** is strictly convex,
lI(x** +xo)/2  all < IIx**  all for all a E A. Since (x** +xo)/2 E X** \X, by KIP
again, there exists Zo E mx(A) such that Ilzo all::; II(x** +xo)/2all < IIx** all
for all a E A.
Since A is compact, there exists c > 0 such that Ilzo  all < IIx**  all  c for
all a E A. Observe that
Ilzo  all < Ilx**  all c ::; liminf
n
IIx n  all c for all a E A.
Therefore, for every a E A, there exists N(a) EN such that for all n ~ N(a),
IIzo  all < Ilxn  all c. By compactness, there exists N E N such that IIzo  all <
IIx n  all  c/4 for all n ~ N and a E A. Thus, Zo ::;A Xn for all n ~ N. Since
Xn E mx(A) and X is strictly convex, Zo = Xn for all n ~ N. This contradiction
completes the proof. 0
REMARK 3.5. In proving sufficiency, one only needs that {Zk} has a subsequence
convergent in a topology in which the norm is lsc. The weakest such topology is
the ball topology, bx . So it follows that if X has the FIP and for every compact
set A ~ X, mx(A) is bxcompact, then X has the KIP. Is the converse true?
COROLLARY 3.6. [4, Corollary 1] Let X be a reflexive and strictly convex Ba
nach space. Let A ~ X be a compact set. Then min(A) is weakly compact.
REMARK 3.7. Clearly, our proof is simpler than the original proof of [4].
If Z is a nonreflexive Banach space with Z*** strictly convex, then X = Z
is a nonreflexive Banach space with KIP such that X** is strictly convex. Thus,
our result is also stronger than [4, Corollary 1].
5. Stability Results
In this section we consider some stability results. With a proof similar to [3,
Proposition 14], we first observl' that
PROPOSITION 5.1. KIP is a separably determined property. i.e .. if every sep
amble subspace of a Banach space X have KIP. then X also has KIP.
DEFINITION 5.2. [10] A subspace Y of a Banach space X is called a semiL
summand if there exists a (nonlinear) projection P : X > Y such that
P(>..x + Py) >"P.r + Py, and
Ilxll IIPxl1 + Ilx  VI'II
for all x, y EX. >.. scalar.
In [3]. it was shown that semiL snmmands are .1'Csubspaces. Basically the
same proof actually shows that
PROPOSITION 5.3. A semiLsummand is an ACsubspace for any A.
Our next result concerns proximinal subspaces.
DEFINITION 5.4. A subspace Z of a Banach space X is called proximinal if for
every :r E X, there exists Zo E Z such that Ilx  zoll = d(J;, Z) = infzEz Ilx  zll
The map PZ(J:) = {zo E Z : Ilx  zoll = infzEz lI:r  zll} is called the metric
projection.
PROPOSITION 5.5. Let Z ~ Y ~ X, Z proximinal in X.
(a) Let A be a family of subsets of Y / Z. Let A' be a family of subsets of
Y s'ltch that for any :1; E X and A E A. there exists A' E A' such that for
any a + Z E A. {a + Pz(x  a)} n A' i= 0. Suppose Y is a A'C subspace
of X. Then Y/Z 'is a ACsubspace of X/Z.
Let S be any of the families .1', l3 or P.
(b) IfY is a S(Y)Csubspace of X. then Y/Z is a S(Y/Z)C8'ubspace of
X/Z.
(c) Suppose the metric projection has a continuous selection. Then. if Y
is a K(Y)Csubspace of X, Y/Z is a K(Y/Z)Csubspace of X/Z.
(d) Let Z ~ Y ~ X*, Z w*closed in X*. 11' Y is a S(Y)Csubspace
of X*, then Y/Z is a S(Y/Z)Csubspace of X* /Z. and hence. has the
S(Y/Z)IP.
(e) Let X have the S(X)IP. Let l'd ~ X be a reflexive subspace. Then
X/M has the S(X/l'd)IP.
PROOF. (a). Let A E A and x + Z E X/Z. Choose A' as above. Then,
for a + Z E A, there exists z E Pz(x  a) (depending on .1: and a) such that
a + zEA'. Since Y is a A' Csubspace of X, there exists Yo E Y snch that
Ilyo  a  zll ~ Ilx  a  zll for all a + Z E A. Clearly then Ilyo  a + ZII ~
Ilyo  a  zll ~ 11:1;  a  zll = IIx  a + ZII
CHEBYSHEV CENTRES AND INTERSECTION PROPERTIES OF BALLS 55
If S is the family under consideration in (b) and (c) above and A = S(Y/Z),
then for any choice of A' as above, S(Y) ~ A'. Hence, (b) and (c) follows from
(a). For (d), we simply observe that any w*closed subspace of a dual space is
proximinal. And (e) follows from (d). 0
REMARK 5.10. As before, taking AU{O}, it follows that X lacks the AIP even
for A = weakly compact sets.
Coming to function spaces, we note the following general result.
56 BANDYOPADHYAY AND DUTTA
in C(,B(r), Y). Thus C(,B(r), Y) can be identified with EBeoc(r) Y. Lift A to this
space. In view of Theorem 5.7, this space is S(Y)Csubspace of EBooX. This latter
space contains C(,B(r) , X). Thus by composing the functions with 4>, we get a
f E C(K, Y) such that Ilf  hll ~ Ilg  hll for all h E A. Hence the result. 0
G C = {f(t) E Y and z =1= f(t)} u U {f(t) EX \ Y and liz  Ynll > Ilf(t)  Ynll}
n;:::l
is a measurable set.
By von Neumann selection theorem, there is a measurable function 9 : 0 + Y
such that (t,g(t)) E G for almost all tEO.
Observe that Ilg(t)11 ~ IIf(t)1I for almost all t. Hence 9 E Lp(jl, Y). Also for
any h E Lp(jl, Y) we have Ilg(t)  h(t)11 ~ Ilf(t)  h(t)1I for almost all t. Thus,
Ilg  hll p ~ IIf  hll p for all h E Lp(jl, Y). 0
References
[1] P. Bandyopadhayay, S. Basu, S. Dutta and B. L. Lin Very nonconstmined subspaces of
Banach spaces, Preprint 2002.
[2] P. Bandyopadhayay and S. Dutta, Almost constmined subspaces of Banach spaces, Preprint
2002.
[3] Pradipta Bandyopadhyay and T. S. S. R. K. Rao, Centml subspaces of Banach spaces, J.
Approx. Theory, 103 (2000),206222.
[4] B. Beuzamy and B. Maurey, Points minimaux et ensembles optimaux dans les espaces de
Banach, J. Functional Analysis, 24 (1977), 107139.
[5] J. Diestel, Geometry of Banach Spaces, selected topics, Lecture notes in Mathematics,
Vo1.485, SpringerVerlag (1975).
[6] J. Diestel and J. J. Uhl, Jr., Vector' measures, Mathematical Surveys, No. 15, Amer. Math.
Soc., Providence, R. 1. (1977).
[7] G. Godefroy, Existence and uniqueness of isometric preduals: a survey, Banach space theory
(Iowa City, lA, 1987), 131193, Contemp. Math., 85, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
[8] G. Godefroy and N. J. Kalton, The ball topology and its applications, Banach space theory
(Iowa City, lA, 1987), 195237, Contemp. Math., 85, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1989.
[9] G. Godini On minimal points, Comment. Math. Univ. Carotin., 21 (1980), 407419.
[10] P. Harmand D. Werner and W. Werner, Mideals in Banach spaces and Banach algebras,
Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1547, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1993.
[11] O. Hustad, Intersection properties of balls in complex Banach spaces whose duals are L1
spaces, Acta Math., 132 (1974), 283313.
[12] H. E. Lacey, Isometric theory of classical Banach spaces, Die Grundlehren der mathematis
chen Wissenschaften, Band 208, SpringerVerlag, New YorkHeidelberg, 1974.
[13] J. Lindenstrauss, Extension of compact opemtors, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc., No. 48, 1964.
[14] A. Lima, Complex Banach spaces whose duals are L1spaces, Israel J. Math., 24 (1976),
5972.
[15] T. S. S. R. K. Rao, Intersection properties of balls in tensor products of some Banach spaces
II, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math., 21 (1990),275284.
[16] T. S. S. R. K. Rao, On ideals in Banach spaces, Rocky Mountain J. Math., 31 (2001),
595609.
[17] T. S. S. R. K. Rao Chebyshev centers and centmble sets, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 130 (2002),
25932598.
[18] L. Vesely, Genemlized centers of finite sets in Banach spaces, Acta Math. Univ. Comen., 66
(1997),83115.
1. Introduction
Theorems like the KreinMilman theorem and Phelps' theorem assert the exis
tence of many extreme points in certain convex sets. However, to decide whether
a particular point in the boundary of a convex set is extreme, exposed or strongly
exposed is quite a different question. In this paper we survey what is known in the
very special situation of the unit ball of certain Hardy spaces. Of course we refer
to the literature for the majority of the proofs. But we have included some, and
sketched others, hoping that this will clarify the exposition.
After introducing extreme, exposed and strongly exposed points, we end the
introduction with definitions of the Hardyspaces in which we study our problem.
These are: the standard Hl(]I))) of the disc ]I)) in e, HI(0.) of a domain of finite
connectivity 0. c e, the Bergman space Al(]I))) of the disc and Hl(lB n ) of the unit
ball in en.
In Section 2 we will study the boundary points of the unit ball of HI (]I))). Here
good function theoretic descriptions of extreme and strongly exposed points are
possible. Exposed points seem to escape such a description. The ball of HI (0.)
is the topic of Section 3. We will see that results for the disc in general do not
extend to this case. In Section 4 we will turn to the Bergman space. Now all
boundary points of the unit ball are exposed and many wellbehaved functions, like
polynomials, are strongly exposed. However, there are boundary points that are
not strongly exposed. The final section is devoted to the little we know about the
higher dimensional situation.
The paper borrows heavily from the expository parts of the PhDthesis of the
first author, [3].
1.1. Generalities. Let X be a Banach space with (only in this section) real
dual space X* and let A be a bounded closed subset of X. We recall some notions
that are connected with convexity properties at a boundary point of A.
Research of the first author was supported by the Dutch research organization NWO.
For L E X* we set
and
1.2. Hardy spaces. Next we briefly recall the definition and some properties
of Hardy spaces. Excellent introductions are [12, 16, 24], and for domains of finite
connectivity [13]. We will denote the space of holomorphic functions on a domain
D c en by H(D).
Let !Dl be the unit disc in e and 'JI' its boundary.
DEFINITION 1.4. Let 0 < p < 00. The Hardy space HP = HP(!Dl) consists of all
holomorphic functions I on !Dl for which
dO
1
2~
11111itv:= sup II(re i9 W  < 00.
OCrCl 0 2w
The Hardy space HOC(!Dl) consists of the bounded functions in H(!Dl). It is a
closed subspace of LOC(!Dl) under the supnorm 11.lIoc.
If IE HP(!Dl), then
(1.4)
exists for almost allO. The function 1* belongs to U('JI'). For alII::; p::; 00, II.IIHP
is a norm, IIIIIHP = 111*IILp and HP(!Dl) becomes a Banach space that is a subspace
of U('JI'). We will simply write 1IIIIp instead of 11111Hv.
Alternatively, the Hardy space HP(!Dl) (1::; P < 00) may be described by
HP(!Dl) = {f E H(!Dl) : IIIP admits a harmonic majorant}
= closure of holomorphic polynomials in P ('JI').
The value at 0 of the least harmonic majorant of IIIP,
uf(z) = inf{h(z) : h harmonic and h> IIIP}
equals the norm, 1IIIIp = u(O?/p. Equivalent norms are given by (uf(z)?/P, (z E
!Dl) .
These descriptions are useful for defining HPtype spaces on a domain n in e:
HP(n) = {f E H(n) : IIIP admits a harmonic majorant}.
Norms, all equivalent, can be defined via the least harmonic majorant uf by
(Uf(Z))l/P, (z En). If n has smooth boundary an then HP(n) is again a closed
subspace of U(an).
Similarly on the unit ball ~n of (n ~ 2):en
HP(~n) = closure of holomorphic polynomials in LP(a~n).
We end this section by defining the Bergman space AP(!Dl). Let 1 ::; p < 00. If
IE H(!Dl) is such that
Pu z =
[ ]()
1 0
211" 1  Izl2
1  2Re (ze i9 ) + Izl2 u (e
t9
. d()
.
) 27r
The inner factor thus contains all the zeros of f. In fact, every inner factor is
of the form
(2.1) I(z) = B(z)S(z),
with B a Blaschke product and S is the singular factor
(2.2)
where J.L is a positive, singular measure on 'JI' and  denotes harmonic conjugation.
EXAMPLES 2.1. Outer functions are zero free, and e.g. a holomorphic function
on]])) that is continuous and away from 0 on iij is outer. Taking a root and applying a
limit argument shows then that f E HI (]]))) that assumes values only in C \ (00,0)
is outer too.
EXAMPLE 2.2. If I is an inner function then (1 + 1)2 is outer.
DeLeeuw and Rudin proved
THEOREM 2.3 ([26]). A function f is an extreme point of the unit ball of HI (]])))
if and only if f is an outer function and IIfl11 = 1.
PROOF. Suppose f is an outer function of unit norm and suppose g in H1 is
such that IIf + gill = Ilf  gill = 1. Let dJ.L be the probability measure If I on the g!
unit circle. Then, with k = gl f on 'JI', the relations Ilf + gill = Ilf  gill = 1 imply
that J;11" 11 + kl + 11  kldJ.L = 2. Because for all z E C: 11 + zl + 11  zl 2 2, with
equality if and only if z E [1,1], we conclude that for almost dJ.Levery ~ E 'JI' :
g(~)1 f(O E [1,1]. Observe that this inclusion also holds for almost d()every ~ E 'JI',
because ~ = If I i: 0 almost d()everywhere on 'JI'. In particular, Igl :::; If I d() a.e.
on 'JI'. By the fact that f is outer, then also for all zED: Ig(z)1 :::; If(z)l. Hence
gI f E HOC has real boundary values on 'JI'. The Poisson integral representation of
glf yields that glf is constant. Finally, because Ilf + gill = 1, this constant is
zero, i.e., g == 0, so f is extreme.
In the other direction, suppose f = I F is of unit norm, but I is a nontrivial
inner function. Because for every ei9 E 'JI' \ {1}:
(1 ei9 )2 .
':.,,::' = 2 2Re (e t9 ) = 2 2 cos( ()) > 0,
e t17
THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNIT BALL IN Hi_TYPE SPACES 63
the functions I and (1 I)2 have the same argument a.e. on'lI'. Let 9 = lt .F.
We have
dB dB
III gill =
h[2'" 1F1(1 Re (I)) 2w = 1 Re (h[2'" IFI' I ~ ).
Now if we replace I by AI throughout the preceding, where A E 'lI' is arbitrary, then
we obtain:
II/glll=IRe(A
o
2",
1 dB
IFII).
2w
Therefore, we can choose A in such a way that Re (A J:'" IFI . I g!) = o. Conse
quently, III gill = 1, but 9 "= 0, so I is not extreme.
D
EXAMPLE 2.4. Normalized polynomials without zeros in j[)) are extreme points.
2.2. Exposed points in B(Hl(j[)))), function theoretic methods. As far
as the authors know, there is no clearcut function theoretic characterization of
exposed points of BHl(j[)))). The necessary and sufficient condition of Helson,
[21] given below in Theorem 2.8 probably comes closest.
The following lemma identifies the exposing functionals.
LEMMA 2.5. II I is exposed in B(Hl(j[)))), then
Lf: 9 ~ J7
9 dB
UT2w
is the unique exposing functional.
PROOF. Suppose I is an exposed point of B(HI(j[)))) with exposing functional
L. By the HahnBanach theorem there exists a function cp E V"', Ilcplloo=l, which
represents the action of L:
[21< dB
L(g) = io
gcp 2w'
Because L(f) = 11/111 = 1, and because the function I has mass (almost) everywhere
on 'lI', there is only one cp that has the desired properties, namely cp = 711/1 =
exp( i arg(f)). In particular we see that the exposing functional for I is unique
and of the above form. D
DEFINITION 2.6. A function I E HI (j[))) is called rigid if 9 E HI (j[))) and arg 9 =
arg I implies that 9 = cl for some c > O.
An HIfunction is rigid if its argument on 'lI' determines the function up to a
multiplicative constant. By the previous lemma exposed points are precisely the
rigid functions of norm 1.
Not all outer functions are rigid as the following example demonstrates.
EXAMPLE 2.7. By the DeLeeuwRudin theorem (Theorem 2.3), no HIfunction
with nontrivial inner factor is rigid. Inspection of the proof of the theorem explic
itly gives another HIfunction with the same argument: if I = I F with F outer,
then 9 = (1 + 1)2. F is an outer function, cf. Example 2.2 that has the same ar
gument as f. This argument can be reversed: suppose I "= 0 is divisible in HI
by the outer function (1 + I)2, where I is any nontrivial inner function, then I
64 PAUL BENEKER AND JAN WIEGERINCK
and I I / (1 + I) 2 have the same argument, so I is not rigid. In other words, for all
nontrivial inner functions I we have
(2.3) If I is rigid, then 1/(1 + 1)2 rt HI
Nakazi [28, 29] conjectured that an outer function with fI(l + cz)2 rt HI
for every c E 'JI' must be rigid. E. Hayashi [17] gave a counter example. Later
Sarason [44, 45] conjectured that (2.3) characterizes rigid functions. Inoue [22]
subsequently gave an example of a nonrigid function I E HI with the property
that 1/(1 + 1)2 rt HI for all nontrivial inner functions I.
Helson showed that a variant of (2.3) indeed characterizes rigid functions;
THEOREM 2.8 ([21]). Let I be an outer lunction in HI. Then I is rigid il and
only il lor all inner lunctions p and q, not both constants, I/(p + q)2 rt HI.
The drawback of Helson's theorem is that his condition is difficult to check in
practice. More user friendly are the following results of Yabuta.
THEOREM 2.9. (1) II I E HI is invertible in HI, then I is rigid. [51]
(2) Suppose ther'e exists h E Hoo \ {O} such that Re(h!) 2: 0 a.e. on 'JI'. Then
I is rigid. [52]
The proof uses a result of Neuwirth and Newman [36], that is interesting in its
own right.
LEMMA 2.10 ([20],[36]). Every lunction I E H 1 / 2 that is positive a.e. on'JI' is
constant.
Nakazi [29] gives another proof of Yabuta's results.
EXAMPLE 2.11 ([23]). Normalized polynomials P without zeros on II)) and at
most simple zeros on 'JI' are exposed. Indeed, the argument of such a function makes
jumps of height 7r at the zeros in 'JI', hence by adding a smooth function <p to arg P,
we can assure that the sum is in (7r /2, 7r /2). Hence multiplying P by the analytic
continuation of e<i>+iv> yields a function with positive real part and the second of
Yabuta's criteria applies.
2.3. Strongly exposed points. Whereas it seems impossible to give a char
acterization of exposed points that allows to check if a given function in aB(HI (II))))
is an exposed point, it is possible to characterize the strongly exposed points. This
is the content of work of Nakazi and, independently, the first author. Let us describe
strongly exposed points in terms of properties of the exposing functional.
THEOREM 2.12 ([2,4]). II alunction IE 8B(H 1 (1I)))) is strongly exposed, then
d( Tfr, HOO) < 1. (d = Loodistance).
PROOF. Suppose that the LOOdistance of <p to HOO equals 1 and that I is
exposed. Let L' be the restriction of the Iexposing functional L(g) = J~1r g<p g!
to HJ = zHI. By the HahnBanach theorem, the operator norm of L' equals the
Loodistance of <p to HOO ~ (HJ)1.. Thus we can find a sequence offunctions (fn) in
the unit ball of HJ such that L(fn) + IIL'II = 1. The functions In do not converge
to I in norm, because norm convergence implies convergence at 0, In(O) = 0 and
1(0) f= 0 because I is outer. Therefore I is not strongly exposed. D
The space HOO + G('JI') that appears in the next theorem, has been studied
extensively, see [42] and cf. [16]. It is a closed subalgebra of LOO('JI').
THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNIT BALL IN HI_TYPE SPACES 65
THEOREM 2.13 ([47]). Let IE B(Hl(]])))) be exposed. Ild( &!. Hoo+C(1I')) < 1,
then I is strongly exposed.
We will explain how the proof goes if 'P := 111/1 E Hoo + C(1I'). The exposing
functional L for I is defined by L(g) = fg 7r
g'Pg!. Suppose that (fn)f is a sequence
in the unit ball of Hl such that L(fn) ) 1 as n ) 00. Clearly this implies that
II In I 1 > 1. We claim that there is a subsequence (fnk) that converges to I in HI.
By weak* compactness of the unit ball of (C(1I'))* the sequence of measures Ing!
has a weak* convergent subsequence Ink g! with limit dJ.L({}) , and IIJ.LII :::; 1. For all
n = 1,2,3, ... , we have Jo r 27r em
. (J
dJ.L({}) = O. Now the F. & M. Riesz theorem [16]
precisely states that J.L is of the form dJ.L( (}) = F g! for some F in the unit ball of HI .
Write 'P = 'Pl + 'P2 with 'Pl E H[J = zHoo and 'P2 E C. Because H[J annihilates
HI, the weak* convergence of Ink g! implies that
Let J.L be a finite (positive) measure on 1I'. Let P be the collection of polynomials
in z and let Q be the space of polynomials in z vanishing at the origin. On the unit
66 PAUL BENEKER AND JAN WIEGERINCK
circle P and Q consist of the trigonometric polynomials of the form Ln>o ane inlJ
and Ln<o ane inlJ , respectively. Finally, let P = p(/L) be the number 
The following theorem of H. Helson & G. Szego elegantly describes all measures
/L for which P and Q are at positive angle.
THEOREM 2.16 ([19]). The subspaces P and Q are at positive angle in L 2 (/L)
if and only if the measure /L is of the form d/L = wdO, for some HelsonSzego weight
won'll'.
COROLLARY 2.17. If the function f is strongly exposed in the unit ball of HI,
then If I is a HelsonSzego weight on'll'.
PROOF. Assume f is an exposed point, such that If I is not a HelsonSzego
weight. We will show that f is not strongly exposed. Let /L be the probability
measure If I g!.By the theorem of Helson and Szego the spaces P and Q are at
zero angle (p = 1). Thus we can find sequences (Pn) and (qn) in the L 2(/L)unit
balls of P and Q respectively, such that
(2.4) 1 0
211'
Pnqn d/L + 1,
as n + 00. For n = 1,2, ... , let fn be the HIfunction Pnqnf. These functions are
contained in the unit ball of HI:
THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNIT BALL IN Hl_TYPE SPACES 67
If we set <p = 7Ilfl (as usual), then the fexposing functional is given by
L(g) = 10
211" dO
g<p 27r'
Now (2.4) expresses that L(fn) ~ 1 as n ~ 00, yet the functions fn do not
converge to f in HI because fn(O) = qn(O) = O. We conclude that f is not strongly
exposed. D
Already we can mention a surprising property of strongly exposed points.
COROLLARY 2.18 ([2]). If the function f is strongly exposed in the unit ball of
HI, then for all small c > 0, the functions f and 1/ f are contained in H1+ e .
The corollary together with Theorem 2.13 show that if f E B(HI(][})) satisfies
the distance condition in Theorem 2.13, then f is strongly exposed if and only if
1/ f E HI. (It is worth noting that there exist exposed points f E HI such that 1/ f
is in no HP, p > 0, [37, 44].) Since f and l/f are outer functions, the corollary is
immediate from the following lemma (which is actually an exercise in [16]).
LEMMA 2.19. If the function w is a HelsonSzego weight on 'JI', then for all
small c > 0, we have w E 1+ e ('JI') and l/w E L1+e('JI').
LEMMA 2.20. (Cf. [16], Lemma IV. 3. 3, p. 148.) If'lf; is a measurable real
function, then the LOOdistance of ei.p to Hoo is less than 1 if and only if there
exist c > 0 and h E H oo such that
7r
(2.5) Ihl 2:: c and I'lf; + arghl $ "2  c (mod 27r)
almost everywhere on 'JI'.
THEOREM 2.21 ([2, 31]). Let f be an extreme point of the unit ball of HI.
Then f is strongly exposed if and only if If I is a HelsonSzego weight.
PROOF. ([31]) By Corollary 2.17 we need only to prove the backward impli
cation. Let us assume that the outer function f is such that If I is a HelsonSzego
weight on 'JI', say, If I = exp(u + v), where Ilvll oo < l We remark that the function
is exposed by Theorem 1 and Lemma 2.19. Next, again using the fact that f is
outer, we notice that
f(z) = eu(z)+iu(z) . ev(z)iv(z),
because the right hand side is an outer function with the appropriate absolute
values on 'JI'. We set <p = 7Ilfl. Then <p = ei.p with'lf; = u  v. Now the function
h(z) = exp(u(z) + iu(z)) is invertible in HOO and has argument u a.e. on 'JI'. We
observe that condition (2.5) in Lemma 2.20 is satisfied by the pair of functions
<p = ei.p and h E HOO. We conclude that the Loodistance of <p to Hoo is less than
one. Therefore, by Theorem 2.13, the function f is strongly exposed. D
Another way of formulating Theorem 2.21 is as follows:
COROLLARY 2.22. An extreme point f of the unit ball of HI is strongly exposed
if and only if f can be written as the product gh, where g is invertible in Hoo and
hE HI satisfies I arg hi $ ~  c a.e. on 'JI', for some c > O.
Recall Corollary 2.18: if f is strongly exposed then for all small c > 0, the
functions p+e and 1/ f1+ e are contained in HI. This result can be sharpened
somewhat using Theorem 2.21:
68 PAUL BENEKER AND JAN WIEGERINCK
PROPOSITION 2.23 ([2]). Let f be a strongly exposed point in the unit ball of
HI. Then for all sufficiently small c > 0, the (normalized) functions ce f1+E: and
del f1+E: of unit norm are again strongly exposed in the unit ball of HI.
The Proposition explains the following examples from [47].
EXAMPLES 2.24. A polynomial is rigid in HI if and only if its zeros on the
unit circle are single zeros (and it is zerofree on llJ), obviously). Any normalized
polynomial P with at least one single zero on '][' is not strongly exposed however,
because 1/ P HI
Let f#(z) be the extreme point c(1 + z) log2(1 + z) in the unit ball of HI.
Because f# is outer and because 1/lf#1 E LI, we conclude that f# is exposed
(Theorem 2.9. 1). However, 1/lf#1 L1+E:, so f# is not strongly exposed.
2.5. Toeplitz operators and De BrangesRovnyak spaces. Let P+ be
the orthogonal projection of L2('][') onto H2:
00 00
P+(Lane inll ) = Lane inll ,
00 0
DEFINITION 2.25. Given a bounded function ' E LOC the Toeplitz operator T",
is the bounded map T", : H2 _ H2 given by
T",(f) = P+('f).
We say that ' is the defining function of the Toeplitz operator T",.
We see that the norm of the Toeplitz operator T", is at most 1I,1I00. It is not
difficult to show that the norm of T", is in fact equal to 1I'1I00, but we will not
need this result. Also, it is a routine exercise to verify that the adjoint of T", is the
Toeplitz operator Ttji. Clearly, if' E Hoo, then T",(f) = 'f. Combining these two
observations we have the following result:
LEMMA 2.26. If cp or' is contained in H oo , then TqiT", = TVi",.
Given a function ' E Loo, the Hankel operator H", (with defining function ')
is the bounded operator
H",(f) = 'f  T",(f) = (I  P+)(,f) = P_('f)
from H2 into (H2).l.. By the same reasoning the norm of H", is at most 1I,1I00. If
two functions cp and ' in Loo differ by an element of H OO , then the associated Hankel
operators coincide. Hence the operator norm of H", is at most Loodist(',HOO).
The basic fact about Hankel operators, due to Z. Nehari, is that equality holds:
THEOREM 2.27 ([34]). The operator norm of H", equals the Loo distance of '
to HOO.
THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNIT BALL IN HI_TYPE SPACES 69
The following result (and its corollaries) will be of great importance. We only
have as reference Sarason's notes [43].
THEOREM 2.28. (DevinatzRabindranathan) If'IjJ is unimodular, then T1fJ
is leftinvertible if and only if Loodist('IjJ,Hoo) < 1.
A bounded linear operator L : X + Y is said to be leftFredholm if the range
of X under L is closed and of finite codimension in Y. For leftFredholm operators
one has the following result.
COROLLARY 2.29 ([11]). (DouglasSarason) If'IjJ is unimodular, then T1fJ is
leftFredholm if and only if the Loo distance of'IjJ to HOO + C is less than 1.
See [43], p. 119 ff. also for a proof of the next result
COROLLARY 2.30 ([9, 49]). (DevinatzWidom) If'IjJ is unimodular, then
T1fJ is invertible if and only if'IjJ can be written as ei(uH), where u and v are real
functions in Loo such that IIvll oc < 'IT".
We will now explain the relation between Toeplitz operators and rigidity (ex
posedness) of functions in HI.
LEMMA 2.31. Let f be an outer function in HI. Then f is rigid if and only if
the Toeplitz operator with defining function <p = 7/1fl is injective.
PROOF. Suppose f is rigid and assume G E H2 is contained in the kernel of
T<p. Let us write f = F2 for some outer function F E H2. Then <p = F I F. The fact
that T<p (G) = 0 means that there exists a function H E H~ such that FG I F = H.
Unless H is the zero function, the HIfunction GH(= FIF 'IHI2) (which vanishes
at the origin) has the same argument as f a.e. Because f was rigid we conclude
that H = 0 and hence G = O. This means that T<p is injective.
For the converse, suppose that the outer function f = F2 is not rigid. Then
there is an outer function g = G 2 in HI that has the same argument as f but is
not a scalar multiple of f. Because T<p(F) = F(O) and T<p(G) = P+(G) = G(O), the
function F  F(O)GIG(O) is a nontrivial element of the kernel of T<p. 0
Next we will see how one relates Toeplitz operators to De BrangesRovnyak
spaces. These spaces were introduced and studied by L. De Branges and J. Rovnyak
in [6, 7]. D. Sarason used the spaces to describe exposed functions in the unit ball of
HI; Sarason's book [46] and his earlier articles [44, 45] provide a detailed account
of this remarkable theory. Borrowing Sarason's notation, we will review his ideas
and show how to adapt them to give another approach to the (explicit) description
of the strongly exposed points that was discussed in the previous section. In our
situation the De BrangesRovnyak spaces are Hilbert subspaces H of H2 with
another inner product, such that the inclusion map i : H + H2 is contractive.
For this reason such spaces are also called contractive spaces. We can realize such
spaces as operator ranges of bounded maps on H2.
Now then, let a be a function in HOO that is not constant. The linear space
M (a) is the set of all functions af, f E H2. We equip M (a) with the inner product
, {af, ag)M := (f, g)2.
This makes M(a) a Hilbert space, and the Toeplitz operator Ta : H2 + M(a)
unitary. Clearly, when lIall oo ::; 1, the inclusion i : M(a) + H2 is a contraction.
70 PAUL BENEKER AND JAN WIEGERINCK
Let b be a nonconstant function in the unit ball of Hoo. We will construct the
space 1t(b), the socalled complementary space to M(b), in a similar fashion; the
narile reflects the fact that M(b) + 1t(b) = H2 (although the intersection M(a) n
1t(b) is trivial only when b is an inner function). Observe that I  TbTj) is a positive
contraction on H2, hence the operator (I  nTj)l/2 is welldefined on H2 and
contractive. As a linear space 1t(b) consists of all H 2functions in the range of the
operator (I  TbTj)l/2 on H2. We also use this map to give 1t(b) a Hilbert space
structure. Namely, if lor 9 is orthogonal in H2 to ker(I TbTj)l/2 = ker(I TbTj),
we set
((I  TbTj)l/2 I, (I  TbTj)l/2g)b:= (/,g)2.
As a consequence (I TbTj)?/2 is a coisometry from H2 onto 1t(b) and the inclusion
map i : 1t(b) + H2 is another contraction. Moreover, we see that if Ilbll oo < 1,
then 1t(b) is all of H2 with an equivalent norm.
(2.7) ( ) _ 2v'f(Z)
a z  G(z) + l'
G(z)  1
(2.8) b( z) = G ( z) + 1 '
where we may take any branch of IT Observe that we can recover the function
I from a and b: 1= F2, with F = a/(1  b) E H2. The function G is reasonably
wellbehaved on JI): because ReG(z) ~ I/(z)1 ~ 0, G is contained in HP for all
o < p < 1. The real part of G is positive and majorizes Jill.
hence a and bare
contained in the unit ball of Hoo. The fact that Re G = III a.e. on 'II' gives us
that lal 2 + IW = 1 a.e. on 'II'. By a theorem in [26] the functions a and b are not
extreme in the unit ball of Hoo. It is known in such cases that the polynomials are
contained and dense in 1t(b) (cf. [46], IV3).
see [44] and [46], IX5, p. 66. We see in particular that for strongly exposed f,
a2 Illall~ is also strongly exposed (cf. (2.10)), and that lla E H2+, 1/(Ib) E Hi+
for sufficiently small E > O.
Let us go back to the distance condition used in Theorem 2.13 and assume f
is an extreme point such that the LOOdistance of 7/1fl to HOO + C is less than 1.
Starting with the DouglasSarason theorem (Corollary 2.29) and exploiting the full
strength of the statement that TF/F is (left)Fredholm it follows that the operator
TF/F has closed range in H2 of finite codimension, say, N. Hence M(a) is closed
and of finite co dimension N in 1i(b). Using [20], Theorem 6 or [46], X18, p. 77,
we conclude that f is of the form f = p2g, where 9 is strongly exposed in the unit
ball of Hi and p is a polynomial of degree N that has all its zeros on 11'. Conversely,
if f is of the above form, then
distallfl, H oo
+ C) = dist(z2N . gllgl, H oo + C) = dist(gllgl, H oo + C) < 1,
by the algebra structure of Hoo + C, but dist(7/lfl,H OO ) = 1 when N > O.
This calculation serves to illustrate that if for a given extreme point f the
distance of 7Ilfl to H oo + C is less than 1, the ("only") thing that can prevent f
from being exposed (and hence strongly exposed) is the divisibility of f in Hi by
functions of the form (1  U)2 with u(z) = >.z (>. E 11') a particularly simple inner
function. Functions in Hi that lack this divisibility property are called strong outer
functions. We see that for any strong outer function that is not exposed, like Inoue's
example, [22], it is true that the distance of 7/1fl to H OO +C is 1. Alternatively, the
strongly exposed points are the (normalized) strong outer functions f that satisfy
distallfl, H oo + C) < 1.
zEn):
log IF(z)1 = ( log IF*(~)I dw(~, z).
lao.
An outer function is zero free on n.
Green's function G(z; zo) and the Blaschke factor Bzo(z) = 1:1
t:z:oz for ]I))
are related by G(z; zo) = log IBzo(z)l. This suggests the following definition.
DEFINITION 3.1. Let G(z; zo) be Green's function on a finite domain n with
pole at Zo and let G(z; zo) denote its (multiple valued) harmonic conjugate. Suppose
that Zl, Z2, . .. satisfy the Blaschke condition En G(z; Zn) < 00. Then the Blaschke
product with zeros at Zl, Z2, ... is the multiple valued function
and show that IIf gill = 1. However, unless I is a single valued inner function,
1 + 12 is not a welldefined modulus automorphic function. There is no remedy
for this problem, because as we have already mentioned, when m ~ 2 there exist
extreme points with a nontrivial inner part.
The following theorem of F. Forelli is crucial in understanding which inner
functions can appear in the innerouter factorizations of an extreme points.
THEOREM 3.5 ([14]). Let f be an extreme point of the unit ball of H1(n). Then
the codimension of the H 1closure of f . Hoo in H1 is at most T' when n is bounded
by m + 1 closed smooth curves.
All functions in the H 1closure of f . HOO(n) inherit the zeros of f, hence
Forelli's theorem implies that an extreme point can only have a limited number of
zeros. In fact one has:
COROLLARY 3.6 ([14]). If f is an extreme point of the unit ball of H1 (n), then
the inner part of f is a finite Blaschke product with at most Tzeros.
Inspection of the proof of the deLeeuwRudin theorem gives us the following
criterion for extremity (where we identify H 1functions with their boundary values):
LEMMA 3.7. Let f E H1(n) be of unit norm. Then f is not extreme if and only
if there exists a nonconstant real function k E LOO(an) for which kf E H1(n).
Suppose f = I . F is of unit norm where I is a finite Blaschke product, and F
outer. Let us suppose that f is not an extreme point of the unit ball of H1(n). Then
let k be as in the lemma, and let 9 E H1(n) have boundary values kf. Because
F is an outer function, for all zEn: Ig(z)1 $ IIkll oo 1F(z)l. Hence, because also
III = 1 everywhere on an, the meromorphic function h = g/ f is bounded near an,
realvalued (a.e.) on an, and has its poles in the zeros of f (with corresponding
mUltiplicities). Conversely, if h is a meromorphic function on n with these three
properties, then with k := h on an and 9 := hf E H 1(n), we have 9 = kf on an,
so by the previous lemma, f is not an extreme point. We come to the following
definition.
DEFINITION 3.8. Let I be a finite Blaschke product. We say that I is an
extremal Blaschke product if there exists no meromorphic function h on n that is
bounded near an, realvalued on an and has its poles in the zeros of I, with no
greater multiplicity than the zeros of I.
Let I be a finite Blaschke product with zeros Zl, Z2, ... , Zn repeated according
to multiplicity. Thus I has n zeros on O. Let 8 := 1'ZI +1'Z2+' +1,zn be the divisor
on 0 associated with I. If 8' = L:zEf! d'(z) . Z is another divisor on 0 we say that
8' ~ 8 if at every Z E 0: 8'(z) ~ 8(z). The space of all meromorphic differentials w
on 0 that are realvalued on 00 and for which the associated divisor (w) satisfies
(w) ~ 8 is a real linear space of dimension MD(8). Using a theorem of H.L. Royden
[39], based on the RiemannRoch theorem, T.W. Gamelin & M. Voichick proved
the following result:
THEOREM 3.10 ([15]). The Blaschke product I with zeros Zl, Z2, ... , Zn and
associated divisor 8 is extremal if and only if MD(8) + 2n = m.
In particular, using only the fact that the inner factor of an extreme point is a
finite Blaschke product (as shown by Forelli), Gamelin & Voichick also arrived at
Forelli's upper bound (W) for the number of zeros of an extremal Blaschke product.
They proved that this upper bound is also sharp.
THEOREM 3.11 ([15]). The HIclosure of the set of extreme points in the unit
ball of HI(O) is the collection of all functions in HI(O) that have unit norm and
no more than W zeros.
There is a special type of finite domains where Gamelin and Voichick described
the zero sets of extreme points explicitly, namely the so called real slit domains.
These are usually defined as the extended complex plane with a finite number of
intervals deleted. In our situation we prefer a (conformly equivalent) definition.
DEFINITION 3.12. We will call any domain n of the form JDl \ (It u ... U 1m),
where It, 12', . ,Im are disjoint, bounded and closed intervals in (1, 1) a real slit
domain.
THEOREM 3.13 ([15]). Let n be a real slit domain and let Zl, Z2, ... , Zn be
points of n (not necessarily distinct). Then the Blaschke product with zero set
Zl, Z2, ... ,Zn is extremal if and only if:
n::; W and
for all i, j: Zi =I Zj. (In particular, none of the Zi is real.)
We omit most of the proof, and only observe that because the meromorphic
function Z~Zi + z~z; + l~iz + lkz is bounded and realvalued on an c JR., no
zeros of an extremal Blaschke product are conjugated.
Hence, like H1(1I))), a function I in the boundary of the unit ball of H1(n) is exposed
if and only if it is rigid: apart from (positive) constant multiples of I there is no
H 1function with the same argument a.e. (dO") on an.
The following criteria for rigidity of H 1 (1I)))functions carryover to finite
domains word for word:
If IE H1 and 1/1 E Hl, then I is rigid (Theorem 2.9. 1).
If there is agE Hoo such that Re(fg) > 0 a.e. on an, then I is rigid
(Theorem 2.9. 2).
If u is a nonconstant inner function such that 1/(1 + u)2 is in Hl, then
I is not rigid (or I == 0).
A priori the first two conditions can only be used to demonstrate rigidity of
outer functions. In both cases III cannot be too small near the boundary of 0.:
if I satisfies the second condition, then 1/1 E H1 "'(an) for all E: > 0, so 1/1 is
"nearly" in H1. The first condition can be modified to allow for exposed points
with zeros on n.
PROPOSITION 3.14 ([4]). II I is extreme in H1(n) and 1/1/1 E L1(an) then I
is exposed.
Similar to Theorem 2.13 is:
THEOREM 3.15. Let I be a lunction in H1(n). Then I is strongly exposed in
the unit ball 01 H1 il and only il I is exposed and L oodist(7 /1/1, Hoo+C(an)) < 1.
Throughout the remainder of this section the domain R will be a real slit
domain with m slits that contains the origin.
Note that on 11'\ {i} the function (z+i)2 has the same argument as iz so (z+i)2
is not rigid in H1 (II))).
LEMMA 3.16 ([4]). For all m ~ 2, the normalized lunction I(z) = c(z + i)2 is
strongly exposed in the unit ball 01 H 1(R).
The proof is an amusing exercise in elementary function theory. One supposes
that 9 E H1 has the same argument as I a.e. on oR and sets h = g/ f. Schwarz's
reflection principle eventually shows that h extends to a rational function which
turns out to have no poles at all. Hence I is exposed and by Theorem 3.15 strongly
exposed.
REMARK 3.17. Similarly, if m > k + 1, then the normalized function hk(Z) =
c(z + i)2k is strongly exposed in the unit ball of H 1 (R). In particular we see that
there exist strongly exposed points in the unit ball of H1 (R) that are "small" on
the boundary: 1/lhkl rt L 1 / 2k (OR).
with the first example in Section 2.2.) Proposition 3.14 tells us the answer is yes if
11f E Ll(80). Theorem 3.18 below shows that in general the answer is no.
We mentioned in Section 2.2 Helson's criterium for exposedness of outer func
tions, 2.8. It fails for finite domains:
THEOREM 3.18 ([4)). For m = 3, there exists ~ E R such that the function
f(z) = c(z  ~)(z + i)2
is extreme in the unit ball of Hl(R), but not exposed.
We will only describe a nontrivial HI (R)function 9 with the same argument
as f a.e. on an, for suitable ~ E R \ lR and refer to [4J for details.
Suppose the three slits are the intervals [Xl,YlJ, [X2,Y2J, [X3,Y3J. Let k(z) be a
rational function with poles of order 2 in ~,~, 1/~, 1/~, and poles of order 4 in i
and zeros at the 12 points xtl, yt
l , and double zeros at 1, while k(oo) = 1.
Lf : gl+ kgl~ldA(Z).
If Lfg = 1 for some 9 E 8B(Al(JD))), the argument of 9 would be equal to that of
f, (a.e) and this clearly implies f = g. However, to study strongly exposed points
we need some machinery.
4.1. Bergman projection and Bloch space. An important tool for the
study of strongly exposed points will be the Bergman projection; this is the orthog
onal projection
Let Co denote the continuous functions on Jij that are zero on T. We have the
following theorem of R. Coifman, R. Rochberg and G. Weiss:
THEOREM 4.2 ([8]). The Bergman projection P maps Loo(.]I))) boundedlyonto
B. Furthermore, P maps both C(D) and Co boundedlyonto Bo.
The result proved in [8] is much more general than Theorem 4.2. As we state
it, the theorem may be found in [18], Theorem 1.12, with an elementary proof.
There we also find the following results
THEOREM 4.3. (1) The dual space of Al is the Bloch space B under the
following pairing:
(4.5)
THE BOUNDARY OF THE UNIT BALL IN HlTYPE SPACES 79
4.3. The space (AI).1 + C. We have observed that (AI).1 + C plays the
same role in Theorem 4.5 with respect to the Bergman space as (HI).1 + C('1I') =
Hoo +C('1I') with respect to the Hardy space HI(JI))) (Theorem 2.13). We mentioned
already in Section 2.3 that Hoo + C is closed in L oo . From this then it followed
relatively easily that Hoo + C('1I') is in fact an algebra, cf. [41], Theorem 6.5.5. How
far do these results extend to the space (A I ).1 + C? From [5] we quote
(1) Al (JI))).1 + c(il~) is a closed subspace of LOO(JI))). (It equals PI(80 )!)
(2) AI(JI))).1 + C(ii)) is a C(ii)) module.
(3) A I (JI))).1 + C(ii)) is not an algebra.
(4) The space (A 1).1 + C is invariant under composition with holomorphic
automorphisms of JI)).
EXAMPLE 4.8. [5] As for (3), let J{3 = (1 z){3 and let 'P{3 = J{3/IJ{31 for {3 E R
Then 'P2 and 'P4 E (AI).1, but 'P2 is not contained in (AI).1 + C. The space
(A I ).1 + C is not an algebra.
The properties of (A 1).1 +C lead in a straightforward way to the following
proposition.
PROPOSITION 4.9. Let J be a strongly exposed point in AI. Then
(a) iJu is an automorphism oJJI)), then the normalized Junction FI = CI(fou)
is strongly exposed;
(b) iJ v E A(JI))) is zeroJree on the circle, then the normalized Junction F2 =
C2!v is strongly exposed.
Furthermore, the functions J IIJI, FdlFII and F2/1F21 have the same Loodistance
to (AI).1 + C.
4.4. Strong exposedness of (1  z){3. We saw in Section 4.2 that the func
tions J{3 = c{3(1  z){3 are strongly exposed in the unit ball of Al for all {3 > 1
except possibly when {3 = 1,3,5, .... This was deduced from rather straightforward
estimates of the L 00 distances of the functions 'P = ff3 I IJ{31 to the space (A 1).1 + C
(Proposition 4.6). In [5] a much sharper result is proved.
THEOREM 4.10. For all {3 ::::: 0, the Bloch distance oj the Junction P'P{3 to 8 0
4I sin({h)1
equals 1r {3+T .
SKETCH OF PROOF. It is convenient to rewrite 'P{3 as 'P{3(w) = (1 w){3/2/(1
w){3/2. Using the series expansions for the Bergman kernel 1/(1 zw)2 (see (4.2)),
as well as for (1  W){3/2, and 1/(1  w){3/2, we evaluate the Bergman projection
P'P{3' One obtains P'P{3 = E~=o c{3,nzn, where
(n + 1) sin(~) ~ r(m + ~)r(m + n  ~)
c{3,n = 271" ~ m!(m + n + I)! .
It is proved in [5] that for fixed (3 > 0:
~r(m+~)r(m+n~)
(4.6) =:0 m!(m + n + I)!
4
= n2{3({3 + 2) (1 + 0(1)),
so the Bloch distance of PCP(3 to Bo is at least 41:~~~1I. On the other hand, for
large N,
where the o{I)term tends to zero as N increases. Using the fact that the polyno
mials are contained in Bo it follows that the Bloch distance of PCP(3 to Bo is at most
4I sin ()1
... ((3+2) . o
COROLLARY 4.11. Let d(cp(3, (Al)1. + C) denote the LOOdistance of CP(3 to
(Al)1. + C. Then for all,B 2: 0,
COROLLARY 4.12. Suppose that g E A(JI1 vanishes nowhere on'll'. Let Zl, Z2,
E 'll' be distinct and let {31, {32, ... ,(3n be real numbers greater than  2. Then
.. , Zn.
the normalized Junction J(z) = cg(z) n~=l (1 ZZi),8i is strongly exposed in the unit
ball oj A I iJ and only iJ all Junctions J,8i = C,8i (1  z ),8i are strongly exposed. In
particular, all choices oj {3i > 1 yield strongly exposed points and all normalized
polynomials are strongly exposed in the unit ball oj A I.
We end this section with a conjecture on the functions J,8 for 2 < {3 < 0, for
which strong exposedness is already implied by Proposition 4.6 when 1 < {3 < O.
In [5] it is shown that
~lsin(!?f)I<d((1l
'Tr {3+2  .,,8,
(AI)1.+C)
,
2< (.J<O,
fJ
with equality in the limit as {3 ! 2. This leads us to surmise the following:
References
[1] A.B. Aleksandrov, A. B. The existence of inner functions in a ball, (Russian) Mat. Sb. (N.S.)
118(160) (1982), no. 2, 147163,287.
(32A40 46J15)
[2] P. Beneker, Strongly exposed points, HelsonSzego weights and Toeplitz operotors, J. Int. Eq.
Oper. Th. 31 (1998), 299306.
[3] P. Beneker, Strongly exposed points in unit balls of Banach spaces of holomorphic func
tions, Academisch Proefschrift, Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2002. Electronically available
at http://remote.science.uva.nl/ ~beneker /thesis.ps
[4] P. Beneker, J. Wiegerinck, Exposedne'ss in Hardy spaces of domains of finite connectivity,
Indag. Math., N.S., 11 (4),2000,487497.
[5] P. Beneker, J. Wiegerinck, Strongly exposed points in the ball of the Bergman space,
http://arXiv.org/abs/math.CV /0208234 to appear.
[6] L. de Branges, J. Rovnyak, Square Summable Power Series, Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
New York, 1966.
[7] L. de Branges, J. Rovnyak, Appendix on square summable power series, in "Perturbation
Theory and its Applications in Quantum Mechanics", John Wiley and Sons, New York (1966),
347392.
[8] R.R. Coifman, R. Rochberg, G. Weiss, Factorization theorems for Hardy spaces in severol
variables, Ann. of Math. (2), 103 (1976), 611635.
[9] A. Devinatz, Toeplitz operotors on H2 spaces, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 112 (1964), 304317.
[10] J. Diestel, Geometry of Banach paces  Selected topics LNM 485, Springer, Berlin etc. 1975.
[11] R.G. Douglas, D.E. Sarason, Fredholm Toeplitz operotors, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 26 (1970),
117120.
[12] P.L. Duren, Theory of HPspaces, Academic Press, 1970.
[13] S.D. Fisher, Function Theory On Planar Domains, John Wiley & Sons, 1983.
[14] F. Forelli, Extreme points in Hl(R), Can. J. Math. 19 (1967), 312320.
[15] T.W. Gamelin, M. Voichick, Extreme points in spaces of analytic functions, Can. J. Math.
20 (1968), 919928.
[16] J. Garnett, Bounded holomorphic functions, Pure & Applied Mathematics, 96, Academic
Press, Inc., New YorkLondon, 1981.
[17] E. Hayashi, The solution of extremal problems in Hl, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 93 (1985),
690696.
[18] H. Hedenmalm, B. Korenblum, K. Zhu, Theory of Bergman Spaces, Springer Graduate Texts
in Mathematics 199, 2000.
[19] H. Helson, G. Szego, A problem in prediction theory, Ann. Mat. Pura Appl. 51 (1960),
107138.
[20] H. Helson, D. Sarason, Past and future, Math. Scand. 21 (1967), 516.
[21] H. Helson, Large analytic functions II, Analysis and partial differential equations, Lecture
Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 122, Dekker, New York (1990), 217220.
84 PAUL BENEKER AND JAN WIEGERINCK
[22] J. Inoue, An example of a nonexposed extreme function in the unit ball of Hl, Proc. Edin
burgh Math. Soc. 37 (1993), 4751.
[23] J. Inoue; T. Nakazi, Polynomials of an inner function which are exposed points in Hl. Proc.
Amer. Math. Soc. 100 (1987), no. 3, 454456.
[24] P. Koosis, Introduction to HP spaces, Cambridge University Press, 1980.
[25] S.G. Krantz, Geometric Analysis and FUnction Spaces CBMS Regional Conference Series in
Mathematics, 81. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1993.
[26] K. de Leeuw, W. Rudin, Extreme points and extremum problems in Hl, Pacific J. Math. 8
(1958), 467485.
[27] E. Ll1lw,A construction of inner functions on the unit ball in CP. Invent. Math. 67 (1982),
no. 2, 223229.
[28] T. Nakazi, Exposed points and extremal problems in Hl, J. Funet. Anal. 53 (1983), 224230.
[29] T. Nakazi, Exposed points and extremal problems in Hl, II, T6hoku Math. J. 37 (1985),
265269.
[30] T. Nakazi, Existence of solutions of extremal problems in Hl , Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc.
(2) 34 (1991), no. 2, 99112.
[31] T. Nakazi, personal communication.
[32] C. Nara, Uniqueness of the predual of the Bloch space and its strongly exposed points, Illinois
J. Math, 34 (1990), no. 1,98107.
[33] Z. Nehari, Conformal Mapping, McGrawHill, 1952.
[34] Z. Nehari, On bounded bilinear forms, Ann. of Math. 65 (1957), 153162.
[35] D.J. Newman, Pseudouniform convexity in HI, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 14 (1963), 676679.
[36] J. Neuwirth, D.J. Newman, Positive Hl/2 functions are constant, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
18 (1987),958.
[37] A. Nicolau, The coefficients of Nevanlinna's pammetrization are not in HP, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc 106 (1989), 115117.
[38] R.R. Phelps, Dentability and extreme points in Banach spaces, J. Funet. Anal. 17 (1974),
7890.
[39] H.L. Royden, The boundary values of analytic and harmonic functions, Math.Z. 78, (1962),
124.
[40] W. Rudin, Analytic functions of class H p , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 78 (1955), 4666.
[41] W. Rudin, FUnction Theory in the Unit Ball of en, Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wis
senschaften, 241, SpringerVerlag, New YorkBerlin, 1980.
[42] D.E. Sarason, Algebras of functions on the unit circle, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 79 (1973),
286299.
[43] D.E. Sarason, Function Theory on the Unit Circle, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia, 1979.
[44] D.E. Sarason, Exposed points in Hl, I, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications 41
(1989), Birkhiiuser Verlag Basel, 485496.
[45] D.E. Sarason, Exposed points in Hl, II, Operator Theory: Advances and Applications 48
(1990), Birkhiiuser Verlag Basel, 333347.
[46] D.E. Sarason, SubHardy Hilbert Spaces in the unit disc, Univ. of Arkansas Leeture Notes in
the Math. Sc. 10, WileyInterscience, 1995.
[47] D. Temme, J. Wiegerinck, Extremal properties of the unit ball of Hl, Indag. Mathern., N.S.,
3 (1) (1992), 119127.
[48] M. Voichick, L. Zalcman, Inner and outer functions on Riemann surfaces, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 16 (1965), 12001204.
[49] H. Widom, Inversion of Toeplitz matrices III, Notices Amer. Math. Soc. 7 (1960), 63.
[50] J. Wiegerinck, A chamcterization of strongly exposed points of the unit ball of Hl, Indag.
Mathern., N.S., 4 (4) (1993), 509519.
[51] K. Yabuta, Unicity of the extremum problems in Hl(un), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (1971),
181184.
[52] K. Yabuta, Some uniqueness theorems for HP(un) functions, T6hoku Math. J. 24 (1972),
353357.
1. Introduction
The field of operator spaces provides a new bridge from the world of Banach
spaces and function spaces, to the world of spaces of operators on a Hilbert space.
For researchers in the new field, the philosophical starting point is the combination
of the following two obvious facts. Firstly, by the HahnBanach theorem any Banach
space X is canonically linearly isometric to a closed linear subspace of C(K), where
K is the compact space Ball(X*). Secondly, C(K) is a commutative C*algebra.
Thus one defines a noncommutative Banach space, or operator space, to be a closed
linear subspace X of a possibly noncommutative C* algebra A. This simplistic
idea becomes much more substantive with the addition of some additional metric
structure. The point is that if A is any C*algebra, then the *algebra Mn(A) of
nx 11, matrices with entries in A has a unique norm 11lln making it a C*algebra (this
follows from the well known nnicity of C*norms on a *algebra). If X c A then
Mn(X) inherits this norm II lin, and more precisely we think of an operator space
as the pair (X, {11lln}n). We usually insist that maps between operator spaces are
completely bounded, where the adjective 'completely' means that we are applying
our maps to matrices too. Thus if T : X 4 Y, then T is completely contractive
if Tn is contractive for all n E N, where Tn is the map [Xij] 1+ [T(x;j )]. Similarly
T is completely isometric if II[T(xij)]1I = I [Xij] I for all n E Nand [Xij] E 1I1n(X).
It is an easy exercise (using one of the common expressions for the operator norm
of a matrix in Mn = .Mn(C)) to prove that a linear map T : X 4 Y between
1991 Mat/;tematics Subject Classification. Primary 46L07, 46L05, 47L30; Secondary 46JlO.
This research was supported in part by a grant from the National Science Foundation..
PROOF. (Sketch.) The easy direction is essentially just the fact mentioned
earlier that 11 *homomorphisms are completely isometric. The other direction
can be proved by first showing (as with Kadison's theorem) that T(I) is unitary,
so that without loss of generality T(I) = 1. The well known Stinespring theorem
has as a simple consequence the KadisonSchwarz inequality T(a)*T(a) ~ T(a*a).
Applying this to T 1 too yields T(a)*T(a) = T(a*a), and now the result follows
immediately from the 'polarization identity' a*b = ~ E~=o(a + ikb)*(a + ikb). 0
Note that if one takes A = C(Kd and B = C(K2 ) in Theorem 1.1, and
consults the 'dictionary' above, then one recovers exactly the classical BanachStone
theorem. Indeed as we remarked earlier, in this case complete isometries are the
same thing as isometries, unit aries are unimodular functions, and a *isomorphism
is induced by a homeomorphism between the underlying compact spaces.
Indeed consider the following generalization of the BanachStone theorem:
THEOREM 1.2. [15,22, 1, 20] Let fl be compact and Hausdorff, and A a unital
function algebra. A linear contraction T : A + C(fl) is an isometry if and only if
there exists a closed subset E of fl, and two continuous functions "f : E + '][' and
r.p: E + 8A, with r.p surjective, such that for all y E E
T(f)(y) = "f(y)f(r.p(y))
Here 8A is the Shilov boundary of A (see Section 2). We have supposed that. T
maps into a 'selfadjoint function algebra' C(fl); however since any function algebra
is a unital subalgebra of a 'selfadjoint.' one, the theorem also applies to isometries
between unital function algebras. If A is a C(K) space too, then 8A = K and then
t.he theorem above is called Holsztynski's theorem. We refer the reader to [16] for
a survey of such variants on the classical BanachStone theorem.
Often the transition from the 'classical' to the 'noncommutative' involves the
introduction of much more algebra. Next we appeal to our dictionary above to give
an equivalent restatement of Theorem 1.2 in more algebraic language.
THEOREM 1.3. (Restatement of Theorem 1.2) Let A, B be unital function
algebras, with B selfadjoint. A linear contraction T : A + B is an isometry if and
only if
(A) there exists a closed ideal I of B, a unitary u in the quotient C*algebra
B / I, and a unital 11 *homomorphism 7r : A + B / I, such that qI (T( a)) =
u7r(a) for all a E A.
Here qI is the canonical quotient *homomorphism B + B/I.
In light of Theorems 1.1 and 1.3 one would imagine that for any complete
isometry T : A + B between unital operator algebras, the condition (A) above
should hold verbatim. This would give a pretty noncommutative generalization of
Theorem 1.3. Indeed if Ran T is also a unital operator algebra, then this is true
(see ego B.l in [3]). However, it is quite easily seen that such a result cannot hold
generally. For example, let Mn = Mn(C); for any x E Mn of norm 1, the map
A 14 Ax is a complete isometry from C into Mn. Now Mn is simple (Le. has no
88 DAVID P. BLECHER AND DAMON M. HAY
nontrivial twosided ideals), and so if the result above was valid then it follows
immediately that x = u. This is obviously not satisfactory.
To resolve the dilemma presented in the last paragraph, we have offered in [5]
several alternatives. For example, one may replace the quotient B / I by a quotient
of a certain *subalgebra of B. The desired relation qJ(T(a)) = U7r(a) then requires
u to be a unitary in a certain C* triple system (by which we mean a subspace X
of a C* algebra A with X X* X c X). Or, one may replace the quotient B / I by
a quotient B / (J + J*), where J is a onesided ideal of B. Such a quotient is not
an algebra, but is an 'operator system' (such spaces have been important in the
deep work of Kirchberg (see [18, 19] and references therein). Alternatively, one
may replace such quotients altogether, with certain subspaces of the second dual
B** defined in terms of certain orthogonal projections of 'topological significance'
(Le. correspond to characteristic functions of closed sets in K if B = C(K)) in
the second dual B** (which is a von Neumann algebra [25]). The key point of all
these arguments, and indeed a key approach to BanachStone theorems for linear
maps between function algebras, C* algebras or operator algebra." is the basic
theory of C* triple systems and triple morphisms, and the basic properties of the
noncommutative Shilov boundary or triple envelope of an operator space. These
important and beautiful ideas originate in the work of Arveson, Choi and Effros,
Hamana, Harris, Kadison, Kirchberg, Paulsen, Ruan, and others. Indeed our talk at
the conference spelled out these ideas and their connection with the BanachStone
theorem; and the background ideas are developed at length in a book the first author
is currently writing with Christian Le Merdy [7] (although we do not characterize
nonsurjective complete isometries there). Moreover, a description of our work from
this perspective, together with many related results, may be found in [12]. Thus
we will content ourselves here with a survey of some related and interesting topics,
and with a new and selfcontained proof of some characterizations of complete
isometries between unital operator algebras which do not appear elsewhere. This
proof has several advantages, for example the projections arising naturally with
this approach seem to be more useful for some purposes. Also it will allow us to
avoid any explicit mention of the theory of triple systems (although this is playing
a silent role nonetheless).
We also show how such noncommutative results are generalizations of the older
characterizations of into isometries between function algebras or C(K) spaces. We
thank A. Matheson for telling us about these results. In the final section we present
some evidence towards the claim that (general) isometries between operator al
gebras are not the correct noncommutative generalization of isometries between
function algebras.
For the reader who wants to learn more operator space theory we have listed
some general texts in our bibliography.
K and separating points of K, then the classical Shilov boundary may be defined to
be the smallest closed subset E of K such that all functions J E X attain their norm,
or equivalently such that the restriction map J f+ JIE on X is an isometry. This
boundary is often defined independently of K, for example if A is a unital function
algebra then we may define the Shilov boundary as we just did, but with K replaced
by the maximal ideal space of A. In fact we prefer to think of the classical Shilov
boundary of X as a pair (aX, i) consisting of an abstract compact Hausdorff space
ax, together with an isometry j : X + C(aX) such that j(IK) = lax and such
that j(X) separates points of ax, with the following universal property: For any
other pair (0, i) consisting of a compact Hausdorff space 0 and a complete isometry
i : X + C(O) which is unital (i.e. i(IK) = IA), and such that i(X) separates points
of 0, there exists a (necessarily unique) continuous injection r : ax + 0 such that
i(x)(r(w)) = j(x)(w) for all x E X, w E ax. Such a pair (aX, i) is easily seen to
be unique up to an appropriate homeomorphism. The fact that such ax exists is
the difficult part, and proofs may be found in books on function algebras (using
extreme point arguments).
Consulting our 'noncommutative dictionary' in Section 1, and thinking a little
about the various correspondences there, it will be seen that the noncommutative
version of this universal property above should read as follows. Or at any rate,
the following noncommutative statements, when applied to a unital subspace X c
C(K), will imply the universal property of the classical Shilov boundary discussed
above. Firstly, a unital operator space is a pair (X, e) consisting of an operator space
X with fixed element e EX, such that there exists a linear complete isometry Il,
from X into a unital C*algebra C with Il,(e) = Ie. A 'noncommutative Shilov
boundary' would correspond to a pair (B,j) consisting of a unital C*algebra B
and a complete isometry j : X + B with j(e) = IB, and whose range generates
B as a C* algebra, with the following universal property: For any other pair (A, i)
consisting of a unital C* algebra and a complete isometry i : X + A which is
unital (Le. i(e) = IA), and whose range generates A as a C* algebra, there exists
a (necessarily unique, unital, and surjective) *homomorphism IT : A + B such
that IT 0 i = j. Happily, this turns out to be true. The existence for any unital
operator space (X, e) of a pair (B,j) with the universal property above is of course
a theorem, which we call the ArvesonHamana theorem [2, 13] (see [3] for complete
details). As is customary we write C;(X) for B or (B,j), this is the 'C*envelope
of X'. It is essentially unique, by the universal property. If X = A is a unital
operator algebra (see Section 1 for the definition of this), then j above is forced to
be a homomorphism (to see this, choose an i which is a homomorphism, and use
the universal property). Thus A may be considered a unital subalgebra of C;(A).
If A is already a unital C* algebra, then of course we can take C; (A) = A.
To help the reader get a little more comfortable with these concepts, we com
pute the 'noncommutative Shilov boundary' in a few simple examples.
[~; :1]
for all x,y E B and >.,Ji, complex scalars. We claim that M2(B) is the C*envelope
C of S(B), and we will prove this using a similar idea to Example 1 above. Namely,
first note that M 2(B) has no proper C*subalgebra containing S(B), Thus by
the ArvesonHamana theorem there exists a *homomorphism 11' : M 2 (B) + C
which possesses a property which we will not repeat, except to say that it cer
tainly ensures that 11' applied to a matrix with zero entries except for a nonzero
entry in the 12 position, is nonzero. It suffices as in Example 1 to show that
Ker 11' = {a}. Suppose that 11'(x) = 0 for a 2 x 2 matrix x E M 2(B). Let Eij
be the four canonical basis matrices for M 2, thought of as inside M2(B). Then
11'(E1i XEj2 ) = 11'(Eli)11'{X)11'(Ej2) = 0 for i,j = 1,2. Thus by the fact mentioned
above about the 12 position, we must have EliXEj2 = O. Thus x = O.
In fact a variant of the C*envelope or 'noncommutative Shilov boundary' can
be defined for any operator space X. This is the triple envelope of Hamana (see
[14]). This is explained in much greater detail in [3], together with many appli
cations. For example it is intimately connected to the 'noncommutative .Mideals'
recently introduced in [4]. This 'noncommutative Shilov boundary' is, as we men
tioned in Section 1, a key tool for proving various BanachStone type theorems.
However in the present article we shall only need the variant described earlier in
this section.
(1)   
T(a)e = eT(a) eT(a)e

(these are equal because e is central in C**). Conversely, if T : A + B is a complete
contraction for which there exists a projection e E B** such that eT(a)e is a 11
*homomorphism 7r, then for all a E A,
T(a) = [7ro() 0]
SO '
for all a E A. We will see that this is essentially true even if T(IA) lIB:
1We remark in passing that one does not need the full strength of the ArvesonHamana
theorem here, one may use the much simpler [8] Theorem 4.1.
92 DAVID P. BLECHER AND DAMON M. HAY
T(a)IE = u1r(a),
and T(a)IE.L C p.l., for all a E A. Here E.l. for example is the orthocom
plement of E in H.
(iv) If H is as in (iii), then there exists two closed subspaces E, P of H, a
unital 11 *homomorphism 1r : C;(A) > B(E), a complete contraction
S : C; (A) > B( E.l. , p.l.), and unitary operators U : E EEl p.l. > Hand
V : H > E EEl E.l., such that
T( )  U [ 1r(a) 0 ] V
a  0 S(a)
for all a E A.
(v) There is a left ideal J of B, a 11 *homomorphism 1r from C;(A) into
a unital subspace of B I (J + J*) which is a C* algebra, and a 'partial
isometry' u in B I J such that
Before we prove the theorem, we make several remarks. First, we have taken B
to be a C* algebra; however since any unital operator algebra is a unital subalgebra
of a unital C* algebra this is not a severe restriction. We also remark that there
are several other items that one might add to such a list of equivalent conditions.
See [5, 6]. Items (ii)(iv), and the proof given below of their equivalence with (i),
are new. We acknowledge that we have benefitted from a suggestion that we use
the Paulsen system to prove the result. This approach is an obvious one to those
working in this area (Ruan and Hamana used a variant of it in their work in the
'80's on complete isometries and triple morphisms [28, 14]). However we had not
pushed through this approach in the original version of [5] because this method
does not give several of the results there as immediately. Statement (v) above has
been simply copied from [5, 6] without proof or explanation. We have listed it
here simply because Theorem 1.3 may be particularly easily derived from it as the
special case when A and B are commutative (see comments below). Note that (iii)
above resembles Theorem 1.2 superficially.
COMPLETE ISOMETRIES  AN ILLUSTRATION 93
PROOF. The fact that the other conditions all imply (i) is easy, following the
idea in the paragraph above the theorem, namely by using the fact that a 11
*homomorphism is completely isometric.
In the remainder of the proof we suppose that T is a complete isometry. We
view A as a unital subalgebra of C;(A) as outlined in Section 3. We define a subset
S(B) of M 2(B) as in Example 3 in Section 2. Similarly define a subset S(T(A))
of S(B) using a similar formula (note that S(T(A)) has 12 entries taken from
T(A) and 21 entries taken from T(A)*). Similarly we define the subset S(A) of
the COalgebra M2(C;(A)) (Le. S(A) has scalar diagonal entries and off diagonal
entries from A and A*). We write 1 EEl 0 for the matrix in S(A) with 1 as the 12
entry and zeroes elsewhere. Similarly for 0 EEl 1. We also use these expressions for
the analogous matrices in S(B). The map q, : S(A) + S(T(A)) c M 2(B) taking
As in the simple case above the theorem, C /10 may be viewed as a C* subalgebra of
PoC"Po, for a central projection Po E C** (namely, the complementary projection
to the support projection of 10)' Now PoC**Po C C** C M2(B)**, and it is well
known that M2(B)** ~ M2(B**) as COalgebras. Thus we may think of C** as
a C* subalgebra of .1112 (B**). Also, C'* contains C as a C* subalgebra, and the
projections 1 EEl 0 and 0 EEl 1 in C correspond to the matching diagonal projections
1 EEl 0 and 0 EEl 1 in M2(B**). These last projections therefore commute with Po,
since Po is central in C**, which immediately implies that Po is a diagonal sum
fEEl e of two orthogonal projections e, f E B**. Thus we may write the C* algebra
POM2(B**)po as the C*subalgebra
[ fB** f f B**e ]
eB** f eB*'e
of M2(B**). We said above that Clio may be regarded as a C*subalgebra of the
subalgebrapoM2(B**)po of M2(B*'). Thus the map "( induces a 11 *homomorphism
III : M2(C;(A)) + .!I1z(B**). It is easy to check that 1lI(1 EEl 0) = fEEl 0 and
III (0 EEl 1) = 0 EEl e. Since III is a *homomorphism it follows that III maps each of the
four corners of M 2(C;(A)) to the corresponding corner of POM2(B**)po C M2(B**).
We let R: C;(A) + fB**e be the restriction of III to the '12corner'. Since III is
11, it follows that R is 11. If 7r is the restriction of III to the '22corner', then 7r is
a *homomorphism C;(A) + eB**e taking lA to e. Applying the *homomorphism
94 DAVID P. BLECHER AND DAMON M. HAY
[~ ~][~ ~]=[~ ~]
we obtain that u = R(I) is a partial isometry, with u*u = 71"(1) = e. Similarly
uu* = f. A similar argument shows that R(a) = R(I)7I"(a) for all a E C;(A). Thus
u* R(a) = u*u7l"(a) = 7I"(a) for all a E C;(A).
 
Next, we observe that 111 takes the matrix z which is zero except for an a from
A in the 12corner, to the matrix w = Pocp(z)Po. Since cp(z) E C** and Po is in
the center of that algebra, we also have w = cp(z)Po = Pocp(z). Also w viewed as
a matrix in M2(B**) has zero entries except in the .12corner, which (by the last
sentence) equals
ff(;;) e = f(;;) e = ff(;;).
Also using these facts and a fact from the end of the last paragraph we have
... *  *
u*T() = R(I)*T() = (fT(I)e)*T() = eT(I) fT() = eT(I) T()e = u* R() = 71".
Thus
  
T()e = fT() = uu*T() = U7l"(')'
We have now also established most of (ii). One may deduce (iii) from (ii) by viewing
B c B** c B(H), and setting E = eH, and F = (uu*)H. We also need to use
facts from the proof above such as u*u = e. Clearly (iv) follows from (iii). As we
said above, we will not prove (v) here.
Claim: if e is the projection in (ii) above, then 1  e is the support projection
for a closed ideal I of a unital *subalgebra D of B. Equivalently (as stated at
the start of this section), there is a (positive increasing) contractive approximate
identity (bd for I, with bt ~ 1  e in the weak* topology. This claim shows that
1  e is an 'open projection' in B**, so that e is a closed projection, as will be
obvious to operator algebraists from [25] section 3.11 say. For our other readers we
note that for what comes later in our paper, one can replace the assertion about
closed projections in the statement of Theorem 3.1 (ii) with the statement in the
Claim above.
To prove the Claim, recall from our proof that Po = fEB e = Ie  Pi, where Pi
is the support projection for a closed ideal 10 of C. Thus Pi = (1  f) EB (1  e).
As stated at the start of Section 3, Pi is the weak* limit in C**, and hence also
in M 2(B**), of a contractive approximate identity (et) of 10, By the separate
weak* continuity of the product in a von Neumann algebra, it follows that the net
bt = (OEB l)et(OEB 1) has weak* limit (OEB I)Pl (OEB 1) = OEB (1 e). Viewing these as
expressions in B, the above says that bt ~ 1  e weak* in B* *. View (0 EB 1) C (0 EB 1)
as a *subalgebra D of B, and view (0 EB 1)10(0 EB 1) as a two sided ideal I in D. It
is easy to see that (bd is a contractive approximate identity of I. Thus it follows
that 1  e is the support projection of the ideal I. 0
Some applications of results such as Theorem 3.1 may be found in [6].
Next we discuss briefly the relation between our noncommutative characteri
zation of complete isometries (for example Theorem 3.1 above), and Theorem 1.3.
Our point is not to provide another proof for Theorem 1.3  the best existing proof
is certainly short and elegant. Rather we simply wish to show that the noncommu
tative result contains 1.3. Indeed Theorem 1.3 quite easily follows from Theorem
COMPLETE ISOMETRIES  AN ILLUSTRATION 95
3.1 (v). Since however we did not prove Theorem 3.1 (v), we give an alternate
proof.
COROLLARY 3.2. Let A, B be a unital function algebras, with B selfadjoint.
Then condition (ii) in Theorem 3.1 implies condition (A) in Theorem 1.3.
PROOF. By hypothesis, T()e = U1l"('), and u*u = e = 11"(1) so that u = u1l"(1) =
T(I)e. Thus eT(I)*T()e = u*U1l"(') = 11"(1)11"(') = 11", so that Ran 11" C eBe = Be
(note B** is commutative in this case). From [25] 3.11.10 for example, the 'closed
projection' e in B** corresponds to a closed ideal J in B whose support projection
is 1  e. Alternatively, to avoid quoting facts from [25], we will also deduce this
from the 'Claim' towards the end of the proof of Theorem 3.1. If I is the ideal
in that Claim, let J be the closed ideal in B generated by I. Since J = Bl, the
contractive approximate identity of I is a right contractive approximate identity of
J. Thus J has support projection 1  e too, by the first paragraph of Section 3
above.
By facts in the just quoted paragraph, we have a canonical unital 11 map
'11 : B / J ~ B** taking the equivalence class b + J of b E B to ebe. Indeed in this
commutative case we see by inspection that '11 is a *homomorphism from the C*
algebra B/J onto the C*subalgebra M = eBe of B**. Define O(a) = '111(1I"(a)),
this is a 11 *homomorphism A ~ B/J. Since 11"(1) = e, 0 is a unital map too.
Since uu* = u*u = e, u is unitary in M, and so 'Y = '111(U) is unitary in B/J.
Note also that T(a)e = '11(T(a) + J). Applying '11 1 to the equation T()e = U1l"('),
we obtain qJ(T(a)) = 'Y O(a), that is, condition (A) in Theorem 1.3. D
If one attempts to use the ideas above to find a characterization analogous to
condition (A) from Theorem 1.3 but in the noncommutative case, it seems to us
that one is inevitably led to a condition such as (v) in Theorem 3.1.
We address a paragraph to experts, on generalizations of the proof of Theorem
3.1. Consider a complete isometry between possibly nonunital C* algebras. Or
much more generally, suppose that T is a complete isometry from an operator space
X into a C* triple system W. One may form the so called 'linking C* algebra' of W,
with the identities of the 'left and right algebras of W' adjoined. Call this C'(W).
As in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we think of S(W) c .c'(W). Similarly, if Z is the
'triple envelope' of X (or if X = Z is already a C*algebra or C*triple system),
then we may consider S(X) C S(Z) c .c'(Z). As in the proof of Theorem 3.1 we
obtain firstly a unital complete isometry <I> : S(X) ~ S(T(X)) c .c'(Z), and then
a unital 11 *homomorphism 11" : .c'(Z) ~ .c'(W)**. By looking at the 'corners' of
11" we obtain projections e, f in certain second dual von Neumann algebras, so that
fT( )e is (the restriction to X of a completely isometric) a 11 triple morphism into
W**. In fact we have precisely such a result in [5] (see Section 2 there), but the key
point is that the new proof gives different projections e, f, which are more useful
for some purposes.
isometric and 'nice', and S is contractive and irrelevant. However at the present
time it looks to us unlikely that there ever will be such a result valid for general non
surjective isometries between general C* algebras. The chief evidence we present
for this assertion is the very nice complementary work of Chu and Wong [9] on
isometries (as opposed to complete isometries) T : A + B between COalgebras.
They show that for such T there is a largest projection p E B** such that T()p
is some kind of Jordan triple morphism. This appears to be the correct 'struc
ture theorem', or version of Kadison's theorem [11], for nonsurjective isometries.
However as they show, the 'nice piece' R = T()p is very often trivial (Le. zero),
and is thus certainly not isometric. Thus this approach is unlikely to ever yield a
characterization of isometries. A good example is A = M 2 , the smallest noncom
mutative C* algebra. Simply because A is a Banach space there exists, as in the
discussion in the first paragraph of our paper, a linear isometry of A into a C (K)
space. However it is easy to see that there is no nontrivial *homomorphism or
Jordan homomorphism from A into a commutative C* algebra. Such an isometry
is uninteresting, and this is perhaps because the interesting 'nice part' is zero. Thus
we imagine that the 'good noncommutative notions of isometry' are either complete
isometries or the closely related class of maps for which the piece T()p from [9] is
an isometry.
This leads to three questions. Firstly, can one independently characterize the
last mentioned class? Secondly, if T is a complete isometry, then is the projection p
in the last paragraph equal (or closely related) to our projection e above? Finally,
H. Pfitzner has remarked to us, there is already a gap between the isometry and
the 2isometry cases (not only isometries and complete isometries). It would be
interesting if there were a characterization of 2isometries.
References
[1] J. Araujo and J. J. Font, Linear isometries between subspaces of continuous functions, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), 413428.
[2] W. B. Arveson, Subalgebms ofC*algebms, Acta Math. 123 (1969), 141224; II, 128 (1972),
271308.
[3] D. P. Blecher, The Shilov boundary of an opemtor space, and the chamcterization theorems,
J. Funct. An. 182 (2001),280343.
[4] D. P. Blecher, E. G. Effros and V. Zarikian, Onesided MIdeals and multipliers in opemtor
spaces. 1. To appear Pacific J. Math.
[5] D. P. Blecher and D. Hay, Complete isometries into C* algebms,
http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/math.OA/0203182, Preprint (March '02).
[6] D. P. Blecher and L. E. Labuschagne, Logmodularity and isometries of opemtor algebms, To
appear, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc ..
[7] D. P. Blecher and C. Le Merdy, Opemtor algebms and their modules  an opemtor space
approach, To appear, Oxford Univ. Press.
[8] M. D. Choi and E.G. Effros, The completely positive lifting problem for Calgebms, Ann.
Math. 104 (1976), 585609.
[9] CH. Chu and NC. Wong, Isometries between C algebms, Preprint, to appear Revista
Matematica Iberoamericana.
[10] J. B. Conway, A Course in Opemtor Theory, AMS, Providence, 2000.
[11] E. G. Effros and Z. J. Ruan, Opemtor Spaces, Oxford University Press, Oxford (2000).
[12] R. J. Fleming and J. E. Jamison, Isometries on Banach spaces: function spaces, Book to
appear, CRC press.
[13] M. Hamana, Injective envelopes of opemtor systems, Pub!. R.I.M.S. Kyoto Univ. 15 (1979),
773785.
COMPLETE ISOMETRIES  AN ILLUSTRATION 97
[14] M. Hamana, Triple envelopes and Silov boundaries of operator spaces, Math. J. Toyama
University 22 (1999), 7793.
[15] W. Holsztynski, Continuous mappings induced by isometries of spaces of continuous func
tions, Studia Math. 24 (1966), 133136.
[16] K. Jarosz and V. Pathak, Isometries and small bound peturbations of function spaces, In
"Function Spaces", Lecture Notes in Pnre and Applied Math. Vol. 136, Marcel Dekker (1992).
[17] R. V. Kadison, Isometries of operator algebras, Ann. of Math. 54 (1951), 325338.
[18] E. Kirchberg, On restricted peturbations in inverse images and a description of normalizer
algebras in C*algebras, J. Funct. An. 129 (1995), 134.
[19] E. Kirchberg and S. Wassermann, C*algebras generated by operator systems, J. Funct.
Analysis 155 (1998), 324351.
[20] A. Matheson, Isometries into function algebras, To appear.
[21] M. Nagasawa, Isomorphisms between commutative Banach algebras with an application to
rings of analytic functions, Kodia Math. Sem. Rep. 11 (1959), 182188.
[22] W. P. Novinger, Linear isometries of subspaces of continuous functions. Studia Math. 53
(1975), 273276.
[23] V. I. Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and dilations, Pitman Research Notes in Math.,
Longman, London, 1986.
[24] V. I. Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and operator algebras, To appear Cambridge Uni
versity Press.
[25] G. Pedersen, C*algebras and their automorphism groups, Academic Press (1979).
[26] G. Pisier, Introduction to operator space theory, To appear Camb. Univ. Press.
[27] M. Rieffel, Morita equivalence for C*algebras and W*algebras, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 5
(1974), 5196.
[28] Z. J. Ruan, Subspaces ofC*algebras, Ph. D. thesis, U.C.L.A., 1987.
[29] E. L. Stout, The theory of uniform algebras, Bogden and Quigley (1971).
[30] C. Zhang, Representations of operator spaces, J. Oper. Th. 33 (1995), 327351.
CONTENTS
l. Introduction
2. Definitions and elementary properties
3. ialgebra multiplications in C (X)
4. Multiplication by an element as an operator
5. Uniform completion and Dedekind completion
6. Powers in ialgebras
7. Functional Calculus on falgebras
8. Relationships between ialgebra multiplications
9. Connection between algebra and Riesz homomorphisms
10. Positive derivations
11. CauchySchwarz inequalities
12. Order biduals
13. Ideal theory
14. Representation of falgebras
15. Linear biseparating maps on falgebras
References
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 06F25, 13J25, 16W80, 46A40, 46840, 46842,
46E25, 47L07, 47847, 47865.
Key words and phrases. almost Ialgebra, algebra homomorphism, Ialgebra, dalgebra, lat
tice ordered algebra, order ideal, orthomorphism, representation theory, Riesz homomorphism,
ring ideal, space of continuous functions, uniformly complete Riesz space.
The second named author gratefully acknowledges support from an Office of Naval Research
Grant with number N000140110322. Part of this survey was written while the first named
author was visiting the University of Mississippi in the Spring of 2002.
1. Introduction
ftehistory of lattice ordered vector spaces (so called Riesz spaces or vector
lattices) goes back to Riesz and the International Congress of Mathematicians in
Bologna in 1928. A study of the most important class of lattice ordered algebras
(but not their name), Jalgebras, was initiated by Nakano in [75] for aDedekind
complete ordered vector space in 1951, subsequently in 1953 by Amemiya in [3],
and finally with its present definition and name in 1956 by Birkhoff and Pierce
in [22]. A precise date for the very first definition of lattice ordered algebras in
general is very hard to pinpoint, but originated at around the same time as the
previous three references. Indeed, in his review [44] of Birkhoff's 1950 address to
the International Congress of Mathematicians in Cambridge, Massachusetts, Fl.ink
observed that a general study of lattice ordered rings seems to be needed to study
what are now called averaging or Reynolds operators. A call for lattice ordered
rings also had gone out by Birkhoff himself in the form of a listed problem at the
end of his seminal 1942 paper [20] on lattice ordered groups. Thus lattice ordered
algebras and Jalgebras seem to have multiple origins, including a study of averaging
operators, which themselves sprang forth from problems in fluid mechanics. An
appearance at about the same time of Jrings and Jalgebras has not resulted in
an historical development on complete common ground for these objects. This
is not unlike the development of lattice ordered groups versus the development
of Riesz spaces. Where the latter have attracted attention from researchers in
analysis, the former have been more widely investigated by algebraists. A similar
divided attention from analysis versus algebra seems to underlie the connected but
somewhat separate tracks of lattice ordered rings versus lattice ordered algebras.
Though this separation of tracks is to some extent unavoidable, where each track
does have ground that is truly its own, some overlap in results does exist, resulting
in difficulties making accurate literature attributions in a survey like ours. We are
grateful to two referees for pointing at some references that were missing in our
manuscript, though we take full responsibility for possible remaining omissions in
the reference list. This survey places itself almost completely on the track of lattice
ordered algebras and our only apology for not linking algebra facts in a systematic
way to ring results is that all three of us authors were trained as analysts. There is a
natural back and forth between the two theories, in one direction by forgetting some
of the structure, and in the other by finding, so to speak adjointly, an enveloping
algebra. A nice survey on Jrings was written by Henriksen in 1995 (see [50]),
to which we refer the interested reader for linkage to some of what follows in this
survey. Historically, a lot of the credit for a revival of the theory of Jalgebras
points to the highly motivating Arkansas Lecture Notes by Luxemburg [67] and the
1982 Ph.D. thesis of de Pagter [76], who systematically explored both the existing
literature as well as new directions. Another impetus to research in the area of
Jalgebras derived from the desire of Zaanen, who in the late seventies started to
develop a program to prove many of the elementary results in the theory of Riesz
spaces without using representation theorems for vector lattices. This desire is
directly linked with a preference not to use the Axiom of Choice unnecessarily. The
present survey is intended as an update to the one by Huijsmans [57]. We hasten
to point out that we do not intend this survey to replace the one by Huijsmans,
but rather that we think of it as augmenting part of it. Since [57] appeared,
much progress has been made and several of the problems explicitly phrased in
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 101
[57] have been solved. At the same time, some topics like ideal theory, connections
between Riesz homomorphisms and algebra homomorphisms, and representations
of falgebras were absent in [57]. Thus an update as well as a supplement was
needed. However, some sections of [57] receive no attention at all in this survey. We
have not included important topics like the role of falgebras in positive operator
theory (e.g., we do not even include results on the previously mentioned averaging
operators) and probability theory. We are rather focused on placing this update,
as much as possible, in the setting of spaces of functions, hoping to interest as
large an audience as possible via this approach. Moreover, we feel that the great
source of inspiration was and continues to be the beautiful book by Gillman and
Jerison [47], which certainly inspired and continues to inspire a large part of the
research in lattice ordered algebras and rings. Last but not least we focus on what
could be called distortions of falgebras, in particular on Archimedean almost f
algebras and dalgebras. Though these distortions have the potential to be seen as
aberrations by some, we believe they point the way to techniques that are needed
for the broader theory of lattice ordered algebras, as well as for illumination of
various aspects in the theory of falgebras. Note that the distortions disappear if
the lattice ordered algebra under consideration has a multiplicative identity which is
a weak order unit. Indeed, such algebras are automatically falgebras. It should be
mentioned that classes of lattice ordered algebras other than the ones that appear
in this survey have been studied. Notably, the papers [85], [86], [87], and [88] by
Steinberg discuss lattice ordered algebras in which every square is positive, a class
of algebras that includes all almost falgebras. We also pay no attention at all to
nonArchimedean lattice ordered algebras. Finally, we point out that several results
in this survey rely heavily on the (relative) uniform topology on Riesz spaces. In
particular, since in Archimedean Riesz spaces uniform limits are unique, we shall
include the 'Archimedean' property in the definition of uniformly complete Riesz
spaces. A complete investigation of that topology can be found in Sections 16 and
63 of [69].
For terminology and concepts not explained or proved in this survey we refer
the reader to the standards books [2], [47], [69], [72], [92] and [93].
holds. We call the Ealgebra A an almost falgebra after Birkhoff in [21, Section 6]
if
f /\ g = 0 ill A implies fg = O.
An Ealgebra A for which
is called a dalgebra. The notion of dalgebra goes back to Kudlacek in [65]. Our
focus in this survey on Ealgebras is almost exclusively on f algebras, almost f
algebras and dalgebras.
In this paragraph, we recall some properties of falgebras. Using the Axiom
of Choice, Birkhoff and Pierce in [22, Theorem 13] proved that any falgebra is
commutative. A constructive proof of this fact, due to Zaanen, can be found in [61,
Theorem 2.1] or [92, Theorem 140.10]. All squares in an falgebra are positive.
Also, Ifgl = Ifllgl for all f,g in an falgebra A. The multiplication by an element in
the f algebra A is order continuous, i.e., if inf {fT : T} = 0 in A then inf {g fT : T} =
o for all 9 E A +. Phrased more generally, the multiplication 7rf by an element
f E A (7rf (g) = f 9 for all 9 E A) is an orthomorphism and all orthomorphisms
are order continuous. Recall that an orthomorphism on a Riesz space L is an order
bounded linear operator 7r such that 17r (f)I/\ Igl = 0 whenever Ifl/\ Igl = 0 in L
(the reader is referred to [2] or [92] for elementary properties of orthomorphisms).
There is another important relationship between orthomorphisms and falgebras,
which we mention next. Indeed, let Orth (L) be the set of all orthomorphisms on
a Riesz space L. Under the operations and the ordering inherited from b (L), the
ordered algebra of all order bounded operators on L, and under composition as
multiplication, Orth (L) is an Archimedean falgebra with the identity map h on
L as unit element. The details of the facts recalled above can all be found in [2],
[76] or [92].
Next we present some properties of almost falgebras. Almost falgebras,
like falgebras, are commutative too. The latter fundamental property was first
established by Scheffold in [80, Theorem 2.1] for almost falgebras that are Banach
lattices. Using both Scheffold's result and the Axiom of Choice, Basly and Triki
were the first to prove commutativity for arbitrary almost falgebras [10, Thorme
1.1]. The first proof of the commutativity for almost falgebras within Zermelo
Fraenkel set theory was given by Bernau and Huijsmans in their paper [13, Theorem
2.15]. Recently, a shorter constructive proof was published in [34, Corollary 3] by
Buskes and van Rooij. Another property of falgebras holds for almost falgebras,
namely the positivity of squares. Also, if A is an almost falgebra then f2 = Ifl2
for all f E A. However, contrary to the order continuity of the multiplication in f
algebra..'l, the multiplication by a fixed element in an almost falgebra is not always
order continuous as is shown in the following example.
EXAMPLE 2.1. Write A = C ([0,1]), the vector space of all realvalued contin
uous functions on [0, 1]. With respect to the pointwise ordering (i. e., f :::; 9 in A if
an only if f (x) :::; 9 (x) for all x E [0,1]), A is an Archimedean Riesz space. Define
a multiplication in A by
{
f(x)g(x) (0 :::; x :::; 1/2) ;
(f. g)(x) = f (1/2) 9 (1/2) (1/2 :::; x :::; 1)
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 103
(~ g)
with the usual addition, scalar multiplication, matrix product and partial ordering.
It is not hard to see that A is an Archimedean dalgebra. But A is not commutative
and not all squares in A are positive. Indeed, if
p= (~ ~) and q = (~ ~)
then
pq =q and qp = O.
Moreover, the square
is not positive.
As for almost falgebras, multiplication by a fixed element in a dalgebra is,
in general, not order continuous. Point in case is the almost Ialgebra that we
considered in Example 2.1, which also is a dalgebra. Our main reference about
dalgebras is [13].
In what follows, we look at some of the connections between the three kinds of
ialgebras that we consider in this paper. It is immediate that any Ialgebra is both,
an almost falgebra and a dalgebra. Almost falgebras need not be dalgebras as
we see in the next example.
104 KARIM BOULABIAR, GERARD BUSKES, AND ABDELMAJID TRIKI
(f
9
)( ) _ {
x 
/,1X f(s)g(s)ds
1/2
(0::; x ::; 1/2);
() (x) f (x) 9 (x) (1/2::; x ::; 1).
Then A is an almost f algebra under the multiplication . However, A is not a
dalgebra. Indeed, let e, f in A be defined by
e(x)=l forallxE[O,l]
and
f (x) ={ 4x + 1 (0::; x ::; 1/2) ;
4x3 (1/2::;x::;1).
If  gl = If I Igl fails in A.
Since every almost f algebra is commutative and has positive squares, Example
2.2 shows that dalgebras need not be almost falgebras. However, if a dalgebra A
is commutative or has positive squares then A is automatically an almost falgebra
[22, p. 60]. Summarizing part of the relations, we have the following diagram
Using the previous result as a starting point, Boulabiar and Chil in [28, Corol
lary 3] proved that from amongst the extensions provided, A" can be equipped with
a commutative dalgebra multiplication whenever A is a commutative dalgebra.
Then in [37, Theorem 7], Chil wa.c; able to drop the commutativity condition and
prove the following theorem.
In summary, all but one of the problems concerning Dedekind completions that
Huijsmans raised in his survey paper [57] have now been solved. The remaining
problem, though admittedly outside the scope of this survey, is the following.
6. Powers in ialgebras
Let A be a uniformly complete ialgebra and let P E lR+ [Xl, ... , Xn] be a
homogeneous polynomial of degree a non zero natural number p. In their paper
[16]' Beukers and Huijsmans considered the following problem: does there exist
in A a 'pth root' of P(iI, ... ,fn) for iI, ... ,fn in A+? They gave an affirmative
answer in the case where A is a semiprime falgebra. More precisely, they prowd
the following theorem (see [16, Theorem 5]).
Note that the previous result was first proved for p = 2 in [17, Theorem 4.2
and Cororllary 4.3] by Beukers, Huijsmans and de Pagter. Also, it should be noted
that Theorem 6.1 above is proved alternatively by Buskes, de Pagter, and van Rooij
in [31, Corollary 4.11], a paper that deals with a more general functional calculus
on Riesz spaces and falgebrar; to which we will return in the next section. The
problem corresponding to Theorem 6.1 for almost falgebras was considered by
Boulabiar and follows next (see Theorem 3 in [24]).
THEOREM 6.3. Let A be a uniformly complete almost f algebra and let P E
jR+ [Xl, ... , Xn] be a homogeneous polynomial of degree a natural number p. Then
for every II, ... , fn E A+ there exists a (not necessarily unique) f E A+ such that
fP = P (II, ... , fn)
Observe that, where roots are unique in semiprime falgebras, this is no longer
always the case for almost falgebras. We illustrate this with an example.
EXAMPLE 6.4. Let A = C ([1,1]) be the uniformly complete Riesz space of all
realvalued continuous functions on [1, 1] and define w E A by
In what follows, we will investigate the order structure as well as the algebra struc
ture of Ap (since Al = A, we suppose that p ~ 2). The sets A2 and A3 were first
considered in [35] by Buskes and van Rooij and then in great detail by Boulabiar in
[24] from which we summarize the results in the following theorem (see Theorems
4, 5, and 6 in [24]).
THEOREM 6.5. Let A be a uniformly complete almost f algebra and let p ~ 3
be a natural number. Then Ap is a uniformly complete semiprime f algebra under
the ordering and multiplication inherited from A. The positive cone At of Ap is
defined by
110 KARIM BOULABIAR, GERARD BUSKES, AND ABDELMAJID TRIKI
(f _ g)(x) = { l x  1/2 0
f(s)g(s)ds (1/2 < x ~ 1).
(0 ~ x ~ 1/2);
o
Then A is a uniformly complete almost f algebra under the multiplication  and h
is an element of A2 if and only if h(x) = 0 for all x E [0,1/2] and the restriction of
h to [1/2,1] belong to C 1 ([1/2,1]). Hence A2 is not a Riesz space under the order
inherited from A.
For f, 9 E A, define
w(x)f(x)g(x) (l~x~O);
{
(f  g) (x) = 10/(S)g(S)ds (O~x~l).
In spite of the improvement in the conclusion of Corollary 6.8 over the con
clusion for the more general situation of almost falgebras, A2 still need not be
semiprime. This is illustrated in the next example.
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 111
EXAMPLE 6.9. Let A be the coordinatewise ordered vector space R3 with the
multiplication defined by:
A, ~{( n; R}
Then A is a uniformly complete commutative dalgebm and
X,Y E
and
(feg) (x) =f3(x)f(x)g(x)
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 115
"'(X)~{
3xI (1 ::=;x::=; 1/4);
x (I/4::=; x::=; 1/4);
3x+I (i/4::=;x::=;I)
and
~
0 (I::=;x::=;I/4);
4x+ 1 (I/4::=; x::=; 0);
oJ (x) { 4x+I (0::=;x::=;I/4);
0 (i/4::=;x::=;I).
Then
'Pxw=O and 'P. W =f:. O.
Therefore, there is no operator T satisfying the condition
f g = T (f x g) for all f, 9 E A.
We notice that the kind of relationships between two falgebra multiplications
via an operator T as above were first studied in [35] by Buskes and van Rooij. In
particular part (i) of the theorem above has its origins in [35, Theorem 1], where
a general representation theorem for almost falgebras (without any extra condi
tions) was proved by first dividing out the radical and then showing the existence
of an operator T a.'l above on the square (see the end of Section 6 above) of the
resulting falgebra, thus giving quantified credence to the almost part in the name
almost falgebras. They also used this representation to discover that the Dedekind
completion of an almost falgebra is an almost falgebra and to prove (CSP) for
almost falgebras. Finally, we should point out that the Buskesvan Rooij repre
sentation theorem for almost falgebras itself is, in a way, an abstract reformulation
of Theorem 3.2 by Scheffold that we discussed earlier.
We end this section with the following problem, left open in the above discus
sion.
PROBLEM 8.5. Let A be a uniformly complete commutative dalgebra and as
sume that A is a non comm'utative dalgebra with respect to another multiplication
. Does there exists a relationship between the two multiplications in A?
Riesz homomorphism between two Archimedean falgebras with unit elements that
preserves the identity is an algebra homomorphism. Later, van Putten established
the converse of the result by Hager and Robertson in his thesis [78]. The afore
mentioned results were generalized by Huijsmans and de Pagter in [59, Theorem
5.4] as follows.
THEOREM 9.1. Let A be an Archimedean falgebra with unit element e, B be
an Archimedean semiprime falgebra. and T : A > B be a positive operator. Then
the following are equivalent
(i) T is an algebra homomorphism.
(ii) T is Riesz homomorphism with (Te)2 = Te.
Notice that the previous theorem generalizes all of the facts cited above. In the
same paper [59], Huijsmans and de Pagter proved that., if A is an Archimedean f
algebra with unit element and B is an Archimedean semiprime falgebra then any
order bounded algebra homomorphism from A into B is automatically a Riesz ho
momorphism [59, Theorem 5.3]. Very recently in [91, Theorem 4.3], Triki obtained
this result in the more general setting of almost falgebras.
THEOREM 9.2. Let A be an Archimedean almost falgebra and let B be an
Archimedean semiprime f algebra. Then any order bounded algebra homomorphism
from A into B is a Riesz homomorphism.
Since any conmmtative dalgebra is automatically an almost falgebra, Theo
rem 9.2 holds if one replaces 'A is an Archimedean almost falgebra' by 'A is an
Archimedean commutative dalgebra'. However, in the recent. work [89], Toumi
proved that we have the same conclusion even if the dalgebra under consideration
is not commutative.
THEOREM 9.3. Let A be an arbitrary Archimedean dalgebra and let B be an
Archimedean semiprime falgebra. Then any order bounded algebra homomorphism
from A into B is a Riesz homomorphism.
Even for falgebras, the condition of order boundedness in Theorems 9.2 and
9.3 cannot be dropped as is shown in the following example.
EXAMPLE 9.4. Consider the set A of all real sequences u = {un} n>l for which
there exists a polynomial Pu E IR [X] and a natural number N such that Un =
Pu (n) for all n 2: N. Under the usual operations and partial ordering, A is an
Archimedean falgebra (and thus an almost falgebra and a dalgebra) and A is
not relatively uniformly complete. Define the algebra homomorphism T : A > IR by
T(u) = Pu (1) (u E A). For every A E [l,+po[, we define u), = {U),.n}n~l E A by
{ 0An (n ~ A);
u)',n = (n> A) .
lfu = {n 2 } n>l then 0 ~ u), ~ u for all A E [1, +00[. Observe now that T (1L),) = A.
Therefore T 1:s not order bounded and hence not a Riesz homomorphism.
In [59, Theorem 5.1], Huijsmans and de Pagter further illustrated the close
ties between Riesz homomorphisms and algebra homomorphisms on falgebras as
follows. If A and Bare semiprime falgebras and A is uniformly complete, then any
algebra homomorphism from A into B is a Riesz homomorphism. Their theorem
was generalized by Boulabiar in [27, Theorem 3] to the setting of almost falgebras.
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 117
and
D (1, 0) D (1, 0) = (0,1) =I (0,0) .
Theorem 10.2 above of course holds for commutative dalgebras as well. More
over, for commutative dalgebras the third power is the best possible too. Indeed,
the almost falgebra considered in Example 10.3 is in fact a commutative dalgebra.
and
11,b(f,g)21:s ~[(1jJ(f,f)1jJ(g,g))+('!/J(g,g)1jJ(f,f))]
and hence
11jJ(f,g)21:s (1jJ(f,f)'!/J(g,g)) V (l/J(g,g)'!/J(f,f))
for all f,g E V.
(where 7rf (g) = I g for all I, g E A) is an algebra and Riesz homomorphism (see
Section 4 above). An element I in A is said to be bounded if p (a) = 7ry. E Z (A),
where
Z(A) = {7r E Orth(A): 17r1::; >.IA for some real number A}
is the centre of A (Le., the principal order ideal generated by IA in Orth (A)). We
denote, after Triki (see [90]), the set of all bounded elements in A by Ab. Note
that rather than A b , Henrikscn and Johnson use A* in [53J after a similar usage in
Gillman and Jerison's book. Clearly, Ab is an Isubalgehra of A. The Ialgebra A
is said to be bounded if A = Ab, that is, if p (A) is a subset of Z (A). In particular,
a unital Ialgebra A is bounded if and only if its multiplicative identity is also a
strong order unit, and in this situation A and Z (A) are isomorphic as falgebras.
Here we recall that the identity element in an Archimedean unital falgebra is
a weak order unit (see [22, p. 60]). The equivalence of (i) and (ii) in the next
theorem is an immediate consequence of the definitions of an order ideal and a
bounded Archimedean Ialgebra, while for the proof of the rest of tllis theorem, we
refer to Theorem 3 in [l1J and Theorem 4 in [12J.
THEOREM 13.2. Let A be an Archimedean Ialgebra. Then the following are
equivalent.
(i) Every order ideal is a ring ideal.
(ii) A is bounded.
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 123
(iii) A is normal.
Then (i) '* '*
(ii) (iii). If, in addition A is uniformly complete then (i) {:} (ii) {:}
(iii) .
Next we focus on the non unital case, which was considered by Triki in [90].
First we define the notion of a stable falgebra. The falgebra A is said to be
stable if 1f (f) E (f) (where (f) is the principal ring ideal generated by f in A)
for all 1f E Z (A). It is clear that A is stable if and only if 1f (1) c I for all ring
ideals I in A and all 1f E Z (A). We now are in a position to present the result
corresponding to Theorem 13.5 for semiprime falgebras (see [90, Theorem 5.4]).
THEOREM 13.6. Consider the following conditions for an Archimedean scmi
prime f algebra A.
(i) Every ring ideal is an order ideal.
(ii) Every finitely generated ring ideal is a principal ring ideal.
(iii) A is stable and normal, and {f+} d or {f} d is a modular ring ideal for
all f E A.
Then (i) '* '*
(ii) (iii). Furthermore, if A is in addition uniformly complete then
(i) :> (ii) {:} (iii).
We proceed to the non semiprime case (see Theorem 5.5 in [90]).
THEOREM 13.7. Let A be a non semiprime Archimedean falgebra. Then the
following are equivalent.
(i) Every ring ideal is an orner zdeal.
(ii) There exist a semiprime falgebra B such that
(a) every 7ing ideal in B is an order ideal, and
(b) {b} d is a modular ring ideal in B for every b E H, so that A is
isomorphic to the f algebra B x JR endowed with the multiplication
defined by (f, 0:) (g, 13) = (fg,O) for all i, g E B; 0:, 13 E JR.
Finally, note that the only ialgebras that we have considered in this section
are ialgebras. Indeed, a Problem (PI) for more general ialgebras is futile since
an ialgebra in which every order ideal is a ring ideal automatically is an falgebra
(see Page 144 in the classical book [42] or Proposition 1 in [12]). The situation
for Problem (P2) is less clear. Indeed, in matrix algebras and algebras of formal
power series in one variable, when ordered coordinatewise, every ring ideal is an
order ideal. Thus we phrase Problem (P2) for lattice ordered algebras in general.
PROBLEM 13.8. Study Problem (P2) for Archimedean ialgebras other than
ialgebras.
ideals and ring ideals coincide in Ab (see Theorem 13.2). It turns out that under
the latter hypothesis, A b has a nice representation as a space of functions. This
kind of a representation then is precisely the topic of this section.
First assume that A has an identity element (Le., A is a <T?algebra in the
HenriksenJohnson terminology of [53]). The set of all maximal (ideals in A will
be denoted by M (A). For any subset D of M (A), the kernel k (D) of Dis
k (D) = n {M : M E D}
(where it is understood that k (0) = A). The hull h (I) of an (ideal I in A is
h(I) = {M E M (A): I c M}.
The subset D of M (A) is said to be closed if D = h (k (D)).
One thus defines the
hullkernel (or Stone) topology on M (A). It turns out that M (A) with respect to
this hullkernel topology is a compact Hausdorff space (see [53, Theorem 2.3]). Sup
pose at this point that A is in addition uniformly complete (instead of 'uniformly
complete', Henriksen and Johnson in [53] use 'uniformly closed') and denote the
identity element of A bye. Since A is unital, Ab is precisely the principal order
ideal generated bye. Also recall that A and Orth (A) are isomorphic as falgebra
under the given condition. As usual, the falgebra of all realvalued continuous
functions on the compact Hausdorff space M (A) is denoted by C (M (A)). Hen
riksen and Johnson in [53, 3.2, p. 84] proved, using the StoneWeierstrass theorem,
the following variant of Stone's representation theorem.
THEOREM 14.1. Let A be a uniformly complete falgebra with identity element
e. Then Ab and C (M (A)) are isomorphic as falgebras. In particular, if e is a
strong order unit in A then A and C (M (A)) are isomorphic as falgebras.
The latter result can of course also be obtained via Kakutani's representation
theorem. Indeed, being the principal order ideal in A generated bye, Ab is a
uniformly complete Riesz space with e as a strong order unit. It follows that Ab is
an Mspace with respect to the Mnorm 11.ll e defined by
IIflle = inf {A > 0 : If I :'S Ae} for all f E A
(see [72, Proposition 1.2.13]). Kakutani's representation theorem (see, for instance,
[72, Theorem 2.1.3]) guarantees the existence of a compact Hausdorff space 0
so that Ab and C (0) are isomorphic as falgebras and isometric as Mspaces.
From an investigation of the cited proof of Kakutani's theorem, we see that 0 is
the set of all algebra homomorphisms from Ab onto JR, or, equivalently, the set
of all real valued Riesz homomorphisms that send e to 1. With respect to the
weak topology a ((Abf ,Ab), where (Ab)'" is the order dual of Ab, the set 0 is a
a ((Ab)'" ,Ab)compact Hausdorff space. In view of Theorem 13.2, we observe that
o is homeomorphic to M (Ab) and then to M (A) since M (Ab) and M (A) are
also homeomorphic (see [53, Corollary 2.8]). We thus recover Theorem 13.1 above.
The reader should also compare the above with Gelfand theory for Banach algebras
[94].
We proceed to representation theorems for non unital falgebras. For the
terminology and notations concerning the topological spaces under consideration,
we refer the reader to the book [47] by Gillman and Jerison. The following two
theorems deal with semiprime falgebras (see Theorems 7.2 and 7.9 in [90]).
126 KARIM BOULABIAR, GERARD BUSKES, AND ABDELMAJID TRIKI
Our next representation theorem represents non semiprime falgebras (see [90,
Theorem 7.10]).
THEOREM 14.4. Let A be a uniformly complete non semiprime falgebra A.
Then the following are equivalent.
(i) Every ring ideal in A is an order ideal in A.
(ii) There exists a locally compact F'space 0 such that Ab is 'isomorphic as
an f algebra to the Cartesian product Co (0) x JR, where the multiplication
in the falgebra Co (0) x JR is defined by
(1,.x) (g, J.t) = (1g,O) for all f, g E Co (0) and.x, J.t E JR.
Note that the topological spaces 0 in Theorem 14.2 and in Theorem 14.4 are
constructed in the same way as follows: for the uniformly complete falgebra A
(semiprime or not), the centre Z (A) is a uniformly complete falgebra and its
multiplicative identity IA is a strong order unit. According to Theorem 14.1, Z (A)
is isomorphic as an falgebra to the falgebra C (M (Z (A))) of all realvalued
continuous functions on the compact Hausdorff topological space M (Z (A)) (the
set of all maximal fideals in Z (A)). It turns out that
0= u {coz (1) : f E C (M (Z (A)))).
In a similar way, the topological spaces 0 1 and O2 in Theorem 14.3 are constructed
from a certain uniformly complete fsubalgebra of A (for more information, we
refer to [90]).
We end this section with two comments. Observe that representation theorems
listed in this section apply to Ab and not to the whole falgebra A. What one can
say about A itself is the following. If A is unital then A can be embedded as an
falgebra into an algebra of extended functions on M (A) [53, Theorem 2.3], and if
A is semiprime then A can be considered as an fsubalgebra of M (Orth (A)) (recall
that if A is semiprime then A can be considered as an fsubalgebra of Orth (A)).
In addition, the representation theorems that we presented in this section are not
necessarily excessively restrictive due to the previously mentioned fact about trans
ference of various properties of Ab to A.
Our final comment about representing lattice ordered algebras deals with a
matter of set theory. Zaanen started an ambitious program at around 1980, in
tending to prove all available material in vector lattices in as far as possible in an
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 127
which holds in any semiprime Ialgebra. For the same reason, the linear map T
between two I algebras with multiplicative identity is biseparating if and only if T is
adisomorphism (Le., T is bijective and both T and T 1 are disjointness preserving)
The reader is encouraged to consult the beautiful memoir [1 J by Abramovich and
Kitover for the theory of disjointness preserving linear maps on Riesz spaces.
The study of when linear biseparating maps on algebras of real or complex
valued continuous functions are weighted isomorphisms started in 1990 with the
paper [63J by Jarosz and culminated in the work [5J by Araujo, Beckenstein and
Narici with the following result. Let C (X) and C (Y) be the algebras of real or
complex valued continuous functions on completely regular topological spaces X
and Y, respectively. If T is a linear biseparating map then there exist a non
vanishing wEe (Y) and an homeomorphism h from the realcompactification vX
of X onto v Y, such that
T (f) (y) = w (y) I (h (y)) for all lEe (X) and y E Y.
Henriksen and Smith in [55J explored the aforementioned result by Araujo, Becken
stein and Narici in the more general setting of unital Ialgebras. They proved that
every positive linear biseparating map T between two unital Ialgebras A and B
closed under inversion is a weighted isomorphism, that is, there exist an invertible
wEB and a Riesz isomorphism S : A > B which is simultaneously an algebra
isomorphism, such that
T (f) = wS (f) for all lEA.
Very recently in [30J, Boulabiar, Buskes, and Henriksen extended the latter result
to all order bounded linear biseparating maps on arbitrary (not necessarily closed
under inversion) unital Ialgebras over the reals as well as over the complex numbers
(for the theory of complex Ialgebras, we refer to [17]). The theorem they obtained
is the following.
THEOREM 15.1. Let A and B be (real or complex) Ialgebras with unit elements,
and let T : A > B be an order bounded linear biseparating map. Then T is a
weighted isomorph'ism.
In the previously mentioned memoir by Abramovich and Kitover, we find the
following theorem. A disomorphism between two uniformly complete Riesz spaces
A and Jyf is automatically order bounded as soon as every universally acomplete
projection band in A is essentially onedimensional (see [1, Corollary 15.3]). This
theorem is used in [30], under the same condit.ions on A, to show that every linear
biseparating map between two uniformly complete Ialgebras A and B is a weighted
isomorphism. We point out that a complex Ialgebra is by definition uniformly
complete. Thus the phrase 'uniformly complete unital Ialgebra' is understood
to mean either a uniformly complete unital I algebra over the reals, or simply a
unital Ialgebra over the complex numbers. For t.he proof of the next theorem, see
Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 5.2 in [30J.
THEOREM 15.2. Let A and B be unilormly complete unital I algebras and as
sume that every universally acomplete projection band in A is essentially one
dimensional. Then every linear biseparating map from A onto B is order bounded
and then a weighted 'isomorphism.
To obtain the result by Araujo, Beckenstein and Narici cited above as a con
sequence of the preceding theorem, Boulabiar, Buskes and Henriksen proved t.hat
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 129
complete (and then uniformly complete) unital ialgebra Lo ([0, 1]) of all equiva
lence classes of measurable functions on [0,1)' which is not order bounded and thus
cannot be a weighted isomorphism.
References
[1] Abramovich, Y. A. and A. K. Kitover, Inverses of disjointness preserving operators, Memoirs
Amer. Math. Soc., 143 (2000), no 679.
[2] Aliprantis. C. D. and O. Burkinshaw. Positive Operators. Academic Press, Orlando, 1985.
[3] Amemiya, I., A general spectral theory in semiordered linear spaces, J. Fac. Sci. Hokkaido
Univ. Ser I, 12 (1953), 111156.
[4] Anderson, F. W., Latticeordered rings of quotients, Canad. J. Math., 17 (1965), 434448.
[5] Araujo, J., E. Beckenstein and L. Narici, Biseparating maps and homeomorphic real
compactifications, J. Math. Ana. Appl., 12 (1995), 258265.
[6] Arens. R, Operations induced in function classes. Monatshelte Math., 55 (1951), 119.
[7] Arens, R, The adjoint of bilinear operation, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 2 (1951), 839848.
[8] Arens, R. and J. L. Kelley, Characterizations of the space of continuous functions over a
compact Hausdorff space, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 62 (1947), 499502.
[9] Banaschewski, B., The Prime Ideal Theorem and representations of Irings, Algebra Univ., 25
(1988), 384387.
[10] Basly, M. and A. Triki, F Falgebres Achimediennes, Preprint.
[11] Basly, M. and A. Triki, Ialgebras in which order ideals are ring ideals, Indag. Math. 50
(1988), 231234.
[12] Basly, M. and A. Triki, On uniformly closed ideals in Ialgebras, 2nd Conlerence, Functions
spaces, Marcel Dekker (1995), 2933.
[13] Bernau, S. and Huijsmans, C. B., Almost Ialgebras and dalgebras, Math. Proc. Cambridge.
Phil. Soc. 107 (1990), 287308.
[14] Bernau, S. J. and C. B. Huijsmans, The order bidual of Almost Ialgebras and dalgebras,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 347 (1995), 42594274.
[15] Bernau, S. J. and C. B. Huijsmans, The Schwarz inequality in Archimedean Ialgebras, Indag.
Math. 7 (1996), 137148.
[16] Beukers, F. and C. B. Huijsmans, Calculus in Ialgebras, J. Austral. Math. Soc. (Ser. A) 37
(1984), 110116
[17] Beukers, F., C. B. Huijsmans and B. de Pagter, Unital embedding and complexification of
Ialgebras, Math, Z., 183 (1983), 131144.
[18] Bigard, A. and K. Keimel, Sur les endomorphismes conservant les polaires d'un groupe reticule
archimedien, Bull. Soc. Math. France, 97 (1969), 381398.
[19] Bigard, A., K Keimel and S. Wolfenstein, Groupes et Anneaux Reticules. Lecture Notes in
Math. vo!' 608, Springer Verlag, 1977.
[20] Birkhoff, G., Lattice ordered groups, Annals of Math., 43 (1942), 298331
[21] Birkhoff, G., Lattice Theory, 3rd Edition. Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Pub!. no. 25, American
Mathematical Society 1967.
[22] Birkhoff, G. and R S. Pierce. Latticeordered rings, An. Acad. Brasil. Cienc. 28 (1956),
4169
[23] Boulabiar, K., A relationship between two almost Ialgebra products, Algebra Univ., 43
(2000), 347367
[24] Boulabiar, K, Products in almost Ialgebras, Comment. Math. Univ. Carolinae, 41 (2000),
747759.
[25] Boulabiar, K, A representation theorem for drings, Submitted.
[26] Boulabiar, K, Positive derivations on almost Irings, To appear in Order.
[27] Boulabiar, K, On positive orthosymmetric bilinear maps, Submitted.
[28] Boulabiar, K and E. Chi!, On the structure of almost Ialgebras, Demonstratio Math., 34
(2001), 749760.
[29] Boulabiar, K and M. A. Toumi, Lattice bimorphisms on Ialgebras, Algebra Univ. 48 (2002),
103116.
[30] Boulabiar, K., Buskes, G. and Henriksen, M., A Generalization of a Theorem on Biseparating
Maps, To appear in J. Math. Ana. Appl.
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 131
[31] Buskes, G., B. de Pagter and A. van Rooij, Functional calculus on Riesz spaces, Indag. Math.,
2 (1991),423436.
[32] Buskes, G. and A. van Rooij, Riesz spaces and Ultrafilter Theorem, Compositio Math. 83
(1992), 311327.
[33] Buskes, G. and A. van Rooij, Small Riesz spaces, Math. Proc. Cambridge Phil. Soc., 105
(1989), 523536.
[34] Buskes, G. and A. van Rooij, Almost Ialgebras: commutativity and CauchySchwarz in
equality, Positivity, 4 (2000), 227231.
[35] Buskes, G. and A. van Rooij, Almost Ialgebras: structure and the Dedekind completion,
Positivity, 4 (2000), 233243.
[36] Buskes, G. and A. van Rooij, Squares of Riesz spaces, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 31 (2001),
4556.
[37] Chil, E., Structure and Dedekind completion of dalgebras, Submitted.
[38] Conrad, P., The additive group of an Iring. Canad. J. Math. 25 (1974), 11571168.
[39] Conrad, P. and J. Diem, The ring of polar preserving endomorphisms of an abelian lattice
ordered group, Illinois J. Math., 17 (1971), 222240.
[40] Colville, P., G. Davis and K. Keimel, Positive derivations on Irings, J. Austral. Math. Soc.
23 (1977) 371375.
[41] Ellis, A. J., Extreme positive operators, Quart. J. Math. Oxlord, 15 (1964), 342344
[42] Feldman, D. and M. Henriksen, IRings, subdirect products of totally ordered rings, and the
Prime Ideal, Indag. Math., 50 (1998), 121126.
[43] Fremlin, D. H., Tensor products of Archimedean vector lattices, Amer. J. Math. 94 (1972),
778798.
[44] Frink, 0., MR 13,718c, Review of Birkhoff's 1950 address to the International Congress of
Mathematicians in Cambridge, Massachusetts
[45] Fuchs, L., Partially Ordered Algebraic Systems, Pergamon Press, OxfordLondonNew York
Paris, 1963.
[46] Grobler, J. J., Commutativity of the Arens product in lattice ordered algebras, Positivity, 3
(1999), 357364.
[47] Gillman, L. and M. Jerison, Rings 01 Continuous Functions, Springer Verlag, Berlin
HeidelbergNew York, 1976.
[48] Hager, A. W., and L. C. Robertson, Representing and ringifying a Riesz space, Symposia
Math., 21 (1977), 411431.
[49] Henriksen, M., Semiprime ideals of Irings, Symposia Math., 21 (1977), 401409.
[50] Henriksen, M., A survey of Irings and some of their generalizations, Ordered algebraic struc
tures, Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht, (1997), 126.
[51] Henriksen, M., and J. R. Isbell, Latticeordered rings and functions spaces, Pacific J., 12
(1962), 533565.
[52] Henriksen, M., S. Larson and F. A. Smith, When is every order ideal a ring ideal?, Comment.
Math. Univ. Carolinae, 32 (1991) 411416.
[53] Henriksen, M. and D. G. Johnson, On the structure of a class of archimedean latticeordered
algebras, Fund. Math. 50 (1961), 7394.
[54] Henriksen, M. and F. A. Smith, Some properties of positive derivations on Irings, Ordered
fields and real algebraic geometry, Contemp. Math., 8, Amer. Math. Soc., (1982), 175184.
[55] Henriksen, M. and F. A. Smith, A look at biseparating maps from an algebraic point of view,
Real Algebraic Geometry and Ordered Structures, Contemp. Math., 253, Amer. Math. Soc.,
(2000), 125144.
[56] Huijsmans, C. B., The order bidual of lattice ordered algebras II, J. Operator Theory 22
(1989), 277290
[57] Huijsmans, C. B., Lattice ordered algebras and Ialgebras: A survey, in: Studies in Economic
Theory 2, Positive Operators, Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1991.
[58] Huijsmans, C. B. and B. de Pagter, Ideal theory in Ialgebras, Trans. A mer. Math. Soc. 269
(1982), 225245.
[59] Huijsmans, C. B. and B. de Pagter, Subalgebras and Riesz subspaces of an Ialgebra, Proc.
London, Math. Soc., 48 (1984), 161174.
[60] Huijsmans, C. B. and B. de Pagter, The order bidual of lattice ordered algebras, J. Funct.
Anal., 59 (1984), 4164.
132 KARIM BOULABIAR, GERARD BUSKES, AND ABDELMAJID TRIKI
[61] Huijsmans, C. B. and B. de Pagter, Averaging operators and positive contractive projections,
J. Math. Ana. Appl., 113 (1986), 163184.
[62] Ionesco Tulcea, A. and C. Ionesco Tulcea, On the lifting property I, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 3
(1961), 537546.
[63] Jarosz, K., Automatic continuity of separating linear isomorphisms, Bull. Canadian Math.
Soc., 33 (1990), 139144.
[64] Johnson, D. G., The completion of an archimedean Iring, J. London Math. Soc, 40 (1965),
493493.
[65] Kudhicek, V., On some types of Rrings. Sb. Vysoke. Ucen{ Tech. Bmo 12 (1962), 179181.
[66] Lambek, J. Lectures on Rings and Modules, Blaisdell, 1966.
[67] Luxemburg, W. A. J., Some Aspects 01 the Theory 01 Riesz Spaces, Univ. Arkansas Lecture
Notes Math. 4, Fayetteville, 1979
[68] Luxemburg, W. A. J., A remark on a paper by D. Feldman and M. Henriksen concerning the
definition of Irings, Nederl. Akad. Wetensch. Indag. Math., 50 (1998), 127130.
[69] Luxemburg, W. A. J. and A. C. Zaanen, Riesz spaces I, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1971.
[70] Lozanovsky, G., The functions of elements of vector lattices, Izv. Vyssh. Uchebn. Zaved.
Mat., 4 (1973), 4554.
[71] Martinez, J. The maximal ring of quotient Iring. Algebra Univ . 33 (1995), 355369.
[72] MeyerNieberg, P., Banach Lattices, Springer Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York, 1991.
[73] Misra, P. R., On isomorphism theorems for C(X), Acta. Math. Acad. Sci. Hungar., 39 (1982),
179180.
[74] Nagasawa, M., Isomorphisms between commutative Banach algebras with an application to
rings of analytic functions, Kodai Math. Semin. Rep., 11 (1959), 182188.
[75] Nakano, H., Modern Spectral Theory, Tokyo Math. Book Series II, Maruzen, Tokyo, 1950.
[76] de Pagter, B., Ialgebras and orthomorphisms (Thesis, Leiden, 1981).
[77] Phelps, R. R., Extremal operators and homomorphisms, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 108
(1963), 265274.
[78] van Putten, B., Disjunctive linear operators and partial multiplication in Riesz spaces, (The
sis, Wageningen, 1980).
[79] Quinn, J., Intermediate Riesz spaces, Pacific J. Math., 56 (1975), 225263.
[80] Scheffold, E., FFBanachverbandsalgebren, Math. Z., 177 (1981),193205.
[81] Scheffold, E., Der Bidual von FBanachverbandsalgebren, Acta Sci. Math., 55 (1991), 167
179.
[82] Scheffold, E., Uber Bimorphismen und das ArensProdukt bei kommutativen D
Banachverbandsalgebren, Preprint.
[83] Scheffold, E., Uber den ordnungsstetigen Bidual von FFBanachverbandsalgebren, Arch.
Math., 60 (1993), 473477.
[84] Steinberg, S. A., Quotient rings of a class of latticeordered rings, Can. J. Math., 25 (1973),
627645.
[85] Steinberg, Stuart A. On the unitability of a class of partially ordered rings that have squares
positive. J. Algebra 100 (1986), no. 2, 325343.
[86] Steinberg, Stuart A. On latticeordered algebras that satisfy polynomial identities. Ordered
algebraic structures (Cincinnati, Ohio, 1982), 179187, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math.,
99, Dekker, New York, 1985.
[87] Steinberg, Stuart A. Unital $l$prime latticeordered rings with polynomial constraints are
domains. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 276 (1983), no. 1, 145164.
[88] Steinberg, Stuart A. On latticeordered rings in which the square of every element is positive.
J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A 22 (1976), no. 3, 362370.
[89] Toumi, M. A., On some Isubalgebras of dalgebras, To appear in Math. Reports
[90] Triki, A., Stable Ialgebras, Algebra Univ., 44 (2000) 6586.
[91] Triki, A., On algebra homomorphisms in complex almost Ialgebras, Comment. Math. Univ.
Carolinae, 43 (2002), 2331.
[92] Zaanen, A. C., Riesz Spaces II, North Holland, AmsterdamNew YorkOxford, 1983.
[93] Zaanen, A. C., Introduction to Operator Theory in Riesz Spaces, Springer Verlag, Berlin,
1997.
[94] Zelazko, W., Banach algebras, Elsevier, AmsterdamLondonNew York, 1973.
LATTICE ORDERED ALGEBRAS 133
Eggert Briem
1. Introduction
Let X be a compact Hausdorff space and B a uniformly closed subspace of CIR(X),
the space of all continuous realvalued functions on X, which separates the points of
X and contains the constant functions. A version of the StoneWeierstrass theorem
says that if b2 E B for all b E B then B = CIR(X). Clearly this result does not
hold if, instead of assuming that B is uniformly closed, one assumes that B is a
Banach space in some norm which dominates the supnorm, as the example of any
nontrivial real Banach function algebra shows. However, if B is the real part of
a uniform algebra, a theorem of J. Wermer says that if b2 E B for all b E B then
B = CIR(X).
Let us say that a realvalued function h, defined on an interval I of the real line,
operates on B if hob E B whenever b E Band b maps X into I. Thus b2 E B for
all bE B means that h(t) = t 2 operates on B. The StoneWeierstrass theorem W8.',
generalized by K. de Leeuw and Y. Katznelson (see [4], theorem 4.21), they showed
that h(t) = t 2 can be replaced by any continuous nonaffine function (Le. a function
not ofthe type h(t) = o:t+!3) defined on an interval, and the theorem of J. Wermer
was similarily generalized by A. Bernard, S. Sidney and O. Hatori [1], [5] and [8].
Here one can even do without the continuity assumption, a function operating on
the real part of a uniform algebra of infinite dimension is automatically continuous.
135
136 EGGERT BRIEM
In the case where X is locally compact, the functional calculus for a uniformly
closed subspace of Co(X, JR), the space of all continuous realvalued functions van
ishing at infinity on X, may be nontrivial (cf. [2]). What then about the real part of
a uniformly closed subalgebra of Co(X), the space of all continuous complexvalued
functions vanishing at infinity on X? Wermer's theorem, [10], clearly applies to
this situation. It turns out that the functional calculus for the real part of a uni
formly closed subalgebra, which is not a C* algebra, of Co(X) is trivial. This result,
which is due to O. Hatori, is to be found in [7]. To prove this one has to do more
than just adapt the proofs for the compact case to the locally compact situation.
The purpose of this paper is to give a simple alternative proof using antisymmetric
decomposition of uniform algebras.
2. Proofs and results
Let X be a locally compact Hausdorff space and let Xl denote the onepoint
compactification of X, with Xoo denoting the point at infinity. The functions in
Co(X) have a natural extension to functions in C(Xl)' the space of all continuous
complexvalued functions on Xl. If A is a uniformly closed subalgebra of Co(X),
that separates the points of X and does not vanish identically at any point of X,
then Al = AEI1C is a uniformly closed subalgebra of C(Xd that separates the points
of Xl and contains the contant functions and A = {a E All a(x oo ) = O}. Thus,
we can assume that there is a uniformly closed subalgebra Al of C(Xd containing
the constant functions, where Xl is compact, and a point Xoo in Xl, such that A
is obtained by restricting the functions in the set {a E Al Ia(x co ) = O} to the set
X = Xl \ {xoo}.
We need some results from the theory of uniform algebras. A subset E of Xl is a
set of antisymmetry for Al if the only functions in Al that are realvalued on E are
constant functions. Maximal sets of antisymmetry are closed generalized peak sets
(intersections of peak sets), they form a partition of Xl and a continuous complex
valued function f on Xl is in Al if and only if its restriction to each maximal
set of antisymmetry E is in the space AIlE of restrictions of functions in Al to
E. Thus Al(Xd = C(Xd if and only if each maximal set of antisymmetry is a
singleton. Also, AIlE is uniformly closed for each maximal set of antisymmetry,
there is actually for each a in AIlE an element a' in Al with a' = a on E and
II a' 1100=11 a llco,(E). (The latter norm is the supnorm w.r.t E). This material can
f. ex. be found in [3].
If Al is the disc algebra on the closed unit disc in the complex plane and A is
the algebra of functions vanishing at the origin, then any nonzero function in A
takes real values of opposite signs in any neighbourhood of O. Thus any realvalued
function, defined on an interval which is not a neighbourhood of 0, operates trivially
on Re A. We shall therefore always assume that the interval on which an operating
function is defined is a neighbourhood of O.
We can now state the main result of this note.
THEOREM 1. Let A be a uniformly closed subalgebra of Co(X) which separates
the points of X and does not vanish identically at any point in X and let Re A be
the space of real parts of functions in A. If Re A has a nonaffine operating function
h: I ........ JR where I, an interval, is a neighbourhood of 0, then Re A = Co(X, JR) and
thus also A = Co(X).
ALGEBRAS ON LOCALLY COMPACT SPACES 137
The first step in the proof of Theorem 1 is to show that operating functions are
continuous. To prove this we need the following lemma.
LEMMA 1. Let E be a maximal set of antisymmetry for A1 and let b E Re A.
Then b(E) is either an interval or a singleton.
Proof. Suppose b(E) is not connected, and that b = Rea for some a in A 1. Then
we can find two disjoint closed rectangles Ro and R1 in the complex plane such
that a(E) is a subset of Ro u R1 but not a subset of anyone of the two rectangles.
By Runge's theorem there is sequence of polynomials (Pn) converging uniformly to
o on Ro and to 1 on R 1. Since AdE is uniformly closed, the sequence (Pn 0 a)
converges on E to an element of A1IE. But the sequence converges on E to a
function which takes only the values 0 and 1, contradicting the fact that E is a set
of antisymmetry. 0
LEMMA 2. Let E be a maximal set of antisymmetry for A 1 such that E\ {xoo } =I 0.
Then there is an Xo E E such that for every to E I (resp. to in the interior of I),
there exists bo E ReA with bo(xo) = to and bo(X) C I (resp. bo(X) is a subset of
the interior of I).
Proof. If to = 0, the existence of the desired function is easily proved. We
consider the case where to > O. (The proof for the case to < 0 is similar.) Let
Xo be a generalized peak point in E, other than x oo , for A 1 Simple calculations
show that we can take 1 E A with I(xo) = 11/1100 = 1. Let c: be a positive number
such that (2c:, to] C I (resp. (2c:, to] is a subset of the interior of I), and R the
closed rectangle with corners c: i and to i. Let <p be a conformal map from the
open unit disc onto the interior of R with <p(0) = O. By Carath6dory's theorem <p
can be extended to a homeomorphism from the closed unit disc onto R. We may
assume that <p(1) = to. By Runge's theorem <p can be uniformly approximated
on the closed unit disc by polynomials {Pn} with Pn(O) = 0, and thus Pn 0 f E A
converges uniformly to <p 0 I. Then Re <p 0 1 is the desired function. 0
Proof. We are assuming that X is locally compact and not compact so that
h(O) = o. We may assume that h is continuous by Proposition 1. Let us first look at
the case where h is a polynomial of degree at most three in some neighbourhood of 0
but not affine there. Then bed E Re A for all b, e, d E Re A and hence fb E cl(Re A)
for all b E cl(Re A) and all f in the algebra generated by Re A. Here cl(Re A)
denotes the uniform closure of Re A. It follows that
Co(X,JR) cl(ReA) ~ cl(ReA)
and hence ReA is dense in Co(X,JR).
Suppose first that h is affine in some neighbourhood ofO. Replacing h by h(t),t
we may assume that h = 0 in a neighbourhood of o. Put e = tC; l bo.
For bEReA, r,t E JR and '{) E CO'(JR) the function
J h 0 (rb o + tb  se)'{)(s)ds
is in cl(Re A) if r is close to 1, t is close to 0 and the support of'{) is contained in a
small neighbourhood of 0, so that the expression above is defined. We differentiate
twice w.r.t. 0, put t = 0 to obtain
for all bEReA. (If le(x)1 is small the expression is 0.) Put
d= J h 0 (rb o  se)'{)"(s)ds.
We have
d(xo) = J h 0 (rto  s)'{)"(s)ds = (h * '{))"(rto).
Since h is not affine in any neighbourhood of to we can choose '{) and r, where the
support of'{) is contained an arbitrarily small neighbourhood of 0 and r is arbitrarily
close to 1 such that d(xo) '" O. Let
Xo = {x E Xld(x) '" O}.
Since b2 e 2 d E cl(Re A) for all b E Re A it follows that
b1 ,b2 e 2 d E cl(ReA)
for all b1 , b2 E Re A. Put
M(ReA) = {J E Co(X,JR) If cl(ReA) ~ cl(ReA)}.
Above we have be 2 d
E M(ReA) for bEReA. Since these functions separate the
points of Xo and since M(ReA) is an algebra we deduce that cl(ReA) contains
every f E Co(X,JR) which vanishes outside Xo.
Suppose now that h is not affine in any neighbourhood of o. For e E Re A let
B(e) = {u E cl(ReA) 13>' E JR+ s.t. lui::::; >'Iel}.
If b ERe A and b + ie E A then be and be(b2  e2 ) belong to B(e).
Let also
M(e) = {g E Co(X, JR) Ig. cl(B(e)) ~ cl(B(e))},
a subalgebra of Co(X, JR). We note that since h is continuous h also operates on
cl(ReA).
ALGEBRAS ON LOCALLY COMPACT SPACES 139
is in cl(Re A), if rand t are sufficiently small and the support of <p is contained in
a sufficiently small neighbourhood of 0, so that the function rbl + tu  se maps X
into the interval (0:, /3) if s E supp <po Let i = 1,2 or 3. We differentiate (1) i times
w.r.t. t, put t = 0 and find that
Put
d= J h 0 (rb l  se)<p(3) (s)ds.
With i = 2 and <p' instead of <p we get
u 2 e 2 d E cl(Re A)
for all u E B(e) and hence
(2)
for all Ul, U2 E B(e). With i = 3 and u = be E B(e) in (1) we get
b3 d E cl(ReA),
and with i = 1, u = beW  e2 ) E B(e) and <p" in place of <p in (1) we get
b(b2  e2 )d E cl(Re A)
and thus
be2 d E cl(ReA).
If we put U2 = be2 d in (2) we find that
ubd2 E cl(Re A)
for all u E B(e). Since u E B(e) implies ubd2 E B(e) we deduce that
bd 2 E M(e).
Let us determine how well the functions bd2 separate the points of the set
Xo = {x E X Ib(x)e(x) i a}.
Let x, y E Xo. Suppose that does not separate x and y for every d. Since A is
bd 2
an algebra we can choose bl E ReA such that bl(x) = 0 and bl(y) = 1. Then
d2 (y) = (b(x)/b(y))d 2 (x).
The right hand side is independant of r so that
dense in Co(X,JR). Otherwise, the functions bd2 separate the points of X o, and
since these functions vanish outside X o, it follows that
{f E Co(X, JR) I I = 0 on Xo \ Xo} ~ M(c).
Thus by a simple calculation we have
{f E Co(X,JR) I I = 0 on Xo \ Xo} ~ cl(ReA).
o
To proceed to the proof of Theorem 1 we need a local version of the so called
Bernard's Lemma [1].
Let A be an infinite set and let C be a Banach space with norm I . II. Put
eOO(C) = {{c.d ICA E C and sup I CA 11< oo},
AEA
where {cA} denotes a function from A into C such that {cA}(a) = Co E C for each
a E A. Then eOO(C) is a Banach space in the norm
I {cA } 11= sup II CA I .
AEA
The space Re A is a Banach space in the norm
lib 11= inf{11 a 1100 Ia E A and b = Rea},
and clearly lib 1100::;11 b II. We thus have
eOO(ReA) ~ eOO(Co(X,JR)).
Bernard's lemma (see [1]) says that if eOO(ReA) is dense in eOO(Co(X,JR)) then
ReA = Co(X,JR).
To prove that eOO(ReA) is dense in eOO(Co(X,JR)), we represent eOO(Co(X,JR)) as
a space of functions on a compact Hausdorff space. We identify Co(X, JR) with a
subspace of CIR(Xd in the obvious manner.
Let A have the discrete topology and let (3(A x Xd) be the StoneCech compact
ification of Ax Xl' The space eOO(C(xd) can be identified with C({3(A x Xd) in
a natural way
{fA}
FUll} +
where F{!lI}b,x) = 1'Y(x) for each b,x) in A x Xl' Thus eOO(Co(X,JR)) is a
subspace of CIR ({3(A x Xl)) and we have the inclusions
eOO(ReA) ~ eOO(Co(X,JR)) ~ CIR({3(A x Xd).
The subsets of the StoneCech compactification may be complicated but the subsets
we are interested in have a simple description. For each I in C(Xl ) let {f} denote
the net {fA} where IA = I for each A
Let now Po be in {3(A x Xd. The map
I + {f }(Po)
is a homomorphism of C(X l ) and is thus given by pointevaluation at some point
Xo in Xl' Put
5: 0 = {p E (3(A x Xd I {f}(p) = I(xo) VI E CIR(Xl )}.
ALGEBRAS ON LOCALLY COMPACT SPACES 141
The sets x form a partition of {3(A x Xt} into closed sets. Their significance stems
from the following local version of Bernard's lemma, similar to the one given by O.
Hatori [6].
Bernard's lemma (local version) Let A denote the unit ball of Co(X,JR.), let x
be in X and suppose that the restriction space lOO(ReA)lx is dense in CIR(x). Then
there is a compact neighbourhood Kx of x such that ReAIKx = CIR(Kx )'
Proof. For each A in A let 1>.. = A. By assumption there is an element {b A } in
lOO(ReA) such that we have the inequality
I{fA}  {bA}1 < 1/2
on x and hence also on some open subset U of {3(A x Xt} containing X. By a simple
calculation we have
Xo = {p E (3(A x Xl) I I{f}(p)  f(xo)1 :=; ~ Vf E CIR(Xl )}.
Thus there is a function fo in CIR(Xt} such that the set
{p E {3(A x Xt} I I{fo}(p)  fo(x)1 :=; 1/2}
is a subset of U. Put
Kx = {y E Xd Ifo(Y)  fo(x)1 :=; 1/2},
a compact neighbourhood of x. Then A x Kx is contained in U so that
IfA  bA I :=; 1/2
on Kx for all A in A. Let M = SUPA II bA II, a finite quantity because (b A ) is in
lOO(Re A). Take any f in Co(X, JR.) with II f lloo:=; 1. By induction we construct a
sequence (b n ) of elements from ReA, with II bn II:=; M for all n, such that
nl
12n( f  L 2 i bi )  bnl < ~
i=O
on Kx. The function b = E:o 2 b is in Band b = f on Kx. 0
i i
we see that lOO(A) separates p from q and thus lOO(ReA) does so as well. 0
142 EGGERT BRIEM
Qingying Bu
Khinchin's Inequality. For any 0 < p < 00, there are positive constants Ap, Bp
such that for any scalars a1, a2, ... ,an, we have
Kahane's Inequality. If 0 < p, q < 00, then there is a constant Kp,q > 0 for
which
regardless of the choice of a Banach space X and of finitely m.any vectors Xl, X2, ... , Xn
from.X.
(1)
In this case,
7rp (u) = inf{c > 0: for all possible c in (I)}.
In 1973, J. S. Cohen [3J introduced strongly psumming operators between
Banach spaces, namely, a Banach space operator u : X > Y is called strongly
psumming operator, 1 < p < 00, if it takes f~trong(x) into fp(Y). Let Dp(X, Y)
denote the space of all strongly psumming operators from a Banach space X to a
Banach space Y. If u : X > Y is a strongly psumming operator then, thanks to
the Closed Graph Theorem, it : f~trong(x) > fp(Y) is continuous. So we define a
PROPERTIES OF pSUMMING OPERATORS 147
(2)
In this case,
Dp(u) = inf{c > 0: for all possible c in (2)}.
Main Theorem. Let 1 < p, q < 00; and let H be a Hilbert space and Y be a
Banach space. Then IIp(H, Y) ~ Dq(H, Y), i.e., if u : H ~ Y is absolutely
psumming, then u takes absolutely qsummable sequences in H into members of
lqY.
lip
( )
Iluxll ::; 1Tp (U)' Lt'.J: I(x, z)IP dJ.L(z) (3)
Then
m m n
L I(UXk, yZ)1 L I(Lxk,iuei, yZ)1
k=l i=1
k=l
< t.IlX,II' 1" ' (1' 1t, r,(t)(ue" Yk) I" II"~
dt)
148 QINGYING BU
by Khinchin's inequality,
(4)
Now by Kahane's inequality and (3),
([II t, r,(t)"" II" dt) 'I,' "K,.,. ([II t, r,(t)ue,II' <It) ",
< (L'r I(t,
K,.,.~,(u) . ( [ <It) 'I,
r,(t)e;, z)I' dp(z) )
K,.,.~,( (L I(t,
q ([ I' r,(t)e;, z) dt) dP(Z)),,'
r
u) .
(5)
Combining (4) and (5),
So U E Dq(H, Y) with
1
Dq(u) :::; A . Bp Kp,ql 7rp(u).
ql
Then by (6),
m m
L I(UPXk, Yk)1
k=1 k=1
< :
ql
. Bp' Kp,ql' ll"p(U) . II (PXk)i"lI egtron 9 (X) 11(Yk)i"lle~,.ak(X.)
:. Bp' Kp,ql' ll"p(U) 11(Xk)i"lIe~tr.on9(X) 11(Yk)i"lle~,eak(X.).
ql
This shows us that U E Dq(H, Y) and again
1
Dq(u) :::; A . Bp' Kp,ql' ll"p(u).
ql
The proof is complete. o
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. I am grateful to my advisor, Professor Joe Diestel, for
his good suggestions for this paper.
References
1. H. Apiola, Duality between spaces of psummable sequences, (p, q)summing operators and
characterization of nuclearity, Math. Ann. 219 (1976), 5364.
2. Q. Bu and J. Diestel, Observations about the projective tensor product of Banach spaces, I
 ipX, 1 < p < 00, Quaestiones Math. 24 (2001),519533.
3. J. S. Cohen, Absolutely psumming, pnuclear operators, and their conjugates, Math. Ann.
201 (1973), 177200.
4. J. Diestel, H. Jarchow, and A. Tonge, Absolutely Summing Operators, Cambridge Univ. Press,
Cambridge, 1995.
5. A. Pietsch, Absolut psummierende abbildungen in normierten riiumen, Studia Math. 28
(1967), 333353.
1. Introduction
The celebrated BanachStone Theorem states that two compact Hausdorff spa
ces X and Y are homeomorphic if and only if the corresponding real continu
ous function spaces C(X) and C(Y) are linearly isometric (see, for example, [3,
Chapter 7]). As is well known, see for example [2, Theorem 1.4.9], C(X) can
be identified with the Banach space A(K) of real continuous affine functions on
K = {'P E C(X)* : II'PII = 1 = 'P(l)}, the state space of C(X), where the norm in
A(K) is the usual supremum norm. Here K is a Bauer simplex and consequently
there is a natural reformulation of the BanachStone theorem in the context of
affine geometry as follows. Two Bauer simplexes K and S are affinely homeomor
phic if and only if their corresponding affine function spaces A(K) and A(S) are
linearly isometric.
Clearly an affine homeomorphism between any two compact convex sets K
and S induces a linear isometry between A(K) and A(S). However, an example
of J.T. Chan given in [9] shows that the converse of this cannot hold for arbitrary
compact convex sets in locally convex (Hausdorff) spaces, even in finite dimensions.
Thus it is natural to ask what conditions on K and S imply that this converse does
hold.
Lazar [11] showed that the converse holds if both K and S are Choquet sim
plexes. Ellis and So [9] extended this to the case when both K and S have the
property that every pair of complementary closed faces is split, which applies to
the state spaces of function algebras.
In this paper we use another geometric condition on K and S, namely the
unique decomposition property of Ellis [6, 7, 8], under which K and S are affinely
homeomorphic whenever there is a linear isometry T between A(K) and A(S).
2. Preliminaries
We note that every compact convex set K (in a locally convex space) can be
embedded into A(K)* as the state space {cp E A(K)* : Ilcpll = 1 = cp(l)} of A(K)
with the weak* topology, where x E K is identified with the linear functional
f 1+ (j, x) = f(x)
for all f in A(K). If Y is a subset of K then we denote the convex hull of Y by
co (Y). A point x in K is called an extreme point of K if K \ {x} is a convex set.
The set of extreme points of K is denoted by 8K. In the above setting the closed
unit ball BA(K)' of A(K)* is the convex hull of K and K; namely co (K U K)
where K denotes {k: k E K}. Thus 8B A(K)' is contained in 8KU8(K). The
reverse inclusion follows easily from the fact that for cp E BA(K)" \ (K U K) we
have 1 < cp(l) < 1. Therefore, 8B A(K)" is equal to 8KU8(K).
A convex subset F of K is called a face of K if whenever x E F with x =
>..y + (1  >..)z for some y, z E K and >.. E (0,1), then both y and z are in F.
A pair of faces (FI, F2) is said to be complementary whenever FI n F2 = 0 and
K = co (FI U F 2 ). Thus, in this case, each x in K has a decomposition relative
to (FI' F2); namely x = >..y + (1  >..)z for some y E F I , Z E F2 and>" E [0,1]. If
>.. is unique, for each x E K \ (FI U F 2 ) but independent of y and z, then FI and
F2 are said to be parallel faces; parallel faces are automatically norm closed. If in
addition y and z are unique then FI and F2 are called split faces. See, for example,
[1, 2] for the general theory of compact convex sets and related topics. Let K be
a compact convex set.
Recall that the facial topology on 8K is given by defining
{F n 8K : F is a closed split face of K}
to be the family of all closed sets. The facial topology is weaker than the relative
topology on 8K. The centre Z(A(K)) of A(K) is the set of all those functions
in A(K) whose restriction to 8K is facially continuous. The central functions
h E Z(A(K)) are characterised by the following property (see, for example, [1,
Corollary 11.7.4] or [2, Theorem 3.1.4]): for all f E A(K), there exists 9 E A(K)
such that g(x) = h(x)f(x) for all x in 8K. The uniqueness of the continuous affine
function 9 is clear, since a continuous affine function on a compact convex set is
completely determined by its values on the extreme boundary, and consequently
we may write 9 = h . f. In this way it is useful to think of the central functions as
the multipliers of A(K).
A compact convex set K is a Choquet simplex whenever for all bounded (real)
linear functionals cp in A(K)* and 0 > 0 the set K n (cp + oK) is either empty or
of the form 'IjJ + (3K for some ' in A(K)* and {3 ~ 0 (see, for example, [12]); note
that {3 = 0 allows K n (cp + oK) to be a singleton. In a Choquet simplex every
closed face is split (see [2, Theorem 2.7.2]).
THE UNIQUE DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY AND BANACHSTONE THEOREM 153
In [6, 7, 8], Ellis defined the unique decomposition property of K by the condi
tion that for every <P in A(K)*, there is a unique decomposition <P = <PI  <P2 with
<PI, <P2 ~ 0 and Ii<pll = Ii <PI Ii + 1i<P21i. In [6] he showed that K has the unique decom
position property if and only iffor every <P in A(K)* and 0> 0 the set Kn(<p+oK)
is either empty or a singleton, or contains some 1/1+{3K where 1/1 E A(K)* and (3 > O.
In particular, every Choquet simplex has the unique decomposition property.
A result of Grothendieck [10], see also [5, p. 272], shows that the state space of
a (unital) C*algebra has the unique decomposition property. Thus the results of
this paper apply, giving an affine homeomorphism between the state spaces K and
S of two C*algebras whenever the associated (real) affine function spaces A(K)
and A(S) are linearly isometric.
We give some examples below, the second and third of which show that the
unique decomposition property and the condition of Ellis and So are independent
geometric properties of a compact convex set.
EXAMPLE 2.1. Let K be the state space of the C*algebra M 2 , of all 2 x 2
matrices over C. Then, by Grothendieck's result, K has the unique decomposition
property. Also, K is affinely homeomorphic to a closed ball in 1R3 (see [2, p. 241])
and satisfies the condition of Ellis and So since it has no proper complementary
faces.
EXAMPLE 2.2. Let K be a triangular bisimplex in 3dimensional space as in the
figure below, Figure 1. Then no proper face is (geometrically) parallel to any other
and hence K n (<p + oK) is either empty, a singleton or has nonempty interior, for
<P E A(K)* and 0 > o. It follows, by the geometric characterisation of Ellis, that K
has the unique decomposition property. However (F, F') is a pair of complementary
faces of K, but not split, and hence K does not satisfy the condition of Ellis and
So.
faces (geometrically) parallel to each other and hence K n (cp + aK) can have empty
interior for some cp E A(K)* and a > O.
3. Results
Throughout this section K and 8 will denote compact convex sets of locally
convex (Hausdorff) spaces. We will also let T: A(K) ~ A(8) denote a surjective
linear isometry. Notice that if T1 = 1 then for cp E A(8)* with Ilcpli = 1 = cp(1), we
have
IIT*cpll = licp 0 Til = licpli = 1 = cp(1) = cp(T1) = T*cp(1);
here T*: A(8)* ~ A(K)* denotes the dual map of T. Consequently T*(8) = K
and hence T* induces an affine homeomorphism a: 8 ~ K such that Tf(s) =
T*s(f) = f(a(s)) for all s E 8; that is, T is a composition operator f f+ f 0 a. In
Proposition 3.3 we see that T is a weighted composition operator if and only if T1
is central. To do this we 'decompose' 8 by defining
(3.1) 81 = {s E 8: (Tl)(s) = I} and 82 = {s E 8 : (T1)(s) = I}.
It is clear that 8 1 and 8 2 are closed faces of 8.
LEMMA 3.1. Let 8 1 and 8 2 be as in (3.1). Then 88 ~ 8 1 U 8 2, and 8 1 and 8 2
are closed parallel faces of 8.
PROOF. Observe that the dual map T* is a linear isometry from A(8)* onto
A(K)*. Hence T* maps the extreme points of the closed unit ball of A(8)* onto
the extreme points of the closed unit ball of A(K)*. Thus
T*(88 U 8( 8)) = 8K U 8( K).
Consequently, for each s E 88 we have T* s is in 8K or 8(  K) and hence
Tl(s) = T*s(l) = 1.
Therefore 88 ~ 8 1 U 8 2 and thus by the KreinMilman Theorem 8 = co (81 U 8 2),
since 8, 8 1 and 82 are all (weak*) compact. Thus 8 1 and 8 2 are complementary
faces since they are clearly disjoint.
For each s in 8 with s = >.x + (1  >')y, where x E 8 1 , Y E 8 2, and>' E (0,1),
we have T* s = >'T*x + (1  >')T*y. Thus,
Tl(s) = T*s(1) = >'T*x(1) + (1 >')T*y(1) = >.  (1 >.) = 2>'  1.
This establishes the uniqueness of>. = ((Tl)(s) + 1)/2 and the result follows. 0
We now specialise to the case when K and 8 have the unique decomposition
property.
LEMMA 3.2. Let 8 1 and 8 2 be as in (3.1). 8uppose that K has the unique
decomposition property. Then 8 1 and 8 2 are complementary split faces of 8.
PROOF. By Lemma 3.1, for each s E 8\(81 U 8 2) we may write s = >.x +
(1  >.)y where x E 8 1 , Y E 8 2 and 0 < >. < 1, and>' is unique. We consider the
decomposition T* s = >'T*x  (>. 1)T*y. Since x E 8 1 we have T*x E K and hence
>'T*x is positive. Similarly, T*y E K and hence (>.  I)T*y is positive. Also
IIT*sll = 1 = >. + (1 >.) = Ii>'T*xli + 11(>' 
I)T*yli
Thus, by the unique decomposition property, >'T*x and (>. 1)T*y are unique. By
the uniqueness of >., we have T*x and T*y are unique. Since T is surjective, T* is
injective and the result follows. 0
THE UNIQUE DECOMPOSITION PROPERTY AND BANACHSTONE THEOREM 155
[6] A.J. Ellis, An intersection property for state spaces, J. London Math. Soc., 43 (1968), 173
176.
[7] A.J. Ellis; Minimal decompositions in partially ordered normed spaces, Proc. Camb. Phil.
Soc., 64 (1968),9891000.
[8] A.J. Ellis, On partial orderings of normed spaces, Math. Scand., 23 (1968), 123132.
[9] A.J. Ellis and W.S. So, Isometries and the complex state spaces of uniform algebras, Math.
Z., 195 (1987), 119125.
[10] A. Grothendieck, Un result at sur Ie dual d'une C*algebre, J. Math. Pures Appl., 36 (1957),
97108.
[11] A.J. Lazar, Affine products of simplexes, Math. Scand., 22 (1968), 165175.
[12] R.R. Phelps, Lectures on Choquet's Theorem, Second Edition, Lecture notes in Mathematics
1757 (SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2001).
[13] T.S.R.K. Rao, Isometries of Ac(K), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 85 (1982), 544546.
Thomas Dawson
Introduction
Algebraic extensions have had striking applications in the theory of uniform
algebras ever since Cole used them (in [5]) to construct a counterexample to the
peakpoint conjecture. Apart from this, their main use has been in (a) the con
struction of examples of general, normed algebras with special properties and (b)
the Galois theory of Banach algebras. We shall not discuss (b) here; a summary of
some of this work is included in [29].
In the first section of this article we shall introduce the types of extensions and
relate their applications. The section ends by giving the exact relationship between
the types of extensions. Section 2 contains a table summarising what is known
about the extensions' properties.
A theme lying behind all the work to be discussed is the following question:
(Q) Suppose the normed algebra B is related to a subalgebra A by some specific
property or construction. (For example, B might be integral over A: every
element b E B satisfies ao + ... +an_1bn1 +bn = 0 for some ao, ... ,an 1 EA.)
What properties of A (for example, completeness or semisimplicity) must be
shared by B?
This is a natural question, and interesting in its own right. Many special cases of
it have been studied in the literature. We shall review the related body of work in
which B is constructed from A by adjoining roots of monic polynomial equations.
Throughout this article, A denotes a commutative, unital normed algebra, and
A its completion. The fundamental construction of [1] applies to this class of
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 46J05, 46J10.
157
158 THOMAS DAWSON
I~ bkX
k
= ~ IIbkll t k (bo, ... , bn  l E A)
A(l)
/9 is commutative and 1>(x) = y.
Finally we can explain the method for showing that some properties of normed
algebras are not shared by their completions because, in the above, 'nonregularity'
is not preserved by completion of Ao (nor is 'nonlocalness'). To see this, note that
Ais clearly regular if A is and so by a theorem of Lindberg (see Table 2.2) the Arens
Hoffman extension (A)o is regular. But, by a result of [17] referred to above, this
algebra is isometrically isomorphic to the completion of Aa. Of course Lindberg's
original application was much more significant; there are simpler examples of the
present result: for example the algebra of polynomials on I.
1.3. Uniform Algebras. It is curious that the application of ArensHoffman
extensions to the construction of integrally closed extensions of normed algebras
did not appear in the literature for some time after [1]. It was seventeen years later
until a construction was given in [22]. Even then the author acknowledges that
the constuction was prompted by the work of Cole, [5], in the theory of uniform
algebras.
Cole invented a method of adjoining square roots of elements to uniform al
gebras. He used it to extend uniform algebras to ones which contain square roots
for all of their elements. Apart from feeding back into the general theory of com
mutative Banach algebras (mainly accomplished in [22] and [23]) his construction
provided important examples in the theory of uniform algebras. We shall describe
these after recalling some basic definitions.
DEFINITION 1.3.1. A uniform algebra, A, is a subalgebra of C(X) for some
compact, Hausdorff space X such that A is closed with respect to the supremum
norm, separates the points of X, and contains the constant functions. We speak
of 'the uniform algebra (A, X)'. The uniform algebra is natural if all of its homo
morphisms wEn are given by evaluation at points of X, and it is called trivial if
A = C(X).
Introductions to uniform algebras can be found in [4], [11], [26], and [16]. An
important question in this area is which properties of (A, X) force A to be trivial.
For example it is sufficient that A be selfadjoint, by the StoneWeierstrass theorem.
In [5] an example is given of a nontrivial uniform algebra, (B,X), which is natural
and such that every point of X is a 'peakpoint'. It had previously been conjectured
that no such algebra existed.
We shall describe the use of Cole's construction in the next section, but now
we reveal some of the detail.
PROPOSITION 1.3.2 ([5],[7]). Let U be a set of monic polynomials over the
uniform algebra (A, X). There exists a uniform algebra (AU, XU) and a continuous,
open surjection 7r: XU > X such that
(i) the adjoint map 7r*: C(X) > C(XU) induces an isometric, unital monomor
phism A > AU, and
(ii) for every a E U the polynomial 7r*(a)(x) E AU[x] has a root Po E AU.
PROOF. We let XU be the subset of X x cU consisting of the elements (K, >.)
such that for all a E U
f(a)(K)
JO
+ ... + /(0)
n(a)1
(K)>.n(0)1 + >.n(o)
a 0
= 0
ALGEBRAIC EXTENSIONS OF COMMUTATIVE NORM ED ALGEBRAS 161
where o:(x) = f~Ol) + ... + f~(l)_lXn(Ol)l + xn(Ol) E U. The reader can easily check
that XU is a compact, Hausdorff space in the relative product topology and so the
following functions are continuous:
11": XU + X; (~, >.) ...... ~
POI: XU + C; (~, >.) ...... >'01 (0: E U).
We shall call AU the Cole extension of A by U. Cole gave the construction for
the case in which every element of U is of the form x 2  f for some f E A. It is
remarked in [22] that similar methods can be used for the general case; these were
independently, explicitly given in [7].
By repeating this construction, using transfinite induction, one can generate
uniform algebras which are integrally closed extensions of A. Full details of this,
including references and the required facts on ordinal numbers and direct limits of
normed algebras, can be found in [7]. Again this closely follows [5]. Informally the
construction is as follows.
Let v be a nonzero ordinal number. Set (Ao,Xo) = (A,X). For ordinal
numbers T with 0 < T ~ V we define
(A~" , X!:" ) if T = a +1 and
(A.,, X T ) = { l~
. (A u,Xu)u<.,, (*
1I"p,u, 1I"p,u ) p~U<T ) if T is a limit ordinal.
(g E C(X{o}), x: EX).
For other sorts of monic polynomials it was not so obvious how to construct
T. The basic techniques appeared in [22] (see the proof of Theorem 3.5) for simple
extensions, and were further developed in the proof of Theorem 4 of [15], but it was
not until [23] that a comprehensive construction was given. We must also mention
the role of E. A. Gorin: he appears to have paved the way for [15] and [23].
1.6. Algebraic Extensions of Normed and Banach Algebras. As we
have seen, algebraic extensions have had striking applications in the theory of uni
form algebras. They have long been used as auxiliary constructions in the general
theory of Banach algebras. Notable examples of this are in [14] and [25]; the latter
explicitly uses ArensHoffman extensions.
However algebraic extensions for Hormed algebras were apparently only studied
in their own right in order to generalise the work of Cole and Karahanjan. We now
turn to these generalisations.
The basic extension generalising ArensHoffman extensions is called a standard
normed extension. It is defined in the following theorem of Lindberg.
THEOREM 1.6.1 ([22]). Let A be a normed algebra and U a set of monic
polynomials over A. Let ~ be a wellordering on U with least element 00' Then
there exists a normed algebra, B u , with a family of subalgebras, (Bo)oEU, such
that:
(i) for all 0, (3 E U, Bo ~ Bf3 if 0 ~ (3, and,
(ii) for all (3 E U, Bf3 is isometrically isomorphic to an ArensHoffmBll extension of
B<f3 by (3(x) where
Let ~Ot be the standard root of a E U, witll associated norm parameter tOt, and
suppose (T/Ot)OtEU ~ B(2) is such that I(a)(T/Ot) = 0 for all a E U. Tllen there is a
unique, unital homomorphism : B(l) + B(2) such that the following diagram is
commutative
B(1) ~ B(2)
r~
A(1)
/9
(Note added in proof: The map is continuous if and only if I is continuous and
Purely algebraic standard extensions are defined in [22] and the main content
of Lemma 1.6.2 is a statement about these.
Narmania gives ([23]) an alternative construction for integrally closed exten
sions of a commutative, unital Banach algebra, A. His method is rather more
conventional than the one used to define standard extensions. If U is a set of
monic polynomials over A then the Narrnania extension of A by U is equal to the
Banachalgebra direct limit of (As: 8 is a finite subset of U) where each As is
isometrically isomorphic to A extended finitely many times by the ArensHoffman
construction. As this paper is not readily available in English and we shall refer
to the explicit construction of Narmania's extensions in the next result, we stop to
report the precise details of this.
If E is a set, the set of all finite subsets of E will be written E<wo. Let
8 = {ai, ... , am} ~ U and let tOt (a E U) be a valid choice of ArensHoffman norm
parameters (see Section 1.1). It is important to insist that distinct elements a, /3 E U
are associated with distinct indeterminates XOt , x{3. Thus 8 is an abbreviation for
{a1(xoJ, ... ,am(xo,J}.
It is proved carefully in [23] that for q = Ls qsx~ll ... x~;;, E A[x U1 ' ,xo: m ],
the algebra of polynomials in m commuting indeterminates over A (s is a mult.iindex
in No where No = {O}UN), then (8) +q has a unique representative whose degree in
3:O: j is less than than n(aj), the degree of aj(:ro: j ) (j = 1, ... ,m). For convenience
we shall call such representatives minimal. Then if q is the minimal representative of
(8) +q, 11(8) + qll := Ls IIqsll t~ll t~: defines an algebra norm on As. The index
set, U<wo is a directed set, directed by ~. The connecting homomorphisms VS.T (for
8 ~ T E U<wo) are the natural maps; they are isometries. Thus (sec [24] Section
1.3) Au is the completion of the normed direct limit, D := UsEU<wo As / "', where
'" is an equivalence relation given by (8) + q '" (T) + r if and only if q  r E (8 UT)
for 8, T E U<wo. Furthermore, the canonical map, Vs, which sends an element of
As to its equivalence class in D, is an isometry. Note that A0 is defined to be A.
We can now show how the types of extensions we have been considering are
related. Many of the idea.'3 behind Proposition 1.6.3 are due to Narmania but we
take the step of linking them to Cole and standard extensions.
ALGEBRAIC EXTENSIONS OF COMMUTATIVE NORMED ALGEBRAS 165
u  
A = (Au)" = (Bur,
where the closures are taken with respect to the supremum norm.
n({3)l
(S) + L qj.T~l
j=O
n({3)l
= L
j=O
IIqj II t~l = Ilbll ,
from above. The penultimate equality above follows from noting that the represen
tative of the coset is minimal and then expanding and collecting terms.
By the transfinite induction theorem, .:J = U as required. 0
2.2. Table. Cole extensions have only been defined for uniform algebra'l;
the algebra is therefore assumed to be a uniform algebra throughout column one.
Colulllns two and three, a'l mentioned above, refer to ArensHoffman extensions of
a normed algebra, A, by a monic polynomial a(x); in column three it is given that
a(:1:) is separable.
1. complete 0
2. topologically semisimple 0
0 0
3. nonlocal
4. local ? 0 ? '? ?
5. regular 0 '? 0
for Banach algebras
10. symmetric 0
0 0
11. amenable 0 ? 0 0
13. nontrivial
14. trivial
15. natural
Key
property is always preserved
o property is sometimes, but not always preserved
168 THOMAS DAWSON
3. Conclusion
The table in Section 2.2 still has gaps, and there are many more rows which
could be added. For example it would be interesting to be able to estimate various
types of 'stable ranks' (see [2]) of the extensions in terms of the stable ranks of the
original algebras. (The condition G(A) = A is equivalent to the 'topological stable
rank' of A not exceeding 1.) Remember too that there are many more questions
which can be asked, of the form: 'if n has the topological property P, does n(Ao)
have property P?'
By way of a conclusion we repeat that algebraic extensions have proved im
mensely useful in the construction of examples of uniform algebras. There is there
fore great scope for and potential usefulness in augmenting Table 2.2. It might also
be valuable to reexamine the techniques used to obtain the entries to produce more
general results (of the kind in [28] for example) in the context of question (Q).
References
1. Arens, R. and Hoffman, K., Algebraic Extension of Normed Algebras., Proc. Am. Math. Soc.
7 (1956), 203210.
2. Badea, C., The Stable Rank of Topological Algebras and a Problem of R. G. Swan., J. Funet.
Anal. 160 (1998), 4278.
3. Batikyan, B. T., Point Derivations on Algebraic Extension of Banach Algebra., Lobachevskii
J. Math. 6 (2000), 337.
4. Browder, A., Introduction to Function Algebras., W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1969.
ALGEBRAIC EXTENSIONS OF COMMUTATIVE NORMED ALGEBRAS 169
5. Cole, B. J., OnePoint Parts and the PeakPoint Conjecture., Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University,
1968.
6. Dales, H. G., Banach Algebms and Automatic Continuity., Oxford University Press Inc., New
York,2000.
7. Dawson, T. W .. Algebmic Extensions of Normed Algebms., M.Math. Dissertation, accessible
from the web at: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.FA/0102131, University of Nottingham,
2000.
8. Dawson, T. W., and Feinstein, J. F., On the Denseness of the Invertible Group in Banach
Algebms., Proc. Am. Math. Soc. (to appear).
9. Feinstein, J. F., A NonTrivial, Strongly Regular Unif01m Algebm., J. Lond. Math. Soc. 45
(1992), 288300.
10. Feinstein, J. F., Trivial Jensen Measures Without Regularity., Studia Math. 148 (2001).67
74.
11. Gamelin, T. W., Uniform Algebms., PrenticeHall Inc., Engelwood Cliffs, N. J., 1969.
12. Gorin, E. A., and Lin, V ..J., Algebmic Equations with Cont'inuous Coefficients and Some
Problems of the Algebmic Theory of Bmids., Math. USSR Sb. 7 (1969), 569596.
13. Heuer, G. A., and Lindberg, J. A., Algebmic Extensions of Continuous Function Algebms.,
Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 14 (1963),337342.
14. Johnson, B. E., Norming C(O) and Related Algebms., Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 220 (1976),
3758.
15. Karahanjan, M. I., Some Algebmic Chamcterizations of the Algebm of All Continuous Func
tions on a Locally Connected Compactum., Math. USSR Sb. 35 (1979),681696.
16. Leibowitz, G. M., Lectures on Complex Function Algebm,~., Scott, Foresman and Company,
Glenview, Illinois, 1970.
17. Lindberg, J. A . On the Completion of Tractable Normed Algebms., Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 14
(1963),319321.
18. Lindberg, J. A., Algebmic Extensions of Commutative Banach Algebms., Pacif. J. Math. 14
(1964), 559583.
19. Lindberg, J. A., On Singly Genemted Topological Algebras, Function Algebras (ed. Birtel,
F. T.), ScottForesman, Chicago, 1966, pp. 334340.
20. Lindberg, J. A., A Class of Commutative Banach Algebms with Unique Complete Norm
Topology and Continuous Derivations., Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 29 (1971), 516520.
21. Lindberg, J. A .. Polynomials over Complete l.m.c. Algebms and Simple Integml Extensions.,
Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl. 17 (1972), 4763.
22. Lindberg, J. A., lntegml Extensions of Commutative Banach Algebms., Can. ,/. Math. 25
(1973), 673686.
23. Narmaniya, V. G., The Construction of Algebmically Closed Exten,~ions of Commutative
Banach Algebms., Trudy Tbiliss. Mat. Inst. Razmadze Akad. 69 (1982), 154162.
24. Palmer, T. W., Banach Algebras and the Geneml Theory of *Algebms. Vol. 1, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, 1994.
25. Read, C. J., Commutative, Radical Amenable Banach Algebms., Studia Math. 140 (2000),
199212.
26. Stout, E. L., The Theory of Uniform Algebms., Bogden and Quigley Inc., Tarrytownon
Hudson, New York, 1973.
27. Taylor, J. L., Banach Algebms and Topology, Algebras in Analysis. (ed. Williamson, J. H.),
Academic Press Inc. (London) Ltd., Norwich:, 1975, pp. 118186.
28. Verdera, J., On Finitely Genemted and Projective Extensions of Banach Algebms., Proc. Am.
Math. Soc. 80 (1980), 614620.
29. Zame, W. R., Covering Spaces and the Galois Theory of Commutative Banach Algebms., J.
Funet. Anal. 27 (1984), 151171.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the Division of Pure Mathematics and the
Graduate School at the University of Nottingham for paying for his expenses in
170 THOMAS DAWSON
order to attend the 4th Conference on FUnction Spaces (2002) at the Southern
Illinois University at Edwardsville.
The author is grateful to Mr. Brian Lockett who provided him with a transla
tion of the paper [23].
Special thanks are due to Dr. J. F. Feinstein who offered much valuable advice
and encouragement and also proofread the article.
1. Introduction
In [5], LlorensFuster and Sims construct examples of closed, bounded, convex
subsets of Co that are not weakly compact but are compact in a topology that is
slightly coarser than the weak topology, and they nonetheless fail the fixed point
property for nonexpansive mappings. These examples led LlorensFuster and Sims
to conjecture that closed, bounded, convex nonempty subsets of Co have the fixed
point property if and only if they are weakly compact. This conjecture has been
recently settled in the affirmative [2, 3]. All the examples constructed in [5] had a
common feature  they all support a nonexpansive right shift.
In the first part of this short note we produce a collection of sets of the type
considered by LlorensFuster and Sims, but which do not support a nonexpansive
right shift and yet they fail the fixed point property for nonexpansive mappings. In
fact, we will produce two nonexpansive fixed point free mappings: one affine and
the other nonaffine. Variations on the themes of these examples are important in
the papers [2, 3].
LlorensFuster and Sims [5] also proved that a closed, bounded, convex subset of
Co with nonempty interior fails the fixed point property for nonexpansive mappings.
In the second part of tllis note we prove an analogous statement in the setting of
L1 [0, 1]. We also generalize this result to show that every closed, bounded, convex
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 47HI0, 47H09, 46E30.
The authors wish to thank Professor Kaz Goebel for his helpful suggestions concerning the
proof of Theorem 3.2. The second author thanks the Department of Mathematics and Statistics
at Miami University for their hospitality during part of the preparation of this paper. He also
acknowledges the financial support of Miami University.
subset of L1 [0, 1J that contains a nontrivial order interval must fail the fixed point
property.
We refer the reader to the text of Goebel and Kirk [4J for any unexplained
terminology.
< sup
n
{'Yn(_l
2...,,,
+ _1_
4"",,1
+ ... + +) max 'Yilti  Sil}
2""1 l::;'i::;n
< sUP'Ynltn  8n l
n
Ilxyll
Thus R is a nonexpansive mapping on K...,.
EXAMPLES OF FIXED POINT FREE MAPS 173
The mapping R, given in example 2.1, is an affine mapping on K"I' Our next
example is nonaffine on K"I'
IIS(X)  S(Y)II = IIx  yll = IIbl,X)*  bl,Y)*11 :::; Ilb1.x)  b1.y)11 = Ilx  YII
We now introduce a modification U of S that will be nonexpansive and fixed
point free on K"I' Define U : K"I + Co by
Since 11j AXj  1j AYj I :::; IXj  Yj I for all j E N, it follows that
IIU(x)  U(Y)II :::; Ilx  yll = IIS(x)  S(Y)II :::; IIx  YII
Thus U is a nonexpansive mapping on K"I'
Furthermore, since 1j AXj = 1j (1 A ~) for all j E Nand 1 2: 1 A ~ 2: 1 A ~ 2:
1 A ~ 2: ... 2: 0, U maps K"I into K"I' To finish, we will show is fixed point free on
K"I' Suppose, to get a contradiction, that there exists x E K"I such that x = U(x).
Thus, for all j EN, Xj = 1j AXj.
A wellknown fact about decreasing rearrangements that we will use is that for
all W E ct,for each mEN,
This contradicts the fact that x E Co and so completes the proof that U is fixed
point free on Ky.
We now show that U is fixed point free. Suppose that f E K is a fixed point
of U, that is, U(f) = f. Since f E K, R(f) E C, and since ST maps C into
C, f = U(f) = ST(R(f)) E C. Note that the mapping R restricted to C is the
identity on C. Therefore, f = ST(R(f)) = ST(f) and so f is a fixed point of ST
in C. This contradicts Sine's result that ST has no fixed point in C [7], and thus
the proof is complete. D
THEOREM 3.2. Let K be a closed, bOllnded, convex sllbset of Ll[O, 1] that con
tains an order interval [h,g] := {f E L1[0, 1] : h ::; f ::; 9 a.e.}, for some
h,g E Ll[O, 1] with h ::; 9 a.nd h ::f g. Then K fa'ils the fixed point property for
nonexpansive mappings,
a
PROOF. By translating by h, we may assume that h = and 9 ~ a.e. with a
a
9 nontrivial. Next, note that there exists a real number c > and a measurable
set E with Lebesgue measure rn(E) > 0, such that 9 ~ CXE. By rescaling K by
lie, we may assume without loss that c = 1.
Now, define the mapping R : K ~ [0, xel ~ K by R(f) := ifi /\ XE. Note that
R is nonexpansive and R equals the identity on [0, xel.
At this stage, consider E. There exists to in the interval [0,1] such that rn(En
[0, to]) = ~ rn(E), Let E1.1 := En [0, to] and E1.2 := En (to, 1]. Clearly E is
the disjoint union of E1.1 and E 1,2 and rn(E 1,1) = rn(El,2) = ~ rn(E). Proceed
iteratively from here. Similarly to above, there exist pairwise disjoint measurable
subsets E2,1, E 2,2, E2,3 and E2,4 of [0, 1] such that El,l = E 2,1 U E2,2, E 1 ,2 = E 2,3 U
E 2.4 , and each rn(E2,k) = ~ rn(E). Repeating this construction inductively, we
produce a family of measurable subsets (EO,1 := E, En,k : n E N, k E {I, ... , 2n}) of
[0,1] such that (XE",k)n.k is a dyadic tree in Ll [0,1]. Moreover, letting the measure
v be defined on the measurable subsets of E by v = (1/rn(E))rn, it follows that the
Banach space L 1 ( E, v) is isometrically isomorphic to L 1 ( [0, 1], m) = L 1 [0, 1] via the
mapping Z defined as follows:
for each XE",k' Then Z is extended to L := the linear span of the functions XE",k
in the usual way. Of course, Z is an isometry on L. Finally, since L is dense in
Ll(E, v), with dense range in Ll [0,1], Z extends to a linear isometry from L1(E, v)
onto Ll[O, 1].
Let W := ST be Sine's variation on Alspach's example, as described above,
and note that W maps the order interval C := [0, X[O,I]] into C. Let's use W to
define E : [0, xel ~ [0, XE], by E := Z1 W Z. We have that E is a fixed point free
Ll [0, 1]isometry on [0, xel.
Finally, we define U : K ~ [0, XE] ~ K via U := E R. In a manner analogous
to the argument in the proof of Theorem 3.1 above, we see that U is a fixed point
free Ll[O, 1]nonexpansive mapping on K. D
REMARK 3.3. In [6], MatlI'ey proved that closed, bounded, convex, nonempty
subsets of reflexive subspaces of Ll [0, 1] have the fixed point property for nonexpan
sive mappings. Consequently, Maurey's result, in tandem with Theorem 3.2, shows
that reflexive subspaces of U [0,1] cannot contain a nontrivial order interval. In
fact, as pointed out by the referee, the argument in the proof of Theorem 3.2 shows
176 P.N. DOWLING, C.J. LENNARD, AND B. TURETT
References
1. D. Alspach, A fixed point free nonexpansive mapping, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 82 (1981),
423424.
2. P.N. Dowling, C.J. Lennard and B. Thrett, Characterizations of weakly compact sets and new
fixed point free maps in co, to appear in Studia Math.
3. P.N. Dowling, C.J. Lennard and B. Thrett, Weak compactness is equivalent to the fixed point
property in co, preprint
4. Kazimierz Goebel and W.A. Kirk, Topics in metric fixed point theory, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 1990
5. Enrique LlorensFuster and Brailey Sims, The fixed point property in co, Canad. Math. Bull.
41 (1998), no. 2, 413422.
6. B. Maurey, Points fixes des contractions de certains faiblement compacts de Ll, Seminaire
d'Analyse Fonctionelle, 19801981, Centre de Mathematiques, Ecole Polytech., Palaiseau,
1981, pp. Exp. No. VIII, 19.
7. R. Sine, Remarks on an example of Alspach, Nonlinear Anal. and Appl., Marcel Dekker,
(1981), 237241.
1. Introduction
Consider the Hardy space H2 on the unit disk D. Littlewood's subordination
principle tells us that for an analytic selfmap of D and a function f in H2, the
function f 0 is once again in H2. Thus one defines the composition operator C'"
on H2 by C",(f) = f 0 . The interplay of operator theory and function theory
leads to several interesting results. One of these results is Berkson's theorem on
isolation of composition operators (see [1] and [14]):
THEOREM 1 (Berkson). Let be an analytic selfmap of D. If has mdial
limits of modulus one on a set E of positive measure, then for every other analytic
selfmap 'l/J of D, the following estimate holds:
are compact. As Shapiro and Sundberg [14J indicate in their paper, "compact com
position operators are dramatically nonisolated." They show that the set of com
pact composition operators is path connected, and therefore these operators are
never isolated. It is interesting to ask which composition operators are, in fact,
isolated. Shapiro and Sundberg studied this problem, and showed (among other
things) that if is au analytic selfmap of D that is not an extreme point of the
algebra HOC(D), then C</> is not isolated; in their words, "isolated composition op
erators can only be induced by extreme points." This allowed them to exhibit an
example of a noncompact nonisolated operator. They also raised several questions
at the end of their paper:
(1) Characterize the components in Comp(H2), the space of all composition
operators on H2.
(2) Which composition operators are isolated?
(3) Characterize composition operators whose difference is compact.
Before stating the final question, we remind the reader that the essential norm
of an operator T defined on a Banach space H is the distance to the compact
operators; that is,
It is clear that IITII ~ IITlle, and therefore every essentially isolated operator is
isolated. In fact, because of the abundance of weakly null sequences in H2, all
the results on isolation appearing in Shapiro and Sundberg's paper hold true if we
replace the norm with the essential norm (see [14], p. 148). Thus they raised the
following question.
2. Preliminary results
Our goal is to prove results about composition operators on Hoo(Bn) and
endomorphisms of HOO(D). In this section, we present proofs of several lemmas
that will be important in obtaining estimates on norms and essential norms of
operators.
Our discussion begins with functions of n variables and Z = (Zl' Z2, .. , zn),
where each Zj is a complex number. As usual, the associated norm of Z is given by
and the unit ball Bn is the set of all Z E en for which Izi < 1. We let Hoo(Bn)
denote the space of bounded holomorphic functions on Bn. If n = 1 our situation
reduces to the familiar space of functions on the unit disk: HOO(D). We need some
background on general uniform algebras, some information specific to Hoo(Bn) and
some deeper results for HOO(D). Everything we need is presented in this paper.
Let A be a uniform algebra. The maximal ideal space of A, denoted M(A), is
the set of complexvalued, linear, multiplicative maps of A that map the identity
of A to the value 1 E C. Since evaluations at points of Bn are linear multiplicative
functionals on Hoo(Bn), we may think of Bn as a subset of M(Hoo(Bn)).
It is well known that M(A) is a compact Hausdorff space when endowed with
the weak* topology induced by A * . We will always consider this topology for
M(A). For an element a E A, the Gelfand transform of a is a complexvalued map
defined on M(A) by a(x) = x(a). This map establishes an isometric isomorphism
between A and a closed subalgebra of C(M(A)). It is usual to identify the function
with its Gelfand transform, since the meaning is generally clear from the context.
For x, y E M(A), the pseudohyperbolic and hyperbolic metrics are defined, respec
tively, by
h( x, y )  Iog 11 + p(x,
(
y)
).
p x,y
180 PAMELA GORKIN, RAYMOND MORTINI, AND DANIEL SUAREZ
(2.2 ) 2p(x, y) II II 2 ( )
1
+ Jl  p(x,y )2:::; X  Y A*:::; p x, y .
The proof uses the techniques of [4, p. 144]. Let I E A with Ilfll < 1. It is clear
that 1 = U  f(y))/(1  I(y)f) E A, l(y) = and 11111 :::; 1. By definition of p
then lj(x)1 :::; p(x, y), and consequently
If(x)  f(y)1 :::; 11  f(y)f(x)1 p(x, y) :::; 2p(x, y).
Taking the supremum over Ilfll < 1 we get the upper inequality.
Now we turn to the lower inequality. For simplicity, we write p = p(x, y).
Choose fn E A with I!fnl! < 1, In(x) = and fn(y) > pl/n. Let Pn = fn(Y) and
Ln(z) = (tn  z)/(I tnz), where tn = (1 Jl P~)/Pn' Therefore Ln 0 fn E A,
IILn 0 Inll :::; 1 and
IIx  yl!A* ~ I(Ln 0 fn)(x)  (Ln 0 fn)(Y) I = Itn  L .. (Pn)l
A simple computation shows that
PROOF. It is obvious that the relation is reflexive and symmetric. So, suppose
that ,'l/J and t.p define endomorphisms of A such that IICeI>  Cvlli < 2 and IICob 
C<pll < 2. By (2.1) we see that
0'1 = sup p((x),'l/J(x)) < 1 and 0'2 = sup p('l/J(x),t.p(x)) < 1.
xEM(A) xEM(A)
and consequently sUPXEM(A) p((x), t.p(x)) :::; (ei3 1)/(ei3 + 1) < 1. A new applica
tion of (2.1) yields the desired result. 0
x(f) = r
loA
f dJtx
But Ilfnll :::; 1 for all n, and fn ...... 0 pointwise on 8A, so we may apply the
Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem to conclude that 3;(fn) ...... O. Therefore,
the sequence {fn} converges to zero weakly. 0
We will need another estimate, but this will depend on the pseudohyperbolic
metric particular to the ball, Bn. For a, z E Bn, let Sa = lal 2 , and the Jl 
projections Pa and Qa be given by Pa(z) =
((z' a)) a and Qa = 1 Pa. Relevant
a,a
computations can be found in [13, p. 25]. On Bn, the pseudohyperbolic metric
induced by Hoo(Bn) is given by
(
p a, z
)= la  Pa(z)  saQa(z) I
1 _ (z, a) ,
In what follows, for points a and z in the ball and numbers sand t in the closed
interval [0,1]' we let as = a + s(z  a) and asH = a + (s + t)(z  a).
LEMMA 5. Let a, z E Bn. For s, t E [0,1] .satisfying t :::; 1  s we have
tp(a,z)
(2.3) p(a + s(z  a), a + (s + t)(z  a)) :::; 1 _ (1 _ t)p(a, z)
We have assumed that a =I z, and therefore a  Pa(z)  saQa(z) =I O. A simple
computation gives
Let
e= max {lim sup p((Z), 'lj!(Z)) , lim sup p((Z), '(Z))} .
1",(z)ll 1'I/J(z)ll
Then
(3.1)
PROOF. By hypothesis there is a sequence of points {Zj} in Bn, such that
p((Zj),(Zj)) ~ e, and one of them, say {(Zj)}, converges to a point ( on the
boundary of Bn. Without loss of generality we may assume that p( ( Zj ), 'lj!( Zj)) >
e1fj. Let kj E Hoo(Bn) be a function of norm one, whose existence is guaranteed
by the pseudohyperbolic distance definition, satisfying kj((zj)) > e  1fj and
kj('lj!(zj)) = O. Consider the functions
f(z) = (1 + (z, () )/2 and g(z) = (1  (z, () )/2.
Then f,g E HOO(B n ), f(() = 1, If(7])1 < 1 for all 7] E aBn satisfying 7] I (, and
g(() = O. We will now produce a sequence of functions, {hj}, tending to zero
weakly for which Ihj((zj))  hj (1/I(Zj)) I ~ e. We proceed as follows.
Let j E N. Since f((zj)) ~ 1, we may choose Zmj so that If((zmj))lj >
J 1  1 fj. Now since 9 I 0 on Bn, there exists an integer Ij such that
Ig((zmj))1 1/ 1j 2: J1 1fj.
Consider the functions hj = (gl/1 j )(J3)kmr Then Ilhjll ~ 1, hj (1/I(zmj)) = 0, and
Ihj((zmJ)1 > (1  1fj)(e  1/mj). We note that hj ~ 0 on the Shilov boundary
and, by Lemma 4, hj ~ 0 weakly. Thus for any compact operator K we have
IIC",  C,p + KII > IIC",hj  C,phj + Khjll
2: Ihj((zmj))  hj('lj!(zmj)) + (Khj)(zmJI
= Ihj((zmJ) + (Khj)(zmj)1 ~ e
This proves the lower inequality in (3.1).
For the upper inequality, let I: > 0 and choose 8 with 0 < 8 < 1 close enough
to 1 so that
p((Z), 'lj!(z)) ~ e + I: on the set {1(z)1 > 8} U {1'lj!(z)1 > 8}.
Now choose a = a(I:,8) E (0,1) close enough to one so that p((z),a(z)) < I: and
p('lj!(Z) , ml'{z)) < I: on the set {1(z)1 ~ 8}n{I1/I(z)1 ~ 8}. Since max{llalI, Ila'lj!ll} ~
a < 1, the operator K ~f Co",  Co,p is compact. If Z and ware any two points of
B'\ we may view Z and w as elements of the dual space of Hoo(Bn) in the obvi
ous way. Therefore, for any function f in the unit ball of Hoo(Bn) we may apply
(2.2) to conclude that If(z)  f(w)1 ~ 2p(z,w). Henceforth, applying (2.2) to the
functions f and fo(z) = f(az), we have
I(C",f)(z)  (C,pf)(z)  (Kf)(z)1 ~ If((z))  f(a(z))1 + If('lj!(z))  f(a'(z))1
< 2p((z), a(z)) + 2p('lj!(z), a'lj!(z)) < 4c
when z E {II ~ 8} n Hl/)I ~ 8}, while
I(C",f)(z)  (C,pf)(z)  (Kf)(z)1 < If((z))  f('lj!(z)) I + If(a(z))  f(a1/l(z))1
< 2p((z), 'lj!(z)) + 2p((z), 'lj!(z))
< 4e + 41:
184 PAMELA GORKIN. RAYMOND MORTINI, AND DANIEL SUAREZ
when Z E {1cf>1 > 8} U {I'!/JI > 8}. Since the function f is arbitrary, IIG</>  G",  KII ~
4e + 4c, and since c is arbitrary we obtain (3.1). D
COROLLARY 7. Let cf> and '!/J be two holomorphic selfmaps of the unit ball.
Then G</>  G", is compact if and only if either max {11<;b11, II'!/JII} < 1, or
lim sup p(cf>(z), '!/J(z)) = lim sup p(cf>(z), '!/J(z)) = O.
leI>(z)I~1 1"'(z)I~1
PROOF. It is clear that G</> and G", are compact, if max {11cf>11, 11'!/J11l < 1. On
the other hand, if max {11cf>11, II'!/JII} = 1 and e is the parameter of Theorem 6, then
(3.1) says that Gel>  G", is compact if and only if e = o. D
Our next goal is to characterize the path components of composition operators
on Hoo(Bn). We write G</> '" G", to indicate that there is a normcontinuous
homotopy of composition operators joining Gel> with G",. Also, if K denotes the
ideal of compact operators, we write G</> "'e G", to indicate that there is an essential
normcontinuous homotopy of classes {G", + K: cp: Bn 4 B n holomorphic} joining
Gel> + K with G", + K.
Let cf> be a holomorphic selfmap of Bn. For x E M (HOO (Bn)) we can define
cf>(x) E M(Hoo(Bn)) by the rule <;b(x)(f) ~f x(f 0 cf. Thus we can extend cf> :
B n 4Bn to a selfmap of M(Hoo(Bn)), which we also denote by cf>. The continuity
of this extension is immediate.
We now have everything we need to prove the main theorem of this paper. As
indicated in the introduction, this theorem unifies and extends many of the results
appearing in [11], as well as [8].
THEOREM 8. Let cf> and '!/J be holomorphic selfmaps of the unit ball in en.
Then the following are equivalent.
(a) G</> '" G",.
(b) G</> "'e G",.
(c) IIGeI>  G",II < 2.
(d) SUPzEBn p(cf>(z), '!/J(z)) < 1.
PROOF. (a) => (b) is obvious.
(c) :} (d). A boundary for HOCJ (Bn) is a closed set F c M (HOCJ (Bn)) such that
Ilfll = SUPxEF If(x)1 for all f E HOCJ(Bn). It is clear that the closure B n of B n in
M(HOCJ(Bn)) is a boundary for HOCJ(B n ), and since oHOCJ(Bn) is the intersection of
all the boundaries [4, p. 10], then oHOCJ(Bn) c F. The equivalence then follows
from (2.1).
(b) => (c). By hypothesis there is a family {cf>t}, with t E [0, 1], of holomorphic
selfmaps of Bn such that cf>o = cf>, cf>1 = '!/J and for every c > 0 there is some 8 > 0
satisfying
< c: if It  sl < 8.
IIG</>t  Gel>. lie
Then we can take finitely many points ty = 0 < ... < tm = 1 in [0,1] such that
IIG</>t.  GeI>tHl lie < 1/2 for every i = 1, . .. , m  1. We claim that
(3.2) sup p(cf>t. (z), cf>t'+l (z)) < 1
zEBn
is smaller than 1, we are done. If some of the maps have norm 1, then the first
inequality of (3.1) tells us that there is some 0 < 8 < 1 close enough to 1 such that
sup p(t;{Z), tHl (Z)) < 3/4,
{I</>., 1~t5}U{I</>"+11~6}
while the set {It, I < 8} n {It'+ll < 8} is mapped by both functions into the ball
8Bn, whose pseudohyperbolic diameter is smaller than 1. Our claim follows.
Since the closure of Bn in M(Hoo(Bn)) contains the Shilov boundary, (3.2)
and (2.1) imply that IIC</>"  C</>'<+1 11 < 2 for i = 1, ... , Tn  1. Lemma 3 now says
that (c) holds.
(d) =} (a). By (d) there exists 0: < 1 such that
sup p((z), 'l/J(z)) :; 0:.
zEBn
4. Examples
So what are some examples of isolated operators? If : Bn + Bn has radial
limits of Euclidean norm 1 on a set of positive measure, we claim that C</> is isolated.
If 'l/J =I there must exist a set of positive measure in 8Bn on which has
radial limits of norm 1 and 'l/J does not equal (see [13, Ch. 5]). Thus, there
exists a sequence {zd c Bn for which (Zk) + ( E 8Bn and 'l/J(Zk) + 'Tf, with
'Tf =I (. Therefore p((Zk), 'l/J(Zk)) + 1 and Lemma 2 tells us that IIC</>  C",II = 2.
In particular, the automorphisms of B n induce isolated composition operators.
It is clear from Theorem 8 that if , 'l/J are holomorphic selfmaps of Bn and
O</>  C'" is compact, then C</> '" C"'. It is not completely clear, though, that the
converse fails. In [8] Hosokawa, Izuchi and Zheng constructed an example that
shows this for n = 1. By eliminating variables, every example that works for
n = 1 can be made to work for general n. Here we construct a simpler example of
186 PAMELA GORKIN, RAYMOND MORTINI, AND DANIEL SUAREZ
holomorphic selfmaps of the ball, 4> and '1/), such that C'" '" C'" but C<I>  C,,) is not
compact.
Let n = {UJ ED: ~1=!:1 > ~} be a nontangential region in D at the point
Z = 1. We want to estimate p(w, (w + 1)/2) for wEn. We recall that p(z, w) =
Iz  wi/II  zwl for z, wED. By straightforward calculation,
( ( + 1)/2) 1 = 11 lwl 2+ 1 wi (1 lwl)(1 + Iwl) 1 3
p w, w Ilw I ~ Ilw I + ~
and
> ~ (1 + 1 Iw12)
1 w
1lwl 2
1+ 11_wI2(1~w)
5. Endomorphisms of HOO(D)
In this section we investigate the path components of elldomorphisms of H OO (D).
For x E M(HOO(D)), the Gleason part of x is P(x) = {y E M(HOO(D)) : p(x,y) <
I}. Since the condition p(:r, y) < 1 is an equivalence relation, the Gleason parts form
a partition of M(HOO(D)). In [7] Hoffman produced a continuous and onto map
Lx: D+P(x) such that Lx(O) = x and foLx E HOO(D) for every x E M(HOO(D))
and f E HOO(D). There are two possibilities: either Lx(z) = x for all zED (so
P(x) = {x}) or Lx is onetoone. We write
G = {x E M(HOO) : Lx is onetoone} and r = {x E M(HOO) : Lx = {x}}.
It is wellknown that every endomorphism T of HOO(D) can be factored as T =
C",CL", , where 4> is a holomorphic selfmap of D and x E M(HOO(D)). Although it
is clear that this factorization is not unique, two different factorizations of the same
endomorphism are related in the following way (see [2]): if p(x, y) < 1, then there
is a biholomorphic map r of D (depending on x and y) such that Ly(z) = Lx(r(z))
HOMOTOPIC COMPOSITION OPERATORS ON Hoo(B n ) 187
for every zED. This means that every endomorphism of the form T = Cq,CLy can
also be factored as
T = Cq,CLy = Cq,CTCL", = CToq,CLx '
Of course, if x E rand p(x, y) < 1, then x = y and T = C Lr .
LEMMA 10. Let x E G and A = Ej=1 )..,jCq,j' where )..,j E C and Cq,j are
composition operators on H'XJ(D). Then IIACLJI = IIAII.
PROOF. Since IIACLxll ::; IICLxllliAIl ::; IIAII, one direction is easy. For the
other direction, if 0 < f < 1, there exists a function f in the ball of HOO(D) such
that IIA(f)11 > (1  f)IIAIi. By the definition of the norm, there exists r with
o < r < 1 such that
n
sup IA(f)(z)1 = sup
ZETD
L )..,jf(cPj(z))
ZETD j=l
> (1  f)2I1AII
By a result of Hoffman [7, p. 91]' there exist Blaschke products bk such that (bk 0
Lx)(z) ~ z uniformly on compact subsets of D. But rD is a precompact subset
of D, and therefore cPj (r D) is precompact for each j. That is, there is 0 < 0: < 1
such that Uj=l cP j(rD) C o:D. Fix {J with 0: < {J < 1. Since f is analytic, there is
8> 0 such that for z, wE (JD with Iz  wi < 8 we have If(z)  f(w)1 < f. Clearly
we can also require 8 < (J  0:. Therefore we may choose k sufficiently large so that
I(b k 0 Lx)(cPj(z))  cPj(z)1 < 8 for all z E rD. Thus, for k that large, z E rD and f
as above, (b k o Lx)(cPj(z)) E (3D and consequently If(bk(Lx(cPj(z)))  f(cPj(z))1 < f.
Therefore there exists a constant At depending only on nand )..,l"",)..,n such that
II ACLx II ~ sup I(ACLx(f 0 bk))(z)1
zErD
n
sup IL )..,j(f 0 bk 0 Lx)(cPj(z))1
zErD j=l
n
> sup IL )..,jf(cPj(z))I Mf
zErD j=l
> (1  f)2I1AII Mf.
Letting f ~ 0 yields the desired result. o
THEOREM 11. Let T 1, T2 E End(HOO(D)). Then the following ar'e equivalent.
(a) T1 rv T2 in End(HOO(D)).
(b) IIT1  T211 < 2.
(c) There exist x E M(HOO(D)) and holomorphic selfmaps cP. 'ljJ of D such
that T1 = Cq,C Lx T2 = CtfJCLx and IICq,  CtfJlI < 2.
PROOF. Suppose that (a) holds. Then there is a homotopy
G: [0, 1] ~End(HOO(D))
with G(O) = T1 and G(I) = T 2. We can find finitely many points 0 = it < ... <
tn = 1 such that IIG(tj)  G(tj+d II < 2 for j = 1, ... , n  1. Lemma 3 then says
that IIG(O)  G(I)1I < 2.
Suppose that (b) holds and write T1 = CLxoq, and T2 = CLyo"" where x,y E
M(HOO(D)) and <p, r.p : D ~ Dare holomorphic. If p(x, y) = 1, we then have that
188 PAMELA GORKIN, RAYMOND MORTINI, AND DANIEL SUAREZ
References
[1] E. Berkson, Composition opemtors isolated in the uniform opemtor topology, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 81 (1981),230232.
[2] P. Budde, Support sets and Gleason parts, Michigan Math. J. 37 (1990), 367383.
[3] P. Galindo and M. Lindstrom, Factorization of homomorphisms through HOO(D), preprint.
[4] T. Gamelin, Uniform algebras, PrenticeHall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N. J., 1969.
[5] T. Gamelin and J. Garnett, Distinguished homomorphisms and fiber algebras Amer. J. Math.
92 (1970), 455474.
[6] P. Gorkin and R. Mortini, Asymptotically interpolating sequences in uniform algebms, J.
London Math. Soc., to appear.
[7] K. Hoffman, Bounded analytic functions and Gleason parts, Ann. of Math. (2) 86 (1967),
74111 .
[8] T. Hosokawa, K. Izuchi, and D. Zheng, Isolated points and essential components of compo
sition opemtors on HOC, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), no. 6, 17651773.
[9] U. Klein, Kompakte multiplikative Opemtoren auf uniformen Algebren, Mitt. Math. Sem.
Giessen 232 (1997), 1120.
[10] B. MacCluer, Components in the space of composition opemtors, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory
12 (1989), 725738.
[11] B. MacCluer, S. Ohno, and R. Zhao, Topological structure of the space of composition oper'
ators on HOC, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 40 (2001), 481494.
[12] J. Moorhouse and C. Toews, Differences of composition opemtors, preprint.
[13] W. Rudin, Function theory in the unit ball of en, Grundlehren der Mathematischen
Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Science], 241. SpringerVerlag, New
YorkBerlin, 1980.
[14] J. Shapiro and C. Sundberg, Isolation amongst the composition opemtors, Pacific J. Math.,
145 (1990), 117151.
[15] C. Toews, Topological components of the set of composition opemtors on HOC (B N ), preprint.
1. Introduction
Dodds, Huijsmans and De Pagter (see [2]) give a complete description of positive
projections in ideals of measurable functions in terms of conditional expectation
type operators. Let E be an ideal of measurable functions such that Loo(O, E, Jl) C
E C L1 (0, E, Jl). They characterize a positive, order continuous projection T : E +
E with the property that T and the operator dual T' preserves one, in terms of
conditional expectation.
We extend this result to an ideal of measurable functions L with the prop
erty that Loo(O, E, Jl) C L, but we omit the assumption L C Ll (0, E, Jl). In this
case we prove that a positive, order continuous projection S : L + L, which is one
preserving and with the property that an extension of its dual is also onepreserving,
can be characterized in terms of the conditional expectation. In order to prove this
extension, we need the fact that if an operator can be characterized in terms of con
ditional expectation, then its dual can also be characterized in terms of conditional
expectation.
2. Preliminaries
Let (0, E, Jl) be a afinite measure space. The vector lattice of all Jla.e. finite
Emeasurable functions on 0, with the usual identification of Jla.e. equal functions,
is denoted by Lo(O, E, Jl). M+(O, E, Jl) denotes the set of all (equivalence classes
of) real, positive, Jlmeasurable functions into [0,00]. We define x Vy := sup{x, y}.
A linear subspace G of a vector lattice E is called a sublattice if x Vy belongs to G
for all x, y E G. A linear subspace A in which Ixl :::; IYI, with yEA implies x E A,
is called an ideal.
A subset AcE is order bounded if A is contained in an order interval, i.e. A is
bounded from above and below. We denote the set of order bounded linear operators
2003 American Mathematical Society
lRO
190 J.J. GROBLER AND M. DE KOCK
from the vector lattice E into itself by Cb(E). Cb(E) is a Dedekind complete vector
lattice (see [3), p3). All vector lattices considered will be Dedekind complete.
A net (xQ)QEf in E is called order convergent if there exists a net (YQ)QEr
satisfying (YQ) 1 0 and Ix  x", I ~ y", for all Q E r, where r is an index set. We
write X > x in order.
Q
satisfying X + 0 in order.
Q
(iii) T is order bounded if it maps order bounded subsets into order bounded
subsets.
For a Banach function space (E, II . liE) defined on some finite measure space
(n, E, p,) for which Loo(E, p,)
~ E ~ Ll (E, I.L), we define the following (see [2), p69).
The conditional expectation operator has the following properties. For a proof
of properties (i) to (vi) we refer to [4], p7; for property (vii) we refer to [3], p7.
PROPOSITION 1. (i) lE(o:f + /1g I Eo) = 0:1E(f I Eo) + /11E(g I Eo) for all
f,g E M+(E) and for all 0:::; 0:,/1 E R
(ii) 0 :::; f :::; 9 in M+(E) implies that 0 :::; 1E(f I Eo) :::; lE(g I Eo) and if
1E(lfll Eo) = 0, then it follows that f = O. By virtue of positivity we
have 11E(f I Eo)1 :::; 1E(lfll Eo).
(iii) 0:::; fn i f IJ,a.e. implies that 0:::; lE(fn I Eo) i 1E(f I Eo) J,La.e.
(iv) lE(gf I Eo) = glE(f I Eo) for all f E M+(E) and all 9 E M+(Eo).
(v) If 9 E M+(Eo) and f E M+(E), then fA gdJ,L = J~ fdJ,L for all A E Eo if
and only if 9 = 1E(f I Eo) IJ,a.e.
(vi) If Eo c Ao are subaalgebras of E, then 1E(f I Eo) = 1E(1E(f I Ao) I Eo) for
all 0:::; f E M+(E).
(vii) If f E M+(E) is such that 1E(f I Eo) E Lo(E), then we also have that
f E Lo(E).
DEFINITION 4. The domain domlE('IE o) of 1E('IEo) is defined by
domlE('IE o) := {f E Lo(E) : 1E(lfll Eo) E Lo(Eo)}.
Clearly, domlE(IE o) is an ideal in Lo(E) which contains L 1 (E).
For f E dom 1E(1 Eo), we define:
1E(f I Eo) := 1E(f+ I Eo) 1E(r I Eo).
This defines a positive linear operator
1E('IEo) : domlE('IE o) + Lo(Eo) C Lo(E).
Let (n, E, l.l) be a probability space and let L c Lo(n, E, J,L) be an ideal with
carrier n. Set
M(L) = {m E Lo(E) : 1E(lmfll Eo) E L V f E L}.
Since L C Lo(E), we have that mf E domlE('IE o) for all m E M(L) and f E L.
For m E M(L) we define Smf : L + L by
Smf := lE(mf I Eo) V f E L.
Sm is order bounded and ISml :::; Simi' Sm is also order continuous.
The following proposition will be applied in the sequel. A proof can be found
in [3], (p8).
PROPOSITION 2. Let (n, E, J,L) be a probability space and Eo C E a suba
algebra.
(i) If f E domlE('IE o) and 9 E Lo(Eo), then it follows that gf E domlE('IE o)
and lE(gf I Eo) = glE(f I Eo).
(ii) If f E Lo(E), then f E domlE('IE o) if and only if there exists a sequence
{A n }:'=1 in Eo such that An in and .
Moreover, if f E domlE(IE o), then, for all A E Eo with fA Ifldft < 00,
l SfgdJ.l
l !l
lE iL U I Eo)gdJ.l
l n
lEiL(glEiLU I Eo) I Eo)dJ.l
l f S'lE iL (g I Eo )dJ.l
(3.2)
It follows from (3.2) that for Eomeasurable 9 we have that S'g = 9 and from (3.1)
and (3.2), for arbitrary gEL' that S'g = S'lE(g I Eo) = lE(g I Eo). 0
Now we are able to prove the main result, where we characterize conditional
expectation in terms of a positive, order continuous projection and an extension of
its dual.
PROPOSITION 10. If S is a linear map, then the following statements are equi
valent.
(i) Ther'e exists a subaalgebra Eo of E such that Sf = lEU I Eo) for' all
f E L.
(ii) S: L + L is a positive order continuous projection such that SI = 1 and
S' has an extention S' : L' + Loo + L' + Loo satisfying S'I = 1.
194 J.J. GROBLER AND M. DE KOCK
< InlgIS(lsgnS'gl)dJL
< In IglSld{t
In Igld{t.
Since L' is dense in L1 (E) for the L1 (E)norm, we can extend S' to a contraction
on LdE). Since S is a projection, the same holds for S'. Thus, by Proposition 8,
there exists a subaalgebra Eo of E such that S' 9 = lE(g 1 Eo) for every 9 E Ll (E)
and therefore also for all gEL'. It follows from Lemma 9 that S" f = lEU 1Eo) for
all f E L". By restricting S" to L, we therefore have that Sf = lEU 1 Eo) for all
f E L. 0
References
[1] ANDO, T., 1966, Contmctive projections in Lpspaces, Pacific J. Math., 17,391405.
[2] DODDS, P.G., HUIJSMANS, C.B., and DE PAGTER, B., 1990, Chamcterizations of Con
ditional Expectation typeopemtors, Pacific J. Math., 141,5576.
[3] GROBLER, J.J. and DE PAGTER, B., 1999, Opemtors representable as Multiplication Condi
tional Expectation opemtors, To appear in J. of Operator Theory.
[4] NEVEU, J., 1975, Discretepammeter martingales, North Holland/American Elsevier, Am
sterdam Oxford New York.
[5] ZAANEN, A.C., 1982, Riesz spaces II, North Holland, Amsterdam, New York.
Marina Haralampidou
all x, y E E, 0: E A (see for instance [11] and/or [12]). Such a topological algebra
is denoted by (E, (PoJ"'EA)' A complete metrizable locally mconvex algebra E is
called a Prechet locally mconvex algebra. In this case, the topology of E is defined
by a countable family (Pn)nEN of submultiplicative seminorms.
A C*seminorm is a seminorm P on an involutive algebra E, satisfying the
C*condition, namely, p(x*x) = p(x)2 for every x E E [13: p. 1, Definition 1].
Such a seminorm is submultiplicative and *preserving [ibid. p. 2, Theorem 2].
A locally preC* algebra is an involutive locally (m) convex algebra (E, (P",)",EA),
such that each p"" 0: E A is a C* seminorm, while a complete algebra, as before, is
called a locally C* algebra [8: p. 198, Definition 2.2]. A Frechet locally C* algebra
is an involutive Frechet locally (m) convex algebra (E, (Pn)nEN) where each Pn is
a C* seminorm.
A locally mconvex H* algebra is an algebra E equipped with a family (P"')"'EA
of Ambrose seminorms in the sense that P"" 0: E A arises from a positive pseudo
inner product <, >"" such that the induced topology makes E into a locally m
convex topological algebra. Moreover, the following conditions are satisfied:
For any x E E, there is an x* E E, such that
< xy,z >",=< y,x*z >",
< yx, z >",=< y, zx* >",
for any y, z E E and 0: E A. x* is not necessarily unique. In case, E is proper
(viz. Ex = (0), implies x = 0), then x* is unique and * : E + E : x f+ x* is an
involution (see [4: p. 451, Definition 1.1 and p. 452, Theorem 1.3]).
Throughout of this work the considered algebras are over the field of complexes.
To fix notation we recall the following. Let (E, (P"')"'EA) be a complete locally
mconvex algebra and
P'" : E + E/ker(p",) == E", : x f+ p"'(x) :=x + ker(p",)
(1.1)
For the statements (i) and (iii) in the next proposition see [7: Lemma 3.8).
PROPOSITION 1.2. Let E, F be topological algebms and : E 7 F a continuous
epimorphism. Then the following hold true:
(i) If E is a Krull algebm and closed, then F is a Krull algebm.
(ii) If E is a Krull algebm and F a Q'algebm, then F is a Krull algebm.
(iii) If F is a Krull algebm and closed with ker() ~ I for every proper closed
left or right ideal in E, then E is a Krull algebm.
(iv) If F is a Krull algebm and a closed injection, then E is a Krull algebm.
PROOF. (ii) For a proper closed left ideal J in F, l(J) is a proper closed
left ideal in E with ker() ~ l(J) and J = (l(J)) (see also [3: p. 316,
Proposition B.5.4)). Thus, l(J) ~ M for some closed maximal regular left ideal
Min E. Hence J ~ (M), so that (M) is a maximal regular left ideal in F (ibid.),
closed by Q'. Similarly, for proper closed right ideals.
(iv) Immediate from (iii). 0
element in the factor algebra EOl == EOl (see aslo [1: p. 32, Theorem 2.4] and [11:
p. 91, Theorem 4.1]). Thus eOl = 0, which is a contradiction. Thus, pOl(e) =I 0 for
every Q E A, hence POl (e) = 1 for every Q E A. 0
As a consequence of Corollary 2.2 and Proposition 2.5 we have the next.
COROLLARY 2.6. Every proper complete locally mconvex H* algebm with con
tinuous involution and a normal unit is a Krull algebm.
Our next aim is to provide another proof to the fact that a F'rechet locally
C*algebra is Krull (see Corollary 2.2). To do this, we use the notion involved in
the next.
DEFINITION 2.7. A projective system {(EOl , fOl,8)}OlEA of topological algebras
is called perfect, if the restrictions to the projective limit algebra
(2.4) E = ~EOl = {(x Ol ) E II EOl: fOl,8(X,8) = XOl , if Q:S; (3 in A}
OlEA
of the canonical projections 7r0l : I10lEA EOl + E Ol , Q E A, namely, the (continuous
algebra) morphisms
(2.5) fOl = 7rOl IE =limE", : E + EOl , Q E A,
t
are onto maps. The resulted projective limit algebra E = lim EOl is called perfect
~
(topological) algebm.
LEMMA 2.8. Every Frechet locally mconvex algebm (E, (Pn)nEN) gives a perfect
projective system of normed algebms.
PROOF. For any n :s; m in N, the connecting maps
(2.6)
with
fnm(X + ker(Pm)) = x + ker(Pn)
are onto algebra morphisms (see, for instance, [11: p. 86, (3.6) and (3.7)]). So,
since {(En, fnm)}nEN is a denumerable projective system of normed algebras, it
follows that fn, n E N (see (2.5)) are onto, as well (see [10: p. 229, Theorem
8]). 0
The proof in the next result is an adaptation of that in Proposition 2.1.
PROPOSITION 2.9. Any perfect projective limit of Krull algebms is a Krull
algebm.
PROOF. Let {(EOl,fOl,B)}OlEA be a perfect projective system of Krull algebras.
Consider the projective limit algebra E = limEOl (see (2.4)), which is a closed
~
subalgebra of the cartesian product topological algebra I10l EA EOl (see, for instance,
[11: p. 84, Lemma 2.1]). For a proper closed left ideal I in E, fOl(I) is a (closed)
left ideal in E Ol , Q E A. If f Ol (I) = EOl for every Q E A, then
1= limfOl(I)
~
= limfOl(I) = limEOl = E,
~ ~
(see also [ibid. p. 87, Lemma 3.2]), which is a contradiction. Thus, fOl(I) =I EOl
for some Q E A. Since E Ol , Q E A is a Krull algebra, there exists a closed maximal
regular left ideal, say M, with fOl(I) ~ M and hence I ~ f;;l(1Ol(1)) ~ f;;l(M),
200 MARINA HARALAMPIDOU
where J;;l(M) is a closed maximal regular left ideal in E and this terminates the
proof for closed left ideals. Similarly, for closed right ideals. D
THEOREM 2.10. Any Prichet locally C*algebm is a Krull algebm.
PROOF. Let (E, (Pn)nEN) be an algebra as in the statement. By [1: p. 32,
Theorem 2.4], the respective normed algebras En, n E N in the ArensMichael de
composition of E, are C* algebras and hence Krull (see, for instance, [2: p. 56,
Theorem 2.4.5]. In particular, {(En' Jnm)}nEN is a perfect system of normed alge
bras (see Lemma 2.8 and relation (2.6)). Proposition 2.9 assures that the projective
limit algebra lim En is a Krull algebra and hence E is a Krull algebra, as it fol
+
lows from Corollary 1.3 and the fact that E ~ lim En within a topological algebra
+
isomorphism (see (1.3)). D
References
[1] C. Apostol, b*algebms and their representation, J. London Math. Soc. 3(1971), 3038. MR
44:2040.
[2] J. Dixmier, C*Algebms, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1977. MR 56:16388.
[3] R.S. Doran and V.A. Belfi, Chamcterizations of COAlgebras. The Gel'fandNa'tmark Theo
rems, MarcelDekker, 1986. MR 87k:46115.
[4] M. Haralampidou, On locally convex H*algebms, Math. Japon. 38(1993), 451460. MR
94h:46088.
[5] M. Haralampidou, Annihilator topological algebras, Portug. Math. 51(1994), 147162. MR
95f:46076.
[6] M. Haralampidou, On complementing topological algebms, J. Math. Sci. 96(1999), 37223734.
MR 2000j:46085.
[7] M. Haralampidou, On the Krull property in topological algebms (to appear).
[8] A. Inoue, Locally C* algebras, Mem. Faculty Sci. Kyushu Univ. (SerA) 25(1971), 197235.
MR 46:4219.
[9] A. EI Kinani, On locally preC*algebm structures in locally mconvex H*algebms, Thrk. J.
Math. 26(2002), 263271.
[10] G. Kothe, Topological Vector Spaces, I, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 1969. MR 40:1750.
[11] A. Mallios, Topological Algebms. Selected Topics, NorthHolland, Amsterdam, 1986. MR
87m:46099.
[12] E.A. Michael, Locally multiplicativelyconvex topological algebms, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc.
11(1952). (Reprinted 1968). MR 14,482a.
[13] Z. Sebestyen, Every C*seminorm is automatically 8ubmultiplicative, Period. Math. Hung.
10(1979), 18. MR 80c:46065.
Introduction
A ring homomorphism between two algebras is a mapping which preserves ad
dition and multiplication. If we assume that the mapping is linear, then it is an
ordinary homomorphism. In the case where the two algebras are just the field C
of complex numbers, the assumption cannot be avoided; there are ring homomor
phisms of C into C which are not linear nor conjugate linear (cf. [9]). The history
of ring homomorphisms on C probably dates back to the investigation of Segre [19]
in the nineteenth century and that of Lebesgue [12]. A similar remark applies to
finitedimensional Banach algebras. But this is not the case for several infinite
dimensional ones; for instance, Arnold [1] proved that a ring isomorphism between
the two Banach algebras of all bounded operators on two infinitedimensional Ba
nach spaces is linear or conjugate linear (cf. [5]). Kaplansky [8] proved that if p
is a ring isomorphism from one semisimple Banach algebra A onto another, then
A is a direct sum Al EB A2 EB A3 with A3 finitedimensional, p linear on All and
p conjugate linear on A 2 . It follows that a ring isomorphism from a semisimple
commutative Banach algebra onto another with infinite and connected maximal
ideal space is linear or conjugate linear.
a Banach algebra by the Baire category theorem. We show that, for certain subsets
S, p is automatically linear or conjugate linear, if the range of p contains a 11011
constant function. We also give an example of S such that a ring hommomorphism
that is neither linear nor conjugate linear, and whose range contains nonconstant
functions, is possible.
In the final section we study ring homomorphisms into C: ring homomorphisms
whose ranges contain only constant functions. We characterize the kernels of ring
homomorphisms from a unital commutative algebra into C, which is compared with
the one to one correspondence between maximal ideals and complex (linear) homo
morphisms on commutative Banach algebras. As a corollary we show that there
exists an injective ring homomorphism from an algebra which consists of analytic
functions into C. We also give a complete description of the ring homomorphisms
on the disk algebra in terms of prime ideals.
We say that a ring homomorphism 7 on C is trivial if 7 = 0 or 7(Z) = Z (resp.
z) for every Z E C. Other ring homomorphisms on C are said to be nontrivial.
We note some properties of nontrivial ring homomorphisms on C, which are used
later in this paper. For a proof of the existence of nontrivial ring homomorphisms,
historical comments, and further properties, see [9]. It is easy to see that every
nonzero ring homomorphism 7 on C fixes rational real numbers and 7(i) = i or
i. If 7 is nontrivial, then 7 does not preserve complex conjugation. (This is
a standard fact. Here is a proof. Suppose 7 does preserve complex conjugation:
7(Z) = 7(Z) for every Z E C. Then 7(JR) C JR, that is, 7 is a ring homomorphism on
the set of all real numbers R If x> 0, then 7(X) = (7( JX))2 > O. It follows that 7
is order preserving on R Since 7(r) = r for every rational real number r, we have
7(X) = x for every real number x. Thus 7(Z) = Z (resp. 7(Z) = z) for every Z E C
if 7(i) = i (resp. 7(i) = i), which is a contradiction.) It is easy to see that T is
nontrivial if and only if 7 is discontinuous at every (resp. one) point in C. Thus, if
T is nontrivial, then it is unbounded on every neighborhood of zero. It follows that
there exists a sequence {w n } of complex numbers which converges to 0 such that
IT(Wn)1 tends to infinity as n > 00 if 7 is nontrivial. If the ring homomorphism
on C is onto, then it is said to be a ring automorphism on C. Note that there is
a nonzero ring homomorphism on C which is not a ring automorphism. We also
note that there is a nontrivial ring automorphism on C (cf. [9, 11]).
1. Partial representation
If is a nonzero complex homomorphism on A, then there exists a unique
x E MA such that (a) = a(x) for every a E A. By this fact a wellknown
representation of a (linear) homomorphism VJ from A into B follows: There exists
a continuous mapping <I> defined on {y E MB : VJ(a)(y) :I 0 for some a E A} into
MA such that
VJ(a)(y) = a(<I>(y)), a E A, y E {y E MB : VJ(a)(y) :I 0 for some a E A}.
On the other hand, if <I> is a continuous mapping of MB into AfA and Ty is a ring
homomorphism on C for every y E AfB , then
p(a)(y) = Ty(a(<I>(y)), a E A, y E MB
defines a ring homomorphism from A into the algebra of all complexvalued func
tions on M B . Thus it defines a ring homomorphism from A into B under the
condition that T. (a (<I> (. )) is in B for every a E A, and this is the case when M B
204 O. HATORI, T. ISHII, T. MIURA, AND S.E. TAKAHASI
py(a) = p(a)(y), aE A.
p(a)(y) = a(CP(y)), a E A.
a, yEMo,
p(a)(y) = { a(CP(y)), yE M 1 ,
a(CP(y)), y E M_ 1 .
p(a)(y) = {7y(a(<p(y))),
0, yEMo.
206 O. HATORI, T. ISHII, T. MIURA, AND S.E. TAKAHASI
In particular, p(a)(y) = a(q>(y)) for every y E Ml and p(a)(y) = a(q>(y)) for every
y EM_I' The set q>(Md,l U Md,d is a (possibly empty) finite subset of MA and
q>l(X) n (Md.l U Md,d is an open subset of MB for each x E q>(Md,l U Md,d.
Since {p(aj)(y,x)} converges to p(aj)(Y) for each j, there exists a Ao E A such that
JTy>. (aj(iP(y,x)))  aj(iP(y))J < e
holds for every A ~ AO and j = 1,2, ... , m. Suppose that A ~ Ao, then there exists
a A' ~ A such that iP(y,x/) f/. G, so that Jajl(iP(y,x/))  ajl(iP(y))J ~ e for some j'.
lt follows that YN E Md,l. We also see that iP(y,x/) E {Xl, ... ,Xn } \ {iP(y)}. There
exists an a E A such that a(iP(y)) = 1 and a = 0 on {Xl, ... ,Xn } \ {iP(y)}. We
conclude that for every A with A ~ Ao there exists a A' ~ A such that p(a)(y,x/) = 0
and p(a)(y) = 1, which is a contradiction since p(a) is continuous on M B . Thus we
have that {iP(y,x)} converges to iP(y), so iP is continuous at y. In the same way we
see that iP is continuous at each point in M_ I . We have proved that iP is continuous
on MB \Mo. 0
Note that the set Md,l U Md,l need not be a finite set or even a closed subset
of AlB (cf. [20, Example 5.3]).
In [21] the authors proved the following corollary in the case where A is regular
and satisfies a certain additional condition. Now we can remove these conditions.
COROLLARY 2.4. Let p be a ring homomorphism from A into B. Suppose that
py(A) = C for every y E M B . Then there exists a continuous mapping iP of MB
into MA and a nontrivial ring automorphism Ty on C for every y E Md,l U Md,l
s1Lch that
a(iP(Y))' Y E MI ,
{
p(a)(y) = a(iP(y)), Y EM_I,
Ty(a(iP(y))), Y E Md,l U Md,l.
Moreover iP(Md,1 U Md,d is a finite subset of MA.
PROOF. By Lemma 2.2 we see that ker py is a maximal ideal, so the condition
(m) is satisfied. The conclusion follows by Theorem 2.3. In particular, Ty = Py 0 Ie
is onto, thus it is a nontrivial automorphism on C for y E Md,l U Md,l. 0
Theorem 2.1 in [13] for the case of unital and semisimple commutative Banach
algebras is also deduced from Theorem 2.3
COROLLARY 2.5. Suppose that A is involutive and B is symmetrically involu
tive. Let p be a *ring homomorphism. Then MB = Mo U MI U MI and there
exists a continuous function iP from MB \ Mo into AlA such that
a(iP(Y))' yE MI ,
p(a)(y) = { 0, yE Mo,
:a('=iP..,...(
y77")) , y EM_I
3. Automatic linearity
One of the reasons for ring homomorphisms between infinitedimensional Ba
nach algebras to be linear or conjugate linear is that the range contains an element
with large spectrum. In this section we show evidence of this.
208 O. HATORI, T. ISHII, T. MIURA, AND S.E. TAKA HAS I
Let
A = {f E C(X) : flD E A(D)}
and B = C(Y), where CO denotes the algebra of all complexvalued continuous
functions on '. Let be the ring homomorphism from C into C(K) defined in [20,
Example 5.3]. For f E A, put
f(2), y=O,
p(f)(y) = { (f(2))(1/n), y = lin,
f(y  3), Iy  31 :::; 1.
Then p is a ring homomorphism and satisfies the condition (ii). But (i) is not
satisfied and p is not reallinear on A.
Let A be one of the algebras P, njj or the disk algebra A(D), where jj denotes
the closed unit disk in C, and H(D) the algebra of analytic functions on the open
unit disk. Although both P and no are dense in the disk algebra, automatic
linearity results for ring homomorphisms on these algebras are different from each
other. Suppose that p is a ring homomorphism from A into H(D) such that the
range of p contains a nonconstant function. If A = njj (resp. A(D), then p is
linear or conjugate linear by Corollary 4.3 (resp. Corollary 4.2). But that is not
the case for A = P. The ring homomorphisms defined by p(2:a n z n ) = 2:1'(a n )zn
for polynomials 2: anz n are neither linear nor conjugate linear for nontrivial ring
homomorphisms l' on C.
Note that the corresponding ring homomorphism p is not unique. Let T be any
nonzero ring homomorphism on C. Then TOp is a ring homomorphism on A with
ker p = ker TOp.
As a corollary of Theorem 5.1 we display a pathological feature of ring homo
morphisms on algebras of analytic functions into C; even injection can be possible.
COROLLARY 5.2. Let A be a unital algebra which consists of holomorphic func
tions on a domain in cn.
Then there exists an injective ring homomorphism of A
into Co
PROOF. Since the ideal containing only zero is a prime ideal and the cardinality
of A is the same as that of the continuum, there exists a ring homomorphism p of
A into C whose kernel consists only of zero, by Theorem 5.1. Then p is an injective
ring homomorphism. 0
Note that the injective ring homomorphism in Corollary 5.2 can never be sur
jective if A contains nonconstant functions since A is not a field. Note also that
every ring homomorphism from a unital commutative C* algebra into C cannot be
injective if the dimension of the algebra is greater than one since {O} is not a prime
ideal in this case.
Together with the results in the previous sections we give a complete description
of ring homomorphisms on the disk algebra A(D).
COROLLARY 5.3. Let p be a nonzero ring homomorphism on the disk algebra
into itself. Then ker p is a prime ideal. If the range of p contains a nonconstant
function, then p is linear or conjugate linear; there exists 'P E A(D) with 'P(D) c fJ
such that
p(f)(z) = f 0 'P(z), zED, f E A(D)
or
p(f)(z) = f 0 'P(z), z E fJ, f E A(fJ).
On the other hand, suppose that'P E A(D) with 'P(D) c D. Then
a(f)(z) = f 0 'P(z), ZED, f E A(fJ)
PROOF. A(D) has no nonzero divisors of zero, so the kernel of any ring ho
momorphism from complex algebra with unit element into A(D) must be a prime
(algebra) ideal. If p(A(D) contains a nonconstant function, then by Theorem 4.1
we see that p is linear or conjugate linear. Suppose that p is linear. Then it is well
known and easy to prove, since the maximal ideal space of A(D) is the closed unit
disk D, that there exists 'P E A(fJ) with 'P(D) c D such that
p(f)(z) = f 0 'P(z)
holds for every f E A(D) and zED. Suppose that p is conjugate linear. Let
h : A(fJ) + A(fJ) be defined as
Then hop is a linear ring homomorphism on the disk algebra. It follows that there
exists r.p E A(D) with r.p(D) c D such that
h 0 p(f)(z) = 1 0 r.p(z) , zED, I E A(D).
Thus we see that
p(f)(z) = 1 0 r.p(z),
holds for every I E A(D) and zED.
Conversely, suppose that r.p E A(D) with r.p(D) c D. Then it is easy to see that
u(f)(z) = 1 0 r.p(z), zED, IE A(D)
defines a linear ring homomorphism and
u(f)(z) = 1 0 r.p(z), zED, IE A(D)
defines a conjugate linear ring homomorphism. o
Let n be a positive integer and An(D) the subalgebra of those I in A(D)
whose nth derivative I(n) on D is continuously extended up to D. An(D) is a
unital commutative Banach algebra with the norm IIIlIn = L~=o III(k)lIoo/k! for
I E An(D), where II . 1100 is the supremum norm on D. Then Corollary 5.3 is
also valid for An(D). Prime ideals in A(D) and An(D) are studied in [16]. (See
also [4] for the case of A(D).) Mortini proved that every nonzero prime ideal
is contained in a unique maximal ideal. He in fact showed that a nonzero and
nonmaximal prime ideal in An(D) (resp. A(D)) is dense in exactly one of the
ideals {J E An(D) : 1(>") = 1'(>..) = ... = I(j)(>..) = O} for some 0 ~ j ~ n (resp.
{I E A(D) : 1(>") = O}), >.. E aD. We also see by a theorem of Dietrich [4] that
the cardinal number of the set of all prime ideals of A(D) which is contained in
a maximal ideal {J E A(D) : 1(>") = O}, >.. E aD is 2', the cardinal number of
the set of all the subsets of the continuum. Thus we see that there are 2' ring
homomorphisms on the disk algebra.
Acknowlegement. The authers would like to thank Professor KenIchiroh
Kawasaki for his valuable comments. They also would like to thank the referees for
their careful reading of the paper and their valuable comments.
References
[1] B. H. Arnold, Rings of opemtors on vector spaces, Ann. of Math. 45(1944), 2449
[2] J. A. Becker and W. R. Zame, Homomorphisms into analytic rings, Amer. Jour. Math.
101(1979), 11031122
[3] L. Bers, On rings of analytic junctions, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 54(1948), 311315
[4] W. E. Dietrich, Jr., Prime ideals in uniform algebms, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 42(1974),
171174
[5] M. Eidelheit, On isomorphisms of rings of linear opemtors, Studia Math. 9(1940),97105
[6] J. B. Garnett, Bounded analytic functions, Academic Press, New York, 1981
[7] H. Iss'sa, On the meromorphic junction field of a Stein variety, Ann. Math. 83(1966), 3446
[8] 1. Kaplansky, Ring isomorphisms of Banach algebms, Canadian J. Math. 6(1954),374381
[9] H. Kestelman, Automorphisms of the field of complex numbers, Proc. London Math. Soc.
53(1951), 112
[10] 1. Kra, On the ring of holomorphic functions on an open Riemann surface, Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 132(1968),231244
[11] S. Lang, Algebm (second edition), AddisonWesley, California, 1984.
[12] M. H. Lebesgue, Sur les tmnsformations ponctuelles, tmnsformaant les plans en plans, qu'on
peut definir par des procedes analytiques, Atti della R. Acc. delle Scienze di Torino 42(1907),
532539
AUTOMATIC LINEARITY FOR RING HOMOMORPHISMS 215
[13J T. Miura, Star ring homomorphisms between commutative Banach algebrns, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 129(2001), 20052010
[14J L. Molnar, The rnnge of a ring homomorphism from a commutative C' algebrn, Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 124(1996), 17891794
[15J L. Molnar, Automatic surjectivity of ring homomorphisms on H* algebrns and algebrnic
differences among some group algebrns of compact groups, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 128(2000),
125134
[16J R. Mortini, Prime ideals in the algebrn An(D), Complex Variables Theory AppJ. 6(1986),
337345
[17J M. Nakai, On rings of analytic and meromorphic functions, Proc. Japan Acad. 39(1963),
7984
[18J W. Rudin, An algebrnic charncterization of conformal equivalence, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
61(1955), 543
[19J S. de Corrado Segre, Un nuovo campo di ricerche geometriche, Atti della R. Acc. delle Scienze
di Torino 25(1889), 276301
[20J P. Semrl, Nonlinear perturbations of homomorphisms on C(X), Quart. J. Math. Oxford (2)
50(1999),87109
[21J S.E. Takahasi and O. Hatori, A structure of ring homomorphisms on commutative Banach
algebrns, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 127(1999),22832288
ABSTRACT. We are going to discuss Carleson measures for the standard weigh
ted Bergman spaces A~ (1 < a < 00, 0 < p < (0). These are finite,
positive Borel measures J.L on the unit disk in IC such that, given 0 < q < 00,
A~ embeds, as a set, continuously into Lq(J.L). Such measures have been
closely investigated by V.L. Oleinikov and B.S. Pavlov [15], W.W. Hastings
[6] and D.H. Luecking [11], [12]. We complement their results, in particular
by characterizing compactness, order boundedness and related (absolutely)
summing properties of the canonical embedding A~ <t Lq(J.L).
1. Introduction
The Carleson measures under investigation are finite, positive Borel measures
Jl. on the open unit disk l[J in the complex plane such that, given 1 < 0 < 00
and 0 < p, q < 00, the (classical) weighted Bergman space A~ is a subset of
Lq(J.l) and the embedding is bounded. Such measures have been characterized,
even in a more general setting, by V.L. Oleinikov and B.S. Pavlov [15J, W.W.
Hastings [6J and D.H. Luecking [11], [12J. Our first main topic is to complement
their results by characterizing when the canonical embedding I : A~ ~ Lq(J.l) is
compact. We will see that this is always the case if p > q. Our second main
topic is to characterize when I is order bounded, that is, the unit ball of A~ is
a subset of some order interval in Lq(J.l). As a consequence, we obtain necessary
and sufficient conditions for I to have specific (absolutely) summing properties.
Our results extend corresponding ones for composition operators which have been
obtained e.g. in [3]' [4], [20]' [21J. In fact, they can also be viewed as results on
composition operators which may have rather unusual range spaces. They apply,
for example, to pointwise multipliers.
Many of the results to be presented remain valid for measures J.l on D for which
f f> f induces just a bounded linear map A~ ~ Lq(J.l) (not necessarily injective).
This is rather straightforward; precise formulations, however, require somewhat
3. Carleson measures
All measures on 1lJ will be finite, positive Borel measures. Let 1 < a < 00 and
o < p, q < 00 be given. We say that a measure /L on 1lJ is an (a, p, q)  Carleson
measure if A~ c Lq(/L) and the embedding A~ '+ Lq(/L) is continuous: there is a
constant C> 0 such that IIfIILq(~) ::; C lIfIIA~ "If E A~.
Given an (a, p, q)  Carleson measure, the canonical embedding I : A~ > Lq(/L)
will be referred to as a Carleson embedding.
As mentioned in the introduction, a number of the results to follow remain
true if we just require that f 1+ f induces a bounded linear map A~ > Lq(/L).
Also, complex measures whose variation is (a, p, q)  Carleson can be incorporated.
Moreover, there are extensions to analytic functions of several variables. However,
we are not going to discuss such generalizations in this paper.
We say that /L is a compact (a,p, q)  Carleson measure if the embedding
A~ '+ Lq(/L) exists and is compact.
For example, an a.e. positive function h E Lq(a/3) defines the bounded mul
tiplier Mh : A~ > Lq(a/3) : f 1+ fh iff the measure h q da/3 is (a,p, q)  Carleson.
Moreover, discrete (a, p, q)  Carleson measures on 1lJ can be defined using appro
priate versions of 'sampling sequences', etc.
CARLESON EMBEDDINGS FOR WEIGHTED BERGMAN SPACES 219
e(z, w) := l~f
. lJd(J
"I 1 _ J(J
where the infimum extends over all smooth curves 'Y in 10 joining z and w. For
w E 10 and r > 0, let
Br (w ) = {z E 10 : e( z, w) < r}
be the corresponding hyperbolic disk. Actually, the particular choice of r > 0
doesn't really matter in our context.
Let us agree to write A~ '+ Lq(J.l) if A~ is a subset of U(J.l) and the embedding
is continuous. Similar for other function spaces.
The Carleson measures under consideration can be characterized in terms of
the function
It also follows that Ha,p,q E L~(A) if and only if Jt(B r ())/C7 a (B r ()) is in
LP/(pq) (C7 a ). This will be used in the proof of Theorem 4.3 below.
If p ~ q; then the relevant parameter in Theorem 3.1 is q (0: + 2)/p, whereas
for p > q and fixed 0:, dependence is on p / q.
As a first immediate consequence we may state:
COROLLARY 3.2. For any 1 < 0: < 00,0 < p,q < 00 and t > 0, A~ "> Lq(Jt)
if and only if A~ "> Ltq(Jt).
has (p) norm one in A~ (0 < p < 00). The functions f E A~ which admit a
representation
00
f(w) = L an ka,p,zn(w) Vw E lV ,
n=l
where the scalars an satisfy En lanl < 00 and the Zn's are taken from lV, form a
linear space, say
In fact, the map e1(lV) + A~) : (az)zEllJ 14 EZEllJ azka,p,z is a metric surjection.
CARLESON EMBEDDINGS FOR WEIGHTED BERGMAN SPACES 221
It is immediate that
if 0 <p,q < 00 and 1 < a,/3 < 00 are such that (a+2)/p = (/3+2)/q,
then A~) and A~q) coincide.
Atomic decomposition is available for weighted Bergman spaces (e.g. [10], [1],
[22]), hence
A~ S:! A~l) (with equivalent norms).
In particular, if a> p2, then A~), alias Ab with /3+2 = (a+2)/p, is isomorphic
to fl.
Moreover:
If p 2: 1 then A~) '+ A~ (boundedly and densely).
If 0 < p < 1, then A~ A~) = Ab (boundedly and densely).
'+
In fact, it was shown by J.H. Shapiro [19] that in the latter case Ab is the Banach
envelope of A~, that is, the Banach space which is obtained by completing A~ with
respect to the biggest norm which is smaller than the given pnorm.
PROPOSITION 3.6. Let 1 < a < 00 and 0 < p ::; q < 00, q 2: 1. The following
are equivalent:
(i) J.L is an (a,p, q)  Carleson measure.
(ii) A~) '+ Lq(J.L) (boundedly).
(iii) SUPzEV IIko,p,zlbu.t) < 00.
PROOF. (i) =? (ii) is obvious if p 2: 1 and follows from the above result of J.H.
Shapiro [19] if p < 1 ::; q: A~) is the Banach envelope of A~, and so the convex
hull of BAP is dense in B A(p), (ii) =? (iii) is trivial, and (iii) =? (i) is immediate from
the followi~g estimate in ;hich C is a constant depending only on 0 < r < 1:
J.L(B r (W))l/ q 1
(1  IwI 2){o+2)/p = (1 lwI 2){o+2)/p . Br{w) dJ.L(z)
(1
)l/q
 (1
 
I
W
12){o+2)/p
.
(1 Br{w)
1 d ( )) l/q
(1 lwI2)2q{o+2)/p J.L Z
<

C ( r1(1(1  wz)2{o+2)/p I
lv
IwI 2){o+2)/p qd Z) l/q
J.L()
= C lIko,p,wIILq{~).
Now apply Theorem 3.1(a). o
Actually, in the last step, no restriction on p and q is needed: Ho,p,q(w) is
bounded whenever A~) '+ Lq(J.L).
There is another interesting consequence of Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2, and
Proposition 3.6:
COROLLARY 3.7. If 1 ::; q < p < 00 and (p/q)  2 < a < 00, then Ho,p,q(w) E
L~(A) implies Ho,p,q(w) E LOO(A).
PROOF. Define a' > 1 by a' + 2 = q(a + 2)/p. Then, with T = T(A),
Ho,p,q E Lpq/{pq) <=> A~ '+ Lq(J.L) =? A~/q) = A~, '+ L 1 (J.L)
<=> H O ',l,l E L oo <=> Ho,p,q E L oo . o
222 HANS JARCHOW AND URS KOLLBRUNNER
EXAMPLE 3.8.
(a) Let a, p, q be as in Corollary 3.7, let (an) be a sequence in foo \ fP/(pq) ,
and let (1]n) be a sequence in llJ such that (!(1]n,1]k) :::: r 8nk for all n, k,
and such that llJ = Un Br(1]n). Consider the measure JL = En bn 811n on llJ
where bn = lanl' (1I1]nI 2 )q("'+2)/p and note that (b n ) E fl. A calculation
reveals that H""p,q is in LOO(A) but not in uq/(pq) (A). We conclude that
the converse in Corollary 3.7 doesn't hold.
(b) In Proposition 3.6, (ii) {::} (iii) is true for arbitrary 0 < p, q < 00, and
(i) ~ (ii) holds trivially whenever q :::: 1. But (iii) ~ (i) fails for 1 ~ q < p
and a + 2 > p. In fact, if JL is as in (a), then A~ 'f+ Lq(JL) since H""p,q tf
Lpq/(pq)(A), but Hy,l,q = H""p,q E LOO(A) if we put "I = (a + 2)/p  2.
From A~) = A~l) = A~ we conclude that A~ '> Lq(JL).
4. Compactness
We shall frequently make use of the following classical result:
THEOREM 4.1 (Pitt's Theorem). If 0 < p < q < 00 then every operator
f q + fP is compact.
This was obtained in 1936 by H.R. Pitt [16] for p :::: 1. For an extension see
H.P. Rosenthal [17]. The result as stated was proved recently by E. Oja [14].
By atomic decomposition, A~ and fP are isomorphic (see [10], [1]). Combining
this with Pitt's theorem we see that in particular the embedding in Corollary 3.5.(b)
is compact. It will follow from the next theorem that the embedding in 3.5.(a) is
compact iff (a + 2)/p < (f3 + 2)/q.
Our characterization of compactness of Carleson measures splits into two parts.
We consider the case p ~ q first. Here the characterization is as expected:
THEOREM 4.2. Let 1 < a < 00 and 0 < p ~ q < 00 with 1 ~ q. The following
statements are equivalent:
(i) JL is a compact (a,p, q)  Carles on measure.
(ii) A~) '> Lq(JL) compactly.
limlllk""p,zIILq(ll)
(iii) z+ = O.
(iv) lim Ho.,p,q(w) = O.
Iwl+l
PROOF. (i) ~ (ii): If p :::: 1 then nothing is to prove since A~) '> A~. If
p < 1 ~ q then, by [19], A~) is the Banach envelope of A~, and the convex hull
of B A~ is dense in B A!:)' Hence relative compactness of B A~ in the Banach space
Lq(JL) entails relative compactness of B A<.!) in Lq(JL).  Here we have used Bx to
denote the unit ball of a (quasi) Banach space X.
(ii) ~ (iii): Suppose that (iii) doesn't hold. Then there exist an c > 0 and
a sequence (zn) in llJ such that limn+ oo IZnl = 1 and Ilko.,p,zn IIL(Il) > c for all
n. By (ii), we may assume that (k""p,zn)n converges to some f E Lq(JL). But
lim n + oo IZn I = 1 implies f = 0 since clearly (k""p,zn) tends to zero pointwise:
contradiction.
(iii) ~ (iv): The estimate proved in (iii) ~ (i) of Proposition 3.6 provides us
with a constant C = C(r) > 0 such that JL(Br(W))l/q ~ C, (1  IwI 2 )(",+2)/p .
IIk""p,w IIL(Il) for all W E llJ.
CARLESON EMBEDDINGS FOR WEIGHTED BERGMAN SPACES 223
(iv) =} (i): We apply Lemma 4.3.6 of K. Zhu [22]: there exists an integer N
such that for sufficiently small r there is a sequence (TJn) in llJ having the following
properties:
(1) llJ = U~=l Br(TJn),
(2) B r / 4 (TJm) n B r / 4 (TJn) = 0 whenever m # n,
(3) Every Z E llJ is contained in at most N of the sets B 2r (TJn)'
Note that limn+oo ITJnl = 1 follows from (2).
Let now (In) be a sequence in BA~' By Montel's theorem, some subsequence
(Ink) converges uniformly on compact sets to some I E 1i(llJ). By Fatou's lemma,
even I E BA~'
Put gk := I  Ink' Vk E N. By our hypothesis there exists, for any given c > 0,
an integer ne such that J.L(Br(TJn)) :::; c' (1  ITJnI 2)q(a+2)/p if n ~ ne' Therefore,
with constants depending only on the indicated parameters,
n~nE
r
< C(r) C(r, 0)' "~ (1 _IJ.L(B 2(17n))
)q(a+2)/p
TJn
1
(1 B 2r (T/n)
p
Igk(W)1 daa(w)
)q/P
< C(r)C(r,o)c L ({
n~nE J B2r(T/n)
Igk (wWda a (w)r/ p
A slight modification of the argument used to prove (i) =} (ii) shows that com
pactness of A~ <+ Lq(J.L) implies compactness of A~, <+ Lq(J.L) if 1 < 0,0' < 00,
0< p < p' :::; q and (0 + 2)/p = (0' + 2)/p'.
It can be shown that (i) {::} (iii) {::} (iv) is true even for arbitrary 0 < q < 00.
In the case p > q, we can prove:
THEOREM 4.3. Suppose that 1 < 0 < 00 and 0 < q < p < 00. Regardless 01
the (0, p, q)  Carleson measure J.L, the embedding A~ <+ Lq (J.L) is always compact.
For composition operators C<p : A~ + Ah this is due to W. Smith and L. Yang
[21]; see also [4].
PROOF. Put s = p/(p  q) and recall that J.L(Br())/aa(Br ()) E B(aa) when
ever J.L is (0, p, q)  Carleson.
224 HANS JARCHOW AND URS KOLLBRUNNER
Let Un) be a bounded sequence in A~. For some subsequence, f = limk+oo fnk
exists in 'H(lU). As before, f E A~, hence we may assume that Un) is a null sequence
in 'H(lU) and that IIfnllo,p :::; 1 for all n.
There are constants Cr , Cr > 0 such that, for each n,
 f q p.(Br(z))
< Cr' Cr" l1lJ1fn(z) I ao(Br(z)) dao(z) .
. f p.(Br(zW
By hypothesIs, l1lJ ao(Br(Z))8dao(z) < 00.
(4.3)
(4.2) c
< 
2
Combine (4.1), (4.4) and (4.5) to find a constant Cr > 0 such that I1lJ Ifnlq dp. :::; Crc
for n 2: ne:' 0
Essential parts of Theorem 4.3, if not the entire theorem, can be proved by
using other methods. We sketch three possibilities:
Suppose that 1 < Q < 00, 1 :::; q :::; 2 < P < 00 and v is any measure.
Every operator u : A~ + Lq(v) is compact.
In fact, by Kwapien's theorem (see [8], or [2], 12.19), the operator u
e
admits a factorization u : A~ ~ 2 .2:. Lq(v). By atomic decomposition
and Pitt's theorem, w is compact, and so is u.
CARLESON EMBED DINGS FOR WEIGHTED BERGMAN SPACES 225
In other words, u is (q,p)summing iff every weak ePsequence, i.e. every se
quence (xn) in X which satisfies 2:::=11(x*,x n )iP < 00 for all x* E X*, is taken to
a strong eq  sequence, i.e. 2:::=1 Iluxnllq < 00 holds.
(p, p)  summing operators are called p  summing; the corresponding notation
is IIp(X, Y) = IIp,p(X, Y) .
We refer to [2J for details on these concepts and in particular for the following
facts:
If Hand K are Hilbert spaces and q ~ 2, then IIq,2(H, K) is the corre
sponding Schatten q  class. Moreover, for any 1 :::; p < 00, IIp(H, K) is
the class of Hilbert  Schmidt operators.
If 1 :::; P :::; 2, then every operator from C(K) to LP(lI) is 2  summing.
226 HANS JARCHOW AND URS KOLLBRUNNER
If p > 2, then every operator C(K) 7 U(v) is (p, 2) summing, and
r  summing for every r > p.
Moreover:
If u : X Lp(v) is order bounded then u is p  summing.
7
Here v is any measure. In the last statement, the converse fails. But:
If u* p  summing then u is order bounded.
More precisely, we have the following result due to D.J.H. Garling [5]:
Let 1 ::; p < 00. A Banach space operator u : X 7 Y has a p  summing
adjoint if and only if, for every measure v and operator v : Y 7 LP(v),
the composition v 0 u : X 7 LP(v) is order bounded.
In particular:
An operator u : L 2 (VI) 7 L 2 (V2) is order bounded iff it is Hilbert
Schmidt.
We are going to characterize order boundedness of Carleson embeddings A~ ~
Lq(J.L). To this end we introduce, for s > 0, the Banach space
Xs := {f: lU 7 C: f measurable, sup(1lzI 2 )Slf(z)1 < oo} .
zE1U
COROLLARY 5.3. If 1 < a, ci < 00, 0 < p < 00 and 1 :::; q < 00 are such that
a' +2 = q. (o+2)/p, then A~ '+ Lq(f.L) order boundedly if and only if A~, '+ L2(f.L)
exists as a Hilbert  Schmidt operator.
A special case occurs when f.L is a measure U'(3. From (iii) of Theorem 5.1 we
conclude:
COROLLARY 5.4. If 1 < a,(3 < 00, 0 < p < 00 and 1 < q < 00, then
A~ '+ A~ order boundedly if and only if (a + 2)/p < ((3 + l)/q .
and
PROPOSITION 5.5. Let f.L be a (a, p, q)  Carles on measure with 1 < a < 00
and 1 < p, q < 00.
If p* :::; q < 00, then A~ '+ L q(f.L) is order bounded iff it is q  summing iff it is
(q, p*)  summing.
This is due to T. Domenig [3] for composition operators acting between weigh
ted Bergman spaces. For the sake of completeness, we sketch a proof of the propo
sition which follows closely Domenig's arguments.
form a weak ff sequence in A~. Hence we get from our hypothesis that, with a
suitable constant C,
n 1Q (T/n) 11 1Jn z l
L 10 IL akTk(t) I dt
1/2 ::; ([1 L 1/2 .
n ) n P ) l/p ( n )
Ap' ( lakl 2 ::; Bp' lakl 2
k=l k=l k=l
Pursuing the fate of this inequality within the framework of Banach spaces leads to
the theory of type and cotype of Banach spaces, and to the following related class
of operators (compare [2], Chs. 11 12).
A Banach space operator u : X > Y is almost summing,
u E IIas(X, Y) ,
if there is a constant C such that, for any choice of finitely many vectors Xl, ... , Xn
from X,
COROLLARY 5.7. Let 1 < ct < 00 and 1 ::; p, q < 00 be such that p 2:
min {q* ,2} and let 11, be an (ct, p, q)  Carleson measure. The embedding I : A~ ">
Lq(/.l) is q  summing iff it is order bounded.
PROOF. Only sufficiency requires proof. If p 2: q*, then Proposition 5.5 settles
the case. And if p 2: 2, then I, being q  summing, is almost summing, and so order
bounded by Proposition 5.6. 0
References
[IJ R.R. Coifman, R. Rochberg, G. Weiss, Facto'rization theorems for Hardy spaces in seveml
variables. Ann. of Math. (2) 103. (1976),611635.
[2J J. Diestel, H. Jarchow, A. Tonge: Absolutely Summing Opemtors. Cambridge University
Press 1995.
[3J T. Domenig, CompoS'ition opemtors on weighted Beryman sp(,ces and Hardy spaces. Disser
tation University of Zurich 1997.
[4J T. Domenig, H. Jarchow, R. Riedl, The domain space of an analytic composition opemtor.
Journ. Austral. Math. Soc. 66 (1999), 5665.
[5J D.J.H. Garling, Lattice bounding, Radonifying and summing mappings. Math. Proc. Camb.
Phil. Soc. 77 (1975), 327333.
[6J W.W. Hastings, A Carleson measure theQrem for Beryman spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
52 (1975), 237241.
[7J C. Horowitz Zeros of functions in the Bergman spaces. Duke Math. Journ. 41 (1974), 693710.
[8J S. Kwapien, On a theorem of L. Schwartz and its applications to absolutely summing opem
tors. Studia Math. 38 (1970), 193201.
[9J S. Kwapien, A remark on p  summing opemtors in fr  spaces. Studia Math. 34 (1970), 277
278.
[lOJ J. Lindenstrauss, A. Pelczynski, Contributions to the theory of classical Banach spaces.
Journ. Funct. Anal. 8 (1971), 225249.
[l1J D.H. Luecking, Multipliers of Bergman spaces into Lebesgue spaces. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc.
29 (1986), 125131.
[12J D.H. Luecking, Embedding theorems for spaces of analytic functions via Khinchine's inequal
ity. Mich. Math. Journ. 40 (1993), 333358.
[13J P. MeyerNieberg, Banach Lattices. SpringerVerlag 1991.
[14J E. Oja, Pitt Theorem for nonlocally convex spaces f p Preprint.
[15J V.L. Oleinik, B.S. Pavlov, Embedding theorems for weighted classes of harmonic functions.
Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov 22 (1971),94102. Transl. in Journ.
Soviet Math. 2 (1974), 135142.
[16J H.R.Pitt, A note on bilinear forms. Journ. London Math. Soc. 11, 171174 (1936).
[17J H.P. Rosenthal, On quasicomplemented subspaces of Banach spaces with an appendix on
compactness of opemtors from LP(p,) to Lr(/I). Journ. Funct. Anal. 4 (1969), 176214.
[18J W. Rudin, Real and Complex Analysis. 3 rd ed., McGrawHill 1987.
[19J J.H. Shapiro, Mackey topologies, reproducing kernels, and diagonal maps on the Hardy and
Bergman spaces. Duke Math. Journ. 43 (1976), 187202.
[20J W. Smith, Composition opemtors between Bergman and Hardy spaces. Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 348 (1996) 23312348.
[21J W. Smith, L. Yang, Composition opemtors that impro1Je integmbility on weighted Beryman
spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1998) 411420.
[22J K. Zhu, Opemtor Theory in Function Space.~. Marcel Dekker, New York 1990.
230 HANS JARCHOW AND URS KOLLBRUNNER
1. Introduction
For a Banach space E we denote by E1 the closed unit ball in E and by BeE1
the set of extreme points of E 1 . In 1961 Phelps [16] observed that for the space
C(X) of all continuous functions on a compact Hausdorff space X every point f in
Be (C (X))1 remains extreme when C (X) is canonically embedded into its second
dual C (X)**. The question whether the same is true for any Banach space was
answered in the negative by Y. Katznelson who showed that the disc algebra fails
that property. A point x E OeE1 is called weak* extreme if it remains extreme in
BeEi*; we denote by B;E1 the set of all such points in E 1. The importance of this
class for geometry of Banach spaces was enunciated by Rosenthal when he proved
that E has the RadonNikodym property if and only if under any renorming the
unit ball of E has a weak* extreme point [19].
While not all extreme points are weak* extreme the later category is among
the largest considered in the literature. For example we have:
strongly exposed S;; denting S;; strongly extreme S;; weak* extreme.
We recall that x E E1 is not a strongly extreme point if there is a sequence Xn
in E such that Ilx xnll t 1 while IIxnll ~ 0 (see [3] for all the definitions). We
denote by O;E1 the set of strongly extreme points of E 1. It was proved in [14]
that e E O;E1 if and only if e E o;Ei* (see [9], [13], or [17] for related results).
Examples of weak* extreme points that are no longer weak* extreme in the unit
ball of the bidual were given only recently in [6].
In this paper we study the weak* extreme points of the unit ball of the injective
tensor product space A,E, where A is a closed subspace of C(X). Since C(X),E
2. The result
As noticed earlier, for A c C (X) and a point 1 E a;
(A Eh we may not
have 1 (x) E a;EI for all x E X even in a finite dimensional case. Hence we need
to define a sufficiently regular subset of X in relation to A.
WEAK' EXTREME POINTS 233
We first need to show that for a weak peak point Xo E X there exists a function
in A not only peaking at Xo but that is also almost real and almost positive.
Ilgll = 1 = g (xo) ,
(2.1) Ig (x)1 < , for all x E X\U, and
1 k
g= k Lgj
j=l
We clearly have Ilgll = 1 = 9 (xo) and Ig (x)1 < e for x i U. Let x E U, then either
x belongs to all of the sets Uj , j :s
k, in which case Ig (x)  11 < e, or there is a
natural number p < k such that x E Up \ Up+!. In the later case we have
Ig(X)_P~II=~ tgj(Pl)
;=1
:s max {I +.!.,.!.
n n
+ II! (xo) Re+ gn (x) en II + .!.}
n
3
<
 1+.
n
Therefore II! gnenll > 1 but (8 (xo) e*)(gnen) = gn (xo) e* (en) ~ O. This
contradiction shows that! (xo) is a weak*extreme point.
The same line of arguments shows that! (x) is strongly extreme for any strongly
extreme! E (A , E)l' 0
Since for a function algebra A the Choquet boundary C hA coincides with 8p A
([8], p. 58) and the Shilov boundary 8A is equal to the closure of ChA we have:
WEAK' EXTREME POINTS 235
and B = convQ. Let 1111 be the norm on (:3 such that B is its unit ball. Note that
(z,w,O) is an extreme point ofB ifflwl =I 1 and Iz12+lw12 = 1. PutE = ((:3,1111),
unit vectors in E. Since K (E, C (X)) can be identified with C (X, E*) our result on
weak* extreme points taking weak* extremal values can be interpreted as follows
T E a;K(E,C(X))l ==} T* (a;C(X);) c a;Er.
Thus more generally one can ask whether T* (a; Ft) c a; Ei for any TEa; K(E, Fh.
We give a class of counter examples with the help of the following proposition.
PROPOSITION 1. Let E be an infinite dimensional Banach space such that K(E)
is an Mideal in C(E). 1fT E K(Eh then T*(aeEi) ct. S(E*).
We recall that a closed subspace M of a Banach space E is an AIideal if there is
a projection P E C (E*) such that ker P = Ml. and liP (e*)II+lle*  P (e*)11 = Ile*ll,
for all e* E E* (see [11] for an excellent introduction to 1\/ideals).
PROOF. Since qE) is an AIideal it follows from Corollary V1.4.5 in [11] that
E* has the RadonNikodym property and hence the IP (see [10]). Also since qE)
is a proper Mideal it fails the IP. It therefore follows from Theorem 4.1 in [10]
a
that there exists a net {x~} c e Ei such that x~ > Xu in the weak* topology with
Ilxoll < 1. Suppose T*(aeEi) c S(E*). Since T* is a compact operator by going
through a subnet if necessary we may assume that T*(x~) > T*(xo) in the norm.
Thus 1 = IIT*(xo)11 < 1 and the contradiction gives the desired conclusion. 0
EXAMPLE 2. Banach spaces E for which K(E) is an AI ideal in C(E) have been
well extensively studied. Chapter VI of [11] provides seveml examples including
e
E = p , 1 < p < 00, as well as properties of these spaces. It was observed in [6]
that for p # 2 there are weak*extreme points in the space K(ePh. It follows from
the last proposition that the adjoint of these weak" extreme points do not even map
extreme points to unit vectors.
A strongly extreme point remains extreme in all the dual spaces of arbitrary
even order. A weak* extreme point remains extreme in the second dual but may
not be extreme in the fourth dual. Hence the property of remaining extreme in all
the duals of even order is placed between the strong and the weak* type of extreme
points. It would be interesting to describe that property in terms of the original
Banach space alone. A procedure for generating extreme points which have this
property but are not strongly extreme was described in [6].
PROPOSITION 2. Let X be a compact Hausdorff space, A a closed subspace of
C(X), and E a Banach space. Suppose Xo E X is a weak peak point and f E A. E
is an extreme point in the unit ball of all the duals of even order. Then f (xo) is
an extreme point of the unit ball of all the duals of E of even order.
PROOF. Since the space A . E** can be canonically embedded in (A . E)**
[7] we have, for any natural number n
A . E(2n) C (A ( E(2n2))** C (A . E)(2n).
If f E A . E is an extreme point of (A . E)(2n+2) then it is a weak*extreme
point of (A . E)(2n), as it also belongs to A . E(2n) it is a weak*extreme point
of A . E(2n). Hence by our theorem f (xo) is an extreme point of E~2n). 0
ABSTRACT. The authors study the fixed point sets of a holomorphic endomor
phism of a domain in complex space. Sufficient (and necessary) conditions are
givenon the number and configuration of the fixed pointsfor the endomor
phism to be forced to be the identity. The proofs depend on certain key ideas
from differential geometry, particularly the notions of cut locus and Hadamard
length space.
1. Introduction
This article concerns the study of the concept of determining set for a collection
of holomorphic mappings. We first give the definition.
DEFINITION 1.1. Let M be a complex manifold, and let Aut (M) be the col
lection of biholomorphic mappings of M into itself. We call a subset Z c M a
determining set for Aut (M) (or, equivalently, an Aut (M)determining set), if any
map f E Aut (M) satisfying f(p) = p for every p E Z is in fact the identity map of
M.
We observe first that this article is related to the authors' collaboration with
Burna Fridman and Daowei Ma (see [FKKM]), which was originally inspired by the
following remarkable theorem in complex dimension one.
THEOREM 1.2. Let n be a domain in the complex plane C and let f : n + n be
a biholomorphic (conformal) mapping. If there are three distinct points Pl,P2,P3
in n such that f(pj) = Pj, for j = 1,2,3, then f is the identity map.
The higherdimensional analog of this theorem given in [FKKM] is as follows:
THEOREM 1.3. (FridmanKimKrantzMa [FKKM]) Let M be a connected,
complex manifold of dimension n admitting a complete invariant Hermitian metric.
where dn(p, q) = . Notice that every Kobayashi distance ball is strictly convex,
as our domain n is a strongly convex domain with smooth boundary (see [LEM]).
Hence the above observations together with the fact that
dn(p,cp(r)) = t, dn('P(r)) = f  t
imply that f('P(r)) = 'P(r). Consequently, the map f fixes every point in the set
'P 0 "(( [0, f]). Hence the two maps f 0 'P and 'P of ~ into n coincide along a curve in
the unit disc ~. Therefore f 0 'P(() = 'P(() for every ( E ~, as claimed. 0
PROOF. Notice that the current hypothesis together with the preceding lemma
implies that dfpo is the identity map. Therefore a theorem of H. Cartan implies
that f is in fact the identity mapping. 0
We remark that the choice for Po, ... ,Pn is generic. To formulate this notion
more precisely, we consider the cartesian product rrnHo of (n + 1) copies of O. In
fact it is shown in [FKKM] that there exists an open dense subset U of rrn+10 such
that any element of U gives (n + 1) points that satisfy the sufficiency condition
of the preceding lemma. We summarize the result more elegantly in the following
statement.
THEOREM 2.3. For a bounded, strongly convex domain in en, there exists a
collection of n + 1 points such that any holomorphic endomorphism of the domain
fixing them must fix every point in the domain. Moreover, the choice of such n + 1
points is generic.
REMARK 2.4. We point out that the result of this section concerns the class of
bounded, strongly convex domains, which is a rather special collection of objects.
However, in compensation, we emphasize that we have treated general holomorphic
endomorphisms, rather than just biholomorphic selfmaps.
3. Hadamard Spaces
In light of the preceding section, we would like to present in this section a
description of the underlying metric space principles that we use in the study of
determining sets.
Let (X, d) be a metric space, equipped with the distance function d : X x X >
lR. By an isometry we mean a selfmapping f : X > X satisfying the condition:
d(J(p), f(q)) = d(p, q), Vp, q E X.
We denote by Isom(X) the collection of isometries of (X, d).
Imitating the concept of "length spaces" that is commonly encountered in ge
ometry (cf. [BUS]), we give the following definition.
DEFINITION 3.1. Let"(: (a,b) > X be a continuous curve in X. We call it
minimal if
d("((x), ,,((y)) = t  x + d("((t), ,,((y)),
for every t,x,y with a < x:::; t:::; y < b.
DEFINITION 3.2. A metric space (X, d) is called a length space if, for every pair
of points p, q EX, there exists a minimal curve "( : [a, b] > X such that "((a) = P
and "((b) = q. Furthermore, we call (X, d) a Hadamard space if the minimal curve
joining each pair of points is unique up to a reversal of parametrization.
Notice that any convex subset of Euclidean space is a Hadamard space with
respect to the standard Euclidean distance. A strongly convex domain in en,
equipped with the Kobayashi distance, is also a Hadamard space. Every complete,
DETERMINING SETS FOR HOLOMORPHIC ENDOMORPHISMS 243
We remark that it is possible to derive the same conclusions for locally Hadamard
spaces but, in order to keep our exposition concise, we do not introduce the concept
here.
LEMMA 3.4. Let (X, d) be a Hadamard space and let U be an open subset of
X. Then any isometry f fixing every point in U must be the identity map.
PROOF. Let P E U. Then, for every minimal curve 'Y emanating from p, f fixes
a point in 'Y n (U \ p). The preceding lemma implies now that f fixes every point
of 'Y. Since every point in X can be joined to P by a minimal curve, this completes
the proof. D
Now we consider the concept of convex hull in a Hadamard space. We say that
a set Q in a Hadamard space X is convex if every minimal curve joining P and q in
X is contained in Q. For a subset A of a Hadamard space X, its convex hull W (A)
is the smallest convex subset of X containing A.
DEFINITION 3.5. Let Po, . .. ,Pm be points in a Hadamard space (X, d) with
minimal geodesics 'Yl .... ,'Ym such that 'Yj passes through Po and Pi for every j =
1, .... m. We call the points Po, ... ,Pm spanning if the convex hull Whl U ... U'Ym)
has nonempty interior.
Now we have the following general result.
PROPOSITION 3.6. If a Hadamard space (X, d) admits m + 1 points Po, PI, ... ,
Pm ill X that are spanning, then these m + 1 points constitute a determining set
for the isometries of( X, d).
PROOF. Notice that the convex hull we obtain from the minimal curves through
Po and Pi is fixed pointwise by any isometry that fixes the points Po, ,Pm. Then
the preceding lemma finishes the proof. D
Observe that the full isometry condition is not really needed to prove the con
clusion of the proposition. In fact, any distancedecreasing map will satisfy the
244 KANGTAE KIM AND STEVEN G. KRANTZ
same conclusion (just use the unique continuation principle). Notice that this of
fers an underlying principle for the determining set theorem for the holomorphic
endomorphisms of strongly convex domains in the preceding section.
References
[ALK] G. Aladro and S. G. Krantz, A criterion for normality in Cn, Jour. Math. Anal. and Appl.
161(1991), 18.
[BED] E. Bedford and J. Dadok, Bounded domains with prescribed group of automorphisms.,
Comment. !'v'lath. Helv. 62 (1987), 561572.
[BUS] H. Busemann, The geometry of geodesics, Academic Press, New York, NY, 1955.
[CHY] S.Y. Cheng and S.T. Yau, On the existence of a compact Kahler metric, Comm. Pure
App!. Math., 33 (1980), 507544.
[FIF] S. D. Fisher and John Franks, The fixed points of an analytic selfmapping, Proc. AMS,
99(1987), 7678.
[FKKM] B. Fridman, KT. Kim, S. G. Krantz, and D. Ma, On Fixed Points and Determining
Sets for Holomorphic Automorphisms, Michigan Math. Jour., to appear.
[FP] B. L. Fridman and E. A. Poletsky, Upper semicontinuity of automorphism groups, Math.
Ann., 299(1994), 615628.
[GRK] R. E. Greene and S. G. Krantz, Stability properties of the Bergman kernel and curvature
properties of bounded domains, Recent Developments in Several Complex Variables (J. E.
Fornress, ed.), Princeton University Press (1979),179198.
[GRW] R. E. Greene and H. Wu, Function theory on manifolds which possess a pole, Lecture
Notes in Mathematics, 699, Springer, Berlin, 1979.
[GKM] D. Gromoll, W. Klingenberg, and W. Meyer, Riemannsche Geometrie im Grossen, 2nd
ed., Lecture Notes in Mathematics, v. 55, SpringerVerlag, New York, 1975.
[ISK] A. Isaev and S. G. Krantz, Domains with noncompact automorphism group: A survey,
Advances in Math. 146(1999), 138.
[KLI] W. Klingenberg, Riemannian Geometry, 2nd ed., de Gruyter Studies in Mathematics,
Berlin, 1995.
[KOB] S. Kobayashi, Hyperbolic complex spaces, Springer, 1999.
[LEM] L. Lempert, La metrique Kobayashi et las representation des domains sur la boule, Bull.
Soc. Math. Prance 109(1981), 427474.
[LES] K Leschinger, Uber fixpunkte holomorpher Automorphismen, Manuscripta Math., 25
(1978), 391396.
[MA] D. Ma, Upper semicontinuity of isotropy and automorphism groups, Math. Ann., 292(1992),
533545.
[MAS] B. Maskit, The conformal group of a plane domain, Amer. J. Math., 90 (1968), 718722.
[MOY] N. Mok and S. T. Yau, Completeness of the KahlerEinstein metric on bounded domains
and the characterization of domains of holomorphy by curvature conditions, Symposia in Pure
Math. The mathematical heritage ofH. Poincare, Amer. Math. Soc., 39, Part I. (1983),4160.
[OHS] T. Ohsawa, On complete Kahler domains with C 1 boundary, Pub!. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.,
RIMS (Kyoto), 16 (1980), 929940.
[PEL] E. Peschl and M Lehtinen, A conformal selfmap which fixes 3 points is the identity, Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn., Ser. A I Math., 4 (1979), no. 1, 8586.
[SUI] N. Suita, On fixed points of conformal selfmappings, Hokkaido Math. J., 10(1981), 667671.
[Vll] J.P. Vigue, Fixed points of holomorphic mappings in a bounded convex domain in Cn,
Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, 52(1991), Amer. Math. Soc., 579582.
[VI2] J.P. Vigue, Fixed points of holomorphic mappings, Complex Geometry and Analysis (Pisa,
1988), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, v. 1422, Springer, Berlin, 1990, pp. 101106.
[YAU] S. T. Yau, A survey on KahlerEinstein metrics. Complex analysis of several variables
(Madison, Wis., 1982), 285289, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 41, Amer. Math. Soc., Provi
dence, RI, 1984.
ABSTRACT. In the first two sections of this article, we survey some of the re
cent progress in the local spectral theory of operators on Banach spaces with
emphasis on the local spectrum and on restrictions and quotients of decom
posable operators. In particular, the problem of characterizing restrictions
and quotients of generalized scalar operators with spectrum in the unit circle
in terms of suitable growth conditions is addressed in detail, with emphasis
on [11], [22], and [23]. The last two sections center around certain localized
versions of the singlevalued extension property, Bishop's property (13), and
the decomposition property (8), mainly in the spirit of [2], [5], [6], and [13].
For each of these properties, we find a smallest closed set modulo which it
holds. For these residual sets, we establish a spectral mapping theorem with
respect to the Riesz functional calculus. We also obtain precise information
about the extent to which Bishop's property (3) holds on the essential or the
Kato resolvent set. Our results are exemplified in the case of weighted shifts.
Moreover, several of the outstanding open questions of the field are mentioned
in their natural context.
As witnessed, for instance, by the monographs [10], [16], [18], and [29], the
theory of decomposable operators is now richly developed with many interesting ap
plications and connections. Evidently, the class of decomposable operators contains
all normal operators on Hilbert spaces and, more generally, all spectral operators
in the sense of Dunford on Banach spaces. Moreover, a simple application of the
Riesz functional calculus shows that all operators with totally disconnected spec
trum are decomposable. In particular, all compact and all algebraic operators are
decomposable.
An important subclass of the decomposable operators is formed by the gener
alized scalar operators, defined as those operators T E L(X) for which there exists
a continuous unital algebra homomorphism <P : (C) t L(X) with <p(Z) = T.
Here (C) denotes the Frechet algebra of all infinitely differentiable complexvalued
functions on C, and Z stands for the identity function on C. More generally, de
composability is shared by all operators with a nonanalytic functional calculus on
an algebra of functions that admits partitions of unity. Finally, all multiplication
operators on a regular semisimple Banach algebra are decomposable, and so are
many, but not all, convolution operators on the group and measure algebra of a
locally compact abelian group. In fact, as discussed in [18, 4.11], the problem
of decomposability of convolution operators is closely related to the WienerPitt
phenomenon from commutative harmonic analysis.
To see more clearly how decomposability localizes the spectrum, we need to
review a few basic notions from local spectral theory that date back to Dunford;
see [12], [18], and [29] for details. For an open set U ; C, let H(U, X) denote the
Frechet space of all Xvalued analytic functions on U, and, for arbitrary T E L(X),
let Tu denote the operator on H(U, X) given by
(Tu f)(Jt) := (T  Jt)f(Jt) for all f E H(U, X) and Jt E U.
It turns out that this operator dominates large parts of spectral theory.
The local resolvent set PT(X) of T at a vector x E X is defined to consist of
all >. E C for which there exists some f E H(U, X) on an open neighborhood U of
>. for which Tuf = x. Clearly, f(Jt) = (T  Jt)lX for all Jt E Un p(T), so that
PT(X) is open and contains p(T). Hence the local spectrum aT(x) := C \ pT(X) is a
closed subset of a(T). In general, the various analytic functions that occur in the
definition of pT(X) need not be consistent. This issue is addressed by the following
definition.
The operator T E L(X) is said to possess the singlevalued extension property
(SVEP), if Tu is injective for all open sets U ; IC. By [18, 3.3.2], T has SVEP
precisely when, for each x E X, there exists a unique function f E H(PT(X), X) for
which
(T  Jt)f(Jt) = x for all Jt E PT(X).
This function is then called the local resolvent function for T at x. In remarkable
contrast to the usual resolvent function, such functions may well be bounded; this
recent discovery of Bermudez and Gonzalez will be exemplified below.
One might expect a(T) to be the union of the local spectra aT(x) over all
x E X, but this is not true in general. In fact, this union coincides with the
surjectivity spectrum asu(T) of T, the set of all >. E C for which T  >. fails to be
surjective. However, if T has SVEP, then asu(T) = a(T), and aT(x) is nonempty
for all nonzero x E X, [18, 1.2.16 and 1.3.2]. As a powerful application, we obtain
THE SPECTRAL THEORY OF OPERATORS ON BANACH SPACES 249
that every surjective operator with SVEP is actually bijective, [18, 1.2.10]. A more
precise version of this result will be discussed in Section 3. For arbitrary T E L(X)
and F ~ C, let
XT(F) := {x EX: aT(x) ~ F}
denote the corresponding local spectml subspace. Evidently, XT(F) is a linear sub
space of X, but need not be closed.
The following classical result illustrates that these subspaces playa basic role
for spectral decompositions, see [18, 1.2] and [29,4.4].
THEOREM 1. Suppose that T E L(X) is decomposable. Then T has SVEP, and,
for each closed set F ~ C, the space XT(F) is closed and satisfies a(T I XT(F)) ~ F.
In fact, XT(F) is the largest among all spaces Y E Lat(T) for which aT(T IY) ~ F.
Moreover, XT(F) ~ XT(Ut}+ +XT(U n ) for every finite open cover {U1 , ... , Un}
~F 0
The following examples may illuminate how spectral decompositions work in
some important cases; for details see [18] and, for the last assertion of Example
4, also [26, Th.16]. The extent to which the compactness of the group is essential
here remains a challenging open problem.
EXAMPLE 2. Let T E L(X) be a normal opemtor with spectml measure ~ on
a complex Hilbert space X. Then T is decomposable, and XT(F) = ran ~(F) for
every closed set F ~ Co Moreover, there exists a nonzero bounded local resolvent
function for T precisely when int a(T) =f:. 0. 0
EXAMPLE 3. Let X := C(O) be the space of continuous functions on a compact
Hausdorff space 0, and let T E L(X) denote the opemtor of multiplication by a given
function g E X. Then T is decomposable, and XT(F) = {f E C(O) : g(supp f) ~ F}
for every closed set F ~ Co Also in this case, there exists a nonzero bounded local
resolvent function for T precisely when int a(T) =f:. 0. 0
EXAMPLE 4. Let X := Ll(G) be the group algebm of a locally compact abelian
group G, and let T E L(X) denote the opemtor of convolution by a given function
g E X. Then T is decomposable, and XT(F) = {f E Ll(G) : g(suppj) ~ F} for
every closed set F ~ C, where j denotes the Fourier tmnsform. Moreover, at least
when G is compact, there exists a nonzero bounded local resolvent function for T
precisely when int a(T) =f:. 0. 0
On the other hand, there are important classes of operators which are not
covered by decomposability. For instance, by [18, 1.6.14] and [22], a unilateral
weighted right shift on the sequence space fP(N o) for arbitrary 1 ::::; p < 00 is
decomposable, or, equivalently, the quotient of a decomposable operator, only in
the trivial case when it is quasinilpotent, while unilateral weighted right shifts are
never generalized scalar. Moreover, as we shall see, there are many examples of
unilateral and bilateral weighted left shifts without SVEP.
Another illuminating case is that of isometries. By [18, 1.6.7], an arbitrary
Banach space isometry is decomposable, or, equivalently, the quotient of a decom
posable operator or generalized scalar, precisely when it is invertible. On the other
hand, every isometry may be extended, by a classical result due to Douglas, recorded
in [18, 1.6.6], to an invertible isometry, and hence has a decomposable extension.
In the next section, we shall discuss a more general version of this result.
250 T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN
Here the hardest assertion to prove is that property (13) for T* implies prop
erty (8) for T. The construction of decomposable extensions and liftings uses two
powerful functional models for operators on Banach spaces of independent interest.
These models are in the spirit of functiontheoretic operator theory, and involve
the operator of multiplication by the independent variable on certain Sobolevtype
spaces together with the theory of topological tensor products. The complete dual
ity between the properties (/3) and (8) employs the GrothendieckK6the duality for
spaces of vectorvalued analytic functions. All of this is described, in considerable
detail, in [18, Ch.2].
There are interesting applications to the invariant subspace problem. Indeed, if
the operator T E L(X) has either property (/3) or property (8), then Eschmeier and
Prunaru [14] established that Lat(T) is nontrivial provided that a(T) is thick, and
that Lat(T) is rich in the sense that it contains the lattice of all closed subspaces of
some infinitedimensional Banach space provided that the essential spectrum ae(T)
is thick. Here we skip the formal definition of thick subsets of the complex plane,
but note that all compact sets with nonempty interior are thick. A streamlined
approach to this result and further references may be found in [18, 2.6].
Since all hyponormal operators have, by Putinar's result [27], property (/3),
the preceding result subsumes, in particular, Brown's celebrated invariant subspace
theorem for hyponormal operators with thick spectrum. In light of Read's recent
construction of a quasinilpotent, and hence decomposable, operator on a Banach
space without nontrivial invariant subspaces, it is clear that the condition of thick
spectrum cannot. be dropped in general. However, the invariant subspace problem
for operators on Hilbert spaces remains open, even for the class of hyponormal
operators.
As discussed in the monograph by Eschmeier and Putinar [16], there are also
interesting connections between property (/3) and the theory of analytic sheaves.
These connections are not only important for the spectral theory of several com
muting operators, but they are also at the heart of some of the recent developments
in the case of single operators. Although, as witnessed by the exposition of local
spectral theory in [18], the explicit use of sheaf theory can be avoided in the case of
single operator theory, the reader should be aware of these connections. The basic
idea is sketched in [18, 2.2].
A classical issue of local spectral theory is to derive spectral decomposition
properties from growth conditions on the powers or the resolvent function of a given
operator. For instance, Levinson's loglog theorem from complex analysis may be
used to show that, for operators with spectrum in the real line or the unit circle 'll', a
very weak logarithmic growth condition on the resolvent function suffices to ensure
decomposability. The short approach from [18, 1.7] to this classical result due to
Radjabalipour is based on the fact that, by Theorem 6, an operator T E L(X) is
decomposable precisely when both T and T* have property (13). A very attractive
account of the local spectral t.heory for operators with thin spectrum may be found
in a recent survey article by Albrecht and Ricker [7].
252 T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN
Here we focus only on one aspect that leads to interesting open problems. For
arbitrary T E L(X), let K(T) := inf{IITxll : Ilxll = I} denote the lower bound of
T. Evidently, K(T)l = II Tlil when T is invertible. Similar to the case of the
spectral radius, it is known that the sequence of numbers K(Tn) lin converges to
its supremum, denoted by i(T), and that aap(T) ~ {>' E C : i(T) ~ 1>'1 ~ r(T)},
[18, 1.6.1 and 1.6.2].
By a classical result due to Colojoara and Foi~, [10, 5.1] or [18, 1.5.12], a
generalized scalar operator T satisfies a(T) ~ T precisely when T is (T) scalar, in
the sense that T admits a continuous functional calculus on the Frechet algebra (T)
of all COOfunctions on T. Moreover, T is (T)scalar if and only if T is invertible
and satisfies the condition of polynomial growth (P), in the sense that there exist
constants c, s > 0 such that
1
s ~ K(Tn) ~ IITnl1 ~ cn s for all n E Nj
cn
indeed, in this case, a functional calculus cP for T is given by the formula
00
when T is injective. It is also well known that 'Y(T) = 'Y(T*), and that 'Y(T) > 0
precisely when T has closed range. Standard duality theory now leads to the
following result.
PROPOSITION 8. An operator T E L(X) is the restriction of an (1l')scalar
operator if and only if its adjoint T* is the quotient of an (1l')scalar operator.
Moreover, ifT is the quotient of an (1l')scalar operator, then T* is the restriction
of an (1l')scalar operator, and hence there exist constants c, s > 0 for which
~::;'Y(Tn)::;IITnll::;cns
cn
forallnEN. 0
In general, it is not known if the last growth condition characterizes the quo
tients of (1l')scalar operators, but, by Proposition 8 and [23, Prop.5], this is
the case for the class of all unilateral weighted left shifts on fP(N o ) for arbitrary
1 < p < 00. More precisely, a unilateral weighted left shift on fP(N o) satisfies the
growth condition of Proposition 8 if and only if it admits a bilateral weighted shift
lifting on fP(Z) that is (1l')scalar.
Similar results hold for more general growth conditions; see [22] and [23].
For instance, by another classical result due to Colojoara and Foi~, an invertible
operator T E L(X) is decomposable provided that T satisfies Beurling's condition
(B), in the sense that
1
L
00
for all n E N.
By this characterization and the open mapping theorem, K(T) =X if and only if
T is surjective. In terms of local spectral theory, this follows also from the fact that
asu(T) is the union of all local spectra of T. On the other hand, by [18, 3.3.13],
Ho(T) is the quasinilpotent part of T, defined as the set of all x E X for which
IITnx11 1/ n _ 0 as n  00.
In general, neither K(T) nor Ho(T) need to be closed, but, if 0 is isolated in a(T),
then, by [19, 1.6], both spaces are closed and X = K(T) EB Ho(T). For more on
operators with closed K(T) and Ho(T), see [1], [2], and [24]. For instance, by [24,
Cor.6], for any noninvertible decomposable operator T, the point 0 is isolated in
254 T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN
a(T) precisely when K(T) is closed. In particular, the analytic core of a compact
or, more generally, a Riesz operator T is closed exactly when T has finite spectrum,
[24, Cor.9].
The spaces Ho(T) and K(T) are related to the kernel N(T) and the range R(T)
of T as follows. With the notation
N(T) :=
oc
U N(Tn)
n=l
and R(T):= n00
n=l
R(Tn)
for the generalized kernel and range of T, there is an increasing chain of kerneltype
spaces
N(T) ~ N(Tn) ~ N(T) ~ Ho(T) ~ X T ({O})
and a decreasing chain of rangetype spaces
R(T) 2 R(Tn) 2 R(T) 2 K(T) 2 X T (0)
for arbitrary n E N. [18, 1.2.16 and 3.3.1]. The geometric position of the kernel
type spaces versus the rangetype spaces turns out to be intimately related to a
certain localized version of SVEP for the operator T and its adjoint T*.
An operator T E L(X) is said to have SVEP at a point A E C, if, for every
open disc U centered at A, the operator Tu is injective on H(U, X). This notion
dates back to Finch [17], and was pursued further, for instance, in [1], [2], [3], [4],
[5], and [20]. Evidently, T has SVEP at A precisely when T  A has SVEP at 0,
while SVEP for T is equivalent to SVEP for T at A for each A E C.
Local spectral theory leads to a variety of characterizations of this localized
version of SVEP that involve the kerneltype and rangetype spaces introduced
above. Our starting point is the following characterization from [3, 1.9]. The result
shows, in particular, that every injective operator T E L(X) has SVEP at 0, and
may be viewed as a local version of the classical fact that T has SVEP if and only
if X T (0) = {O}, [18, 1.2.16]. For completeness, we include a short new proof that
uses nothing but local spectral theory.
THEOREM 9. For every operator T E L(X), the following equivalences hold:
T has SVEP at 0 <=} N(T) n X T (0) = {O} <=} aT(x) = {O} for all 0 =f. x E N(T).
Proof. First suppose that T has SVEP at 0, and consider an arbitrary x E
N(T) for which aT(x) is empty. Then 0 E pT(X) so that there exists an f E H(U, X)
on some open disc U with center 0 for which (TA)f(A) = x for all A E U. It follows
that (T  A)Tf(A) = Tx = 0 for all A E U, and therefore Tf(A) = 0 for all A E U,
since T has SVEP at O. Thus x = Tf(O) = 0, and hence N(T) n X T (0) = {O}.
Next observe that, for each x E N(T), the definition f(A) := xl A yields
an analytic function for which (T  A)f(A) = x for all nonzero A E C. Thus
aT(x) ~ {O} for all x E N(T). Consequently, the second and third assertions are
equivalent.
Finally suppose that N(T) n XT(0) = {O}, let U be an open disc with cen
ter 0, and consider a function f E H(U, X) for which Tu f = O. By [18, 1.2.14],
aT(f(A)) = aT(O) = 0 for all A E U. Now, for the power series representation f(A) =
L:~=o an An for all A E U, our task is to show that each of the coefficients an E X is
zero. For the case n = 0, this is immediate, since ao = f(O) E N(T) nXT (0) = {O}.
But then it follows that
for all A E U,
THE SPECTRAL THEORY OF OPERATORS ON BANACH SPACES 255
and therefore (T  >.) (at + a2 >. + a3 >.2 + ... ) = 0 first for all nonzero>. E U, and
then, by continuity, also for>. = O. Exactly as before, we conclude that at = 0 and
hence, by induction, an = 0 for all n ~ O. Thus f == 0 on U, as desired. 0
Since N(T) n K(T) ~ X T ( {O}) n XT(C \ {O}) = X T (0), it clearly follows that
N(T) n K(T) = N(T) n X T (0) for every T E L(X). Thus, by Theorem 9, T has
SVEP at 0 if and only if N(T) n K(T) = {O}. In particular, if T is surjective, then,
as noted above, K(T) = X, so that T has SVEP at 0 precisely when T is injective.
This characterization from [3, 1.11] extends a classical result due to Finch [17]. As
another immediate consequence of Theorem 9, we obtain the following result.
COROLLARY 10. An operator T E L(X) has SVEP at 0 provided that either
Ho(T) n K(T) = {O} or N(T) n R(T) = (0). 0
Recent counterexamples in [2] show that, in general, none of the latter condi
tions is equivalent to SVEP of T at 0, thus disproving a claim made in [20, 1.4].
However, by [1, 2.7], [5, 1.3], and Theorem 12 below, equivalences do hold for
certain classes of operators.
We now describe how the localized SVEP behaves under duality. For a linear
subspace M of X, let Ml. := {cp E X* : cp(x) = 0 for all x E M}, and for a linear
subspace N of X*, let l.N := {x EX: cp(x) = 0 for all cp E N}. By the bipolar
theorem, l.(Ml.) is the normclosure of M, and (l.N)l. is the weak*closure of
N. Moreover, for every T E L(X), it is well known that N(T*) = R(T)l. and
N(T) = l.R(T*), while R(T) is a normdense subspace of l.N(T*), and R(T*) is a
weak*dense subspace of N(T)l.. An elementary short proof of the following result
may be found in [2,4.1].
PROPOSITION 11. For every operator T E L(X), the following assertions hold:
(a) K(T) ~ l.Ho(T*) and K(T*) ~ Ho(T)l.;
(b) if Ho(T) + R(T) is normdense in X, then T* has SVEP at 0;
(c) if Ho(T*) + R(T*) is weak*dense in X*, then T has SVEP at o. 0
Even in the Hilbert space setting, the inclusions in part (a) of Proposition 11
need not be identities, and the implications of parts (b) and (c) cannot be reversed
in general; see [2] for counterexamples in the class of weighted shifts. However, for
suitable classes of operators, the results can be improved.
As usual, an operator T E L(X) is said to be a semiFredholm operator, if either
N(T) is finitedimensional and R(T) is closed, or R(T) is of finite codimension in
X. Also, an operator T E L(X) is said to be semiregular, if R(T) is closed and
N(T) ~ R(T); see [18], [19], and [21] for a discussion of these operators.
THEOREM 12. Suppose that the operator T E L(X) is either semiFredholm or
semiregular. Then the following assertions hold:
(a) R(T) = K(T) = l.Ho(T*) = l.N(T*);
(b) R(T*) = K(T*) = Ho(T)l. = N(T)l.;
(c) N(T) n R(T) = {O} <=> T has SVEP at 0;
(d) N(T*) n R(T*) = {O} <=> T* has SVEP at 0;
(e) N(T) + R(T) = X<=> Ho(T) + R(T) = X<=> T* has SVEP at 0;
(f) N;;:;:(T=*""7"")+:R~(T=*";) w' = X* <=> Ho(T*) + R(T*) w' = X* <=> T has SVEP at 0,
where w* indicates the closure with respect to the weak*topology. o
256 T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN
Theorem 12 was recently obtained in [2], see also [5]. An important ingredient
of the proof is the fact that T has SVEP at 0 if and only Tn has SVEP at 0 for
arbitrary n E N. This equivalence is a special case of a spectral mapping formula
for the set 6(T) of all A E C at which T fails to have SVEP, namely 6(f(T)) =
f(6(T)) for every analytic function f on some open neighborhood of a(T); see [2,
3.1] and also Theorem 18 below. Further developments may be found in [1], [3],
[4], [5], [17], and [20]. Here we mention only one simple consequence of Theorem
12 for semiregular operators from [3, 2.13].
For T E L(X), let PK(T) consist of all A E C for which T  A is semiregular.
The Kato spectrum aK(T) := C \ PK(T) is a closed subset of a(T) and contains
oa(T); see [18, 3.1] and [21] for details. We include a short proof of the following
result, since the dichotomy for the connected components of the Kato resolvent set
PK (T) with respect to the localized SVEP will play an essential role in Section 4.
THEOREM 16. For every operator T E L(X) and every open set U ~ C, the
following equivalences hold:
(a) T has (13) on U {::} T* has (8) on U;
(b) T has (8) on U {::} T* has (/3) on U;
(c) T is decomposable on U {::} T has both (13) and (8) on U;
(d) T has (13) on U {::} T is the restriction of a decomposable operator on U;
(e) T has (15) on U {::} T i,~ the quotient of a decomposable operator on U. 0
It is not at all obvious from the definition of (8) that there exists a largest open
set, say Uc5(T), on which the operator T has property (8), but this now follows from
the corresponding result for (13) by duality. In fact, Uc5(T) = U{3(T*) by part (b) of
the preceding result. More precisely, Theorem 16 leads to the following result.
COROLLARY 17. For every operator T E L( X), there exists a smallest closed set
Sc5(T) so that T has property (8) on its complement. Moreover, Sc5(T) = S{3(T*),
S{3(T) = Sc5(T*), and Sr(T) = S{3(T) U Sc5(T) = S{3(T) U S{3(T*) = Sr(T*). 0
Proof. In the case of 6(T), the spectral mapping formula was recently ob
tained in [2, 3.1]. The result for S(T) is a standard fact that may be found in [29,
4.3.14] and [30, 1.6]. Note, however, that the formula for S(T) is also an imme
diate consequence of that for 6(T), because 6(T) = S(T). While the existence of
the residual set So(T) was most conveniently established by using S{3(T) and the
AlbrechtEschmeier duality between the localized versions of (f3) and (8), for the is
sue at hand it seems appropriate to switch the order. Indeed, since f(T*) = f(T) *,
Corollary 17 ensures that it suffices to prove the claim for So(T). For this, fortu
nately, we may proceed as in the proof of [18,3.3.6 and 3.3.9], where property (8)
is shown to be stable under the Riesz functional calculus.
First, consider arbitrary open sets V, W ~ C for which f(So(T)) ~ V ~ V ~ W.
Then {fl(C \ V), f 1(W)} is an open cover of a(T) for which So(T) ~ fl(W).
Thus, by the characterization of the localized property (8) mentioned above, we
obtain that
X = XT(a(T)) = XT (11(C \ V) n a(T)) + XT (11(W) n a(T)) .
Clearly, f 1(C \ V) n a(T) ~ f 1(C \ V) n a(T) and, similarly, fl(W) n a(T) ~
fl(W) n a(T). Since, by [18,3.3.6], the formula XT (fl(F) n a(T)) = Xf(T) (F)
holds for every closed set F ~ C, we conclude that
X = Xf(T) (C \ V) + Xf(T) (W).
This shows that f(T) has (8) on C \ f(So(T)), thus C \ f(So(T)) ~ Uo(f(T)),
and hence So(f(T)) ~ f(So(T)). Note that this inclusion even holds without the
requirement that f be nonconstant on each of the connected components of its
domain.
The reverse inclusion is less obvious, but may be obtained by a suitable mod
ification of the proof of [18, 3.3.9]. Let S := f 1 (So(f(T))) n a(T). Then the
desired inclusion f(So(T)) ~ So(f(T)) means precisely that the decomposition
X = XT(C \ V) + XT(W) holds for all open sets V, W ~ C for which S ~ V ~
V ~ W. Evidently, it suffices to show that X = XT(G) + XT(H) for every open
cover {G,H} of a(T) for which S ~ G, SnH = 0, and both G and H are compact
subsets of n. Ignoring momentarily the exceptional set S, we may proceed word
by word along the lines of the proof of [18, 3.3.9] to obtain a finite open cover
{WI, ... , W n } of a(T) in n for which
To handle the residual set, we note that the identity SnH = 0 may be reformulated
in the form So(f(T)) n f(a(T) n H) = 0. Hence, by continuity and compactness,
there exists an open neighborhood V of So (f(T)) for which V n f(a(T) n H) = 0.
This implies that f 1 (V) n a(T) n H = 0, hence f 1 (V) n a(T) ~ G, and therefore,
by [18, 3.3.6],
Xf(T)(V) = XT (Jl(V) n a(T)) ~ XT(G).
Now, since f(T) has (8) on C \ So(f(T)), and since {V, f(W1), ... , f(Wn )} is an
open cover of a(f(T)) = f(a(T)) for which So(f(T)) ~ V, we conclude that
again by the basic characterization of the localized version of (8) provided in [6,
Th.3]. Thus X = XT(G) + XT(H), as desired. 0
In the following results, we show how to verify property ({3) on the Kato resol
vent set and its Fredholm counterpart.
THEOREM 19. For an arbitrary operator T E L(X) and every connected com
ponent n of PK(T), the following equivalences hold:
T has ({3) on n {:} T has SVEP on n {:} n n O'p(T) = 0 {:} n \ O'ap(T) =F 0j
in particular, T has property ({3) on PK(T) precisely when T has SVEP on PK(T).
Proof. Clearly, the first of the displayed conditions implies the second one, and
the equivalence of the last three conditions follows from Theorem 13. Conversely, if
these three conditions hold, then T  A is injective with closed range for all A E n.
Thus f'i,(T  A) = "((T  A) > 0 for all A E n. Moreover, by [18, 3.1.10], for every
compact subset K of n, there exists a constant c > 0 such that f'i,(T  A) > 0 for
all A E Kj in fact, as shown, for instance, in [21,4.1], the function A t+ "((T  A)
is continuous and strictly positive on PK(T). From this it is immediate that T has
({3) on n. 0
The next result is clear from Corollary 17, Theorem 19, and the wellknown
identity PK(T) = PK(T*), [18, 3.1.6]. Part (c) of Corollary 20 may be viewed as
an extension of the fact that, by [18, 3.1.7], p(T) = PK(T) whenever both T and
T* have SVEP.
COROLLARY 20. For every operatorT E L(X), the following assertions hold:(a)
T has SVEP on PK(T) {:} S{3(T) ~ O'K(T)j
(b) T* has SVEP on PK(T) {:} SIi(T) ~ O'K(T)j
(c) T and T* have SVEP on PK(T) {:} Sr(T) ~ O'K(T). 0
To derive the companion result for the essential spectrum, we employ the fact
that, for every operator T E L(X) and every open subset V of the essential resolvent
set Pe(T) := C\O'e(T), the operator Tv has closed range (but need not be injective).
This interesting result was recently obtained by Eschmeier [13, 3.1], based on sheaf
theoretic methods developed by Putinar [28] to show that quasisimilar operators
with property ({3) have the same essential spectrum. In tandem with Corollary 17,
we obtain the following extension of [13, 3.9].
COROLLARY 21. For every operator T E L(X), the following assertions hold:
(a) T has SVEP on Pe(T) {:} S{3(T) ~ O'e(T)j
(b) T* has SVEP on Pe(T) {:} SIi(T) ~ O'e(T)j
(c) T and T* have SVEP on Pe(T) {:} Sr(T) ~ O'e(T). o
We close with an application to the spectral theory of weighted shifts.
EXAMPLE 22. Let W := (Wn)nEN"o be a bounded sequence of strictly positive
real numbers, and let T E L(X) denote the corresponding unilateral weighted right
shift on the sequence space X := fP(N o) for some 1 ::; p < 00. Clearly,
i(T) = lim inf (Wk .. Wk+n_d 1 / n and r(T) = lim sup (Wk .. Wk+n_d 1 / n .
n+oo k~O n+oo k~O
THE SPECTRAL THEORY OF OPERATORS ON BANACH SPACES 261
Since T has no eigenvalues, T has SVEP and asu(T) = a(T) = {A E C : IAI s r(T)},
by [18, 1.3.2 and 1.6.15J. Moreover, as noted in [18,3.7.7],
ae(T) = aK(T) = aap(T) = {A E C : i(T) siAl s r(T)} ,
and therefore, by Corollaries 20 or 21, the annulus {A E C : i(T) siAl s r(T)} con
tains S(3(T). On the other hand, by [2, 6.1J, 6(T*) = {A E C : IAI < c(T)} , where
c(T):= liminf(wl" 'Wn)l/n.
n>oo
References
[IJ P. Aiena, M. L. Colasante, and M. Gonzalez, Opemtors which have a closed quasinilpotent
part, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 130 (2002), 27012710.
[2J P. Aiena, T. L. Miller, and M. M. Neumann, On a localized singlevalued extension property,
to appear in Proc. Royal Irish Acad.
[3J P. Aiena and O. Monsalve, Opemtors which do not have the single valued extension property,
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 250 (2000),435448.
[4J P. Aiena and O. Monsalve, The single valued extension property and the genemlized Kato
decomposition property, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 67 (2001), 791807.
[5J P. Aiena and F. Villafane, Components of resolvent sets and local spectml theory, submitted
to this volume.
[6J E. Albrecht and J. Eschmeier, Analytic functional models and local spectml theory, Proc.
London Math. Soc. (3) 75 (1997), 323348.
[7J E. Albrecht and W. J. Ricker, Local spectml theory f01 opemtors with thin spectrum, preprint,
University of Saarbriicken, 2002.
[8J H. Bercovici and S. Petrovic, Genemlized scalar opemtors as dilations, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 123 (1995), 21732180.
[9J E. Bishop, A duality theory for an arbitmry opemtor, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 379397.
[lOJ I. Colojoara and C. Foi~, Theory of Genemlized Spectml Opemtors, Gordon and Breach,
New York, 1968.
[11J M. Didas, E(]"n )subscalar ntuples and the Cesaro opemtor on HP, Annales Universitatis
Saraviensis, Series Mathematicae 10 (2000), 285335.
[12J N. Dunford and J. T. Schwartz, Linear Opemtors III, WileyInterscience, New York, 1971.
[13J J. Eschmeier, On the essential spectrum of Banachspace opemtors, Proc. Edinburgh Math.
Soc. (2) 43 (2000), 511528.
[14J J. Eschmeier and B. Prunaru, Invariant subspaces for opemtors with Bishop's property ({3)
and thick spectrum, J. Funct. Anal. 94 (1990), 196222.
[15J J. Eschmeier and M. Putinar, Bishop's condition ({3) and rich extensions of linear opemtors,
Indiana Univ. Math. J. 37 (1988), 325348.
[16J J. Eschmeier and M. Putinar, Spectml Decompositions and Analytic Sheaves, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 1996.
[17J J. K. Finch, The single valued exten.9ion property on a Banach space, Pacific J. Math. 58
(1975),6169.
[18J K. B. Laursen and M. M. Neumann, An Introduction to Local Spectml Theory, Clarendon
Press, Oxford, 2000.
[19J M. Mbekbta, Genemlisation de la decomposition de Kato aux opemteurs pamnormaux et
spectmux, Glasgow Math. J. 29 (1987), 159175.
[20J M. Mbekhta, Sur la theorie spectmle locale et limite des nilpotents, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.
110 (1990), 621631.
262 T. L. MILLER, V. G. MILLER, AND M. M. NEUMANN
[21] M. Mbekhta and A. Ouahab, Operateurs sregulier dans un espace de Banach et theorie
spectrale, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 59 (1994), 525543.
[22] T. L. Miller, V. G. Miller, and M. M. Neumann, Local spectral properties of weighted shifts,
to appear in J. Operator Theory.
[23] T. L. Miller, V. G. Miller, and M. M. Neumann, Growth conditions and decomposable exten
sions, to appear in Contemp. Math.
[24] T. L. Miller, V. G. Miller, and M. M. Neumann, On operators with closed analytic core, to
appear in Rend. Cire. Mat. Palermo (2) 51 (2002).
[25] B. Nagy, On Sdecomposable operators, J. Operator Theory 2 (1979),277286.
[26] M. M. Neumann, Recent developments in local spectral theory, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2)
Suppl. 68 (2002), 111131.
[27] M. Putinar, Hyponormal operators are subsealar, J. Operator Theory 12 (1984), 385395.
[28] M. Putinar, Quasisimilarity of tuples with Bishop's property (,8), Integral Equations Oper
ator Theory 15 (1992), 10471052.
[29] F.H. Vasilescu, Analytic FUnctional Calculus and Spectral Decompositions, Editura
Aeademiei and D. Reidel Publishing Company, Bucharest and Dordreeht, 1982.
[30] P. Vrbova., On local spectral properties of operators in Banach spaces, Czechoslovak Math.
J. 23 (98) (1973),483492.
Volker Runde
and turns M(G) into a Banach algebra. Moreover, M(G) has an isometric involu
tion given by
1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. 22D15, 22D25, 43A20, 43A30, 46H20 (primary),
46H25, 46L07, 46M18, 46M20, 47B47, 47L25, 47L50.
Key words and phrases. locally compact groups, group algebra, Fourier algebra, Fourier
Stieltjes algebra, Hochschild cohomology, homological algebra, operator spaces.
Financial support by NSERC under grant no. 22704300 is gratefully acknowledged.
This definition is of little use for noncommutative 21. For commutative 21, weak
amenability, however, is equivalent to 'Jtl(21, 21*) = {O} ([BCD, Theorem 1.5]),
and in [Joh 2], Johnson suggested that this should be used to define weak amenabil
ity for arbitrary 21:
DEFINITION 2.5. A Banach algebra 21 is called weakly amenable if 'Jtl(21, 21*) =
{O}.
REMARK 2.6. There is also the notion of a weakly amenable, locally compact
group ([CH]). This coincidence of terminology, however, is purely accidental.
In contrast to Theorem 2.2, we have:
THEOREM 2.7 ([Joh 3]). Let G be a locally compact group. Then l(G) is
weakly amenable.
For a particularly simple proof of this result, see [DGh]. For M(G), things
are strikingly different:
THEOREM 2.8 ([DGhH]). Let G be a locally compact group. Then M(G) is
weakly amenable if and only if G is discrete. In particular, M (G) is amenable if
and only if G is discrete and amenable.
Sometime after Kamowitz's pioneering paper, several mathematicians started
to systematically develop a homological algebra with functional analytic overtones.
Besides Johnson, who followed Hochschild's original approach, there were
A. Guichardet ([Gui]), whose point of view was homological rather than coho
mological, and J. A. Taylor ([Tay]) and  most persistently  A. Ya. Helemskil
and his Moscow school, whose approaches used projective or injective resolutions;
Helemskil's development of homological algebra for Banach and more general topo
logical algebras is expounded in the monograph [He} 2].
In homological algebra, the notions of projective, injective, and flat modules
play a pivotal role. Each of these concepts tranlates into the functional analytic
context. Helemskil calls a Banach algebra 21 biprojective (respectively biflat) if it
is a projective (respetively flat) Banach 21bimodule over itself. We do not attempt
to give the fairly technical definitions of a projective or a flat Banach 21bimodule.
Fortunately, there are equivalent, but more elementary characterizations of bipro
jectivity and biflatness, respectively.
We use y to denote the completed projective tensor product of Banach spaces.
If 21 is a Banach algebra, then 21 y 21 has a natural Banach 21bimodule structure
via
a(xy):=axy and (xy)a=:xya (a, x, y E 21).
This turns the multiplication operator
A: 21 y 21 + 21, a b f+ ab
into a homomorphism of Banach 21bimodules.
DEFINITION 2.9. Let 21 be a Banach algebra. Then:
(a) 21 is called biprojective if and only if A has bounded right inverse which
is an 21bimodule homomorphism.
(b) 21 is called biftat if and only if A * has bounded left inverse which is an
21bimodule homomorphism.
ABSTRACT HARMONIC ANALYSIS 267
THEOREM 2.13 ([Joh 4]). The Fourier algebra of SO(3) is not amenable.
This leaves the following intriguing open question:
QUESTION 2.14. Which are the locally compact groups G for which A(G) is
amenable?
The only groups G for which A( G) is known to be amenable are those with an
abelian subgroup of finite index. It is a plausible conjecture that these are indeed
the only ones. The corresponding question for weak amenability is open as well.
B. E. Forrest has shown that A( G) is weakly amenable whenever the principal
component of G is abelian ([For 2, Theorem 2.4]).
One can, of course, ask the same question(s) for the FourierStieltjes algebra:
QUESTION 2.15. Which are the locally compact groups G for which B(G) is
amenable?
Here, the natural conjecture is that those groups are precisely those with a
compact, abelian subgroup of finite index. Since A( G) is a complemented ideal in
B( G), the hereditary properties of amenability for Banach algebras ([Run, Theo
rem 2.3.7]) yield that A( G) has to be amenable whenever B( G) is. It is easy to
see that, if the conjectured answer to Question 2.14 is true, then so is the one to
Question 2.15.
Partial answers to both Question 2.14 and Question 2.15 can be found in
[LLW] and [For 2].
3. and operator spaces
Given any linear space E and n E N, we denote the n x nmatrices with entries
from E by Mn(E); if E = C, we simply write Mn. Clearly, formal matrix mul
tiplication turns Mn(E) into an Mnbimodule. Identifying Mn with the bounded
linear operators on ndimensional Hilbert space, we equip Mn with a norm, which
we denote by I I
DEFINITION 3.1. An operator space is a linear space E with a complete norm
II lin on Mn(E) for each n E N such that
(R 1)
and
(R 2)
EXAMPLE 3.2. Let fJ be a Hilbert space. The unique C*norms on Mn(13(SJ)) ~
13(fJn) turn 13(SJ) and any of its subspaces into operator spaces.
Given two linear spaces E and F, a linear map T: E + F, and n E N, we
define the the nth amplification T(n) : Mn(E) + Mn(F) by applying T to each
matrix entry.
DEFINITION 3.3. Let E and F be operator spaces, and let T E 13(E, F). Then:
(a) T is completely bounded if
IITllcb := sup IIT(n) IIB(Mn(E),Mn(F)) < 00.
nEN
ABSTRACT HARMONIC ANALYSIS 269
then yields norms 1Illn on the spaces Mn(CB(E, F)) that satisfy (R 1) and (R 2),
which is not hard to verify.
Since, for any operator space E, the Banach spaces E* and CB(E, C) are isome
trically isomorphic ([ER, Corollary 2.2.3]), this yields a canonical operator space
structure on the dual Banach space of an operator space. In partiuclar, the unique
predual of a von Neumann algebra is an operator space in a canonical way.
We shall see how this yields further examples of completely contractive Banach
algebras.
We denote the W* tensor product by .
DEFINITION 3.7. A Hop/von Neumann algebra is a pair (rot, V), where rot
is a von Neumann algebra, and V is a comultiplication: a unital, injective, w*
continuous *homomorphism V: rot + rotrot which is coassociative, i.e. the dia
gram
rot
v
+ rotrot
vl 1Vid!lJl
rotrot I rotrotrot
id!lJlV
commutes.
EXAMPLE 3.8. Let G be a locally compact group.
(1) Define V: oo(G) + oo(G x G) by letting
(V</(xy) := </>(xy) (</> E oo(G), x, y E G).
Since oo(G)oo(G) ~ oo(G x G), this turns oo(G) into a Hopfvon
Neumann algebra.
(2) Let W*(G) be the enveloping von Neumann algebra of C*(G). There is
a canonical w* continuous homomorphism w from G into the unitaries
of W* (G) with the following universal property: For any unitary rep
resentation 7r of G on a Hilbert space, there is unique w* continuous *
homomorphism (J: W*(G) + 7r(G)" such that 7r = (J 0 w. Applying this
universal property to the representation
G + W*(G)W*(G), x 1+ w(x) w(x)
yields a comultiplication V: W*(G) + W*(G)W*(G).
Given two von Neumann algebras rot and 1)1 with preduals rot* and 1)1*, their
W*tensor product rot1)1 also has a unique predual (rotI)1)*. Operator space
theory allows to identify this predual in terms of rot* and 1)1* ([ER, Theorem
7.2.4]):
(rotI)1)* ~ rot*ci~m*.
Since VN(G) VN(H) ~ VN(G x H) for any locally compact groups G and H, this
implies in particular that
A(G x H) ~ A(G)A(H).
Suppose now that rot is a Hopfvon Neumann algebra with predual rot*. The
comultiplication V : rot + rotrot is w continuous and thus the adjoint map of
a complete contraction V. : rot*rot. + rot.. This turns rot. into a completely
contractive Banach algebra. In view of Example 3.8, we have:
ABSTRACT HARMONIC ANALYSIS 271
References
[Ari] O. Yu. Aristov, Biprojective algebras and operator spaces. J. Math. Sci. (to appear).
[ARSp] O. Yu. Aristov, V. Runde, and N. Spronk. Operator biflatness of the Fourier algebra.
In preparation.
[BCD] W. G. Bade, P. C. Curtis, Jr., and H. G. Dales, Amenability and weak amenability
for Beurling and Lipschitz algebras. Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 55 (1987), 359377.
[CE] H. Cartan and S. Eilenberg, Homological algebra. Princeton University Press, Prince
ton, 1956.
[CH] M. Cowling and U. Haagerup, Completely bounded multipliers of the Fourier algebra
of a simple Lie group of real rank one. Invent. Math. 96 (1989), 507549.
[DGhH] H. G. Dales, F. Ghahramani, and A. Va. HelemskiY, The amenability of measure
algebras. J. London Math. Soc. 66 (2002), 213226.
[Day] M. M. Day, Means on semigroups and groups. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1949),
10541055.
[DGh] M. Despic and F. Ghahramani, Weak amenability of group algebras of locally compact
groups. Ganad. Math. Bull. 37 (1994), 165167.
[ER] E. G. Effros and Z.J. Ruan, Operator spaces. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2000.
[Eym] P. Eymard, L'algebre de Fourier d'un groupe localement compact. Bull. Soc. Math.
France 92 (1964), 181236.
[Fol] G. B. Folland, A course in abstract harmonic analysis. CRC Press, Boca Raton,
Florida, 1995.
[For 1] B. E. Forrest, Arens regularity and discrete groups. Pacific J. Math. 151 (1991),
217227.
[For 2] B. E. Forrest, Amenability and weak amenability of the Fourier algebra. Preprint
(2000).
[Gre] F. P. Greenleaf, Invariant means on locally compact groups. Van Nostrand, New
YorkTorontoLondon, 1969.
ABSTRACT HARMONIC ANALYSIS 273
David Sherman
1. Introduction
The purpose of this article is to summarize and explore some of the various
constructions of the relative tensor product (RTP) of von Neumann algebra mod
ules. Alternately known as composition or fusion, RTPs are a key tool in subfactor
theory and the study of Morita equivalence. The idea is this: given a von Neumann
algebra M, we want a map which associates a vector space to certain pairs of a
right Mmodule and a left Mmodule. If we write module actions with subscripts,
we have
(XM,M!i)) f> X 0M!i).
This should be functorial, covariant in both variables, and appropriately normal
ized. Other than this, we only need to specify which modules and spaces we are
considering.
In spirit, RTPs are algebraic; a ringtheoretic definition can be found in most
algebra textbooks. But in the context of operator algebras, the requirement that
the output be a certain type of space  typically a Hilbert space  causes an ana
lytic obstruction. As a consequence, there are domain issues in any vectorbased
construction. Fortunately, von Neumann algebras have a sufficiently simple repre
sentation theory to allow a recasting of RTPs in algebraic terms.
The analytic study of RTPs can be related nicely to noncommutative P spaces.
Indeed, examination of the usual (2) case reveals that the technical difficulties
come from a "change of density". (We say that the density of an LPtype space
is lip.) Once this is understood, it is easy to handle LP modules [JS] as well.
Modular algebras ([Y], [S]) provide an elegant framework, so we briefly explain
their meaning.
The final section of the paper investigates the question, "When is the map
(~, 1]) f+ ~ <p 1] preclosed?" This may be considered as an extension of Falcone's
theorem [F], in which he found conditions for the map to be everywheredefined.
We consider a variety of formulations.
We have tried to make the paper as accessible as possible to nonoperator
algebraists, especially in the first half. Of course, even at this level many results rely
on familiarity with the projection theory of von Neumann algebras; basic sources
are [TI], [T2], [KR]. Primary references for RTPs are [Sa], [P]' [F], [C2].
Hilbert space, and Moc(M) for the von Neumann tensor product MocM. One
can think of this as the set of infinite matrices with entries in M; we will denote
by eij the matrix unit with 1 in the ij position and 0 elsewhere.
The (left) representation theory of von Neumann algebras on Hilbert spaces is
simple, so we recall it briefly. (Most of this development can be found in Chapters
1 and 2 of [JoS].) First, there is a standard construction, due to GelfandNeumark
and Segal (abbreviated GNS), for building a representation from 'P E Mt. To
each x E M we formally associate the vector x'P 1/ 2 (various notations are in use,
e.g. 7]",(x) or A",(.'1:), but this one is especially appropriate ([C2] V.App.B, [S])). We
endow this set with the inner product
< x'P1/2, Y'P 1/ 2 >= 'P(Y* x),
and set fJ", to be the closure in the inherited topology, modulo the null space.
The left action of M on fJ", = M'P1/2 is bounded and densely defined by left
composition.
When 'P is faithful (meaning x > 0 => 'P(x) > 0), the vector 'P 1/ 2 = I'P1/2 is
cyclic (M'P1/2 = fJ",) and separating (x =f. 0 => X'P1/2 =f. 0). Now all representa
tions with a cyclic and separating vector are isomorphic  a sort of "left regular
representation"; we will denote this by ML 2 (M). It is a fundamental fact that the
commutant of this action is antiisomorphic to M, and when we make this iden
tification we call ML2(M)M the standard form of M. If 'P is not faithful, the
GNS construction produces a vector 'Pl/2 which is cyclic but not separating, and a
representation which is isomorphic to ML2(M)s('P) ([T2], Ch. VIII, IX).
Now let us examine an arbitrary (separable, so countably generated) module
MfJ. Following standard arguments (e.g. [TI] I.9), fJ decomposes into a direct
sum of cyclic representations M(M~n), each of which is isomorphic to the GNS
representation for the associated vector state w~n (=< ~n, ~n . With qn = s(w~J,
we have
MfJ ~ EBMM~n ~ EBMfJw~n ~ EB M L 2(M)qn.
(Here and elsewhere, "~" means a unitary equivalence of (bi)modules.) Since this is
a left module, it is natural to write vectors as rows with the nth entry in L 2(M)qn:
Visually,
(3.3)
where of course the 2 sums of the norms of the entries in these matrices are finite.
LEMMA 4.3. Suppose L(M) and R(N) are commutants on fl. Then
NfJM M MflN ~ NL2(N)N.
PROOF. If Mfl ~ MR 2(M)q, then N ~ qMoo(M)q by (2.3), and fJM
qC 2 (M)M. By Proposition 3.2 and the comment preceding Proposition 2.1,
NfJM M MflN ~ N(qL2(Moo(M))q)N ~ NL2(qMoo(M)q)N ~ NL2(N)N.
D
Lemma 4.3 was first proven by Sauvageot (in another way). In our situation it
means
(4.2)
Apparently we have
(4.3)
Before continuing the argument, we need an observation: isomorphic algebras
have isomorphic standard forms. Specifically, we may write L2(Moo(N)) as the
GNS construction for tp E Moo(N)t and obtain the isomorphism
(a1)t : L2(Moo(N)) ..::. L2(Moo(M)), (a1)t : xtp1/2 ........ a(x)(tp 0 a 1)1/2.
Note that (a 1 )t(x~y) = a(x)[(a 1 )t(~)la(y).
Now consider the RTP functor for the bimodule
R2(N)q ........ 171 (M)a 1 (et'{)L2(Moo (N))q (17;:)' Met'{ L 2(Moo (M))a(q)
~ MR 2(M)a(q) ~ F(R 2(N)q).
We conclude that F is equivalent to FSj, which finishes the proof of Theorem 4.1.
Notice that (4.2) and (4.3) can also be used to define a functor; this gives us
COROLLARY 4.4. For two von Neumann algebras M and N, the following are
equivalent:
(1) M and N are Morita equivalent;
282 DAVID SHERMAN
For a bimodule Mf)N where the algebras are not necessarily commutants, the
functor (4.1) still makes sense. To get a more tractable object, we may consider
the domain and range to be isomorphism classes of modules:
(4.5)
RELATIVE TENSOR PRODUCTS 283
~ M6 L2 (M6)M3 M3 M3 L2 (M6)
(now counting the dimensions of the Hilbert spaces)
61+24.
Apparently the index is 4, which is also the ratio of the dimensions of the algebras.
(5.1)
This requires some explanation.
Fix faithful cp E Mt and row and column representations of 5) and .It as in
(2.1). We define
(5.2) ( ( ::::;:) ,(" "' '" )) ~ (::::;:) (,"') (" "' '" ) ~ (X;",
For cp =I 1jJ E Mt, we cannot expect cp TJ = ,p TJ even if both are defined,
although the reader familiar with modular theory will see that
(5.4)
The important point here is that 7rt(2)*7rf(6) E .c(L2(M)M) = M. The closure
of V(S), cp) .!'t in this inner product, modulo the null space, is once again S) cp .!'t.
(If we do choose a row representation as in (5.2), we have
The paper [F] contains more exposition of this approach, including some alter
nate constructions.
on the core, and so they generate a certain graded *algebra: positive elements of
LP(M) are defined to be operators of the form '{)1/ p . The basic development of this
theory can be found in [Tej; our choice of notation is influenced by [Yj, where it is
called a modular algebra.
The composition of two L2 operators is an Ll operator, and it turns out that
(5.1) can be rigorously justified [Sj as an operator equation. (This is not automatic,
as operators like ,{)1/2 are not 7measurable and require more delicate arguments.)
In fact, there is nothing sacred about halfdensities. With the recent development
of noncommutative LP modules [JS], one can allow relative tensor products to be
bifunctors on Right U(M) x Left Lq(M), with range in a certain L'" space. The
mapping is denselydefined by
~ cp 1/ ~ (~,{)~*~)1/.
In the case of an RTP of L oo modules (or more generally, Hilbert C*modules),
the middle term is trivial and there is no change of density. This explains why there
are no domain issues in defining a vectorvalued RTP of Hilbert C*modules [Rj.
Let us mention that the recent theory of operator bimodules, in which vectors
can be realized as bounded operators, allows a variety of relative tensor products
over C*algebras [APj. This can be naturally viewed as a generalization of the theory
of Banach space tensor products, which corresponds to a C*algebra of scalars.