Original text: CC0 1.0. Prerequisite proofs and component terms.

Building the two multiplication actions of a Hilbert algebra

A Hilbert algebra starts with vectors that can be multiplied. Its completion contains many more vectors, and multiplication does not automatically extend to every pair. The useful extension is asymmetric: an algebra vector acts boundedly from the left, while a right-bounded vector acts boundedly from the right. This unit constructs those actions, proves their commutation and adjoint relations, and identifies the closed operators attached to vectors in the adjoint-involution domain.

The mathematical antecedents are Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras II, Chapter VI, Definition 1.1, the representation construction following Example 1.3, Definitions 1.6–1.7, and Lemmas 1.4–1.11. The graph and polar results already proved in OA-MOD-TC are used at their exact generality.

OA-MOD-HA-01 — Starting data and the multiplication domains

Let A\mathcal A be a complex associative algebra with a conjugate-linear involution a↦a♯a\mapsto a^\sharp, so (ab)♯=b♯a♯,(a♯)♯=a.(HA.1) (ab)^\sharp=b^\sharp a^\sharp,\qquad (a^\sharp)^\sharp=a. \tag{HA.1} Equip A\mathcal A with a positive-definite inner product, linear in its first variable, and let HH be its Hilbert completion. We identify A\mathcal A with its dense image in HH. No unit, separability, or countability hypothesis is imposed. The zero algebra and zero Hilbert space are allowed.

A left Hilbert algebra has the following four properties:

  1. For each a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, some finite cac_a satisfies ∥ab∥≤ca∥b∥\|ab\|\leq c_a\|b\| for every b∈Ab\in\mathcal A.
  2. The multiplication and involution obey ⟨ab,c⟩=⟨b,a♯c⟩(a,b,c∈A).(HA.2) \langle ab,c\rangle=\langle b,a^\sharp c\rangle \qquad(a,b,c\in\mathcal A). \tag{HA.2}
  3. The conjugate-linear map s:A→Hs:\mathcal A\to H, sa=a♯sa=a^\sharp, is closable for the Hilbert norm.
  4. The linear span A2=span⁡{ab:a,b∈A}\mathcal A^2=\operatorname{span}\{ab:a,b\in\mathcal A\} is dense in HH.

The third property says that an→0a_n\to0 and an♯→ba_n^\sharp\to b imply b=0b=0. This sequence test uses metrizability of the Hilbert norm, not separability of HH. Property 4 is Hilbert-norm density. It does not yet say that A2\mathcal A^2 is a core for the closed involution.

The bounded prerequisites are the arbitrary-Hilbert-space completion, adjoint, and projection results OA-MOD-OPEN-HILBERT-COMPLETION, OA-MOD-OPEN-HILBERT-ADJOINT, and OA-MOD-OPEN-HILBERT-PROJECTION. OA-MOD-BK-02 supplies the bounded bicommutant framework; OA-MOD-BK-08 supplies the expression of an element of a von Neumann algebra as a linear combination of unitaries. OA-MOD-TC-03 and OA-MOD-TC-05 supply graph closure and conjugate-linear adjoints. Only the polar conclusions in OA-MOD-HA-04 use the additional closed-form and unbounded spectral contracts of OA-MOD-TC-07–10; the multiplication and graph arguments do not require those spectral conclusions.

For clarity, a right Hilbert algebra uses bounded right multiplication and the adjoint identity ⟨ab,c⟩=⟨a,cb♭⟩,(HA.3) \langle ab,c\rangle=\langle a,c b^\flat\rangle, \tag{HA.3} with a closable algebraic involution ♭\flat and dense products. Its bounded multiplication map reverses the order of products.

OA-MOD-HA-02 — Faithful left multiplication without a unit

For a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, property 1 gives a unique bounded extension La:H⟶H,Lab=ab(b∈A).(HA.4) L_a:H\longrightarrow H,\qquad L_a b=ab\quad(b\in\mathcal A). \tag{HA.4}

Theorem. The map a↦Laa\mapsto L_a is an injective algebraic *-representation: Lαa+βb=αLa+βLb,Lab=LaLb,La♯=La∗.(HA.5) L_{\alpha a+\beta b}=\alpha L_a+\beta L_b,\qquad L_{ab}=L_aL_b,\qquad L_{a^\sharp}=L_a^*. \tag{HA.5} It is nondegenerate, in the precise sense span⁡{Laξ:a∈A, ξ∈H}‾=H.(HA.6) \overline{\operatorname{span}\{L_a\xi:a\in\mathcal A,\ \xi\in H\}}=H. \tag{HA.6} In particular, [Laξ=0 for all a∈A]⟹ξ=0.(HA.7) \bigl[L_a\xi=0\text{ for all }a\in\mathcal A\bigr]\Longrightarrow \xi=0. \tag{HA.7}

Proof. The first two identities hold on A\mathcal A, by linearity and associativity, and hence hold on HH by boundedness and density. Equation (HA.2) says that La♯L_{a^\sharp} has the defining pairing of La∗L_a^* on a dense set in both variables. Continuity extends that pairing to H×HH\times H, proving the last identity.

The span in (HA.6) contains A2\mathcal A^2, so property 4 proves nondegeneracy. More directly, if Laξ=0L_a\xi=0 for every aa, then ⟨ξ,a♯b⟩=⟨Laξ,b⟩=0(a,b∈A). \langle \xi,a^\sharp b\rangle=\langle L_a\xi,b\rangle=0 \qquad(a,b\in\mathcal A). As ♯\sharp maps A\mathcal A onto itself, the test vectors span A2\mathcal A^2. Density gives ξ=0\xi=0, proving (HA.7).

Finally suppose La=0L_a=0. Taking adjoints gives La♯=0L_{a^\sharp}=0. For b∈Ab\in\mathcal A, ba=(a♯b♯)♯=0. ba=(a^\sharp b^\sharp)^\sharp=0. Thus Lba=0L_ba=0 for every bb, and (HA.7) gives a=0a=0. This proves injectivity without inserting an algebra unit. □\square

For every integer n≥2n\geq2, the span An\mathcal A^n of nn-fold products is also Hilbert-norm dense. Indeed, if An\mathcal A^n is dense and a,b∈Aa,b\in\mathcal A, approximate bb in norm by elements vk∈Anv_k\in\mathcal A^n. Boundedness of LaL_a gives avk→abav_k\to ab. Hence the closure of An+1\mathcal A^{n+1} contains A2\mathcal A^2, which is dense. Induction starts at property 4. These approximations do not control the involution graph norm.

For an independently given right Hilbert algebra D\mathcal D, apply this theorem to the opposite product a∘b=baa\circ b=ba. Equation (HA.3) becomes ⟨a∘b,c⟩=⟨b,a♭∘c⟩\langle a\circ b,c\rangle=\langle b,a^\flat\circ c\rangle, so all four left Hilbert algebra properties hold for Dop\mathcal D^{\mathrm{op}}. Thus right multiplication extends to an injective nondegenerate anti *-representation: Rab=RbRa,Rb♭=Rb∗.(HA.46) R_{ab}=R_bR_a,\qquad R_{b^\flat}=R_b^*. \tag{HA.46} Its product order is reversed precisely because it represents the opposite algebra.

OA-MOD-HA-03 — The generated algebra and its commutant

Set M=L(A)′′,L(A)={La:a∈A}.(HA.8) M=L(\mathcal A)'',\qquad L(\mathcal A)=\{L_a:a\in\mathcal A\}. \tag{HA.8} Here commutants are taken in B(H)B(H). The algebra MM is unital even when A\mathcal A is not. Its commutant is M′=L(A)′M'=L(\mathcal A)': the general identity E′′′=E′E'''=E' follows because E⊆E′′E\subseteq E'', while every member of E′E' commutes with every member of (E′)′=E′′(E')'=E''.

Nonunital density lemma. If a *-subalgebra C⊆B(H)\mathcal C\subseteq B(H) is nondegenerate, then C‾SOT=C‾WOT=C′′.(HA.9) \overline{\mathcal C}^{\mathrm{SOT}} =\overline{\mathcal C}^{\mathrm{WOT}} =\mathcal C''. \tag{HA.9} No norm bound is asserted for the approximating nets.

Proof. Fix T∈C′′T\in\mathcal C'' and finitely many vectors ξ1,…,ξn\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n. On HnH^n, write D(c)=diag⁡(c,…,c)D(c)=\operatorname{diag}(c,\ldots,c), Ξ=(ξ1,…,ξn)\Xi=(\xi_1,\ldots,\xi_n), and let PP project onto K={D(c)Ξ:c∈C}‾. K=\overline{\{D(c)\Xi:c\in\mathcal C\}}. The set inside closure is linear. Since C\mathcal C is an algebra closed under adjoints, KK is invariant under D(c)D(c) and D(c)∗D(c)^*. Thus PP commutes with every D(c)D(c). For all c∈Cc\in\mathcal C, D(c)(I−P)Ξ=(I−P)D(c)Ξ=0. D(c)(I-P)\Xi=(I-P)D(c)\Xi=0. Nondegeneracy of C\mathcal C, applied to each coordinate, gives (I−P)Ξ=0(I-P)\Xi=0. This is the step that replaces a unit.

Every matrix entry PjkP_{jk} commutes with C\mathcal C, so it commutes with TT. Consequently D(T)P=PD(T)D(T)P=PD(T), and D(T)Ξ∈KD(T)\Xi\in K. Given ε>0\varepsilon>0, the definition of KK therefore supplies c∈Cc\in\mathcal C with ∑j=1n∥(c−T)ξj∥2<ε2. \sum_{j=1}^n\|(c-T)\xi_j\|^2<\varepsilon^2. These conditions characterize membership of TT in the strong closure. The reverse inclusions follow because strong convergence implies weak operator convergence, and C′′\mathcal C'' is weak operator closed by OA-MOD-BK-02. □\square

Apply this lemma to L(A)L(\mathcal A). In particular, there is a net of left multipliers converging strongly to IHI_H. An infinite or uncountable algebra is not supplied with an identity vector by this assertion.

OA-MOD-HA-04 — The closed involution and what its polar data say

Put S=s‾,F=S∗=s∗.(HA.10) S=\overline s,\qquad F=S^*=s^*. \tag{HA.10} The adjoint convention is ⟨Sξ,η⟩=⟨Fη,ξ⟩(ξ∈D(S), η∈D(F)).(HA.11) \langle S\xi,\eta\rangle=\langle F\eta,\xi\rangle \quad(\xi\in D(S),\ \eta\in D(F)). \tag{HA.11} OA-MOD-TC-03 and OA-MOD-TC-05 give closed dense domains, the graph core A⊆D(S)\mathcal A\subseteq D(S), and S(D(S))=D(S),S2ξ=ξ.(HA.12) S(D(S))=D(S),\qquad S^2\xi=\xi. \tag{HA.12} The graph inner product is ⟨ξ,ζ⟩S=⟨ξ,ζ⟩+⟨Sζ,Sξ⟩.(HA.13) \langle \xi,\zeta\rangle_S =\langle\xi,\zeta\rangle+\langle S\zeta,S\xi\rangle. \tag{HA.13} Its completion is D(S)D(S), and every ξ∈D(S)\xi\in D(S) has an∈Aa_n\in\mathcal A with an→ξa_n\to\xi and an♯→Sξa_n^\sharp\to S\xi.

For use in the bounded-vector construction, the involution property of FF has a direct proof. If η∈D(F)\eta\in D(F) and ζ=Fη\zeta=F\eta, substitute SξS\xi for ξ\xi in (HA.11), using (HA.12): ⟨ξ,η⟩=⟨ζ,Sξ⟩. \langle \xi,\eta\rangle=\langle\zeta,S\xi\rangle. Conjugating gives ⟨Sξ,ζ⟩=⟨η,ξ⟩\langle S\xi,\zeta\rangle=\langle\eta,\xi\rangle for every ξ∈D(S)\xi\in D(S). Hence ζ∈D(F)\zeta\in D(F) and Fζ=ηF\zeta=\eta. Thus F(D(F))=D(F),F2η=η.(HA.14) F(D(F))=D(F),\qquad F^2\eta=\eta. \tag{HA.14} This argument requires no spectral theorem.

The already-proved polar theorem OA-MOD-TC-07–10, with its stated form and spectral prerequisites, applies to SS and gives Δ=FS,D(Δ)={ξ∈D(S):Sξ∈D(F)},S=JΔ1/2,D(S)=D(Δ1/2),F=JΔ−1/2,D(F)=D(Δ−1/2),J2=I,JΔJ=Δ−1.(HA.15) \begin{aligned} \Delta&=FS,\quad D(\Delta)=\{\xi\in D(S):S\xi\in D(F)\},\\ S&=J\Delta^{1/2},\quad D(S)=D(\Delta^{1/2}),\\ F&=J\Delta^{-1/2},\quad D(F)=D(\Delta^{-1/2}),\\ J^2&=I,\qquad J\Delta J=\Delta^{-1}. \end{aligned} \tag{HA.15} Here Δ\Delta is positive self-adjoint and injective, and JJ is antiunitary. These identities include equality of the unbounded operator domains. They determine Δ\Delta and JJ uniquely. They define the modular operator and modular conjugation of A\mathcal A.

At this stage these names assert no relation between JJ and the algebra MM. In particular, neither JMJ=M′JMJ=M' nor ΔitMΔ−it=M\Delta^{it}M\Delta^{-it}=M has been used or proved in this unit.

OA-MOD-HA-05 — A vector that multiplies boundedly from the right

For η∈H\eta\in H, consider the linear map rη:A⟶H,rη(a)=Laη.(HA.16) r_\eta:\mathcal A\longrightarrow H,\qquad r_\eta(a)=L_a\eta. \tag{HA.16} Call η\eta right bounded if this map is bounded for the Hilbert norm on A\mathcal A. Write Br={η∈H:∃c<∞ ∀a∈A, ∥Laη∥≤c∥a∥}.(HA.17) \mathcal B_r=\{\eta\in H:\exists c<\infty\ \forall a\in\mathcal A,\ \|L_a\eta\|\leq c\|a\|\}. \tag{HA.17} For such η\eta, let Rη∈B(H)R_\eta\in B(H) be the unique extension of rηr_\eta. Its exact norm is ∥Rη∥=sup⁡a∈A∥a∥≤1∥Laη∥.(HA.18) \|R_\eta\|=\sup_{\substack{a\in\mathcal A\\\|a\|\leq1}}\|L_a\eta\|. \tag{HA.18} Indeed, the supremum is the norm on the dense domain; taking norm approximations from that domain gives the same bound for the extension.

Theorem. The set Br\mathcal B_r is a complex vector space. The map η↦Rη\eta\mapsto R_\eta is linear and injective, and Rη∈M′(η∈Br).(HA.19) R_\eta\in M'\quad(\eta\in\mathcal B_r). \tag{HA.19} If x∈M′x\in M' and η∈Br\eta\in\mathcal B_r, then xη∈Br,Rxη=xRη.(HA.20) x\eta\in\mathcal B_r,\qquad R_{x\eta}=xR_\eta. \tag{HA.20} Consequently nr={Rη:η∈Br}\mathfrak n_r=\{R_\eta:\eta\in\mathcal B_r\} is a left ideal of M′M'.

Proof. Linear combinations satisfy the bound in (HA.17), and uniqueness of extension proves linearity. If Rη=0R_\eta=0, then Laη=0L_a\eta=0 for every aa; (HA.7) gives η=0\eta=0.

For a,b∈Aa,b\in\mathcal A, RηLab=Rη(ab)=Labη=LaLbη=LaRηb. R_\eta L_a b=R_\eta(ab)=L_{ab}\eta =L_aL_b\eta=L_aR_\eta b. Both operators are bounded, so they commute on all of HH. Thus Rη∈L(A)′=M′R_\eta\in L(\mathcal A)'=M'.

For x∈M′x\in M', La(xη)=xLaη=xRηa(a∈A). L_a(x\eta)=xL_a\eta=xR_\eta a\qquad(a\in\mathcal A). The last map is bounded by ∥x∥∥Rη∥∥a∥\|x\|\|R_\eta\|\|a\|, proving (HA.20). The assertion about the left ideal follows from that identity and linearity. It does not assert that nr\mathfrak n_r is closed or closed under adjoints. □\square

We now define products for exactly these pairs: aξ=Laξ(a∈A, ξ∈H),ξη=Rηξ(ξ∈H, η∈Br).(HA.21) a\xi=L_a\xi\quad(a\in\mathcal A,\ \xi\in H), \qquad \xi\eta=R_\eta\xi\quad(\xi\in H,\ \eta\in\mathcal B_r). \tag{HA.21} On the overlap a∈A,η∈Bra\in\mathcal A,\eta\in\mathcal B_r, the definitions agree by (HA.16). They extend the original product whenever both old and new definitions apply. The commutation in (HA.19) gives the mixed associativity identity (aξ)η=a(ξη)(a∈A, ξ∈H, η∈Br).(HA.22) (a\xi)\eta=a(\xi\eta) \quad(a\in\mathcal A,\ \xi\in H,\ \eta\in\mathcal B_r). \tag{HA.22} No product of two arbitrary vectors of HH has been introduced.

OA-MOD-HA-06 — Controlled limits of right-bounded vectors

Proposition. Suppose (ηi)(\eta_i) is a net in Br\mathcal B_r, ηi→η\eta_i\to\eta in Hilbert norm, and sup⁡i∥Rηi∥≤C<∞\sup_i\|R_{\eta_i}\|\leq C<\infty. Then η∈Br,∥Rη∥≤C,Rηi⟶Rη strongly.(HA.23) \eta\in\mathcal B_r,\qquad \|R_\eta\|\leq C,\qquad R_{\eta_i}\longrightarrow R_\eta \text{ strongly}. \tag{HA.23} Also Br\mathcal B_r, with norm ∥η∥rb=∥η∥+∥Rη∥,(HA.24) \|\eta\|_{\mathrm{rb}}=\|\eta\|+\|R_\eta\|, \tag{HA.24} is a Banach space.

Proof. For a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, boundedness of LaL_a gives Laηi→LaηL_a\eta_i\to L_a\eta, and therefore ∥Laη∥≤C∥a∥\|L_a\eta\|\leq C\|a\|. This proves right boundedness and the claimed norm bound. For any ξ∈H\xi\in H and a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, ∥(Rηi−Rη)ξ∥≤2C∥ξ−a∥+∥La(ηi−η)∥. \|(R_{\eta_i}-R_\eta)\xi\| \leq 2C\|\xi-a\|+\|L_a(\eta_i-\eta)\|. First approximate ξ\xi by aa, then pass along the net; this proves strong convergence. If C=0C=0, all the operators vanish and injectivity makes every vector zero, so the conclusion also holds.

For completeness, a Cauchy sequence in (HA.24) has limits ηn→η\eta_n\to\eta in HH and Rηn→TR_{\eta_n}\to T in B(H)B(H). For each a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, Ta=lim⁡nRηna=lim⁡nLaηn=Laη. Ta=\lim_nR_{\eta_n}a=\lim_nL_a\eta_n=L_a\eta. Hence η∈Br\eta\in\mathcal B_r, T=RηT=R_\eta, and convergence holds in (HA.24). The completeness of B(H)B(H) used here follows directly by taking the pointwise limits of an operator-norm Cauchy sequence: the uniform Cauchy bound gives a bounded limit operator and then operator-norm convergence. Thus no closure of Br\mathcal B_r in the Hilbert norm was assumed. □\square

The uniform operator bound in (HA.23) cannot be dropped; OA-MOD-HA-10 gives an explicit failure.

OA-MOD-HA-07 — Closed right multipliers and affiliation

For a closed linear operator T:D(T)⊆H→HT:D(T)\subseteq H\to H, affiliation with a von Neumann algebra NN means uD(T)=D(T),Tuξ=uTξ(ξ∈D(T), u unitary in N′).(HA.25) uD(T)=D(T),\qquad Tu\xi=uT\xi \quad(\xi\in D(T),\ u\text{ unitary in }N'). \tag{HA.25} The following criterion even allows a nondense domain, although our application has a dense one.

Graph criterion. Suppose C⊆B(H)\mathcal C\subseteq B(H) is a *-subalgebra and cD(T)⊆D(T),Tcξ=cTξ(c∈C, ξ∈D(T)).(HA.26) cD(T)\subseteq D(T),\qquad Tc\xi=cT\xi \quad(c\in\mathcal C,\ \xi\in D(T)). \tag{HA.26} Then (HA.26) holds for every c∈C′′c\in\mathcal C''. If C′′=N′\mathcal C''=N', TT is affiliated with NN. In particular this applies whenever C⊆N′\mathcal C\subseteq N' is ultraweakly dense.

Proof. The closed graph G(T)⊆H⊕HG(T)\subseteq H\oplus H is invariant under D(c)=diag⁡(c,c)D(c)=\operatorname{diag}(c,c) and under D(c)∗D(c)^*, by *-closure. Its orthogonal projection PP therefore commutes with D(c)D(c). Each of the four bounded matrix entries of PP lies in C′\mathcal C'. They consequently commute with every c∈C′′c\in\mathcal C'', so PP commutes with D(c)D(c) for those cc too. Thus D(c)G(T)⊆G(T)D(c)G(T)\subseteq G(T), which is exactly (HA.26).

For a unitary u∈N′u\in N', applying that inclusion also to u∗u^* gives uD(T)=D(T)uD(T)=D(T), proving affiliation. If C\mathcal C is ultraweakly dense in N′N', every operator commuting with C\mathcal C commutes with N′N': the commutation equation passes through the ultraweak limit because multiplication by a fixed operator is separately ultraweakly continuous by OA-MOD-BK-03. Thus C′=N\mathcal C'=N and C′′=N′\mathcal C''=N'.

Conversely, an affiliated operator satisfies (HA.26) for all of N′N'. Indeed every element of N′N' is a finite linear combination of unitaries by OA-MOD-BK-08, and the domain is a linear space. One may therefore take C=N′\mathcal C=N' in the criterion. □\square

Theorem. For every η∈D(F)\eta\in D(F), define linear operators with the same dense domain A\mathcal A: Aη0a=Laη,AFη0a=LaFη.(HA.27) A_\eta^0 a=L_a\eta,\qquad A_{F\eta}^0 a=L_aF\eta. \tag{HA.27} Both are closable. Their closures Aη,AFηA_\eta,A_{F\eta} satisfy Aη⊆AFη∗,AFη⊆Aη∗.(HA.28) A_\eta\subseteq A_{F\eta}^*,\qquad A_{F\eta}\subseteq A_\eta^*. \tag{HA.28} They are affiliated with M′M'.

Proof. For a,b∈Aa,b\in\mathcal A, use (HA.11) at b♯ab^\sharp a: ⟨Laη,b⟩=⟨η,a♯b⟩=⟨b♯a,Fη⟩=⟨a,LbFη⟩.(HA.29) \begin{aligned} \langle L_a\eta,b\rangle &=\langle\eta,a^\sharp b\rangle\\ &=\langle b^\sharp a,F\eta\rangle\\ &=\langle a,L_bF\eta\rangle. \end{aligned} \tag{HA.29} This proves Aη0⊆(AFη0)∗A_\eta^0\subseteq(A_{F\eta}^0)^* and AFη0⊆(Aη0)∗A_{F\eta}^0\subseteq(A_\eta^0)^*. In particular both adjoints have the dense test domain A\mathcal A. The linear graph lemma proved within OA-MOD-TC-03 gives closability. Adjoint pairings persist under graph closure, and the adjoint of a closable operator equals the adjoint of its closure, proving (HA.28).

For a,b∈Aa,b\in\mathcal A, associativity gives Aη0(Lab)=Labη=LaAη0b. A_\eta^0(L_a b)=L_{ab}\eta=L_aA_\eta^0b. The domain A\mathcal A is invariant under both LaL_a and La∗=La♯L_a^*=L_{a^\sharp}. Hence the graph G(Aη0)G(A_\eta^0) is invariant under both corresponding diagonal bounded operators. Its closure G(Aη)G(A_\eta) retains those invariances. The graph criterion with C=L(A)\mathcal C=L(\mathcal A) and C′′=M\mathcal C''=M proves affiliation with M′M'. The same argument applies to Fη∈D(F)F\eta\in D(F), by (HA.14). □\square

The graph proof establishes domain invariance under every x∈Mx\in M; it does not replace domain invariance with a formal commutation symbol. It also does not turn the inclusions (HA.28) into equalities. That stronger assertion would need a further core argument.

OA-MOD-HA-08 — The right algebra obtained from the adjoint domain

Define Ar=Br∩D(F).(HA.30) \mathcal A_r=\mathcal B_r\cap D(F). \tag{HA.30} This is a vector space, because D(F)D(F) is a complex-linear domain despite conjugate-linearity of FF.

Adjoint theorem. If η∈Ar\eta\in\mathcal A_r, then Fη∈Br,RFη=Rη∗.(HA.31) F\eta\in\mathcal B_r,\qquad R_{F\eta}=R_\eta^*. \tag{HA.31} Thus FF preserves Ar\mathcal A_r and is an involution there.

Proof. In (HA.29), Laη=RηaL_a\eta=R_\eta a. For each fixed b∈Ab\in\mathcal A, the equality for all a∈Aa\in\mathcal A therefore gives Rη∗b=LbFη. R_\eta^*b=L_bF\eta. Consequently the map b↦LbFηb\mapsto L_bF\eta is bounded by ∥Rη∥∥b∥\|R_\eta\|\|b\|. This proves (HA.31) on the dense domain and hence on HH. Equation (HA.14) gives Fη∈D(F)F\eta\in D(F) and F2η=ηF^2\eta=\eta. □\square

The following pairing gives a useful supply of vectors in Ar\mathcal A_r.

Product-pairing lemma. For η,ζ∈Br\eta,\zeta\in\mathcal B_r, Rη∗ζ∈Ar,F(Rη∗ζ)=Rζ∗η.(HA.32) R_\eta^*\zeta\in\mathcal A_r,\qquad F(R_\eta^*\zeta)=R_\zeta^*\eta. \tag{HA.32}

Proof. Because Rη∗∈M′R_\eta^*\in M', equation (HA.20) already gives right boundedness of Rη∗ζR_\eta^*\zeta. For a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, ⟨a♯,Rη∗ζ⟩=⟨Rηa♯,ζ⟩=⟨La♯η,ζ⟩=⟨η,Laζ⟩=⟨Rζ∗η,a⟩.(HA.33) \begin{aligned} \langle a^\sharp,R_\eta^*\zeta\rangle &=\langle R_\eta a^\sharp,\zeta\rangle\\ &=\langle L_{a^\sharp}\eta,\zeta\rangle\\ &=\langle\eta,L_a\zeta\rangle\\ &=\langle R_\zeta^*\eta,a\rangle. \end{aligned} \tag{HA.33} The adjoint test for s∗=Fs^*=F proves the claimed domain membership and value. Equivalently, approximation in the graph of SS extends this pairing from A\mathcal A to every a∈D(S)a\in D(S). The right-hand vector is itself right bounded by (HA.20), consistently with (HA.31). □\square

Theorem. For η,ζ∈Ar\eta,\zeta\in\mathcal A_r, use the product ηζ=Rζη\eta\zeta=R_\zeta\eta from (HA.21), and set η♭=Fη\eta^\flat=F\eta. This makes Ar\mathcal A_r an associative involutive algebra, with Rηζ=RζRη,(ηζ)♭=ζ♭η♭,⟨ηζ,θ⟩=⟨η,θζ♭⟩(θ∈Ar).(HA.34) \begin{aligned} R_{\eta\zeta}&=R_\zeta R_\eta,\\ (\eta\zeta)^\flat&=\zeta^\flat\eta^\flat,\\ \langle\eta\zeta,\theta\rangle&=\langle\eta,\theta\zeta^\flat\rangle \quad(\theta\in\mathcal A_r). \end{aligned} \tag{HA.34} Right multiplication is bounded, and ♭\flat is closable for the inherited Hilbert norm. These are the first three right Hilbert algebra properties.

Proof. By (HA.31), Rζ=RFζ∗R_\zeta=R_{F\zeta}^*. Apply (HA.32) with Fζ,η∈BrF\zeta,\eta\in\mathcal B_r. It proves Rζη∈Ar,F(Rζη)=Rη∗Fζ=RFηFζ=(Fζ)(Fη). R_\zeta\eta\in\mathcal A_r,\qquad F(R_\zeta\eta)=R_\eta^*F\zeta =R_{F\eta}F\zeta=(F\zeta)(F\eta). This supplies the domain of the product involution before asserting its value.

Equation (HA.20), with x=Rζx=R_\zeta, gives Rηζ=RζRηR_{\eta\zeta}=R_\zeta R_\eta. Hence, for θ∈Ar\theta\in\mathcal A_r, (ηζ)θ=RθRζη=Rζθη=η(ζθ). (\eta\zeta)\theta=R_\theta R_\zeta\eta =R_{\zeta\theta}\eta=\eta(\zeta\theta). The involution reverses products as just proved, is conjugate-linear, and squares to the identity by (HA.14).

The adjoint identity follows from ⟨Rζη,θ⟩=⟨η,Rζ∗θ⟩=⟨η,RFζθ⟩. \langle R_\zeta\eta,\theta\rangle =\langle\eta,R_\zeta^*\theta\rangle =\langle\eta,R_{F\zeta}\theta\rangle. For fixed ζ\zeta, the restriction of RζR_\zeta to Ar\mathcal A_r is bounded. The graph of ♭\flat is contained in the graph of the closed operator FF; a limit with zero first coordinate therefore has zero second coordinate. This proves closability. These arguments also apply in the Hilbert completion Hr=Ar‾H_r=\overline{\mathcal A_r}, since the multiplication and involution preserve Ar\mathcal A_r. □\square

We have not proved that Ar2\mathcal A_r^2 is dense in HrH_r, or that Hr=HH_r=H. Accordingly this theorem does not yet call Ar\mathcal A_r a right Hilbert algebra. From the proved identities one may define R(Ar)′′R(\mathcal A_r)'' in B(H)B(H) and conclude R(Ar)′′⊆M′,(HA.35) R(\mathcal A_r)''\subseteq M', \tag{HA.35} because R(Ar)R(\mathcal A_r) is a *-algebra contained in the von Neumann algebra M′M'. Equality and nondegeneracy remain further assertions.

OA-MOD-HA-09 — A family of nontracial blocks on an arbitrary index set

Let II be any set and choose ti∈(0,∞)t_i\in(0,\infty) for each ii. Put Di=(100ti),A=⨁i∈IalgM2(C).(HA.36) D_i=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&t_i\end{pmatrix},\qquad \mathcal A=\bigoplus_{i\in I}^{\mathrm{alg}} M_2(\mathbb C). \tag{HA.36} Thus an element of A\mathcal A has only finitely many nonzero matrix blocks. Use componentwise multiplication and matrix adjoint as ♯\sharp, and set ⟨a,b⟩=∑i∈ITr⁡(Dibi∗ai).(HA.37) \langle a,b\rangle =\sum_{i\in I}\operatorname{Tr}(D_i b_i^*a_i). \tag{HA.37} Its Hilbert completion is H={η=(ηi):∑i∈I∥ηiDi1/2∥HS2<∞}.(HA.38) H=\left\{\eta=(\eta_i): \sum_{i\in I}\|\eta_iD_i^{1/2}\|_{\mathrm{HS}}^2<\infty\right\}. \tag{HA.38} An arbitrary nonnegative sum means the supremum of its finite subsums. Every vector here has countably many nonzero blocks, but there need not be a countable set supporting every vector in HH.

Verification of the four properties. Left multiplication by a∈Aa\in\mathcal A has norm ∥La∥=max⁡i∈I∥ai∥op,(HA.39) \|L_a\|=\max_{i\in I}\|a_i\|_{\mathrm{op}}, \tag{HA.39} with value zero for a=0a=0. The upper bound follows from ∥aiηiDi1/2∥HS≤∥ai∥op∥ηiDi1/2∥HS\|a_i\eta_iD_i^{1/2}\|_{\mathrm{HS}}\leq \|a_i\|_{\mathrm{op}}\|\eta_iD_i^{1/2}\|_{\mathrm{HS}}. For the reverse bound use one block, write its transformed matrix as uv∗uv^* with unit vectors u,vu,v, and choose uu attaining the matrix operator norm. The transformation ηi↦ηiDi1/2\eta_i\mapsto\eta_iD_i^{1/2} is a bijective isometry to the usual Hilbert-Schmidt block.

Matrix adjoints give Tr⁡(Dici∗aibi)=Tr⁡(Di(ai∗ci)∗bi), \operatorname{Tr}(D_i c_i^*a_i b_i) =\operatorname{Tr}(D_i (a_i^*c_i)^*b_i), which proves (HA.2). If an→0a_n\to0 and an∗→ηa_n^*\to\eta in HH, continuity of each coordinate map gives (an)i→0(a_n)_i\to0 in its finite-dimensional block and therefore ηi=0\eta_i=0 for every ii. This proves closability. Finally every finite-support aa equals eFae_Fa, where eFe_F is the block identity on its finite support FF and zero elsewhere. Thus A2=A\mathcal A^2=\mathcal A, proving density of products.

The closure of the involution is exactly D(S)={η∈H:(ηi∗)i∈I∈H},(Sη)i=ηi∗.(HA.40) D(S)=\{\eta\in H:(\eta_i^*)_{i\in I}\in H\}, \qquad (S\eta)_i=\eta_i^*. \tag{HA.40} One inclusion follows by coordinatewise limits. For the reverse inclusion, finite block truncations converge both for η\eta and its displayed adjoint, by the finite-sum definition in (HA.38). Thus they approximate the claimed graph. This also proves that A\mathcal A is a graph core.

Writing di,1=1,di,2=tid_{i,1}=1,d_{i,2}=t_i, the adjoint test on matrix units gives (Fη)i,pq=di,pdi,q ηi,qp‾,D(F)={η∈H:(Diηi∗Di−1)i∈I∈H}.(HA.41) (F\eta)_{i,pq} =\frac{d_{i,p}}{d_{i,q}}\,\overline{\eta_{i,qp}}, \qquad D(F)=\left\{\eta\in H: \left(D_i\eta_i^*D_i^{-1}\right)_{i\in I}\in H\right\}. \tag{HA.41} Indeed ⟨a∗,η⟩=⟨ζ,a⟩\langle a^*,\eta\rangle=\langle \zeta,a\rangle on finite-support matrix units determines exactly those coordinates for ζ\zeta. If the displayed family lies in HH, summation over the finite support of aa verifies the adjoint pairing; otherwise no representing vector in HH exists. This proves both necessity and sufficiency of the domain condition.

The right-bounded condition has an equally concrete form: η∈Br⟺sup⁡i∈I∥Di−1/2ηiDi1/2∥op<∞,(HA.42) \eta\in\mathcal B_r \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad \sup_{i\in I}\|D_i^{-1/2}\eta_iD_i^{1/2}\|_{\mathrm{op}}<\infty, \tag{HA.42} and this supremum is ∥Rη∥\|R_\eta\|. To prove it, use the unitary identification Uη=(ηiDi1/2)iU\eta=(\eta_iD_i^{1/2})_i with a Hilbert direct sum of ordinary Hilbert-Schmidt blocks. For finite-support aa, U(aη)i=(aiDi1/2)(Di−1/2ηiDi1/2). U(a\eta)_i=(a_iD_i^{1/2}) \left(D_i^{-1/2}\eta_iD_i^{1/2}\right). Right multiplication by a matrix TT on a Hilbert-Schmidt block has norm ∥T∥op\|T\|_{\mathrm{op}}: the upper bound follows by applying the norm estimate to rows, while a rank-one row attaining the norm gives equality. Testing one block proves necessity in (HA.42); summing the squared block bounds proves sufficiency and the claimed supremum.

For reference, the modular data from (HA.15) have coordinates (Δη)i,pq=di,pdi,qηi,pq,(Jη)i,pq=di,pdi,q ηi,qp‾.(HA.43) (\Delta\eta)_{i,pq} =\frac{d_{i,p}}{d_{i,q}}\eta_{i,pq}, \qquad (J\eta)_{i,pq} =\sqrt{\frac{d_{i,p}}{d_{i,q}}}\, \overline{\eta_{i,qp}}. \tag{HA.43} The domain of Δ\Delta is the set of η∈H\eta\in H for which its displayed image belongs to HH. This domain description agrees with D(FS)D(FS): square summability with the squared ratio implies square summability with the ratio by the scalar inequality r≤1+r2r\leq1+r^2, which supplies the additional SS-domain condition. Equations (HA.40–41) then give the displayed action of FSFS. The same argument with square-root ratios gives D(Δ1/2)=D(S)D(\Delta^{1/2})=D(S), and JJ is an antiunitary involution by exchanging p,qp,q in the squared norm. Thus (HA.43) also verifies the polar formulas directly in this model.

If II is uncountable, HH is nonseparable. The family eFe_F, directed by inclusion of finite subsets F⊆IF\subseteq I, acts by block truncation, so LeF→IHL_{e_F}\to I_H strongly. No sequence of these finite-support multipliers converges strongly to the identity: its supports have countable union, and a nonzero vector in a block outside that union is annihilated by the entire sequence. The algebra has no identity vector when II is infinite. Nontrivial weights ti≠1t_i\neq1 produce the unequal left and right bounds in (HA.39) and (HA.42).

OA-MOD-HA-10 — Problems and worked solutions

Problem 1: Hilbert-norm convergence is not enough for right boundedness. In the block example take I=NI=\mathbb N, tn=n−4t_n=n^{-4}, and ηn=n−1e21 \eta_n=n^{-1}e_{21} as the nn-th block of a single vector η\eta. Show that η∈H∖Br\eta\in H\setminus\mathcal B_r, although its finite block truncations belong to Ar\mathcal A_r and converge to η\eta in HH.

Solution. Since e21e_{21} uses the first column, its weighted squared norm is one. Hence ∥η∥2=∑nn−2<∞\|\eta\|^2=\sum_n n^{-2}<\infty. On the other hand Dn−1/2ηnDn1/2=ne21, D_n^{-1/2}\eta_nD_n^{1/2}=n e_{21}, whose norms are unbounded. Equation (HA.42) gives η∉Br\eta\notin\mathcal B_r. Each finite truncation has a finite supremum in (HA.42), and its FF-image has finite support, so it lies in Ar\mathcal A_r. The tail ∑n>Nn−2\sum_{n>N}n^{-2} proves Hilbert-norm convergence. Its right-multiplier norm is NN, so the uniform bound required by (HA.23) fails.

Problem 2: an isometric involution supplies both sides. Suppose the involution of a left Hilbert algebra satisfies ∥a♯∥=∥a∥\|a^\sharp\|=\|a\|. Prove that the same algebra is a right Hilbert algebra with the same involution.

Solution. The isometry extends to an antiunitary involution K:H→HK:H\to H. For a,b∈Aa,b\in\mathcal A, KLb♯Ka=(b♯a♯)♯=ab. K L_{b^\sharp} K a =(b^\sharp a^\sharp)^\sharp=ab. Thus right multiplication by bb is bounded, with extension KLb♯KK L_{b^\sharp}K. Its adjoint is KLbKK L_bK: this follows by transporting the bounded adjoint pairing through the antiunitary involution. That operator extends right multiplication by b♯b^\sharp. Therefore ⟨ab,c⟩=⟨a,cb♯⟩\langle ab,c\rangle=\langle a,c b^\sharp\rangle. The involution is bounded and hence closable, and the product span remains the original dense A2\mathcal A^2. All four right Hilbert algebra properties follow. No trace or measure representation is needed.

Problem 3: identify the right-bounded vectors in a unital model. Assume A\mathcal A has a unit ee. Prove Br=M′e,Rxe=x(x∈M′),(HA.44) \mathcal B_r=M'e,\qquad R_{xe}=x\quad(x\in M'), \tag{HA.44} and the estimate ∥η∥≤∥e∥∥Rη∥\|\eta\|\leq\|e\|\|R_\eta\| for η∈Br\eta\in\mathcal B_r. Show also that e∈Are\in\mathcal A_r and is a two-sided unit for the right algebra Ar\mathcal A_r.

Solution. The vector ee is right bounded because Lae=aL_ae=a, so Re=IR_e=I. Equation (HA.20) gives xe∈Brxe\in\mathcal B_r and Rxe=xR_{xe}=x. Conversely, for η∈Br\eta\in\mathcal B_r, η=Leη=Rηe\eta=L_e\eta=R_\eta e, proving (HA.44) and the requested estimate. For each a∈Aa\in\mathcal A, (HA.2) gives ⟨a♯,e⟩=⟨e,a⟩\langle a^\sharp,e\rangle=\langle e,a\rangle. Thus e∈D(s∗)=D(F)e\in D(s^*)=D(F) and Fe=eFe=e, so e∈Are\in\mathcal A_r. For η∈Ar\eta\in\mathcal A_r, the two products are eη=Rηe=ηe\eta=R_\eta e=\eta and ηe=Reη=η\eta e=R_e\eta=\eta. Hence Ar2=Ar\mathcal A_r^2=\mathcal A_r in this unital case. This does not by itself prove that Ar\mathcal A_r is Hilbert-norm dense in HH.

OA-MOD-HA-11 — Exports and the next mathematical obligations

The proved multiplication interface is A×Br⟶H(a,η)⟼Laη=Rηa,(HA.45) \begin{array}{ccc} \mathcal A\times\mathcal B_r&\longrightarrow&H\\ (a,\eta)&\longmapsto&L_a\eta=R_\eta a, \end{array} \tag{HA.45} with faithful, nondegenerate left representation, faithful right-vector assignment, commuting actions, the ideal covariance (HA.20), the adjoint relation (HA.31), and the closed affiliated operators (HA.27–28). All are valid on arbitrary Hilbert spaces. The explicit graph arguments close the domain claims used in these results.

The following obligations remain distinct:

The elementary kernel above does not claim those conclusions. Its optional polar specialization retains the explicit foundation dependencies of OA-MOD-TC.

Editable source · Proof dependencies and component terms