Written by Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), September 2026. Self-checked by the writing AI. Original text: CC0 1.0.
A trace on a von Neumann algebra measures the size of positive elements, and it cannot tell x∗x from xx∗. The usual trace of matrices is the model. Since a trace gives equivalent projections the same value, it turns the comparison of projections into arithmetic. It is also the starting point of integration on von Neumann algebras.
This lesson develops traces from the definition up to the trace norm. We introduce the definition ideal of a trace and show that the usual forms of semifiniteness agree. For traces that take infinite values we construct supports, semifinite parts and sums. We prove that an algebra is finite exactly when its finite normal traces separate its positive elements. For a finite algebra we build the center-valued trace, and we show that every finite trace on it, normal or not, is determined by its values on the center. We extend normal traces from corners and amplify them by type I factors, and we show that an algebra is semifinite exactly when it carries a faithful semifinite normal trace. The last section introduces the trace norm and, for a faithful semifinite normal trace, identifies the completion of the definition ideal with the predual.
Traces go back to the work of Murray and von Neumann on rings of operators (1936); the trace of a finite factor is constructed in [Murray–von Neumann 1937]. Other proofs that finite algebras carry traces came later, among them [Dixmier 1949] and [Yeadon 1971]; Section 4 uses Yeadon's fixed-point argument. Integration with respect to a trace goes back to Segal (1953) and [Dixmier 1953]; [Nelson 1974] presents Segal's theory through convergence in measure. Basic references are [Kostecki] and [Takesaki I].
Conventions
M is a von Neumann algebra on a complex Hilbert space H. Nothing is assumed separable or σ-finite. Inner products are linear in the first variable. Z is the center of M, U(M) its unitary group, M+ its positive cone and Proj(M) its set of projections.
A sum of numbers in [0,∞] over any index set is the supremum of its finite partial sums, and 0⋅∞=0.
A norm-bounded increasing net (xi) in M+ has a least upper bound x∈M+, and xi→x strongly. We write xi↑x, and xi↓x for decreasing nets.
For x∈M+, s(x) is the projection onto the closure of xH. It lies in M, and s(x)=supn1[1/n,∞)(x). The central support c(e) of a projection e is the smallest central projection that majorizes e; it is the projection onto the closed span [MeH]. For x∈M+ put c(x)=c(s(x)). Then xc(x)=x, and for a central projection q we have xq=0 exactly when qc(x)=0.
Projections e,f are equivalent, e∼f, if v∗v=e and vv∗=f for some v∈M. We write e≾f if e∼f′ for some projection f′≤f, and e≺f if e≾f but not e∼f.
A projection e is finite if e∼f≤e forces f=e. It is properly infinite if ze is infinite for every central projection z with ze=0, and abelian if eMe is commutative. M is finite, or properly infinite, when 1 is.
M is of type I if every nonzero central projection majorizes a nonzero abelian projection; of type II if 0 is its only abelian projection while every nonzero central projection majorizes a nonzero finite projection; and of type III if 0 is its only finite projection. An algebra of type II is of type II1 if it is finite, and of type II∞ if 0 is its only finite central projection. M is semifinite when it has no nonzero central summand of type III.
For a projection e, the corner eMe is a von Neumann algebra on eH with unit e. Its projections are the projections of M below e, and two of them are equivalent in eMe exactly when they are equivalent in M.
M∗ is the space of σ-weakly continuous linear functionals on M, and M=(M∗)∗. A positive linear functional φ on M is normal if φ(xi)↑φ(x) whenever xi↑x. The normal positive functionals are exactly the elements of M∗+ (see "Normal functionals" in the list below).
M is σ-finite if every family of mutually orthogonal nonzero projections in M is countable.
Standard background, used without comment: the bounded Borel functional calculus (spectral projections of self-adjoint elements of M lie in M); the polar decomposition x=u∣x∣ with u,∣x∣∈M (proved in The double commutation theorem); the bicommutant theorem; the σ-weak compactness of the closed balls of M; on bounded sets, strong convergence implies σ-weak convergence; the Hahn–Banach theorem and Mazur's theorem (a norm-closed convex set in a Banach space is weakly closed); Zorn's lemma; and the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality ∣φ(y∗x)∣2≤φ(x∗x)φ(y∗y) for positive functionals.
Background used without proof
The following results are used as stated. In the proofs we refer to each of them by its name.
Schröder–Bernstein for projections. If e≾f and f≾e, then e∼f.
Equivalent pieces. If c(e)c(f)=0, there are nonzero projections e1≤e and f1≤f with e1∼f1.
The comparison theorem. For projections e,f there is a central projection h with he≾hf and (1−h)f≾(1−h)e.
The type decomposition.M is the direct sum of its parts of type I, II1, II∞ and III, cut out by central projections zI,zII1,zII∞,zIII with sum 1. Every projection is uniquely the sum of two centrally orthogonal projections, one finite and one properly infinite.
Abelian projections are smallest. If e is abelian and c(f)≥e, then e≾f. Reference: [Takesaki I, Lemma V.1.25] states the relation the other way round; that version fails for M2(C) with e=e11 and f=1.
Structure of type I algebras. If M is of type I, then 1=∑αzα, where α runs over the nonzero cardinals, the zα are mutually orthogonal central projections, and zα is a sum of α orthogonal abelian projections each with central support zα. If M is finite, zα=0 for every infinite α.
Type I factors. A factor of type I is ∗-isomorphic to B(K) for some Hilbert space K.
Halving. If M has no direct summand of type I, every projection is the sum of two orthogonal equivalent projections.
Halving a properly infinite algebra. If M is properly infinite, there is a projection e with e∼1−e∼1.
Finite projections form a lattice. If e and f are finite, so is e∨f.
Complements of equivalent finite projections. If e,f are finite and e∼f, then 1−e∼1−f.
Properly infinite semifinite algebras. A properly infinite semifinite M has orthogonal central projections zα, indexed by infinite cardinals, with ∑αzα=1 and Mzα≅Nα⊗ˉB(Hα), where Nα is finite and dimHα=α. This is used only in Section 5, where we prove that the zα are unique.
Ideals and functionals.
σ-weakly closed ideals. Every two-sided ideal of M that is closed in the σ-weak topology equals Mz for exactly one central projection z. This is proved in The double commutation theorem.
Normal functionals. A bounded linear functional on M lies in M∗ exactly when it is completely additive on orthogonal families of projections. For a positive functional, preserving suprema of bounded increasing nets implies complete additivity, and membership in M∗ implies preserving such suprema; so the two notions of normality agree. The first statement is proved in The universal enveloping von Neumann algebra of a C*-algebra, and W*-algebras.
Positive parts of normal functionals. A hermitian element of M∗ is the difference of two elements of M∗+. Hence M∗ is spanned by M∗+. This follows from the Jordan decomposition of a hermitian functional and the splitting of functionals into normal and singular parts, both proved in the same lesson.
Akemann's weak compactness criterion. Let K⊆M∗ be bounded, and suppose that supψ∈K∣ψ(pn)∣→0 for every decreasing sequence of projections pn with infimum 0. Then K is relatively σ(M∗,M)-compact. Reference: [Akemann 1967].
Tensor products of isomorphisms. If π1:M1→N1 and π2:M2→N2 are ∗-isomorphisms of von Neumann algebras, there is a ∗-isomorphism of M1⊗ˉM2 onto N1⊗ˉN2 that sends x1⊗x2 to π1(x1)⊗π2(x2). This is proved in Spatial tensor products of von Neumann algebras; recall that a ∗-isomorphism of von Neumann algebras and its inverse are normal.
The fixed point theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski. If Q is a nonempty weakly compact convex subset of a Banach space and G is a group of linear isometries of the space with g(Q)⊆Q for g∈G, then some point of Q is fixed by every g∈G. Reference: [Ryll-Nardzewski 1967]; a short proof is in [Namioka–Asplund 1967].
1. Facts about projections
This section proves the facts about projections that the later sections use.
Lemma 1.1 (Orthogonal sums). Let (ei) and (fi) be families of mutually orthogonal projections with ei∼fi for each i. Then ∑iei∼∑ifi. The same holds with ≾ in place of ∼.
Proof. Choose vi with vi∗vi=ei and vivi∗=fi. Their initial spaces are orthogonal and so are their final spaces, so ∑ivi converges strongly to a partial isometry v with v∗v=∑iei and vv∗=∑ifi. For ≾, apply this to ei∼fi′≤fi. □
Lemma 1.2 (Central cuts and invariance). If e∼f through v and z is a central projection, then ze∼zf through vz. Hence c(e)=c(f), and e≾f implies ze≾zf. A projection equivalent to a finite projection is finite, and a subprojection of a finite projection is finite. A projection equivalent to a properly infinite projection is properly infinite.
Proof. Since z is central, (vz)∗(vz)=ze and (vz)(vz)∗=zf. If a central projection z majorizes e, then (1−z)f∼(1−z)e=0, so z majorizes f. Thus c(f)≤c(e), and by symmetry c(e)=c(f).
Let f be finite and e∼f through v. If e∼e′≤e, then f∼ve′v∗≤f, so ve′v∗=f and e′=v∗(ve′v∗)v=v∗fv=e. So e is finite.
Let f be finite, g≤f and g∼g′≤g. By Lemma 1.1, f=g+(f−g)∼g′+(f−g)≤f, so g′+(f−g)=f and g′=g. So g is finite.
For the last claim, let e∼f with f properly infinite, and let z be central. By the first sentence, ze∼zf. So ze=0 exactly when zf=0, and, by the second claim, ze is finite exactly when zf is. □
Lemma 1.3 (Parallelogram law). For projections e,f, e∨f−e∼f−e∧f.
Proof. Put w=(1−e)f∈M. Its range is (1−e)fH=(1−e)(eH+fH). The space eH+fH is dense in (e∨f)H, and on (e∨f)H the operator 1−e acts as the projection e∨f−e. So the range of w is dense in (e∨f−e)H, and the left support of w is e∨f−e. A vector ξ is in the kernel of w exactly when fξ∈eH, that is, when fξ∈(e∧f)H. So the kernel of w is (1−f)H⊕(e∧f)H, and the right support of w is f−e∧f. If w=u∣w∣ is the polar decomposition, u∗u is the right support and uu∗ the left support, so u implements the equivalence. □
Lemma 1.4 (Four unitaries). Every element of M is a linear combination of four unitaries of M. Consequently an element of M that commutes with every unitary of M is central.
Proof. If h=h∗ and ∥h∥≤1, then u=h+i(1−h2)1/2 is unitary and h=(u+u∗)/2. A general element is a combination of its real and imaginary parts, after scaling. So an element that commutes with every unitary commutes with all of M, and it lies in M∩M′=Z. □
Lemma 1.5 (Corners). Let e be a projection. The center of eMe is Ze, and a↦ae is a ∗-isomorphism of Zc(e) onto Ze. Consequently the central projections of eMe are the ze with z a central projection of M, and e is finite, or properly infinite, exactly when the algebra eMe is.
Proof. Every ae with a∈Z is central in eMe, because a commutes with M.
Conversely, let y be central in eMe. Let D be the span of the vectors xeξ with x∈M and ξ∈H. We want to define an operator Y on D by Y(∑kxkeξk)=∑kxkyξk, and we first show that this is well defined and bounded. Fix finitely many xk∈M and ξk∈H. Let A be the positive matrix [exl∗xke]l,k over eMe, and let Dy be the diagonal matrix with y∗y in each diagonal place. Since y∗y is central in eMe, Dy is central in the matrix algebra over eMe. So Dy commutes with A and with A1/2, and ADy=A1/2DyA1/2≤∥y∥2A. With ξ=(eξk)k, and using y=eye,
k∑xkyξk2=⟨ADyξ,ξ⟩≤∥y∥2⟨Aξ,ξ⟩=∥y∥2k∑xkeξk2.
So Y is well defined and bounded on D. The closure of D is c(e)H, because c(e) is the projection onto [MeH]. Extend Y by continuity to c(e)H, and by 0 on (1−c(e))H.
Now let b∈M′ and m∈M. On D, Y commutes with b and with m: for instance Yb(xeξ)=Y(xebξ)=xybξ=bxyξ=bY(xeξ), and Ym(xeξ)=mxyξ=mY(xeξ). All these operators leave (1−c(e))H invariant, since c(e) is central, and Y vanishes there. So Y commutes with M′ and with M, that is, Y∈M∩M′=Z. Taking x=1 in the definition gives Yeξ=yξ for all ξ, that is, y=Ye.
The map a↦ae is injective on Zc(e): if a∈Zc(e) and ae=0, then axeξ=xaeξ=0, so a vanishes on c(e)H, and a=0.
For the consequences: a central projection y of eMe is Ye with Y∈Zc(e), and since a↦ae is an injective ∗-homomorphism, Y is a projection. Finally, finiteness of ze is the same notion in eMe and in M, because the projections of eMe and their equivalences are those of M below e. □
Proposition 1.6 (Three consequences of the type decomposition).
(a) A finite algebra has no parts of type II∞ or III, so M=MzI⊕MzII1, and zI=∑n≥1zn with zn a sum of n orthogonal abelian projections each of central support zn.
(b) For every M there are central projections zf,z∞ with zf+z∞=1, Mzf finite and Mz∞ properly infinite (either may be zero).
(c) M is semifinite exactly when each nonzero central projection lies above some nonzero finite projection, and exactly when each nonzero projection does.
Proof. (a) The projection zIII lies below the finite projection 1, so it is finite by Lemma 1.2. The type III part has no nonzero finite projection, so zIII=0. Likewise zII∞ is finite, and it is a central projection of the type II∞ part, which has no nonzero finite central projection; so zII∞=0. The rest is the structure of type I algebras, applied to the finite algebra MzI.
(b) By the type decomposition, 1=e1+e2 with e1 finite, e2 properly infinite and c(e1)c(e2)=0. Then c(e1)e2=c(e1)c(e2)e2=0, so c(e1)=c(e1)(e1+e2)=e1, and e1 is central. Put zf=e1 and z∞=e2. The algebra Mz∞ is properly infinite by Lemma 1.5.
(c) An abelian projection is finite: if e is abelian and e∼f≤e through v, then v=fve∈eMe, so v∗v=vv∗ and f=e. Let M be semifinite and z=0 central. If zzI=0, the definition of type I gives a nonzero abelian, hence finite, projection below zzI. Otherwise z(zII1+zII∞)=z=0, because zIII=0, and the definition of type II gives a nonzero finite projection below it. Now let e=0 be a projection. By what we just proved, there is a nonzero finite g≤c(e). Since c(g)≤c(e), c(g)c(e)=c(g)=0, and the equivalent-pieces fact gives nonzero g′≤g and e′≤e with g′∼e′. By Lemma 1.2, g′ is finite, and so is e′. Conversely, if each nonzero central projection lies above some nonzero finite projection, then zIII=0, because the type III part has no nonzero finite projection. □
2. Traces and the definition ideal
Definition and first properties
Definition 2.1. A trace on M is a map τ:M+→[0,∞] such that, for x,y∈M+, λ≥0 and z∈M,
τ(x+y)=τ(x)+τ(y),τ(λx)=λτ(x),τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗).(2.1)
It is faithful if τ(x)>0 for every nonzero x∈M+; finite if τ(1)<∞; semifinite if every nonzero x∈M+ majorizes a nonzero y∈M+ with τ(y)<∞; and normal if τ(xi)↑τ(x) whenever xi↑x in M+.
A map M+→[0,∞] with the first two properties in (2.1) is called a weight. So a trace is a weight with the extra identity τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗). For weights, semifiniteness can also be defined by density of the finite domain; Proposition 2.5 shows that for traces the two definitions agree.
Proposition 2.2. Let τ be a trace on M.
If 0≤x≤y, then τ(x)≤τ(y).
If v is a partial isometry and x∈M+ satisfies x=(v∗v)x(v∗v), then τ(vxv∗)=τ(x). In particular τ(uxu∗)=τ(x) for every unitary u.
If e∼f, then τ(e)=τ(f). If e≾f, then τ(e)≤τ(f).
τ(e)+τ(f)=τ(e∨f)+τ(e∧f) for projections e,f, as an identity in [0,∞].
For a central projection z, xz≤x for x∈M+, and τz(x)=τ(xz) defines a trace, which is normal if τ is.
(Finite traces.) If τ is finite, exactly one positive linear functional on M agrees with τ on M+; we write it τ again, and τ(xy)=τ(yx) for all x,y∈M. Conversely, a positive linear functional φ with φ(uxu∗)=φ(x) for all unitaries u and all x, or with φ(z∗z)=φ(zz∗) for all z, restricts to a finite trace. A finite trace is normal exactly when its extension lies in M∗.
Proof. (1) Since y=x+(y−x) with y−x∈M+, additivity gives τ(y)=τ(x)+τ(y−x)≥τ(x).
(2) Put p=v∗v. Since x=pxp, also x1/2=px1/2p, because x1/2 is a norm limit of polynomials in x without constant term. With z=vx1/2, (2.1) gives τ(vxv∗)=τ(zz∗)=τ(z∗z)=τ(x1/2px1/2)=τ(x).
(3) If v∗v=e and vv∗=f, apply (2) with x=e. The second claim then follows from (1).
(4) Write e∨f=e+(e∨f−e) and f=e∧f+(f−e∧f), with orthogonal summands. By the parallelogram law (Lemma 1.3) and part (3), τ(e∨f−e)=τ(f−e∧f). Hence
τ(e∨f)+τ(e∧f)=τ(e)+τ(f−e∧f)+τ(e∧f)=τ(e)+τ(f). Only additions occur, so infinite values cause no trouble.
(5) Since z is central, xz=x1/2zx1/2≤x. Additivity and homogeneity of τz are clear. For w∈M, τz(w∗w)=τ((wz)∗(wz))=τ((wz)(wz)∗)=τz(ww∗). If xi↑x, then xiz↑xz.
(6) Every element of M is a combination of positive elements, and τ(x∗x)≤∥x∥2τ(1)<∞. So the definition ideal of Definition 2.3 below is all of M, and Lemma 2.4(3) gives the extension and τ(xy)=τ(yx) for all x,y. Conversely, if φ(uxu∗)=φ(x) for all u and x, then φ(ux)=φ(u(xu)u∗)=φ(xu). Every y∈M is a combination of unitaries (Lemma 1.4), so φ(yx)=φ(xy), and in particular φ(z∗z)=φ(zz∗). The last sentence holds because the two notions of normality agree for positive functionals (see "Normal functionals" in the background list). □
The definition ideal
Definition 2.3. For a trace τ put
Fτ={x∈M+:τ(x)<∞},nτ={x∈M:τ(x∗x)<∞},mτ=span{y∗x:x,y∈nτ}.(2.2)
We call mτ the definition ideal of τ.
Lemma 2.4. Let τ be any trace on M. No normality, faithfulness or semifiniteness is assumed.
nτ is a two-sided ideal with nτ∗=nτ. mτ is a two-sided ideal with mτ∗=mτ and mτ⊆nτ.
mτ∩M+=Fτ and mτ=spanFτ. Every self-adjoint element of mτ is a−b with a,b∈Fτ.
τ∣Fτ extends uniquely to a linear functional τ˙ on mτ, and
τ˙(x∗)=τ˙(x)(x∈mτ),τ˙(xy)=τ˙(yx)(x,y∈nτ),τ˙(ax)=τ˙(xa)(x∈mτ,a∈M).(2.3)
x∈mτ⟺∣x∣∈mτ⟺∣x∗∣∈mτ, and x∈nτ⟺∣x∣∈nτ. Every element of mτ is a single product yz with y,z∈nτ, so mτ={yz:y,z∈nτ}.
Proof. (1) For x,y∈M,
(x+y)∗(x+y)≤(x+y)∗(x+y)+(x−y)∗(x−y)=2x∗x+2y∗y, and (ax)∗(ax)=x∗a∗ax≤∥a∥2x∗x. With Proposition 2.2(1) these show that nτ is a linear subspace and a left ideal. By (2.1), τ(xx∗)=τ(x∗x), so nτ∗=nτ, and nτ is also a right ideal. For a∈M and x,y∈nτ, a(y∗x)=(ya∗)∗x and (y∗x)a=y∗(xa) with ya∗,xa∈nτ, and (y∗x)∗=x∗y. So mτ is a self-adjoint two-sided ideal. Finally y∗∈nτ, so y∗x∈nτ.
(2) In any ∗-algebra,
4y∗x=k=0∑3ik(x+iky)∗(x+iky),(2.4)
as one sees by expanding and using ∑kik=∑ki2k=0. For x,y∈nτ, each x+iky lies in nτ, so each (x+iky)∗(x+iky) lies in Fτ. Hence mτ⊆spanFτ. If a∈Fτ, then a1/2∈nτ and a=(a1/2)∗a1/2∈mτ. So mτ=spanFτ. If h=∑kckak is self-adjoint, with ak∈Fτ, then h=(h+h∗)/2=∑k(Reck)ak. This is a−b, where a collects the terms with Reck>0 and b the terms with Reck<0 (with coefficient ∣Reck∣); both lie in Fτ. If moreover h≥0, then 0≤h≤a, so τ(h)≤τ(a)<∞ and h∈Fτ.
(3) If a−b=a′−b′ with a,b,a′,b′∈Fτ, then a+b′=a′+b, so τ(a)+τ(b′)=τ(a′)+τ(b). All four numbers are finite, so τ(a)−τ(b)=τ(a′)−τ(b′). Hence τ˙(a−b)=τ(a)−τ(b) is well defined on the self-adjoint part of mτ, and it is additive and real-homogeneous there. Extend it by τ˙(h+ik)=τ˙(h)+iτ˙(k) for self-adjoint h,k∈mτ. The result is linear, agrees with τ on Fτ, satisfies τ˙(x∗)=τ˙(x), and is unique because mτ=spanFτ.
For x∈nτ, (2.1) says τ˙(x∗x)=τ˙(xx∗). Besides (2.4) there is the mirror identity
4xy∗=k=0∑3ik(x+iky)(x+iky)∗.(2.5)
For x,y∈nτ, the right sides of (2.4) and (2.5) have equal traces term by term, so τ˙(y∗x)=τ˙(xy∗). Replacing y by y∗ gives τ˙(yx)=τ˙(xy) for x,y∈nτ. Now let a∈M and x,y∈nτ. Since ya∗,xa∈nτ,
τ˙(ay∗x)=τ˙((ya∗)∗x)=τ˙(x(ya∗)∗)=τ˙((xa)y∗)=τ˙(y∗(xa))=τ˙(y∗xa).
By linearity τ˙(aw)=τ˙(wa) for every w∈mτ.
(4) Let x=u∣x∣ be the polar decomposition. Then ∣x∣=u∗x, x=u∣x∣, ∣x∗∣=u∣x∣u∗ and ∣x∣=u∗∣x∗∣u. Since mτ and nτ are two-sided ideals, x∈mτ⟺∣x∣∈mτ⟺∣x∗∣∈mτ. As x∗x=∣x∣∗∣x∣, x∈nτ⟺∣x∣∈nτ. If x∈mτ, then ∣x∣∈mτ∩M+=Fτ, so ∣x∣1/2∈nτ and x=(u∣x∣1/2)∣x∣1/2 with both factors in nτ. Conversely yz=(y∗)∗z∈mτ for y,z∈nτ. □
Remarks. (1) The proof uses only the identities (2.1). From now on we write τ(x) for τ˙(x) when x∈mτ. (2) For a weight φ, the sets nφ and mφ are defined in the same way, and part (2) and the extension in part (3) still hold. But nφ is only a left ideal, and mφ only a ∗-subalgebra.
Equivalent forms of semifiniteness
Proposition 2.5. For a trace τ on M the following are equivalent. Normality is not needed.
(a) τ is semifinite in the sense of Definition 2.1.
(b) Below each nonzero projection there is a nonzero projection of finite trace.
(c) There is an increasing net of projections ei with τ(ei)<∞ and ei↑1.
(d) There is an increasing net of positive contractions ai∈Fτ with ai↑1.
(e) mτ is σ-weakly dense in M. This is the usual definition of semifiniteness for weights.
Proof. (a)⇒(b). Let e=0 be a projection and 0=y≤e with τ(y)<∞. From 0≤y≤e we get (1−e)y(1−e)≤(1−e)e(1−e)=0, so y1/2(1−e)=0. Hence y=eye and s(y)≤e. Put f=1[∥y∥/2,∞)(y). Then 0=f≤s(y)≤e and (∥y∥/2)f≤y, so τ(f)≤2τ(y)/∥y∥<∞.
(b)⇒(c). By Zorn's lemma choose a maximal family (fk) of mutually orthogonal nonzero projections of finite trace. If 1−∑kfk=0, (b) gives a nonzero projection of finite trace below it, against maximality. So ∑kfk=1. The finite partial sums eF=∑k∈Ffk increase to 1, and τ(eF)=∑k∈Fτ(fk)<∞.
(c)⇒(d). Take ai=ei.
(d)⇒(e). Since ai2≤ai, each ai lies in nτ. For x∈M, xai∈nτ, so aixai=ai∗(xai)∈mτ. Also ∥(aixai−x)ξ∥≤∥x∥∥(ai−1)ξ∥+∥(ai−1)xξ∥→0. So aixai→x strongly and with bounded norms, hence σ-weakly.
(e)⇒(a). Let 0=x∈M+. If x1/2ax1/2=0 for all a∈Fτ, then x1/2mτx1/2=0, because mτ=spanFτ by Lemma 2.4(2). The map b↦x1/2bx1/2 is σ-weakly continuous, so (e) gives x1/2Mx1/2=0, and x=x1/2⋅1⋅x1/2=0, a contradiction. So choose a∈Fτ with x1/2ax1/2=0, and put y=∥a∥−1x1/2ax1/2. Then 0=y≤x. With w=a1/2x1/2, (2.1) gives τ(x1/2ax1/2)=τ(w∗w)=τ(ww∗)=τ(a1/2xa1/2)≤∥x∥τ(a)<∞. □
Remarks. (1) For weights, (e) does not imply (a). Let (un)n≥1 be an orthonormal basis of ℓ2(N), and put φ(a)=∑nn2⟨aun,un⟩ for a∈B(ℓ2(N))+. This weight is faithful and normal. It satisfies (e): the projections onto the first N basis vectors have finite weight and increase to 1, and the argument for (d)⇒(e) applies. Now choose c>0 so that v=∑n(c/n)un is a unit vector, and let q be the projection onto Cv. Every b with 0≤b≤q is a multiple tq with 0≤t≤1, and φ(q)=∑nn2(c2/n2)=∞. So q majorizes no nonzero element of finite weight. For traces, the identity τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗) enters the proof above only in its last line. (2) From now on "semifinite" may be read in any of the five forms. For a central projection z, "τ is semifinite on Mz" means that the restriction of τ to (Mz)+, which is a trace on the von Neumann algebra Mz, is semifinite.
3. Supports, sums and semifinite parts
Null projections and the support of a normal trace
A weight φ is normal if φ(xi)↑φ(x) whenever xi↑x. Normal positive functionals and normal traces are examples.
Lemma 3.1. Let φ be a normal weight on M, and let Nφ be the set of projections e with φ(e)=0.
Nφ is upward directed, and pφ=supNφ lies in Nφ.
φ(x)=0 for every x∈M+ with x=pφxpφ.
φ(x)>0 for every nonzero x∈M+ with x=(1−pφ)x(1−pφ).
If φ is a normal positive functional and s=1−pφ, then φ(x)=φ(sxs) for all x∈M. (This s is the usual support of φ.)
Proof. (1) Let e,f∈Nφ. Then φ(e+f)=0. For n≥1 the projection 1[1/n,∞)(e+f) is at most n(e+f), so it lies in Nφ. These projections increase to s(e+f), and normality gives φ(s(e+f))=0. Moreover s(e+f)=e∨f: since ⟨(e+f)ξ,ξ⟩=∥eξ∥2+∥fξ∥2, the kernel of e+f is the intersection of the kernels of e and f. So Nφ is upward directed. Indexed by itself, it is an increasing net with supremum pφ, and normality gives φ(pφ)=0.
(2) Such an x satisfies x≤∥x∥pφ, so φ(x)≤∥x∥φ(pφ)=0.
(3) If x=0, the projection f=1[∥x∥/2,∞)(x) is nonzero, f≤s(x)≤1−pφ and (∥x∥/2)f≤x. If φ(x)=0, then φ(f)=0, so f≤pφ and f=0, a contradiction.
(4) By Cauchy–Schwarz, ∣φ(x(1−s))∣2≤φ(xx∗)φ(1−s)=0, and in the same way φ((1−s)x)=0. Hence φ(x)=φ(sx)=φ(sxs). □
Proposition 3.2. Let τ be a normal trace on M. Then pτ is central. Put s(τ)=1−pτ. Then s(τ) is the unique central projection z such that τ vanishes on M+(1−z) and τ is faithful on Mz.
Proof. For a unitary u, τ(upτu∗)=τ(pτ)=0 by Proposition 2.2(2). Since pτ is the largest projection of trace 0, upτu∗≤pτ. Applying this to u∗ gives equality. So pτ commutes with every unitary, and it is central by Lemma 1.4. Parts (2) and (3) of Lemma 3.1 give the two properties of z=s(τ). If z′ is another central projection with these properties, then τ(1−z′)=0, so 1−z′≤pτ. Also pτz′ is a projection in Mz′ with τ(pτz′)≤τ(pτ)=0, so pτz′=0 and pτ≤1−z′. Thus z′=s(τ). □
Definition 3.3.s(τ) is the support of the normal trace τ.
Remarks. (1) Lemma 3.1 uses only normality, so it covers normal weights as well as normal traces. (2) Normality cannot be dropped: the finite trace of Example 3.4 has no largest null projection and no support. (3) For weights, pφ need not be central: for a unit vector ξ and φ=⟨⋅ξ,ξ⟩ on B(H) with dimH≥2, pφ is the projection onto ξ⊥. (4) For a normal trace, τ(x)=τ(xs(τ)) for every x∈M+.
Example 3.4 (A finite trace that is not normal). Let ω be a free ultrafilter on N, and on M=ℓ∞(N), acting on ℓ2(N), put τ(f)=limωf(n). This is a finite trace, since M is commutative. It vanishes on every 1F with F finite; these projections increase to 1, while τ(1)=1. So τ is not normal. Its null projections are the 1A with A∈/ω, and their supremum is 1, which is not null. No central projection z has the two properties of Proposition 3.2: faithfulness on Mz fails if z=0, since a free ultrafilter contains no singleton, and z=0 would force τ=0. So Proposition 3.2 fails without normality. Looking ahead: here Z=M and the center-valued trace of Section 5 is the identity map, so Theorem 5.5 holds trivially, and Theorem 5.9(3) is consistent, since τ∣Z=τ is not normal.
Sums of traces
Proposition 3.5 (Sums of normal traces). Let (τi)i∈I be normal traces on M, and put τ(x)=∑iτi(x) for x∈M+.
τ is a normal trace, and s(τ)=⋁is(τi).
Suppose each τi is semifinite, and every nonzero central projection q majorizes a nonzero central projection q′ with q′s(τi)=0 for only finitely many i. Then τ is semifinite. The condition holds when I is finite, and when the supports s(τi) are mutually orthogonal.
Without such a condition τ can fail to be semifinite (Example 3.6).
Proof. (1) The identities (2.1) hold term by term. Let xα↑x. For a finite set F⊆I, supα∑i∈Fτi(xα)=∑i∈Fτi(x), because finitely many increasing nets over one directed set can be added. Taking the supremum over F on both sides, and exchanging the two suprema on the left, gives τ(xα)↑τ(x). For a projection e, τ(e)=0 exactly when τi(e)=0 for all i, that is, when e≤1−s(τi) for all i, that is, when e≤1−⋁is(τi). So pτ=1−⋁is(τi).
(2) Let 0=x∈M+ and q=c(x). Choose q′ as in the hypothesis, and let F={i:q′s(τi)=0}, a finite set. Since 0=q′≤c(x), xq′=0, and xq′≤x by Proposition 2.2(5). For i∈/F, τi vanishes on (Mq′)+, because y≤∥y∥q′≤∥y∥(1−s(τi)) there. If F is empty, y=xq′ has τ(y)=0. Otherwise write F={i1,…,im}. Semifiniteness of τi1 gives 0=y1≤xq′ with τi1(y1)<∞; semifiniteness of τi2 gives 0=y2≤y1 with τi2(y2)<∞; and so on. Put y=ym. Then 0=y≤x, y∈(Mq′)+, τik(y)≤τik(yk)<∞ for each k, and τi(y)=0 for i∈/F. So τ(y)<∞. For finite I take q′=q. For orthogonal supports, take q′=qs(τi) if this is nonzero for some i (then q′s(τj)=0 for j=i), and q′=q otherwise. □
Example 3.6 (A sum of semifinite traces that is not semifinite). On M=C, let τn(t)=t for n∈N. Each τn is finite, hence semifinite, but ∑nτn(t)=∞ for t>0, so the sum is not semifinite. All supports equal 1, so the hypothesis of Proposition 3.5(2) fails. Any finite subfamily has a semifinite sum.
The semifinite part of a trace
Proposition 3.7 (The semifinite part). Let τ be any trace on M; normality is not needed. There is a unique central projection z such that τ is semifinite on Mz and τ(x)=∞ for every nonzero x∈M+(1−z). The σ-weak closures of nτ and of mτ are both Mz. Moreover, the elements ea=a(1+a)−1 (a∈Fτ) form an increasing net of positive contractions in Fτ with ea↑z.
Reference: [Takesaki I, Lemma V.2.13], for a normal trace. Its proof takes an increasing net in nτ that converges to z; Remark 3.8 shows that such a net does not suffice.
Proof. With the notation of (2.2), nτ is a two-sided ideal by Lemma 2.4(1). Multiplication by a fixed element is σ-weakly continuous, so the σ-weak closure of nτ is again a two-sided ideal, now closed. By the description of σ-weakly closed ideals, it equals Mz for a unique central projection z.
Order Fτ by the operator order. It is directed, since a+b is an upper bound of a and b. The map a↦ea=1−(1+a)−1 is increasing, because inversion reverses the order of invertible positive operators. Also 0≤ea≤1 and ea≤a, so ea∈Fτ. Let p=supaea.
p≤z: for a∈Fτ, a1/2∈nτ⊆Mz, so a=az and ea≤s(a)≤z.
z≤p: let x∈nτ and b=x∗x∈Fτ. For t>0, tb∈Fτ, and etb=tb(1+tb)−1↑s(b) as t→∞, by the spectral theorem. So s(b)≤p. The right support of x is s(x∗x)=s(b), so xp=x. Thus nτ⊆Mp. As Mp is σ-weakly closed, Mz⊆Mp, and z≤p.
Semifinite on Mz: let 0=x∈(Mz)+. Since ea↑z strongly and x1/2z=x1/2, x1/2eax1/2→x strongly, so some y=x1/2eax1/2 is nonzero. Then y≤x, since ea≤1. With w=ea1/2x1/2, (2.1) gives τ(y)=τ(w∗w)=τ(ww∗)=τ(ea1/2xea1/2)≤∥x∥τ(ea)<∞.
Infinite on M+(1−z): if x∈M+(1−z) and τ(x)<∞, then x∈Fτ, so x=xz as shown above; together with x=x(1−z) this gives x=0.
Closure of mτ: mτ⊆nτ⊆Mz, and for x∈Mz, eaxea∈mτ tends to zxz=x, as in the proof of (d)⇒(e) in Proposition 2.5.
Uniqueness: let z′ be another such projection. A nonzero x∈(Mz(1−z′))+ would majorize, by semifiniteness on Mz, a nonzero y of finite trace, and y∈M+(1−z′) contradicts the choice of z′. So z(1−z′)=0, and by symmetry z=z′. □
Remark 3.8. The net (ea) lies inside Fτ on purpose. Let (ei) be an increasing net of positive elements of nτ that converges strongly to z, and let x∈(Mz)+. Then eix1/2∈nτ gives only τ(x1/2ei2x1/2)<∞, not τ(x1/2eix1/2)<∞, and the second can fail. In B(ℓ2(N)) with the usual trace, the diagonal operators un=diag(1,…,1,n+11,n+21,…) (n ones) are positive, lie in nτ, increase and converge strongly to 1=z, but τ(un)=∞; take x=1. With such a net one can still use x1/2ei2x1/2, which is ≤x and nonzero for some i.
4. Finite algebras have many finite normal traces
Two lemmas about sequences of projections prepare the main theorem of this section, Theorem 4.7.
Increasing sequences under one projection
Lemma 4.1. Let e1≤e2≤⋯ be finite projections and f a projection with en≾f for all n. Then e=⋁nen≾f.
Proof. Put p0=e1 and pn=en+1−en for n≥1. These are mutually orthogonal, and ∑n≥0pn=e strongly. We construct mutually orthogonal projections q0,q1,…≤f with qn∼pn; then e≾f by Lemma 1.1.
Choose q0≤f with q0∼p0=e1. Suppose q0,…,qn−1 are chosen (n≥1). Put fn=q0+⋯+qn−1. By Lemma 1.1, fn∼p0+⋯+pn−1=en, so fn is finite by Lemma 1.2. Choose a partial isometry w with w∗w=en+1 and ww∗≤f, and put fn+1′=ww∗ and fn′=wenw∗. Then fn′≤fn+1′≤f, fn′∼en∼fn (through wen), and fn+1′−fn′=wpnw∗∼pn (through wpn). In the corner fMf, the projections fn and fn′ are finite and equivalent. So the complement theorem for equivalent finite projections, applied in fMf, gives f−fn∼f−fn′. Let v be a partial isometry with v∗v=f−fn′ and vv∗=f−fn, and put qn=v(fn+1′−fn′)v∗. Since fn+1′−fn′≤f−fn′, qn is a projection below f−fn, orthogonal to q0,…,qn−1, and qn∼fn+1′−fn′∼pn. □
Theorem 4.2 (Finiteness is not needed). Let e1≤e2≤⋯ be any projections and f a projection with en≾f for all n. Then ⋁nen≾f.
Reference: [Takesaki I, Lemma V.2.2] assumes the en finite; that case is Lemma 4.1.
Proof. By the type decomposition, f=f1+f2 with f1 finite, f2 properly infinite (either may be zero) and c(f1)c(f2)=0. Put c=c(f1). Then fc=f1 and f(1−c)=f2. Let e=⋁nen and let pn be as in the proof of Lemma 4.1.
On c: by Lemma 1.2, enc≾fc=f1, so each enc is finite, and the enc increase to ec. Lemma 4.1 gives ec≾f1.
On 1−c: if f2=0, then en(1−c)=0 for all n and e(1−c)=0. Otherwise f2 is properly infinite, and so is the algebra f2Mf2 by Lemma 1.5. Halving the properly infinite algebra f2Mf2 gives g1≤f2 with g1∼f2−g1∼f2. The projection r1=f2−g1 is equivalent to f2, hence properly infinite by Lemma 1.2, so halving in r1Mr1 gives g2≤r1 with g2∼r1−g2∼r1∼f2. Continuing, we get mutually orthogonal g1,g2,…≤f2, each equivalent to f2. Now pn(1−c)≤en+1(1−c)≾f2∼gn+1, so pn(1−c)≾gn+1, and Lemma 1.1 gives e(1−c)=∑npn(1−c)≾∑ngn+1≤f2.
Adding the two central pieces with Lemma 1.1 gives e≾fc+f(1−c)=f. □
Remark. The index set must be countable, even for finite projections: see Example 4.3.
Example 4.3 (Countability is needed). Let H have an orthonormal basis (εγ)γ∈Γ with ∣Γ∣=ℵ1, M=B(H), and f the projection onto the closed span of countably infinitely many basis vectors. For finite F⊆Γ let eF be the projection onto the span of {εγ:γ∈F}. The eF form an increasing net of finite projections, each ≾f, with supremum 1. But 1≾f would give an isometry of H into fH, which is impossible because H has Hilbert dimension ℵ1 and fH has dimension ℵ0. So sequences cannot be replaced by nets in Lemma 4.1 and Theorem 4.2, even for finite projections.
Orthogonal sequences in finite algebras
Lemma 4.4. Let M be finite, let (en)n≥1 be mutually orthogonal projections, and let fn∼en. Then fn→0σ-strongly.
Proof.Step 1. If p1≾q1, p2≾q2 and q1q2=0, then p1∨p2≾q1+q2. Indeed, by the parallelogram law (Lemma 1.3), p1∨p2−p2∼p1−p1∧p2≤p1≾q1, and p1∨p2=(p1∨p2−p2)+p2; apply Lemma 1.1.
Step 2. By induction, fm∨⋯∨fn≾em+⋯+en for m≤n. For fixed m these projections increase in n and are finite, since M is. Lemma 4.1 gives Pm:=⋁k≥mfk≾∑k≥mek.
Step 3. Put e0=1−∑k≥1ek. If Pm∼P′≤∑k≥mek, the complement theorem for equivalent finite projections gives 1−Pm∼1−P′≥1−∑k≥mek=e0+e1+⋯+em−1.
Step 4. The Pm decrease; let P=⋀mPm. Then e0+⋯+em−1≾1−Pm≤1−P for all m. These projections increase to 1, so Lemma 4.1 gives 1≾1−P. As M is finite, 1−P=1 and P=0.
Step 5.0≤fm≤Pm↓0. For vectors ξk with ∑k∥ξk∥2<∞, ∑k∥fmξk∥2=∑k⟨fmξk,ξk⟩≤∑k⟨Pmξk,ξk⟩→0 by dominated convergence. □
Theorem 4.5 (Only ∑nen needs to be finite). Let M be any von Neumann algebra, (en) mutually orthogonal projections whose sum e is finite, and fn∼en. Then fn→0σ-strongly.
Proof. Steps 1 and 2 of the proof of Lemma 4.4 do not use finiteness of M. They give f1∨⋯∨fn≾e1+⋯+en≤e, so these projections are finite by Lemma 1.2, and Lemma 4.1 gives g:=⋁nfn≾e. So g is finite, and h:=e∨g is finite because finite projections form a lattice. The finite algebra hMh contains every en, every fn, and the partial isometries vn=fnvnen that implement en∼fn. Apply Lemma 4.4 in hMh. □
Remark. Finiteness of ∑nen cannot be dropped: see Example 4.6.
Example 4.6 (The sum must be finite). In B(ℓ2(N)), with orthonormal basis (εn), let en be the projection onto Cεn and fn=e1 for every n. The en are orthogonal and fn∼en, but fn does not tend to 0. Here ∑nen=1 is infinite.
Separating families of finite normal traces
A family of traces separatesM+ if every nonzero x∈M+ has τ(x)=0 for some member τ. One also says that there are sufficiently many traces in the family.
Theorem 4.7. For a von Neumann algebra M the following are equivalent:
(i) M is finite;
(ii) the finite normal traces on M separate M+;
(iii) the finite traces on M separate M+ (normality not required).
Moreover, let M be finite and φ∈M∗+. Then the norm-closed convex hull Kφ of {φ(u∗⋅u):u∈U(M)} contains a finite normal trace τφ, and τφ=φ on Z.
Reference: [Yeadon 1971].
Proof. (ii)⇒(iii) is trivial. (iii)⇒(i): let u∗u=1. For every finite trace τ, τ(uu∗)=τ(u∗u)=τ(1), so τ(1−uu∗)=0. As 1−uu∗≥0, separation gives uu∗=1. So 1∼f≤1 forces f=1, which is finiteness.
(i)⇒(ii). Let M be finite and φ∈M∗+. For a unitary u and ψ∈M∗ write (u⋅ψ)(x)=ψ(u∗xu). Then u⋅(v⋅ψ)=(uv)⋅ψ, each map ψ↦u⋅ψ is a linear isometry of M∗ onto itself, and it preserves M∗+. Let Qφ={u⋅φ:u∈U(M)} and let Kφ be its norm-closed convex hull. Then Kφ⊆M∗+, every u⋅ maps Kφ into itself, and ∥ψ∥=ψ(1)=φ(1) on Kφ.
Step 1 (uniform smallness). For every sequence (en) of mutually orthogonal projections, supψ∈Kφψ(en)→0. It suffices to prove this for ψ∈Qφ: the supremum over convex combinations is the same, and a norm limit changes ψ(en) by at most the norm distance. Suppose instead that δ>0, indices n1<n2<⋯ and unitaries uk satisfy φ(uk∗enkuk)≥δ. The projection fk=uk∗enkuk is equivalent to enk through enkuk, and the enk are mutually orthogonal. Since M is finite, Lemma 4.4 gives fk→0σ-strongly, so φ(fk)→0, a contradiction.
Step 2 (weak compactness). Let pn↓0 be projections. We claim supψ∈Kφψ(pn)→0. These suprema decrease in n. If they stayed at least δ>0, choose ψ1∈Kφ and n1 with ψ1(pn1)>δ/2; normality of ψ1 gives n2>n1 with ψ1(pn2)<δ/4. Choose ψ2∈Kφ with ψ2(pn2)>δ/2 and n3>n2 with ψ2(pn3)<δ/4; and so on. The projections ek=pnk−pnk+1 are mutually orthogonal and ψk(ek)>δ/4, against Step 1. Since Kφ is bounded, Akemann's criterion shows that Kφ is relatively σ(M∗,M)-compact. It is norm closed and convex, hence weakly closed by Mazur's theorem, and the weak topology of M∗ is σ(M∗,M) because (M∗)∗=M. So Kφ is σ(M∗,M)-compact.
Step 3 (fixed point). The maps ψ↦u⋅ψ form a group of linear isometries of M∗ that leave the weakly compact convex set Kφ invariant. By the fixed point theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski there is τφ∈Kφ with u⋅τφ=τφ for every unitary u.
Step 4 (τφ is a trace).τφ is a normal positive functional with τφ(u∗xu)=τφ(x) for all u and x. By Proposition 2.2(6) it is a finite normal trace. For a∈Z, (u⋅ψ)(a)=ψ(a); this passes to convex combinations and norm limits, so τφ(a)=φ(a).
Step 5 (separation). Let 0=x∈M+. Choose ξ with xξ=0, put η=xξ and φ=⟨⋅η,η⟩∈M∗+, and let s=s(τφ), a central projection by Proposition 3.2. Since τφ(1−s)=0 and 1−s∈Z, Step 4 gives ∥(1−s)η∥2=φ(1−s)=0. So sxξ=xξ=0, and sx=x1/2sx1/2 is a nonzero positive element of Ms, where τφ is faithful. Hence τφ(x)≥τφ(sx)>0. □
Remark. The proof uses two results that are not proved here: Akemann's criterion and the fixed point theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski. The minimal-norm argument that constructs the center-valued trace in Section 5 does not replace them. Every ψ∈Kφ has the same norm φ(1), and that argument would need a unitarily invariant strictly convex norm on M∗, which is not at hand before a trace exists.
5. The center-valued trace
Construction of the center-valued trace
For x∈M let
K(x)=the σ-weakly closed convex hull of {uxu∗:u∈U(M)}.(5.1)
Lemma 5.1 (Averaging with a faithful trace). Let τ be a faithful normal finite trace on M, extended to M as in Proposition 2.2(6). For each x∈M, with K(x) as in (5.1):
K(x) is σ-weakly compact, lies in the ball of radius ∥x∥, and uK(x)u∗=K(x) for every unitary u.
τ(ay)=τ(ax) for all a∈Z and y∈K(x).
K(x)∩Z has exactly one element, T(x). It is the only z∈Z with τ(az)=τ(ax) for all a∈Z.
Proof. (1) The ball of radius ∥x∥ is convex, σ-weakly compact, and contains the unitary orbit of x, so it contains K(x) as a closed subset. The map y↦uyu∗ is affine, σ-weakly continuous and maps the orbit onto itself, so it maps K(x) onto K(x).
(2) By Proposition 2.2(6), τ∈M∗, so y↦τ(ay) is σ-weakly continuous and linear. On the orbit, τ(auxu∗)=τ(u(ax)u∗)=τ(ax), since a is central and τ(uwu∗)=τ(w) for all w∈M (Proposition 2.2(2) and linearity). So this functional is constant on K(x).
(3) Put N(y)=τ(y∗y). It comes from the positive sesquilinear form (y1,y2)↦τ(y2∗y1), so it satisfies the parallelogram identity N(y1+y2)+N(y1−y2)=2N(y1)+2N(y2).
N is σ-weakly lower semicontinuous on bounded sets. Indeed, let yi→yσ-weakly with bounded norms. The functional y′↦τ(y∗y′) lies in M∗, so τ(y∗yi)→N(y), and ∣τ(y∗yi)∣≤N(y)1/2N(yi)1/2 by Cauchy–Schwarz. Hence N(y)≤N(y)1/2liminfiN(yi)1/2, that is, N(y)≤liminfiN(yi).
A minimizer exists. Let μ=infK(x)N. The sets {y∈K(x):N(y)≤μ+1/k} are nonempty, σ-weakly closed by lower semicontinuity, and decreasing. By compactness they have a common point y0, and N(y0)=μ.
It is unique. If y1,y2∈K(x) both give μ, then (y1+y2)/2∈K(x), and the parallelogram identity gives N((y1+y2)/2)=μ−N(y1−y2)/4. So N(y1−y2)=0, and y1=y2 by faithfulness.
It is central.N(uyu∗)=τ(uy∗yu∗)=N(y), and uK(x)u∗=K(x). So uy0u∗ is also a minimizer, hence uy0u∗=y0 for every unitary u. By Lemma 1.4, y0∈Z.
Finally, if z∈Z satisfies τ(az)=τ(ax) for all a∈Z (by (2) this holds for every z∈K(x)∩Z), then τ(a(z−y0))=0 for all a∈Z. With a=(z−y0)∗, faithfulness gives z=y0. □
Theorem 5.2 (The center-valued trace). For a von Neumann algebra M the following are equivalent:
(i) M is finite;
(ii) there is a linear map T:M→Z such that, for x∈M and a∈Z,
(a) T(x∗x)=T(xx∗)≥0,(b) T(ax)=aT(x),(c) T(1)=1,(d) T(x∗x)=0 if x=0.(5.2)
If M is finite, one such T is normal and σ-weakly continuous, satisfies ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥ and T(a)=a for a∈Z (so it maps onto Z), and has T(x)∈K(x) for every x. For (ii)⇒(i), properties (a) and (d) suffice. Theorem 5.5 shows that T is unique, even among linear maps with only (a), (b), (c).
Proof. (ii)⇒(i): if u∗u=1, then T(1−uu∗)=T(u∗u)−T(uu∗)=0 by (a). Since 1−uu∗=(1−uu∗)∗(1−uu∗), (d) gives uu∗=1.
(i)⇒(ii). Step 1: M has a faithful normal finite trace τ. Define T(x) as in Lemma 5.1. It is the unique central z with τ(az)=τ(ax) for all a∈Z, and this description is linear in x; so T is linear. (b): aT(x) is central and τ(baT(x))=τ(bax) for b∈Z, so T(ax)=aT(x). (c) and T(a)=a for a∈Z are clear. Positivity: if x≥0, the orbit lies in the σ-weakly closed convex cone M+, so K(x)⊆M+ and T(x)≥0. (a): for a∈Z+, (2.1) gives τ(ax∗x)=τ((xa1/2)∗(xa1/2))=τ((xa1/2)(xa1/2)∗)=τ(axx∗). By linearity this holds for all a∈Z, so T(x∗x)=T(xx∗). (d): τ(x∗x)=τ(1⋅T(x∗x)), so T(x∗x)=0 forces x=0. The bound ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥ and T(x)∈K(x) come from Lemma 5.1.
Normality. Let xi↑x. The T(xi) increase and are bounded, so they have a supremum c∈Z+ with c≤T(x). For a∈Z+, the functional τ(a⋅)=τ(a1/2⋅a1/2) is normal, so τ(ac)=supiτ(aT(xi))=supiτ(axi)=τ(ax). By linearity τ(ac)=τ(ax) for all a∈Z, and Lemma 5.1(3) gives c=T(x).
σ-weak continuity. For ω∈Z∗+, ω∘T is a normal positive functional, so it lies in M∗, because the two notions of normality agree (see "Normal functionals" in the background list). Every ω∈Z∗ is a combination of four elements of Z∗+, by the positive parts of normal functionals. So ω∘T∈M∗ for all ω∈Z∗.
Step 2: general finite M. By Zorn's lemma, let (τi)i∈I be a maximal family of nonzero finite normal traces with mutually orthogonal supports si=s(τi), which are central by Proposition 3.2. Suppose w=1−∑isi=0. Theorem 4.7 gives a finite normal trace τ with τ(w)>0. Then τw(x)=τ(xw) is a finite normal trace (Proposition 2.2(5)) with τw(w)>0 and τw(1−w)=0, so 0=s(τw)≤w, against maximality. So ∑isi=1. On the von Neumann algebra Msi, with unit si and center Zsi, τi is a faithful normal finite trace, and Step 1 gives Ti:Msi→Zsi. The elements Ti(xsi) lie in the orthogonal pieces Zsi and have norm at most ∥x∥, so T(x)=∑iTi(xsi) converges strongly, lies in Z, and satisfies T(x)si=Ti(xsi). Each listed property holds on every piece, hence for T. For instance, if xα↑x, then T(xα)si↑T(x)si for every i, so T(xα)↑T(x); and σ-weak continuity follows from normality as in Step 1.
T(x)∈K(x) in general. For a finite set F⊆I put sF=∑i∈Fsi. A unitary U=∑i∈Fui+(1−sF), with ui∈U(Msi), gives UxU∗=∑i∈Fuixsiui∗+x(1−sF). Averaging such unitaries with product weights shows that ∑i∈Fyi+x(1−sF)∈K(x) whenever each yi is a convex combination of the orbit of xsi in Msi. By σ-weak continuity this extends to yi in the corresponding hull Ki(xsi), in particular to yi=Ti(xsi). So cF=∑i∈FTi(xsi)+x(1−sF)∈K(x). As F grows, cF−T(x)=(x−T(x))(1−sF)→0 strongly with bounded norms, hence σ-weakly, and T(x)∈K(x). □
Definition 5.3. For finite M, the map T of Theorem 5.2 is the center-valued trace of M, written TM.
Comparing projections through the center-valued trace
Corollary 5.4 (Comparison). Let M be finite, and let T:M→Z be linear with (a), (b), (d) of (5.2). For projections e,f,
e≾f⟺T(e)≤T(f),e∼f⟺T(e)=T(f),e≺f⟺T(e)≤T(f)andT(e)=T(f).(5.3)
Proof. If e∼f through v, (a) gives T(e)=T(v∗v)=T(vv∗)=T(f). If e∼f′≤f, then T(e)=T(f′)≤T(f) by positivity. Conversely, suppose T(e)≤T(f). By the comparison theorem there is a central projection h with he≾hf and (1−h)f≾(1−h)e; say (1−h)f∼g≤(1−h)e. By (a) and (b), T(g)=T((1−h)f)=(1−h)T(f)≥(1−h)T(e)=T((1−h)e). So T((1−h)e−g)≤0. But (1−h)e−g is a projection, so T((1−h)e−g)≥0; hence it is 0, and (d) gives (1−h)e=g∼(1−h)f. By Lemma 1.1, e=he+(1−h)e≾hf+(1−h)f=f. The second equivalence follows from the first and Schröder–Bernstein for projections, and the third from the first two. □
Finite traces factor through the center
Theorem 5.5. Let M be finite with center-valued trace T. Every finite trace σ on M, normal or not, satisfies
σ(x)=σ(T(x))(x∈M).(5.4)
Consequently:
σ↦σ∣Z is a bijection from the finite traces on M onto the positive linear functionals on Z, with inverse ψ↦ψ∘T. It maps the finite normal traces onto Z∗+.
(Uniqueness of the center-valued trace.) If T′:M→Z is linear and satisfies (a), (b), (c) of (5.2), then T′=T. In particular such a T′ is automatically normal and faithful.
The proof uses two lemmas. Throughout, σ is a finite trace on M, extended linearly (Proposition 2.2(6)).
Lemma 5.6 (Homogeneous pieces). Let q be a central projection, and let g1,…,gn be orthogonal abelian projections with c(gj)=q and g1+⋯+gn=q. Then σ(eq)=σ(T(e)q) for every projection e.
Proof. Since abelian projections are smallest, gj≾gk for all j,k, and Schröder–Bernstein for projections makes the gj mutually equivalent. For a central projection w≤q, the projections gjw are mutually equivalent (Lemma 1.2) with sum w, so T(g1w)=w/n and σ(g1w)=σ(w)/n.
Put h=T(e)q, so 0≤h≤q. Let qk=1[k/n,(k+1)/n)(h)q for 0≤k<n and qn=1{1}(h)q. These are orthogonal central projections with sum q, and T(eqk)=T(e)qk=hqk.
Fix k<n and put G=(g1+⋯+gk)qk. Then T(G)=(k/n)qk≤hqk=T(eqk), so (5.3) gives G∼G′ for some projection G′≤eqk. Let d=eqk−G′. Then T(d)=hqk−(k/n)qk≤(1/n)qk=T(gk+1qk), so d≾gk+1qk by (5.3). Hence d is abelian: it is equivalent to a subprojection d′ of the abelian projection gk+1, the algebra d′Md′⊆gk+1Mgk+1 is commutative, and dMd≅d′Md′. Since c(d)≤qk≤q, we have c(g1c(d))=c(g1)c(d)=c(d). As abelian projections are smallest, d≾g1c(d) and g1c(d)≾d, and Schröder–Bernstein for projections gives d∼g1c(d). By the first paragraph, T(d)=c(d)/n. Multiplying T(eqk)=(k/n)qk+T(d) by c(d) gives hc(d)=((k+1)/n)c(d). So c(d) lies below the spectral projection 1{(k+1)/n}(h). But c(d)≤qk≤1[k/n,(k+1)/n)(h), which is orthogonal to it. Hence c(d)=0 and d=0. So eqk=G′∼G; in particular T(e)qk=T(eqk)=T(G)=(k/n)qk, and
σ(eqk)=σ(G)=kσ(g1qk)=nkσ(qk)=σ(nkqk)=σ(T(e)qk).
For k=n: T(eqn)=hqn=qn=T(qn), so T(qn−eqn)=0, and (d) gives eqn=qn; thus σ(eqn)=σ(qn)=σ(T(e)qn). Summing over the finitely many k gives the claim. □
Lemma 5.7 (Approximate pieces). Let q be a central projection and K≥1. Suppose q=P1+⋯+PK+R with orthogonal projections, Pj∼P1 for all j, and R≾P1. Then ∣σ(eq)−σ(T(e)q)∣≤2σ(q)/K for every projection e.
Proof. Put t=T(P1) and r=T(R), both in Z+. Then Kt+r=q, and 0≤r≤t because R∼R′≤P1. Hence Kt≤q≤(K+1)t, and t is invertible in the abelian algebra Zq. Let h=T(e)qt−1, the inverse taken in Zq. Then 0≤h≤(K+1)q. Put wk=1[k,k+1)(h)q for 0≤k<K and wK=1[K,K+1](h)q. These are orthogonal central projections with sum q, and on each of them
ktwk≤T(e)wk≤(k+1)twk.
Put sk=σ(P1wk). Since Pjwk∼P1wk, the projection (P1+⋯+Pm)wk has trace msk.
(i) T((P1+⋯+Pk)wk)=ktwk≤T(ewk), so Corollary 5.4 gives (P1+⋯+Pk)wk≾ewk, and ksk≤σ(ewk).
(ii) For k<K, T(ewk)≤(k+1)twk=T((P1+⋯+Pk+1)wk), so σ(ewk)≤(k+1)sk. For k=K, σ(ewK)≤σ(wK)=KsK+σ(RwK)≤(K+1)sK, because RwK≾P1wK.
(iii) By positivity of σ, kσ(twk)≤σ(T(e)wk)≤(k+1)σ(twk).
(iv) Ksk+σ(Rwk)=σ(wk) with 0≤σ(Rwk)≤sk, and Kσ(twk)+σ(rwk)=σ(wk) with 0≤σ(rwk)≤σ(twk). So both sk and σ(twk) lie in [σ(wk)/(K+1),σ(wk)/K].
(v) By (i)–(iv), σ(ewk) and σ(T(e)wk) both lie in the interval [kσ(wk)/(K+1),(k+1)σ(wk)/K], whose length is σ(wk)(k+K+1)/(K(K+1))≤σ(wk)(2K+1)/(K(K+1))≤2σ(wk)/K.
(vi) Summing over k: ∣σ(eq)−σ(T(e)q)∣≤∑k2σ(wk)/K=2σ(q)/K. □
Proof of Theorem 5.5.Reduction. Both sides of (5.4) are linear and norm continuous in x (σ is bounded and ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥), and projections span a norm-dense subspace of M by the spectral theorem. So it suffices to prove (5.4) for a projection e.
Decomposition. By Proposition 1.6(a), 1=∑n≥1zn+zII1, where zn is a sum of n orthogonal abelian projections g1(n),…,gn(n) with central support zn, and MzII1 has no direct summand of type I. Fix m≥1 and put K=2m. Let qs=∑n<K2zn and ql=1−qs=∑n≥K2zn+zII1.
Small degrees. By Lemma 5.6, applied to each of the finitely many zn with n<K2, σ(eqs)=σ(T(e)qs).
Large degrees and type II1. For n≥K2 write n=Kan+rn with 0≤rn<K; then an≥K>rn. Split g1(n),…,gn(n) into K consecutive blocks of an projections and a remainder of rn projections, and let Pj(n) be the sum over the j-th block and R(n) the sum over the remainder. The gj(n) are mutually equivalent, as in the proof of Lemma 5.6. So Lemma 1.1 gives Pj(n)∼P1(n), and R(n) is equivalent to the sum of the first rn projections of the first block, so R(n)≾P1(n). On zII1, halving applied m times gives orthogonal equivalent projections Q1,…,QK with sum zII1: if zII1=a+b with a∼b through v, halve a=a1+a2 and use bi=vaiv∗, and repeat. Put Pj=∑n≥K2Pj(n)+Qj and R=∑n≥K2R(n). By Lemma 1.1, Pj∼P1 and R≾P1, and P1+⋯+PK+R=ql. Lemma 5.7 gives ∣σ(eql)−σ(T(e)ql)∣≤2σ(1)/2m.
Adding the two parts, ∣σ(e)−σ(T(e))∣≤2σ(1)/2m for every m, which proves (5.4).
Consequence 1. By (5.4), σ is determined by σ∣Z. For a positive functional ψ on Z, ψ∘T is positive, satisfies ψ(T(x∗x))=ψ(T(xx∗)), and restricts to ψ on Z; so it is a finite trace with restriction ψ. If σ is normal, so is σ∣Z; if ψ is normal, so is ψ∘T, since T is normal (Theorem 5.2).
Consequence 2. Let ψ be a positive functional on Z. By (a), ψ∘T′ is a finite trace, and by (b), (c), T′(T(x))=T(x)T′(1)=T(x). Applying (5.4) to σ=ψ∘T′ gives ψ(T′(x))=ψ(T′(T(x)))=ψ(T(x)). The vector functionals ⟨⋅ξ,ξ⟩ separate the points of Z, so T′=T. □
Remark. Lemmas 5.6 and 5.7 compare σ with σ∘T uniformly over all projections, so the proof needs no normality, neither of σ nor of T′. Normality of finite traces then comes out as a consequence, in Theorem 5.9.
Example 5.8 (Matrices over an abelian algebra). Let A be an abelian von Neumann algebra and M=Mn(A), acting on Hn. The center is {a1:a∈A}, and T(x)=n1∑kxkk, read as a scalar matrix, satisfies (5.2): for instance ∑k,lxlk∗xlk=∑k,lxlkxlk∗ because A is commutative. By Theorem 5.5(2) it is TM. For n=2 and A=C, take e=e11 and f the projection onto (1,1)/2. Then T(e)=T(f)=21, so e∼f by Corollary 5.4, although ef=fe.
When a finite trace is normal
Theorem 5.9 (Normality of finite traces). Let M be any von Neumann algebra, τ a finite trace on it, and 1=zf+z∞ the splitting of Proposition 1.6(b).
τ(xz∞)=0 for every x∈M. In particular a properly infinite algebra has no nonzero finite trace.
τ(x)=τ(Tf(xzf)) for x∈M, where Tf is the center-valued trace of the finite algebra Mzf.
τ is normal exactly when τ∣Z is normal. In particular, on a factor every finite trace is normal: it is τ(1)TM if the factor is finite, and 0 otherwise.
Proof. (1) Suppose z∞=0. Halving the properly infinite algebra Mz∞ gives p≤z∞ with p∼z∞−p∼z∞. By Proposition 2.2(3), τ(z∞)=τ(p)+τ(z∞−p)=2τ(z∞), and since τ(z∞)<∞, τ(z∞)=0. By Cauchy–Schwarz, ∣τ(xz∞)∣2≤τ(xx∗)τ(z∞)=0.
(2) The restriction of τ to Mzf is a finite trace on a finite algebra with center Zzf, and Theorem 5.5 gives τ(y)=τ(Tf(y)) for y∈Mzf. With (1), τ(x)=τ(xzf)=τ(Tf(xzf)).
(3) If τ is normal, so is its restriction to Z. Conversely, if τ∣Z is normal, then by (2) τ is the composite of the normal maps x↦xzf, Tf and τ∣Zzf. For a factor, Z=C1 and τ∣Z is normal. If the factor is finite, Theorem 5.5(1) gives τ=τ(1)TM; otherwise zf=0 and τ=0 by (1). □
Remark. Finiteness of τ is needed: see Example 5.10.
Example 5.10 (An infinite trace with normal restriction to the center). On M=B(ℓ2(N)) put τ(x)=Tr(x) if x∈M+ has finite rank, and τ(x)=∞ otherwise. This is a trace: finite-rank positive operators add to finite-rank ones, a positive operator of infinite rank stays of infinite rank when a positive operator is added, and z∗z and zz∗ have equal rank. Its restriction to Z=C1 is normal, since τ(t1)=∞ for t>0. But τ is not normal: the finite-rank truncations of x=diag(1/k2) increase to x and have traces tending to π2/6, while τ(x)=∞.
Countable decomposability of finite algebras
Lemma 5.11.M is σ-finite if and only if it has a faithful normal state.
Proof. Let φ be a faithful normal state and (pk) orthogonal nonzero projections. Then ∑kφ(pk)=φ(∑kpk)≤1 with every φ(pk)>0, so the family is countable. Conversely, let M be σ-finite. By Zorn's lemma choose a maximal family of normal states ωk with mutually orthogonal supports sk (Lemma 3.1(4)); it is countable. If r=1−∑ksk=0, a unit vector ξ∈rH gives the normal state ⟨⋅ξ,ξ⟩, which vanishes at 1−r, so its support lies below r, against maximality. So ∑ksk=1. Put φ=c∑k2−kωk, with c>0 chosen so that φ(1)=1; the series converges in norm, so φ∈M∗+. If x≥0 and φ(x)=0, then ωk(x)=0 for all k. By Lemma 3.1(3)–(4), skxsk=0, so x1/2sk=0, and x1/2=x1/2∑ksk=0. □
Corollary 5.12 (σ-finiteness of finite algebras). Let M be finite with center-valued trace T.
M is σ-finite if and only if Z is. In that case φ∘T is a faithful normal finite trace for every faithful normal state φ of Z.
There are orthogonal central projections zk with ∑kzk=1 and every Mzkσ-finite.
A finite factor is σ-finite.
Proof. (1) An orthogonal family of central projections is an orthogonal family in M, so Z is σ-finite when M is. Conversely, if Z is σ-finite, Lemma 5.11 gives a faithful normal state φ of Z. Then φ∘T is a normal finite trace (Theorem 5.2) and a state. If φ(T(x))=0 with x≥0, then T(x)=0 and x=0 by (d). So φ∘T is a faithful normal state, and Lemma 5.11 gives σ-finiteness of M.
(2) In the abelian von Neumann algebra Z, choose a maximal family of normal states with orthogonal supports zk, taken in Z. As in the proof of Lemma 5.11, ∑kzk=1, and Zzk has a faithful normal state, so it is σ-finite. The algebra Mzk is finite with center Zzk; apply (1).
(3) The center is C1. □
Example 5.13 (Finite but not σ-finite). Let Γ be uncountable and M=ℓ∞(Γ). It is finite, with T=id. The singletons form an uncountable orthogonal family, so M is not σ-finite, and by Lemma 5.11 it has no faithful normal state and no faithful normal finite trace. Still, the point evaluations form a separating family of finite normal traces (Theorem 4.7), and the decomposition of Corollary 5.12(2) can be taken to be the one into one-point pieces.
Counting equivalent finite projections
A properly infinite semifinite algebra decomposes into pieces Mzα≅Nα⊗ˉB(Hα), with Nα finite and dimHα=α (see "Properly infinite semifinite algebras" in the background list). We prove a counting theorem and derive from it that this decomposition is unique.
Theorem 5.14. Let (ei)i∈I and (fj)j∈J be infinite families of nonzero projections in M. Suppose the ei are mutually orthogonal, mutually equivalent and finite, that the same holds for the fj, and that ∑iei=∑jfj. Then ∣I∣=∣J∣.
Reference: the counting step in the proof of [Takesaki I, Proposition V.1.40], which omits the hypothesis that the projections are nonzero.
Proof. Let p=∑iei. All the projections and the partial isometries between them lie in pMp, so we may assume p=1. The ei have one central support (Lemma 1.2), which majorizes ∑iei=1; so c(ei)=1, and likewise c(fj)=1.
Take any normal state of Z, for instance a vector state, and let z be its support in Z. Then z=0, and Zz has a faithful normal state, so it is σ-finite (Lemma 5.11). Fix i∈I. The projection zei is finite and nonzero, since c(zei)=zc(ei)=z. By Lemma 1.5, the center of Ni=(zei)M(zei) is isomorphic to Zc(zei)=Zz, so it is σ-finite. By Corollary 5.12(1), the finite algebra Ni has a faithful normal finite trace τi.
Since ∑jfj=1, the positive elements zeifjeiz of Ni have sum zei, and normality gives
τi(zei)=j∈J∑τi(zeifjeiz)<∞.
So Ji={j:τi(zeifjeiz)>0} is countable. As τi is faithful and zeifjeiz=(fjeiz)∗(fjeiz), Ji={j:zfjei=0}. For each j, zfj=0 because c(fj)=1, and zfj=∑izfjei; so j∈Ji for some i. Hence J=⋃i∈IJi and ∣J∣≤ℵ0∣I∣=∣I∣, since I is infinite. By symmetry ∣I∣≤∣J∣, and the Cantor–Bernstein theorem gives ∣I∣=∣J∣. □
Corollary 5.15 (Uniqueness of the decomposition). Let (zα) and (zβ′) be families of orthogonal central projections, indexed by infinite cardinals, each with sum 1, with Mzα≅Nα⊗ˉB(Hα) and Mzβ′≅Nβ′⊗ˉB(Hβ′), where Nα,Nβ′ are finite, dimHα=α and dimHβ′=β. Then zα=zα′ for every α.
Proof. Let α=β and suppose w=zαzβ′=0. Under the first isomorphism, the projections 1⊗ekk, where ekk runs over the rank-one projections of a basis of Hα, correspond to α orthogonal, mutually equivalent projections Ek∈Mzα with sum zα. They are finite, since each corner EkMEk is isomorphic to Nα. The projections Ekw are orthogonal, mutually equivalent and finite, with sum w; they are nonzero, because they are mutually equivalent and add up to w=0. The second isomorphism gives β such projections with sum w. Theorem 5.14 gives α=β, a contradiction. So zαzβ′=0 for α=β, and zα=zα∑βzβ′=zαzα′=zα′∑γzγ=zα′. □
Remarks. (1) The projections in Theorem 5.14 must be nonzero: if all of them are 0, the sums agree for any I,J. (2) Finiteness of the projections is necessary: see Example 5.16. (3) For finite families the count is not determined: in M6(C), 1 is the sum of two equivalent projections of rank 3 and of three equivalent projections of rank 2.
Example 5.16 (Counting needs finite projections). With H and Γ as in Example 4.3, write Γ as a disjoint union of ℵ0 sets of size ℵ1, and also as a disjoint union of ℵ1 sets of size ℵ1. The coordinate projections give two orthogonal families, of sizes ℵ0 and ℵ1, of mutually equivalent infinite projections, both with sum 1. By Theorem 5.14 this cannot happen with finite projections.
6. Semifinite algebras
Extending a normal trace from a corner
Lemma 6.1. Let e be a projection. There are partial isometries (vj)j∈J in M with vjvj∗≤e, such that the projections fj=vj∗vj are mutually orthogonal and ∑jfj=c(e).
Proof. By Zorn's lemma take a maximal family of mutually orthogonal projections fj with fj≾e, and choose vj with vj∗vj=fj and vjvj∗≤e. By Lemma 1.2, fj≤c(fj)≤c(e). Suppose r=c(e)−∑jfj=0. Then c(r)≤c(e), so c(r)c(e)=c(r)=0, and the equivalent-pieces fact gives nonzero r′≤r and e′≤e with r′∼e′. Then r′ could be added to the family, against maximality. So ∑jfj=c(e). □
Theorem 6.2 (Extension from a corner). Let τ0 be a normal trace on eMe, and let (vj) be as in Lemma 6.1. Then
τ(x)=j∈J∑τ0(vjxvj∗)(x∈M+)(6.1)
defines a normal trace on M with the following properties.
τ(x)=τ0(x) for x∈(eMe)+, and τ(1−c(e))=0.
τ is the only normal trace on M with (1). In particular it does not depend on the choice of (vj).
τ is faithful on Mc(e) if and only if τ0 is faithful; τ is semifinite if and only if τ0 is semifinite.
Normality of τ0 cannot be dropped, even for the trace identity: see Example 6.6.
Proof. Each vjxvj∗ lies in (eMe)+, so (6.1) makes sense. Additivity and homogeneity are clear, and normality follows as in the proof of Proposition 3.5(1).
Trace identity. Let y∈M and put wkj=vkyvj∗∈eMe. Since vj∗ has range in fjH⊆c(e)H and c(e) is central, the vector yvj∗η lies in c(e)H=(∑kfk)H for every η. So vjy∗yvj∗=∑kvjy∗fkyvj∗=∑kwkj∗wkj, a strongly convergent sum of positive elements. Normality and the trace identity of τ0 give
τ(y∗y)=j∑k∑τ0(wkj∗wkj)=j∑k∑τ0(wkjwkj∗).
In the same way vkyy∗vk∗=∑jvkyfjy∗vk∗=∑jwkjwkj∗, so τ(yy∗)=∑k∑jτ0(wkjwkj∗). A double sum of numbers in [0,∞] does not depend on the order of summation, so τ(y∗y)=τ(yy∗).
(1) Let x∈(eMe)+. Then vjx1/2∈eMe, and by the trace identity of τ0, τ0(vjxvj∗)=τ0(x1/2fjx1/2). The finite partial sums of x1/2fjx1/2 increase to x1/2c(e)x1/2=x, so normality gives τ(x)=τ0(x). Also vj(1−c(e))=0, so τ(1−c(e))=0.
(2) Let τ′ be a normal trace with (1), and x∈M+. Then x(1−c(e))≤∥x∥(1−c(e)), so τ′(x(1−c(e)))=0. The finite partial sums of x1/2fjx1/2 increase to x1/2c(e)x1/2=xc(e), and x1/2fjx1/2=(vjx1/2)∗(vjx1/2). Normality and (2.1) give
τ′(x)=τ′(xc(e))=j∑τ′(vjxvj∗)=j∑τ0(vjxvj∗)=τ(x).
(3) Faithfulness. If τ is faithful on Mc(e), so is its restriction τ0, because eMe⊆Mc(e). Conversely, let τ0 be faithful, x∈(Mc(e))+ and τ(x)=0. Then vjxvj∗=0 for all j, so x1/2vj∗=0, x1/2fj=0, and x1/2=x1/2c(e)=0.
Semifiniteness. First let τ be semifinite, and let 0=x∈(eMe)+. Some 0=y≤x has τ(y)<∞. Then y=eye∈eMe, since 0≤y≤x≤∥x∥e, and τ0(y)=τ(y)<∞ by (1). So τ0 is semifinite.
Conversely, let τ0 be semifinite. We check condition (e) of Proposition 2.5, the density of mτ.
Since τ vanishes on M+(1−c(e)), mτ⊇M(1−c(e)).
Let a∈nτ0 and ek=vkvk∗. In (6.1) for vk∗a∗avk, only the term j=k survives, so
τ((avk)∗(avk))=τ0(eka∗aek)=τ0(aeka∗)≤τ0(aa∗)=τ0(a∗a)<∞.
So avk∈nτ. Hence vj∗b∗avk=(bvj)∗(avk)∈mτ for a,b∈nτ0; that is, vj∗mτ0vk⊆mτ.
For x∈Mc(e) and a finite set F⊆J put fF=∑j∈Ffj. Then fFxfF=∑j,k∈Fvj∗(vjxvk∗)vk, with vjxvk∗∈eMe. Since τ0 is semifinite, Proposition 2.5(e) makes each vjxvk∗ a σ-weak limit of elements of mτ0. So fFxfF lies in the σ-weak closure of mτ.
As F grows, fF↑c(e), so fFxfF→xσ-weakly.
Every element of M is xc(e)+x(1−c(e)), so mτ is σ-weakly dense in M. □
Example 6.3 (All normal traces on B(H)). For c∈[0,∞], cTr is a normal trace on B(H), with 0⋅∞=0 and c⋅∞=∞ for c>0. Every normal trace τ on B(H) has this form. Indeed, let e be the projection onto Cεi0 for an orthonormal basis (εi). The corner eB(H)e=Ce carries the normal trace te↦ct with c=τ(e), and c(e)=1 because B(H) is a factor. With vj the rank-one partial isometry εj↦εi0, Theorem 6.2(2) gives τ(x)=∑jc⟨xεj,εj⟩=cTr(x). The edge cases: for c=∞, τ is faithful and normal but not semifinite, and Proposition 3.7 gives z=0; for c=0, the support is 0 (Proposition 3.2) and τ is semifinite; for 0<c<∞, τ is faithful, normal and semifinite, and finite exactly when dimH<∞. If dimH=∞, then B(H) is properly infinite, and Theorem 5.9(1) says it has no nonzero finite trace at all, normal or not.
Amplification by a type I factor
Let N be a von Neumann algebra on H, and K a Hilbert space with orthonormal basis (εi)i∈I. Let Vi:H→H⊗K, Viξ=ξ⊗εi, and for x∈B(H⊗K) put xij=Vi∗xVj. Let eij∈B(K) be the matrix units, eijεk=δjkεi. The von Neumann tensor product N⊗ˉB(K) is the von Neumann algebra generated by the operators a⊗b.
Lemma 6.4.N⊗ˉB(K)={x∈B(H⊗K):xij∈N for all i,j}.
Proof. A direct computation gives (y(1⊗eij))kl=δjlyki and ((1⊗eij)y)kl=δikyjl. If y commutes with every 1⊗eij, comparing these entries gives yki=0 for k=i and yii=yjj, so y=y0⊗1. If y also commutes with N⊗1, then y0∈N′. So (N⊗B(K))′=N′⊗1, the other inclusion being clear, and by the bicommutant theorem N⊗ˉB(K)=(N′⊗1)′. Finally x commutes with b⊗1 (b∈N′) exactly when xijb=bxij for all i,j, that is, when every xij lies in N′′=N. □
Proposition 6.5 (Amplification). Let τ be a normal trace on N and M=N⊗ˉB(K). Put
τ~(x)=i∈I∑τ(xii)(x∈M+).(6.2)
τ~ is a normal trace on M, and it does not depend on the orthonormal basis.
τ~ is the only normal trace on M with τ~(y⊗p)=τ(y) for all y∈N+, for one (equivalently, every) rank-one projection p∈B(K).
τ~ is faithful if and only if τ is, and semifinite if and only if τ is. Its support is s(τ~)=s(τ)⊗1.
If B is any factor of type I, then N⊗ˉB≅N⊗ˉB(K) for some K, and transporting τ~ gives a normal trace on N⊗ˉB with the same properties. In particular, if N has a faithful semifinite normal trace, so has N⊗ˉB.
Proof. Fix i0∈I and put e=1⊗ei0i0. By Lemma 6.4, eMe={y⊗ei0i0:y∈N}, and y↦y⊗ei0i0 is a ∗-isomorphism of N onto eMe that preserves order and suprema. So τ0(y⊗ei0i0)=τ(y) is a normal trace on eMe. The partial isometries vj=1⊗ei0j satisfy vjvj∗=e, vj∗vj=1⊗ejj and ∑jvj∗vj=1; so c(e)=1, and Theorem 6.2 applies. Since vjxvj∗=xjj⊗ei0i0, formula (6.1) is exactly (6.2). Theorem 6.2 now shows that τ~ is a normal trace, gives uniqueness in (2) for p=ei0i0, and gives the faithfulness and semifiniteness equivalences in (3).
For a unit vector η∈K with rank-one projection pη, (y⊗pη)ii=∣⟨εi,η⟩∣2y, so τ~(y⊗pη)=τ(y)∑i∣⟨εi,η⟩∣2=τ(y). If (εk′) is another basis, the trace built from it agrees with τ on the corner of 1⊗pεk0′, by its construction, and so does τ~, by this computation. That corner also has central support 1, so Theorem 6.2(2) makes the two traces equal. This proves (1) and (2).
Support: s(τ)⊗1 is a central projection of M. If x∈M+(1−s(τ)⊗1), every xii lies in N+(1−s(τ)), so τ~(x)=0. If x∈(M(s(τ)⊗1))+ and τ~(x)=0, then τ(xii)=0 with xii∈N+s(τ), so xii=0 for every i; hence x1/2Vi=0 for every i, and x=0. By Proposition 3.2, s(τ~)=s(τ)⊗1.
(4) A factor of type I is ∗-isomorphic to some B(K). Tensoring this isomorphism with the identity map on N gives N⊗ˉB≅N⊗ˉB(K) (see "Tensor products of isomorphisms" in the background list). A ∗-isomorphism preserves order, suprema and the identity (2.1). □
Example 6.6 (Normality is needed in Theorem 6.2 and Proposition 6.5). Let N=ℓ∞(N) with the finite trace τ of Example 3.4, which is not normal, and M=N⊗ˉB(ℓ2(N)). Let x∈M have entries xk1=1{k} for k≥1 and all other entries 0; it is a partial isometry. Then x∗x=1⊗e11 and xx∗=∑k1{k}⊗ekk. Formula (6.2), which is (6.1) for the corner of 1⊗e11, gives τ~(x∗x)=τ(1)=1 but τ~(xx∗)=∑kτ(1{k})=0. So without normality the formula does not define a trace.
Faithful semifinite normal traces on semifinite algebras
Theorem 6.7. For a von Neumann algebra M the following are equivalent:
(i) M is semifinite;
(ii) M has a faithful semifinite normal trace;
(ii′) M has a faithful semifinite trace (normality not required).
Proof. (ii)⇒(ii′) is trivial. (ii′)⇒(i): let τ be faithful and semifinite. If τ(e)<∞ for a projection e, then τ restricted to (eMe)+ is a faithful finite trace on eMe. A single faithful trace separates (eMe)+, so eMe is finite by Theorem 4.7 ((iii)⇒(i)), and e is finite by Lemma 1.5. By Proposition 2.5(b), below each nonzero projection lies a nonzero projection of finite trace, and that projection is finite. So M is semifinite by Proposition 1.6(c).
(i)⇒(ii). Step 1: every nonzero central projection z majorizes the support of some nonzero semifinite normal trace. By Proposition 1.6(c) there is a finite projection 0=e≤z. The algebra eMe is finite and nonzero, so Theorem 4.7 gives a finite normal trace τ0 on eMe with τ0(e)>0. Its support s0 is a nonzero central projection of eMe (Proposition 3.2), and τ0 is faithful on s0Ms0=s0(eMe)s0. Apply Theorem 6.2 to the corner s0 and the faithful finite normal trace τ0∣s0Ms0. It gives a normal trace τz on M, semifinite because τ0 is finite, faithful on Mc(s0) and zero on M(1−c(s0)). By Proposition 3.2, s(τz)=c(s0), which is nonzero and lies below c(e)≤z.
Step 2. By Zorn's lemma, choose a maximal family (τk) of nonzero semifinite normal traces whose supports are pairwise orthogonal. If w=1−∑ks(τk)=0, Step 1 with z=w contradicts maximality. So ∑ks(τk)=1. By Proposition 3.5, τ=∑kτk is a semifinite normal trace with s(τ)=⋁ks(τk)=1; that is, τ is faithful. □
7. The trace norm
Let τ be a trace on M. As agreed after Lemma 2.4, τ(x) means τ˙(x) for x∈mτ.
Proposition 7.1. For x∈mτ and y∈M:
∣τ(yx)∣2≤τ(∣y∗∣∣x∣)τ(∣y∣∣x∗∣),(7.1)
where both factors on the right are finite and nonnegative.
∣τ(yx)∣≤τ(∣yx∣)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣),τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(∣x∣).(7.2)
τ(∣x∣)=sup{∣τ(yx)∣:y∈M,∥y∥≤1}.(7.3)
∥x∥1:=τ(∣x∣) is a seminorm on mτ, and a norm if τ is faithful. It satisfies ∥yx∥1≤∥y∥∥x∥1, ∥xy∥1≤∥y∥∥x∥1, ∥x∗∥1=∥x∥1 and ∣τ(x)∣≤∥x∥1.
If τ is normal, then ωx=τ(⋅x) lies in M∗ and ∥ωx∥=∥x∥1.
If τ is faithful, semifinite and normal, {ωx:x∈mτ} is norm dense in M∗. Hence the completion L1(M,τ) of (mτ,∥⋅∥1) is isometrically isomorphic to M∗ through x↦ωx, and τ and the maps x↦yx, x↦xy (y∈M) extend by continuity to L1(M,τ).
Proof. Let x=u∣x∣ and y=v∣y∣ be polar decompositions. By Lemma 2.4(4), ∣x∣∈Fτ and ∣x∣1/2∈nτ. Put A=∣x∣1/2v∣y∣1/2 and B=∣y∣1/2u∣x∣1/2. Both lie in nτ, since it is a two-sided ideal.
(1) By (2.3), τ(yx)=τ((v∣y∣u∣x∣1/2)∣x∣1/2)=τ(∣x∣1/2v∣y∣u∣x∣1/2)=τ(AB). The form (a,b)↦τ(b∗a) on nτ is positive semidefinite, so ∣τ(AB)∣2≤τ(AA∗)τ(B∗B). Now AA∗=∣x∣1/2v∣y∣v∗∣x∣1/2=∣x∣1/2∣y∗∣∣x∣1/2 and B∗B=∣x∣1/2u∗∣y∣u∣x∣1/2. By (2.3), τ(AA∗)=τ(∣y∗∣∣x∣) and τ(B∗B)=τ(∣y∣u∣x∣u∗)=τ(∣y∣∣x∗∣). Both are traces of elements of Fτ.
(2) Since ∣y∗∣≤∥y∥, τ(AA∗)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣). Likewise τ(B∗B)=τ(∣x∗∣1/2∣y∣∣x∗∣1/2)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∗∣), and τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(u∣x∣u∗)=τ(∣x∣u∗u)=τ(∣x∣). With (1), ∣τ(yx)∣≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣). Applied to 1 and yx∈mτ, this gives ∣τ(yx)∣≤τ(∣yx∣). If yx=w∣yx∣, then τ(∣yx∣)=τ(w∗yx)≤∥w∗y∥τ(∣x∣)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣).
(3) τ(∣x∣)=τ(u∗x) with ∥u∗∥≤1, and (2) gives the reverse inequality.
(4) By (3), ∥⋅∥1 is a supremum of absolute values of linear functionals, hence a seminorm. If τ is faithful and ∥x∥1=0, then ∣x∣=0 and x=0. The first bound is (7.2); the second follows from ∥xy∥1=τ(∣(xy)∗∣)=τ(∣y∗x∗∣), from (2) and from τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(∣x∣); and ∣τ(x)∣=∣τ(1⋅x)∣≤τ(∣x∣).
(5) Let x∈Fτ and yα↑y in M+. By (2.3) and normality, ωx(yα)=τ(x1/2yαx1/2)↑τ(x1/2yx1/2)=ωx(y). So ωx is a normal positive functional, and it lies in M∗ because the two notions of normality agree. As mτ=spanFτ, ωx∈M∗ for every x∈mτ. By (3), ∥ωx∥=∥x∥1.
(6) Let y∈M with ωx(y)=0 for all x∈mτ; we show y=0. Suppose y=0 and let y=v∣y∣. If s∣y∣s=0 for all s∈Fτ, then ∣y∣1/2s=0 for all s∈Fτ, so ∣y∣1/2mτ=0. Since mτ is σ-weakly dense (Proposition 2.5(e)) and multiplication is σ-weakly continuous, ∣y∣1/2=0, a contradiction. So some s∈Fτ has s∣y∣s=0. Put x=s2v∗∈mτ. By (2.3), ωx(y)=τ(ys2v∗)=τ(s2v∗y)=τ(s2∣y∣)=τ(s∣y∣s)>0, by faithfulness, another contradiction. So the subspace {ωx} of M∗ has zero annihilator in (M∗)∗=M, and it is norm dense by the Hahn–Banach theorem. The map x↦ωx is an isometry from (mτ,∥⋅∥1) onto a dense subspace of the Banach space M∗, so it extends to an isometric isomorphism of the completion onto M∗. The functional τ and the maps x↦yx, x↦xy are ∥⋅∥1-bounded by (4), so they extend. □
Remark. For a∈M, (2.3) gives ωax(y)=ωx(ya) and ωxa(y)=ωx(ay). By continuity these identities persist on L1(M,τ).
Exercises
Exercise 1 (An ℓ∞-sum of matrix algebras). Let M=⨁n≥1Mn(C), the bounded sequences x=(xn) with xn∈Mn(C). (a) Find TM. (b) Describe all finite normal traces on M. (c) Give a finite trace that is not normal, and check (5.4) for it. (d) Show that e≾f exactly when ranken≤rankfn for all n.
Solution. (a) The center is the algebra of bounded scalar sequences. Let trn be the normalized trace of Mn(C) and T(x)=(trn(xn))n. Then T(x∗x)=T(xx∗)≥0, T is linear, T(ax)=aT(x) for central a, T(1)=1, and T(x∗x)=0 forces every xn=0. By Theorem 5.5(2), T=TM. (b) By Theorem 5.5(1), the finite normal traces are ψ∘T with ψ normal and positive on ℓ∞(N), that is, ψ(a)=∑ncnan with cn≥0 and ∑ncn<∞. So they are τ(x)=∑ncntrn(xn). (c) For a free ultrafilter ω, τ(x)=limωtrn(xn) is a positive functional with τ(x∗x)=τ(xx∗), hence a finite trace. It vanishes on each summand while τ(1)=1, so it is not normal. It equals ψ∘T with ψ=limω, which is (5.4). (d) T(e)≤T(f) means trn(en)≤trn(fn) for all n, that is, ranken≤rankfn; apply Corollary 5.4.
Exercise 2 (A projection of finite trace need not be finite). Let M=C⊕B(ℓ2(N)) and τ(a⊕x)=a. Show that τ is a finite normal trace, that 1 is an infinite projection, and that τ(1)<∞. Which step of the proof of (ii′)⇒(i) in Theorem 6.7 uses faithfulness?
Solution.τ is a normal positive functional, and τ(z∗z)=∣z1∣2=τ(zz∗) for z=z1⊕z2. With the unilateral shift S, the isometry u=1⊕S has u∗u=1 and uu∗=1⊕SS∗=1, so 1 is infinite, while τ(1)=1. The step "τ restricted to eMe is a faithful finite trace, so e is finite" needs faithfulness; here τ vanishes on the infinite summand.
Exercise 3 (Finite sums of semifinite traces). (a) Show that τ1+τ2 is semifinite whenever τ1,τ2 are semifinite traces, normal or not. (b) Explain, with Example 3.6, why the argument does not extend to countable sums.
Solution. (a) Let 0=x∈M+. Semifiniteness of τ1 gives 0=y1≤x with τ1(y1)<∞, and semifiniteness of τ2 gives 0=y2≤y1 with τ2(y2)<∞. Then τ1(y2)≤τ1(y1)<∞, so (τ1+τ2)(y2)<∞. (b) The argument shrinks x once for each trace; with infinitely many traces no single nonzero element need survive all the shrinking with a finite total. In Example 3.6 every nonzero y has ∑nτn(y)=∞.
Exercise 4 (The trace norm in a matrix algebra). In M2(C) with τ=Tr, compute ∥x∥1 for x=e12+2e21, and find y with ∥y∥≤1 and ∣Tr(yx)∣=∥x∥1.
Solution.x∗=e21+2e12, so x∗x=e21e12+4e12e21=e22+4e11 and ∣x∣=2e11+e22. Hence ∥x∥1=3. The polar decomposition is x=u∣x∣ with u=e12+e21, since u∣x∣=2e21+e12. Take y=u∗=e12+e21, of norm 1: Tr(yx)=Tr(u∗u∣x∣)=Tr(∣x∣)=3, as in (7.3).
Exercise 5 (No center-valued trace on B(ℓ2)). Show that there is no linear map T:B(ℓ2(N))→C with properties (a), (b), (c) of (5.2).
Solution. Property (b) is automatic, since the center is C1. By (a), T is a positive linear functional with T(x∗x)=T(xx∗), that is, a finite trace, and T(1)=1 by (c). But B(ℓ2(N)) is properly infinite, so Theorem 5.9(1) forces T=0, a contradiction. This does not conflict with Theorem 5.2, because B(ℓ2(N)) is not finite.
Where this leads
The trace norm is the first step of integration with respect to a trace. The next steps are the duality between M and L1(M,τ), the Hilbert space L2(M,τ) with the standard representation of M on it, measurable operators, and the spaces Lp(M,τ). Measurable operators and integration with respect to a trace are treated in the lesson Measurable operators and the integral for a trace.
For a finite algebra, T(x) lies even in the norm-closed convex hull of the unitary orbit of x. This is Dixmier's approximation theorem; Section 5 needs only the σ-weakly closed hull.
A semifinite algebra has an extended center-valued trace, with values in the extended positive part of the center.
Many results above hold for traces that are not normal. Such traces, Dixmier traces for example, have a theory of their own.
Normal weights drop the identity τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗). They are the subject of the course Modular Theory and Weights.
References
[Kostecki] R. P. Kostecki, W*-algebras and noncommutative integration, arXiv:1307.4818. https://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4818
[Namioka–Asplund 1967] I. Namioka and E. Asplund, A geometric proof of Ryll-Nardzewski's fixed point theorem, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 73 (1967), 443–445. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1967-11779-8
[Yeadon 1971] F. J. Yeadon, A new proof of the existence of a trace in a finite von Neumann algebra, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 77 (1971), 257–260. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9904-1971-12708-8
[Ryll-Nardzewski 1967] C. Ryll-Nardzewski, On fixed points of semigroups of endomorphisms of linear spaces, Proc. Fifth Berkeley Sympos. Math. Statist. and Probability, Vol. II, Part 1, Univ. of California Press, 1967, 55–61. https://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/math/ucb/text/math_s5_v2_p1_article-05.pdf
[Akemann 1967] C. A. Akemann, The dual space of an operator algebra, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 126 (1967), 286–302. https://doi.org/10.1090/S0002-9947-1967-0206732-8
[Dixmier 1949] J. Dixmier, Les anneaux d'opérateurs de classe finie, Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup. 66 (1949), 209–261. https://doi.org/10.24033/asens.970
[Dixmier 1953] J. Dixmier, Formes linéaires sur un anneau d'opérateurs, Bull. Soc. Math. France 81 (1953), 9–39. https://doi.org/10.24033/bsmf.1436
[Murray–von Neumann 1937] F. J. Murray and J. von Neumann, On rings of operators. II, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 41 (1937), 208–248. https://www.ams.org/journals/tran/1937-041-02/S0002-9947-1937-1501899-4/S0002-9947-1937-1501899-4.pdf
[Nelson 1974] E. Nelson, Notes on non-commutative integration, J. Funct. Anal. 15 (1974), 103–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1236(74)90014-7
[Takesaki I] M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I, Springer, 1979.