Traces on von Neumann algebras

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∗xx^*x from xx∗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.

The lesson assumes the comparison theory of projections and the type decomposition, from Projections and types of von Neumann algebras; the basic structure of von Neumann algebras, from The double commutation theorem; and normal functionals and preduals, from The universal enveloping von Neumann algebra of a C*-algebra, and W*-algebras. One step uses Spatial tensor products of von Neumann algebras. The results used without proof are stated in full below.

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

Standard background, used without comment: the bounded Borel functional calculus (spectral projections of self-adjoint elements of MM lie in MM); the polar decomposition x=u∣x∣x=u|x| with u,∣x∣∈Mu,|x|\in M (proved in The double commutation theorem); the bicommutant theorem; the σ\sigma-weak compactness of the closed balls of MM; on bounded sets, strong convergence implies σ\sigma-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)|\varphi(y^*x)|^2\leq\varphi(x^*x)\varphi(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.

Comparison of projections. These facts are proved in Projections and types of von Neumann algebras.

Ideals and functionals.

1. Facts about projections

This section proves the facts about projections that the later sections use.

Lemma 1.1 (Orthogonal sums). Let (ei)(e_i) and (fi)(f_i) be families of mutually orthogonal projections with ei∼fie_i\sim f_i for each ii. Then ∑iei∼∑ifi\sum_ie_i\sim\sum_if_i. The same holds with ≾\precsim in place of ∼\sim.

Proof. Choose viv_i with vi∗vi=eiv_i^*v_i=e_i and vivi∗=fiv_iv_i^*=f_i. Their initial spaces are orthogonal and so are their final spaces, so ∑ivi\sum_iv_i converges strongly to a partial isometry vv with v∗v=∑ieiv^*v=\sum_ie_i and vv∗=∑ifivv^*=\sum_if_i. For ≾\precsim, apply this to ei∼fi′≤fie_i\sim f_i'\leq f_i. □\square

Lemma 1.2 (Central cuts and invariance). If e∼fe\sim f through vv and zz is a central projection, then ze∼zfze\sim zf through vzvz. Hence c(e)=c(f)c(e)=c(f), and e≾fe\precsim f implies ze≾zfze\precsim 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 zz is central, (vz)∗(vz)=ze(vz)^*(vz)=ze and (vz)(vz)∗=zf(vz)(vz)^*=zf. If a central projection zz majorizes ee, then (1−z)f∼(1−z)e=0(1-z)f\sim(1-z)e=0, so zz majorizes ff. Thus c(f)≤c(e)c(f)\leq c(e), and by symmetry c(e)=c(f)c(e)=c(f).

Let ff be finite and e∼fe\sim f through vv. If e∼e′≤ee\sim e'\leq e, then f∼ve′v∗≤ff\sim ve'v^*\leq f, so ve′v∗=fve'v^*=f and e′=v∗(ve′v∗)v=v∗fv=ee'=v^*(ve'v^*)v=v^*fv=e. So ee is finite.

Let ff be finite, g≤fg\leq f and g∼g′≤gg\sim g'\leq g. By Lemma 1.1, f=g+(f−g)∼g′+(f−g)≤ff=g+(f-g)\sim g'+(f-g)\leq f, so g′+(f−g)=fg'+(f-g)=f and g′=gg'=g. So gg is finite.

For the last claim, let e∼fe\sim f with ff properly infinite, and let zz be central. By the first sentence, ze∼zfze\sim zf. So ze≠0ze\neq0 exactly when zf≠0zf\neq0, and, by the second claim, zeze is finite exactly when zfzf is. □\square

Lemma 1.3 (Parallelogram law). For projections e,fe,f,   e∨f−e∼f−e∧f\;e\vee f-e\sim f-e\wedge f.

Proof. Put w=(1−e)f∈Mw=(1-e)f\in M. Its range is (1−e)fH=(1−e)(eH+fH)(1-e)fH=(1-e)(eH+fH). The space eH+fHeH+fH is dense in (e∨f)H(e\vee f)H, and on (e∨f)H(e\vee f)H the operator 1−e1-e acts as the projection e∨f−ee\vee f-e. So the range of ww is dense in (e∨f−e)H(e\vee f-e)H, and the left support of ww is e∨f−ee\vee f-e. A vector ξ\xi is in the kernel of ww exactly when fξ∈eHf\xi\in eH, that is, when fξ∈(e∧f)Hf\xi\in(e\wedge f)H. So the kernel of ww is (1−f)H⊕(e∧f)H(1-f)H\oplus(e\wedge f)H, and the right support of ww is f−e∧ff-e\wedge f. If w=u∣w∣w=u|w| is the polar decomposition, u∗uu^*u is the right support and uu∗uu^* the left support, so uu implements the equivalence. □\square

Lemma 1.4 (Four unitaries). Every element of MM is a linear combination of four unitaries of MM. Consequently an element of MM that commutes with every unitary of MM is central.

Proof. If h=h∗h=h^* and ∥h∥≤1\|h\|\leq1, then u=h+i(1−h2)1/2u=h+i(1-h^2)^{1/2} is unitary and h=(u+u∗)/2h=(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 MM, and it lies in M∩M′=ZM\cap M'=\mathcal Z. □\square

Lemma 1.5 (Corners). Let ee be a projection. The center of eMeeMe is Ze\mathcal Ze, and a↦aea\mapsto ae is a ∗*-isomorphism of Zc(e)\mathcal Zc(e) onto Ze\mathcal Ze. Consequently the central projections of eMeeMe are the zeze with zz a central projection of MM, and ee is finite, or properly infinite, exactly when the algebra eMeeMe is.

The same computation of the center of a reduced algebra appears in The double commutation theorem.

Proof. Every aeae with a∈Za\in\mathcal Z is central in eMeeMe, because aa commutes with MM.

Conversely, let yy be central in eMeeMe. Let DD be the span of the vectors xeξxe\xi with x∈Mx\in M and ξ∈H\xi\in H. We want to define an operator YY on DD by Y(∑kxkeξk)=∑kxkyξkY(\sum_kx_ke\xi_k)=\sum_kx_ky\xi_k, and we first show that this is well defined and bounded. Fix finitely many xk∈Mx_k\in M and ξk∈H\xi_k\in H. Let AA be the positive matrix [exl∗xke]l,k[ex_l^*x_ke]_{l,k} over eMeeMe, and let DyD_y be the diagonal matrix with y∗yy^*y in each diagonal place. Since y∗yy^*y is central in eMeeMe, DyD_y is central in the matrix algebra over eMeeMe. So DyD_y commutes with AA and with A1/2A^{1/2}, and ADy=A1/2DyA1/2≤∥y∥2AAD_y=A^{1/2}D_yA^{1/2}\leq\|y\|^2A. With ξ⃗=(eξk)k\vec\xi=(e\xi_k)_k, and using y=eyey=eye, ∥∑kxkyξk∥2=⟨ADyξ⃗,ξ⃗⟩≤∥y∥2⟨Aξ⃗,ξ⃗⟩=∥y∥2∥∑kxkeξk∥2. \Bigl\|\sum_kx_ky\xi_k\Bigr\|^2=\langle AD_y\vec\xi,\vec\xi\rangle\leq\|y\|^2\langle A\vec\xi,\vec\xi\rangle=\|y\|^2\Bigl\|\sum_kx_ke\xi_k\Bigr\|^2 . So YY is well defined and bounded on DD. The closure of DD is c(e)Hc(e)H, because c(e)c(e) is the projection onto [MeH][MeH]. Extend YY by continuity to c(e)Hc(e)H, and by 00 on (1−c(e))H(1-c(e))H.

Now let b∈M′b\in M' and m∈Mm\in M. On DD, YY commutes with bb and with mm: for instance Yb(xeξ)=Y(xe bξ)=xybξ=bxyξ=bY(xeξ)Yb(xe\xi)=Y(xe\,b\xi)=xyb\xi=bxy\xi=bY(xe\xi), and Ym(xeξ)=mxyξ=mY(xeξ)Ym(xe\xi)=mxy\xi=mY(xe\xi). All these operators leave (1−c(e))H(1-c(e))H invariant, since c(e)c(e) is central, and YY vanishes there. So YY commutes with M′M' and with MM, that is, Y∈M∩M′=ZY\in M\cap M'=\mathcal Z. Taking x=1x=1 in the definition gives Yeξ=yξYe\xi=y\xi for all ξ\xi, that is, y=Yey=Ye.

The map a↦aea\mapsto ae is injective on Zc(e)\mathcal Zc(e): if a∈Zc(e)a\in\mathcal Zc(e) and ae=0ae=0, then axeξ=xaeξ=0axe\xi=xae\xi=0, so aa vanishes on c(e)Hc(e)H, and a=0a=0.

For the consequences: a central projection yy of eMeeMe is YeYe with Y∈Zc(e)Y\in\mathcal Zc(e), and since a↦aea\mapsto ae is an injective ∗*-homomorphism, YY is a projection. Finally, finiteness of zeze is the same notion in eMeeMe and in MM, because the projections of eMeeMe and their equivalences are those of MM below ee. □\square

Proposition 1.6 (Three consequences of the type decomposition).

(a) A finite algebra has no parts of type II∞_\infty or III, so M=MzI⊕MzII1M=Mz_{\rm I}\oplus Mz_{{\rm II}_1}, and zI=∑n≥1znz_{\rm I}=\sum_{n\geq1}z_n with znz_n a sum of nn orthogonal abelian projections each of central support znz_n.

(b) For every MM there are central projections zf,z∞z_f,z_\infty with zf+z∞=1z_f+z_\infty=1, MzfMz_f finite and Mz∞Mz_\infty properly infinite (either may be zero).

(c) MM 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 zIIIz_{\rm III} lies below the finite projection 11, so it is finite by Lemma 1.2. The type III part has no nonzero finite projection, so zIII=0z_{\rm III}=0. Likewise zII∞z_{{\rm II}_\infty} is finite, and it is a central projection of the type II∞_\infty part, which has no nonzero finite central projection; so zII∞=0z_{{\rm II}_\infty}=0. The rest is the structure of type I algebras, applied to the finite algebra MzIMz_{\rm I}.

(b) By the type decomposition, 1=e1+e21=e_1+e_2 with e1e_1 finite, e2e_2 properly infinite and c(e1)c(e2)=0c(e_1)c(e_2)=0. Then c(e1)e2=c(e1)c(e2)e2=0c(e_1)e_2=c(e_1)c(e_2)e_2=0, so c(e1)=c(e1)(e1+e2)=e1c(e_1)=c(e_1)(e_1+e_2)=e_1, and e1e_1 is central. Put zf=e1z_f=e_1 and z∞=e2z_\infty=e_2. The algebra Mz∞Mz_\infty is properly infinite by Lemma 1.5.

(c) An abelian projection is finite: if ee is abelian and e∼f≤ee\sim f\leq e through vv, then v=fve∈eMev=fve\in eMe, so v∗v=vv∗v^*v=vv^* and f=ef=e. Let MM be semifinite and z≠0z\neq0 central. If zzI≠0zz_{\rm I}\neq0, the definition of type I gives a nonzero abelian, hence finite, projection below zzIzz_{\rm I}. Otherwise z(zII1+zII∞)=z≠0z(z_{{\rm II}_1}+z_{{\rm II}_\infty})=z\neq0, because zIII=0z_{\rm III}=0, and the definition of type II gives a nonzero finite projection below it. Now let e≠0e\neq0 be a projection. By what we just proved, there is a nonzero finite g≤c(e)g\leq c(e). Since c(g)≤c(e)c(g)\leq c(e), c(g)c(e)=c(g)≠0c(g)c(e)=c(g)\neq0, and the equivalent-pieces fact gives nonzero g′≤gg'\leq g and e′≤ee'\leq e with g′∼e′g'\sim e'. By Lemma 1.2, g′g' is finite, and so is e′e'. Conversely, if each nonzero central projection lies above some nonzero finite projection, then zIII=0z_{\rm III}=0, because the type III part has no nonzero finite projection. □\square

2. Traces and the definition ideal

Definition and first properties

Definition 2.1. A trace on MM is a map τ:M+→[0,∞]\tau:M_+\to[0,\infty] such that, for x,y∈M+x,y\in M_+, λ≥0\lambda\geq0 and z∈Mz\in M, τ(x+y)=τ(x)+τ(y),τ(λx)=λτ(x),τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗).(2.1) \tau(x+y)=\tau(x)+\tau(y),\qquad \tau(\lambda x)=\lambda\tau(x),\qquad \tau(z^*z)=\tau(zz^*). \tag{2.1} It is faithful if τ(x)>0\tau(x)>0 for every nonzero x∈M+x\in M_+; finite if τ(1)<∞\tau(1)<\infty; semifinite if every nonzero x∈M+x\in M_+ majorizes a nonzero y∈M+y\in M_+ with τ(y)<∞\tau(y)<\infty; and normal if τ(xi)↑τ(x)\tau(x_i)\uparrow\tau(x) whenever xi↑xx_i\uparrow x in M+M_+.

A map M+→[0,∞]M_+\to[0,\infty] 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∗)\tau(z^*z)=\tau(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\tau be a trace on MM.

  1. If 0≤x≤y0\leq x\leq y, then τ(x)≤τ(y)\tau(x)\leq\tau(y).
  2. If vv is a partial isometry and x∈M+x\in M_+ satisfies x=(v∗v)x(v∗v)x=(v^*v)x(v^*v), then τ(vxv∗)=τ(x)\tau(vxv^*)=\tau(x). In particular τ(uxu∗)=τ(x)\tau(uxu^*)=\tau(x) for every unitary uu.
  3. If e∼fe\sim f, then τ(e)=τ(f)\tau(e)=\tau(f). If e≾fe\precsim f, then τ(e)≤τ(f)\tau(e)\leq\tau(f).
  4. τ(e)+τ(f)=τ(e∨f)+τ(e∧f)\tau(e)+\tau(f)=\tau(e\vee f)+\tau(e\wedge f) for projections e,fe,f, as an identity in [0,∞][0,\infty].
  5. For a central projection zz, xz≤xxz\leq x for x∈M+x\in M_+, and τz(x)=τ(xz)\tau_z(x)=\tau(xz) defines a trace, which is normal if τ\tau is.
  6. (Finite traces.) If τ\tau is finite, exactly one positive linear functional on MM agrees with τ\tau on M+M_+; we write it τ\tau again, and τ(xy)=τ(yx)\tau(xy)=\tau(yx) for all x,y∈Mx,y\in M. Conversely, a positive linear functional φ\varphi with φ(uxu∗)=φ(x)\varphi(uxu^*)=\varphi(x) for all unitaries uu and all xx, or with φ(z∗z)=φ(zz∗)\varphi(z^*z)=\varphi(zz^*) for all zz, restricts to a finite trace. A finite trace is normal exactly when its extension lies in M∗M_*.

Proof. (1) Since y=x+(y−x)y=x+(y-x) with y−x∈M+y-x\in M_+, additivity gives τ(y)=τ(x)+τ(y−x)≥τ(x)\tau(y)=\tau(x)+\tau(y-x)\geq\tau(x).

(2) Put p=v∗vp=v^*v. Since x=pxpx=pxp, also x1/2=px1/2px^{1/2}=px^{1/2}p, because x1/2x^{1/2} is a norm limit of polynomials in xx without constant term. With z=vx1/2z=vx^{1/2}, (2.1) gives τ(vxv∗)=τ(zz∗)=τ(z∗z)=τ(x1/2px1/2)=τ(x)\tau(vxv^*)=\tau(zz^*)=\tau(z^*z)=\tau(x^{1/2}px^{1/2})=\tau(x).

(3) If v∗v=ev^*v=e and vv∗=fvv^*=f, apply (2) with x=ex=e. The second claim then follows from (1).

(4) Write e∨f=e+(e∨f−e)e\vee f=e+(e\vee f-e) and f=e∧f+(f−e∧f)f=e\wedge f+(f-e\wedge f), with orthogonal summands. By the parallelogram law (Lemma 1.3) and part (3), τ(e∨f−e)=τ(f−e∧f)\tau(e\vee f-e)=\tau(f-e\wedge f). Hence τ(e∨f)+τ(e∧f)=τ(e)+τ(f−e∧f)+τ(e∧f)=τ(e)+τ(f)\tau(e\vee f)+\tau(e\wedge f)=\tau(e)+\tau(f-e\wedge f)+\tau(e\wedge f)=\tau(e)+\tau(f). Only additions occur, so infinite values cause no trouble.

(5) Since zz is central, xz=x1/2zx1/2≤xxz=x^{1/2}zx^{1/2}\leq x. Additivity and homogeneity of τz\tau_z are clear. For w∈Mw\in M, τz(w∗w)=τ((wz)∗(wz))=τ((wz)(wz)∗)=τz(ww∗)\tau_z(w^*w)=\tau((wz)^*(wz))=\tau((wz)(wz)^*)=\tau_z(ww^*). If xi↑xx_i\uparrow x, then xiz↑xzx_iz\uparrow xz.

(6) Every element of MM is a combination of positive elements, and τ(x∗x)≤∥x∥2τ(1)<∞\tau(x^*x)\leq\|x\|^2\tau(1)<\infty. So the definition ideal of Definition 2.3 below is all of MM, and Lemma 2.4(3) gives the extension and τ(xy)=τ(yx)\tau(xy)=\tau(yx) for all x,yx,y. Conversely, if φ(uxu∗)=φ(x)\varphi(uxu^*)=\varphi(x) for all uu and xx, then φ(ux)=φ(u(xu)u∗)=φ(xu)\varphi(ux)=\varphi(u(xu)u^*)=\varphi(xu). Every y∈My\in M is a combination of unitaries (Lemma 1.4), so φ(yx)=φ(xy)\varphi(yx)=\varphi(xy), and in particular φ(z∗z)=φ(zz∗)\varphi(z^*z)=\varphi(zz^*). The last sentence holds because the two notions of normality agree for positive functionals (see "Normal functionals" in the background list). □\square

The definition ideal

Definition 2.3. For a trace τ\tau put Fτ={x∈M+:τ(x)<∞},nτ={x∈M:τ(x∗x)<∞},mτ=span⁡{y∗x:x,y∈nτ}.(2.2) F_\tau=\{x\in M_+:\tau(x)<\infty\},\qquad \mathfrak n_\tau=\{x\in M :\tau(x^*x)<\infty\},\qquad \mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}\{y^*x:x,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau\}. \tag{2.2} We call mτ\mathfrak m_\tau the definition ideal of τ\tau.

Lemma 2.4. Let τ\tau be any trace on MM. No normality, faithfulness or semifiniteness is assumed.

  1. nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is a two-sided ideal with nτ∗=nτ\mathfrak n_\tau^*=\mathfrak n_\tau. mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is a two-sided ideal with mτ∗=mτ\mathfrak m_\tau^*=\mathfrak m_\tau and mτ⊆nτ\mathfrak m_\tau\subseteq\mathfrak n_\tau.
  2. mτ∩M+=Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau\cap M_+=F_\tau and mτ=span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}F_\tau. Every self-adjoint element of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is a−ba-b with a,b∈Fτa,b\in F_\tau.
  3. τ∣Fτ\tau|_{F_\tau} extends uniquely to a linear functional τ˙\dot\tau on mτ\mathfrak m_\tau, and τ˙(x∗)=τ˙(x)‾ (x∈mτ),τ˙(xy)=τ˙(yx) (x,y∈nτ),τ˙(ax)=τ˙(xa) (x∈mτ, a∈M).(2.3) \dot\tau(x^*)=\overline{\dot\tau(x)}\ (x\in\mathfrak m_\tau),\qquad \dot\tau(xy)=\dot\tau(yx)\ (x,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau),\qquad \dot\tau(ax)=\dot\tau(xa)\ (x\in\mathfrak m_\tau,\ a\in M). \tag{2.3}
  4. x∈mτ  ⟺  ∣x∣∈mτ  ⟺  ∣x∗∣∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau\iff|x|\in\mathfrak m_\tau\iff|x^*|\in\mathfrak m_\tau, and x∈nτ  ⟺  ∣x∣∈nτx\in\mathfrak n_\tau\iff|x|\in\mathfrak n_\tau. Every element of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is a single product yzyz with y,z∈nτy,z\in\mathfrak n_\tau, so mτ={yz:y,z∈nτ}\mathfrak m_\tau=\{yz:y,z\in\mathfrak n_\tau\}.

Proof. (1) For x,y∈Mx,y\in M, (x+y)∗(x+y)≤(x+y)∗(x+y)+(x−y)∗(x−y)=2x∗x+2y∗y(x+y)^*(x+y)\leq(x+y)^*(x+y)+(x-y)^*(x-y)=2x^*x+2y^*y, and (ax)∗(ax)=x∗a∗ax≤∥a∥2x∗x(ax)^*(ax)=x^*a^*ax\leq\|a\|^2x^*x. With Proposition 2.2(1) these show that nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is a linear subspace and a left ideal. By (2.1), τ(xx∗)=τ(x∗x)\tau(xx^*)=\tau(x^*x), so nτ∗=nτ\mathfrak n_\tau^*=\mathfrak n_\tau, and nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is also a right ideal. For a∈Ma\in M and x,y∈nτx,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau, a(y∗x)=(ya∗)∗xa(y^*x)=(ya^*)^*x and (y∗x)a=y∗(xa)(y^*x)a=y^*(xa) with ya∗,xa∈nτya^*,xa\in\mathfrak n_\tau, and (y∗x)∗=x∗y(y^*x)^*=x^*y. So mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is a self-adjoint two-sided ideal. Finally y∗∈nτy^*\in\mathfrak n_\tau, so y∗x∈nτy^*x\in\mathfrak n_\tau.

(2) In any ∗*-algebra, 4y∗x=∑k=03ik(x+iky)∗(x+iky),(2.4) 4y^*x=\sum_{k=0}^3i^k(x+i^ky)^*(x+i^ky), \tag{2.4} as one sees by expanding and using ∑kik=∑ki2k=0\sum_ki^k=\sum_ki^{2k}=0. For x,y∈nτx,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau, each x+ikyx+i^ky lies in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau, so each (x+iky)∗(x+iky)(x+i^ky)^*(x+i^ky) lies in FτF_\tau. Hence mτ⊆span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau\subseteq\operatorname{span}F_\tau. If a∈Fτa\in F_\tau, then a1/2∈nτa^{1/2}\in\mathfrak n_\tau and a=(a1/2)∗a1/2∈mτa=(a^{1/2})^*a^{1/2}\in\mathfrak m_\tau. So mτ=span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}F_\tau. If h=∑kckakh=\sum_kc_ka_k is self-adjoint, with ak∈Fτa_k\in F_\tau, then h=(h+h∗)/2=∑k(Re⁡ck)akh=(h+h^*)/2=\sum_k(\operatorname{Re}c_k)a_k. This is a−ba-b, where aa collects the terms with Re⁡ck>0\operatorname{Re}c_k>0 and bb the terms with Re⁡ck<0\operatorname{Re}c_k<0 (with coefficient ∣Re⁡ck∣|\operatorname{Re}c_k|); both lie in FτF_\tau. If moreover h≥0h\geq0, then 0≤h≤a0\leq h\leq a, so τ(h)≤τ(a)<∞\tau(h)\leq\tau(a)<\infty and h∈Fτh\in F_\tau.

(3) If a−b=a′−b′a-b=a'-b' with a,b,a′,b′∈Fτa,b,a',b'\in F_\tau, then a+b′=a′+ba+b'=a'+b, so τ(a)+τ(b′)=τ(a′)+τ(b)\tau(a)+\tau(b')=\tau(a')+\tau(b). All four numbers are finite, so τ(a)−τ(b)=τ(a′)−τ(b′)\tau(a)-\tau(b)=\tau(a')-\tau(b'). Hence τ˙(a−b)=τ(a)−τ(b)\dot\tau(a-b)=\tau(a)-\tau(b) is well defined on the self-adjoint part of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau, and it is additive and real-homogeneous there. Extend it by τ˙(h+ik)=τ˙(h)+iτ˙(k)\dot\tau(h+ik)=\dot\tau(h)+i\dot\tau(k) for self-adjoint h,k∈mτh,k\in\mathfrak m_\tau. The result is linear, agrees with τ\tau on FτF_\tau, satisfies τ˙(x∗)=τ˙(x)‾\dot\tau(x^*)=\overline{\dot\tau(x)}, and is unique because mτ=span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}F_\tau.

For x∈nτx\in\mathfrak n_\tau, (2.1) says τ˙(x∗x)=τ˙(xx∗)\dot\tau(x^*x)=\dot\tau(xx^*). Besides (2.4) there is the mirror identity 4xy∗=∑k=03ik(x+iky)(x+iky)∗.(2.5) 4xy^*=\sum_{k=0}^3i^k(x+i^ky)(x+i^ky)^*. \tag{2.5} For x,y∈nτx,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau, the right sides of (2.4) and (2.5) have equal traces term by term, so τ˙(y∗x)=τ˙(xy∗)\dot\tau(y^*x)=\dot\tau(xy^*). Replacing yy by y∗y^* gives τ˙(yx)=τ˙(xy)\dot\tau(yx)=\dot\tau(xy) for x,y∈nτx,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau. Now let a∈Ma\in M and x,y∈nτx,y\in\mathfrak n_\tau. Since ya∗,xa∈nτya^*,xa\in\mathfrak n_\tau, τ˙(a y∗x)=τ˙((ya∗)∗x)=τ˙(x(ya∗)∗)=τ˙((xa)y∗)=τ˙(y∗(xa))=τ˙(y∗x a). \dot\tau(a\,y^*x)=\dot\tau((ya^*)^*x)=\dot\tau(x(ya^*)^*)=\dot\tau((xa)y^*)=\dot\tau(y^*(xa))=\dot\tau(y^*x\,a). By linearity τ˙(aw)=τ˙(wa)\dot\tau(aw)=\dot\tau(wa) for every w∈mτw\in\mathfrak m_\tau.

(4) Let x=u∣x∣x=u|x| be the polar decomposition. Then ∣x∣=u∗x|x|=u^*x, x=u∣x∣x=u|x|, ∣x∗∣=u∣x∣u∗|x^*|=u|x|u^* and ∣x∣=u∗∣x∗∣u|x|=u^*|x^*|u. Since mτ\mathfrak m_\tau and nτ\mathfrak n_\tau are two-sided ideals, x∈mτ  ⟺  ∣x∣∈mτ  ⟺  ∣x∗∣∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau\iff|x|\in\mathfrak m_\tau\iff|x^*|\in\mathfrak m_\tau. As x∗x=∣x∣∗∣x∣x^*x=|x|^*|x|, x∈nτ  ⟺  ∣x∣∈nτx\in\mathfrak n_\tau\iff|x|\in\mathfrak n_\tau. If x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau, then ∣x∣∈mτ∩M+=Fτ|x|\in\mathfrak m_\tau\cap M_+=F_\tau, so ∣x∣1/2∈nτ|x|^{1/2}\in\mathfrak n_\tau and x=(u∣x∣1/2) ∣x∣1/2x=(u|x|^{1/2})\,|x|^{1/2} with both factors in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau. Conversely yz=(y∗)∗z∈mτyz=(y^*)^*z\in\mathfrak m_\tau for y,z∈nτy,z\in\mathfrak n_\tau. □\square

Remarks. (1) The proof uses only the identities (2.1). From now on we write τ(x)\tau(x) for τ˙(x)\dot\tau(x) when x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau. (2) For a weight φ\varphi, the sets nφ\mathfrak n_\varphi and mφ\mathfrak m_\varphi are defined in the same way, and part (2) and the extension in part (3) still hold. But nφ\mathfrak n_\varphi is only a left ideal, and mφ\mathfrak m_\varphi only a ∗*-subalgebra.

Equivalent forms of semifiniteness

Proposition 2.5. For a trace τ\tau on MM the following are equivalent. Normality is not needed.

Proof. (a)⇒\Rightarrow(b). Let e≠0e\neq0 be a projection and 0≠y≤e0\neq y\leq e with τ(y)<∞\tau(y)<\infty. From 0≤y≤e0\leq y\leq e we get (1−e)y(1−e)≤(1−e)e(1−e)=0(1-e)y(1-e)\leq(1-e)e(1-e)=0, so y1/2(1−e)=0y^{1/2}(1-e)=0. Hence y=eyey=eye and s(y)≤es(y)\leq e. Put f=1[∥y∥/2,∞)(y)f=1_{[\|y\|/2,\infty)}(y). Then 0≠f≤s(y)≤e0\neq f\leq s(y)\leq e and (∥y∥/2)f≤y(\|y\|/2)f\leq y, so τ(f)≤2τ(y)/∥y∥<∞\tau(f)\leq2\tau(y)/\|y\|<\infty.

(b)⇒\Rightarrow(c). By Zorn's lemma choose a maximal family (fk)(f_k) of mutually orthogonal nonzero projections of finite trace. If 1−∑kfk≠01-\sum_kf_k\neq0, (b) gives a nonzero projection of finite trace below it, against maximality. So ∑kfk=1\sum_kf_k=1. The finite partial sums eF=∑k∈Ffke_F=\sum_{k\in F}f_k increase to 11, and τ(eF)=∑k∈Fτ(fk)<∞\tau(e_F)=\sum_{k\in F}\tau(f_k)<\infty.

(c)⇒\Rightarrow(d). Take ai=eia_i=e_i.

(d)⇒\Rightarrow(e). Since ai2≤aia_i^2\leq a_i, each aia_i lies in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau. For x∈Mx\in M, xai∈nτxa_i\in\mathfrak n_\tau, so aixai=ai∗(xai)∈mτa_ixa_i=a_i^*(xa_i)\in\mathfrak m_\tau. Also ∥(aixai−x)ξ∥≤∥x∥ ∥(ai−1)ξ∥+∥(ai−1)xξ∥→0\|(a_ixa_i-x)\xi\|\leq\|x\|\,\|(a_i-1)\xi\|+\|(a_i-1)x\xi\|\to0. So aixai→xa_ixa_i\to x strongly and with bounded norms, hence σ\sigma-weakly.

(e)⇒\Rightarrow(a). Let 0≠x∈M+0\neq x\in M_+. If x1/2ax1/2=0x^{1/2}ax^{1/2}=0 for all a∈Fτa\in F_\tau, then x1/2mτx1/2=0x^{1/2}\mathfrak m_\tau x^{1/2}=0, because mτ=span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}F_\tau by Lemma 2.4(2). The map b↦x1/2bx1/2b\mapsto x^{1/2}bx^{1/2} is σ\sigma-weakly continuous, so (e) gives x1/2Mx1/2=0x^{1/2}Mx^{1/2}=0, and x=x1/2⋅1⋅x1/2=0x=x^{1/2}\cdot1\cdot x^{1/2}=0, a contradiction. So choose a∈Fτa\in F_\tau with x1/2ax1/2≠0x^{1/2}ax^{1/2}\neq0, and put y=∥a∥−1x1/2ax1/2y=\|a\|^{-1}x^{1/2}ax^{1/2}. Then 0≠y≤x0\neq y\leq x. With w=a1/2x1/2w=a^{1/2}x^{1/2}, (2.1) gives τ(x1/2ax1/2)=τ(w∗w)=τ(ww∗)=τ(a1/2xa1/2)≤∥x∥τ(a)<∞\tau(x^{1/2}ax^{1/2})=\tau(w^*w)=\tau(ww^*)=\tau(a^{1/2}xa^{1/2})\leq\|x\|\tau(a)<\infty. □\square

Remarks. (1) For weights, (e) does not imply (a). Let (un)n≥1(u_n)_{n\geq1} be an orthonormal basis of ℓ2(N)\ell^2(\mathbb N), and put φ(a)=∑nn2⟨aun,un⟩\varphi(a)=\sum_nn^2\langle au_n,u_n\rangle for a∈B(ℓ2(N))+a\in B(\ell^2(\mathbb N))_+. This weight is faithful and normal. It satisfies (e): the projections onto the first NN basis vectors have finite weight and increase to 11, and the argument for (d)⇒\Rightarrow(e) applies. Now choose c>0c>0 so that v=∑n(c/n)unv=\sum_n(c/n)u_n is a unit vector, and let qq be the projection onto Cv\mathbb Cv. Every bb with 0≤b≤q0\leq b\leq q is a multiple tqtq with 0≤t≤10\leq t\leq1, and φ(q)=∑nn2(c2/n2)=∞\varphi(q)=\sum_nn^2(c^2/n^2)=\infty. So qq majorizes no nonzero element of finite weight. For traces, the identity τ(z∗z)=τ(zz∗)\tau(z^*z)=\tau(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 zz, "τ\tau is semifinite on MzMz" means that the restriction of τ\tau to (Mz)+(Mz)_+, which is a trace on the von Neumann algebra MzMz, is semifinite.

3. Supports, sums and semifinite parts

Null projections and the support of a normal trace

A weight φ\varphi is normal if φ(xi)↑φ(x)\varphi(x_i)\uparrow\varphi(x) whenever xi↑xx_i\uparrow x. Normal positive functionals and normal traces are examples.

Lemma 3.1. Let φ\varphi be a normal weight on MM, and let Nφ\mathcal N_\varphi be the set of projections ee with φ(e)=0\varphi(e)=0.

  1. Nφ\mathcal N_\varphi is upward directed, and pφ=sup⁡Nφp_\varphi=\sup\mathcal N_\varphi lies in Nφ\mathcal N_\varphi.
  2. φ(x)=0\varphi(x)=0 for every x∈M+x\in M_+ with x=pφxpφx=p_\varphi xp_\varphi.
  3. φ(x)>0\varphi(x)>0 for every nonzero x∈M+x\in M_+ with x=(1−pφ)x(1−pφ)x=(1-p_\varphi)x(1-p_\varphi).
  4. If φ\varphi is a normal positive functional and s=1−pφs=1-p_\varphi, then φ(x)=φ(sxs)\varphi(x)=\varphi(sxs) for all x∈Mx\in M. (This ss is the usual support of φ\varphi.)

Proof. (1) Let e,f∈Nφe,f\in\mathcal N_\varphi. Then φ(e+f)=0\varphi(e+f)=0. For n≥1n\geq1 the projection 1[1/n,∞)(e+f)1_{[1/n,\infty)}(e+f) is at most n(e+f)n(e+f), so it lies in Nφ\mathcal N_\varphi. These projections increase to s(e+f)s(e+f), and normality gives φ(s(e+f))=0\varphi(s(e+f))=0. Moreover s(e+f)=e∨fs(e+f)=e\vee f: since ⟨(e+f)ξ,ξ⟩=∥eξ∥2+∥fξ∥2\langle(e+f)\xi,\xi\rangle=\|e\xi\|^2+\|f\xi\|^2, the kernel of e+fe+f is the intersection of the kernels of ee and ff. So Nφ\mathcal N_\varphi is upward directed. Indexed by itself, it is an increasing net with supremum pφp_\varphi, and normality gives φ(pφ)=0\varphi(p_\varphi)=0.

(2) Such an xx satisfies x≤∥x∥pφx\leq\|x\|p_\varphi, so φ(x)≤∥x∥φ(pφ)=0\varphi(x)\leq\|x\|\varphi(p_\varphi)=0.

(3) If x≠0x\neq0, the projection f=1[∥x∥/2,∞)(x)f=1_{[\|x\|/2,\infty)}(x) is nonzero, f≤s(x)≤1−pφf\leq s(x)\leq1-p_\varphi and (∥x∥/2)f≤x(\|x\|/2)f\leq x. If φ(x)=0\varphi(x)=0, then φ(f)=0\varphi(f)=0, so f≤pφf\leq p_\varphi and f=0f=0, a contradiction.

(4) By Cauchy–Schwarz, ∣φ(x(1−s))∣2≤φ(xx∗)φ(1−s)=0|\varphi(x(1-s))|^2\leq\varphi(xx^*)\varphi(1-s)=0, and in the same way φ((1−s)x)=0\varphi((1-s)x)=0. Hence φ(x)=φ(sx)=φ(sxs)\varphi(x)=\varphi(sx)=\varphi(sxs). □\square

Proposition 3.2. Let τ\tau be a normal trace on MM. Then pτp_\tau is central. Put s(τ)=1−pτs(\tau)=1-p_\tau. Then s(τ)s(\tau) is the unique central projection zz such that τ\tau vanishes on M+(1−z)M_+(1-z) and τ\tau is faithful on MzMz.

Proof. For a unitary uu, τ(upτu∗)=τ(pτ)=0\tau(up_\tau u^*)=\tau(p_\tau)=0 by Proposition 2.2(2). Since pτp_\tau is the largest projection of trace 00, upτu∗≤pτup_\tau u^*\leq p_\tau. Applying this to u∗u^* gives equality. So pτp_\tau 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)z=s(\tau). If z′z' is another central projection with these properties, then τ(1−z′)=0\tau(1-z')=0, so 1−z′≤pτ1-z'\leq p_\tau. Also pτz′p_\tau z' is a projection in Mz′Mz' with τ(pτz′)≤τ(pτ)=0\tau(p_\tau z')\leq\tau(p_\tau)=0, so pτz′=0p_\tau z'=0 and pτ≤1−z′p_\tau\leq1-z'. Thus z′=s(τ)z'=s(\tau). □\square

Definition 3.3. s(τ)s(\tau) is the support of the normal trace τ\tau.

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, pφp_\varphi need not be central: for a unit vector ξ\xi and φ=⟨ ⋅ ξ,ξ⟩\varphi=\langle\,\cdot\,\xi,\xi\rangle on B(H)B(H) with dim⁡H≥2\dim H\geq2, pφp_\varphi is the projection onto ξ⊥\xi^\perp. (4) For a normal trace, τ(x)=τ(xs(τ))\tau(x)=\tau(xs(\tau)) for every x∈M+x\in M_+.

Example 3.4 (A finite trace that is not normal). Let ω\omega be a free ultrafilter on N\mathbb N, and on M=ℓ∞(N)M=\ell^\infty(\mathbb N), acting on ℓ2(N)\ell^2(\mathbb N), put τ(f)=lim⁡ωf(n)\tau(f)=\lim_\omega f(n). This is a finite trace, since MM is commutative. It vanishes on every 1F1_F with FF finite; these projections increase to 11, while τ(1)=1\tau(1)=1. So τ\tau is not normal. Its null projections are the 1A1_A with A∉ωA\notin\omega, and their supremum is 11, which is not null. No central projection zz has the two properties of Proposition 3.2: faithfulness on MzMz fails if z≠0z\neq0, since a free ultrafilter contains no singleton, and z=0z=0 would force τ=0\tau=0. So Proposition 3.2 fails without normality. Looking ahead: here Z=M\mathcal 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\tau|_{\mathcal Z}=\tau is not normal.

Sums of traces

Proposition 3.5 (Sums of normal traces). Let (τi)i∈I(\tau_i)_{i\in I} be normal traces on MM, and put τ(x)=∑iτi(x)\tau(x)=\sum_i\tau_i(x) for x∈M+x\in M_+.

  1. τ\tau is a normal trace, and s(τ)=⋁is(τi)s(\tau)=\bigvee_is(\tau_i).
  2. Suppose each τi\tau_i is semifinite, and every nonzero central projection qq majorizes a nonzero central projection q′q' with q′s(τi)≠0q's(\tau_i)\neq0 for only finitely many ii. Then τ\tau is semifinite. The condition holds when II is finite, and when the supports s(τi)s(\tau_i) are mutually orthogonal.
  3. Without such a condition τ\tau can fail to be semifinite (Example 3.6).

Proof. (1) The identities (2.1) hold term by term. Let xα↑xx_\alpha\uparrow x. For a finite set F⊆IF\subseteq I, sup⁡α∑i∈Fτi(xα)=∑i∈Fτi(x)\sup_\alpha\sum_{i\in F}\tau_i(x_\alpha)=\sum_{i\in F}\tau_i(x), because finitely many increasing nets over one directed set can be added. Taking the supremum over FF on both sides, and exchanging the two suprema on the left, gives τ(xα)↑τ(x)\tau(x_\alpha)\uparrow\tau(x). For a projection ee, τ(e)=0\tau(e)=0 exactly when τi(e)=0\tau_i(e)=0 for all ii, that is, when e≤1−s(τi)e\leq1-s(\tau_i) for all ii, that is, when e≤1−⋁is(τi)e\leq1-\bigvee_is(\tau_i). So pτ=1−⋁is(τi)p_\tau=1-\bigvee_is(\tau_i).

(2) Let 0≠x∈M+0\neq x\in M_+ and q=c(x)q=c(x). Choose q′q' as in the hypothesis, and let F={i:q′s(τi)≠0}F=\{i:q's(\tau_i)\neq0\}, a finite set. Since 0≠q′≤c(x)0\neq q'\leq c(x), xq′≠0xq'\neq0, and xq′≤xxq'\leq x by Proposition 2.2(5). For i∉Fi\notin F, τi\tau_i vanishes on (Mq′)+(Mq')_+, because y≤∥y∥q′≤∥y∥(1−s(τi))y\leq\|y\|q'\leq\|y\|(1-s(\tau_i)) there. If FF is empty, y=xq′y=xq' has τ(y)=0\tau(y)=0. Otherwise write F={i1,…,im}F=\{i_1,\dots,i_m\}. Semifiniteness of τi1\tau_{i_1} gives 0≠y1≤xq′0\neq y_1\leq xq' with τi1(y1)<∞\tau_{i_1}(y_1)<\infty; semifiniteness of τi2\tau_{i_2} gives 0≠y2≤y10\neq y_2\leq y_1 with τi2(y2)<∞\tau_{i_2}(y_2)<\infty; and so on. Put y=ymy=y_m. Then 0≠y≤x0\neq y\leq x, y∈(Mq′)+y\in(Mq')_+, τik(y)≤τik(yk)<∞\tau_{i_k}(y)\leq\tau_{i_k}(y_k)<\infty for each kk, and τi(y)=0\tau_i(y)=0 for i∉Fi\notin F. So τ(y)<∞\tau(y)<\infty. For finite II take q′=qq'=q. For orthogonal supports, take q′=qs(τi)q'=qs(\tau_i) if this is nonzero for some ii (then q′s(τj)=0q's(\tau_j)=0 for j≠ij\neq i), and q′=qq'=q otherwise. □\square

Example 3.6 (A sum of semifinite traces that is not semifinite). On M=CM=\mathbb C, let τn(t)=t\tau_n(t)=t for n∈Nn\in\mathbb N. Each τn\tau_n is finite, hence semifinite, but ∑nτn(t)=∞\sum_n\tau_n(t)=\infty for t>0t>0, so the sum is not semifinite. All supports equal 11, 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\tau be any trace on MM; normality is not needed. There is a unique central projection zz such that τ\tau is semifinite on MzMz and τ(x)=∞\tau(x)=\infty for every nonzero x∈M+(1−z)x\in M_+(1-z). The σ\sigma-weak closures of nτ\mathfrak n_\tau and of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau are both MzMz. Moreover, the elements ea=a(1+a)−1e_a=a(1+a)^{-1} (a∈Fτa\in F_\tau) form an increasing net of positive contractions in FτF_\tau with ea↑ze_a\uparrow z.

Reference: [Takesaki I, Lemma V.2.13], for a normal trace. Its proof takes an increasing net in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau that converges to zz; Remark 3.8 shows that such a net does not suffice.

Proof. With the notation of (2.2), nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is a two-sided ideal by Lemma 2.4(1). Multiplication by a fixed element is σ\sigma-weakly continuous, so the σ\sigma-weak closure of nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is again a two-sided ideal, now closed. By the description of σ\sigma-weakly closed ideals, it equals MzMz for a unique central projection zz.

Order FτF_\tau by the operator order. It is directed, since a+ba+b is an upper bound of aa and bb. The map a↦ea=1−(1+a)−1a\mapsto e_a=1-(1+a)^{-1} is increasing, because inversion reverses the order of invertible positive operators. Also 0≤ea≤10\leq e_a\leq1 and ea≤ae_a\leq a, so ea∈Fτe_a\in F_\tau. Let p=sup⁡aeap=\sup_ae_a.

p≤zp\leq z: for a∈Fτa\in F_\tau, a1/2∈nτ⊆Mza^{1/2}\in\mathfrak n_\tau\subseteq Mz, so a=aza=az and ea≤s(a)≤ze_a\leq s(a)\leq z.

z≤pz\leq p: let x∈nτx\in\mathfrak n_\tau and b=x∗x∈Fτb=x^*x\in F_\tau. For t>0t>0, tb∈Fτtb\in F_\tau, and etb=tb(1+tb)−1↑s(b)e_{tb}=tb(1+tb)^{-1}\uparrow s(b) as t→∞t\to\infty, by the spectral theorem. So s(b)≤ps(b)\leq p. The right support of xx is s(x∗x)=s(b)s(x^*x)=s(b), so xp=xxp=x. Thus nτ⊆Mp\mathfrak n_\tau\subseteq Mp. As MpMp is σ\sigma-weakly closed, Mz⊆MpMz\subseteq Mp, and z≤pz\leq p.

Semifinite on MzMz: let 0≠x∈(Mz)+0\neq x\in(Mz)_+. Since ea↑ze_a\uparrow z strongly and x1/2z=x1/2x^{1/2}z=x^{1/2}, x1/2eax1/2→xx^{1/2}e_ax^{1/2}\to x strongly, so some y=x1/2eax1/2y=x^{1/2}e_ax^{1/2} is nonzero. Then y≤xy\leq x, since ea≤1e_a\leq1. With w=ea1/2x1/2w=e_a^{1/2}x^{1/2}, (2.1) gives τ(y)=τ(w∗w)=τ(ww∗)=τ(ea1/2xea1/2)≤∥x∥τ(ea)<∞\tau(y)=\tau(w^*w)=\tau(ww^*)=\tau(e_a^{1/2}xe_a^{1/2})\leq\|x\|\tau(e_a)<\infty.

Infinite on M+(1−z)M_+(1-z): if x∈M+(1−z)x\in M_+(1-z) and τ(x)<∞\tau(x)<\infty, then x∈Fτx\in F_\tau, so x=xzx=xz as shown above; together with x=x(1−z)x=x(1-z) this gives x=0x=0.

Closure of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau: mτ⊆nτ⊆Mz\mathfrak m_\tau\subseteq\mathfrak n_\tau\subseteq Mz, and for x∈Mzx\in Mz, eaxea∈mτe_axe_a\in\mathfrak m_\tau tends to zxz=xzxz=x, as in the proof of (d)⇒\Rightarrow(e) in Proposition 2.5.

Uniqueness: let z′z' be another such projection. A nonzero x∈(Mz(1−z′))+x\in(Mz(1-z'))_+ would majorize, by semifiniteness on MzMz, a nonzero yy of finite trace, and y∈M+(1−z′)y\in M_+(1-z') contradicts the choice of z′z'. So z(1−z′)=0z(1-z')=0, and by symmetry z=z′z=z'. □\square

Remark 3.8. The net (ea)(e_a) lies inside FτF_\tau on purpose. Let (ei)(e_i) be an increasing net of positive elements of nτ\mathfrak n_\tau that converges strongly to zz, and let x∈(Mz)+x\in(Mz)_+. Then eix1/2∈nτe_ix^{1/2}\in\mathfrak n_\tau gives only τ(x1/2ei2x1/2)<∞\tau(x^{1/2}e_i^2x^{1/2})<\infty, not τ(x1/2eix1/2)<∞\tau(x^{1/2}e_ix^{1/2})<\infty, and the second can fail. In B(ℓ2(N))B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)) with the usual trace, the diagonal operators un=diag⁡(1,…,1,1n+1,1n+2,… )u_n=\operatorname{diag}(1,\dots,1,\tfrac1{n+1},\tfrac1{n+2},\dots) (nn ones) are positive, lie in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau, increase and converge strongly to 1=z1=z, but τ(un)=∞\tau(u_n)=\infty; take x=1x=1. With such a net one can still use x1/2ei2x1/2x^{1/2}e_i^2x^{1/2}, which is ≤x\leq x and nonzero for some ii.

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≤⋯e_1\leq e_2\leq\cdots be finite projections and ff a projection with en≾fe_n\precsim f for all nn. Then e=⋁nen≾fe=\bigvee_ne_n\precsim f.

Proof. Put p0=e1p_0=e_1 and pn=en+1−enp_n=e_{n+1}-e_n for n≥1n\geq1. These are mutually orthogonal, and ∑n≥0pn=e\sum_{n\geq0}p_n=e strongly. We construct mutually orthogonal projections q0,q1,…≤fq_0,q_1,\ldots\leq f with qn∼pnq_n\sim p_n; then e≾fe\precsim f by Lemma 1.1.

Choose q0≤fq_0\leq f with q0∼p0=e1q_0\sim p_0=e_1. Suppose q0,…,qn−1q_0,\dots,q_{n-1} are chosen (n≥1n\geq1). Put fn=q0+⋯+qn−1f_n=q_0+\cdots+q_{n-1}. By Lemma 1.1, fn∼p0+⋯+pn−1=enf_n\sim p_0+\cdots+p_{n-1}=e_n, so fnf_n is finite by Lemma 1.2. Choose a partial isometry ww with w∗w=en+1w^*w=e_{n+1} and ww∗≤fww^*\leq f, and put fn+1′=ww∗f'_{n+1}=ww^* and fn′=wenw∗f'_n=we_nw^*. Then fn′≤fn+1′≤ff'_n\leq f'_{n+1}\leq f, fn′∼en∼fnf'_n\sim e_n\sim f_n (through wenwe_n), and fn+1′−fn′=wpnw∗∼pnf'_{n+1}-f'_n=wp_nw^*\sim p_n (through wpnwp_n). In the corner fMffMf, the projections fnf_n and fn′f'_n are finite and equivalent. So the complement theorem for equivalent finite projections, applied in fMffMf, gives f−fn∼f−fn′f-f_n\sim f-f'_n. Let vv be a partial isometry with v∗v=f−fn′v^*v=f-f'_n and vv∗=f−fnvv^*=f-f_n, and put qn=v(fn+1′−fn′)v∗q_n=v(f'_{n+1}-f'_n)v^*. Since fn+1′−fn′≤f−fn′f'_{n+1}-f'_n\leq f-f'_n, qnq_n is a projection below f−fnf-f_n, orthogonal to q0,…,qn−1q_0,\dots,q_{n-1}, and qn∼fn+1′−fn′∼pnq_n\sim f'_{n+1}-f'_n\sim p_n. □\square

Theorem 4.2 (Finiteness is not needed). Let e1≤e2≤⋯e_1\leq e_2\leq\cdots be any projections and ff a projection with en≾fe_n\precsim f for all nn. Then ⋁nen≾f\bigvee_ne_n\precsim f.

Reference: [Takesaki I, Lemma V.2.2] assumes the ene_n finite; that case is Lemma 4.1.

Proof. By the type decomposition, f=f1+f2f=f_1+f_2 with f1f_1 finite, f2f_2 properly infinite (either may be zero) and c(f1)c(f2)=0c(f_1)c(f_2)=0. Put c=c(f1)c=c(f_1). Then fc=f1fc=f_1 and f(1−c)=f2f(1-c)=f_2. Let e=⋁nene=\bigvee_ne_n and let pnp_n be as in the proof of Lemma 4.1.

On cc: by Lemma 1.2, enc≾fc=f1e_nc\precsim fc=f_1, so each ence_nc is finite, and the ence_nc increase to ecec. Lemma 4.1 gives ec≾f1ec\precsim f_1.

On 1−c1-c: if f2=0f_2=0, then en(1−c)=0e_n(1-c)=0 for all nn and e(1−c)=0e(1-c)=0. Otherwise f2f_2 is properly infinite, and so is the algebra f2Mf2f_2Mf_2 by Lemma 1.5. Halving the properly infinite algebra f2Mf2f_2Mf_2 gives g1≤f2g_1\leq f_2 with g1∼f2−g1∼f2g_1\sim f_2-g_1\sim f_2. The projection r1=f2−g1r_1=f_2-g_1 is equivalent to f2f_2, hence properly infinite by Lemma 1.2, so halving in r1Mr1r_1Mr_1 gives g2≤r1g_2\leq r_1 with g2∼r1−g2∼r1∼f2g_2\sim r_1-g_2\sim r_1\sim f_2. Continuing, we get mutually orthogonal g1,g2,…≤f2g_1,g_2,\ldots\leq f_2, each equivalent to f2f_2. Now pn(1−c)≤en+1(1−c)≾f2∼gn+1p_n(1-c)\leq e_{n+1}(1-c)\precsim f_2\sim g_{n+1}, so pn(1−c)≾gn+1p_n(1-c)\precsim g_{n+1}, and Lemma 1.1 gives e(1−c)=∑npn(1−c)≾∑ngn+1≤f2e(1-c)=\sum_np_n(1-c)\precsim\sum_ng_{n+1}\leq f_2.

Adding the two central pieces with Lemma 1.1 gives e≾fc+f(1−c)=fe\precsim fc+f(1-c)=f. □\square

Remark. The index set must be countable, even for finite projections: see Example 4.3.

Example 4.3 (Countability is needed). Let HH have an orthonormal basis (εγ)γ∈Γ(\varepsilon_\gamma)_{\gamma\in\Gamma} with ∣Γ∣=ℵ1|\Gamma|=\aleph_1, M=B(H)M=B(H), and ff the projection onto the closed span of countably infinitely many basis vectors. For finite F⊆ΓF\subseteq\Gamma let eFe_F be the projection onto the span of {εγ:γ∈F}\{\varepsilon_\gamma:\gamma\in F\}. The eFe_F form an increasing net of finite projections, each ≾f\precsim f, with supremum 11. But 1≾f1\precsim f would give an isometry of HH into fHfH, which is impossible because HH has Hilbert dimension ℵ1\aleph_1 and fHfH has dimension ℵ0\aleph_0. 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 MM be finite, let (en)n≥1(e_n)_{n\geq1} be mutually orthogonal projections, and let fn∼enf_n\sim e_n. Then fn→0f_n\to0 σ\sigma-strongly.

Proof. Step 1. If p1≾q1p_1\precsim q_1, p2≾q2p_2\precsim q_2 and q1q2=0q_1q_2=0, then p1∨p2≾q1+q2p_1\vee p_2\precsim q_1+q_2. Indeed, by the parallelogram law (Lemma 1.3), p1∨p2−p2∼p1−p1∧p2≤p1≾q1p_1\vee p_2-p_2\sim p_1-p_1\wedge p_2\leq p_1\precsim q_1, and p1∨p2=(p1∨p2−p2)+p2p_1\vee p_2=(p_1\vee p_2-p_2)+p_2; apply Lemma 1.1.

Step 2. By induction, fm∨⋯∨fn≾em+⋯+enf_m\vee\cdots\vee f_n\precsim e_m+\cdots+e_n for m≤nm\leq n. For fixed mm these projections increase in nn and are finite, since MM is. Lemma 4.1 gives Pm:=⋁k≥mfk≾∑k≥mekP_m:=\bigvee_{k\geq m}f_k\precsim\sum_{k\geq m}e_k.

Step 3. Put e0=1−∑k≥1eke_0=1-\sum_{k\geq1}e_k. If Pm∼P′≤∑k≥mekP_m\sim P'\leq\sum_{k\geq m}e_k, the complement theorem for equivalent finite projections gives 1−Pm∼1−P′≥1−∑k≥mek=e0+e1+⋯+em−11-P_m\sim1-P'\geq1-\sum_{k\geq m}e_k=e_0+e_1+\cdots+e_{m-1}.

Step 4. The PmP_m decrease; let P=⋀mPmP=\bigwedge_mP_m. Then e0+⋯+em−1≾1−Pm≤1−Pe_0+\cdots+e_{m-1}\precsim1-P_m\leq1-P for all mm. These projections increase to 11, so Lemma 4.1 gives 1≾1−P1\precsim1-P. As MM is finite, 1−P=11-P=1 and P=0P=0.

Step 5. 0≤fm≤Pm↓00\leq f_m\leq P_m\downarrow0. For vectors ξk\xi_k with ∑k∥ξk∥2<∞\sum_k\|\xi_k\|^2<\infty, ∑k∥fmξk∥2=∑k⟨fmξk,ξk⟩≤∑k⟨Pmξk,ξk⟩→0\sum_k\|f_m\xi_k\|^2=\sum_k\langle f_m\xi_k,\xi_k\rangle\leq\sum_k\langle P_m\xi_k,\xi_k\rangle\to0 by dominated convergence. □\square

Theorem 4.5 (Only ∑nen\sum_ne_n needs to be finite). Let MM be any von Neumann algebra, (en)(e_n) mutually orthogonal projections whose sum ee is finite, and fn∼enf_n\sim e_n. Then fn→0f_n\to0 σ\sigma-strongly.

Proof. Steps 1 and 2 of the proof of Lemma 4.4 do not use finiteness of MM. They give f1∨⋯∨fn≾e1+⋯+en≤ef_1\vee\cdots\vee f_n\precsim e_1+\cdots+e_n\leq e, so these projections are finite by Lemma 1.2, and Lemma 4.1 gives g:=⋁nfn≾eg:=\bigvee_nf_n\precsim e. So gg is finite, and h:=e∨gh:=e\vee g is finite because finite projections form a lattice. The finite algebra hMhhMh contains every ene_n, every fnf_n, and the partial isometries vn=fnvnenv_n=f_nv_ne_n that implement en∼fne_n\sim f_n. Apply Lemma 4.4 in hMhhMh. □\square

Remark. Finiteness of ∑nen\sum_ne_n cannot be dropped: see Example 4.6.

Example 4.6 (The sum must be finite). In B(ℓ2(N))B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)), with orthonormal basis (εn)(\varepsilon_n), let ene_n be the projection onto Cεn\mathbb C\varepsilon_n and fn=e1f_n=e_1 for every nn. The ene_n are orthogonal and fn∼enf_n\sim e_n, but fnf_n does not tend to 00. Here ∑nen=1\sum_ne_n=1 is infinite.

Separating families of finite normal traces

A family of traces separates M+M_+ if every nonzero x∈M+x\in M_+ has τ(x)≠0\tau(x)\neq0 for some member τ\tau. One also says that there are sufficiently many traces in the family.

Theorem 4.7. For a von Neumann algebra MM the following are equivalent:

Moreover, let MM be finite and φ∈M∗+\varphi\in M_*^+. Then the norm-closed convex hull KφK_\varphi of {φ(u∗⋅u):u∈U(M)}\{\varphi(u^*\cdot u):u\in\mathcal U(M)\} contains a finite normal trace τφ\tau_\varphi, and τφ=φ\tau_\varphi=\varphi on Z\mathcal Z.

Reference: [Yeadon 1971].

Proof. (ii)⇒\Rightarrow(iii) is trivial. (iii)⇒\Rightarrow(i): let u∗u=1u^*u=1. For every finite trace τ\tau, τ(uu∗)=τ(u∗u)=τ(1)\tau(uu^*)=\tau(u^*u)=\tau(1), so τ(1−uu∗)=0\tau(1-uu^*)=0. As 1−uu∗≥01-uu^*\geq0, separation gives uu∗=1uu^*=1. So 1∼f≤11\sim f\leq1 forces f=1f=1, which is finiteness.

(i)⇒\Rightarrow(ii). Let MM be finite and φ∈M∗+\varphi\in M_*^+. For a unitary uu and ψ∈M∗\psi\in M_* write (u⋅ψ)(x)=ψ(u∗xu)(u\cdot\psi)(x)=\psi(u^*xu). Then u⋅(v⋅ψ)=(uv)⋅ψu\cdot(v\cdot\psi)=(uv)\cdot\psi, each map ψ↦u⋅ψ\psi\mapsto u\cdot\psi is a linear isometry of M∗M_* onto itself, and it preserves M∗+M_*^+. Let Qφ={u⋅φ:u∈U(M)}Q_\varphi=\{u\cdot\varphi:u\in\mathcal U(M)\} and let KφK_\varphi be its norm-closed convex hull. Then Kφ⊆M∗+K_\varphi\subseteq M_*^+, every u⋅u\cdot maps KφK_\varphi into itself, and ∥ψ∥=ψ(1)=φ(1)\|\psi\|=\psi(1)=\varphi(1) on KφK_\varphi.

Step 1 (uniform smallness). For every sequence (en)(e_n) of mutually orthogonal projections, sup⁡ψ∈Kφψ(en)→0\sup_{\psi\in K_\varphi}\psi(e_n)\to0. It suffices to prove this for ψ∈Qφ\psi\in Q_\varphi: the supremum over convex combinations is the same, and a norm limit changes ψ(en)\psi(e_n) by at most the norm distance. Suppose instead that δ>0\delta>0, indices n1<n2<⋯n_1<n_2<\cdots and unitaries uku_k satisfy φ(uk∗enkuk)≥δ\varphi(u_k^*e_{n_k}u_k)\geq\delta. The projection fk=uk∗enkukf_k=u_k^*e_{n_k}u_k is equivalent to enke_{n_k} through enkuke_{n_k}u_k, and the enke_{n_k} are mutually orthogonal. Since MM is finite, Lemma 4.4 gives fk→0f_k\to0 σ\sigma-strongly, so φ(fk)→0\varphi(f_k)\to0, a contradiction.

Step 2 (weak compactness). Let pn↓0p_n\downarrow0 be projections. We claim sup⁡ψ∈Kφψ(pn)→0\sup_{\psi\in K_\varphi}\psi(p_n)\to0. These suprema decrease in nn. If they stayed at least δ>0\delta>0, choose ψ1∈Kφ\psi_1\in K_\varphi and n1n_1 with ψ1(pn1)>δ/2\psi_1(p_{n_1})>\delta/2; normality of ψ1\psi_1 gives n2>n1n_2>n_1 with ψ1(pn2)<δ/4\psi_1(p_{n_2})<\delta/4. Choose ψ2∈Kφ\psi_2\in K_\varphi with ψ2(pn2)>δ/2\psi_2(p_{n_2})>\delta/2 and n3>n2n_3>n_2 with ψ2(pn3)<δ/4\psi_2(p_{n_3})<\delta/4; and so on. The projections ek=pnk−pnk+1e_k=p_{n_k}-p_{n_{k+1}} are mutually orthogonal and ψk(ek)>δ/4\psi_k(e_k)>\delta/4, against Step 1. Since KφK_\varphi is bounded, Akemann's criterion shows that KφK_\varphi is relatively σ(M∗,M)\sigma(M_*,M)-compact. It is norm closed and convex, hence weakly closed by Mazur's theorem, and the weak topology of M∗M_* is σ(M∗,M)\sigma(M_*,M) because (M∗)∗=M(M_*)^*=M. So KφK_\varphi is σ(M∗,M)\sigma(M_*,M)-compact.

Step 3 (fixed point). The maps ψ↦u⋅ψ\psi\mapsto u\cdot\psi form a group of linear isometries of M∗M_* that leave the weakly compact convex set KφK_\varphi invariant. By the fixed point theorem of Ryll-Nardzewski there is τφ∈Kφ\tau_\varphi\in K_\varphi with u⋅τφ=τφu\cdot\tau_\varphi=\tau_\varphi for every unitary uu.

Step 4 (τφ\tau_\varphi is a trace). τφ\tau_\varphi is a normal positive functional with τφ(u∗xu)=τφ(x)\tau_\varphi(u^*xu)=\tau_\varphi(x) for all uu and xx. By Proposition 2.2(6) it is a finite normal trace. For a∈Za\in\mathcal Z, (u⋅ψ)(a)=ψ(a)(u\cdot\psi)(a)=\psi(a); this passes to convex combinations and norm limits, so τφ(a)=φ(a)\tau_\varphi(a)=\varphi(a).

Step 5 (separation). Let 0≠x∈M+0\neq x\in M_+. Choose ξ\xi with xξ≠0x\xi\neq0, put η=xξ\eta=x\xi and φ=⟨ ⋅ η,η⟩∈M∗+\varphi=\langle\,\cdot\,\eta,\eta\rangle\in M_*^+, and let s=s(τφ)s=s(\tau_\varphi), a central projection by Proposition 3.2. Since τφ(1−s)=0\tau_\varphi(1-s)=0 and 1−s∈Z1-s\in\mathcal Z, Step 4 gives ∥(1−s)η∥2=φ(1−s)=0\|(1-s)\eta\|^2=\varphi(1-s)=0. So sxξ=xξ≠0sx\xi=x\xi\neq0, and sx=x1/2sx1/2sx=x^{1/2}sx^{1/2} is a nonzero positive element of MsMs, where τφ\tau_\varphi is faithful. Hence τφ(x)≥τφ(sx)>0\tau_\varphi(x)\geq\tau_\varphi(sx)>0. □\square

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\psi\in K_\varphi has the same norm φ(1)\varphi(1), and that argument would need a unitarily invariant strictly convex norm on M∗M_*, which is not at hand before a trace exists.

5. The center-valued trace

Construction of the center-valued trace

For x∈Mx\in M let K(x)=the σ-weakly closed convex hull of {uxu∗:u∈U(M)}.(5.1) K(x)=\text{the }\sigma\text{-weakly closed convex hull of }\{uxu^*:u\in\mathcal U(M)\}. \tag{5.1}

Lemma 5.1 (Averaging with a faithful trace). Let τ\tau be a faithful normal finite trace on MM, extended to MM as in Proposition 2.2(6). For each x∈Mx\in M, with K(x)K(x) as in (5.1):

  1. K(x)K(x) is σ\sigma-weakly compact, lies in the ball of radius ∥x∥\|x\|, and uK(x)u∗=K(x)uK(x)u^*=K(x) for every unitary uu.
  2. τ(ay)=τ(ax)\tau(ay)=\tau(ax) for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z and y∈K(x)y\in K(x).
  3. K(x)∩ZK(x)\cap\mathcal Z has exactly one element, T(x)T(x). It is the only z∈Zz\in\mathcal Z with τ(az)=τ(ax)\tau(az)=\tau(ax) for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z.

Proof. (1) The ball of radius ∥x∥\|x\| is convex, σ\sigma-weakly compact, and contains the unitary orbit of xx, so it contains K(x)K(x) as a closed subset. The map y↦uyu∗y\mapsto uyu^* is affine, σ\sigma-weakly continuous and maps the orbit onto itself, so it maps K(x)K(x) onto K(x)K(x).

(2) By Proposition 2.2(6), τ∈M∗\tau\in M_*, so y↦τ(ay)y\mapsto\tau(ay) is σ\sigma-weakly continuous and linear. On the orbit, τ(auxu∗)=τ(u(ax)u∗)=τ(ax)\tau(auxu^*)=\tau(u(ax)u^*)=\tau(ax), since aa is central and τ(uwu∗)=τ(w)\tau(uwu^*)=\tau(w) for all w∈Mw\in M (Proposition 2.2(2) and linearity). So this functional is constant on K(x)K(x).

(3) Put N(y)=τ(y∗y)N(y)=\tau(y^*y). It comes from the positive sesquilinear form (y1,y2)↦τ(y2∗y1)(y_1,y_2)\mapsto\tau(y_2^*y_1), so it satisfies the parallelogram identity N(y1+y2)+N(y1−y2)=2N(y1)+2N(y2)N(y_1+y_2)+N(y_1-y_2)=2N(y_1)+2N(y_2).

NN is σ\sigma-weakly lower semicontinuous on bounded sets. Indeed, let yi→yy_i\to y σ\sigma-weakly with bounded norms. The functional y′↦τ(y∗y′)y'\mapsto\tau(y^*y') lies in M∗M_*, so τ(y∗yi)→N(y)\tau(y^*y_i)\to N(y), and ∣τ(y∗yi)∣≤N(y)1/2N(yi)1/2|\tau(y^*y_i)|\leq N(y)^{1/2}N(y_i)^{1/2} by Cauchy–Schwarz. Hence N(y)≤N(y)1/2lim inf⁡iN(yi)1/2N(y)\leq N(y)^{1/2}\liminf_iN(y_i)^{1/2}, that is, N(y)≤lim inf⁡iN(yi)N(y)\leq\liminf_iN(y_i).

A minimizer exists. Let μ=inf⁡K(x)N\mu=\inf_{K(x)}N. The sets {y∈K(x):N(y)≤μ+1/k}\{y\in K(x):N(y)\leq\mu+1/k\} are nonempty, σ\sigma-weakly closed by lower semicontinuity, and decreasing. By compactness they have a common point y0y_0, and N(y0)=μN(y_0)=\mu.

It is unique. If y1,y2∈K(x)y_1,y_2\in K(x) both give μ\mu, then (y1+y2)/2∈K(x)(y_1+y_2)/2\in K(x), and the parallelogram identity gives N((y1+y2)/2)=μ−N(y1−y2)/4N((y_1+y_2)/2)=\mu-N(y_1-y_2)/4. So N(y1−y2)=0N(y_1-y_2)=0, and y1=y2y_1=y_2 by faithfulness.

It is central. N(uyu∗)=τ(uy∗yu∗)=N(y)N(uyu^*)=\tau(uy^*yu^*)=N(y), and uK(x)u∗=K(x)uK(x)u^*=K(x). So uy0u∗uy_0u^* is also a minimizer, hence uy0u∗=y0uy_0u^*=y_0 for every unitary uu. By Lemma 1.4, y0∈Zy_0\in\mathcal Z.

Finally, if z∈Zz\in\mathcal Z satisfies τ(az)=τ(ax)\tau(az)=\tau(ax) for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z (by (2) this holds for every z∈K(x)∩Zz\in K(x)\cap\mathcal Z), then τ(a(z−y0))=0\tau(a(z-y_0))=0 for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z. With a=(z−y0)∗a=(z-y_0)^*, faithfulness gives z=y0z=y_0. □\square

Theorem 5.2 (The center-valued trace). For a von Neumann algebra MM the following are equivalent:

If MM is finite, one such TT is normal and σ\sigma-weakly continuous, satisfies ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥\|T(x)\|\leq\|x\| and T(a)=aT(a)=a for a∈Za\in\mathcal Z (so it maps onto Z\mathcal Z), and has T(x)∈K(x)T(x)\in K(x) for every xx. For (ii)⇒\Rightarrow(i), properties (a) and (d) suffice. Theorem 5.5 shows that TT is unique, even among linear maps with only (a), (b), (c).

Proof. (ii)⇒\Rightarrow(i): if u∗u=1u^*u=1, then T(1−uu∗)=T(u∗u)−T(uu∗)=0T(1-uu^*)=T(u^*u)-T(uu^*)=0 by (a). Since 1−uu∗=(1−uu∗)∗(1−uu∗)1-uu^*=(1-uu^*)^*(1-uu^*), (d) gives uu∗=1uu^*=1.

(i)⇒\Rightarrow(ii). Step 1: MM has a faithful normal finite trace τ\tau. Define T(x)T(x) as in Lemma 5.1. It is the unique central zz with τ(az)=τ(ax)\tau(az)=\tau(ax) for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z, and this description is linear in xx; so TT is linear. (b): aT(x)aT(x) is central and τ(b aT(x))=τ(ba x)\tau(b\,aT(x))=\tau(ba\,x) for b∈Zb\in\mathcal Z, so T(ax)=aT(x)T(ax)=aT(x). (c) and T(a)=aT(a)=a for a∈Za\in\mathcal Z are clear. Positivity: if x≥0x\geq0, the orbit lies in the σ\sigma-weakly closed convex cone M+M_+, so K(x)⊆M+K(x)\subseteq M_+ and T(x)≥0T(x)\geq0. (a): for a∈Z+a\in\mathcal Z_+, (2.1) gives τ(ax∗x)=τ((xa1/2)∗(xa1/2))=τ((xa1/2)(xa1/2)∗)=τ(axx∗)\tau(ax^*x)=\tau((xa^{1/2})^*(xa^{1/2}))=\tau((xa^{1/2})(xa^{1/2})^*)=\tau(axx^*). By linearity this holds for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z, so T(x∗x)=T(xx∗)T(x^*x)=T(xx^*). (d): τ(x∗x)=τ(1⋅T(x∗x))\tau(x^*x)=\tau(1\cdot T(x^*x)), so T(x∗x)=0T(x^*x)=0 forces x=0x=0. The bound ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥\|T(x)\|\leq\|x\| and T(x)∈K(x)T(x)\in K(x) come from Lemma 5.1.

Normality. Let xi↑xx_i\uparrow x. The T(xi)T(x_i) increase and are bounded, so they have a supremum c∈Z+c\in\mathcal Z_+ with c≤T(x)c\leq T(x). For a∈Z+a\in\mathcal Z_+, the functional τ(a ⋅ )=τ(a1/2⋅a1/2)\tau(a\,\cdot\,)=\tau(a^{1/2}\cdot a^{1/2}) is normal, so τ(ac)=sup⁡iτ(aT(xi))=sup⁡iτ(axi)=τ(ax)\tau(ac)=\sup_i\tau(aT(x_i))=\sup_i\tau(ax_i)=\tau(ax). By linearity τ(ac)=τ(ax)\tau(ac)=\tau(ax) for all a∈Za\in\mathcal Z, and Lemma 5.1(3) gives c=T(x)c=T(x).

σ\sigma-weak continuity. For ω∈Z∗+\omega\in\mathcal Z_*^+, ω∘T\omega\circ T is a normal positive functional, so it lies in M∗M_*, because the two notions of normality agree (see "Normal functionals" in the background list). Every ω∈Z∗\omega\in\mathcal Z_* is a combination of four elements of Z∗+\mathcal Z_*^+, by the positive parts of normal functionals. So ω∘T∈M∗\omega\circ T\in M_* for all ω∈Z∗\omega\in\mathcal Z_*.

Step 2: general finite MM. By Zorn's lemma, let (τi)i∈I(\tau_i)_{i\in I} be a maximal family of nonzero finite normal traces with mutually orthogonal supports si=s(τi)s_i=s(\tau_i), which are central by Proposition 3.2. Suppose w=1−∑isi≠0w=1-\sum_is_i\neq0. Theorem 4.7 gives a finite normal trace τ\tau with τ(w)>0\tau(w)>0. Then τw(x)=τ(xw)\tau_w(x)=\tau(xw) is a finite normal trace (Proposition 2.2(5)) with τw(w)>0\tau_w(w)>0 and τw(1−w)=0\tau_w(1-w)=0, so 0≠s(τw)≤w0\neq s(\tau_w)\leq w, against maximality. So ∑isi=1\sum_is_i=1. On the von Neumann algebra MsiMs_i, with unit sis_i and center Zsi\mathcal Zs_i, τi\tau_i is a faithful normal finite trace, and Step 1 gives Ti:Msi→ZsiT_i:Ms_i\to\mathcal Zs_i. The elements Ti(xsi)T_i(xs_i) lie in the orthogonal pieces Zsi\mathcal Zs_i and have norm at most ∥x∥\|x\|, so T(x)=∑iTi(xsi)T(x)=\sum_iT_i(xs_i) converges strongly, lies in Z\mathcal Z, and satisfies T(x)si=Ti(xsi)T(x)s_i=T_i(xs_i). Each listed property holds on every piece, hence for TT. For instance, if xα↑xx_\alpha\uparrow x, then T(xα)si↑T(x)siT(x_\alpha)s_i\uparrow T(x)s_i for every ii, so T(xα)↑T(x)T(x_\alpha)\uparrow T(x); and σ\sigma-weak continuity follows from normality as in Step 1.

T(x)∈K(x)T(x)\in K(x) in general. For a finite set F⊆IF\subseteq I put sF=∑i∈Fsis_F=\sum_{i\in F}s_i. A unitary U=∑i∈Fui+(1−sF)U=\sum_{i\in F}u_i+(1-s_F), with ui∈U(Msi)u_i\in\mathcal U(Ms_i), gives UxU∗=∑i∈Fuixsiui∗+x(1−sF)UxU^*=\sum_{i\in F}u_ixs_iu_i^*+x(1-s_F). Averaging such unitaries with product weights shows that ∑i∈Fyi+x(1−sF)∈K(x)\sum_{i\in F}y_i+x(1-s_F)\in K(x) whenever each yiy_i is a convex combination of the orbit of xsixs_i in MsiMs_i. By σ\sigma-weak continuity this extends to yiy_i in the corresponding hull Ki(xsi)K_i(xs_i), in particular to yi=Ti(xsi)y_i=T_i(xs_i). So cF=∑i∈FTi(xsi)+x(1−sF)∈K(x)c_F=\sum_{i\in F}T_i(xs_i)+x(1-s_F)\in K(x). As FF grows, cF−T(x)=(x−T(x))(1−sF)→0c_F-T(x)=(x-T(x))(1-s_F)\to0 strongly with bounded norms, hence σ\sigma-weakly, and T(x)∈K(x)T(x)\in K(x). □\square

Definition 5.3. For finite MM, the map TT of Theorem 5.2 is the center-valued trace of MM, written TMT_M.

Comparing projections through the center-valued trace

Corollary 5.4 (Comparison). Let MM be finite, and let T:M→ZT:M\to\mathcal Z be linear with (a), (b), (d) of (5.2). For projections e,fe,f, e≾f  ⟺  T(e)≤T(f),e∼f  ⟺  T(e)=T(f),e≺f  ⟺  T(e)≤T(f) and T(e)≠T(f).(5.3) e\precsim f\iff T(e)\leq T(f),\qquad e\sim f\iff T(e)=T(f),\qquad e\prec f\iff T(e)\leq T(f)\ \text{and}\ T(e)\neq T(f). \tag{5.3}

Proof. If e∼fe\sim f through vv, (a) gives T(e)=T(v∗v)=T(vv∗)=T(f)T(e)=T(v^*v)=T(vv^*)=T(f). If e∼f′≤fe\sim f'\leq f, then T(e)=T(f′)≤T(f)T(e)=T(f')\leq T(f) by positivity. Conversely, suppose T(e)≤T(f)T(e)\leq T(f). By the comparison theorem there is a central projection hh with he≾hfhe\precsim hf and (1−h)f≾(1−h)e(1-h)f\precsim(1-h)e; say (1−h)f∼g≤(1−h)e(1-h)f\sim g\leq(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)T(g)=T((1-h)f)=(1-h)T(f)\geq(1-h)T(e)=T((1-h)e). So T((1−h)e−g)≤0T((1-h)e-g)\leq0. But (1−h)e−g(1-h)e-g is a projection, so T((1−h)e−g)≥0T((1-h)e-g)\geq0; hence it is 00, and (d) gives (1−h)e=g∼(1−h)f(1-h)e=g\sim(1-h)f. By Lemma 1.1, e=he+(1−h)e≾hf+(1−h)f=fe=he+(1-h)e\precsim hf+(1-h)f=f. The second equivalence follows from the first and Schröder–Bernstein for projections, and the third from the first two. □\square

Finite traces factor through the center

Theorem 5.5. Let MM be finite with center-valued trace TT. Every finite trace σ\sigma on MM, normal or not, satisfies σ(x)=σ(T(x))(x∈M).(5.4) \sigma(x)=\sigma(T(x))\qquad(x\in M). \tag{5.4} Consequently:

  1. σ↦σ∣Z\sigma\mapsto\sigma|_{\mathcal Z} is a bijection from the finite traces on MM onto the positive linear functionals on Z\mathcal Z, with inverse ψ↦ψ∘T\psi\mapsto\psi\circ T. It maps the finite normal traces onto Z∗+\mathcal Z_*^+.
  2. (Uniqueness of the center-valued trace.) If T′:M→ZT':M\to\mathcal Z is linear and satisfies (a), (b), (c) of (5.2), then T′=TT'=T. In particular such a T′T' is automatically normal and faithful.

The proof uses two lemmas. Throughout, σ\sigma is a finite trace on MM, extended linearly (Proposition 2.2(6)).

Lemma 5.6 (Homogeneous pieces). Let qq be a central projection, and let g1,…,gng_1,\dots,g_n be orthogonal abelian projections with c(gj)=qc(g_j)=q and g1+⋯+gn=qg_1+\cdots+g_n=q. Then σ(eq)=σ(T(e)q)\sigma(eq)=\sigma(T(e)q) for every projection ee.

Proof. Since abelian projections are smallest, gj≾gkg_j\precsim g_k for all j,kj,k, and Schröder–Bernstein for projections makes the gjg_j mutually equivalent. For a central projection w≤qw\leq q, the projections gjwg_jw are mutually equivalent (Lemma 1.2) with sum ww, so T(g1w)=w/nT(g_1w)=w/n and σ(g1w)=σ(w)/n\sigma(g_1w)=\sigma(w)/n.

Put h=T(e)qh=T(e)q, so 0≤h≤q0\leq h\leq q. Let qk=1[k/n,(k+1)/n)(h) qq_k=1_{[k/n,(k+1)/n)}(h)\,q for 0≤k<n0\leq k<n and qn=1{1}(h) qq_n=1_{\{1\}}(h)\,q. These are orthogonal central projections with sum qq, and T(eqk)=T(e)qk=hqkT(eq_k)=T(e)q_k=hq_k.

Fix k<nk<n and put G=(g1+⋯+gk)qkG=(g_1+\cdots+g_k)q_k. Then T(G)=(k/n)qk≤hqk=T(eqk)T(G)=(k/n)q_k\leq hq_k=T(eq_k), so (5.3) gives G∼G′G\sim G' for some projection G′≤eqkG'\leq eq_k. Let d=eqk−G′d=eq_k-G'. Then T(d)=hqk−(k/n)qk≤(1/n)qk=T(gk+1qk)T(d)=hq_k-(k/n)q_k\leq(1/n)q_k=T(g_{k+1}q_k), so d≾gk+1qkd\precsim g_{k+1}q_k by (5.3). Hence dd is abelian: it is equivalent to a subprojection d′d' of the abelian projection gk+1g_{k+1}, the algebra d′Md′⊆gk+1Mgk+1d'Md'\subseteq g_{k+1}Mg_{k+1} is commutative, and dMd≅d′Md′dMd\cong d'Md'. Since c(d)≤qk≤qc(d)\leq q_k\leq q, we have c(g1c(d))=c(g1)c(d)=c(d)c(g_1c(d))=c(g_1)c(d)=c(d). As abelian projections are smallest, d≾g1c(d)d\precsim g_1c(d) and g1c(d)≾dg_1c(d)\precsim d, and Schröder–Bernstein for projections gives d∼g1c(d)d\sim g_1c(d). By the first paragraph, T(d)=c(d)/nT(d)=c(d)/n. Multiplying T(eqk)=(k/n)qk+T(d)T(eq_k)=(k/n)q_k+T(d) by c(d)c(d) gives hc(d)=((k+1)/n) c(d)hc(d)=((k+1)/n)\,c(d). So c(d)c(d) lies below the spectral projection 1{(k+1)/n}(h)1_{\{(k+1)/n\}}(h). But c(d)≤qk≤1[k/n,(k+1)/n)(h)c(d)\leq q_k\leq1_{[k/n,(k+1)/n)}(h), which is orthogonal to it. Hence c(d)=0c(d)=0 and d=0d=0. So eqk=G′∼Geq_k=G'\sim G; in particular T(e)qk=T(eqk)=T(G)=(k/n)qkT(e)q_k=T(eq_k)=T(G)=(k/n)q_k, and σ(eqk)=σ(G)=k σ(g1qk)=knσ(qk)=σ(knqk)=σ(T(e)qk). \sigma(eq_k)=\sigma(G)=k\,\sigma(g_1q_k)=\tfrac kn\sigma(q_k)=\sigma\bigl(\tfrac kn q_k\bigr)=\sigma(T(e)q_k). For k=nk=n: T(eqn)=hqn=qn=T(qn)T(eq_n)=hq_n=q_n=T(q_n), so T(qn−eqn)=0T(q_n-eq_n)=0, and (d) gives eqn=qneq_n=q_n; thus σ(eqn)=σ(qn)=σ(T(e)qn)\sigma(eq_n)=\sigma(q_n)=\sigma(T(e)q_n). Summing over the finitely many kk gives the claim. □\square

Lemma 5.7 (Approximate pieces). Let qq be a central projection and K≥1K\geq1. Suppose q=P1+⋯+PK+Rq=P_1+\cdots+P_K+R with orthogonal projections, Pj∼P1P_j\sim P_1 for all jj, and R≾P1R\precsim P_1. Then ∣σ(eq)−σ(T(e)q)∣≤2σ(q)/K|\sigma(eq)-\sigma(T(e)q)|\leq2\sigma(q)/K for every projection ee.

Proof. Put t=T(P1)t=T(P_1) and r=T(R)r=T(R), both in Z+\mathcal Z_+. Then Kt+r=qKt+r=q, and 0≤r≤t0\leq r\leq t because R∼R′≤P1R\sim R'\leq P_1. Hence Kt≤q≤(K+1)tKt\leq q\leq(K+1)t, and tt is invertible in the abelian algebra Zq\mathcal Zq. Let h=T(e)q t−1h=T(e)q\,t^{-1}, the inverse taken in Zq\mathcal Zq. Then 0≤h≤(K+1)q0\leq h\leq(K+1)q. Put wk=1[k,k+1)(h) qw_k=1_{[k,k+1)}(h)\,q for 0≤k<K0\leq k<K and wK=1[K,K+1](h) qw_K=1_{[K,K+1]}(h)\,q. These are orthogonal central projections with sum qq, and on each of them k t wk≤T(e)wk≤(k+1) t wk. k\,t\,w_k\leq T(e)w_k\leq(k+1)\,t\,w_k . Put sk=σ(P1wk)s_k=\sigma(P_1w_k). Since Pjwk∼P1wkP_jw_k\sim P_1w_k, the projection (P1+⋯+Pm)wk(P_1+\cdots+P_m)w_k has trace mskms_k.

(i) T((P1+⋯+Pk)wk)=ktwk≤T(ewk)T((P_1+\cdots+P_k)w_k)=ktw_k\leq T(ew_k), so Corollary 5.4 gives (P1+⋯+Pk)wk≾ewk(P_1+\cdots+P_k)w_k\precsim ew_k, and ksk≤σ(ewk)ks_k\leq\sigma(ew_k).

(ii) For k<Kk<K, T(ewk)≤(k+1)twk=T((P1+⋯+Pk+1)wk)T(ew_k)\leq(k+1)tw_k=T((P_1+\cdots+P_{k+1})w_k), so σ(ewk)≤(k+1)sk\sigma(ew_k)\leq(k+1)s_k. For k=Kk=K, σ(ewK)≤σ(wK)=KsK+σ(RwK)≤(K+1)sK\sigma(ew_K)\leq\sigma(w_K)=Ks_K+\sigma(Rw_K)\leq(K+1)s_K, because RwK≾P1wKRw_K\precsim P_1w_K.

(iii) By positivity of σ\sigma, k σ(twk)≤σ(T(e)wk)≤(k+1) σ(twk)k\,\sigma(tw_k)\leq\sigma(T(e)w_k)\leq(k+1)\,\sigma(tw_k).

(iv) Ksk+σ(Rwk)=σ(wk)Ks_k+\sigma(Rw_k)=\sigma(w_k) with 0≤σ(Rwk)≤sk0\leq\sigma(Rw_k)\leq s_k, and Kσ(twk)+σ(rwk)=σ(wk)K\sigma(tw_k)+\sigma(rw_k)=\sigma(w_k) with 0≤σ(rwk)≤σ(twk)0\leq\sigma(rw_k)\leq\sigma(tw_k). So both sks_k and σ(twk)\sigma(tw_k) lie in [σ(wk)/(K+1), σ(wk)/K][\sigma(w_k)/(K+1),\,\sigma(w_k)/K].

(v) By (i)–(iv), σ(ewk)\sigma(ew_k) and σ(T(e)wk)\sigma(T(e)w_k) both lie in the interval [ kσ(wk)/(K+1), (k+1)σ(wk)/K ][\,k\sigma(w_k)/(K+1),\,(k+1)\sigma(w_k)/K\,], whose length is σ(wk) (k+K+1)/(K(K+1))≤σ(wk) (2K+1)/(K(K+1))≤2σ(wk)/K\sigma(w_k)\,(k+K+1)/(K(K+1))\leq\sigma(w_k)\,(2K+1)/(K(K+1))\leq2\sigma(w_k)/K.

(vi) Summing over kk: ∣σ(eq)−σ(T(e)q)∣≤∑k2σ(wk)/K=2σ(q)/K|\sigma(eq)-\sigma(T(e)q)|\leq\sum_k2\sigma(w_k)/K=2\sigma(q)/K. □\square

Proof of Theorem 5.5. Reduction. Both sides of (5.4) are linear and norm continuous in xx (σ\sigma is bounded and ∥T(x)∥≤∥x∥\|T(x)\|\leq\|x\|), and projections span a norm-dense subspace of MM by the spectral theorem. So it suffices to prove (5.4) for a projection ee.

Decomposition. By Proposition 1.6(a), 1=∑n≥1zn+zII11=\sum_{n\geq1}z_n+z_{{\rm II}_1}, where znz_n is a sum of nn orthogonal abelian projections g1(n),…,gn(n)g^{(n)}_1,\dots,g^{(n)}_n with central support znz_n, and MzII1Mz_{{\rm II}_1} has no direct summand of type I. Fix m≥1m\geq1 and put K=2mK=2^m. Let qs=∑n<K2znq_{\rm s}=\sum_{n<K^2}z_n and ql=1−qs=∑n≥K2zn+zII1q_{\rm l}=1-q_{\rm s}=\sum_{n\geq K^2}z_n+z_{{\rm II}_1}.

Small degrees. By Lemma 5.6, applied to each of the finitely many znz_n with n<K2n<K^2, σ(eqs)=σ(T(e)qs)\sigma(eq_{\rm s})=\sigma(T(e)q_{\rm s}).

Large degrees and type II1_1. For n≥K2n\geq K^2 write n=Kan+rnn=Ka_n+r_n with 0≤rn<K0\leq r_n<K; then an≥K>rna_n\geq K>r_n. Split g1(n),…,gn(n)g^{(n)}_1,\dots,g^{(n)}_n into KK consecutive blocks of ana_n projections and a remainder of rnr_n projections, and let Pj(n)P^{(n)}_j be the sum over the jj-th block and R(n)R^{(n)} the sum over the remainder. The gj(n)g^{(n)}_j are mutually equivalent, as in the proof of Lemma 5.6. So Lemma 1.1 gives Pj(n)∼P1(n)P^{(n)}_j\sim P^{(n)}_1, and R(n)R^{(n)} is equivalent to the sum of the first rnr_n projections of the first block, so R(n)≾P1(n)R^{(n)}\precsim P^{(n)}_1. On zII1z_{{\rm II}_1}, halving applied mm times gives orthogonal equivalent projections Q1,…,QKQ_1,\dots,Q_K with sum zII1z_{{\rm II}_1}: if zII1=a+bz_{{\rm II}_1}=a+b with a∼ba\sim b through vv, halve a=a1+a2a=a_1+a_2 and use bi=vaiv∗b_i=va_iv^*, and repeat. Put Pj=∑n≥K2Pj(n)+QjP_j=\sum_{n\geq K^2}P^{(n)}_j+Q_j and R=∑n≥K2R(n)R=\sum_{n\geq K^2}R^{(n)}. By Lemma 1.1, Pj∼P1P_j\sim P_1 and R≾P1R\precsim P_1, and P1+⋯+PK+R=qlP_1+\cdots+P_K+R=q_{\rm l}. Lemma 5.7 gives ∣σ(eql)−σ(T(e)ql)∣≤2σ(1)/2m|\sigma(eq_{\rm l})-\sigma(T(e)q_{\rm l})|\leq2\sigma(1)/2^m.

Adding the two parts, ∣σ(e)−σ(T(e))∣≤2σ(1)/2m|\sigma(e)-\sigma(T(e))|\leq2\sigma(1)/2^m for every mm, which proves (5.4).

Consequence 1. By (5.4), σ\sigma is determined by σ∣Z\sigma|_{\mathcal Z}. For a positive functional ψ\psi on Z\mathcal Z, ψ∘T\psi\circ T is positive, satisfies ψ(T(x∗x))=ψ(T(xx∗))\psi(T(x^*x))=\psi(T(xx^*)), and restricts to ψ\psi on Z\mathcal Z; so it is a finite trace with restriction ψ\psi. If σ\sigma is normal, so is σ∣Z\sigma|_{\mathcal Z}; if ψ\psi is normal, so is ψ∘T\psi\circ T, since TT is normal (Theorem 5.2).

Consequence 2. Let ψ\psi be a positive functional on Z\mathcal Z. By (a), ψ∘T′\psi\circ T' is a finite trace, and by (b), (c), T′(T(x))=T(x)T′(1)=T(x)T'(T(x))=T(x)T'(1)=T(x). Applying (5.4) to σ=ψ∘T′\sigma=\psi\circ T' gives ψ(T′(x))=ψ(T′(T(x)))=ψ(T(x))\psi(T'(x))=\psi(T'(T(x)))=\psi(T(x)). The vector functionals ⟨ ⋅ ξ,ξ⟩\langle\,\cdot\,\xi,\xi\rangle separate the points of Z\mathcal Z, so T′=TT'=T. □\square

Remark. Lemmas 5.6 and 5.7 compare σ\sigma with σ∘T\sigma\circ T uniformly over all projections, so the proof needs no normality, neither of σ\sigma nor of T′T'. Normality of finite traces then comes out as a consequence, in Theorem 5.9.

Example 5.8 (Matrices over an abelian algebra). Let AA be an abelian von Neumann algebra and M=Mn(A)M=M_n(A), acting on HnH^n. The center is {a1:a∈A}\{a1:a\in A\}, and T(x)=1n∑kxkkT(x)=\frac1n\sum_kx_{kk}, read as a scalar matrix, satisfies (5.2): for instance ∑k,lxlk∗xlk=∑k,lxlkxlk∗\sum_{k,l}x_{lk}^*x_{lk}=\sum_{k,l}x_{lk}x_{lk}^* because AA is commutative. By Theorem 5.5(2) it is TMT_M. For n=2n=2 and A=CA=\mathbb C, take e=e11e=e_{11} and ff the projection onto (1,1)/2(1,1)/\sqrt2. Then T(e)=T(f)=12T(e)=T(f)=\tfrac12, so e∼fe\sim f by Corollary 5.4, although ef≠feef\neq fe.

When a finite trace is normal

Theorem 5.9 (Normality of finite traces). Let MM be any von Neumann algebra, τ\tau a finite trace on it, and 1=zf+z∞1=z_f+z_\infty the splitting of Proposition 1.6(b).

  1. τ(xz∞)=0\tau(xz_\infty)=0 for every x∈Mx\in M. In particular a properly infinite algebra has no nonzero finite trace.
  2. τ(x)=τ(Tf(xzf))\tau(x)=\tau(T_f(xz_f)) for x∈Mx\in M, where TfT_f is the center-valued trace of the finite algebra MzfMz_f.
  3. τ\tau is normal exactly when τ∣Z\tau|_{\mathcal Z} is normal. In particular, on a factor every finite trace is normal: it is τ(1)TM\tau(1)T_M if the factor is finite, and 00 otherwise.

Proof. (1) Suppose z∞≠0z_\infty\neq0. Halving the properly infinite algebra Mz∞Mz_\infty gives p≤z∞p\leq z_\infty with p∼z∞−p∼z∞p\sim z_\infty-p\sim z_\infty. By Proposition 2.2(3), τ(z∞)=τ(p)+τ(z∞−p)=2τ(z∞)\tau(z_\infty)=\tau(p)+\tau(z_\infty-p)=2\tau(z_\infty), and since τ(z∞)<∞\tau(z_\infty)<\infty, τ(z∞)=0\tau(z_\infty)=0. By Cauchy–Schwarz, ∣τ(xz∞)∣2≤τ(xx∗)τ(z∞)=0|\tau(xz_\infty)|^2\leq\tau(xx^*)\tau(z_\infty)=0.

(2) The restriction of τ\tau to MzfMz_f is a finite trace on a finite algebra with center Zzf\mathcal Zz_f, and Theorem 5.5 gives τ(y)=τ(Tf(y))\tau(y)=\tau(T_f(y)) for y∈Mzfy\in Mz_f. With (1), τ(x)=τ(xzf)=τ(Tf(xzf))\tau(x)=\tau(xz_f)=\tau(T_f(xz_f)).

(3) If τ\tau is normal, so is its restriction to Z\mathcal Z. Conversely, if τ∣Z\tau|_{\mathcal Z} is normal, then by (2) τ\tau is the composite of the normal maps x↦xzfx\mapsto xz_f, TfT_f and τ∣Zzf\tau|_{\mathcal Zz_f}. For a factor, Z=C1\mathcal Z=\mathbb C1 and τ∣Z\tau|_{\mathcal Z} is normal. If the factor is finite, Theorem 5.5(1) gives τ=τ(1)TM\tau=\tau(1)T_M; otherwise zf=0z_f=0 and τ=0\tau=0 by (1). □\square

Remark. Finiteness of τ\tau is needed: see Example 5.10.

Example 5.10 (An infinite trace with normal restriction to the center). On M=B(ℓ2(N))M=B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)) put τ(x)=Tr⁡(x)\tau(x)=\operatorname{Tr}(x) if x∈M+x\in M_+ has finite rank, and τ(x)=∞\tau(x)=\infty 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∗zz^*z and zz∗zz^* have equal rank. Its restriction to Z=C1\mathcal Z=\mathbb C1 is normal, since τ(t1)=∞\tau(t1)=\infty for t>0t>0. But τ\tau is not normal: the finite-rank truncations of x=diag⁡(1/k2)x=\operatorname{diag}(1/k^2) increase to xx and have traces tending to π2/6\pi^2/6, while τ(x)=∞\tau(x)=\infty.

Countable decomposability of finite algebras

Lemma 5.11. MM is σ\sigma-finite if and only if it has a faithful normal state.

The same lemma is proved in The double commutation theorem.

Proof. Let φ\varphi be a faithful normal state and (pk)(p_k) orthogonal nonzero projections. Then ∑kφ(pk)=φ(∑kpk)≤1\sum_k\varphi(p_k)=\varphi(\sum_kp_k)\leq1 with every φ(pk)>0\varphi(p_k)>0, so the family is countable. Conversely, let MM be σ\sigma-finite. By Zorn's lemma choose a maximal family of normal states ωk\omega_k with mutually orthogonal supports sks_k (Lemma 3.1(4)); it is countable. If r=1−∑ksk≠0r=1-\sum_ks_k\neq0, a unit vector ξ∈rH\xi\in rH gives the normal state ⟨ ⋅ ξ,ξ⟩\langle\,\cdot\,\xi,\xi\rangle, which vanishes at 1−r1-r, so its support lies below rr, against maximality. So ∑ksk=1\sum_ks_k=1. Put φ=c∑k2−kωk\varphi=c\sum_k2^{-k}\omega_k, with c>0c>0 chosen so that φ(1)=1\varphi(1)=1; the series converges in norm, so φ∈M∗+\varphi\in M_*^+. If x≥0x\geq0 and φ(x)=0\varphi(x)=0, then ωk(x)=0\omega_k(x)=0 for all kk. By Lemma 3.1(3)–(4), skxsk=0s_kxs_k=0, so x1/2sk=0x^{1/2}s_k=0, and x1/2=x1/2∑ksk=0x^{1/2}=x^{1/2}\sum_ks_k=0. □\square

Corollary 5.12 (σ\sigma-finiteness of finite algebras). Let MM be finite with center-valued trace TT.

  1. MM is σ\sigma-finite if and only if Z\mathcal Z is. In that case φ∘T\varphi\circ T is a faithful normal finite trace for every faithful normal state φ\varphi of Z\mathcal Z.
  2. There are orthogonal central projections zkz_k with ∑kzk=1\sum_kz_k=1 and every MzkMz_k σ\sigma-finite.
  3. A finite factor is σ\sigma-finite.

Proof. (1) An orthogonal family of central projections is an orthogonal family in MM, so Z\mathcal Z is σ\sigma-finite when MM is. Conversely, if Z\mathcal Z is σ\sigma-finite, Lemma 5.11 gives a faithful normal state φ\varphi of Z\mathcal Z. Then φ∘T\varphi\circ T is a normal finite trace (Theorem 5.2) and a state. If φ(T(x))=0\varphi(T(x))=0 with x≥0x\geq0, then T(x)=0T(x)=0 and x=0x=0 by (d). So φ∘T\varphi\circ T is a faithful normal state, and Lemma 5.11 gives σ\sigma-finiteness of MM.

(2) In the abelian von Neumann algebra Z\mathcal Z, choose a maximal family of normal states with orthogonal supports zkz_k, taken in Z\mathcal Z. As in the proof of Lemma 5.11, ∑kzk=1\sum_kz_k=1, and Zzk\mathcal Zz_k has a faithful normal state, so it is σ\sigma-finite. The algebra MzkMz_k is finite with center Zzk\mathcal Zz_k; apply (1).

(3) The center is C1\mathbb C1. □\square

Example 5.13 (Finite but not σ\sigma-finite). Let Γ\Gamma be uncountable and M=ℓ∞(Γ)M=\ell^\infty(\Gamma). It is finite, with T=idT=\mathrm{id}. The singletons form an uncountable orthogonal family, so MM is not σ\sigma-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)Mz_\alpha\cong N_\alpha\bar\otimes B(H_\alpha), with NαN_\alpha finite and dim⁡Hα=α\dim H_\alpha=\alpha (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(e_i)_{i\in I} and (fj)j∈J(f_j)_{j\in J} be infinite families of nonzero projections in MM. Suppose the eie_i are mutually orthogonal, mutually equivalent and finite, that the same holds for the fjf_j, and that ∑iei=∑jfj\sum_ie_i=\sum_jf_j. Then ∣I∣=∣J∣|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=∑ieip=\sum_ie_i. All the projections and the partial isometries between them lie in pMppMp, so we may assume p=1p=1. The eie_i have one central support (Lemma 1.2), which majorizes ∑iei=1\sum_ie_i=1; so c(ei)=1c(e_i)=1, and likewise c(fj)=1c(f_j)=1.

Take any normal state of Z\mathcal Z, for instance a vector state, and let zz be its support in Z\mathcal Z. Then z≠0z\neq0, and Zz\mathcal Zz has a faithful normal state, so it is σ\sigma-finite (Lemma 5.11). Fix i∈Ii\in I. The projection zeize_i is finite and nonzero, since c(zei)=zc(ei)=zc(ze_i)=zc(e_i)=z. By Lemma 1.5, the center of Ni=(zei)M(zei)N_i=(ze_i)M(ze_i) is isomorphic to Zc(zei)=Zz\mathcal Zc(ze_i)=\mathcal Zz, so it is σ\sigma-finite. By Corollary 5.12(1), the finite algebra NiN_i has a faithful normal finite trace τi\tau_i.

Since ∑jfj=1\sum_jf_j=1, the positive elements zeifjeizze_if_je_iz of NiN_i have sum zeize_i, and normality gives τi(zei)=∑j∈Jτi(zeifjeiz)<∞. \tau_i(ze_i)=\sum_{j\in J}\tau_i(ze_if_je_iz)<\infty . So Ji={j:τi(zeifjeiz)>0}J_i=\{j:\tau_i(ze_if_je_iz)>0\} is countable. As τi\tau_i is faithful and zeifjeiz=(fjeiz)∗(fjeiz)ze_if_je_iz=(f_je_iz)^*(f_je_iz), Ji={j:zfjei≠0}J_i=\{j:zf_je_i\neq0\}. For each jj, zfj≠0zf_j\neq0 because c(fj)=1c(f_j)=1, and zfj=∑izfjeizf_j=\sum_izf_je_i; so j∈Jij\in J_i for some ii. Hence J=⋃i∈IJiJ=\bigcup_{i\in I}J_i and ∣J∣≤ℵ0∣I∣=∣I∣|J|\leq\aleph_0|I|=|I|, since II is infinite. By symmetry ∣I∣≤∣J∣|I|\leq|J|, and the Cantor–Bernstein theorem gives ∣I∣=∣J∣|I|=|J|. □\square

Corollary 5.15 (Uniqueness of the decomposition). Let (zα)(z_\alpha) and (zβ′)(z'_\beta) be families of orthogonal central projections, indexed by infinite cardinals, each with sum 11, with Mzα≅Nα⊗ˉB(Hα)Mz_\alpha\cong N_\alpha\bar\otimes B(H_\alpha) and Mzβ′≅Nβ′⊗ˉB(Hβ′)Mz'_\beta\cong N'_\beta\bar\otimes B(H'_\beta), where Nα,Nβ′N_\alpha,N'_\beta are finite, dim⁡Hα=α\dim H_\alpha=\alpha and dim⁡Hβ′=β\dim H'_\beta=\beta. Then zα=zα′z_\alpha=z'_\alpha for every α\alpha.

Proof. Let α≠β\alpha\neq\beta and suppose w=zαzβ′≠0w=z_\alpha z'_\beta\neq0. Under the first isomorphism, the projections 1⊗ekk1\otimes e_{kk}, where ekke_{kk} runs over the rank-one projections of a basis of HαH_\alpha, correspond to α\alpha orthogonal, mutually equivalent projections Ek∈MzαE_k\in Mz_\alpha with sum zαz_\alpha. They are finite, since each corner EkMEkE_kME_k is isomorphic to NαN_\alpha. The projections EkwE_kw are orthogonal, mutually equivalent and finite, with sum ww; they are nonzero, because they are mutually equivalent and add up to w≠0w\neq0. The second isomorphism gives β\beta such projections with sum ww. Theorem 5.14 gives α=β\alpha=\beta, a contradiction. So zαzβ′=0z_\alpha z'_\beta=0 for α≠β\alpha\neq\beta, and zα=zα∑βzβ′=zαzα′=zα′∑γzγ=zα′z_\alpha=z_\alpha\sum_\beta z'_\beta=z_\alpha z'_\alpha=z'_\alpha\sum_\gamma z_\gamma=z'_\alpha. □\square

Remarks. (1) The projections in Theorem 5.14 must be nonzero: if all of them are 00, the sums agree for any I,JI,J. (2) Finiteness of the projections is necessary: see Example 5.16. (3) For finite families the count is not determined: in M6(C)M_6(\mathbb C), 11 is the sum of two equivalent projections of rank 33 and of three equivalent projections of rank 22.

Example 5.16 (Counting needs finite projections). With HH and Γ\Gamma as in Example 4.3, write Γ\Gamma as a disjoint union of ℵ0\aleph_0 sets of size ℵ1\aleph_1, and also as a disjoint union of ℵ1\aleph_1 sets of size ℵ1\aleph_1. The coordinate projections give two orthogonal families, of sizes ℵ0\aleph_0 and ℵ1\aleph_1, of mutually equivalent infinite projections, both with sum 11. By Theorem 5.14 this cannot happen with finite projections.

6. Semifinite algebras

Extending a normal trace from a corner

Lemma 6.1. Let ee be a projection. There are partial isometries (vj)j∈J(v_j)_{j\in J} in MM with vjvj∗≤ev_jv_j^*\leq e, such that the projections fj=vj∗vjf_j=v_j^*v_j are mutually orthogonal and ∑jfj=c(e)\sum_jf_j=c(e).

Proof. By Zorn's lemma take a maximal family of mutually orthogonal projections fjf_j with fj≾ef_j\precsim e, and choose vjv_j with vj∗vj=fjv_j^*v_j=f_j and vjvj∗≤ev_jv_j^*\leq e. By Lemma 1.2, fj≤c(fj)≤c(e)f_j\leq c(f_j)\leq c(e). Suppose r=c(e)−∑jfj≠0r=c(e)-\sum_jf_j\neq0. Then c(r)≤c(e)c(r)\leq c(e), so c(r)c(e)=c(r)≠0c(r)c(e)=c(r)\neq0, and the equivalent-pieces fact gives nonzero r′≤rr'\leq r and e′≤ee'\leq e with r′∼e′r'\sim e'. Then r′r' could be added to the family, against maximality. So ∑jfj=c(e)\sum_jf_j=c(e). □\square

Theorem 6.2 (Extension from a corner). Let τ0\tau_0 be a normal trace on eMeeMe, and let (vj)(v_j) be as in Lemma 6.1. Then τ(x)=∑j∈Jτ0(vjxvj∗)(x∈M+)(6.1) \tau(x)=\sum_{j\in J}\tau_0(v_jxv_j^*)\qquad(x\in M_+) \tag{6.1} defines a normal trace on MM with the following properties.

  1. τ(x)=τ0(x)\tau(x)=\tau_0(x) for x∈(eMe)+x\in(eMe)_+, and τ(1−c(e))=0\tau(1-c(e))=0.
  2. τ\tau is the only normal trace on MM with (1). In particular it does not depend on the choice of (vj)(v_j).
  3. τ\tau is faithful on Mc(e)Mc(e) if and only if τ0\tau_0 is faithful; τ\tau is semifinite if and only if τ0\tau_0 is semifinite.

Normality of τ0\tau_0 cannot be dropped, even for the trace identity: see Example 6.6.

Proof. Each vjxvj∗v_jxv_j^* lies in (eMe)+(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∈My\in M and put wkj=vkyvj∗∈eMew_{kj}=v_kyv_j^*\in eMe. Since vj∗v_j^* has range in fjH⊆c(e)Hf_jH\subseteq c(e)H and c(e)c(e) is central, the vector yvj∗ηyv_j^*\eta lies in c(e)H=(∑kfk)Hc(e)H=\bigl(\sum_kf_k\bigr)H for every η\eta. So vjy∗yvj∗=∑kvjy∗fkyvj∗=∑kwkj∗wkjv_jy^*yv_j^*=\sum_kv_jy^*f_kyv_j^*=\sum_kw_{kj}^*w_{kj}, a strongly convergent sum of positive elements. Normality and the trace identity of τ0\tau_0 give τ(y∗y)=∑j∑kτ0(wkj∗wkj)=∑j∑kτ0(wkjwkj∗). \tau(y^*y)=\sum_j\sum_k\tau_0(w_{kj}^*w_{kj})=\sum_j\sum_k\tau_0(w_{kj}w_{kj}^*). In the same way vkyy∗vk∗=∑jvkyfjy∗vk∗=∑jwkjwkj∗v_kyy^*v_k^*=\sum_jv_kyf_jy^*v_k^*=\sum_jw_{kj}w_{kj}^*, so τ(yy∗)=∑k∑jτ0(wkjwkj∗)\tau(yy^*)=\sum_k\sum_j\tau_0(w_{kj}w_{kj}^*). A double sum of numbers in [0,∞][0,\infty] does not depend on the order of summation, so τ(y∗y)=τ(yy∗)\tau(y^*y)=\tau(yy^*).

(1) Let x∈(eMe)+x\in(eMe)_+. Then vjx1/2∈eMev_jx^{1/2}\in eMe, and by the trace identity of τ0\tau_0, τ0(vjxvj∗)=τ0(x1/2fjx1/2)\tau_0(v_jxv_j^*)=\tau_0(x^{1/2}f_jx^{1/2}). The finite partial sums of x1/2fjx1/2x^{1/2}f_jx^{1/2} increase to x1/2c(e)x1/2=xx^{1/2}c(e)x^{1/2}=x, so normality gives τ(x)=τ0(x)\tau(x)=\tau_0(x). Also vj(1−c(e))=0v_j(1-c(e))=0, so τ(1−c(e))=0\tau(1-c(e))=0.

(2) Let τ′\tau' be a normal trace with (1), and x∈M+x\in M_+. Then x(1−c(e))≤∥x∥(1−c(e))x(1-c(e))\leq\|x\|(1-c(e)), so τ′(x(1−c(e)))=0\tau'(x(1-c(e)))=0. The finite partial sums of x1/2fjx1/2x^{1/2}f_jx^{1/2} increase to x1/2c(e)x1/2=xc(e)x^{1/2}c(e)x^{1/2}=xc(e), and x1/2fjx1/2=(vjx1/2)∗(vjx1/2)x^{1/2}f_jx^{1/2}=(v_jx^{1/2})^*(v_jx^{1/2}). Normality and (2.1) give τ′(x)=τ′(xc(e))=∑jτ′(vjxvj∗)=∑jτ0(vjxvj∗)=τ(x). \tau'(x)=\tau'(xc(e))=\sum_j\tau'(v_jxv_j^*)=\sum_j\tau_0(v_jxv_j^*)=\tau(x).

(3) Faithfulness. If τ\tau is faithful on Mc(e)Mc(e), so is its restriction τ0\tau_0, because eMe⊆Mc(e)eMe\subseteq Mc(e). Conversely, let τ0\tau_0 be faithful, x∈(Mc(e))+x\in(Mc(e))_+ and τ(x)=0\tau(x)=0. Then vjxvj∗=0v_jxv_j^*=0 for all jj, so x1/2vj∗=0x^{1/2}v_j^*=0, x1/2fj=0x^{1/2}f_j=0, and x1/2=x1/2c(e)=0x^{1/2}=x^{1/2}c(e)=0.

Semifiniteness. First let τ\tau be semifinite, and let 0≠x∈(eMe)+0\neq x\in(eMe)_+. Some 0≠y≤x0\neq y\leq x has τ(y)<∞\tau(y)<\infty. Then y=eye∈eMey=eye\in eMe, since 0≤y≤x≤∥x∥e0\leq y\leq x\leq\|x\|e, and τ0(y)=τ(y)<∞\tau_0(y)=\tau(y)<\infty by (1). So τ0\tau_0 is semifinite.

Conversely, let τ0\tau_0 be semifinite. We check condition (e) of Proposition 2.5, the density of mτ\mathfrak m_\tau.

Every element of MM is xc(e)+x(1−c(e))xc(e)+x(1-c(e)), so mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is σ\sigma-weakly dense in MM. □\square

Example 6.3 (All normal traces on B(H)B(H)). For c∈[0,∞]c\in[0,\infty], cTr⁡c\operatorname{Tr} is a normal trace on B(H)B(H), with 0⋅∞=00\cdot\infty=0 and c⋅∞=∞c\cdot\infty=\infty for c>0c>0. Every normal trace τ\tau on B(H)B(H) has this form. Indeed, let ee be the projection onto Cεi0\mathbb C\varepsilon_{i_0} for an orthonormal basis (εi)(\varepsilon_i). The corner eB(H)e=CeeB(H)e=\mathbb Ce carries the normal trace te↦ctte\mapsto ct with c=τ(e)c=\tau(e), and c(e)=1c(e)=1 because B(H)B(H) is a factor. With vjv_j the rank-one partial isometry εj↦εi0\varepsilon_j\mapsto\varepsilon_{i_0}, Theorem 6.2(2) gives τ(x)=∑jc⟨xεj,εj⟩=cTr⁡(x)\tau(x)=\sum_jc\langle x\varepsilon_j,\varepsilon_j\rangle=c\operatorname{Tr}(x). The edge cases: for c=∞c=\infty, τ\tau is faithful and normal but not semifinite, and Proposition 3.7 gives z=0z=0; for c=0c=0, the support is 00 (Proposition 3.2) and τ\tau is semifinite; for 0<c<∞0<c<\infty, τ\tau is faithful, normal and semifinite, and finite exactly when dim⁡H<∞\dim H<\infty. If dim⁡H=∞\dim H=\infty, then B(H)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 NN be a von Neumann algebra on HH, and KK a Hilbert space with orthonormal basis (εi)i∈I(\varepsilon_i)_{i\in I}. Let Vi:H→H⊗KV_i:H\to H\otimes K, Viξ=ξ⊗εiV_i\xi=\xi\otimes\varepsilon_i, and for x∈B(H⊗K)x\in B(H\otimes K) put xij=Vi∗xVjx_{ij}=V_i^*xV_j. Let eij∈B(K)e_{ij}\in B(K) be the matrix units, eijεk=δjkεie_{ij}\varepsilon_k=\delta_{jk}\varepsilon_i. The von Neumann tensor product N⊗ˉB(K)N\bar\otimes B(K) is the von Neumann algebra generated by the operators a⊗ba\otimes b.

Lemma 6.4. N⊗ˉB(K)={x∈B(H⊗K):xij∈N for all i,j}N\bar\otimes B(K)=\{x\in B(H\otimes K):x_{ij}\in N\text{ for all }i,j\}.

Proof. A direct computation gives (y(1⊗eij))kl=δjlyki(y(1\otimes e_{ij}))_{kl}=\delta_{jl}y_{ki} and ((1⊗eij)y)kl=δikyjl((1\otimes e_{ij})y)_{kl}=\delta_{ik}y_{jl}. If yy commutes with every 1⊗eij1\otimes e_{ij}, comparing these entries gives yki=0y_{ki}=0 for k≠ik\neq i and yii=yjjy_{ii}=y_{jj}, so y=y0⊗1y=y_0\otimes1. If yy also commutes with N⊗1N\otimes1, then y0∈N′y_0\in N'. So (N⊗B(K))′=N′⊗1(N\otimes B(K))'=N'\otimes1, the other inclusion being clear, and by the bicommutant theorem N⊗ˉB(K)=(N′⊗1)′N\bar\otimes B(K)=(N'\otimes1)'. Finally xx commutes with b⊗1b\otimes1 (b∈N′b\in N') exactly when xijb=bxijx_{ij}b=bx_{ij} for all i,ji,j, that is, when every xijx_{ij} lies in N′′=NN''=N. □\square

Proposition 6.5 (Amplification). Let τ\tau be a normal trace on NN and M=N⊗ˉB(K)M=N\bar\otimes B(K). Put τ~(x)=∑i∈Iτ(xii)(x∈M+).(6.2) \tilde\tau(x)=\sum_{i\in I}\tau(x_{ii})\qquad(x\in M_+). \tag{6.2}

  1. τ~\tilde\tau is a normal trace on MM, and it does not depend on the orthonormal basis.
  2. τ~\tilde\tau is the only normal trace on MM with τ~(y⊗p)=τ(y)\tilde\tau(y\otimes p)=\tau(y) for all y∈N+y\in N_+, for one (equivalently, every) rank-one projection p∈B(K)p\in B(K).
  3. τ~\tilde\tau is faithful if and only if τ\tau is, and semifinite if and only if τ\tau is. Its support is s(τ~)=s(τ)⊗1s(\tilde\tau)=s(\tau)\otimes1.
  4. If BB is any factor of type I, then N⊗ˉB≅N⊗ˉB(K)N\bar\otimes B\cong N\bar\otimes B(K) for some KK, and transporting τ~\tilde\tau gives a normal trace on N⊗ˉBN\bar\otimes B with the same properties. In particular, if NN has a faithful semifinite normal trace, so has N⊗ˉBN\bar\otimes B.

Proof. Fix i0∈Ii_0\in I and put e=1⊗ei0i0e=1\otimes e_{i_0i_0}. By Lemma 6.4, eMe={y⊗ei0i0:y∈N}eMe=\{y\otimes e_{i_0i_0}:y\in N\}, and y↦y⊗ei0i0y\mapsto y\otimes e_{i_0i_0} is a ∗*-isomorphism of NN onto eMeeMe that preserves order and suprema. So τ0(y⊗ei0i0)=τ(y)\tau_0(y\otimes e_{i_0i_0})=\tau(y) is a normal trace on eMeeMe. The partial isometries vj=1⊗ei0jv_j=1\otimes e_{i_0j} satisfy vjvj∗=ev_jv_j^*=e, vj∗vj=1⊗ejjv_j^*v_j=1\otimes e_{jj} and ∑jvj∗vj=1\sum_jv_j^*v_j=1; so c(e)=1c(e)=1, and Theorem 6.2 applies. Since vjxvj∗=xjj⊗ei0i0v_jxv_j^*=x_{jj}\otimes e_{i_0i_0}, formula (6.1) is exactly (6.2). Theorem 6.2 now shows that τ~\tilde\tau is a normal trace, gives uniqueness in (2) for p=ei0i0p=e_{i_0i_0}, and gives the faithfulness and semifiniteness equivalences in (3).

For a unit vector η∈K\eta\in K with rank-one projection pηp_\eta, (y⊗pη)ii=∣⟨εi,η⟩∣2y(y\otimes p_\eta)_{ii}=|\langle\varepsilon_i,\eta\rangle|^2y, so τ~(y⊗pη)=τ(y)∑i∣⟨εi,η⟩∣2=τ(y)\tilde\tau(y\otimes p_\eta)=\tau(y)\sum_i|\langle\varepsilon_i,\eta\rangle|^2=\tau(y). If (εk′)(\varepsilon'_k) is another basis, the trace built from it agrees with τ\tau on the corner of 1⊗pεk0′1\otimes p_{\varepsilon'_{k_0}}, by its construction, and so does τ~\tilde\tau, by this computation. That corner also has central support 11, so Theorem 6.2(2) makes the two traces equal. This proves (1) and (2).

Support: s(τ)⊗1s(\tau)\otimes1 is a central projection of MM. If x∈M+(1−s(τ)⊗1)x\in M_+(1-s(\tau)\otimes1), every xiix_{ii} lies in N+(1−s(τ))N_+(1-s(\tau)), so τ~(x)=0\tilde\tau(x)=0. If x∈(M(s(τ)⊗1))+x\in(M(s(\tau)\otimes1))_+ and τ~(x)=0\tilde\tau(x)=0, then τ(xii)=0\tau(x_{ii})=0 with xii∈N+s(τ)x_{ii}\in N_+s(\tau), so xii=0x_{ii}=0 for every ii; hence x1/2Vi=0x^{1/2}V_i=0 for every ii, and x=0x=0. By Proposition 3.2, s(τ~)=s(τ)⊗1s(\tilde\tau)=s(\tau)\otimes1.

(4) A factor of type I is ∗*-isomorphic to some B(K)B(K). Tensoring this isomorphism with the identity map on NN gives N⊗ˉB≅N⊗ˉB(K)N\bar\otimes B\cong N\bar\otimes B(K) (see "Tensor products of isomorphisms" in the background list). A ∗*-isomorphism preserves order, suprema and the identity (2.1). □\square

Example 6.6 (Normality is needed in Theorem 6.2 and Proposition 6.5). Let N=ℓ∞(N)N=\ell^\infty(\mathbb N) with the finite trace τ\tau of Example 3.4, which is not normal, and M=N⊗ˉB(ℓ2(N))M=N\bar\otimes B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)). Let x∈Mx\in M have entries xk1=1{k}x_{k1}=1_{\{k\}} for k≥1k\geq1 and all other entries 00; it is a partial isometry. Then x∗x=1⊗e11x^*x=1\otimes e_{11} and xx∗=∑k1{k}⊗ekkxx^*=\sum_k1_{\{k\}}\otimes e_{kk}. Formula (6.2), which is (6.1) for the corner of 1⊗e111\otimes e_{11}, gives τ~(x∗x)=τ(1)=1\tilde\tau(x^*x)=\tau(1)=1 but τ~(xx∗)=∑kτ(1{k})=0\tilde\tau(xx^*)=\sum_k\tau(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 MM the following are equivalent:

Proof. (ii)⇒\Rightarrow(ii′') is trivial. (ii′')⇒\Rightarrow(i): let τ\tau be faithful and semifinite. If τ(e)<∞\tau(e)<\infty for a projection ee, then τ\tau restricted to (eMe)+(eMe)_+ is a faithful finite trace on eMeeMe. A single faithful trace separates (eMe)+(eMe)_+, so eMeeMe is finite by Theorem 4.7 ((iii)⇒\Rightarrow(i)), and ee 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 MM is semifinite by Proposition 1.6(c).

(i)⇒\Rightarrow(ii). Step 1: every nonzero central projection zz majorizes the support of some nonzero semifinite normal trace. By Proposition 1.6(c) there is a finite projection 0≠e≤z0\neq e\leq z. The algebra eMeeMe is finite and nonzero, so Theorem 4.7 gives a finite normal trace τ0\tau_0 on eMeeMe with τ0(e)>0\tau_0(e)>0. Its support s0s_0 is a nonzero central projection of eMeeMe (Proposition 3.2), and τ0\tau_0 is faithful on s0Ms0=s0(eMe)s0s_0Ms_0=s_0(eMe)s_0. Apply Theorem 6.2 to the corner s0s_0 and the faithful finite normal trace τ0∣s0Ms0\tau_0|_{s_0Ms_0}. It gives a normal trace τz\tau_z on MM, semifinite because τ0\tau_0 is finite, faithful on Mc(s0)Mc(s_0) and zero on M(1−c(s0))M(1-c(s_0)). By Proposition 3.2, s(τz)=c(s0)s(\tau_z)=c(s_0), which is nonzero and lies below c(e)≤zc(e)\leq z.

Step 2. By Zorn's lemma, choose a maximal family (τk)(\tau_k) of nonzero semifinite normal traces whose supports are pairwise orthogonal. If w=1−∑ks(τk)≠0w=1-\sum_ks(\tau_k)\neq0, Step 1 with z=wz=w contradicts maximality. So ∑ks(τk)=1\sum_ks(\tau_k)=1. By Proposition 3.5, τ=∑kτk\tau=\sum_k\tau_k is a semifinite normal trace with s(τ)=⋁ks(τk)=1s(\tau)=\bigvee_ks(\tau_k)=1; that is, τ\tau is faithful. □\square

7. The trace norm

Let τ\tau be a trace on MM. As agreed after Lemma 2.4, τ(x)\tau(x) means τ˙(x)\dot\tau(x) for x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau.

Proposition 7.1. For x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau and y∈My\in M:

  1. ∣τ(yx)∣2≤τ(∣y∗∣ ∣x∣) τ(∣y∣ ∣x∗∣),(7.1) |\tau(yx)|^2\leq\tau(|y^*|\,|x|)\,\tau(|y|\,|x^*|), \tag{7.1} where both factors on the right are finite and nonnegative.
  2. ∣τ(yx)∣≤τ(∣yx∣)≤∥y∥ τ(∣x∣),τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(∣x∣).(7.2) |\tau(yx)|\leq\tau(|yx|)\leq\|y\|\,\tau(|x|),\qquad \tau(|x^*|)=\tau(|x|). \tag{7.2}
  3. τ(∣x∣)=sup⁡{∣τ(yx)∣:y∈M, ∥y∥≤1}.(7.3) \tau(|x|)=\sup\{|\tau(yx)|:y\in M,\ \|y\|\leq1\}. \tag{7.3}
  4. ∥x∥1:=τ(∣x∣)\|x\|_1:=\tau(|x|) is a seminorm on mτ\mathfrak m_\tau, and a norm if τ\tau is faithful. It satisfies ∥yx∥1≤∥y∥ ∥x∥1\|yx\|_1\leq\|y\|\,\|x\|_1, ∥xy∥1≤∥y∥ ∥x∥1\|xy\|_1\leq\|y\|\,\|x\|_1, ∥x∗∥1=∥x∥1\|x^*\|_1=\|x\|_1 and ∣τ(x)∣≤∥x∥1|\tau(x)|\leq\|x\|_1.
  5. If τ\tau is normal, then ωx=τ( ⋅ x)\omega_x=\tau(\,\cdot\,x) lies in M∗M_* and ∥ωx∥=∥x∥1\|\omega_x\|=\|x\|_1.
  6. If τ\tau is faithful, semifinite and normal, {ωx:x∈mτ}\{\omega_x:x\in\mathfrak m_\tau\} is norm dense in M∗M_*. Hence the completion L1(M,τ)L^1(M,\tau) of (mτ,∥⋅∥1)(\mathfrak m_\tau,\|\cdot\|_1) is isometrically isomorphic to M∗M_* through x↦ωxx\mapsto\omega_x, and τ\tau and the maps x↦yxx\mapsto yx, x↦xyx\mapsto xy (y∈My\in M) extend by continuity to L1(M,τ)L^1(M,\tau).

Proof. Let x=u∣x∣x=u|x| and y=v∣y∣y=v|y| be polar decompositions. By Lemma 2.4(4), ∣x∣∈Fτ|x|\in F_\tau and ∣x∣1/2∈nτ|x|^{1/2}\in\mathfrak n_\tau. Put A=∣x∣1/2v∣y∣1/2A=|x|^{1/2}v|y|^{1/2} and B=∣y∣1/2u∣x∣1/2B=|y|^{1/2}u|x|^{1/2}. Both lie in nτ\mathfrak n_\tau, 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)\tau(yx)=\tau\bigl((v|y|u|x|^{1/2})\,|x|^{1/2}\bigr)=\tau(|x|^{1/2}v|y|u|x|^{1/2})=\tau(AB). The form (a,b)↦τ(b∗a)(a,b)\mapsto\tau(b^*a) on nτ\mathfrak n_\tau is positive semidefinite, so ∣τ(AB)∣2≤τ(AA∗) τ(B∗B)|\tau(AB)|^2\leq\tau(AA^*)\,\tau(B^*B). Now AA∗=∣x∣1/2 v∣y∣v∗ ∣x∣1/2=∣x∣1/2∣y∗∣∣x∣1/2AA^*=|x|^{1/2}\,v|y|v^*\,|x|^{1/2}=|x|^{1/2}|y^*||x|^{1/2} and B∗B=∣x∣1/2u∗∣y∣u∣x∣1/2B^*B=|x|^{1/2}u^*|y|u|x|^{1/2}. By (2.3), τ(AA∗)=τ(∣y∗∣∣x∣)\tau(AA^*)=\tau(|y^*||x|) and τ(B∗B)=τ(∣y∣ u∣x∣u∗)=τ(∣y∣∣x∗∣)\tau(B^*B)=\tau(|y|\,u|x|u^*)=\tau(|y||x^*|). Both are traces of elements of FτF_\tau.

(2) Since ∣y∗∣≤∥y∥|y^*|\leq\|y\|, τ(AA∗)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣)\tau(AA^*)\leq\|y\|\tau(|x|). Likewise τ(B∗B)=τ(∣x∗∣1/2∣y∣∣x∗∣1/2)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∗∣)\tau(B^*B)=\tau(|x^*|^{1/2}|y||x^*|^{1/2})\leq\|y\|\tau(|x^*|), and τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(u∣x∣u∗)=τ(∣x∣u∗u)=τ(∣x∣)\tau(|x^*|)=\tau(u|x|u^*)=\tau(|x|u^*u)=\tau(|x|). With (1), ∣τ(yx)∣≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣)|\tau(yx)|\leq\|y\|\tau(|x|). Applied to 11 and yx∈mτyx\in\mathfrak m_\tau, this gives ∣τ(yx)∣≤τ(∣yx∣)|\tau(yx)|\leq\tau(|yx|). If yx=w∣yx∣yx=w|yx|, then τ(∣yx∣)=τ(w∗yx)≤∥w∗y∥τ(∣x∣)≤∥y∥τ(∣x∣)\tau(|yx|)=\tau(w^*yx)\leq\|w^*y\|\tau(|x|)\leq\|y\|\tau(|x|).

(3) τ(∣x∣)=τ(u∗x)\tau(|x|)=\tau(u^*x) with ∥u∗∥≤1\|u^*\|\leq1, and (2) gives the reverse inequality.

(4) By (3), ∥⋅∥1\|\cdot\|_1 is a supremum of absolute values of linear functionals, hence a seminorm. If τ\tau is faithful and ∥x∥1=0\|x\|_1=0, then ∣x∣=0|x|=0 and x=0x=0. The first bound is (7.2); the second follows from ∥xy∥1=τ(∣(xy)∗∣)=τ(∣y∗x∗∣)\|xy\|_1=\tau(|(xy)^*|)=\tau(|y^*x^*|), from (2) and from τ(∣x∗∣)=τ(∣x∣)\tau(|x^*|)=\tau(|x|); and ∣τ(x)∣=∣τ(1⋅x)∣≤τ(∣x∣)|\tau(x)|=|\tau(1\cdot x)|\leq\tau(|x|).

(5) Let x∈Fτx\in F_\tau and yα↑yy_\alpha\uparrow y in M+M_+. By (2.3) and normality, ωx(yα)=τ(x1/2yαx1/2)↑τ(x1/2yx1/2)=ωx(y)\omega_x(y_\alpha)=\tau(x^{1/2}y_\alpha x^{1/2})\uparrow\tau(x^{1/2}yx^{1/2})=\omega_x(y). So ωx\omega_x is a normal positive functional, and it lies in M∗M_* because the two notions of normality agree. As mτ=span⁡Fτ\mathfrak m_\tau=\operatorname{span}F_\tau, ωx∈M∗\omega_x\in M_* for every x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau. By (3), ∥ωx∥=∥x∥1\|\omega_x\|=\|x\|_1.

(6) Let y∈My\in M with ωx(y)=0\omega_x(y)=0 for all x∈mτx\in\mathfrak m_\tau; we show y=0y=0. Suppose y≠0y\neq0 and let y=v∣y∣y=v|y|. If s∣y∣s=0s|y|s=0 for all s∈Fτs\in F_\tau, then ∣y∣1/2s=0|y|^{1/2}s=0 for all s∈Fτs\in F_\tau, so ∣y∣1/2mτ=0|y|^{1/2}\mathfrak m_\tau=0. Since mτ\mathfrak m_\tau is σ\sigma-weakly dense (Proposition 2.5(e)) and multiplication is σ\sigma-weakly continuous, ∣y∣1/2=0|y|^{1/2}=0, a contradiction. So some s∈Fτs\in F_\tau has s∣y∣s≠0s|y|s\neq0. Put x=s2v∗∈mτx=s^2v^*\in\mathfrak m_\tau. By (2.3), ωx(y)=τ(ys2v∗)=τ(s2v∗y)=τ(s2∣y∣)=τ(s∣y∣s)>0\omega_x(y)=\tau(ys^2v^*)=\tau(s^2v^*y)=\tau(s^2|y|)=\tau(s|y|s)>0, by faithfulness, another contradiction. So the subspace {ωx}\{\omega_x\} of M∗M_* has zero annihilator in (M∗)∗=M(M_*)^*=M, and it is norm dense by the Hahn–Banach theorem. The map x↦ωxx\mapsto\omega_x is an isometry from (mτ,∥⋅∥1)(\mathfrak m_\tau,\|\cdot\|_1) onto a dense subspace of the Banach space M∗M_*, so it extends to an isometric isomorphism of the completion onto M∗M_*. The functional τ\tau and the maps x↦yxx\mapsto yx, x↦xyx\mapsto xy are ∥⋅∥1\|\cdot\|_1-bounded by (4), so they extend. □\square

Remark. For a∈Ma\in M, (2.3) gives ωax(y)=ωx(ya)\omega_{ax}(y)=\omega_x(ya) and ωxa(y)=ωx(ay)\omega_{xa}(y)=\omega_x(ay). By continuity these identities persist on L1(M,τ)L^1(M,\tau).

Exercises

Exercise 1 (An ℓ∞\ell^\infty-sum of matrix algebras). Let M=⨁n≥1Mn(C)M=\bigoplus_{n\geq1}M_n(\mathbb C), the bounded sequences x=(xn)x=(x_n) with xn∈Mn(C)x_n\in M_n(\mathbb C). (a) Find TMT_M. (b) Describe all finite normal traces on MM. (c) Give a finite trace that is not normal, and check (5.4) for it. (d) Show that e≾fe\precsim f exactly when rank⁡en≤rank⁡fn\operatorname{rank}e_n\leq\operatorname{rank}f_n for all nn.

Solution. (a) The center is the algebra of bounded scalar sequences. Let tr⁡n\operatorname{tr}_n be the normalized trace of Mn(C)M_n(\mathbb C) and T(x)=(tr⁡n(xn))nT(x)=(\operatorname{tr}_n(x_n))_n. Then T(x∗x)=T(xx∗)≥0T(x^*x)=T(xx^*)\geq0, TT is linear, T(ax)=aT(x)T(ax)=aT(x) for central aa, T(1)=1T(1)=1, and T(x∗x)=0T(x^*x)=0 forces every xn=0x_n=0. By Theorem 5.5(2), T=TMT=T_M. (b) By Theorem 5.5(1), the finite normal traces are ψ∘T\psi\circ T with ψ\psi normal and positive on ℓ∞(N)\ell^\infty(\mathbb N), that is, ψ(a)=∑ncnan\psi(a)=\sum_nc_na_n with cn≥0c_n\geq0 and ∑ncn<∞\sum_nc_n<\infty. So they are τ(x)=∑ncntr⁡n(xn)\tau(x)=\sum_nc_n\operatorname{tr}_n(x_n). (c) For a free ultrafilter ω\omega, τ(x)=lim⁡ωtr⁡n(xn)\tau(x)=\lim_\omega\operatorname{tr}_n(x_n) is a positive functional with τ(x∗x)=τ(xx∗)\tau(x^*x)=\tau(xx^*), hence a finite trace. It vanishes on each summand while τ(1)=1\tau(1)=1, so it is not normal. It equals ψ∘T\psi\circ T with ψ=lim⁡ω\psi=\lim_\omega, which is (5.4). (d) T(e)≤T(f)T(e)\leq T(f) means tr⁡n(en)≤tr⁡n(fn)\operatorname{tr}_n(e_n)\leq\operatorname{tr}_n(f_n) for all nn, that is, rank⁡en≤rank⁡fn\operatorname{rank}e_n\leq\operatorname{rank}f_n; apply Corollary 5.4.

Exercise 2 (A projection of finite trace need not be finite). Let M=C⊕B(ℓ2(N))M=\mathbb C\oplus B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)) and τ(a⊕x)=a\tau(a\oplus x)=a. Show that τ\tau is a finite normal trace, that 11 is an infinite projection, and that τ(1)<∞\tau(1)<\infty. Which step of the proof of (ii′')⇒\Rightarrow(i) in Theorem 6.7 uses faithfulness?

Solution. τ\tau is a normal positive functional, and τ(z∗z)=∣z1∣2=τ(zz∗)\tau(z^*z)=|z_1|^2=\tau(zz^*) for z=z1⊕z2z=z_1\oplus z_2. With the unilateral shift SS, the isometry u=1⊕Su=1\oplus S has u∗u=1u^*u=1 and uu∗=1⊕SS∗≠1uu^*=1\oplus SS^*\neq1, so 11 is infinite, while τ(1)=1\tau(1)=1. The step "τ\tau restricted to eMeeMe is a faithful finite trace, so ee is finite" needs faithfulness; here τ\tau vanishes on the infinite summand.

Exercise 3 (Finite sums of semifinite traces). (a) Show that τ1+τ2\tau_1+\tau_2 is semifinite whenever τ1,τ2\tau_1,\tau_2 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+0\neq x\in M_+. Semifiniteness of τ1\tau_1 gives 0≠y1≤x0\neq y_1\leq x with τ1(y1)<∞\tau_1(y_1)<\infty, and semifiniteness of τ2\tau_2 gives 0≠y2≤y10\neq y_2\leq y_1 with τ2(y2)<∞\tau_2(y_2)<\infty. Then τ1(y2)≤τ1(y1)<∞\tau_1(y_2)\leq\tau_1(y_1)<\infty, so (τ1+τ2)(y2)<∞(\tau_1+\tau_2)(y_2)<\infty. (b) The argument shrinks xx 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 yy has ∑nτn(y)=∞\sum_n\tau_n(y)=\infty.

Exercise 4 (The trace norm in a matrix algebra). In M2(C)M_2(\mathbb C) with τ=Tr⁡\tau=\operatorname{Tr}, compute ∥x∥1\|x\|_1 for x=e12+2e21x=e_{12}+2e_{21}, and find yy with ∥y∥≤1\|y\|\leq1 and ∣Tr⁡(yx)∣=∥x∥1|\operatorname{Tr}(yx)|=\|x\|_1.

Solution. x∗=e21+2e12x^*=e_{21}+2e_{12}, so x∗x=e21e12+4e12e21=e22+4e11x^*x=e_{21}e_{12}+4e_{12}e_{21}=e_{22}+4e_{11} and ∣x∣=2e11+e22|x|=2e_{11}+e_{22}. Hence ∥x∥1=3\|x\|_1=3. The polar decomposition is x=u∣x∣x=u|x| with u=e12+e21u=e_{12}+e_{21}, since u∣x∣=2e21+e12u|x|=2e_{21}+e_{12}. Take y=u∗=e12+e21y=u^*=e_{12}+e_{21}, of norm 11: Tr⁡(yx)=Tr⁡(u∗u∣x∣)=Tr⁡(∣x∣)=3\operatorname{Tr}(yx)=\operatorname{Tr}(u^*u|x|)=\operatorname{Tr}(|x|)=3, as in (7.3).

Exercise 5 (No center-valued trace on B(ℓ2)B(\ell^2)). Show that there is no linear map T:B(ℓ2(N))→CT:B(\ell^2(\mathbb N))\to\mathbb C with properties (a), (b), (c) of (5.2).

Solution. Property (b) is automatic, since the center is C1\mathbb C1. By (a), TT is a positive linear functional with T(x∗x)=T(xx∗)T(x^*x)=T(xx^*), that is, a finite trace, and T(1)=1T(1)=1 by (c). But B(ℓ2(N))B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)) is properly infinite, so Theorem 5.9(1) forces T=0T=0, a contradiction. This does not conflict with Theorem 5.2, because B(ℓ2(N))B(\ell^2(\mathbb N)) is not finite.

Where this leads

References

Editable source · Sources and component terms