Stability of 2nd conjugate Banach algebras

Arabian Journal of Mathematics, Feb 2018

In general the stability of normed algebras is a non hereditary property. We shall prove that second conjugate Banach algebras may be non stable even if the underlying Banach algebra is stable. We shall characterize stability of second conjugate Banach algebras. Finally, we shall study kinds of stability induced on an algebra with an stable second conjugate algebra.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40065-018-0198-4.pdf

Stability of 2nd conjugate Banach algebras

Stability of 2nd conjugate Banach algebras Ana L. Barrenechea 0 1 Carlos C. Peña 0 1 Mathematics Subject Classification 0 1 0 A. L. Barrenechea 1 Primary 46H99 In general the stability of normed algebras is a non hereditary property. We shall prove that second conjugate Banach algebras may be non stable even if the underlying Banach algebra is stable. We shall characterize stability of second conjugate Banach algebras. Finally, we shall study kinds of stability induced on an algebra with an stable second conjugate algebra. Throughout this article, A will be a complex Banach algebra. Then A is called left (resp., right) stable if the left (resp., right) regular representation L A (resp., anti-representation R A) of A into B( A) is isometric. A is stable if it is left and right stable. Recently, stable Banach algebras became relevant because of their important role in the theory of almost multiplier maps [1]. It is readily seen that the class of left (resp., right) stable algebras contains the class of Banach algebras endowed with a bounded right (resp., left) approximate identity with bound 1. Likewise, any stable Banach algebra is faithful. However, there are stable Banach algebras without bounded approximate units and there are faithful non stable Banach algebras. Further, subalgebras of stable Banach algebras are not necessarily stable [2]. Let χ A be the isometric immersion χ A : A → A∗∗ of A into its second conjugate space A∗∗. It is known that A∗∗ has two Banach algebra structures with products and ♦ that generalize the underlying product of A [3, 4]. This fact gave raise to the important issue of algebraic (or Arens) regularity, related to deciding - 1 Introduction conditions of coincidence of these products. Given a∗∗, b∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ we shall write a∗∗ b∗∗ = w∗ − lii∈mI lji∈mJ χA(ai b j ), a∗∗♦b∗∗ = w∗ − lji∈mJ lii∈mI χA(ai b j ), where {ai }i∈I and {b j } j∈J are bounded nets in A so that a∗∗ = w∗ − lim χA(ai ) and b∗∗ = w∗ − lji∈mJ χA(b j ) ∈I (cf. [7], 1.4., 46–64). Since its introduction in 1951, this setting constituted an important way for the development of Banach algebra theory. We remark the following two facts: (i) Any Banach algebra A becomes a subalgebra of its second dual Banach algebra ( A∗∗, ) (or ( A, )). (ii) Stability is not an hereditary property. Thus, it is of interest to seek on relationships of stability of a Banach algebra and stability of the corresponding second dual Banach algebras (cf. [2], 4., Open Problem 2). Our aim is to investigate the relationship between the stability of A∗∗ and the stability of A. To this end, in Lemma 2.1 we shall relate the left regular representations of A and A∗∗. In our main result Th. 2.3 we shall see that the underlying algebra A inherits the same kind of stability of its second conjugate Banach-Arens algebras. In Ex. 2.4 we shall exhibit a stable Banach abelian algebra whose second conjugate algebra is not stable. This example gives a negative answer to Problem (2) posed in [2]. As stability is a metric condition, the characterization in Th. 2.5 of stable second conjugate Banach algebras relies on metric facts explored in Lemma 2.2. 2 Algebraic stability of the 2nd conjugate algebra Lemma 2.1 There is a contractive linear operator : B( A)∗∗ → B( A∗∗) so that L = ◦ (L A)∗∗, R♦ = ◦ (R A)∗∗, where L and R♦ denote the left and right regular representation and anti-representation of A∗∗ endowed with the Arens products and ♦, respectively. Proof Let u : A∗ × A∗∗ → B( A)∗ so that u(a∗, a∗∗)(T ) = T ∗(a∗), a∗∗ if T ∈ B( A), a∗ ∈ A∗ and a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗. It is plain that u is a well defined norm-one bilinear form and if n ∈ B( A)∗∗ we set a∗, (n)(a∗∗) = u(a∗, a∗∗), n . It is readily seen that becomes a well defined contractive linear operator between B( A)∗∗ and B( A∗∗). Let a ∈ A, a∗ ∈ A∗ and a∗∗, b∗∗ ∈ A∗∗. Then, a, (L A)∗[u(a∗, b∗∗)] = L A(a), u(a∗, b∗∗) i.e., (L A)∗[u(a∗, b∗∗)] = b∗∗a∗. Therefore, a∗, ( ◦ (L A)∗∗)(a∗∗)(b∗∗) = a∗, ((L A)∗∗(a∗∗))(b∗∗) = (L A)∗(a∗), b∗∗ = a∗a, b∗∗ = a, b∗∗a∗ , = u(a∗, b∗∗), (L A)∗∗(a∗∗) = (L A)∗[u(a∗, b∗∗)], a∗∗ = b∗∗a∗, a∗∗ = a∗, a∗∗ b∗∗ = a∗, L (a∗∗)(b∗∗) . The other identity follows analogously. Lemma 2.2 Let X , Y be complex normed spaces and let T ∈ B(X, Y ). Then T ∗ is isometric if and only if T ([X ]1)− = [Y ]1, i.e., if and only if the closure of the image of the closed unit ball of X under T is the closed unit ball of Y . Proof If T ∗ is isometric it has norm one. So, T = 1 and T ([X ]1)− ⊆ [Y ]1. If this inclusión is strict let y0 ∈ [Y ]1 − T ([X ]1)−. By the Hahn-Banach theorem, there exist a non-zero linear form y1∗ on Y and constants r ∈ R and δ > 0 so that ( y, y1∗ ) < r < r + δ < ( y0, y1∗ ) (2.1) for all y ∈ T ([X ]1)−. It is easy to see that y1∗ is bounded and with minor changes we can assume that y1∗ = 1. It is also clear that r > 0. Now, for x ∈ [X ]1 such that T (x ), y1∗ = 0 let ς ∈ C so that | ς |= 1 and T (x ), y1∗ = ς | T (x ), y1∗ | . Then | x , T ∗(y1∗) | = T (ς¯ x ), y1∗ < r. By (2.1) we can conclude that T ∗(y1∗) < y1∗ , which contradicts the fact that T ∗ is an isometry. On the other hand, let us suppose that the condition holds. Hence it is plain that T = 1 and so T ∗ = 1. Further, given ε > 0 and y2∗ ∈ Y ∗ let y ∈ [Y ]1 so that y2∗ −ε <| y, y2∗ | . By hypothesis and the continuity of y2∗ we can choose x1 ∈ [X ]1 so that y∗ 2 − ε < | T (x1), y2∗ | = | x1, T ∗(y2∗)| ≤ T ∗(y2∗) ≤ y∗ 2 and the claim follows. Theorem 2.3 The underlying algebra A inherits the same kind of stability of its second dual conjugate algebra. Proof By Lemma 2.1 the map becomes isometric on the range of (L A)∗∗ (or (R A)∗∗) if ( A∗∗, ) (or ( A∗∗, ♦)) is left (or right) stable. In these cases it is clear that A becomes left (or right) stable. If a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ we see that where L is the representation of ( A∗∗, ) into B( A∗) so that for a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ and a∗ ∈ A∗ acts as L(a∗∗)(a∗) = a∗∗a∗. Consequently, ( A∗∗, ) is right stable if and only if L is isometric. Moreover, let : B( A∗∗) → B( A∗) be the norm one projection = (χA)∗ ◦ ∗ ◦ χA∗ introduced in [6], p. 545. Following the notation of Lemma 2.1, for a ∈ A, a∗ ∈ A∗ and a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ we have a, [ ◦ ◦ (R A)∗∗](a∗∗)(a∗) = a, [ ((R A)∗∗(a∗∗))] (a∗) = [ ((R A)∗∗(a∗∗))](χA(a)), χA∗ (a∗) = a∗, [ ((R A)∗∗(a∗∗))](χA(a)) = u(a∗, χA(a)), (R A)∗∗(a∗∗) = (R A)∗[u(a∗, χA(a))], a∗∗ = a∗a, a∗∗ = a, L(a∗∗)(a∗) , i.e., L = ◦ ◦ (R A)∗∗. The maps , and (R A)∗∗ are contractive. So, if L is isometric then (R A)∗∗ must be isometric. But χB(A) ◦ R A = (R A)∗∗ ◦ χA and as χB(A) and χA are isometric it is plain that R A becomes isometric. Left stability of A induced by left stability of ( A∗∗, ♦) follows analogously. Example 2.4 Second conjugate algebras of stable Banach algebras could be not stable. For instance, let us consider the abelian Banach algebra A = L1[ 0, 1 ] with respect to the usual convolution product. It is stable as it is provided by the Fejér kernel of a bounded approximate identity (cf. [7], 1.8.15). However, let E ∈ L1[ 0, 1 ]∗∗ so that g, E = g(0) if g ∈ C[ 0, 1 ]. Let f ∈ L∞[ 0, 1 ] and g ∈ C[ 0, 1 ]. Then f becomes absolutely integrable, ( f ∗ g)(0) = 0 and f ∗ g ∈ C[ 0, 1 ] because C[ 0, 1 ] is an ideal of A. So, i.e., E f = 0A∗ by the density of continuous functions within A. Now, given F ∈ A∗∗ we obtain g, E f = f ∗ g, E = ( f ∗ g)(0) = 0, f, R (E)(F) = f, F E = E f, F = 0. We infer that R (E) = 0B(A∗∗) and as evidently E = 0A∗∗ then ( A∗∗, ) is not right stable. Theorem 2.5 Let ζ1, ζ2 ∈ B[ A⊗ˆ A∗, A∗], η1, η2 ∈ B[ A∗ ⊗ˆ A∗∗, A∗] be the unique operators so that ζ1(a ⊗ a∗) = a∗a, ζ2(a ⊗ a∗) = aa∗, η1(a∗ ⊗ a∗∗) = a∗∗a∗, η2(a∗ ⊗ a∗∗) = a∗a∗∗, for all a ∈ A, a∗ ∈ A∗, a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗. Then: (1) ( A∗∗, ) is RSBA if and only if ζ1([ A⊗ˆ A∗]1)− = [ A∗]1. (2) ( A∗∗, ) is LSBA if and only if η1([ A∗⊗ˆ A∗∗]1)− = [ A∗]1. (3) ( A∗∗, ♦) is RSBA if and only if η2([ A∗⊗ˆ A∗∗]1)− = [ A∗]1. (4) ( A∗∗, ♦) is LSBA if and only if ζ2([ A⊗ˆ A∗]1)− = [ A∗]1. Proof (1) It is worth mentioning the isometric isomorphism of Banach spaces ( A⊗ˆ A∗)∗ ≈ B( A∗). For, if Q ∈ B( A∗) there is a unique θQ ∈ ( A⊗ˆ A∗)∗ so that a ⊗ a∗, θQ = a, Q(a∗) on tensors. On the other hand, given θ ∈ ( A⊗ˆ A∗)∗ then Qθ ∈ B( A∗) if we set a, Qθ (a∗) = a ⊗ a∗, θ . It is easy to see that the linear mappings Q → θQ and θ → Qθ are isometric and inverse of each other (cf. [5], Ch. VIII.2, Th. 1). In particular, ζ1∗ ∈ B[ A∗∗, ( A⊗ˆ A∗)∗] and given a, a∗ and a∗∗ we have i.e., Qζ1∗(a∗∗)(a∗) = a∗∗a∗ for all a∗ and Qζ1∗(a∗∗) = ζ1∗(a∗∗) . Moreover, a, a∗∗a∗ = a∗a, a∗∗ = ζ1(a ⊗ a∗), a∗∗ = a ⊗ a∗, ζ1∗(a∗∗) = a, Qζ1∗(a∗∗)(a∗) , and the assertion follows by Lemma 2.2. (2) Following the notation of Lemma 2.1, by the universal property of projective tensor products there is a unique u∧ ∈ B[ A∗ ⊗ˆ A∗∗, B( A)∗] so that uˆ = u B[A∗,A∗∗;B(A)∗] and for any a∗ and a∗∗ the identity u∧(a∗ ⊗ a∗∗) = u(a∗, a∗∗) holds. If n ∈ B( A)∗∗ we see that Hence, (n) = (uˆ)∗(n) (A∗ ⊗ˆA∗∗)∗ . Indeed, η1∗ = (uˆ)∗ ◦ (L A)∗∗. Now, if A∗∗ is a left stable Banach algebra by Lemma 2.1 the o-perators (L A)∗∗ and |R[(L A)∗∗] become both isometric. Hence, if a∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ we have a∗∗ = (L A)∗∗(a∗∗) and η1∗ becomes isometric. Therefore, by Lemma 2.2 we have and the necessity follows. Reciprocally, if b∗∗ ∈ A∗∗ by Lemma 2.2 we can write = = = ((L A)∗∗(a∗∗)) (uˆ )∗((L A)∗∗(a∗∗)) η1∗(a∗∗) η1([ A∗⊗ˆ A∗∗]1)− = [ A∗]1 L (b∗∗) = = = = [(L A)∗∗(b∗∗)] (uˆ )∗[(L A)∗∗(b∗∗)] η1∗(b∗∗) b∗∗ . (3) Here, we argue as in (2) since by Lemma 2.1 it is readily seen that R♦ = η∗. 2 (4) Similar argument as in (1). Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. 1. Ansari-Piri , E. ; Nouri , S. : Almost multipliers and some of their properties . J. Adv. Math . 11 ( 7 ), 5397 - 5402 ( 2015 ) 2 . Ansari-Piri , E. ; Nouri , S. : Stable normed algebras . arXiv:1509.08142 , 1 - 8 ( 2015 ) 3 . Arens , R.: Operations induced in function classes . Monatsh. Math. 55 , 1 - 19 ( 1951 ) 4 . Arens , R.: The adjoint of a bilinear operation . Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 2 , 839 - 848 ( 1951 ) 5 . Diestel , J.; Uhl , J. J. , Jr.: Vector measures . Am. Math. Surveys and Monogr . 15. AMS ( 1977 ) 6 . Grosser , M. : Arens semi-regularity of the algebra of compact operators . Illinois J. Math . 31 ( 4 ), 544 - 573 ( 1987 ) 7 . Palmer , T.W.: Banach algebras and the general theory of *-algebras , vol. I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge ( 2004 ) 8 . Palmer , T.W.: The bidual of the compact operators . Trans. Am. Math. Soc . 288 ( 2 ), 827 - 839 ( 1985 )


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs40065-018-0198-4.pdf

Ana L. Barrenechea, Carlos C. Peña. Stability of 2nd conjugate Banach algebras, Arabian Journal of Mathematics, 2018, 1-5, DOI: 10.1007/s40065-018-0198-4