Why is the Rational Rotation Algebra not a Matrix Algebra?











up vote
4
down vote

favorite












Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.




I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.




Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
$$
U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
end{pmatrix}
quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
end{pmatrix}
$$

in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.




Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.











share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    4
    down vote

    favorite












    Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.




    I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.




    Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
    $$
    U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
    0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
    vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
    0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
    1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
    end{pmatrix}
    quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
    1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
    0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
    0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
    vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
    0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
    end{pmatrix}
    $$

    in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.




    Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.











    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      4
      down vote

      favorite











      Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.




      I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.




      Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
      $$
      U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
      vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
      0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
      1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
      end{pmatrix}
      quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
      1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
      vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
      0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
      end{pmatrix}
      $$

      in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.




      Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.











      share|cite|improve this question













      Let $A_{theta}$ be the rotation C$^{*}$-algebra with rotation $theta$. I.e., $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)$, where $vu=e^{2pi i theta}uv$. Suppose that $theta=p/q$, where $p$ and $q$ are non-zero positive integers that are relatively prime.




      I am trying to show that $A_{theta}$ is not simple.




      Consider the C$^{*}$-algebra $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ and the two unitary matrices
      $$
      U = begin{pmatrix}0 & 1 & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & 0 & 1 & cdots & 0\
      vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
      0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 1\
      1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0
      end{pmatrix}
      quadtext{and}quad V=begin{pmatrix}
      1 & 0 & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & e^{2pi i theta} & 0 & cdots & 0\
      0 & 0 & e^{4pi i theta} & cdots & 0\
      vdots & vdots & vdots & ddots & vdots\
      0 & 0 & 0 & cdots & e^{2(q-1)pi itheta}
      end{pmatrix}
      $$

      in $M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. It is easy to check that $VU=e^{2pi i theta}UV$. It follows by the universal property of $A_{theta}$ that there is a $*$-homomorphism $picolon A_{theta}to M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ such that $pi(u)=U$ and $pi(v)=V$. If $pi$ is not injective, then we are finished, since $kerpi$ is a non-zero proper ideal in $A_{theta}$. So, we may suppose $pi$ is inejctive. Now note that $pi$ is an irreducible representation. Otherwise, it would decompose into a direct sum of smaller irreducible ones, which is impossible. But then it must be that $pi(A_{theta})=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$ since irreducible representations acting on a finite-dimensional space are surjective.




      Thus, we can conclude that $A_{theta}=C^{*}(u,v)=C^{*}(U,V)=M_{q}(mathbb{C})$. I am looking for a straight-forward way to get a contradiction here.








      functional-analysis operator-algebras c-star-algebras






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 20 at 15:41









      ervx

      10.2k31338




      10.2k31338






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          3
          down vote



          accepted










          As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.



          The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006477%2fwhy-is-the-rational-rotation-algebra-not-a-matrix-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            3
            down vote



            accepted










            As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.



            The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              3
              down vote



              accepted










              As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.



              The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                3
                down vote



                accepted







                up vote
                3
                down vote



                accepted






                As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.



                The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                As you can read in the first paragraph of Chapter VI in Davidson, you can realize unitaries $u,v$ with $uv=e^{2pi i theta}vu$ by taking $u,vin B(L^2(mathbb T))$ where $u$ is multiplication by $z$, i.e. the bilateral shift.



                The C$^*$-algebra generated by $u$ is $C^*(u)=C(mathbb T)$, so by restricting your $pi$ to $C^*(u)$ you get a $*$-homomorphism $$pi:C(mathbb T)to M_n(mathbb C).$$ If $pi$ were injective, you would have an infinite-dimensional subalgebra of $M_n(mathbb C)$.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 20 at 17:20









                Martin Argerami

                121k1073172




                121k1073172






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006477%2fwhy-is-the-rational-rotation-algebra-not-a-matrix-algebra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Wiesbaden

                    Marschland

                    Dieringhausen