Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Multiplier algebras of $L^p$-operator algebras

Andrey Blinov, Alonso Delfín, Ellen Weld

TL;DR

The paper investigates when multiplier algebras of $L^p$-operator algebras remain within the same analytic class after removing the usual hypotheses of approximate unitality or nondegenerate representation. It presents two contrasting constructions: the multiplier algebra of the degenerate algebra $T_2^p$ is still an $L^p$-operator algebra, while the multiplier algebra of the augmentation-ideal construction $F_0^p(\mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z})$ can fail to admit any $L^q$-operator representation for a broad range of $p$ values. A detailed analysis of augmentation ideals for finite groups shows these algebras have no cai and cannot be nondegenerately represented, while the Gelfand-transform structure for $\ell_0^1(G)$ in finite abelian groups yields a concrete idempotent description for their multiplier algebras. The work also underscores the sensitivity of $L^p$-operator algebra norms by demonstrating norms on $\mathbb{C}^n$ that either support or preclude $L^p$-operator representations, with open questions about full norm classification on $\mathbb{C}^n$ in this context.

Abstract

It is known that the multiplier algebra of an approximately unital and nondegenerate $L^p$-operator algebra is again an $L^p$-operator algebra. In this paper we investigate examples that drop both hypotheses. In particular, we show that the multiplier algebra of $T_2^p$, the algebra of strictly upper triangular $2 \times 2$ matrices acting on $\ell_2^p$, is still an $L^p$-operator algebra for any $p$. To contrast this result, we first provide a thorough study of the augmentation ideal of $\ell^1(G)$ for a discrete group $G$. We use this ideal to define a family of nonapproximately unital degenerate $L^p$-operator algebras, $F_{0}^p(\Bbb{Z}/3\Bbb{Z})$, whose multiplier algebras cannot be represented on any $L^q$-space for any $q \in [1, \infty)$ as long as $p \in [1, p_0] \cup [p_0', \infty)$, where $p_0=1.606$ and $p_0'$ is its Hölder conjugate.

Multiplier algebras of $L^p$-operator algebras

TL;DR

The paper investigates when multiplier algebras of -operator algebras remain within the same analytic class after removing the usual hypotheses of approximate unitality or nondegenerate representation. It presents two contrasting constructions: the multiplier algebra of the degenerate algebra is still an -operator algebra, while the multiplier algebra of the augmentation-ideal construction can fail to admit any -operator representation for a broad range of values. A detailed analysis of augmentation ideals for finite groups shows these algebras have no cai and cannot be nondegenerately represented, while the Gelfand-transform structure for in finite abelian groups yields a concrete idempotent description for their multiplier algebras. The work also underscores the sensitivity of -operator algebra norms by demonstrating norms on that either support or preclude -operator representations, with open questions about full norm classification on in this context.

Abstract

It is known that the multiplier algebra of an approximately unital and nondegenerate -operator algebra is again an -operator algebra. In this paper we investigate examples that drop both hypotheses. In particular, we show that the multiplier algebra of , the algebra of strictly upper triangular matrices acting on , is still an -operator algebra for any . To contrast this result, we first provide a thorough study of the augmentation ideal of for a discrete group . We use this ideal to define a family of nonapproximately unital degenerate -operator algebras, , whose multiplier algebras cannot be represented on any -space for any as long as , where and is its Hölder conjugate.
Paper Structure (9 sections, 28 theorems, 97 equations)

This paper contains 9 sections, 28 theorems, 97 equations.

Key Result

Lemma 2.4

Let $A$ be a Banach algebra with a cai. Then for any $a \in A$,

Theorems & Definitions (67)

  • Definition 2.1
  • Definition 2.2
  • Definition 2.3
  • Lemma 2.4
  • proof
  • Definition 2.5
  • Lemma 2.6
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.7
  • proof
  • ...and 57 more