## Continuity of a weight on its definition domain in a von Neumann algebra

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

Let $M$ be a von Neumann algebra and $\varphi$ be a normal weight on it, and let $A$ be its definition subalgebra. We still denote $\varphi$ the extension to $A$ as a linear positive functional. It is known that $\varphi$ is lower-ultraweakly-semicontinuous on $M^+$ (the positive elements of $M$).

Questions:

• Is $\varphi$ ultraweakly continuous on $A$ (as a linear positive functional), where $A$ has the induced ultraweak topology of $M$ ? (Clearly, if $A=M$ this assertion is classical, right ?)

• If we fix a Hilbert space representation of $M$ (so that $M\subseteq \mathcal{B}(H)$). Do we have that $\varphi$ is strongly or weakly continuous on A ?

(If it helps, one can suppose $\varphi$ to be a trace, semifinite and faithful).

• A third (somewhat related) question: Suppose that $B$ is a subalgebra of a von Neumann algebra, and that $f:B\to M$ is a positive linear map, such that $f$ is normal in the following sense : for any increasing net in $B^+$ with supremum in $B^+$, the image (by $f$) of this supremum is the supremum of the image of the net (the usual notion of normality, but with the hypothesis that the supremum lies in $B^+$). Do we have that $f$ is continuous (for the ultraweak topologies)?

These questions seem natural to me, but I haven't been able to locate any reference about them.

-

## 1 Answer

1) if $A=M$ the assertion is indeed classical: normal states are exactly those ultraweakly continuous. But consider the case where $M=B(H)$ and $\varphi$ is the trace. Then the definition subalgebra $A$ is exactly the trace-class operators. Let `$\{p_k\}\subset A$` be a maximal net of pairwise orthogonal projections of trace 1 (i.e. `$\{e_{kk}\}$` for any choice of matrix units). Then $p_k\to0$ ultraweakly, but $\mbox{Tr}(p_k)=1$ for all $k$. So the trace is not ultraweakly continuous on the definition algebra, only ultraweakly lower-semicontinuous.

2) The example on 1) is already explicitly represented, so no.

-

1
For (3), doesn't the same example work, considered as the map $T(H)\rightarrow B(H), x\mapsto \tr(x) 1$? I think this follows, as the question insists that the supremum of our increasing net in $B^+$ exists in $B^+$. – Matthew Daws Jan 29 2012 at 9:38
I first answered that same example to 3, but then I thought that maybe the question required $B$ to be a von Neumann subalgebra and the map to be defined everywhere. So I stopped to consider cases like when $B$ is a monotone complete C$^*$-subalgebra of $B(H)$. Maybe Oliver can clarify what he expects in 3). – Martin Argerami Jan 29 2012 at 13:28
I have just added a possible answer to 3). – Martin Argerami Jan 29 2012 at 14:02

1
Never mind. Let's wait for Oliver to clarify question 3. – Martin Argerami Jan 29 2012 at 14:46

1
Indeed, this answers also my question 3. Thanks! But I am actually also curious about the case you mentioned where $f$ is everywhere defined and $B$ is a von Neumann subalgebra. – Oliver Jan 29 2012 at 20:42
show 3 more comments
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 41, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9235442280769348, "perplexity_flag": "head"}