Definition
Let L(H) denote the bounded operators on a Hilbert space H, M ⊂ L(H) be a von Neumann algebra, and M` the commutant of M. The center of M is Z(M) = M` ∩ M = {T ∈ M | TM = MT for all M ∈ M}. The central carrier C(E) of a projection E in M is defined as follows:
- C(E) = ∧ {F ∈ Z(M) | F is a projection and F ≥ E}.
The symbol ∧ denotes the lattice operation on the projections in Z(M): F1 ∧ F2 is the projection onto the closed subspace generated by Ran(F1) ∩ Ran(F2).
The abelian algebra Z(M), being the intersection of two von Neumann algebras, is also a von Neumann algebra. Therefore C(E) lies in Z(M).
If one think of M as a direct sum (or more accurately, a direct integral) of its factors, then the central projections are the direct sums of identity operators in the factors. If E is confined to a single factor, then C(E) is the identity operator in that factor. Informally, one would expect C(E) to be the direct sum of identity operators I where I is in a factor and I · E ≠ 0.
Read more about this topic: Central Carrier
Famous quotes containing the word definition:
“... if, as women, we accept a philosophy of history that asserts that women are by definition assimilated into the male universal, that we can understand our past through a male lens—if we are unaware that women even have a history—we live our lives similarly unanchored, drifting in response to a veering wind of myth and bias.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“Beauty, like all other qualities presented to human experience, is relative; and the definition of it becomes unmeaning and useless in proportion to its abstractness. To define beauty not in the most abstract, but in the most concrete terms possible, not to find a universal formula for it, but the formula which expresses most adequately this or that special manifestation of it, is the aim of the true student of aesthetics.”
—Walter Pater (1839–1894)
“The man who knows governments most completely is he who troubles himself least about a definition which shall give their essence. Enjoying an intimate acquaintance with all their particularities in turn, he would naturally regard an abstract conception in which these were unified as a thing more misleading than enlightening.”
—William James (1842–1910)