OnumaK Essay 1

Linear Mappings Between Banach
Algebras That Preserve Spectral

Properties
by
Kenneth Emeka Onuma
A project
presented to the University of Waterloo
in fulllment of the
research project requirement for the degree of
Masters of Mathematics
in
Pure Mathematics
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada 2011
c Kenneth Emeka Onuma 2011
Authors Declaration
I hereby declare that I am the sole author of this research project. This is
a true copy of the project, including any required nal revisions, as accepted
by my examiners.
I understand that my project may be made electronically available to the
public.
ii
Abstract
In order to build an algebraic model of a given physical system, mathemati-
cians often begin by considering the geometric properties of the given system.
A fundamental question in physics asks to what extent the algebraic model is
predetermined by the geometric data obtained from the system. In a quan-
tum mechanical system, the geometric data are the measurements, that is, the
spectral values of the observables, which are represented by self-adjoint opera-
tors on some Hilbert space. Following the approach by Jordan, von Neumann
and Wigner, the mathematical model is one of a Jordan algebra. Therefore,
the question reads in this case: if all the spectral values of the observables
are known, will the algebraic model be uniquely determined up to Jordan
isomorphism?
In 1970, Kaplansky reformulated the above question mathematically as fol-
lows. If : A B is a unital, surjective invertibility preserving linear map
between semisimple unital complex Banach algebras A and B, is necessarily
a Jordan homomorphism? This question remains open but there are a number
of partial results in the literature, especially in the case where is spectrum
preserving. In this essay, we discuss three of these results. The rst one shows
that a surjective spectrum preserving linear map between von Neumann alge-
bras must be a Jordan homomorphism. The second result gives an armative
answer to Kaplanskys question in the case where A = B(X) and B = B(Y),
with X and Y Banach spaces. The third result shows that a surjective spectral
isometry between nite-dimensional semisimple Banach algebras is a Jordan
homomorphism. None of them answers the question completely, but they are
all motivating results on which further work is being done and which hopefully
may lead to the eventual solution of the problem.
iii
Acknowledgements
I am profoundly grateful to my project supervisor, Professor L.W Marcoux,
for his inexhaustible patience and encouragement to me by way of advice,
suggestions and guidance which ultimately made the completion of this project
possible. I am also indebted to all the sta and students of the Department Of
Pure Mathematics, University of Waterloo. I owe the successful completion of
this program to you all!
iv
Dedication
To Osita Onuma,
for all your support to me
v
Contents
1 Denitions and Examples. 1
2 Kaplanskys question 17
3 Spectrum preserving maps 27
4 Invertibility preserving bijections 33
4.1 Spectral characterisation of rank-one operators . . . . . . . . . 34
4.2 The rank-reducing property of some
invertibility-preserving maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.3 The main theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
5 Spectral isometries 59
5.1 Nagasawas theorem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.2 Spectral isometries and central idempotents . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.3 The theorem of Mathieu and Sourour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
vi
Chapter 1
Denitions and Examples.
In this rst chapter, we give a number of denitions of terms which we shall
use throughout this essay. There are also examples as well as brief discussions
illustrating some of the denitions. We begin with the following.
Denition 1.1 By a Banach algebra A, we shall mean a pair (A, ) con-
sisting of a C-algebra A and a norm on the vector space A which is com-
plete, such that
xy x y
for all x, y A. If A is unital (in the sense that it has a multiplicative
identity, say e), we also require that e = 1. The centre of A is the set
Z(A) = {x A : xy = yx for all y A}.
If A = Z(A), then A is a commutative algebra.
We point out at this juncture that in this essay all vector spaces are over
the complex eld C, and that all rings and Banach algebras will be assumed
unital.
1
CHAPTER 1. DEFINITIONS AND EXAMPLES. 2
Example 1.2 Let X be a compact Hausdor space and denote by C(X) the
set of all continuous complex-valued functions on X. For f, g C(X) and
k C, dene f +g, kf, fg C(X) by
(i) (f +g)(x) = f(x) +g(x);
(ii) (kf)(x) = kf(x); and
(iii) (fg)(x) = f(x)g(x),
for x X. With these operations C(X) becomes a commutative unital algebra.
If we dene
: C(X) R by
f
:= sup {|f(x)| : x X} ,
then f g
for all f, g C(X). Thus the pair (C(X),
) is
a Banach algebra.
The next example will feature prominently in this essay.
Example 1.3 Let X be a Banach space and let B(X) denote the set of all
bounded linear operators on X. Multiplication on B(X) is dened by compo-
sition. If B(X) is equipped with the operator norm:
T = sup {T(x) : x X, x 1}
for T B(X), we see that B(X) is a Banach algebra. It is unital, with unit
e = I, the identity operator on X. Recall that B(X) is not commutative if
dimX 2.
Denition 1.4 If A and B are algebras (resp. rings), then we will call a
linear (resp. additive) map
: A B
a homomorphism if
(xy) = (x)(y)
for every x, y A. We call an anti-homomorphism if
(xy) = (y)(x)
for every x, y A. Finally, is called a Jordan homomorphism if
(xy +yx) = (x)(y) + (y)(x)
for every x, y A.
Observe that the denition of a Jordan homomorphism given above is
equivalent to the statement that (x
2
) = (x)
2
for every x A.
Denition 1.5 Let A be a Banach algebra. An involution on A is a map
: A A satisfying the following properties:
(i) (a
= a for all a A;
(ii) (a + b)
= a
+ b
for all a, b A and all , C;

(iii) (ab)
= b
for all a, b A.
The pair (A, ) is called an involutive Banach algebra. If L A has the
property that x
L whenever x L, then we say that L is self-adjoint. If

A and B are involutive Banach algebras and : A B is a homomorphism
satisfying
(x
) = (x)
for all x A, we say that is a -homomorphism.

Denition 1.6 By a C
-algebra we shall mean an involutive Banach algebra

A which satises the C
-equation
x
x = x
2
for every x A.
Example 1.7 With A = C(X) as in Example 1.2, dene : C(X) C(X)
by f
(x) = f(x) for each f C(X) and x X. Then is an involution on

C(X) which satises the C
-equation, so that C(X) is a C
-algebra.
Denition 1.8 Let H be a Hilbert space. Then a von Neumann algebra
on H is a self-adjoint unital subalgebra A of B(H) that is closed in the weak
operator topology.
Denition 1.9 Let A be a unital Banach algebra. Denote by A
1
the set of
invertible elements of A.
If x A, then the spectrum (x) of x is dened as
(x) :=
C : 1 x A
1
.
The spectral radius of x is dened by
r(x) := sup {|| : (x)} .
A well known fact is that the spectrum is a non-empty compact subset of
the complex plane. The spectral radius formula states that for any x A,
r(x) = lim
n
x
n
1/n
.
The spectral mapping theorem states that, if f is any complex-valued function
that is analytic on a neighbourhood of (x), then (f(x)) = f [(x)].
If A and B are Banach algebras with identities 1
A
and 1
B
respectively, we
can form the direct sum AB of A and B, which is a unital Banach algebra
with product
(a
1
, b
1
) (a
2
, b
2
) = (a
1
a
2
, b
1
b
2
)
and norm
(a, b) = max{a
A
, b
B
}.
The identity of AB is 1 = (1
A
, 1
B
). It follows that for any a A and b B,
AB
((a, b)) =
A
(a)
B
(b),
and hence
r
AB
((a, b)) = max{r
A
(a), r
B
(b)}.
Denition 1.10 If A is a unital ring, the radical (or more exactly, the Ja-
cobson radical) rad(A) of A is dened as the intersection of all the maximal
left ideals of A. If rad(A) = {0}, we say that A is semisimple.
For the following basic facts concerning the Jacobson radical, we refer to
[Rot02, p. 544].
Proposition 1.11 Let A be a unital ring. Then:
(a) rad(A) is the intersection of all the maximal right ideals of A. As such,
rad(A) is a two-sided ideal of A.
(b) A/rad(A) is semisimple. Moreover, for x A, if x A/rad(A) de-
notes the image of x under the quotient map A A/rad(A), then x is
invertible in A if and only if x is invertible in A/rad(A).
(c) For x A, the following are equivalent:
(i) x rad(A).
(ii) 1 ax A
1
for all a A.
(iii) 1 xa A
1
for all a A.
Corollary 1.12 Let A be a unital Banach algebra. Then
rad(A) = {x A : r(ax) = 0 for all a A}
= {x A : r(xa) = 0 for all a A}.
Moreover, let A = A/rad(A), and suppose that x A has image x A under
the quotient map. Then
A
(x) =
A
(x) and r
A
(x) = r
A
(x).
Proof. We begin with the proof of the equality concerning rad(A). By sym-
metry, it is enough to verify the rst equality. If x rad(A), a A and
0 = C, then since 1
1
ax A
1
by Proposition 1.11 (c), it follows
that / (ax). Hence (ax) = {0} for all a A. Conversely, if x has the
property that r(ax) = 0 for all a A, then in particular, 1 / (ax) and so
1 ax A
1
for all a A. By Proposition 1.11 again, x rad(A).
As for the last claim, let C. Then by Proposition 1.11 (b), 1
A
x is
invertible if and only if 1
A
x is invertible. In other words,
A
(x) =
A
(x),
which in turn leads to r
A
(x) = r
A
(x).
Lemma 1.13 Let A be a Banach algebra. Then
rad (Z(A)) = Z(A) rad(A).
In particular, if A is semisimple, then so is Z(A).
Proof. First, let x Z(A) rad(A). Then by Proposition 1.11, 1 ax A
1
for all a A. In particular, if a Z(A), then 1 ax Z(A) and so
(1 ax)
1
Z(A). By Proposition 1.11 again, x rad (Z(A)). Hence,
Z(A) rad(A) rad (Z(A)).
Conversely, let x rad (Z(A)). Then x Z(A), and r(x) = 0 by Corollary
1.12. For any a A, since xa = ax, we have (ax)
n
= a
n
x
n
for all n. By the
spectral radius formula,
r(ax) = lim
n
(ax)
n
1
n
= lim
n
a
n
x
n
1
n
lim
n
a
n
1
n
x
n
1
n
= r(a)r(x).
This implies that r(ax) = 0 for all a A. By Corollary 1.12, x rad(A). But
x Z(A) as well. Therefore, we have rad (Z(A)) Z(A) rad(A), which
nishes the proof.
Important examples of semisimple Banach algebras include all C
-algebras,
and in particular, all von Neumann algebras. In the next example, we demon-
strate that the Banach algebra B(X) is semisimple.
Example 1.14 Let X be a Banach space. By a standard operator algebra
on X, we mean any closed unital subalgebra A of B(X) that contains the ideal
F(X) of nite-rank operators.
Let A be a standard operator algebra on X. We show that A is semisimple.
Indeed, for any 0 = x X, set I
x
= {T A : Tx = 0}. Then I
x
is a proper
left ideal of A. We show that it is a maximal left ideal. Now suppose that L
is any left ideal of A containing I
x
, with L = I
x
. Then there exists A L
such that Ax = 0. Take a linear functional y
such that y
(Ax) = 1, and
consider the rank-one operator B = x y
A. Then E = BA L satises
Ex = x. For an arbitrary T A, we have TE L and T TE I
x
, so
T L, and hence L = A. Accordingly, rad (A)

x=0
I
x
= {0}. Thus A is
semisimple.
Semisimple Banach algebras will feature regularly throughout this essay.
We briey review Gelfands theory of commutative Banach algebras. A
multiplicative linear functional (or character) of a unital Banach algebra
A is a non-zero algebra homomorphism : A C. Such must be unital,
i.e. (1) = 1. Moreover, is continuous with = 1. We record its proof,
as the argument will be useful later (specically in the proof of the Gleason-
Kahane-
Zelazko Theorem 2.2). Since is a unital homomorphism, it preserves

invertible elements in the sense of Denition 1.21 below. Now let x A, and
take any C \ (x). Then 1 x A
1
. Therefore, (x) = . Hence
(x) (x), from which we deduce |(x)| r(x) x. This proves that
1, and since (1) = 1, we conclude that = 1.
Suppose that A is a unital commutative Banach algebra. The spectrum
(or maximal ideal space) of A is the set
A
of all multiplicative linear func-
tionals on A. It is a weak
-closed subset of the unit ball of the dual space A
.
It follows from the Banach-Alaoglu theorem that
A
is compact. Each x A
induces a continuous function x C(
A
), given by
x() = (x) (
A
).
The function x has range
ran( x) = (x),
and so
x
= r(x).
The assignment
x A x C(
A
)
denes the unital homomorphism
A
: A C(
A
)
known as the Gelfand transform. It follows from this fact and the equality
r(x) = x
that
r(x +y) r(x) +r(y), r(xy) r(x)r(y)
for all x, y A. Also, we have ker(
A
) = rad(A). Indeed, the equality
ker(
A
) = {x A : x = 0} =
A
ker()
shows that ker(
A
) is the intersection of all maximal ideals of A, and the
latter is by denition rad(A). We conclude that
A
induces an injective unital
homomorphism
A/rad(A) C(
A
).
In particular, when A is semisimple, we see that for every non-zero x A,
there exists
A
such that (x) = 0. (In this case, we also say that
A
separates the points of A.)
Denition 1.15 Let A be a Banach algebra. An element x A is called
nilpotent if x
m
= 0 for some natural number m 1. If x satises r(x) = 0
(and hence (x) = {0}), we declare x quasinilpotent.
Suppose x A is nilpotent, with x
n
= 0 for some n 1. If (x), then
n
(x
n
) = (0) = {0} by the spectral mapping theorem, so that = 0.
This shows that every nilpotent element is quasinilpotent. The converse is
false in general, as we see in the next example.
Example 1.16 Consider the following unilateral forward weighted shift on
H =
2
(N). Let w = (w
n
)
n=1

(N) and dene W B(H) by

We
n
= w
n
e
n+1
for all n N.
If we set
w
k
:=
_
_
1 if k is odd,
2
m
if k = 2m is even,
then
r(W) = limsup
n
(w
k
w
k+1
w
k+n1
)
1/n
= 0.
We see therefore that W is quasinilpotent. On the other hand, for every n 1,
W
n
e
1
= (w
1
w
n
)e
n+1
= 0.
Hence W is not nilpotent of any order.
There is a useful spectral characterisation of the radical of a Banach alge-
bra, due to J. Zemanek. The proof is contained in [Aup91] and [Pt a79].
Theorem 1.17 Let A be a Banach algebra and let x A. The following are
equivalent:
(a) x rad(A);
(b) (x +y) = (y) for all y A;
(c) there exists a neighbourhood U of 0 so that r(x+y) = 0 for all quasinilpo-
tent elements y U;
(d) there exist a neighbourhood U of x and K > 0 so that r(y) Ky x
for all y U.
Denition 1.18 Let A be a ring. If e A satises e
2
= e, we say that e
is an idempotent. If, in addition e Z(A), we say that e is a central
idempotent. Furthermore, by an orthogonal family of idempotents, we
mean a family {e
i
}
iI
of idempotents of A such that e
i
e
j
= 0 whenever i = j.
Denition 1.19 Let A and B be algebras. A linear map : A B is said to
preserve idempotents if (e) is idempotent whenever e A is idempotent.
Lemma 1.20 Let A and B be algebras. If : A B is a linear map which
preserves idempotents, then transforms any orthogonal family of idempotents
of A into an orthogonal family of idempotents of B.
Proof. It is enough to prove the claim for a pair of orthogonal idempotents.
Let e, f A be such a pair, so that ef = fe = 0. Then e+f is an idempotent,
and hence (e), (f) and (e+f) are all idempotents of B. Then the equality
((e) + (f))
2
= (e) + (f)
reduces to
(e)(f) + (f)(e) = 0.
Multiplying to this relation rst on the left and then on the right by (f), we
get
(e)(f) = (f)(e)(f) = (f)(e).
Hence (e)(f) = (f)(e) = 0.
We have collected just enough of the basic denitions from the theory of
Banach algebras. Next, we turn to the introduction of several classes of linear
maps between Banach algebras. Their study will be the theme of our essay.
Denition 1.21 A linear map from a unital Banach algebra A to a unital
Banach algebra B is said to preserve invertibility if (x) B
1
whenever
x A
1
.
We mention that when studying invertibility preserving linear maps between
unital Banach algebras, there is no loss of generality in assuming that the map
is unital. Indeed, if : A B preserves invertibility, then (1) is invertible
in B and we can instead work with the linear map : A B, dened by
(x) = (1)
1
(x) for all x A. This map clearly preserves invertibility and
is unital.
Denition 1.22 Let A and B be Banach algebras. A linear map : A B
is said to be
(a) spectrum compressing if for all x A,
((x)) (x);
(b) spectrum preserving if for all x A,
((x)) = (x).
(c) a spectral isometry (or preserves spectral radius) if for all
x A,
r((x)) = r(x).
It is clear from the denition that a spectrum preserving linear map is a
spectral isometry.
Note. It is understood that when we refer to an invertibility preserving map
(resp. a spectrum compressing map, a spectrum preserving map or a spectral
isometry), we are assuming that the given map is linear.
At the end of this chapter, we collect some properties of the maps dened
above for later use.
Lemma 1.23 Let A and B be Banach algebras, and let : A B be a linear
map.
(a) If is spectrum compressing, then preserves invertibility.
(b) If is surjective and spectrum preserving, then (A
1
) = B
1
.
Proof. (a) Suppose that is spectrum compressing. If a A
1
, then
0 C\ (a) C\ ((a)), so that (a) B
1
.
(b) Suppose that is surjective and spectrum preserving. Let b B
1
.
Then b = (a) for some a A. Since 0 C\ (b) = C\ (a), it follows that
a A
1
. Hence b (A
1
).
Proposition 1.24 Let A and B be Banach algebras. If : A B is a unital,
invertibility preserving map, then is spectrum compressing. Moreover, if
is bijective with (A
1
) = B
1
, then is spectrum preserving.
Proof. If x A and C, then (.1 x) = .1 (x). Since preserves
invertibility, / ((x)) whenever / (x). In other words, ((x)) (x).
Furthermore, if is bijective with (A
1
) = B
1
, then
1
is also unital and
invertibility preserving. Hence (
1
(y)) (y) for y B. Putting y = (x)
gives (x) ((x)), and we are done.
Lemma 1.25 Let A and B be Banach algebras, and let : A B be a
spectral isometry. Then ker() rad(A). It follows that if A is semisimple,
then must be injective.
Proof. Suppose that x ker(). Then for any y A,
r(y) = r((y)) = r ((x +y)) = r(x +y).
In particular, if y A is quasinilpotent, then
0 = r(y) = r(x +y).
It follows from Theorem 1.17 that x rad(A). Thus, ker() rad(A).
Lemma 1.26 Let A and B be Banach algebras, with B semisimple. If
: A B is a surjective, spectrum preserving map, then (1) = 1.
Proof. To begin, note that
((1)) = (1) = {1}.
Then (1) = 1 +q, where q B is quasinilpotent. For any x A, we have:
1 + (q + (x)) = (1 +q + (x))
= ((1) + (x))
= ((1 +x))
= (1 +x) = 1 + (x).
Hence (q + (x)) = (x) = ((x)). Since is assumed surjective, it fol-
lows from Theorem 1.17 that q rad(B) = {0}. Thus, (1) = 1.
Let A be a Banach algebra, and let : A A/rad(A) be the quotient
map. The centre modulo the radical of A is dened by
Z(A) :=
1
[Z(A/rad(A))]
= {x A : xa ax rad(A) for all a A}.
Of course, if A is semisimple, then Z(A) = Z(A). There is a characterisation
of Z(A) in terms of the spectral radius, due to V. Ptak [Pt a79]. Below is but
a short list extracted from the ten equivalent properties of that paper.
Theorem 1.27 Let A be a unital Banach algebra and x A. The following
are equivalent:
(a) x Z(A).
(b) r(x +a) r(x) +r(a) for all a A.
(c) r(xa) r(x)r(a) for all a A.
(d) sup{r (x e
a
xe
a
) : a A} < .
It is not hard to see that (a) implies (b), (c) and (d), by passing to A/rad(A).
Pt ak used elementary methods to show that each of (b) and (c) implies (d).
The most dicult part, that (d) implies (a), involves derivations on A. It
relies on the fact (also proved in [Pt a79]) that, if D is a bounded derivation
on A and x A, and if the function z C r (x exp(zD)x) is bounded,
then that same function is identically zero.
Lemma 1.28 Let A and B be Banach algebras and : A B be a surjective
spectral isometry. Then
[Z(A)] = Z(B).
If both A and B are semisimple, then (Z(A)) = Z(B).
Proof. The proof of the rst claim is a repeated application of the equivalence
between (a) and (b) in Pt aks Theorem 1.27. Let x Z(A), and let y B
be arbitrary. Since is surjective, (a) = y for some a A. Since is a
spectral isometry, we obtain
r((x) +y) = r ((x +a))
= r(x +a)
r(x) +r(a)
= r((x)) +r((a))
= r((x)) +r(y),
so that (x) Z(B). This proves that [Z(A)] Z(B). For the reverse
inclusion, suppose that y Z(B). Then y = (x) for some x A. For any
a A,
r(x +a) = r((x +a))
= r(y +(a))
r(y) +r((a))
= r(x) +r(a).
Hence x Z(A), and so y [Z(A)].
Now the second claim follows, since Z(A) = Z(A) when Ais semisimple.
Chapter 2
Kaplanskys question.
In this chapter, we introduce Kaplanskys question, and briey address some of
the landmark results regarding the question and its close analogues. We shall
prove one of the pioneering results, the Gleason-Kahane-
Zelasko Theorem,
which states that any unital, invertibility preserving linear functional on a
Banach algebra is multiplicative.
We begin with a general observation concerning Jordan homomorphisms.
Recall that when X and Y are rings, a Jordan homomorphism : X Y is
an additive map that satises (s t) = (s) (t) where s t := st +ts for
s, t X.
Proposition 2.1 Let X and Y be rings with identities 1
X
and 1
Y
respectively,
with Y having the property that
2y = 0 y = 0 y Y. (2.1)
Let : X Y be a Jordan homomorphism such that 1
Y
ran(). Then
preserves invertibility.
17
CHAPTER 2. KAPLANSKYS QUESTION 18
Proof. Write (a) = 1
Y
for some a X. Now we have
2a = 1
X
a.
Consequently,
2.1
Y
= 2.(a) = (2a)
= (1
X
a)
= (1
X
) (a)
= 2.(1
X
).
By (2.1), we get 1
Y
= (1
X
) which shows that is unital. Next, a straight-
forward calculation shows that for any a, b X,
2(b a) a b (a a) = 4 aba.
Since is a Jordan homomorphism, the above and (2.1) imply that
(a)(b)(a) = (aba) a, b X.
In particular, given x X
1
, we obtain
(x) = (xx
1
x) = (x)(x
1
)(x). (2.2)
Set s = (x)(x
1
) and t = (x
1
)(x). We shall be done if we can show
that s = t = 1
Y
. First observe that s
2
= s and t
2
= t, by (2.2). Next,
2.1
Y
= 2.(1
X
) = (x x
1
) = (x) (x
1
) = s +t. (2.3)
Accordingly,
(2.1
Y
s)
2
= t
2
= t = 2.1
Y
s,
and this implies that 2 (s 1
Y
) = 0. Thanks to (2.1), it follows that s = 1
Y
.
Finally, this leads to t = 1
Y
as seen from (2.3). Thus,
1
Y
= s = (x)(x
1
) = (x
1
)(x) = t = 1
Y
,
from which we conclude that (x
1
) = (x)
1
.
A natural question at this point (and this question turns out to be the
essence of this essay) is the following: is the converse of the above proposition
true? In other words, if : X Y is additive and preserves invertibility,
must be a Jordan homomorphism?
It was in the nineteenth century that Frobenius [Fro97] proved that a linear
map : M
n
(C) M
n
(C) satises det ((T)) = det(T) for all T M
n
(C) if
and only if is of the form
(A) = PAQ or (A) = PA
t
Q
for some xed invertible matrices P, Q M
n
(C) such that det(PQ) = 1.
J. Dieudonne [Die49] proved that if : M
n
(F) M
n
(F) is an invertible
-semilinear map, where is any automorphism of the eld F, and if pre-
serves the set of singular matrices in M
n
(F), then must be of the form
(A) = PA
Q or (A) = P(A
)
t
Q,
where P and Q are invertible matrices. Observe that preserves singular
matrices precisely when
1
preserves invertibility.
For the innite-dimensional case, A. Gleason [Gle67], and J.-P. Kahane
and W.

Zelazko [K
Z68] showed the following:

Theorem 2.2 Let : A B be a unital, invertibility preserving map from a
Banach algebra A into a semisimple commutative Banach algebra B. Then
is a homomorphism.
Proof. We begin by proving that is continuous. First of all, we point out that
any unital, invertibility preserving map : A C is continuous and = 1.
The proof is identical to the one given in our discussion of multiplicative linear
functionals in Chapter 1. Now take any sequence (x
n
) in A with x
n
0, and
we assume that (x
n
) y for some y B. If y were non-zero, then since
B is semisimple, there exists a multiplicative linear functional on B such
that (y) = 0. Since is bounded, ( )(x
n
) (y). On the other hand,
: A C preserves invertibility, and hence it is continuous, so that
( )(x
n
) ( )(0) = 0. This contradiction shows that y = 0. The closed
graph theorem implies that is continuous.
We now set out to prove that is a homomorphism. If this were false,
then (xy) = (x)(y) for some x, y A. Since the multiplicative lin-
ear functionals on B separate points of B, there exists
B
such that
( )(xy) = ( )(x)( )(y). But note that is unital and invert-
ibility preserving. Therefore, our problem reduces to proving that any unital,
invertibility preserving map : A C is a homomorphism. From the above,
any such map has norm equal to 1.
We begin by showing that any such is a Jordan homomorphism, i.e.
(x
2
) = (x)
2
for any x A. Let x A be xed. Consider the function
: C C dened by (z) := (exp(zx)), which is analytic since A
.
Since every value of the exponential function on A is invertible, is entire
without zeros. So, there is an entire function f with (z) = e
f(z)
for every
z C, such that f(0) = 0 and Re(f(z)) |z| x for all z C. By Schwarzs
lemma, f(z) = z for some complex constant . Expanding both sides of the
equation (exp(zx)) = e
z
,
1 +z(x) +
1
2!
z
2
(x
2
) + = 1 + z +
1
2!
2
z
2
+ .
By comparing coecients, we get (x
2
) =
2
= (x)
2
, so that is a Jordan
homomorphism.
Finally, in order to prove that (xy) = (x)(y), it is enough to show
that
([x, y]) = [(x), (y)] = 0,
where [x, y] := xy yx. We begin by noting that
(xy yx)
2
+ (xy +yx)
2
= 2(x.yxy +yxy.x) = 2.x (yxy),
so that
[x, y]
2
= 2.x (yxy) (x y)
2
.
Applying the Jordan homomorphism , we get
([x, y])
2
= 4.(x)(yxy) 4.((x)(y))
2
. (2.4)
There are now two ways of showing that ([x, y]) = 0. First of all, (2.4)
implies that ([x, y]) = 0 if x ker(). For general x A, note that
x := x(x)1 ker() and [x, y] = [ x, y]. Therefore, ([x, y]) = ([ x, y]) = 0
for all x. For the second approach, recall from the proof of Proposition 2.1
that the product yxy can be expressed entirely in terms of Jordan products,
leading to (yxy) = (y)(x)(y). Putting this equality into (2.4) gives
([x, y]) = 0.
Motivated by the discussions above, I. Kaplansky in 1970 [Kap70] asked
the following question:
Let : A B be a unital, invertibility preserving map between unital
Banach algebras A and B. Is a Jordan homomorphism?
Let us quickly state that the above question of Kaplansky is too general
and the answer to it is negative in this generality. The rst example below,
given in Sourour [Sou96], shows that if is not surjective, then it may not be
a Jordan homomorphism.
Example 2.3 Let H be a Hilbert space and let : B(H) B(H) be linear
such that (I) = 0. Consider the map
: B(H) B(HH)
dened by
(X) =
_
_
X (X)
0 X
_
_
for X B(H). Then is clearly unital and preserves invertibility. However,
for X B(H) we have
(X
2
) (X)
2
=
_
_
0 (X
2
) X(X) (X)X
0 0
_
_
.
Hence, is a Jordan homomorphism if and only if (X
2
) = (X)X+X(X)
for all X B(H), or equivalently,
(X Y ) = (X) Y +X (Y )
for all X, Y B(H). If satises this property, then is a Jordan deriva-
tion of B(H).
It is now easy to exhibit a counterexample to Kaplanskys question. Our
shall take the form (X) = f(X)I, where f B(H)
satises f(I) = 0. Let

dimH 2, and choose an orthogonal pair of unit vectors h, k H. Dene
f B(H)
by
f(X) = Xh, k.
Take the rank-one operator X = (k h
). Then X
2
= 0 and f(X) = 1, so
that
(X)X +X(X) = 2X = 0 = (X
2
).
The associated invertibility preserving map is therefore not a Jordan homo-
morphism.
In the next example, Aupetit [Aup79] showed that Kaplanskys question
may not have a positive answer if the Banach algebras A and B are not
semisimple.
Example 2.4 Let
A =
_
_
_
_
_
W X
0 Y
_
_
: W, X, Y M
2
(C)
_
_
_
and dene : A A by
Z =
_
_
W X
0 Y
_
_
(Z) =
_
_
W X
0 Y
t
_
_
.
Clearly, is surjective, unital, and invertibility preserving. But then
(Z
2
) (Z)
2
=
_
_
0 X(Y Y
t
)
0 0
_
_
is not always zero. Hence is not a Jordan homomorphism. However, note
that (Z
2
) (Z)
2
rad(A) for all Z A.
In view of the above discussions, it seems quite natural that researchers
working on this question made the following conjecture:
Conjecture 2.5 Suppose A and B are unital semisimple Banach algebras and
: A B is a unital bijective linear map preserving invertibility. Then is
a Jordan homomorphism.
In this generality, the problem remains unsolved. A number of partial pos-
itive results have been found, especially in the case where the map is spectrum
preserving.
Choi, Hadwin, Nordgren, Radjavi and Rosenthal [CHN
+
84] showed that
every invertibility preserving, unital, self-adjoint linear map from a C
-algebra
onto another C
-algebra is a Jordan homomorphism.

Jafarian and Sourour proved in [JS86] that every surjective, spectrum pre-
serving map from B(X) onto B(Y) is an isomorphism or an anti-isomorphism.
Later, Sourour [Sou96] extended the results to surjective, invertibility preserv-
ing maps, thereby answering Kaplanskys question completely in the case of
B(X).
For linear maps that are not necessarily surjective, Hou and Wang [WH98]
showed that every unital, invertibility preserving elementary operator of length
not greater than 2 on B(X) is a homomorphism. (An elementary operator
: B(X) B(Y) of length not greater than n is one that takes the form
(T) =
n
k=1
A
k
TB
k
(T B(X)),
where A
1
, , A
n
B(X, Y) and B
1
, , B
n
B(Y, X).)
In [HK96], Harris and Kadison studied similar questions for ane mappings
on C
-algebras. There they indicated their belief that Kaplanskys conjecture

is true for C
-algebras. However, this case is still open.

Recently, Aupetit [Aup00] proved that every surjective, spectrum preserv-
ing map from a von Neumann algebra onto another von Neumann algebra is a
Jordan isomorphism. This is one of the deepest results so far in this direction,
and it is close to a positive solution to Kaplanskys conjecture.
Bresar and

Semrl [B
S03] proved that every unital, surjective, invertibility

preserving map from a von Neumann algebra onto a standard operator algebra
is a Jordan homomorphism.
It is often said that the best way to approach a dicult problem is to
generalize it. Mathieu [Mat94] introduced the notion of spectral isometry.
Over the past decade, Mathieu has been looking at the following spectral
radius analogue of Kaplanskys conjecture:
Let A and B be unital semisimple Banach algebras. Let : A B be a
unital surjective spectral isometry. Must be a Jordan isomorphism?
Mathieu and Sourour [MS04] gave a positive result for this conjecture in the
case where A and B are nite-dimensional semisimple Banach algebras.
To sum up, many researchers have been trying their hands at Kaplanskys
question. The aim of this essay is to present a sample of positive results
obtained so far. As mentioned before, none has answered the question com-
pletely but they are all motivating results on which further work may lead to
the eventual solution of the problem.
In Chapter 3, we sketch Aupetits work on spectrum preserving maps be-
tween von Neumann algebras. Then in Chapter 4, we present Sourours solu-
tion in the framework of invertibility preserving maps between Banach algebras
of the form B(X). We shall end our discussions in Chapter 5, where we shall
give the exciting result obtained by Mathieu and Sourour in the more general
setting of spectral isometries.
Chapter 3
Spectrum preserving maps
between von Neumann algebras
Recall that Kaplanskys question essentially asks for a characterisation of linear
maps which preserve invertible elements between semisimple Banach algebras.
This falls into the class of the so-called Linear Preserver Problems (LPP)
[Jaf09]. It turns out that a large number of solutions to the Linear Preserver
Problems involve the consideration of maps preserving nite-rank operators.
This is the approach used by Sourour, and which is going to occupy us in
Chapter 4.
Another method that has been used by researchers in trying to solve Ka-
planskys question hinges on the fact that, for von Neumann algebras A and
B, a continuous linear map : A B that preserves idempotents must be
a Jordan homomorphism (Theorem 3.6). Based on this fact, Aupetit solved
Kaplanskys question armatively in the case of spectrum preserving maps
between von Neumann algebras. In this chapter, we take a closer look at this
result.
27
CHAPTER 3. SPECTRUM PRESERVING MAPS 28
Theorem 3.1 ([Aup00]) Let A and B be von Neumann algebras, and let
: A B be a surjective, spectrum preserving linear map. Then is a
Jordan isomorphism.
We begin with the following observation regarding the bicontinuity of a
surjective spectrum preserving map. Note that such a map is a spectral isom-
etry.
Lemma 3.2 Let A and B be semisimple Banach algebras, and let
: A B be a surjective spectral isometry. Then : A B is a Banach
space isomorphism.
Proof. (Sketch) This is a consequence of [Aup82, Theorem 1], which states that
for B semisimple, any surjective linear map T : A B such that r(Tx) r(x)
for all x A must be continuous. By Lemma 1.25, is bijective. Both and
1
are spectral isometries. The aforementioned fact now implies that both
and
1
are continuous.
The next ingredient is an observation about idempotents.
Lemma 3.3 Let A be a unital Banach algebra and let e A be an idempotent.
For every a A we have
(a) D(0; (e +1 e) a e) D(1; (e +1 e) a e) .
Proof. If e = 0 or e = 1 the result is clear. Suppose that e is a non-trivial
idempotent, in which case (e) = {0, 1}. Let C \ {0, 1}. Then, since
e = ( 1)e + (1 e),
( e)
1
= ( 1)
1
e +
1
(1 e)
which implies that (( e)
1
) = {
1
, ( 1)
1
}. Hence,
r
( e)
1
= max{||
1
, | 1|
1
} =
1
dist(, (e))
.
Thus we have
( e)
1
| 1|
1
e +||
1
1 e
(e +1 e) r
( e)
1
.
(3.1)
Suppose that the result is false. Then there exists a A and (a)
such that we have
dist (, (e)) > (e +1 e) a e ,
and in particular = 0, 1. Consequently, by (3.1) above, we conclude that
dist (, (e)) =
1
r [( e)
1
]

e +1 e
( e)
1
.
Hence a e <
1
( e)
1
, which implies that
(a e)( e)
1
a e
( e)
1
< 1.
Thus,
a = ( e)
1 + ( e)
1
(e a)
is invertible, which is a contradiction.

By the spectral mapping theorem, if e A is an idempotent, then
(e) {0, 1}. Of course, the converse is far from true. The following is a
remarkable result characterising idempotent elements of semisimple Banach
algebras. Following Aupetit, we adopt the following somewhat non-standard
notation. If K C and > 0, the set
K + := {z C : dist(z, K) }
is a neighbourhood of K. (A more familiar notation is K
.)
Theorem 3.4 ([Aup00]) An element e of a semisimple Banach algebra A is
idempotent if and only if (e) {0, 1} and there exist C, r > 0 so that
(x) (e) +C x e
for every x A with x e < r.
The proof of the above theorem is not trivial. The easy direction follows from
Lemma 3.3 above (just choose C = e + 1 e and r > 0 arbitrary). For
the converse (which is the harder part), as well as more results on idempotents
of a semisimple Banach algebra, we refer to [Aup00].
We now prove the two key steps involved in the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Theorem 3.5 ([Aup00]) Let A and B be semisimple Banach algebras, and
let : A B be a surjective spectrum preserving map. Then preserves
idempotents.
Proof. Let e A be an idempotent. Since (1) = 1 by Lemma 1.26, we may
assume that e = 0, 1. Then (e) = {0, 1}, which implies that ((e)) = {0, 1}.
By Theorem 3.4, there exist C, r > 0 such that
(x) {0, 1} +C x e
for all x A with x e < r. By Lemma 3.2, we can nd > 0 such that
x (x) for all x A. Consequently,
((x)) {0, 1} +
C
(x) (e)
for all x A such that (x) (e) < r. Since is surjective, we deduce
that
(y) {0, 1} +
C
y (e)
for all y B such that y (e) < r. Therefore, by Theorem 3.4 again,
(e) is idempotent.
Theorem 3.6 Let A be a von Neumann algebra and B any Banach algebra.
Let : A B be a continuous linear map that preserves idempotents. Then
Proof. Let A
sa
denote the set of self-adjoint elements of A. Take any h A
sa
with nite spectrum. Then
h =
n
k=1
t
k
p
k
,
where {t
k
}
n
k=1
are real numbers and {p
k
}
n
k=1
is an orthogonal family of pro-
jections (i.e. self-adjoint idempotents). By Lemma 1.20, {(p
k
)}
n
k=1
is an
orthogonal family of idempotents of B. It follows that
(h
2
) = (h)
2
.
But the set of all self-adjoint elements with nite spectrum is norm-dense in
A
sa
. Thus, by the continuity of , we get that (h)
2
= (h)
2
for every h A
sa
.
Now, replacing h by h
1
+h
2
for arbitrary h
1
, h
2
A
sa
, we get
(h
1
h
2
+h
2
h
1
) = (h
1
)(h
2
) + (h
2
)(h
1
).
Finally, an arbitrary element a A can be written as a = h
1
+ ih
2
with
h
1
, h
2
A
sa
. Then
a
2
= (h
2
1
h
2
2
) +i(h
1
h
2
+h
2
h
1
).
It follows readily that (a
2
) = (a)
2
. Hence is a Jordan homomorphism.
It is worth noting that the only property of von Neumann algebras which
was used in this argument is the fact that every self-adjoint element of a
von Neumann algebra can be approximated in norm by a self-adjoint element
with nite spectrum. As such, Aupetits argument may be extended mutatis
mutandis to the setting of C
-algebras of real-rank zero. (These are precisely

the C
-algebras where every self-adjoint element can be approximated by self-

adjoint elements with nite spectrum.)
Proof of Theorem 3.1. We can now complete the proof of Theorem 3.1. Sup-
pose that : A B is a surjective, spectrum preserving map between von
Neumann algebras A and B. By Lemma 3.2, is continuous. By Theorem
3.5, we know that preserves idempotents, which by Theorem 3.6 shows that
Chapter 4
Invertibility preserving bijective
maps from B(X) to B(Y)
In this chapter we present Sourours answer to Kaplanskys question in the
setting where the Banach algebras consist of the sets of bounded operators on
given Banach spaces. We have shown in Chapter 2 that such Banach algebras
are semisimple. The main result in this chapter is the following:
Theorem 4.1 (Sourour [Sou96]) Let X and Y be Banach spaces. Then a
bijective linear map : B(X) B(Y) preserves invertibility if and only if
takes either one of the following forms:
(a) (T) = ATB, for all T B(X); or
(b) (T) = CT
D, for all T B(X),

where A B(X, Y), B B(Y, X), C B(X
, Y) and D B(Y, X
) are
invertible operators.
33
CHAPTER 4. INVERTIBILITY PRESERVING BIJECTIONS 34
In order to prove this result, we shall need a characterisation of rank-one
operators in terms of the spectrum (Theorems 4.4 and 4.5 below), which is of
independent interest.
4.1 Spectral characterisation of rank-one op-
erators
For preparation, we gather here some frequently used notation as well as recall
some basic denitions. Let W be a locally convex topological linear space. We
shall abbreviate this to a locally convex space. Denote by B(W) the algebra
of all continuous linear operators on W. The dual space of W is denoted by
W
. Denote by , the duality between W and its dual W
, so that
x, y
= y
(x)
for all x W and y
. If A B(W), then A
B(W
) stands for the

adjoint (or transpose) of A, which is dened by the equation
x, A
= Ax, y
for x W and y
. The rank of A is rank(A) := dimran(A). Recall

that A is said to be nite-rank if rank(A) < . Throughout this essay, we
shall denote the set of nite-rank operators on W by F(W). Also, for each
n N, by F
n
(W) we denote the set of operators of rank at most n. Note that
F(W) = span F
1
(W).
For 0 = w W and 0 = g
, the symbol w g
will stand for the

rank-one operator on W given by (wg
)y = g
(y)w, for every y W. Every

rank-one operator on W can be written in this form.
Lemma 4.2 Let V be a vector space, v V, g
a linear functional on V, and

A L(V) an invertible operator. Then the operator A (v g
) is invertible
if and only if g
(A
1
v) = 1. If g
(A
1
v) = 1, then A (v g
) is invertible
in every unital subalgebra of L(V) that contains {A, A
1
, A (v g
)}.
Proof. If g
(s) = 1, then s g
is a rank-one idempotent. Then I (s g
)
is a proper idempotent and is not invertible. Conversely, if g
(s) = 1, then by
direct computation, we have that
(I (s g
))
1
= I + (1 g
(s))
1
(s g
),
which gives an inverse of I (s g
) in every unital algebra containing

I (s g
). We have just shown that I (s g
) is invertible if and only

if g
(s) = 1. But we know that A (v g
) is invertible if and only if

A
1
(A (v g
)) = I ((A
1
v) g
) is. The result then follows.

Proposition 4.3 Let W be a locally convex space. Let A B(W), w W,
w
and z C \ (A). Then z (A + (w w
)) if and only if
(z A)
1
w, w
= 1.
Proof. This is a direct consequence of Lemma 4.2. Indeed, since zI A
is invertible, it follows that (zI A) (w w
) is invertible exactly when

(zI A)
1
w, w
= 1.
Theorem 4.4 ([JS86]) Let W be a locally convex space and A B(W). The
following are equivalent:
(a) rank(A) 1.
(b) (B +kA) (B +sA) (B) for all B B(W) and k = s C.
(c) (B +kA) (B +sA) (B) for all B F
2
(W) and k = s C.
Proof. Since (b) and (c) hold trivially when A = 0, we assume that A = 0
from now on.
[(a) (b)] First suppose that rank(A) = 1. We can nd w W and
w
so that A = w w
. Let B B(W) and let z / (B). Then by

Proposition 4.3 above, z (B + kA) if and only if k(z B)
1
w, w
= 1.
Therefore z cannot belong to (B +kA) for two distinct values of k. But this
amounts to proving (b).
[(b) (c)] This is trivial.
[(c) (a)] We assume (c) holds and assume also that rank(A) 2.
Suppose A = I for some = 0. Let B F
2
(W) with (B) {0, }.
Then (B+A) (B+2A) = {2}, which contradicts our assumption. Hence
A is not a non-zero scalar multiple of the identity.
We now consider two cases.
Case 1: There is a vector w W such that {w, Aw, A
2
w} is linearly
independent. Set U = span {w, Aw, A
2
w} and choose any (closed) complement
V of U in W. Dene N B(W) by
N(w) = w Aw,
N(Aw) = Aw 2A
2
w,
N(A
2
w) =
1
2
w +
3
2
Aw 2A
2
w,
and N(v) = 0 for every v V. Then one obtains that N
3
= 0,
(N +A)w = w and (N +2A)Aw = Aw, so that N F
2
(W), (N) = {0} and
1 (N +A) (N + 2A). Thus we get a contradiction in this setting. The
claim of the theorem holds in this case.
Case 2: {y, Ay, A
2
y} is linearly dependent for every y W. By a re-
sult of Kaplansky (see [Aup91, p. 84] for a proof), A satises a quadratic
polynomial equation p(A) = 0. By considering four subcases according as
p(t) = (t)(t), p(t) = (t)
2
, p(t) = t(t) or p(t) = t
2
, = 0 = = ,
and by the standard decomposition of algebraic operators, we see that A has
a nite-dimensional invariant subspace M such that the A|
M
has one of the
following four matrix representations for a suitable basis of M.
(a)
_
_
0
0
_
_
;
(b)
_
_
1
0
_
_
;
(c)
_
_
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
_
_
; or
(d)
_
_
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 1
0 0 0 0
_
_
.
By considering a complement S of M in W and an operator N F
2
(W) such
that N|
S
= 0, while N|
M
has matrix representation
(a)
_
_
0 0
0 0
_
_
;
(b)
_
_
0 0
2
0
_
_
;
(c)
_
_
0 0 0
0 2 2
0 2 2
_
_
; or
(d)
_
_
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 2 0
_
_
respectively, one observes that N
2
= 0 and so (N) = {0}. However, by let-
ting k =
1
, 4, 2 or 2 respectively, we conclude that (N +A) (N +kA)
contains a non-zero scalar, namely , 2, 2 or
2 respectively, which is also

a contradiction.
Theorem 4.5 ([Sou96]) Let W be a locally convex space. The following are
equivalent for given A B(W):
(a) rank(A) 1;
(b) For all B F
2
(W), there exists a compact subset K
B
C so that
(B +kA) (B +sA) K
B
for all k = s C.
Proof. [(a) (b)] This follows from [(a) (c)] of Theorem 4.4 and the fact
that nite-rank operators have nite spectrum.
[(b) (a)] We assume (b) and show that rank(A) 1. We begin by
showing that (A) does not contain more than one non-zero complex num-
ber. Suppose to the contrary that , (A) with = and both are
non-zero. Putting B = 0 into the assumption of (b), we get a compact set
K C such that (kA) (sA) K for all scalars k = s. But note that
1 (
1
A) (
1
A), so that
z (z
1
A) (z
1
A) K
for all z C. But then C K, which is absurd. So we can x a non-zero
scalar, say k, such that (A) {0, k}.
Take any non-zero w W and w
. Set B = w w
, and dene the

analytic function : C\ {k
1
} C by
(z) := (I zA)
1
w, w
.
Note that the only possible singularities of are k
1
and . We shall prove
that they are at worst poles.
First, take any M > 0 such that K
B
D(0; M). We show that for any
C with || > M, the equation (z) = cannot have more than one
solution. To verify this claim, we rst show that (z) = if and only if
(B +zA). Indeed, thanks to Proposition 4.3:
= (z) if and only if = (I zA)
1
w, w
if and only if 1 = (I zA)

1
1
w, w
if and only if 1 (zA +

1
w w
)
if and only if (zA +B).
As a consequence, if (z
1
) = (z
2
) = for some z
1
= z
2
, then
(B +z
1
A) (B +z
2
A) K
B
,
contradicting the choice of .
Recall Picards Big Theorem [Tit39, p. 283]: If an analytic function f
has an essential singularity at a point , then on any deleted neighbourhood
of , f takes on all possible complex values (with at most a single exception)
innitely often.
It follows that the function has poles (or removable singularities) at k
1
and . Consequently, is a rational function, and in fact either = 0 or
(z) = P(z)/Q(z), where P and Q are polynomials with P(k
1
) = 0 and
Q(z) = (kz 1)
n
for some integer n 0. We will show that deg P 1 and
deg Q 1. For all with || > M, we know that the equation
P(z) Q(z) = 0 (4.1)
has at most one solution. If the degree of P Q is greater than 1, then any
z satisfying (4.1) above, being a multiple root, must also satisfy the equation
P
(z) Q
(z) = 0. (4.2)
It follows that for any such , the corresponding solution z satises the poly-
nomial equation
Q
(z)P(z) Q(z)P
(z) = 0. (4.3)
Observe that if Q
P P
Q is identically zero, then the dierential equation

P
/P = Q
/Q transforms to (P/Q)
= 0, so that = P/Q is a constant, and

we are done. On the other hand, if Q
P P
Q is not identically zero, then the

equation (4.3) above has only a nite number of solutions. Consequently, the
degree of P Q is more than 1 only for nitely many for which || > M,
a contradiction. Therefore, it follows that P Q has degree at most 1 for all
such . This implies that deg P 1 and deg Q 1 also. We conclude that
(z) =
az +b
kz 1
or (z) = az +b
for some constants a, b C.
The next step is to use this information to show that A satises either
A
2
= kA or A
2
= 0. Note that satises either
(z) =
2k
1 kz
(z) or
(z) = 0.
In particular,
(0) = 2k
(0) or
(0) = 0. By direct calculation, we get
(0) = Aw, w
and
(0) = 2A
2
w, w
. It follows that for all w W and

w
, either (A
2
kA)w, w
= 0 or A
2
w, w
= 0. We show that either

A
2
= kA or A
2
= 0. First, for xed w W, W
is the union of the two

subspaces
{w
: (A
2
kA)w, w
= 0}
and
{w
: A
2
w, w
= 0}.
So, one of the subspaces must be all of W
, implying that either

(A
2
kA)w = 0 or A
2
w = 0. Then W in turn is a union of the two sub-
spaces
{w W : (A
2
kA)w = 0}
and
{w W : A
2
w = 0}.
By the same reasoning, we conclude that either A
2
kA = 0 or A
2
= 0.
Finally, we argue that the assumption rank(A) > 1 must lead to a contra-
diction. There are two cases to consider.
Case 1: Assume that A
2
= kA. Let x, y ran(A) be linearly independent
vectors. Then of course, Ax = kx and Ay = ky. Let g
be such that
g
(x) = 0 and g
(y) = 1, and set

B = y g
.
Take any z C, and observe that
B +k
1
zA
x = 0 +zx = zx,
B +k
1
(z 1)A
y = y + (z 1)y = zy.
This implies that
z
B +k
1
zA
B +k
1
(z 1)A
K
B
.
But then C = K
B
, violating compactness of K
B
.
Case 2: Assume that A
2
= 0. Let x, y ran(A) be linearly independent
vectors. If x = Au and y = Av for some u, v W, then {x, y, u, v} is linearly
independent. Set
M := span {x, y, u, v} .
Then M is a subspace of W which is clearly invariant for A. Furthermore, the
matrix representation of A|
M
is
_
_
0 0 0 0
1 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0
_
_
relative to the ordered basis {u, x, v, y}. Now choose g
, h
such that
g
(x) = 1, g
(u) = g
(v) = g
(y) = 0
while
h
(y) = 1, h
(u) = h
(v) = h
(x) = 0.
Then set
B := (u g
) + 4(v h
),
a rank-two operator for which M is also invariant. Note that B|
M
has matrix
representation
_
_
0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 4
0 0 0 0
_
_
relative to the basis {u, x, v, y}. We see that every complex number z satises
z (B +z
2
A) (B +
z
2
4
A). As in Case 1, this leads to an absurdity. Thus,
in both cases, we must have rank(A) 1.
4.2 The rank-reducing property of some
invertibility-preserving maps
Let X and Y be locally convex spaces, let be a subspace of B(X) that
contains F(X), and let : B(Y) be a linear map. We call rank-
reducing if rank ((T)) rank(T) for every T F(X). Since for each
n N and T B(X), T F
n
(X) if and only if T is a sum of no more
than n rank-one operators, it is clear that is rank-reducing precisely when
[F
1
(X)] F
1
(Y).
Lemma 4.6 Let X be a Banach space and Y a locally convex space. Let
be a unital subspace of B(X) containing all nite-rank operators on X. If
: B(Y) preserves invertibility and if ran() contains all nite-rank
operators on Y, then is rank-reducing.
Proof. From the discussion preceding this lemma, it is enough to show that
[F
1
(X)] F
1
(Y).
Dene : B(Y) by (T) = (I)
1
(T). Then (I) = I. Moreover,
preserves invertibility, and ran() F(Y). Note that the set F
1
(Y) is closed
under multiplication by elements of B(Y). Hence, our goal is equivalent to
showing that
[F
1
(X)] F
1
(Y).
If A F
1
(X), then for every B and k = s C,
(B +kA) (B +sA) (B).
Since is unital and preserves invertibility, it is spectrum compressing (Propo-
sition 1.24). We get
((B) +k(A)) ((B) +s(A)) (B)
for scalars k = s. Since (B) is compact, and since ran() contains F
2
(Y), we
apply Theorem 4.5 to conclude that rank ((A)) 1.
We develop here some elementary facts about rank-reducing linear maps
for later use. See [Hou89] for a more detailed study.
Let X be a locally convex space. For every x X and x
, dene the
sets
L
x
:= {x w
: w
}, R
x
:= {w x
: w X}.
These are subspaces of B(X) contained in F
1
(X). Clearly,
L
x
R
x
= C(x x
).
The following simple observation shows that if x = 0 and x
= 0, then L
x
and
R
x
are maximal among all subspaces of B(X) that are contained in F
1
(X).
Lemma 4.7 Let X be a locally convex space. Let S be a non-trivial subspace
of B(X) consisting of rank-one operators. Let s = x x
S be non-zero.
(a) If dimS = 1, then S = L
x
R
x
.
(b) If dimS > 1, then either S L
x
or S R
x
, but not both.
Proof. Part (a) is clear. To prove (b), take any t = y y
S. Since
s +t = (x x
) + (y y
)
belongs to S, it is of rank one, and hence either y Cx or y
Cx
. Accord-
ingly, either t L
x
or t R
x
. This means that
S L
x
R
x
.
Since S, L
x
and R
x
are subspaces, it follows that either S L
x
or S R
x
.
As L
x
R
x
has dimension 1, we cannot have both S L
x
and S R
x
.
Lemma 4.8 Let X and Y be locally convex spaces. If : F(X) B(Y) is a
rank-reducing linear map, then at least one of the following is true:
(i) for every x X, (L
x
) L
y
x
for some y
x
Y;
(ii) for every x X, (L
x
) R
y
x
for some y
x
Y
.
Proof. For each x X, (L
x
) is a subspace of B(Y) consisting of rank-one
operators. Hence by Lemma 4.7, either (L
x
) L
y
x
for some y
x
Y, or
(L
x
) R
y
x
for some y
x
Y
.
If dim(L
x
) 1 for every x X, then both (i) and (ii) are true. So
we assume that there exists x
0
X with dim(L
x
0
) 2. Then either
(L
x
0
) L
y
0
for some y
0
Y, or (L
x
0
) R
y
0
for some y
0
Y
.
We rst suppose that (L
x
0
) L
y
0
, and x x X. We are done if
(L
x
) L
y
x
for some y
x
Y. Otherwise, suppose that (L
x
) R
y
x
for some
y
x
Y
. There exist linear transformations A : X
and B : X
Y
such that
(x
0
w
) = y
0
Aw
, (x w
) = Bw
x
for all w
. Their sum
(y
0
Aw
) + (Bw
x
) = ((x
0
+x) w
)
is a rank-one operator. Hence for each w
, either {Aw
, y
x
} or {y
0
, Bw
}
is a linearly dependent set. In other words,
X
= {w
: Aw
Cy
x
} {w
: Bw
Cy
0
},
expressing X
as a union of two subspaces. One of these subspaces must be

all of X
. But rank(A) = dim(L

x
1
) 2, and so the latter case prevails.
Therefore, (L
x
) C(y
0
y
x
) L
y
0
.
Summarizing, if dim(L
x
1
) 2 and (L
x
1
) L
y
1
, then for each x X,
(L
x
) L
y
x
for some y
x
Y. Similarly, if dim(L
x
1
) 2 and (L
x
1
) R
y
1
,
then for each x X there is y
x
Y
such that (L
x
) R
y
x
.
Lemma 4.9 Let V and W be vector spaces, and let A, B : V W be linear
transformations. Suppose that for every x V, there is a scalar
x
C such
that
Ax =
x
Bx.
Then A = B for some C.
Proof. The equation Ax =
x
Bx implies that ker(B) ker(A). Let
U = ran(B), a subspace of W. Dene T : U U by
T(Bx) := Ax.
Note that T is well-dened. Indeed, if x, y V satisfy Bx = By, then
x y ker(B) ker(A) and so Ax = Ay. Observe that T is linear and
that, for each u U, there is
u
C such that Tu =
u
u. Now it is easy to
show that T = I for some C.
Lemma 4.10 Let X and Y be locally convex spaces, and let : F(X) B(Y)
be a linear map.
(a) Suppose that for each x X, there exists y
x
Y such that
(L
x
) L
y
x
, and that there exist x
1
, x
2
X such that y
x
1
and y
x
2
are
linearly independent. Then there exist linear transformations A : X Y
and B : X
such that (x x
) = Ax Bx
for all x X and

x
.
(b) Suppose that for each x X, there exists y
x
Y
such that
(L
x
) R
y
x
, and that there exist x
1
, x
2
X such that y
x
1
and y
x
2
are
linearly independent. Then there exist linear transformations
C : X
Y and D : X Y
such that (x x
) = Cx
Dx for
all x X and x
.
Proof. We prove (a) only, the proof of (b) being similar. Thus, we assume the
following:
(i) (L
x
) L
y
x
for all x X.
(ii) There exist x
1
, x
2
X such that y
x
1
and y
x
2
are linear independent.
In (i), we insist that y
x
= 0 if and only if (L
x
) = 0. For each x X, there is
a linear transformation B
x
: X
such that
(x x
) = y
x
B
x
x
for all x
. When y
x
= 0, we choose B
x
= 0. On the other hand, if
y
x
= 0, then necessarily B
x
= 0. Let us write
B = B
x
1
+x
2
.
Note that for all x
,
y
x
1
+x
2
Bx
= ((x
1
+x
2
) x
)
= (y
x
1
B
x
1
x
) + (y
x
2
B
x
2
x
) .
As y
x
1
and y
x
2
are linearly independent, it follows that
{B
x
1
x
, B
x
2
x
} CBx
for all x
. So, by Lemma 4.9, there are non-zero scalars , C such

that
B
x
1
= B, B
x
2
= B.
In particular, B
x
1
and B
x
2
are linearly dependent.
Now let x X. If y
x
= 0, then B
x
= 0B. If y
x
= 0, then y
x
must be
linearly independent of one of y
x
1
and y
x
2
. The above argument shows that
B
x
is a scalar multiple of B. We conclude that for each x X, B
x
=
x
B for
some
x
C. Then
(x x
) = y
x
B
x
x
=
x
y
x
Bx
for every x X and x
. Dene A : X Y by Ax =
x
y
x
. Then
(x x
) = Ax Bx
for all x X and x
. Finally, as B = 0, it follows that A is linear.

The following characterisation of rank-reducing maps will be used in the
proof of Theorem 4.13 in the next section.
Lemma 4.11 Let X and Y be locally convex spaces, and let : F(X) B(Y)
be a rank-reducing linear map. Then one of the following holds:
(i) There exist linear transformations A : X Y and B : X
such
that
(x x
) = Ax Bx
for all x X and x
.
(ii) There exist linear transformations C : X
Y and D : X Y
such
that
(x x
) = Cx
Dx
for all x X and x
.
(iii) There exists y
0
Y
and a bilinear map : X X
Y such that
(x x
) = (x, x
) y
0
for all x X and x
.
(iv) There exists y
0
Y and a bilinear map : X X
such that
(x x
) = y
0
(x, x
)
for all x X and x
.
Proof. We may assume that = 0. By Lemma 4.8, one of the following is
true:
Case I: For every x X, there exists y
x
Y such that (L
x
) L
y
x
.
Case II: For every x X, there exists y
x
Y
such that (L
x
) R
y
x
.
We rst treat Case I. We insist that y
x
= 0 if and only if (L
x
) = 0.
Consider the following mutually exclusive subcases:
Case I.a: There exist x
1
, x
2
X such that y
x
1
and y
x
2
are linearly indepen-
dent.
Case I.b: There exists 0 = y
0
Y such that (L
x
) L
y
0
for all x X.
In Case I.a, Lemma 4.10 shows that takes the form (i) listed above. In
Case I.b, there is a function
: X X
such that (x x
) = y
0
(x, x
) for all x X and x
. Since y
0
= 0
and (x, x
) (x x
) is bilinear, it is clear that is also bilinear. Hence

this subcase leads to the form (iv).
It remains to consider Case II. Once again, there are two subcases:
Case II.a: There exist x
1
, x
2
X such that y
x
1
and y
x
2
are linearly indepen-
dent.
Case II.b: There exists 0 = y
0
Y
such that (L
x
) R
y
0
for all x X.
As above, Case II.a implies that takes the form (ii), whereas Case II.b leads
to the form (iii).
4.3 The main theorem
Recall from Proposition 2.1 that if : A B is unital Jordan homomorphism,
then preserves invertibility. The next theorem gives us more in the case
when A = B(X) and B = B(Y). In fact, the main theorem of this chapter is
equivalent to the following result.
Theorem 4.12 Let X and Y be Banach spaces and suppose that
: B(X) B(Y) is a unital bijective linear map. The following are equiva-
lent:
(a) preserves invertibility;
(b) is a Jordan isomorphism;
(c) is either an isomorphism or an anti-isomorphism;
(d) either
(i) Y is isomorphic to X and (R) = A
1
RA for all R B(X), with
A B(Y, X) an isomorphism; or
(ii) Y is isomorphic to X
and (R) = B
1
R
B for all R B(X), with

B B(Y, X
) an isomorphism.
That (b) implies (a) is precisely Proposition 2.1. That (d) implies (c) and that
(c) implies (b) are clear. So it suces to show that (a) implies (d). We give
this in Theorem 4.13 which comes next.
Theorem 4.13 ([Sou96]) Let X be a Banach space, and let Y be a locally
convex space. Let be a standard operator algebra on X and let : B(Y)
be a unital, invertibility preserving map whose range contains F(Y). Then
either |
F(X)
= 0 or is injective. If is injective, then either
(i) there is a weak-weak continuous bijective linear transformation
P : Y X such that (T) = P
1
TP for all T ; or
(ii) there is a weak-weak
continuous bijective linear transformation

P : Y X
such that (T) = P

1
T
P for all T .
Remark. When Y is a Banach space, the weak-weak continuity of P in Case (i)
of the conclusion and the closed graph theorem imply that P B(Y, X). The
open mapping theorem implies that P
1
is bounded. Likewise, the weak-weak
continuity of P in Case (ii) implies that P B(Y, X
) and has a bounded

inverse.
Proof. We know from Lemma 4.6 that is rank-reducing, so that maps
rank-one operators to rank-one operators. For any x X and x
, we
may write
(x x
) = y
x,x
y
x,x
,
where y
x,x
Y and y
x,x
Y
.
Fix an operator 0 = E , and let C. Observe that if || < E
1
,
then I E is invertible in . Since preserves invertibility, I (E) is
invertible in B(Y).
For x X and x
, consider the analytic functions
x,x
,
x,x
: D(0; E
1
) C
dened by
x,x
(z) := (I zE)
1
x, x
= Tr
(I zE)
1
(x x
and
x,x
(z) := (I z(E))
1
y
x,x
, y
x,x
= Tr
(I z(E))
1
(x x
.
Note that
(I E (x x
)) = I (E) (y
x,x
y
x,x
).
If
x,x
() = 1, then by Lemma 4.2, I E (x x
) is invertible in and
so I (E) (y
x,x
y
x,x
) is invertible in B(Y), implying that
x,x
() = 1.
Equivalently, if
x,x
() = 1, we get that
x,x
() = 1. Since
x,x
and
x,x
are linear in x and x
, we see that if
x,x
() = = 0, then
x,x
() =
also. Since both
x,x
and
x,x
are analytic, we see that if
x,x
0, then
x,x

x,x
.
We claim that unless
x,x
0 for all x X and x
, we must have
x,x

x,x
for all x X and x
. Indeed, if
v,v
is not identically zero
for some v X and v
, then we can write X
= J K as a union of two
subspaces where
J = {x
:
v,x
0}
and
K = {x
:
v,x

v,x
} .
So one of the two subspaces must be the whole of X
. Since
v,v
0 by
assumption, we see that K = X
. In other words,
v,x

v,x
for all x
. A similar argument applied to v
shows that
x,v

x,v
for all x X.
Fix w X and w
. If
w,w
0, then from the above, we have
w,w

w,w
. Suppose that
w,w
0. For any k C, consider
w+kv,w
+kv
k(
v,w
+
w,v
) +k
2
v,v
.
Since
v,v
0, we must have
w+kv,w
+kv
0 for some k = 0. Thus,
w+kv,w
+kv

w+kv,w
+kv
.
Finally, expanding both sides by linearity and noting that
v,w

v,w
,
w,v

w,v
and
v,v

v,v
, we get
w,w

w,w
.
So, we have shown that for all 0 = E , either
x,x

x,x
for all x X,
x
, or
x,x
0 for all x X, x
.
Taking derivatives at z = 0, we get that for all E , either
Ex, x
= Tr [(E)(x x
)] (4.4)
for all x X and x
, or
Tr [(E)(x x
)] = 0 (4.5)
for all x X and x
. Thus itself is a union of two subspaces cor-

responding to the equations (4.4) and (4.5). Therefore, either (4.4) or (4.5)
holds for every E .
First, suppose that (4.5) holds. Given u Y and u
, since ran()
contains F(Y), there is E
u,u
such that (E
u,u
) = u u
. Then we nd
that
(x x
)u, u
= Tr [(u u
)(x x
)] = 0
for all x X, x
, u Y and u
. This implies that (x x
) = 0
for all x X and x
. Therefore, (E) = 0 for all E F(X).

On the other hand, if (4.4) holds, then it is clear that is injective. By
Lemma 4.11, there are four possibilities for .
Case 1: There are linear transformations A : X Y and B : X
such
that (x x
) = Ax Bx
for all x X and x
.
Case 2: There are linear transformations C : X
Y and D : X Y
such
that (x x
) = Cx
Dx for all x X and x
.
Case 3: There exist y
0
Y
and a bilinear map : X X
Y such that
(x x
) = (x, x
) y
0
for all x X and x
.
Case 4: There exist y
0
Y and a bilinear map : X X
such that
(x x
) = y
0
(x, x
) for all x X and x
.
First of all, if dimY = 1, then B(Y) = CI. Since : CI is unital and
injective, it follows that dimF(X) = dim = 1, forcing dimX = 1. Thus,
(T) = P
1
TP for all T , where P : Y X is any isomorphism.
From now on, we assume that dimY > 1. We argue that Cases 3 and 4
cannot occur. Suppose that Case 3 holds. Then (4.4) becomes
Ex, x
= (E)(x, x
), y
0
.
Since y
0
= 0 and dimY 2, there exist y
1
= y
2
Y such that
y
1
, y
0
= y
2
, y
0
= 1. Take any 0 = y
. Choose S
1
, S
2
such
that (S
i
) = y
i
y
for i = 1, 2. Then S
1
= S
2
. However, for all x X,
x
and i = 1, 2,
S
i
x, x
= (S
i
)(x, x
), y
= y
i
, y
0
(x, x
), y
= (x, x
), y
.
This implies that S
1
= S
2
, which is absurd. A similar argument shows that
Case 4 does not hold.
Next, assume that Case 1 holds. Then (4.4) becomes
Ex, x
= (E)Ax, Bx
. (4.6)
In particular, A = 0. Pick x
0
X and y
0
Y
such that Ax
0
, y
0
= 1. For
each y Y, there is a unique E
y
such that (E
y
) = y y
0
. Now (4.6)
implies that
E
y
x
0
, x
= (E
y
)Ax
0
, Bx
= y, Bx
.
Dene P : Y X by Py = E
y
x
0
. Clearly, P is linear, and
Py, x
= y, Bx
. (4.7)
Note that the weak-weak continuity of P follows from (4.7). Combining (4.6)
and (4.7), we see that for all x X and x
,
Ex, x
= P(E)Ax, x
,
or equivalently,
E = P(E)A. (4.8)
Putting E = I gives I = PA, so that P is surjective. To show that P is
injective, take any 0 = y Y. Fix 0 = y
, and take E such that

(E) = y y
. Then (4.8) gives

0 = E = P(y y
)A = (Py y
)A,
proving that Py = 0. Now that P is bijective, we also have A = P
1
, and
(4.8) is equivalent to
(E) = P
1
EP.
Finally, suppose that Case 2 holds. Then (4.4) becomes
Ex, x
= (E)Cx
, Dx. (4.9)
In particular, C = 0. Pick x
1
X
and y
1
Y
such that Cx
1
, y
1
= 0. Given
y Y, there is a unique E
y
such that (E
y
) = y y
1
. Consequently,
x, E
y
x
1
= E
y
x, x
1
= (E
y
)Cx
1
, Dx
= y, Dx.
Dene P : Y X
by Py = E
y
x
1
, which is linear. Then
x, Py = y, Dx. (4.10)
Now (4.10) shows that P is weak-weak
continuous, and that (4.9) is equivalent

to the statement
Ex, x
= x, P(E)Cx
,
or
E
= P(E)C. (4.11)
We can now proceed as in Case 1 to prove that P is bijective, C = P
1
and
(E) = P
1
E
P.
Chapter 5
Spectral isometries between
nite-dimensional semisimple
Banach algebras
In Chapter 4, we looked at Kaplanskys question in terms of invertibility pre-
serving maps between Banach algebras of the form B(X) for some Banach
space X. Recall from Proposition 1.24 that a unital, invertibility preserving
map : A B between Banach algebras A and B satises ((x)) (x)
for all x A; moreover, equality holds if is bijective and (A
1
) = B
1
. Of
course, a spectrum preserving map is a spectral isometry. In this nal chap-
ter, we shall study the analogue of Kaplanskys question regarding spectral
isometries. In this context, Kaplanskys question is reformulated as follows:
Let A and B be unital semi-simple Banach algebras. Let : A B be a
unital surjective spectral isometry. Must be a Jordan isomorphism?
59
CHAPTER 5. SPECTRAL ISOMETRIES 60
One of the most satisfactory results in this direction so far is that obtained
by Mathieu and Sourour. They showed that every unital, surjective spectral
isometry between nite-dimensional semisimple Banach algebras is a Jordan
isomorphism. This result is the theme of the present chapter.
5.1 Nagasawas theorem
We start with a result due to M. Nagasawa (Theorem 5.3 below), which states
that a unital, surjective spectral isometry between commutative semisimple
Banach algebras is a homomorphism. We point out that this result answers
Kaplanskys question for the case where the Banach algebras are commutative.
Our proof of Nagasawas theorem follows [Aup91]. To prepare for the proof,
we need a denition.
Denition 5.1 Let A be a commutative Banach algebra. A spectral state
on A is a linear functional f : A C such that |f(x)| r(x) for all x A
and f(1) = 1. The set of spectral states on A is denoted by
A
.
If f is a spectral state on A, the above denition shows that f = 1 and
rad(A) ker(f). Moreover, it is readily veried that
A
is a weak
-closed
(hence compact) convex subset of the unit ball of A
. The extreme points of
A
are naturally called the extreme spectral states on A. It is clear that a
multiplicative linear functional is a spectral state, since (x) (x) for all
x A. So, co(
A
)
A
.
We quote from [Aup91] two basic results regarding spectral states. If S is
a subset of a vector space V, then co(S) denotes the convex hull of S. The set
of extreme points of a convex set C is denoted by ex(C).
Lemma 5.2 Let A be a commutative Banach algebra, and let f be a linear
functional on A.
(a) The functional f is a spectral state on A if and only if f(x) co((x))
for all x A.
(b) If f is an extreme spectral state, then f is multiplicative.
Part (b) of the lemma says that ex(
A
)
A
. It follows from the Krein-
Milman theorem that
A
is equal to the weak
-closure of co(
A
).
Theorem 5.3 (Nagasawa) Let A and B be commutative semisimple Banach
algebras. If : A B is a unital spectral isometry from A onto B, then is
an isomorphism.
Proof. First, note that since is a spectral isometry and A is semisimple,
we know from Lemma 1.25 that is injective. Thus,
1
is also a spectral
isometry.
Let f ex(
B
) and set g = f . As is a spectral isometry, clearly
g
A
. It is easy to see that g is extreme. Indeed, assume that g
1
, g
2

A
such that g =
1
2
(g
1
+ g
2
). We shall verify that g = g
1
= g
2
. Indeed, as
f = g
1
, we have
f =
1
2
g
1

1
+g
2

1
.
Since both g
1

1
, g
2

1

B
and f is extreme, it follows that
f = g
1

1
= g
2

1
.
Accordingly, g = g
1
= g
2
.
Since f and g = f are extreme spectral states on B and A respectively,
by Lemma 5.2, they are multiplicative. This implies that
f((xy)) = f((x))f((y)) = f((x)(y))
for all x, y A and f ex(
B
). By the Krein-Milman theorem,
f((xy)) = f((x)(y))
for all x, y Aand f
B
. In particular, the above holds for all
B
. Since
B
separates points of B, we deduce that (xy) = (x)(y) for all x, y A.
Corollary 5.4 Let X and Y be semisimple Banach algebras and suppose that
: X Y is a unital surjective spectral isometry. Then restricts to an
algebra isomorphism from Z(X) onto Z(Y).
Proof. By Lemmas 1.25 and 1.28, we saw that maps Z(X) onto Z(Y).
Recall from Lemma 1.13 that both Z(X) and Z(Y) are semisimple. Now,
|
Z(X)
: Z(X) Z(Y) satises by inheritance all the properties of . But
Z(X) and Z(Y) are commutative. So Nagasawas Theorem 5.3 applies and
the proof is complete.
5.2 Spectral isometries and central idempo-
tents
Let X and Y be semisimple Banach algebras. Suppose that a Z(X) is an
idempotent. We know from Corollary 5.4 that if : X Y is a unital surjec-
tive spectral isometry, then (a) Z(Y) is also an idempotent. Therefore,
maps central idempotents to central idempotents.
Let X and Y be semisimple Banach algebras, and let : X Y be a unital
surjective spectral isometry. Now let a Z(X) be a central idempotent of X
and suppose b = (a). By the preceding remarks, b is a central idempotent
of Y. Take any x X and consider (1 b)(ax) Y. Multiplying x by a
complex number of modulus 1 if necessary, we can arrange that
r ((1 b)(ax)) ((1 b)(ax)) .
Suppose r((1 b)(ax)) > 0. Then for any > 0, we have
r((1 b)((ax) + 1)) > 1.
Furthermore, for > 0 small enough, we will get that r(ax+1 a) = 1. But
then,
1 = r(ax + 1 a) = r((ax) + 1 (a)) r((1 b)((ax) + 1) > 1,
a contradiction. We have shown that r((1 b)(ax)) = 0. Hence (1 b)(ax)
is quasinilpotent. Therefore, (1 b)(aX) is a subspace of Y consisting of
quasinilpotent elements.
The next lemma states that, in fact, (1 b)(aX) = {0}.
Lemma 5.5 Let X and Y be semisimple Banach algebras, and suppose that
: X Y is a unital surjective spectral isometry. Let a Z(X) be a central
idempotent and let b = (a). Then
(1 b)(aX) = {0}.
Furthermore, the map
a
: aX bY dened by
a
(ax) := b (ax)
is a unital surjective spectral isometry.
Proof. (Sketch) While we must refer the proof of the rst claim to [MS04],
it is easy to derive the rest. The proof of the rst claim depends upon the
subharmonicity of the spectrum, a theory we have not developed in this essay.
To see that
a
is a spectral isometry, take any x X. Recall from the
preceding remark that (1 b)(ax) is quasinilpotent. Therefore,
r(ax) = r ((ax)) = r (b(ax) + (1 b)(ax))
= max {r (b(ax)) , r ((1 b)(ax))}
= max {r (b(ax)) , 0} = r (b(ax)) .
That
a
is unital follows from the fact that a and b are idempotents. It
remains to show that
a
(aX) = bY. The rst claim, when applied to the
central idempotent 1 a, implies that b((1 a)X) = {0}. Let y Y. Since
is surjective, y = (x) for some x X. It follows that
by = b(x) = b(ax + (1 a)x) = b(ax),
or, by =
a
(ax).
Proposition 5.6 Let X and Y be semisimple Banach algebras, and suppose
that : X Y is a unital surjective spectral isometry. Let a X be a central
idempotent and let b = (a). Then |
aX
is a unital surjective spectral isometry
from aX onto bY.
Proof. In fact, we shall prove that |
aX
coincides with the map
a
dened in
Lemma 5.5, from which our claim follows. For any x X, by Lemma 5.5 we
have (1 b)(ax) = 0. Hence,
(ax) = b(ax) + (1 b)(ax) = b(ax) =
a
(ax),
as required.
Corollary 5.7 Let M
i
(i = 1, 2) be semisimple Banach algebras with the
property that every unital spectral isometry from M
i
onto a semisimple Banach
algebra is a Jordan isomorphism. Then M
1
M
2
has the same property.
Proof. Consider the semisimple Banach algebra X = M
1
M
2
, and let
: X Y be a unital surjective spectral isometry. Let a = (1, 0) X, so that
aX = M
1
and (1 a)X = M
2
. Clearly, both a and 1 a = (0, 1) are central
idempotents of X. By Proposition 5.6, the maps |
M
1
: M
1
(a)Y and
|
M
2
: M
2
(1 (a))Y are unital spectral isometries which, by hypothesis,
are both Jordan isomorphisms. Simple algebra shows that must be a Jordan
isomorphism as well. Indeed, for any x X, write x = (m
1
, m
2
) where
m
i
M
i
for i = 1, 2. Then, since (m
1
) (a)Y and (m
2
) (1 (a))Y,
(x
2
) =
(m
2
1
, m
2
2
)
= (m
2
1
) + (m
2
2
) = (m
1
)
2
+ (m
2
)
2
= (x)
2
,
as desired.
5.3 The theorem of Mathieu and Sourour
The following theorem is classical (see [Rot02] or [Her68] for instance).
Theorem 5.8 (Artin-Wedderburn) Let A be a nite-dimensional semisim-
ple algebra over C. Then there exist integers {n
i
, : 1 i k} N so that
A
= M
n
1
(C) M
n
k
(C).
We shall quote one more result. Let sl
n
be the space of n n complex
matrices with trace zero. Note that M
n
(C) = CI sl
n
. We remark that sl
n
is the linear span of the set N
n
of nilpotent elements of M
n
(C). Finally, let
GL
n
(C) denote the group of invertible elements of M
n
(C).
Theorem 5.9 ([BPW83]) Fix n 1. Let T : sl
n
sl
n
be an invertible
linear transformation such that T(N
n
) N
n
. Then there exist C
and
A GL
n
(C) such that either
T(X) = AXA
1
(X sl
n
),
or
T(X) = AX
t
A
1
(X sl
n
).
Lemma 5.10 For n 1, if : M
n
(C) M
n
(C) is a unital surjective spectral
isometry, then is a Jordan automorphism of M
n
(C).
Proof. First of all, in any nite-dimensional Banach algebra A, any quasinilpo-
tent element is nilpotent. Indeed, suppose that x A is quasinilpotent. Since
A is nite-dimensional, the powers of x must be linearly dependent; that is,
x is algebraic over C. Let p(t) be the minimal polynomial of x, which is the
unique monic polynomial of lowest degree such that p(x) = 0. By the spectral
mapping theorem, the roots of p(t) belong to (x) = {0}. But then p(t) = t
n
for some n 1, which means that x
n
= 0.
Specializing to M
n
(C), it follows that the spectral isometry must pre-
serve the nilpotent elements of M
n
(C). By Theorem 5.9, there exist C
and A GL
n
(C) such that either (X) = AXA
1
for all X sl
n
or
(X) = AX
t
A
1
for all X sl
n
. Suppose that the former case occurs.
Since is a spectral isometry, = 1. Therefore, for any C and X sl
n
,
(I +X) = I +AXA
1
= A(I +X)A
1
.
Hence (Y ) = AY A
1
for all Y M
n
(C). Similarly, the latter case implies
that (Y ) = AY
t
A
1
for all Y M
n
(C). In either case, is a Jordan auto-
morphism of M
n
(C).
We are now ready to state and prove the main result of this chapter.
Theorem 5.11 ([MS04]) Let X and Y be nite-dimensional semisimple Ba-
nach algebras. If : X Y is a unital surjective spectral isometry, then is
a Jordan isomorphism.
Proof. By the Artin-Wedderburn Theorem 5.8, we can write
X = M
n
1
(C) M
n
k
(C),
Y = M
m
1
(C) M
m
p
(C).
Let {a
1
, , a
k
} and {b
1
, , b
p
} be the families of minimal central idempo-
tents in X and Y respectively. Note that a
j
X

= M
n
j
(C) and b
j
Y

= M
m
j
(C)
for each index j, and also
Z(X) = Ca
1
Ca
k
,
Z(Y) = Cb
1
Cb
p
.
Since |
Z(X)
: Z(X) Z(Y) is an algebraic isomorphism by Corollary 5.4, it
follows that maps {a
1
, , a
k
} bijectively to {b
1
, , b
p
}. Hence k = p, and
without loss of generality, we may assume that (a
j
) = b
j
for all 1 j k.
By Proposition 5.6, the map |
a
j
X
: a
j
X b
j
Y is a unital, surjective (hence
bijective) spectral isometry for each 1 j k. Thus, n
j
= m
j
. From Lemma
5.10, every unital, spectral isometry from M
n
(C) onto itself is a Jordan iso-
morphism. So is a Jordan isomorphism by Corollary 5.7.
Bibliography
[Aup79] B. Aupetit. Proprietes spectrales des alg`ebres de Banach. Lecture
Notes in Math. 735. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York,
1979.
[Aup82] B. Aupetit. The uniqueness of the complete norm topology in
Banach algebras and Banach Jordan algebras. J. Funct. Anal.,
(47):16, 1982.
[Aup91] B. Aupetit. A Primer on Spectral Theory. Springer-Verlag, New
York, 1991.
[Aup00] B. Aupetit. Spectrum-preserving linear mappings between Ba-
nach algebras or Jordan-Banach algebras. J. London Math. Soc.,
(62):917924, 2000.
[BPW83] P. Botta, S. Pierce, and W. Watkins. Linear transformations that
preserve the nilpotent matrices. Pacic J. Math., 104:3946, 1983.
[B
S03] M. Bresar and P.

Semrl. A note on invertibility preservers on Ba-
nach algebras. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., (131):38333837, 2003.
69
BIBLIOGRAPHY 70
[CHN
+
84] M. D. Choi, D. Hadwin, E. Nordgren, H. Radjavi, and P. Rosenthal.
On positive linear maps preserving invertibility. J. Funct. Anal.,
(59):462469, 1984.
[Fro97] F. G. Frobenius.

Uber die Darstellung der endlichen Gruppen durch
lineare substitutionen. Sitzungber. Deutsch. Akad. Wiss. Berlin,
pages 9941015, 1897.
[Gle67] A. M. Gleason. A characterization of maximal ideals. J. Anal.
Math., (19):171172, 1967.
[Her68] I. N. Herstein. Noncommutative Rings. Carus Mathematical Mono-
graphs 15. The Mathematical Association of America, 1968.
[HK96] L. A. Harris and R. V. Kadison. Ane mappings of invertible
operators. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., (124):24152422, 1996.
[Hou89] J.-C. Hou. Rank-preserving linear maps on B(X). Science in China
(Series A), 32(8):929940, 1989.
[Jaf09] A. A. Jafarian. A survey of invertibility and spectrum preserving
linear maps. Bull. Iran. Math. Soc., (2):110, 2009.
[JS86] A. A. Jafarian and A. R. Sourour. Spectrum preserving linear
maps. J. Funct. Anal., (66):255261, 1986.
[Kap70] I. Kaplansky. Algebraic and analytic aspects of operator algebras.
In Regional Conference, Series in Mathematics 1. Amer. Math.
Soc., 1970.
[K
Z68] J.-P. Kahane and W.

Zelasko. A characterization of maximal ideals
in commutative Banach algebras. Studia Math., (29):339343, 1968.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 71
[Mat94] M. Mathieu. Where to nd the image of a derivation. Banach
Centre Publ., (30):237249, 1994.
[MS04] M. Mathieu and A. R. Sourour. Hereditary properties of spectral
isometries. Arch. Math., (82):222229, 2004.
[Pt a79] V. Ptak. Derivations, commutators and the radical. Manuscripta
Math., (23):355362, 1979.
[Rot02] J. J. Rotman. Advanced Modern Algebra. Prentice Hall, 2002.
[Sou96] A. R. Sourour. Invertibility preserving linear maps on L(X). Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc., (348):1330, 1996.
[Tit39] E. C. Titchmarsh. Theory of Functions. Oxford University Press,
2nd edition, 1939.
[WH98] Q. Wang and J.-C. Hou. Point-spectrum preserving elementary op-
erators on B(H). Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., (126):20832088, 1998.
Index
C
-algebra, 4
B(X), 2
C(X), 2, 4
F(W), F
n
(W), 34
Aupetit, B., 23, 25
Banach algebra, 1
central idempotent, 11
centre modulo the radical, Z(A), 14
centre, Z(A), 1
Gleason-Kahane-
Zelazko Theorem, 19
idempotent, 11
idempotent preserving map, 11
invertibility preserving map, 12
involution, 3
Jacobson radical, rad(A), 5
Jordan homomorphism, 3
Kaplansky, I., 21, 37
Mathieu, M., 25, 60
Nagasawa, M., 60
nilpotent, 9
quasinilpotent, 9
rank-reducing map, 44
semisimple, 5
Sourour, A. R., 22, 33, 60
spectral isometry, 12
spectral radius, r(x), 4
spectral state, 60
spectrum compressing map, 12
spectrum preserving map, 12
spectrum,
A
, 8
spectrum, (x), 4
standard operator algebra, 7
von Neumann algebra, 4
72

OnumaK Essay 1

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

OnumaK Essay 1

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Linear Mappings Between Banach

Algebras That Preserve Spectral

for all f, g C(X). Thus the pair (C(X),

for all a, b A and all , C;

L whenever x L, then we say that L is self-adjoint. If

for all x A, we say that is a -homomorphism.

-algebra we shall mean an involutive Banach algebra

(x) = f(x) for each f C(X) and x X. Then is an involution on

-equation, so that C(X) is a C

Zelazko Theorem 2.2). Since is a unital homomorphism, it preserves

-closed subset of the unit ball of the dual space A

(N) and dene W B(H) by

Z68] showed the following:

satises f(I) = 0. Let

-algebra is a Jordan homomorphism.

-algebras. There they indicated their belief that Kaplanskys conjecture

-algebras. However, this case is still open.

S03] proved that every unital, surjective, invertibility

, which implies that

is invertible, which is a contradiction.

-algebras of real-rank zero. (These are precisely

-algebras where every self-adjoint element can be approximated by self-

D, for all T B(X),

. Denote by , the duality between W and its dual W

) stands for the

. The rank of A is rank(A) := dimran(A). Recall

will stand for the

(y)w, for every y W. Every

a linear functional on V, and

is a rank-one idempotent. Then I (s g

) in every unital algebra containing

). We have just shown that I (s g

) is invertible if and only

(s) = 1. But we know that A (v g

) is invertible if and only if

) is. The result then follows.

and z C \ (A). Then z (A + (w w

) is invertible exactly when

. Let B B(W) and let z / (B). Then by

2 respectively, which is also

, and dene the

if and only if 1 = (I zA)

if and only if 1 (zA +

Q is identically zero, then the dierential equation

= 0, so that = P/Q is a constant, and

Q is not identically zero, then the

(0) = 0. By direct calculation, we get

. It follows that for all w W and

= 0. We show that either

is the union of the two

, implying that either

(y) = 1, and set

. There exist linear transformations A : X

as a union of two subspaces. One of these subspaces must be

. But rank(A) = dim(L

for all x X and

. So, by Lemma 4.9, there are non-zero scalars , C such

for every x X and x

for all x X and x

. Finally, as B = 0, it follows that A is linear.

for all x X and x

and a bilinear map : X X

) for all x X and x

) is bilinear, it is clear that is also bilinear. Hence