alphaFeedback

WorksMathematics

Hyperrigidity and convexity in two variables

AI contributions
Not recorded for this paper
View details

Abstract

We extend Brown's one-variable rigidity theorem to strictly convex functions of two variables under a regularity assumption. Let K⊂R2K\subset\mathbb{R}^2 be nonempty, compact, and convex, and let ff be real-valued, strictly convex on KK, and of class C2C^2 on a neighbourhood of KK. We prove that the generating set {x1,x2,f}\{x_1,x_2,f\} is hyperrigid in C(K)C(K).

Introduction

The classical approximation theorem due to P. P. Korovkin [4] states that the asymptotic behaviour of any sequence of positive linear maps on C[0,1]C[0,1] is completely determined by its behaviour on the three functions 11, xx and x2x^{2}. The underlying reason for this phenomenon was revealed by Yu. A. Šaškin [7], who characterized all such test sets in terms of the Choquet boundary. To state his result, let XX be a compact metric space and let G⊆C(X)G \subseteq C(X) be a set whose linear span SS contains the constant function 11. The Choquet boundary ∂SX\partial_{S}X of SS is the set of all points t∈Xt \in X such that the Dirac measure δt\delta_{t} is the only Borel probability measure μ\mu on XX satisfying f(t)=∫Xf dμf(t) = \int_{X} f\,d\mu for all f∈Sf \in S. Šaškin’s theorem asserts that ∂SX=X\partial_{S}X = X if and only if for any sequence of positive linear maps Φk:C(X)→C(X)\Phi_{k}: C(X) \to C(X) (k∈Nk \in\mathbb{N}),

lim⁡k→∞∥Φk(g)−g∥=0 ∀g∈G⟹lim⁡k→∞∥Φk(f)−f∥=0 ∀f∈C(X).\lim_{k\to\infty}\lVert\Phi_{k}(g)-g\rVert=0\ \forall g\in G\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\lim_{k\to\infty}\lVert\Phi_{k}(f)-f\rVert=0\ \forall f\in C(X).

In other words, the asymptotic behaviour of the sequence {Φk}k=1∞\{\Phi_{k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} on the C∗C^{*}-algebra C(X)C(X) is uniquely determined by the set GG precisely when every point of XX belongs to the Choquet boundary of SS.

Šaškin’s theorem thus shows that the Choquet boundary lies at the heart of classical approximation theory. Inspired by this observation, and by the central role that approximation plays in the modern theory of operator algebras, W. Arveson [1] introduced the notion of hyperrigidity, a “noncommutative” counterpart of the Korovkin property that turns out to encompass a wide range of significant operator-algebraic phenomena.

For the reader’s convenience, we recall Arveson’s definition (see [1 Definition 1.1]). Here and below, UCP stands for unital completely positive.

Definition 1.1. A finite or countably infinite set GG of generators of a unital C∗C^*-algebra A\mathcal{A} is said to be hyperrigid if for any faithful representation π:A→B(H)\pi:\mathcal{A}\to B(\mathcal{H}) on a Hilbert space H\mathcal{H} and for any sequence Φk:B(H)→B(H)\Phi_k:B(\mathcal{H})\to B(\mathcal{H}) (k∈N)(k\in\mathbb{N}) of UCP maps,

lim⁡k→∞∥Φk(π(g))−π(g)∥=0 ∀g∈G⟹lim⁡k→∞∥Φk(π(a))−π(a)∥=0  ∀a∈A.\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Phi_k(\pi(g))-\pi(g)\|=0\ \forall g\in G\quad\Longrightarrow\quad\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Phi_k(\pi(a))-\pi(a)\|=0\ \ \forall a\in\mathcal{A}.

In the spirit of Šaškin’s theorem, Arveson [1 Conjecture 4.3] conjectured that a generating set is hyperrigid whenever every irreducible representation of the generated C∗C^*-algebra is a boundary representation. The converse implication is always valid. Bilich and Scherer [3] recently constructed counterexamples to Arveson’s hyperrigidity conjecture in commutative C∗C^*-algebras, showing that the boundary condition does not imply the unique extension property for arbitrary representations.

Let I⊂RI\subset\mathbb{R} be a compact interval and let f∈C(I)f\in C(I) be real-valued and strictly convex. The function system Sf=span⁡{1,x,f}S_f=\operatorname{span}\{1,x,f\} has Choquet boundary II (see [1 Propositions 9.1 and 9.2]). Arveson [1 Remark 9.5] asked whether {I,T,f(T)}\{I,T,f(T)\} is hyperrigid in the unital C∗C^*-algebra generated by TT whenever TT is selfadjoint with spectrum in II. Brown [2] answered this question affirmatively as a consequence of the following weak-to-strong convergence theorem. Below, σ(T)\sigma(T) denotes the spectrum of an operator TT.

Theorem 1.2 ([2 Theorem 2.1]). Let ff be a strictly convex continuous function on an interval J⊆RJ\subseteq\mathbb{R}, let H\mathcal{H} be a Hilbert space, and let {Ti}i∈Ω\{T_i\}_{i\in\Omega} be a net of selfadjoint operators in B(H)B(\mathcal{H}) such that σ(Ti)⊆J\sigma(T_i)\subseteq J for all i∈Ωi\in\Omega. If {Ti}i∈Ω\{T_i\}_{i\in\Omega} converges weakly to a selfadjoint operator T∈B(H)T\in B(\mathcal{H}) with σ(T)⊆J\sigma(T)\subseteq J, and if also {f(Ti)}i∈Ω\{f(T_i)\}_{i\in\Omega} converges weakly to f(T)f(T), then {φ(Ti)}i∈Ω\{\varphi(T_i)\}_{i\in\Omega} converges strongly to φ(T)\varphi(T) for every bounded continuous function φ\varphi on JJ. In particular if the net {Ti}i∈Ω\{T_i\}_{i\in\Omega} is bounded, then {Ti}i∈Ω\{T_i\}_{i\in\Omega} converges strongly to TT.

The present paper extends this rigidity phenomenon to strictly convex functions of two variables, under a regularity assumption.

Theorem 1.3. Let K⊂R2K\subset\mathbb{R}^2 be a nonempty compact convex set, and let f:K→Rf:K\to\mathbb{R} be a strictly convex function admitting a C2C^2 extension to an open neighbourhood of KK. Then the set G={x,y,f}G=\{x,y,f\} generates C(K)C(K) and is hyperrigid in C(K)C(K).

Preliminaries

Throughout the paper, R\mathbb{R}, C\mathbb{C} and N\mathbb{N} denote the sets of real numbers, complex numbers and positive integers, respectively. For a topological space XX, we write B(X)\mathcal{B}(X) for the σ\sigma-algebra of its Borel subsets. The symbol 1D1_D stands for the characteristic function of a set DD, and lin⁡Z\operatorname{lin}Z denotes the complex linear span of a subset ZZ of a complex vector space.

Let H\mathcal{H} be a complex Hilbert space. We denote by B(H)B(\mathcal{H}) the C∗C^*-algebra of all bounded linear operators on H\mathcal{H}, with identity operator I=IHI=I_{\mathcal{H}}. An operator T∈B(H)T\in B(\mathcal{H}) is positive if ⟨Th,h⟩≥0\langle Th,h\rangle\geq0 for every h∈Hh\in\mathcal{H}.

Proof of Theorem 1.3

Choose an open neighbourhood U⊂R2U\subset\mathbb{R}^2 of KK and a function f~∈C2(U,R)\widetilde{f}\in C^2(U,\mathbb{R}) such that f~∣K=f\widetilde{f}|_K=f. We denote by D2f~(u)=(∂i∂jf~(u))i,j=12D^2\widetilde{f}(u)=(\partial_i\partial_j\widetilde{f}(u))_{i,j=1}^2 the Hessian matrix of f~\widetilde{f} at $u\in U. For each a∈Ka \in K, define ψa:K→R\psi_a: K \to\mathbb{R} by ψa(t)=f(t)−f(a)−⟨∇f~(a),t−a⟩\psi_a(t)=f(t)-f(a)-\langle\nabla\widetilde{f}(a),t-a\rangle. Strict convexity implies that ψa(t)≥0\psi_a(t)\geq0, with equality if and only if t=at=a. Taylor’s formula with integral remainder yields

0≤ψa(t)=∫01(1−s)⟨D2f~(a+s(t−a))(t−a),t−a⟩ ds≤L∣t−a∣2,a,t∈K,(1)0\leq\psi_a(t)=\int_0^1(1-s)\langle D^2\widetilde{f}(a+s(t-a))(t-a),t-a\rangle\,\mathrm{d}s \leq L|t-a|^2,\qquad a,t\in K, \tag*{(1)}

where L>0L>0 satisfies L≥12sup⁡u∈K∥D2f~(u)∥L\geq\frac{1}{2}\sup_{u\in K}\lVert D^2\widetilde{f}(u)\rVert. Strict convexity of ff implies that ψa(t)≥0\psi_a(t)\geq0 for all t∈Kt\in K, with equality if and only if t=at=a.

Lemma 3.1. Let K⊂R2K\subset\mathbb{R}^2 be nonempty and compact, and let E:B(K)→B(H)E:\mathcal{B}(K)\to\mathcal{B}(\mathcal{H}) be a spectral measure. Set

Gz=∫K∣t−z∣2 dE(t),z∈R2.(2)G_z=\int_K|t-z|^2\,\mathrm{d}E(t),\qquad z\in\mathbb{R}^2. \tag*{(2)}

If a positive operator TT satisfies

T≤cGa,a∈K,(3)T\leq cG_a,\qquad a\in K, \tag*{(3)}

for some constant c>0c>0, then T=0T=0.

Proof. Choose a square Q0⊂R2Q_0\subset\mathbb{R}^2 of side length L>0L>0 such that K⊂Q0K\subset Q_0. We shall repeatedly subdivide each square into four congruent subsquares by bisecting its sides. At every stage, boundary points are assigned to exactly one of the adjacent subsquares. We refer to the resulting Borel sets as dyadic cells. Thus, each dyadic cell is the disjoint union of its four children and is contained in a closed square of the corresponding side length.

Fix h∈Hh\in\mathcal{H} and set η=T1/2h\eta=T^{1/2}h. We may assume that η≠0\eta\neq0. Define μ:B(R2)→[0,∞)\mu:\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^2)\to[0,\infty) by

μ(B)=⟨E(K∩B)η,η⟩=∥E(K∩B)η∥2,B∈B(R2).\mu(B)=\langle E(K\cap B)\eta,\eta\rangle=\lVert E(K\cap B)\eta\rVert^2,\qquad B\in\mathcal{B}(\mathbb{R}^2).

Then μ\mu is a finite positive Borel measure on R2\mathbb{R}^2, supported on KK, and

μ(R2)=∥η∥2.\mu(\mathbb{R}^2)=\lVert\eta\rVert^2.

Fix N≥1N\geq1. Among the four children of Q0Q_0, choose a dyadic cell Q1Q_1 satisfying μ(Q1)≥μ(Q0)/4\mu(Q_1)\geq\mu(Q_0)/4, and continue inductively within the cell so obtained. This yields a nested sequence of dyadic cells

Q0⊃Q1⊃⋯⊃QNQ_0\supset Q_1\supset\cdots\supset Q_N

such that, for 0≤j≤N0\leq j\leq N,

μ(Qj)≥4−j∥η∥2,\mu(Q_j)\geq4^{-j}\lVert\eta\rVert^2,
diam⁡(Qj)2≤2L24−j.\operatorname{diam}(Q_j)^2\leq2L^2 4^{-j}.

Since μ(QN)>0\mu(Q_N)>0 and μ\mu is supported on KK, we have K∩QN≠∅K\cap Q_N\neq\varnothing. Fix a∈K∩QNa\in K\cap Q_N.

For 0≤j≤N0\leq j\leq N, set

Pj=E(K∩Qj),DN=∑j=0N4jPj,sN=⟨DNη,η⟩.P_j=E(K\cap Q_j),\qquad D_N=\sum_{j=0}^{N}4^jP_j,\qquad s_N=\langle D_N\eta,\eta\rangle.

By the definition of μ\mu and the choice of the cells QjQ_j,

sN=∑j=0N4jμ(Qj)≥(N+1)∥η∥2>0.(4)s_N=\sum_{j=0}^{N}4^j\mu(Q_j)\ge(N+1)\lVert\eta\rVert^2>0. \tag*{(4)}

Define dN:K→[0,∞)d_N:K\to[0,\infty) by

dN(t)=∑j=0N4j1Qj(t),t∈K.d_N(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{N}4^j\mathbf{1}_{Q_j}(t),\qquad t\in K.

Then

DN=∫KdN(t) dE(t).D_N=\int_K d_N(t)\,\mathrm{d}E(t).

Fix t∈Kt\in K, and let m∈{0,…,N}m\in\{0,\ldots,N\} be the largest index such that t∈Qmt\in Q_m. Since the cells are nested and a∈QN⊂Qma\in Q_N\subset Q_m, we have

dN(t)=∑j=0m4j≤434m,d_N(t)=\sum_{j=0}^{m}4^j\le\frac{4}{3}4^m,
∣t−a∣2≤diam⁡(Qm)2≤2L24−m.|t-a|^2\le\operatorname{diam}(Q_m)^2\le2L^2 4^{-m}.

Consequently,

∣t−a∣2dN(t)≤83L2,t∈K.(5)|t-a|^2d_N(t)\le\frac{8}{3}L^2,\qquad t\in K. \tag*{(5)}

Multiplying (5) by dN(t)d_N(t) and applying the spectral calculus, we obtain

DNGaDN=∫K∣t−a∣2dN(t)2 dE(t)≤83L2DN.(6)D_NG_aD_N=\int_K |t-a|^2d_N(t)^2\,\mathrm{d}E(t)\le\frac{8}{3}L^2D_N. \tag*{(6)}

Since η=T1/2h\eta=T^{1/2}h, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, the assumption T≤cGaT\le cG_a, and (6) give

sN2=∣⟨DNη,T1/2h⟩∣2=∣⟨T1/2DNη,h⟩∣2≤∥h∥2⟨TDNη,DNη⟩≤c∥h∥2⟨DNGaDNη,η⟩≤8cL23∥h∥2sN.\begin{aligned} s_N^2&=|\langle D_N\eta,T^{1/2}h\rangle|^2\\ &=|\langle T^{1/2}D_N\eta,h\rangle|^2\\ &\le\lVert h\rVert^2\langle TD_N\eta,D_N\eta\rangle\\ &\le c\lVert h\rVert^2\langle D_NG_aD_N\eta,\eta\rangle\\ &\le\frac{8cL^2}{3}\lVert h\rVert^2s_N. \end{aligned}

As sN>0s_N>0, division by sNs_N and (4) yield

(N+1)∥T1/2h∥2≤8cL23∥h∥2.(7)(N+1)\lVert T^{1/2}h\rVert^2\le\frac{8cL^2}{3}\lVert h\rVert^2. \tag*{(7)}

Although the selected cells and the point aa may depend on hh and NN, the constant on the right-hand side is independent of both. The estimate also holds when T1/2h=0T^{1/2}h=0. Since h∈Hh\in\mathcal{H} is arbitrary, it follows that ∥T∥≤8cL2/[3(N+1)]\lVert T\rVert\le8cL^2/[3(N+1)] for every N≥1N\ge1. Letting N→∞N\to\infty gives T=0T=0. □\square

Proof of Theorem 1.3. The coordinate functions separate the points of KK, so {1,x1,x2,f}\{1,x_1,x_2,f\} generates C(K)C(K). By the unique extension characterization of hyperrigidity, it suffices to show that any unital representation π:C(K)→B(H)\pi:C(K)\to B(\mathcal{H}) and any UCP map Φ:C(K)→B(H)\Phi:C(K)\to B(\mathcal{H}) satisfying

Φ(s)=π(s),s∈{1,x1,x2,f},\Phi(s)=\pi(s),\qquad s\in\{1,x_1,x_2,f\},

coincide on C(K)C(K). Let EE be the spectral measure of π\pi, and let FF be the normalized semispectral measure representing Φ\Phi.

For a∈Ka\in K, set

ψa(t)=f(t)−f(a)−⟨∇f(a),t−a⟩,t∈K.\psi_a(t)=f(t)-f(a)-\langle\nabla f(a),t-a\rangle,\qquad t\in K.

Strict convexity and Taylor’s formula give

0≤ψa(t)≤L∣t−a∣2,ψa(t)=0⟺t=a,a,t∈K,(8)0\leq\psi_a(t)\leq L|t-a|^2,\qquad\psi_a(t)=0\Longleftrightarrow t=a,\qquad a,t\in K, \tag*{(8)}

where L>0L>0 is independent of aa and tt. Moreover, since ψa∈span⁡{1,x1,x2,f}\psi_a\in\operatorname{span}\{1,x_1,x_2,f\},

∫Kψa dF=Φ(ψa)=π(ψa)=∫Kψa dE.(9)\int_K\psi_a\,\mathrm{d}F=\Phi(\psi_a)=\pi(\psi_a)=\int_K\psi_a\,\mathrm{d}E. \tag*{(9)}

Let A,B⊂KA,B\subset K be nonempty disjoint compact sets. Joint continuity of (a,t)↦ψa(t)(a,t)\mapsto\psi_a(t) and (3.8) imply that

m:=min⁡{ψa(t):a∈A, t∈B}>0.m:=\min\{\psi_a(t):a\in A,\ t\in B\}>0.

For every a∈Aa\in A, the inequality m1B≤ψam1_B\leq\psi_a holds on KK. Integrating with respect to FF, using (3.9), and compressing to E(A)HE(A)\mathcal{H}, we obtain

0≤E(A)F(B)E(A)≤1m∫Aψa(t) dE(t)≤Lm∫A∣t−a∣2 dE(t),a∈A.(10)\begin{aligned} 0\leq E(A)F(B)E(A)\leq\frac{1}{m}\int_A\psi_a(t)\,\mathrm{d}E(t) \\ &\leq\frac{L}{m}\int_A|t-a|^2\,\mathrm{d}E(t),\qquad a\in A. \tag*{(10)} \end{aligned}

If E(A)≠0E(A)\ne0, the restriction of EE to AA, regarded as a spectral measure on E(A)HE(A)\mathcal{H}, is normalized. Thus Lemma 3.1 applied to (3.10) yields E(A)F(B)E(A)=0E(A)F(B)E(A)=0. This equality is immediate if E(A)=0E(A)=0. Positivity of F(B)F(B) now gives

E(A)F(B)=F(B)E(A)=0.(11)E(A)F(B)=F(B)E(A)=0. \tag*{(11)}

Fix a nonempty compact set B⊂KB\subset K and put

An={t∈K:dist⁡(t,B)≥1/n},n∈N.A_n=\{t\in K:\operatorname{dist}(t,B)\geq1/n\},\qquad n\in\mathbb{N}.

The sets AnA_n are compact, disjoint from BB, and increase to K∖BK\setminus B. By (3.11) and the strong countable additivity of EE,

E(K∖B)F(B)=F(B)E(K∖B)=0.E(K\setminus B)F(B)=F(B)E(K\setminus B)=0.

Since 0≤F(B)≤I0\leq F(B)\leq I, it follows that

F(B)=E(B)F(B)E(B)≤E(B).(12)F(B)=E(B)F(B)E(B)\leq E(B). \tag*{(12)}

The same inequality holds trivially for B=∅B=\varnothing.

Let D∈B(K)D\in\mathcal{B}(K) and h∈Hh\in\mathcal{H}. Regularity of the finite positive Borel measure D↦⟨F(D)h,h⟩D\mapsto\langle F(D)h,h\rangle and (3.12) imply that

⟨F(D)h,h⟩=sup⁡B⊂DB compact⟨F(B)h,h⟩≤⟨E(D)h,h⟩.\langle F(D)h,h\rangle=\sup_{\substack{B\subset D\\ B\ \mathrm{compact}}}\langle F(B)h,h\rangle\leq\langle E(D)h,h\rangle.

Consequently, F(D)≤E(D)F(D) \le E(D) for every D∈B(K)D \in\mathcal{B}(K). Applying this inequality to K∖DK \setminus D and using F(K)=E(K)=IF(K) = E(K) = I, we obtain the reverse inequality. Hence F=EF = E, and integration gives Φ=π\Phi= \pi. □\square

Wydział Matematyki i Informatyki, Uniwersytet Jagielloński, ul. Łojasiewicza 6, PL-30348 Kraków, Poland

Email address: [email protected]

References

  1. [1]W. Arveson, The noncommutative Choquet boundary II: Hyperrigidity, Israel J. Math. 184 (2011), 349–385.arxiv.org/abs/0810.2751
  2. [2]L. G. Brown, Convergence of functions of self-adjoint operators and applications, Publ. Mat. 60 (2016), 551–564.arxiv.org/abs/1410.6800
  3. [3]B. Bilich, M. Scherer, Commutative counterexamples to Arveson’s hyperrigidity conjecture, arXiv:2610.26556 (2026).arxiv.org/abs/2610.26556
  4. [4]P. P. Korovkin, On convergence of linear positive operators in the space of continuous functions. (Russian) Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR (N.S.) 90 (1953), 961-964.
  5. [7]J. A. Bashkin, The Milman-Choquet boundary and the theory of approximations. Funkcional Anal. i Priložen. 1 (1967), 95-96.

Paper details

vlnc:W_9cc829dc
v1 · latestHistory (1)

published · Fresh — added to the Hub within the last 30 days

added ·

Usage

views · 0

downloads · 0

A view counts once per browser per day, a download each time the PDF is requested.

CC BY 4.0

Original source

  • Mathematics

Not recorded for this paper · View statement →

Looking for related papers…
Contents