2.9 Proper proximality and deformation/rigidity theory
2.9.2 Proper proximality via closable derivations
for eachk≥1, and hence for eachT∈B(L2(AH⊕H))we have
n→∞limkPk(απ(t)φn(T)απ(t−1)−φn(απ(t)⊕π(t)Tαπ(t−1)⊕π(t−1)))Pkk=0.
Since{Pk}kgives an approximate identity forXFit then follows by passing to a limit thatφisΓ-equivariant.
Suppose now that ΓyAH is not properly proximal, then by Lemma 2.8.5 there exists anAH-central andΓ-invariant stateϕon ˜S(M). We may further assume it vanishes on((K∞,1AH)])∗. AsΓyAH is properly proximal relative to XF we must then have thatϕ is supported on((XF)]J)∗, but then by considering the composition ofϕwith the restriction ofφtoA0H∩B(L2(AH⊕H) L2(AH⊕0))we obtain aΓ-invariant state on this space, which would give a contradiction, as noted above.
Proof of Theorem 2.1.2. From the proof of Theorems 2.9.1 and 2.9.2 we show, in fact, that ifπ:Γ→O(H) is an orthogonal representation, then there are AH-bimodular Γ-equivariant maps ψ :AH ⊗B(S(H) CΩ)→S˜XF(AH) and φ :AH⊗B(S(H) CΩ)→((XF)]J)∗∩S˜(AH). If R is a subequivalence re- lation of the orbit equivalence relation associated to the action ΓyAH, then just as above, if the ac- tion NLR(AH)yAH is not properly proximal, then we would obtain aNLR(AH)-invariant state ϕ on
AH ⊗B(S(H) CΩ)such thatϕ|AH is normal with supportp∈AΓH. Under the isomorphismNLR(AH)/U(AH)∼= [R], where[R]denotes the full group of the equivalence relation we then see thatϕis[R]-invariant for the
natural action of[R]onAH ⊗B(S(H) CΩ).
By a standard argument using Day’s trick (e.g., as in [Bek90]) this would then give a net of vectors ξi∈L2(AH)⊗HS(S(H) CΩ)such thathaξi,ξii=τ(p)1 τ(ap)fora∈AH and such that{ξi}iis asymp- totically[R]-invariant. Ifπ≺λ, then this, in turn, gives an asymptotically[R]-invariant net of vectors in L2(AH)⊗`2Γ, which would show thatRpis an amenable equivalence relation [ADR00, Theorem 6.1.4]. A simple maximality argument then gives the result.
More generally, if some tensor powerπ⊗ksatisfiesπ⊗k≺λ, then by considering self-tensor powers of the net{ξi}iit would again follow thatRpis an amenable equivalence relation.
J(δ(x))forx∈D(δ)) and satisfies Leibniz’s formula
δ(xy) =xδ(y) +δ(x)y x,y∈D(δ).
A result of Davies and Lindsay in [DL92] shows thatD(δ)∩Mis then again a∗-subalgebra andδ|D(δ)∩M again gives a closable real derivation. We recycle the following notation from [Pet09b, OP10b]
∆=δ∗δ, ζα= α
α+∆ 1/2
, δ˜α= 1
√
αδ◦ζα, ∆˜α= 1
√
α∆1/2◦ζα, θα=1−∆˜α. We note that from [Sau90, Sau99] (cf. [Pet09b]) we have thatζαandθα areτ-symmetric u.c.p. maps.
Forx,y∈D(δ)∩Mwe set
Γ(x∗,y) =∆1/2(x∗)y+x∗∆1/2(y)−∆1/2(x∗y),
and recall from [OP10b, p. 850] that we have
kΓ(x∗,y)k2≤4kxk1/2kδ(x)k1/2kyk1/2kδ(y)k1/2. (2.19)
We also recall [OP10b, Lemma 4.1] (cf. [Pet09b, Lemma 3.3]) that forx,a∈M we have the following approximate bimodularity property
kζα(x)δ˜α(a)−δ˜α(xa)k ≤10kakkxk1/2kδ˜α(x)k1/2, (2.20)
and
kδ˜α(a)ζα(x)−δ˜α(ax)k ≤10kakkxk1/2kδ˜α(x)k1/2. (2.21) Ifx∈Mis contained in the domainD(δ)∩M, then we have the following estimate, allowing us to replace the termζα(x)from (2.20) and (2.21) withx.
Lemma 2.9.3. For x∈M∩D(δ), a∈M, andα>1we have
kxδ˜α(a)−δ˜α(xa)k ≤α−1/4(2kδ(x)k1/2+6kxk1/2)kδ(x)k1/2kak.
and
kδ˜α(a)x−δ˜α(ax)k ≤α−1/4(2kδ(x)k1/2+6kxk1/2)kδ(x)k1/2kak.
Proof. We follow the strategy from [Pet09b] and [OP10b]. We have
xδ˜α(a) =α−1/2δ(xζα(a))−α−1/2δ(x)ζα(a) =:A1−A2.
Note thatkA2k ≤α−1/2kδ(x)kkak. Letδ =V∆1/2be the polar decomposition. Then, one has
V∗A1=x∆˜α(a) +α−1/2∆1/2(x)ζα(a) −α1/2Γ(x,ζα(a))
=:B1 +B2 −B3.
We havekB2k2≤α−1/2kδ(x)kkak, and by (2.19) we havekB3k2≤4α−1/4kakkxk1/2kδ(x)k1/2. We have B1−∆˜α(xa) =xθα(a)−θα(xa), and sinceθα is a τ-symmetric u.c.p. map, we may use the Stinespring representationθα(y) =W∗π(y)W to estimate
kxθα(a)−θα(xa)k22=kθα(a∗x∗)−θα(a∗)x∗k22
=kW∗π(a∗)(π(x∗)W−Wπ(x∗))ˆ1k22
≤ kak2k(π(x∗)W−Wπ(x∗))ˆ1k22
=2kak2τ((x−θα(x))x∗)
≤2kak2kxkkx−θα(x)k2
=2kak2kxkkδ˜α(x)k ≤2α−1/2kak2kxkkδ(x)k.
Combining these estimates gives the first part of the lemma, and the second part follows sinceδ is a real derivation.
We now show that the argument in Proposition 2.9.1 above can be adapted to deformations associated to closable derivations.
Proposition 2.9.4. Let M be a finite factor, H an M-M correspondence with a real structure, and δ : L2M→H a closable real derivation. Let A denote the C∗-algebra generated by D(δ)∩M and suppose that(Mop)0∩B(H)has no A-central stateψ such thatψ|A=τ. IfX⊂B(L2M)is a boundary piece and ζα∈KLX(M,L2M)for eachα>0, then M is properly proximal relative toX.
Proof. Forα>0 letVα:L2M→L2M⊕H denote the map given byVα(ˆx) =ζα(x)⊕δ˜α(x). Forx∈Mwe compute
kVα(ˆx)k2=τ(ρα(x)x∗) + 1
ατ(∆◦ρα(x)x∗) =kxk22,
whereρα=α+∆α . HenceVαis an isometry. By Lemmas 3.5 in [OP10b] and from (2.20) above we have
kVαx−ζα(x)Vαk2∞,2= sup
kak≤1
kζα(xa)−ζα(x)ζα(a)k22+kδ˜α(xa)−ζα(x)δ˜α(a)k2
≤4kxkkx−ζα(x)k2+100kakkδ˜α(x)k (2.22)
≤104kxkkδ˜α(x)k,
where the last inequality follows from the fact that 1−√ t≤√
1−tfor 0≤t≤1 as in [OP10b, p. 850]. It similarly follows that
kVαJxJ−(J⊕J)ζα(x)(J⊕J)Vαk2∞,2≤104kxkkδ˜α(x)k. (2.23)
Moreover, ifx∈D(δ)∩M, then we may use instead Lemma 2.9.3 to conclude that forα≥1 we have
kVαx−xVαk∞,2≤α−1/4(2kδ(x)k1/2+8kxk1/2)kδ(x)k1/2. (2.24)
As in the proof of Proposition 2.9.1 we define u.c.p. mapsφα :B(L2M⊕H)→B(L2M)byφα(T) = Vα∗TVα, and we let φ :B(L2M⊕H)→(B(L2M)]J)∗ be a point ultraweak limit point of {φα}α. If we denote byethe orthogonal projection fromL2M⊕H down toL2M, then by hypothesis we haveeVα=ζα∈ KLX(M,L2M)and henceφ(e)∈((K∞,1X (M))]J)∗.
IfM is not properly proximal relative toX, then by Lemma 2.8.6, there exists anM-central stateϕ on eSX(M)withϕ|M=τis normal and such thatϕvanishes on((K∞,1X (M))]J)∗.
For T ∈(Mop)0∩B(L2M⊕H) and x∈M we have that [φ(T),JxJ] is an ultraweak limit point of [φα(T),JxJ]and from (2.23) we see that this is an ultraweak limit point ofφα([T,(J⊕J)ζα(x)(J⊕J)]) = 0. Therefore we see thatφ maps intoeS(M)⊂eSX(M). Also, by (2.24) we see thatφ is bimodular for the C∗-closureAofD(δ)∩M. Thus,ϕ◦φ◦Ad(e⊥)gives anA-central state on(Mop)0∩B(L2M⊕H).
We remark that sinceζα is positive as an operator onL2Mwe have thatζα∈KLX(M,L2M)if and only if ζα∈KX(M), and this is if and only if α+∆α ∈KX(M).
The details of the following example for which the previous proposition applies can be found in [Pet09a]
(cf. also [CP13]). SupposeΓis a group,π:Γ→O(K)is an orthogonal representation, andc:Γ→K is a 1-cocycle. ThenK ⊗`2Γis naturally anLΓ-correspondence and we obtain a closable real derivation δ:CΓ→K ⊗`2Γby settingδ(ut) =c(t)⊗δtfort∈Γ. It is then not hard to see that(LΓop)0∩B(K ⊗`2Γ) = B(K)⊗LΓhas aC∗
λΓ-central state if and only ifπis an amenable representation in the sense of Bekka. This then gives another way to show proper proximality for group von Neumann algebras associated with groups
that have property (HH) from [OP10b].
The following lemma will allow us to apply Proposition 2.9.4 when the M-M correspondenceH is weakly contained in the coarse correspondence.
Lemma 2.9.5. Let M be a finite factor, H an M-M correspondence with a real structure that is weakly contained in the coarse correspondence and supposeδ :L2M→H is a closable real derivation with A= D(δ)∩M. If(Mop)0∩B(H)has an A-central stateψsuch thatψ|A=τ, then M is amenable.
Proof. AsM-M correspondences we haveL2((Mop)0∩B(H))∼=H ⊗MH [Sau83, Proposition 3.1] and so if there existed anA-central state on(Mop)0∩B(H)that restricts to the trace onA, then by Day’s trick [Con76b] there would exist a net of unit vectors{ξi}i⊂H ⊗MH such thatk[a,ξi]k →0 andhaξi,ξii →τ(a) for eacha∈A.
Ifa1, . . . ,an∈A, andb1, . . . ,bn∈A, we then have
k
n
∑
k=1
akb∗kk2=lim
i→∞k(
n
∑
k=1
akb∗k)ξik
=lim
i→∞k
n k=1
∑
akξib∗kk
≤ k
n
∑
k=1
ak⊗JbkJkB(L2M⊗L2M)
→ k
n k=1
∑
ak⊗JbkJkB(L2M⊗L2M)
where the inequality follows sinceH ⊗MH is weakly contained in the coarse correspondence.
If we now take unitariesu1, . . . ,un∈M, then forα>0 we haveζα(u1), . . . ,ζα(un)∈D(δ)∩Mand hence
k
n
∑
k=1
ζα(uk)ζα(u∗k)k2≤ k
n
∑
k=1
ζα(uk)⊗Jζα(uk)JkB(L2M⊗L2M)
≤ k
n k=1
∑
uk⊗JukJkB(L2M⊗L2M).
Sinceζα(x)→xstrongly asα→∞, we then conclude that
n= lim
α→∞k
n
∑
k=1
ζα(uk)ζα(u∗k)k2≤ k
n
∑
k=1
uk⊗JukJkB(L2M⊗L2M),
and henceMis amenable by [Con76a].
We refer to [Cas21], and the references therein, for background and our notation for free orthogonal quantum groups.
Corollary 2.9.6. If N≥3, then the von Neumann algebra L∞(O+N)associated to the free orthogonal quantum group O+N is properly proximal.
Proof. By [Cas21, Section 7.1] (cf. [FV15]) there exists aL∞(O+N)-L∞(O+N)correspondenceH with a real structure that is weakly contained in the coarse corrspondence, and a closable real derivationδ:L∞(O+N)→ H so that α
α+δ∗δ is compact as anL2-operator for eachα>0. The result then follows from Lemma 2.9.5 and Proposition 2.9.4.
CHAPTER 3
Proper proximality and first`2-Betti numbers