Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T02:14:52.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

APPROXIMATELY MULTIPLICATIVE MAPS FROM WEIGHTED SEMILATTICE ALGEBRAS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2013

YEMON CHOI*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McLean Hall, University of Saskatchewan, 106 Wiggins Road, Saskatoon, SK, Canada S7N 5E6
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

We investigate which weighted convolution algebras ${ \ell }_{\omega }^{1} (S)$, where $S$ is a semilattice, are AMNM in the sense of Johnson [‘Approximately multiplicative functionals’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 34(3) (1986), 489–510]. We give an explicit example where this is not the case. We show that the unweighted examples are all AMNM, as are all ${ \ell }_{\omega }^{1} (S)$ where $S$ has either finite width or finite height. Some of these finite-width examples are isomorphic to function algebras studied by Feinstein [‘Strong Ditkin algebras without bounded relative units’, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 22(2) (1999), 437–443]. We also investigate when $({ \ell }_{\omega }^{1} (S), { \mathbb{M} }_{2} )$ is an AMNM pair in the sense of Johnson [‘Approximately multiplicative maps between Banach algebras’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 37(2) (1988), 294–316], where ${ \mathbb{M} }_{2} $ denotes the algebra of $2\times 2$ complex matrices. In particular, we obtain the following two contrasting results: (i) for many nontrivial weights on the totally ordered semilattice ${ \mathbb{N} }_{\min } $, the pair $({ \ell }_{\omega }^{1} ({ \mathbb{N} }_{\min } ), { \mathbb{M} }_{2} )$ is not AMNM; (ii) for any semilattice $S$, the pair $({\ell }^{1} (S), { \mathbb{M} }_{2} )$ is AMNM. The latter result requires a detailed analysis of approximately commuting, approximately idempotent $2\times 2$ matrices.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright ©2013 Australian Mathematical Publishing Association Inc. 

References

Birkhoff, G., Lattice Theory, 3rd edn, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 25 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1979).Google Scholar
Dales, H. G. and Loy, R. J., ‘Approximate amenability of semigroup algebras and Segal algebras’, Dissertationes Math. (Rozprawy Mat.) 474 (2010), 58.Google Scholar
Feinstein, J. F., ‘Strong Ditkin algebras without bounded relative units’, Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 22 (2) (1999), 437443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ghahramani, F., Loy, R. J. and Zhang, Y., ‘Generalized notions of amenability, II’, J. Funct. Anal. 254 (7) (2008), 17761810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hewitt, E. and Zuckerman, H. S., ‘The ${l}_{1} $-algebra of a commutative semigroup’, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 83 (1956), 7097.Google Scholar
Howey, R. A. J., ‘Approximately multiplicative maps between some Banach algebras’, PhD thesis, The University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 2000.Google Scholar
Howey, R. A. J., ‘Approximately multiplicative functionals on algebras of smooth functions’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 68 (3) (2003), 739752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarosz, K., Perturbations of Banach Algebras, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1120 (Springer, Berlin, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jarosz, K., ‘Almost multiplicative functionals’, Studia Math. 124 (1) (1997), 3758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. E., ‘Approximately multiplicative functionals’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 34 (3) (1986), 489510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, B. E., ‘Approximately multiplicative maps between Banach algebras’, J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 37 (2) (1988), 294316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, J., ‘The stability of multiplicative semigroup homomorphisms to real normed algebras. I’, Aequationes Math. 28 (1–2) (1985), 94101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.N., ‘personal communication’, http://mathoverflow.net/questions/100971 (version: 2012-06-29), MathOverflow, 2012.Google Scholar
Sidney, S. J., ‘Are all uniform algebras AMNM?’, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 29 (3) (1997), 327330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar