Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Pseudo-Cartan Inclusions

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For regular inclusions with abelian diagonal, Cartan envelopes, the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property, and an abelian relative commutant with two essential inclusions are all equivalent, and the unital restriction is removed.

desk verdict The non-unital classification of regular inclusions with a Cartan envelope is real, Theorem 3.27 holds up under scrutiny, and the paper's honest handling of its own erratum makes it worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01975 v3 pith:F6XRJYQU submitted 2025-02-04 math.OA

David R. Pitts This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OA MSC 46L05
keywords Cartanenvelopepseudo-Cartaninclusionfaithfuluniquepseudo-expectationpropertyidealintersectionregularnon-unitalC*-algebrastwistedgroupoidinductivelimits
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper classifies which non-unital inclusions (C,D) of C*-algebras, with D abelian, admit a Cartan envelope—a minimal larger inclusion that is a Cartan pair generated by the original inclusion. An inclusion is regular when its normalizers (elements v with vDv* and v*Dv inside D) span C. The classification says three conditions are equivalent: having a Cartan envelope; having a faithful unique pseudo-expectation, meaning a single contractive completely positive map from C into a minimal injective container of D that extends D; and having an abelian relative commutant D^c with both inclusions (C,D^c) and (D^c,D) intersecting every nonzero ideal. The unital case was known before; the paper removes the unital assumption by proving the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property survives unitization when D is abelian. If correct, this gives a practical recognition test for many non-unital examples and a unique minimal envelope for every inclusion that passes the test.

What carries the argument

The engine is the pseudo-expectation: a contractive completely positive map E from C into I(D), the injective envelope of D (the minimal injective C*-algebra containing D), which extends the inclusion of D. The load-bearing property is that E is unique and faithful. Theorem 2.3.16 transfers this property through unitization when D is abelian, and Proposition 2.4.4 identifies it, for abelian algebras, with the ideal intersection property. The relative commutant D^c (the elements of C commuting with every element of D) is the pivot: the equivalence reduces to checking that D^c is abelian and that (C,D^c) and (D^c,D) are essential inclusions. The Cartan envelope is then realized as the reduced twisted groupoid C*-algebra of strongly compatible eigenfunctionals on C.

What would settle it

Find a regular inclusion (C,D) with D abelian that has the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property but whose unitization (C~,D~) does not; Theorem 2.3.16 asserts the property always lifts, and the non-unital classification would fail at that step. A second, independent check is the corrected proof of [33, Theorem 6.9] in Appendix A: if it has a gap, the groupoid description and the Section 7 norming application do not follow, even if Theorem 3.27 itself still holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a regular inclusion (C,D) of C*-algebras with D abelian, the author establishes that the following are equivalent: (a) (C,D) has a Cartan envelope; (b) (C,D) has the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property; and (c) the relative commutant D^c is abelian and both (C,D^c) and (D^c,D) have the ideal intersection property, meaning every nonzero ideal of the larger algebra meets the subalgebra nontrivially. The Cartan envelope, when it exists, is unique up to a unique regular *-isomorphism and is minimal among Cartan packages. This closes the non-unital case: pseudo-Cartan inclusions—regular inclusions with a Cartan envelope—are exactly the regular inclusions with the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property. The paper also provides a twisted groupoid model for the envelope built from strongly compatible eigenfunctionals on C, and proves permanence properties: simplicity, unitality, and separability are shared by C and its envelope; regular automorphisms of C extend uniquely to the envelope; inductive limits and minimal tensor products of pseudo-Cartan inclusions remain pseudo-Cartan, with the envelope computed componentwise.

Load-bearing premise

The entire non-unital classification rests on the claim that adjoining units preserves the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property when D is abelian, together with the previously published [33, Theorem 6.9], whose proof had to be corrected in Appendix A because the published version was insufficient.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every regular inclusion with the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property has a unique minimal Cartan envelope, and every Cartan package over the inclusion quotients onto that envelope.
  • If (C,D) is pseudo-Cartan with envelope (A,B), then C is simple if and only if A is simple, C is unital if and only if A is unital, and C is separable if and only if A is separable.
  • Every regular *-automorphism of C extends uniquely to a regular *-automorphism of A.
  • Inductive limits and minimal tensor products of pseudo-Cartan inclusions are again pseudo-Cartan, and the envelope of each construction is the corresponding construction of the envelopes.
  • For unital pseudo-Cartan inclusions, the C*-envelope of any closed intermediate algebra D contained in A contained in C is the C*-subalgebra generated by A, and D norms C.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: the two-inclusion criterion (D^c abelian and both inclusions ideal-intersecting) gives a practical recognition test for non-unital examples such as graph-algebra inclusions and reduced crossed products, where one can check the two inclusions directly without constructing the envelope.
  • Beyond the paper: if the corrected proof of [33, Theorem 6.9] is sound, the twisted groupoid model in Theorem 5.2.3 makes the Cartan envelope computable, suggesting that non-Hausdorff groupoid invariants of the envelope can be read off directly from compatible eigenfunctionals of the original inclusion.
  • Beyond the paper: the paper leaves open whether nuclearity passes between C and its Cartan envelope (Conjecture 4.3.7); the pattern proved for simplicity, unitality, and separability makes a positive answer plausible, and tensor-product permanence provides a way to test it.
  • Beyond the paper: the non-regularity of unitization maps (illustrated by essential-ideal inclusions) means that any algorithmic approach to Cartan envelopes in the non-unital case should work with normalizers and approximate-unit properties rather than simply adjoining units.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper extends the author's earlier classification of unital pseudo-Cartan inclusions to all regular inclusions with abelian subalgebra. The central result, Theorem 3.27, establishes the equivalence of: (a) existence of a Cartan envelope, (b) the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property, and (c) the condition that the relative commutant is abelian and both intermediate inclusions have the ideal intersection property, together with uniqueness and minimality of the Cartan envelope. The paper also constructs the Kumjian-Renault twist for the Cartan envelope of a pseudo-Cartan inclusion (Theorem 5.2.3), proves permanence under inductive limits and minimal tensor products, establishes rigidity properties such as the unique extension of regular automorphisms and the equivalence of simplicity for an inclusion and its envelope, and gives applications to C*-envelopes of intermediate Banach algebras and to norming. The non-unital case is handled through a careful unitization analysis in Section 2, including weak non-degeneracy, pseudo-expectation lifting, and the ideal intersection property.

Significance. If correct, this is a substantial advance: it completes the classification of pseudo-Cartan inclusions in the non-unital setting and identifies the class with regular inclusions having the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property. The proof of Theorem 3.27 is carried out in the main body and appears sound on a careful reading; the reduction of the non-unital case to the unital classification via unitization is worked out in detail. The paper is also unusually candid about a defect in the author's earlier work, explicitly correcting the erroneous lemma from [33] and deferring the repaired proof of [33, Theorem 6.9] to Appendix A. The permanence results for inductive limits and minimal tensor products, the rigidity of Cartan envelopes, and the applications to C*-envelopes and norming are valuable consequences. The main residual risk is the dependence of the groupoid description and the norming application on the patched [33, Theorem 6.9]; if that patch is correct, the paper is convincing.

major comments (1)
  1. [§5.1(d), §5.2, Lemma 7.2] The groupoid model in Theorem 5.2.3 and the norming theorem (Theorem 7.5 via Lemma 7.2) both rest on [33, Theorem 6.9] ('every strongly compatible state is compatible'), whose published proof the paper declares insufficient because of an error in [33, Lemma 2.3]. The corrected proof is deferred to Appendix A. This is a legitimate arrangement only if Appendix A is actually present and correct, so I ask the authors to ensure that the corrected proof is included in the published version and to state explicitly, at each call site, which part of the corrected proof is being used. The two uses are not identical: §5.1(d) needs the inclusion S_s(C,D) ⊆ S(C,D) to define the strongly compatible eigenfunctional set, while Lemma 7.2 uses the theorem to show that a free extension f is compatible. This concern does not affect Theorem 3.27, whose proof does not cite [33, Theorem 6.9].
minor comments (6)
  1. [§6.3, Theorem 6.3.15] In the statement of Theorem 6.3.15, 'C1 ⊗min D2' appears twice where 'C1 ⊗min C2' is clearly intended.
  2. [§4.1] The first sentence of the paragraph 'Pseudo-Diagonals and Abelian Cores' says these are 'classes of regular inclusions which are not assumed to be regular'; this is self-contradictory and should be reworded.
  3. [§2.1, Observation 2.1.5] In the proof of Observation 2.1.5, 'postive' should be 'positive'.
  4. [Definition 2.1.11(b)] In Definition 2.1.11(b), the phrase 'has the has the ideal intersection property' contains a duplicated phrase.
  5. [§6.3, Proposition 6.3.3] The proof of Proposition 6.3.3 cites a math.stackexchange URL for the inclusion of multiplier algebras; a standard reference would be more appropriate in a journal article.
  6. [§5.2] The assertion that G = \tilde G \ {|q|} is an open subgroupoid of \tilde G is terse; adding one sentence explaining why no nontrivial arrow has source or range |q| would make the passage easier to verify.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: Theorem 3.27 is proved in-text by reducing the non-unital case to prior unital theorems; the admitted gap in [33, Theorem 6.9] is a correctness risk confined to Section 5 and 7, not a circular step.

full rationale

The central classification, Theorem 3.27, is supported by in-text proofs: (a)=> (b) via Lemma 3.12; (b)=> (c) via Proposition 2.3.14, Corollary 2.3.18, Proposition 2.4.4, and Theorem 3.8; and (c)=> (a) by unitizing (C,D^c) and applying the prior unital classification [33, Theorem 5.2] to the unital inclusion. The non-unital lifting results (Theorem 2.3.16, Proposition 2.4.4) are proved in detail and reduce to the author's earlier unital results [37, Corollaries 3.21 and 3.22], which are external theorems with independent proofs rather than assumptions of the present conclusion. Reliance on [32, 33, 35, 37] is a research program, not circularity: the non-unital theorem does not assume its own conclusion, and the cited unital results do not depend on Theorem 3.27. The paper explicitly admits that the published proof of [33, Theorem 6.9] was insufficient due to an error in [33, Lemma 2.3], and supplies a corrected proof in Appendix A; this is a self-correction, not a circular step. Moreover, [33, Theorem 6.9] is used only in Section 5.1(d) and the proof of Lemma 7.2, not in the proof of Theorem 3.27, so the central classification would not be affected if Appendix A were flawed. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no definition is shown to smuggle in the target equivalence by construction. Therefore no circular step meets the quoting standard required by this review.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Pure mathematics paper: no fitted parameters, no invented physical entities. The new definition (pseudo-Cartan inclusion) is a mathematical class definition, not an entity requiring independent evidence. The axioms listed are the background theories and the author's prior unital results on which the non-unital proofs rest. The heaviest external debt is to the unital framework in [32], [33], [35], [37]; the paper explicitly flags which of those results had defective original proofs.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math Hamana injective envelope: every C*-algebra B has an injective envelope (I(B), iota), unique up to unique isomorphism, with support projections for ideals
    Defines pseudo-expectations in Section 2.3 and underpins Lemma 2.3.4 and Lemma 2.3.9; cited from [20] and [22].
  • standard math Kumjian-Renault model: a Cartan inclusion is isomorphic to C*_r(Sigma, G) for a twist over an effective etale Hausdorff groupoid, with B identified with C0(G^(0))
    Used in Section 5 to describe the envelope's twist and in Theorem 5.2.3; cited from [40], [41], [39].
  • domain assumption Standing Assumption 3.1: every inclusion (C,D) in Sections 3 to 8 has D abelian
    The definition of pseudo-Cartan inclusion requires D abelian; the classification theorem is stated for regular inclusions with abelian D. Results in Section 2 up to Theorem 2.3.16 are proven without this assumption where noted.
  • domain assumption Author's prior unital framework: [33, Theorem 5.2] (unital classification), [33, Theorem 6.9] (strongly compatible states are compatible, corrected in Appendix A), [35, Proposition 3.2] (unitization of Cartan inclusions), [37, Corollaries 3.21 and 3.22] (unital faithful unique pseudo-expectation…
    The non-unital theorems reduce to these published results; one of them ([33, Theorem 6.9]) had an insufficient published proof, patched in Appendix A. These are load-bearing external inputs, not reproven.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pseudo-Cartan Inclusions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F6XRJYQU

@misc{pith2026250201975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pseudo-Cartan Inclusions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F6XRJYQU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01975}
}
abstract

A pseudo-Cartan inclusion is a regular inclusion having a Cartan envelope. Unital pseudo-Cartan inclusions were classified by Pitts; we extend this classification to include the non-unital case. The class of pseudo-Cartan inclusions coincides with the class of regular inclusions having the faithful unique pseudo-expectation property and can also be described using the ideal intersection property. We describe the twisted groupoid associated with the Cartan envelope of a pseudo-Cartan inclusion. These results significantly extend previous results obtained for the unital setting. We explore properties of pseudo-Cartan inclusions and the relationship between a pseudo-Cartan inclusion and its Cartan envelope. For example, if $\mathcal D\subseteq \mathcal C$ is a pseudo-Cartan inclusion with Cartan envelope $\mathcal B\subseteq \mathcal A$, then $\mathcal C$ is simple if and only if $\mathcal A$ is simple. Also every regular $*$-automorphism of $\mathcal C$ uniquely extends to a $*$-automorphism of $\mathcal A$. We show that the inductive limit of pseudo-Cartan inclusions with suitable connecting maps is a pseudo-Cartan inclusion, and the minimal tensor product of pseudo-Cartan inclusions is a pseudo-Cartan inclusion. Further, we describe the Cartan envelope of pseudo-Cartan inclusions arising from these constructions. We conclude with some applications and a few open questions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.01975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The squares on the left side having vertical sides labeled with a subscripted τ or subscripted τ ′ commute by Theorem 6.1.11. The horizontal maps on the bottom row are inclusion maps. We now use uniqueness of Cartan envelopes to show lim−→ A′ λ is isomorphic to lim−→ Aλ. The uniqueness part of Theorem 3.27 gives the existence of a unique ∗-isomorphism ψ ′ λ : A′ λ → Aλ satisfying ψ ′ λ ◦ τ ′ λ = τλ. By properties of… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Regular ideals, Ideal Intersections and Quotients II

    math.OA 2025-09 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Regular inclusions with a faithful invariant pseudo-expectation have their regular ideals determined by invariant regular ideals of the subalgebra, and quotients by regular ideals preserve the pseudo-Cartan property a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [33]

    II: Cartan envelopes, pseudo-expectations and twists , J

    , Structure for regular inclusions. II: Cartan envelopes, pseudo-expectations and twists , J. Funct. Anal. 281 (2021), no. 1, 108993. MR4234857

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Akemann and Frederic W

    Charles A. Akemann and Frederic W. Shultz, Perfect C∗-algebras, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 55 (1985), no. 326, xiii+117. MR787540

    work page 1985

  3. [2]

    R. J. Archbold, A counterexample for commutation in tensor products of C∗-algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 81 (1981), no. 4, 562–564. MR601730

    work page 1981

  4. [3]

    R. J. Archbold, J. W. Bunce, and K. D. Gregson, Extensions of states of C∗-algebras. II, Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 92 (1982), no. 1-2, 113–122. MR84a:46134

    work page 1982

  5. [4]

    Sel¸ cuk Barlak and Xin Li,Cartan subalgebras and the UCT problem , Adv. Math. 316 (2017), 748–769. MR3672919

    work page 2017

  6. [5]

    Blackadar, Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol

    B. Blackadar, Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, vol. 122, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006. The- ory of C∗-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III. MR2188261 (2006k:46082)

    work page 2006

  7. [6]

    Brown, Adam H

    Jon H. Brown, Adam H. Fuller, David R. Pitts, and Sarah A. Reznikoff, Graded C∗-algebras and twisted groupoid C∗- algebras, New York J. Math. 27 (2021), 205–252

    work page 2021

  8. [7]

    Brown, Ruy Exel, Adam H

    Jonathan H. Brown, Ruy Exel, Adam H. Fuller, David R. Pitts, and Sarah A. Reznikoff, Intermediate C∗-algebras of Cartan embeddings, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Ser. B 8 (2021), 27–41. MR4199728

    work page 2021

Show all 47 references
  1. [8]

    Brown, Adam H

    Jonathan H. Brown, Adam H. Fuller, David R. Pitts, and Sarah A. Reznikoff, Regular ideals, ideal intersections, and quotients, Integral Equations and Operator Theory 96 (2024/01/29), no. 3, 1–31

    2024

  2. [9]

    Brown and Narutaka Ozawa, C∗-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations , Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, vol

    Nathanial P. Brown and Narutaka Ozawa, C∗-algebras and finite-dimensional approximations , Graduate Studies in Math- ematics, vol. 88, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008. MR2391387

    2008

  3. [10]

    Pitts, and Vrej Zarikian, Bimodules over Cartan MASAs in von Neumann algebras, norming algebras, and Mercer’s theorem, New York J

    Jan Cameron, David R. Pitts, and Vrej Zarikian, Bimodules over Cartan MASAs in von Neumann algebras, norming algebras, and Mercer’s theorem, New York J. Math. 19 (2013), 455–486. MR3104558

    2013

  4. [11]

    Operator Theory 83 (2020), no

    Danny Crytser and Gabriel Nagy, Simplicity criteria for ´ etale groupoidC∗-algebras, J. Operator Theory 83 (2020), no. 1, 95–138. MR4043708

    2020

  5. [12]

    Donsig and David R

    Allan P. Donsig and David R. Pitts, Coordinate systems and bounded isomorphisms , J. Operator Theory 59 (2008), no. 2, 359–416. MR2411050

    2008

  6. [13]

    Effros, Aspects of noncommutative order , C ∗-algebras and applications to physics (Proc

    Edward G. Effros, Aspects of noncommutative order , C ∗-algebras and applications to physics (Proc. Second Japan-USA Sem., Los Angeles, Calif., 1977), 1978, pp. 1–40. MR504750

    1977

  7. [14]

    Systems 41 (2021), no

    G´ abor Elek,Free minimal actions of countable groups with invariant probability measures, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 41 (2021), no. 5, 1369–1389. MR4240602

    2021

  8. [15]

    arXiv:2110.09445v2

    Ruy Exel, On Kumjian ’s C∗-diagonals and the opaque ideal , 2021. arXiv:2110.09445v2

    2021 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Pitts, Characterizing groupoid C∗-algebras of non-Hausdorff ´ etale groupoids, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol

    Ruy Exel and David R. Pitts, Characterizing groupoid C∗-algebras of non-Hausdorff ´ etale groupoids, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 2306, Springer, Cham, 2022. MR4510931 64

    2022

  10. [17]

    Pitts, and Vrej Zarikian, Exotic ideals in free transformation group C∗-algebras, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 55 (2023), no

    Ruy Exel, David R. Pitts, and Vrej Zarikian, Exotic ideals in free transformation group C∗-algebras, Bulletin of the London Mathematical Society 55 (2023), no. 3, 1489–1510, available athttps://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/ 10.1112/blms.12805

    2023 doi

  11. [18]

    Moore, Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras

    Jacob Feldman and Calvin C. Moore, Ergodic equivalence relations, cohomology, and von Neumann algebras. II , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 234 (1977), no. 2, 325–359. MR58#28261b

    1977

  12. [19]

    Paulsen, Injectivity and projectivity in analysis and topology , Sci

    Don Hadwin and Vern I. Paulsen, Injectivity and projectivity in analysis and topology , Sci. China Math. 54 (2011), no. 11, 2347–2359

    2011

  13. [20]

    Masamichi Hamana, Injective envelopes of C∗-algebras, J. Math. Soc. Japan 31 (1979), no. 1, 181–197. MR80g:46048

    1979

  14. [21]

    , Regular embeddings of C∗-algebras in monotone complete C∗-algebras, J. Math. Soc. Japan 33 (1981), no. 1, 159–183. MR597486 (82i:46089)

    1981

  15. [22]

    London Math

    , The centre of the regular monotone completion of a C∗-algebra, J. London Math. Soc. (2) 26 (1982), no. 3, 522–530. MR684565 (84b:46067)

    1982

  16. [23]

    arXiv:2302.10405v3

    Fuyuata Komura, ∗-homomorphisms between groupoid C∗-algebras, 2023. arXiv:2302.10405v3

    2023 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Alexander Kumjian, On C∗-diagonals, Canad. J. Math. 38 (1986), no. 4, 969–1008. MR88a:46060

    1986

  18. [25]

    Bartosz Kosma Kwa´ sniewski and Ralf Meyer, Aperiodicity: The Almost Extension Property and Uniqueness of Pseudo- Expectations, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 18 (2022), 14384–14426. MR4485960

    2022

  19. [26]

    Xin Li, Every classifiable simple C∗-algebra has a Cartan subalgebra, Invent. Math. 219 (2020), no. 2, 653–699. MR4054809

    2020

  20. [27]

    Operator Theory 46 (2001), no

    Ralf Meyer, Adjoining a unit to an operator algebra , J. Operator Theory 46 (2001), no. 2, 281–288. MR1870408

    2001

  21. [28]

    Raad, and Jonathan Taylor, Inductive limits of noncommutative cartan inclusions , 2022

    Ralf Meyer, Ali I. Raad, and Jonathan Taylor, Inductive limits of noncommutative cartan inclusions , 2022. arXiv:2205.14053v2

    2022 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Gabriel Nagy and Sarah Reznikoff, Pseudo-diagonals and uniqueness theorems , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 142 (2014), no. 1, 263–275. MR3119201

    2014

  23. [30]

    78, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    Vern Paulsen, Completely bounded maps and operator algebras , Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 78, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. MR1976867 (2004c:46118)

    2002

  24. [31]

    Pitts, Norming algebras and automatic complete boundedness of isomorphisms of operator algebras , Proc

    David R. Pitts, Norming algebras and automatic complete boundedness of isomorphisms of operator algebras , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 136 (2008), no. 5, 1757–1768. MR2373606

    2008

  25. [32]

    , Structure for regular inclusions. I , J. Operator Theory 78 (2017), no. 2, 357–416. MR3725511

    2017

  26. [34]

    Structure for regular inclusions. II: Cartan envelopes, pseudo-expectations and twists

    , Corrigendum to “Structure for regular inclusions. II: Cartan envelopes, pseudo-expectations and twists” [J. Funct. Anal. 281 (1) (2021) 108993] , J. Funct. Anal. 284 (2023), no. 2, Paper No. 109748. MR4505486

    2021

  27. [35]

    , Normalizers and approximate units for inclusions of C∗-algebras, Indiana Univ. Math. J. 72 (2023), 1849–1866

    2023

  28. [36]

    , Irreducible maps and isomorphisms of Boolean algebras of regular open sets and regular ideals , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 153 (2025), no. 6, 2713–2727. MR4892639

    2025

  29. [37]

    Pitts and Vrej Zarikian, Unique pseudo-expectations for C∗-inclusions, Illinois J

    David R. Pitts and Vrej Zarikian, Unique pseudo-expectations for C∗-inclusions, Illinois J. Math. 59 (2015), no. 2, 449–483. MR3499520

    2015

  30. [38]

    Sinclair, and Roger R

    Florin Pop, Allan M. Sinclair, and Roger R. Smith, Norming C∗-algebras by C∗-subalgebras, J. Funct. Anal. 175 (2000), no. 1, 168–196. MR2001h:46105

    2000

  31. [39]

    Raad, A generalization of Renault’s theorem for Cartan subalgebras , Proc

    Ali I. Raad, A generalization of Renault’s theorem for Cartan subalgebras , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 150 (2022), no. 11, 4801–4809. MR4489313

    2022

  32. [40]

    Jean Renault, A groupoid approach to C∗-algebras, Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1980

    1980

  33. [41]

    , Cartan subalgebras in C∗-algebras, Irish Math. Soc. Bull. 61 (2008), 29–63. MR2460017

    2008

  34. [42]

    operator algebras and dynamics: groupoids, crossed products, and Rokhlin dimension

    Aidan Sims, Hausdorff ´ etale groupoids and their C∗-algebras, in “operator algebras and dynamics: groupoids, crossed products, and Rokhlin dimension” by a. sims, g. szab´ o, and d. williams, 2020, pp. 58–120. MR4321941

    2020

  35. [43]

    Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol

    S ¸erban Str˘ atil˘ a and Dan Voiculescu,Representations of AF-algebras and of the group U (∞), Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1975. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, Vol. 486. MR56#16391

    1975

  36. [44]

    arXiv:2206.09634v3

    Jonathan Taylor, Essential commutative Cartan subalgebras of C∗-algebras, 2024. arXiv:2206.09634v3

    2024

  37. [45]

    MR0264581 (41 #9173)

    Stephen Willard, General topology , Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1970. MR0264581 (41 #9173)

    1970

  38. [46]

    Vrej Zarikian, The pure extension property for discrete crossed products , Houston J. Math. 45 (2019), no. 1, 233–243

    2019

  39. [47]

    Zeller-Meier, Produits crois´ es d’uneC∗-alg` ebre par un groupe d’automorphismes, J

    G. Zeller-Meier, Produits crois´ es d’uneC∗-alg` ebre par un groupe d’automorphismes, J. Math. Pures Appl. (9) 47 (1968), 101–239. MR0241994 (39 #3329) (D.R. Pitts) Department of Mathematics, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588-0130 U.S.A. Email address : dpitts2...

    1968

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.