Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 80 references

An extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem with applications to subdiagonal subalgebras of general von Neumann algebras

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper extends Haagerup's reduction theorem to arbitrary von Neumann algebras: the crossed product by the dyadic rationals is an increasing union of expected semifinite subalgebras, transferring noncommutative H^p theory to full…

desk verdict A real extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem, with a few load-bearing details left as exercises—worth refereeing, but not ready as is. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.06674 v1 pith:LCKM2RHL submitted 2025-06-07 math.OA

Louis Labuschagne , Quanhua Xu This is my paper
classification math.OA MSC 46L5146L5246J1546K50
keywords reductiontheoremmaximalsubdiagonalsubalgebranoncommutativeH^p-spaceHilberttransformGleason-WhitneypropertyToeplitzoperatorsapproximatelycrossedproduct
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

The paper establishes that Haagerup's reduction mechanism works for every von Neumann algebra equipped with any faithful normal semifinite weight, not only sigma-finite ones. The enlargement is the crossed product by the dyadic rationals, and inside it the paper constructs an increasing sequence of expected semifinite subalgebras whose union is dense. The same approximation is carried to the Lp level with isometric embeddings, which is what lets the Hardy-space theory built for tracial and semifinite algebras pass to general von Neumann algebras. It then introduces approximately subdiagonal subalgebras, a notion general enough to include group-theoretic examples such as Hardy spaces on the upper half-plane, and uses it to run Hilbert-transform, invariant-subspace, and Toeplitz-operator results.

What carries the argument

The central object is the crossed product R = M ⋊ QD of M by the action of the dyadic rationals QD on the modular group. Because QD is discrete, the dual is the compact dyadic solenoid, so the operator-valued weight W_QD is a genuine faithful normal conditional expectation from R onto M with eν∘W_QD=eν. The approximating algebras are the centralizers R_n of the perturbed weights ν_n(x)=eν($e^{{-a_n/2}}$x $e^{{-a_n/2}}$), where a_n=2^n b_n and b_n=-i log λ_{$2^{{-n}}$}; these centralizers increase because a_{n+1}-a_n lies in the center of R_n. The conditional expectations W_n(x)=2^n∫$_0^{{2^{-n}}$} $σ_t^{{ν_n}}$(x) dt give the expected subalgebra structure, and the density of ∪R_n rests on commutator estimates showing [b_n,w]→0 in the eν-norm for w in carefully chosen $\sigma$-weakly dense subspaces, leading to the uniform approximation Lemma 4.10(3).

What would settle it

Look for a faithful normal semifinite weight on a non-$\sigma$-finite algebra—for instance an uncountable direct sum of copies of B(ℓ²) with the sum of traces—and test the estimate of Lemma 4.10(3) with any x in R and any f of the form λ_s a with a analytic in mν; one pair for which sup_{t∈R}∥($σ_t^{{ν_n}}$(x)-x)f∥_{eν} fails to tend to 0 would refute the density claim of Theorem 4.3.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For any von Neumann algebra M with faithful normal semifinite weight ν, writing R = M ⋊ QD for the crossed product with the dyadic rationals, the paper proves there is an increasing sequence (R_n) of von Neumann subalgebras of R such that each R_n is semifinite (finite with a faithful normal tracial state when ν is a state), each R_n is the range of a faithful normal conditional expectation W_n from R with eν∘W_n=eν and $σ_t^{{eν}}$∘W_n=W_n∘$σ_t^{{eν}}$, and the union of the R_n is σ-strong* dense in R. On Lp spaces, Theorem 4.12 gives isometric embeddings J_n of Lp(R_n,τ_n) into Lp(R) whose ranges increase to a norm-dense subspace of Lp(R), with W_n^(p) converging weakly to the identity. This is the mechanism that carries the $\sigma$-finite H^p theory—maximality criteria, Hilbert transforms, Beurling invariant subspaces, Toeplitz and Fredholm results—over to general von Neumann algebras.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on a single approximation estimate: all elements of the enlarged algebra, tested against a dense set of vectors, are moved less and less by the modular automorphisms of the approximating algebras, uniformly in time; lose that estimate and the whole density conclusion collapses.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every von Neumann algebra with an arbitrary faithful normal semifinite weight is σ-strong* dense in an increasing union of expected semifinite subalgebras, so the reduction theorem loses its sigma-finite restriction.
  • For 0<p<∞, Lp(R) is the norm closure of an increasing union of tracial Lp-spaces Lp(R_n,τ_n), and for 1≤p<∞ the associated conditional expectations converge weakly to the identity on Lp(R).
  • A subdiagonal subalgebra A of M enlarges to bA in R, with bA maximal subdiagonal, W_n mapping bA onto maximal subdiagonal subalgebras A_n whose union is dense in bA; hence H^p(A) is approximated by tracial H^p(A_n).
  • A sigma-weakly closed D-subdiagonal subalgebra is maximal exactly when it is invariant under the modular automorphism group, in full generality.
  • Approximately subdiagonal subalgebras, motivated by topologically ordered groups, include the group von Neumann algebra examples and the upper half-plane Hardy space, and for them the Hilbert transform is bounded on Lp with the same norm orders as in the classical theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The construction suggests that the dyadic-rational crossed product is a canonical finite-approximation device for arbitrary von Neumann algebras, so similar sequential approximations may exist for other properties defined through modular theory.
  • Because the approximately subdiagonal definition allows the reference weight to be non-semifinite on the diagonal, one testable extension is to push Szegő-type factorization and Gleason-Whitney results into the upper half-plane setting.
  • The 'designer' dense subspaces used in Lemma 4.10 are likely to be a reusable technical tool whenever non-sigma-finite weights block a net argument.
  • A natural next experiment is to check whether the weak convergence of W_n^(p) to the identity upgrades to strong convergence for p≠2; the paper only establishes weak convergence.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper claims an extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem to arbitrary von Neumann algebras equipped with a faithful normal semifinite weight. For M with weight ν, the authors consider the crossed product R = M ⋊ QD by the dyadic rationals and prove (Theorem 4.3) that R is the σ-strong* closure of an increasing sequence (R_n) of semifinite von Neumann subalgebras, each the range of a faithful normal conditional expectation W_n compatible with the dual weight and modular group. A companion Lp statement (Theorem 4.12) asserts isometric embeddings of Lp(R_n, τ_n) into Lp(R) with dense union. The paper then uses this reduction to transfer H^p-theory results from semifinite to general von Neumann algebras: maximality characterizations for subdiagonal algebras, Hilbert transforms, Beurling-type invariant subspace theory, Toeplitz operators, and Fredholm results. It also introduces a new notion of approximately subdiagonal subalgebras motivated by topologically ordered groups.

Significance. If the central reduction theorem is correct, the paper removes a long-standing σ-finiteness restriction and provides a unified framework for noncommutative H^p spaces on general von Neumann algebras. The authors are transparent about where the original sigma-finite arguments break and provide substantial proofs for the new construction. The Lp-level transfer and the applications to maximality, Hilbert transforms, and invariant subspaces are natural and potentially important. The approximately subdiagonal framework is a genuinely new structural idea. However, the significance is conditional on filling several load-bearing gaps, most notably the deferred analytic case in Lemma 4.10 and the unproved transfer of Xu's maximality argument in Theorem 6.11. The paper also relies on an unpublished book by one of the authors for several technical identifications, which weakens independent verifiability.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4, Lemma 4.10(2)(i)] The displayed estimate ||(b_n − P(λ_{2^{-n}}))λ_s a||_{eν} ≤ ||−i log − P||_{L2(T)} ν(|a|^2)^{1/2} is proved only for a ∈ nν(M) ∩ nν(M)^*. The text then says, 'In the case left as an exercise one would assume that a is an analytic element of mν(M).' This is not a cosmetic omission: Lemma 4.10(3), Lemma 4.11, and ultimately Theorem 4.3(2) require f in span{λ_t a : t ∈ QD, a ∈ mν(M), a analytic}. Since mν(M) is contained in nν(M) ∩ nν(M)^*, the estimate may well extend, but the analyticity of a is exactly what is needed to justify the passage through the modular group and WQD. The proof of the main theorem is incomplete at this point. Please provide the full verification or a precise reference to a complete proof.
  2. [§4, Lemma 4.10(3)] The proof of (13) establishes the uniform convergence first for w in the two spanning subspaces, and then extends to arbitrary x ∈ R by GNS-strong approximation. The extension uses the estimate ||(x − x_α)σ_{−t}^{ν_n}(f)||_{eν} ≤ K||σ_{−t}^{ν_n}(f) − f||_{eν} + ||(x − x_α)f||_{eν}. The uniform-in-n convergence of ||σ_{−t}^{ν_n}(f) − f||_{eν} is precisely what (13) supplies for f, but the proof does not explicitly state this dependence. Since this step is the only route to the density of ∪_n R_n in R, the argument should be written out with the relevant uniformity in n made explicit.
  3. [§6.3, Theorem 6.11] The proof of Theorem 6.11 is replaced by the sentence that 'careful perusal of section 3 of [79] reveals' that the entire proof 'will go through verbatim' after replacing the reduction theorem and Exel's theorem by the new ones. This is a load-bearing assertion: Theorem 6.12, the maximality characterization for general von Neumann algebras, is one of the paper's main advertised applications. The original proof in [79] was written for σ-finite algebras and used a different reduction mechanism. It is not automatic that every lemma transfers to the non-σ-finite setting. Please provide an actual proof or a detailed lemma-by-lemma checklist showing exactly which arguments from [79] are used and why they survive.
  4. [§8 and §10] Several crucial technical identifications are imported from the unpublished book [28], including [28, Theorem 6.65], [28, Proposition 7.14], [28, Theorems 6.74 and 7.5] in the proof of Theorem 10.8, and [28, Remark 7.41] in the proof of Theorem 8.3. Since one of the authors is a co-author of [28] and the book is not yet publicly available, the reader cannot verify these steps independently. This is especially consequential for Theorem 10.8, where the identification of the Lp spaces of the crossed products is a central ingredient. Please either reproduce the needed statements and proofs in the paper or make a fully accessible version of [28] available with precise pointers.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The sentence 'Using this revised version of the reduction theorem we may then all the applications' appears to be missing a verb; the intended wording is likely 'we may then transfer all the applications'.
  2. [§4, equation (13)] There is a typographical artifact in the displayed formula: '(σ_t^{ν_n}(w) − wα)f' should presumably read '(σ_t^{ν_n}(w) − w)f'.
  3. [§5.2, Definition 5.8 and Proposition 5.12] Proposition 5.12 refers to 'criterion (7) of Definition 5.8', but Definition 5.8 lists only items (1)–(6). The numbering should be corrected, or the reference should be changed to the appropriate item.
  4. [§5.1.3] In the last bullet of Section 5.1.3, 'The set n(A) + n(A^*) embeds norm-densely' would read more clearly as 'The set n(A) + n(A^*) embeds as a norm-dense subspace'.
  5. [§4, Lemma 4.7(5)] The proof of Lemma 4.7(5) contains the phrase 'It is now an easy exercise to see that ν_{n+1}(x) = ν_n(h_n x)'. Given that the rest of the proof is detailed, this step would benefit from a one-line expansion for readability.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

No construction-level circularity, but the central approximation lemma and the later Lp transfer lean on load-bearing self-citations (notably the unpublished Goldstein–Labuschagne book [28]) and one explicitly deferred analytic case.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 10, Theorem 10.8 proof; also used in Section 4, Lemma 4.10(1)]
    "We know from [28, Theorem 6.65] that Cn = Rn ⋊eν R may be identified with Bn = Rn ⋊νn R by means of an implemented ∗-isomorphism I. It moreover follows from [28, Proposition 7.14] that an extension of this isomorphism homeomorphically identifies Lp(Rn) constructed with respect to eν↾Rn, with Lp(Rn, νn) constructed using νn."

    Theorem 10.8, which underlies the Lp Beurling classification and the transfer of invariant-subspace results, depends on a chain of identifications quoted from [28]. This book is not published in the manuscript; the other book of Goldstein and Labuschagne is explicitly called 'the upcoming book' at Remark 5.4, and Labuschagne is an author of the present paper. The quoted identifications are load-bearing and are not proved or independently checked here. This is not a fit or a definitional reduction, but the authority for these steps is a same-author citation rather than an independent external result.

  2. self citation load bearing [Section 4, Lemma 4.10(1), proof]
    "The fourth claim now follows by duality once we notice that Lemma 4.4 and [28, Proposition 6.40] ensure that λta = [λ−tσφt(a∗)]∗ for every t ∈ QD and every a ∈ M."

    Lemma 4.10(3) is the only input to Lemma 4.11, which establishes the σ-weak convergence of Wn(x) and hence the σ-strong* density in Theorem 4.3(2). To run Lemma 4.10(3), the paper needs elements of span{λt a : t ∈ QD, a ∈ mν(M) analytic} to be analytic for σeν. That fact is justified by a formula from [28, Proposition 6.40], again an unpublished same-author source. The proof is not circular in the sense of defining X by Y, but the central approximation argument leans on a self-citation whose content is not independently verified in the paper.

1 more flagged steps
  1. other [Section 4, Lemma 4.10(2)(i), proof; parenthetical after the estimate for a ∈ nν(M) ∩ nν(M)*]
    "(In the case left as an exercise one would assume that a is an analytic element of mν(M).)"

    This is not a circular reduction, but it is an explicitly deferred verification in exactly the case used by Lemma 4.10(3). Lemma 4.10(3) is the step from which Lemma 4.11 deduces that Wn(x) converges σ-weakly to x, and hence Theorem 4.3(2) asserts σ-strong* density of ∪ Rn. The analytic mν(M) estimate is asserted by analogy and 'left as an exercise'; no uniform bound or additional hypothesis is supplied. If that estimate fails or requires an extra condition, the density conclusion and the H^p transfers built on Theorem 4.12 lose their support. I count this as an omitted proof / correctness risk rather than as evidence of definitional circularity.

full rationale

The paper is a proof-driven extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem, not a data-fitting or prediction exercise: there are no fitted parameters, no prediction-equals-input structure, and no quantity is defined in terms of the quantity it is supposed to derive. The construction of Rn as centralizers of the perturbed weights νn, the expectations Wn, and the semifinite/tracial properties in Lemma 4.7 are proved in the paper, and Lemma 4.11 genuinely reduces density to the norm estimate in Lemma 4.10(3). The principal circularity-burden signals are therefore not construction-level circularity but load-bearing self-citation and a deferred proof. First, the proof of Lemma 4.10(1) invokes [28, Proposition 6.40] to establish the analyticity needed in Lemma 4.10(3); [28] is an unpublished book co-authored by one of the present authors, so this is a same-author citation carrying part of the central approximation argument. Second, Theorem 10.8, which drives the Lp invariant-subspace transfer and many later H^p results, relies on a series of identifications quoted from [28, Theorems 6.65, 6.74, 7.5; Propositions 6.61, 7.14, 7.40]. These are not reproduced or externally checked. Third, Lemma 4.10(2)(i) explicitly leaves the analytic mν(M) case as an exercise, although that is the exact subspace used in Lemma 4.10(3). Because the cited [79] is a published theorem and is used with clearly stated substitutions, I do not count it as circular; it is ordinary self-citation with external content. Since the central Theorem 4.3 has substantial independent proof content and the reduction-to-input pattern is absent, the appropriate score is moderate: the paper is not self-definitionally circular, but its reliance on an unpublished same-author source and an omitted analytic verification raises the score above a mere minor self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claims rest on standard operator-algebraic background (Haagerup's Lp theory, crossed products, operator-valued weights), on theorems transferred from [36], [79], [5], [43], [40], and [67], and on one unpublished reference [28]/[29] co-authored by a paper author. There are no fitted numerical parameters. The innovative concept, approximately subdiagonal subalgebras, is a definition whose reach is asserted rather than independently evidenced; the main theorem is proof-based, so the ledger is dominated by axioms rather than free parameters. The most fragile item is the dependence on [28] for load-bearing identifications in the invariant-subspace section.

assumptions (7)
  • standard math Haagerup Lp-space construction via the crossed product M ⋊ν R, the density operator h, and the Haagerup-Terp standard form (Theorem 2.4).
    The entire framework of Sections 2 and 3 stands on this; cited to [73], [31], [35], and [72].
  • standard math Existence and basic properties of operator-valued weights WG and dual weights eν on crossed products, plus the fact that WQD is a faithful normal conditional expectation when G is discrete.
    Used to define R = M ⋊ QD and the expectations; Corollary 4.2 is proved in-text, background from [33].
  • domain assumption The folk theorem that Junge-Xu expectation results extend from sigma-finite to general von Neumann algebras, verified in-text as Proposition 3.9.
    The paper flags this itself in the introduction: whilst it may be a kind of folk-theorem that these results extend to the general case, explicit verification of this belief is required.
  • domain assumption Maximality results used as replacement engines: Ji's semifinite maximality theorem [40] (cf. [79, Theorem 4.1]) and Exel's finite maximality theorem [23].
    Theorem 6.10 states Ji's result without proof; the verbatim transfers in Theorem 6.11 and Proposition 9.2 swap Exel references for Ji references.
  • domain assumption Ji-Ohwada-Saito sigma-finite structural lemmas [43, Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3], and the claim that the proof of the corresponding theorem goes through unchanged once Lemmas 6.7 and 6.8 replace them.
    Theorem 6.9 states: the following theorem now follows exactly as in [43].
  • domain assumption Bekjan's compression technique (Proposition 9.1), proved in [5].
    First stage of the two-step lifting program in Section 9; stated without proof.
  • ad hoc to paper Crossed-product and Lp identifications from the unpublished Goldstein-Labuschagne book [28] (for example [28, Theorem 6.65], [28, Proposition 7.14], [28, Theorems 6.74 and 7.5]).
    The proof of Theorem 10.8 depends on these identifications; [29] is described in the text as an upcoming book by one of the present authors, so the claim cannot be checked against the published literature.
invented entities (1)
  • Approximately subdiagonal subalgebras (Definition 5.8)
    purpose: A new class of subalgebras A of a von Neumann algebra M, defined by an approximating net (A_γ, ν_γ, P_γ) of subdiagonal-like triples, designed to contain all maximal subdiagonal algebras and group-theoretic examples including Hardy space of the upper half-plane.
    This is a mathematical definition, not an empirical entity, so there is no falsifiable handle outside the paper. Its usefulness stands or falls on whether it canonically contains prior notions (argued in Proposition 5.11), whether the extra convergence assumption in Proposition 5.12 really recovers maximal subdiagonality, and whether the H^p and invariant-subspace theorems follow. The six criteria are visibly chosen to make the machinery work, so the abstract's claim that it is general enough to contain all group-theoretic examples is an assertion, not an experiment.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem with applications to subdiagonal subalgebras of general von Neumann algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LCKM2RHL

@misc{pith2026250606674,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An extension of Haagerup's reduction theorem with applications to subdiagonal subalgebras of general von Neumann algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LCKM2RHL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.06674}
}
abstract

We revisit Haagerup's enigmatic reduction theorem \cite[Theorems 2.1 \& 3.1]{HJX} showing how that theorem may be extended to general von Neumann algebras $\M$ equipped with an arbitrary faithful normal semifinite weight in a manner which faithfully captures the essence of the original. In contrast to the proposal in \cite[Remark 2.8]{HJX}, we show how in the non-$\sigma$-finite case the enlargement $\R=\M\rtimes\mathbb{Q}_D$ of $\M$ may be approximated by an increasing \emph{sequence} of \emph{expected} semifinite subalgebras. Using this revised version of the reduction theorem we may then all the applications of this theorem to $H^p$-spaces from the $\sigma$-finite case to general von Neumann algebras. Inspired by the theory of topologically ordered groups we then propose the even more general concept of approximately subdiagonal subalgebras which proves to be general enough to contain all group theoretic examples. This then forms the context for much of the study of Fredholm Toeplitz operators in the closing sections.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

80 extracted references · 80 canonical work pages

  1. [28]

    Goldstein & L.E

    S. Goldstein & L.E. Labuschagne, Notes on noncommutative Lp and Orlicz spaces, Lodz University Press, Lodz, 2020. ISBN 978-83-8220-385-1, e-ISBN 978-83-8220-386-8

    work page 2020

  2. [79]

    and Soundararajan, T, Orderable topological spaces, General Topology and Appl

    Venkataraman, M., Rajagopalan, M. and Soundararajan, T, Orderable topological spaces, General Topology and Appl. 2(1972), 1-10

    work page 1972

  3. [1]

    Huzihiro Araki and Tetsu Masuda, Positive Cones and Lp-Spaces for von Neumann Alge- bras, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 18 (1982), 759-831

    work page 1982

  4. [2]

    W. B. Arveson: Prediction theory and group representations,(Ph. D. Thesis, UCLA, 1964)

    work page 1964

  5. [3]

    W. B. Arveson, Analyticity in operator algebras, Amer. J. Math. 89 (1967), 578-642

    work page 1967

  6. [4]

    Bekjan and Q

    T. Bekjan and Q. Xu, Riesz and Szeg¨ o type factorizations for noncommutative Hardy spaces, J Operator Theory 62 (2009), 215-231

    work page 2009

  7. [5]

    Bekjan, Noncommutative Hardy space associated with semi-finite subdiagonal alge- bras, J

    T.N. Bekjan, Noncommutative Hardy space associated with semi-finite subdiagonal alge- bras, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 429(no.2)(2015), 1347-1369. 84 LOUIS LABUSCHAGNE AND QUANHUA XU

    work page 2015

  8. [6]

    Bekjan & A

    T.N. Bekjan & A. Oshanova, Semifinite tracial subalgebras, Ann. Funct. Anal. 8(no.4)(2017), 473-478

    work page 2017

Show all 80 references
  1. [7]

    Bekjan & M

    T.N. Bekjan & M. Raikhan, A Beurling-Blecher-Labuschagne type theorem for Haagerup noncommutative Lp spaces, Banach J. Math. Anal. 15 (no. 2)(2021), paper no. 39, 24 pp

    2021

  2. [8]

    Blecher and L.E

    D.P. Blecher and L.E. Labuschagne, Logmodularity and Isometries of Operator Algebras, Transactions of the AMS , 355 No.4 (2003), 1621-1646

    2003

  3. [9]

    D. P. Blecher and L. E. Labuschagne, Characterizations of noncommutative H ∞, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 56 (2006), 301-321

    2006

  4. [10]

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, Noncommutative function theory and unique extensions, Studia Mathematica 178(2007), 177-195

    2007

  5. [11]

    In: K Jarosz (editor), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Function Spaces (Contemporary Mathe- matics 435, American Mathematical Society, 2007)

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, Von Neumann algebraic H p theory, 89-114. In: K Jarosz (editor), Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Function Spaces (Contemporary Mathe- matics 435, American Mathematical Society, 2007)

    2007

  6. [12]

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, A Beurling Theorem for noncommutative Lp, Journal of Operator Theory, 59(2008), 29-51

    2008

  7. [13]

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, Applications of the Fuglede-Kadison determinant: Szeg¨ o’s theorem and outers for noncommutativeH p, Transactions of the AMS 360(2008), 6131-6147

    2008

  8. [14]

    217(3) (2013), 265-287

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, Outers for noncommutative H p revisited, Studia Math. 217(3) (2013), 265-287

    2013

  9. [15]

    D. P. Blecher and L. E. Labuschagne, Ueda’s peak set theorem for general von Neumann algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 370 (2018), 8215–8236

    2018

  10. [16]

    D. P. Blecher and L. E. Labuschagne, On vector-valued characters for noncommutative function algebras, Complex Anal. Oper. Theory , 14, 31(2020)

    2020

  11. [17]

    DP Blecher and LE Labuschagne, On a Class of Subdiagonal Algebras, CAOT 18(3)(2024)

    2024

  12. [18]

    Bratteli & D.W

    O. Bratteli & D.W. Robinson, Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1 , Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer-Verlag, 1987

    1987

  13. [19]

    RE Curto, PS Muhly, T Nakazi and J Xia, Hankel operators and Uniform algebras, Arch Math 43 (1984), 440–447

    1984

  14. [20]

    Devinatz, The factorization of operator valued functions, Ann

    A. Devinatz, The factorization of operator valued functions, Ann. of Math. 73 (1961), 458–495

    1961

  15. [21]

    de Pagter, Non-commutative Banach function spaces

    B. de Pagter, Non-commutative Banach function spaces. Positivity, 197-227, Trends Math., Birkh¨ auser, Basel, 2007

    2007

  16. [22]

    R Exel, Hankel matrices over right-ordered amenable groups, Canad. Math. Bull. 33(4)(1984), 404 – 415

    1984

  17. [23]

    Exel, Maximal subdiagonal algebras, Amer

    R. Exel, Maximal subdiagonal algebras, Amer. J. Math.110 (1988), 775-782

    1988

  18. [24]

    T. Fack, H. Kosaki, Generalized s-numbers of τ -measurable operators, Pac. J. Math. 123 (1986), 269-300

    1986

  19. [25]

    Folland, A course in abstract harmonic analysis (second edition), Textbooks in Mathematics

    Gerald B. Folland, A course in abstract harmonic analysis (second edition), Textbooks in Mathematics. CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2016

    2016

  20. [26]

    Fuglede and R

    B. Fuglede and R. V. Kadison, Determinant theory in finite factors, Ann. of Math. 55 (1952), 520-530

    1952

  21. [27]

    S Goldberg, Unbounded linear operators, Dover, 1985

    1985

  22. [29]

    Goldstein & L.E

    S. Goldstein & L.E. Labuschagne, Noncommutative measures and Lp and Orlicz spaces, with applications to quantum physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford Graduate Texts in Mathematics vol 33, to appear

  23. [30]

    Goldstein and J

    S. Goldstein and J. M. Lindsay, Markov semigroups KMS-symmetric for a weight, Math Ann 313 (1999), 39–67

    1999

  24. [31]

    U Haagerup, The standard form of von Neumann algebras, Mathematica Scandinavica, 37(2)(1976), 271-283

    1976

  25. [32]

    Scandinavica 43 (1979), 99 - 118

    U Haagerup, On the dual weights for crossed products of von Neumann algebras I, Math. Scandinavica 43 (1979), 99 - 118

    1979

  26. [33]

    Scandinavica 43 (1979) pp

    U Haagerup, On the dual weights for crossed products of von Neumann algebras II, Math. Scandinavica 43 (1979) pp. 119 - 140

    1979

  27. [34]

    U Haagerup, Operator valued weights in von Neumann algebras I, J. Funct. Anal. 32 (1979), 175 - 206

    1979

  28. [35]

    U Haagerup, Operator valued weights in von Neumann algebras II, J. Funct. Anal. 33 (1979), 339 - 361

    1979

  29. [36]

    Haagerup, M

    U. Haagerup, M. Junge, Q. Xu, A reduction method for noncommutative Lp-spaces and applications, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. , 362(2010) 2125-2165. REDUCTION THEOREM AND APPLICATIONS 85

    2010

  30. [37]

    Helson and D

    H. Helson and D. Lowdenslager, Prediction theory and Fourier series in several variables, Acta Math. 99 (1958), 165-202

    1958

  31. [38]

    Hoffman, Analytic functions and logmodular Banach algebras, Acta Math

    K. Hoffman, Analytic functions and logmodular Banach algebras, Acta Math. 108 (1962), 271-317

    1962

  32. [39]

    Leitf¨ aden [Mathematical Textbooks]

    Hans Jarchow, Locally convex spaces , Math. Leitf¨ aden [Mathematical Textbooks]. B.G.Teubner, Stuttgart, 1981

    1981

  33. [40]

    Shaanxi Normal Univ

    G-X Ji, Maximality of semi-finite subdiagonal algebras, J. Shaanxi Normal Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 28(2000), 15-17

    2000

  34. [41]

    G-X Ji, A noncommutative version of H p and characterizations of subdiagonal subalgebras, Integr Equ Oper Theory 72 (2012), 131–149

    2012

  35. [42]

    G-X Ji, Analytic Toeplitz algebras and the Hilbert transform associated with a subdiagonal algebra, Sci China Math 57 (3) (2014), 579–588

    2014

  36. [43]

    G-X Ji, T Ohwada and K-S Saito, Certain structure of subdiagonal algebras, J Operator Theory 39(1998), 309–317

    1998

  37. [44]

    G-X Ji and K-S Saito, Factorization in Subdiagonal Algebras, J Funct Anal 159 (1998), 191–201

    1998

  38. [45]

    M Junge, Doob’s inequality for noncommutative martingales, J Reine Angew Math 549(2002), 149-190

    2002

  39. [46]

    M Junge and D Sherman, Noncommutative Lp-modules, J. Oper. Theory , 53(1)(2005), 3-34

    2005

  40. [47]

    Probab., 31(2)(2003), 948–995

    M Junge and Q Xu, Noncommutative Burkholder/Rosenthal inequalities, Ann. Probab., 31(2)(2003), 948–995

    2003

  41. [48]

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11785-024-01490-9

    doi

  42. [49]

    Kaijser, On Banach modules II

    S. Kaijser, On Banach modules II. Pseudodeterminants and traces, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 121 (1997), 325–341

    1997

  43. [50]

    Y Katznelson, An introduction to harmonic analysis: Third edition , Cambridge Mathe- matical Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004

    2004

  44. [51]

    LE Labuschagne, Composition operators on non-commutative Lp-spaces, Expo Math 17(1999), 429-468

    1999

  45. [52]

    L E Labuschagne, A noncommutative Szeg¨ o theorem for subdiagonal subalgebras of von Neumann algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 133 (2005), 3643-3646

    2005

  46. [53]

    LE Labuschagne, Invariant subspaces for H 2-spaces of σ-finite algebras, Bulletin LMS , 49(1)(2017), 33–44

    2017

  47. [54]

    LE Labuschagne, A crossed product approach to Orlicz spaces, Proc LMS 107(3) (2013), 965-1003

    2013

  48. [55]

    LE Labuschagne and W A Majewski, Dynamics on noncommutative Orlicz spaces, Acta Math. Sin. Engl. Ser. , 40B(5)(2020), 1249-1270

    2020

  49. [56]

    L. E. Labuschagne and Q. Xu, A Helson-Szeg¨ o theorem for subdiagonal subalgebras with applications to Toeplitz operators, J Funct Anal 265 (4) (2013), 545–561

    2013

  50. [57]

    https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10040

    Detian Liu, Haichou Li and Kit Ian Kou, The extended Paley-Wiener theorem over the Hardy-Sobolev spaces, arXiv:2310.10040 [math.F A]. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.10040

    doi arXiv

  51. [58]

    M Marsalli, Noncommutative H 2 spaces, Proc Amer Math Soc 125(1997), 779-784

    1997

  52. [59]

    Marsalli and G

    M. Marsalli and G. West, Noncommutative H p-spaces, J. Operator Theory 40(1998), 339- 355

    1998

  53. [60]

    Marsalli and G

    M. Marsalli and G. West, Toeplitz operators with noncommutating symbols, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 32(1998), 65-74

    1998

  54. [61]

    A R Mirotin, Fredholm and spectral properties of Toeplitz operators, Sbornik: Mathemat- ics, 202(5)(2011), 721–737

    2011

  55. [62]

    Nyikos, P. J. and Reichel, H.-C., Topologically orderable groups, General Topology and Appl. 5(1975)(3), 195–204

    1975

  56. [63]

    G. K. Pedersen and M. Takesaki, The Radon-Nikodym theorem for von Neumann algebras, Acta Math. 130 (1973), 53–87

    1973

  57. [64]

    G K Pedersen, C∗ algebras and their automorphism groups , Academic Press, London, 1979

    1979

  58. [65]

    Pisier and Q

    G. Pisier and Q. Xu, Noncommutative Lp spaces, in Vol 2. of Handbook on Banach spaces, Ed. W. B. Johnson and J. Lindenstrauss, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003

    2003

  59. [66]

    B Prunaru, Toeplitz and Hankel operators associated with subdiagonal algebras, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 139 (2010), 1387–1396

    2010

  60. [67]

    Randrianantoanina, Hilbert transform associated with finite maximal subdiagonal alge- bras, J

    N. Randrianantoanina, Hilbert transform associated with finite maximal subdiagonal alge- bras, J. Austral. Math. Soc. Ser. A 65(3)(1998), 388-404

    1998

  61. [68]

    L Sager, A Beurling-Blecher-Labuschagne theorem for noncommutative Hardy spaces as- sociated with semifinite von Neumann algebras, Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory 86 (2016),, 377–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00020-016-2308-z 86 LOUIS LABUSCHAGNE AND QUANHUA XU

    2016 doi

  62. [69]

    Saito, A note on invariant subspaces for finite maximal subdiagonal algebras, Proc Amer

    K-S. Saito, A note on invariant subspaces for finite maximal subdiagonal algebras, Proc Amer. Math. Soc. 77(1979), 348-352

    1979

  63. [70]

    Sherman, Noncommutative Lp structure encodes exactly Jordan structure, J

    D.E. Sherman, Noncommutative Lp structure encodes exactly Jordan structure, J. Funct. Anal. 221(no. 1)(2005), 150-166

    2005

  64. [71]

    T. P. Srinivasan and J-K. Wang, Weak*-Dirichlet algebras, 216-249. In: Frank T. Bir- tel(Editor), Function algebras (Scott Foresman and Co., 1966)

    1966

  65. [72]

    Revision of the 1975 original

    S Stratila & L Zsid´ o, Lectures on von Neumann algebras . Revision of the 1975 original. Translated from the Romanian by Silviu Teleman. Editura Academiei, Bucharest; Abacus Press, Tunbridge Wells, 1979

    1975

  66. [73]

    II, Springer-Verlag, 2003

    M Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras, vol. II, Springer-Verlag, 2003

    2003

  67. [74]

    Terp, Lp spaces associated with von Neumann algebras

    M. Terp, Lp spaces associated with von Neumann algebras. Københavns Universitet, Math- ematisk Institut, Rapport No 3a, 1981

    1981

  68. [75]

    Terp, Interpolation spaces between a von Neumann algebra and its predual, J

    M. Terp, Interpolation spaces between a von Neumann algebra and its predual, J. Operator Theory, 8(1982), 327-360

    1982

  69. [76]

    Y Ueda, On peak phenomena for non-commutative H ∞, Math Ann 343 (2009), 421-429

    2009

  70. [77]

    Ueda, On the predual of non-commutative H ∞, Bull

    Y. Ueda, On the predual of non-commutative H ∞, Bull. London Math. Soc. 43 (2011), 886–896

    2011

  71. [78]

    A Van Daele, Continuous crossed products and type III von Neumann algebras, Cambridge University Press, 1978

    1978

  72. [80]

    Operator Theory 54(2005), 137–146

    Q Xu, On the maximality of subdiagonal algebras, J. Operator Theory 54(2005), 137–146. DSI-NRF CoE in Math. and Stat. Sci,, Focus Area for Pure and Applied Analytics,, Internal Box 209, School of Math.& Stat. Sci., NWU, PVT. BAG X6001, 2520 Potchef- stroom, South Africa Email ...

    2005

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.