Extensions of pure C*-algebras

Eduard Vilalta; Francesc Perera; Hannes Thiel

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Extensions of pure C*-algebras

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 Pureness of a C*-algebra is an extension property: the algebra is pure exactly when each closed ideal and its quotient are pure.

desk verdict A clean permanence theorem for pureness, well argued but conditional on a companion reduction result and three omitted technical proofs. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10529 v1 pith:EGRWPJNK submitted 2025-06-12 math.OA

Francesc Perera , Hannes Thiel , Eduard Vilalta This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OA MSC 46L0519K1446L8046L85

keywords C*-algebraspurenessCuntzsemigroupstrictcomparisonalmostdivisibilityseparablydeterminedpropertiesextensionsmultiplieralgebras

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 establishes a permanence property for pure C*-algebras: if $I$ is a closed ideal in a C*-algebra $A$, then $A$ is pure if and only if both $I$ and the quotient $A/I$ are pure. Pureness is the regularity condition on the Cuntz semigroup that combines strict comparison of positive elements with almost divisibility, and it is the relevant notion of regularity for C*-algebras that need not absorb the Jiang-Su algebra. The authors prove that pureness is separably determined, meaning it can be certified on separable subalgebras, and they show that the quantified version of pureness, $(m,n)$-pureness, passes to extensions with an explicit but finite loss in the parameters. As an application, the stable multiplier algebras of reduced free group C*-algebras are shown to be pure even though the underlying algebras fail to be Z-stable.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three pieces. First, the Cuntz semigroup $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ -- the positive elements of $A\otimes K$ up to Cuntz equivalence, with addition and order from subequivalence -- is the object on which pureness is defined; for an ideal $I$, $\mathrm{Cu}(I)$ sits inside $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ as an ideal and $\mathrm{Cu}(A/I)$ is the quotient semigroup, by the identification of [CRS10]. Second, the notion of a separably determined property: a property that reflects to a cofinal, $\sigma$-complete family of separable subobjects and is preserved under inductive limits; the paper shows that pureness, $m$-comparison, and $n$-almost divisibility are separably determined, which reduces extension arguments to separable Cuntz semigroups. Third, the quantified regularity notion of $(m,n)$-pureness, which carries the comparison and divisibility information with explicit parameters and is what actually moves across extensions, with the companion reduction theorem converting any finite-degree pureness into pureness.

What would settle it

Produce, or find in the literature, a closed ideal $I$ in a C*-algebra $A$ such that $I$ and $A/I$ are both pure but $A$ is not pure; the theorem predicts there is no such extension. Since the paper's own argument would force such an $A$ to be $(1,1)$-pure, the search reduces to deciding whether there exists a $(1,1)$-pure C*-algebra that is not pure, which the companion reduction theorem rules out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Concretely, the central discovery is that pureness of $A$ is equivalent to pureness of $I$ and $A/I$ (Theorem 4.11). The forward implication follows because comparison and divisibility in $\mathrm{Cu}(A)$ restrict to ideals and pass to quotients. The backward implication is the substantial part: the authors prove at the level of abstract Cuntz semigroups that an extension of an $m_1$-comparing ideal and an $m_2$-comparing quotient is $(m_1+m_2+1)$-comparing, and an extension of an $n_1$-almost divisible ideal and $n_2$-almost divisible quotient is $\max\{2n_1+1,2n_2+1\}$-almost divisible. Pure algebras are $(0,0)$-pure, so an extension of pure algebras is at least $(1,1)$-pure; the reduction phenomenon stated in a companion paper upgrades this back to pureness. This yields purity for stable multiplier algebras of reduced free group C*-algebras, such as $M(C^*_{\mathrm{red}}(F_n)\otimes K)$ for $n=2,3,\ldots,\infty$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the companion reduction theorem that any C*-algebra that is $(m,n)$-pure for some finite $m,n$ is automatically pure, with the proof also relying on Lemma 4.3, whose proof is omitted but which is needed to pass from separable to arbitrary Cuntz semigroups.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If a C*-algebra sits as an extension of two pure C*-algebras, then it is pure, and conversely every pure C*-algebra has pure ideals and pure quotients.
For any $n=2,\ldots,\infty$, the stable multiplier algebra $M(C^*_{\mathrm{red}}(F_n)\otimes K)$ is pure, so pureness can hold for multiplier algebras whose underlying stabilized group C*-algebra is not Z-stable.
Purity of a possibly nonseparable C*-algebra can be verified separably: it is pure exactly when every separable subalgebra is contained in a separable pure subalgebra.
The quantified extension theorem gives explicit bounds: an extension of pure algebras is always $(1,1)$-pure, before the reduction theorem upgrades it to pureness.

Reading between the lines

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

We infer that the separably determined framework should apply to other Cuntz-semigroup regularity properties phrased with explicit quantifiers, while unquantified variants like controlled comparison can fail to pass to limits (as the paper notes).
We infer that the mechanism behind the free-group application is general: any multiplier algebra sitting over a pure ideal with a purely infinite quotient will be pure, so the result likely extends to other groups satisfying the same combination of stable rank one, unique trace, and strict comparison hypotheses.
We infer that the boundary marked by Questions 4.13 and 4.14 is real: the paper proves only the combined $(1,1)$-pure bound for extensions, so either strict comparison or almost divisibility alone may fail to pass to extensions even though their conjunction does.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Main take: the paper proves a clean permanence theorem—pureness passes to extensions and quotients—and the proof is mostly solid. The one thing to know is that the final step borrows the reduction from (1,1)-pure to pure from a companion preprint, and three technical lemmas are explicitly omitted. I think the conditional verdict is fair; I'd send it to referees.

What's new: Theorem 4.11 is not in the literature. Prior work did Z-stability in extensions (Toms–Winter), and pureness for reduced group C*-algebras, but not the extension permanence. The separably determined framework is a useful tool in its own right. The application to stable multiplier algebras of free groups is a nice consequence and uses known results about coronas.

What's good: the writing is clear, the structure is sensible: separability reduction in Section 3, then extension arguments in Section 4. The main proof at the Cu-semigroup level is spelled out in Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.7; these are the substantive parts and they look correct to me. The authors also honestly flag that strict comparison and almost divisibility individually may not pass to extensions (Questions 4.13, 4.14), which is the right amount of epistemic modesty.

Soft spots: the backward direction of Theorem 4.11 only yields (1,1)-pureness of Cu(A); the final step to purity is [APTV24, Thm 5.7], a broad reduction result in a companion paper. That's a real dependency, not cosmetic, since (1,1)-pureness is strictly weaker than pureness in general Cu-semigroups. If that companion theorem had hidden hypotheses (e.g., nuclearity or separability), the main biconditional would fail. I can't check [APTV24] here, so the paper is conditional. Also, Lemma 4.3, Lemma 4.4, and Proposition 4.8 are stated with proofs omitted. They look like standard club arguments and the separable-to-general transfer, and I'd bet they fill in without trouble. But they are load-bearing, so a referee should demand them. This is a fixable gap, not a fatal flaw.

Citation pattern: heavy self-citation, but to directly relevant previous work, including the very reduction theorem used. Not a problem.

Bottom line: this is a good paper with a real result and a transparent proof strategy. It deserves a serious referee; the referees should push for the omitted details and for confirmation that [APTV24] applies to arbitrary C*-algebras. I'd take it.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper establishes a permanence theorem for pureness of C*-algebras under extensions: for a closed ideal I in a C*-algebra A, A is pure if and only if I and A/I are pure (Theorem 4.11). The proof has two main ingredients: a separability-reduction framework for properties of C*-algebras and Cuntz semigroups (Sections 2 and 3), and extension results for (m,n)-pure Cuntz semigroups (Section 4). The authors also apply the theorem to show that the stable multiplier algebras M(C*_red(F_n) ⊗ K) are pure for n = 2,3,...,∞ (Example 4.16).

Significance. If correct, the main theorem is a substantial contribution: it makes pureness an extension-closed property in the non-simple and non-nuclear setting, analogous to the Toms--Winter permanence of Z-stability. The separably-determined framework developed in Sections 2--3 is a useful conceptual tool, and the detailed proofs of the separable base cases (Lemma 4.1 and Lemma 4.7) are carefully written. The application to stable multiplier algebras of reduced free group C*-algebras is new and interesting. The paper is also honest about the limitations of its methods, explicitly leaving open whether strict comparison or almost divisibility individually pass to extensions (Questions 4.13 and 4.14). However, the full force of the main theorem rests on unproved or externally imported ingredients, which is why the present assessment is conditional.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Theorem 4.11] The backward direction of Theorem 4.11 proves only that Cu(A) is (1,1)-pure and then invokes [APTV24, Theorem 5.7] to conclude that A is pure. Since at the level of Cu-semigroups (1,1)-pureness is strictly weaker than pureness, this final step is genuinely load-bearing and the main biconditional is conditional on a companion preprint whose hypotheses are not stated in the present paper. The authors should either state [APTV24, Theorem 5.7] explicitly with all hypotheses, confirm that it applies to arbitrary C*-algebras (including the nonseparable multiplier algebras M(A⊗K) used in Example 4.16), or include a proof or at least a detailed sketch of the reduction. This is not a cosmetic dependency.
[Section 4, Lemma 4.3] The proof of Lemma 4.3 is omitted, with only 'We omit the details.' This lemma is used in Proposition 4.5 to transfer comparison from clubs of separable sub-Cu-semigroups of S/I and I to the ambient Cu-semigroup S. If the club property or the pullback construction fails, Proposition 4.5 does not follow, and hence the comparison half of Theorem 4.11 collapses. The authors should provide a full proof of Lemma 4.3, or give a precise reference that covers exactly the Cu-semigroup statement, including the verification that the pullback of a club is σ-complete and cofinal.
[Section 4, Lemma 4.4] Lemma 4.4 is similarly stated with 'We omit the details.' It is cited as the Cu-semigroup analog of [Thi23, Lemma 3.2(1)], but the transfer from the C*-algebra setting to Cuntz semigroups is not automatic, especially for the σ-completeness of the collection {T ∈ Sep(S) : I ∩ T ∈ D}. Since Lemma 4.4 is also used in the proof of Proposition 4.5, a complete proof or an exact reference is needed.
[Section 4, Proposition 4.8] Proposition 4.8 supplies the divisibility half of the main theorem, yet its proof is omitted ('This is proved analogous to Proposition 4.5. We omit the details.'). The separable case Lemma 4.7 is proved in detail, but the club-transfer argument for n-almost divisibility is not a purely mechanical repetition of Proposition 4.5: the Löwenheim–Skolem step for divisibility (Proposition 3.6) is more delicate than for comparison. The authors should write out the proof or provide a complete reference.

minor comments (4)

[Remark 2.5] The sentence 'remains open of this property is axiomatizable' should read 'remains open whether this property is axiomatizable'.
[Proposition 4.5] There is a typo: 'I ∩ T has m2-comparsion' should be 'm2-comparison'.
[Introduction] The phrase 'the reduced C*-algebra of the free groupFn' is missing a space; it should be 'the free group F_n'.
[Section 4, Lemma 4.4] The reference to [Thi23, Lemma 3.2(1)] is helpful, but the authors should clarify whether the proof in the Cu-semigroup context requires modifications beyond 'similar methods', since the definition of club in Sep(S) differs from that in the C*-algebra setting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the pureness permanence theorem is a genuine extension result, with the final (1,1)-pure-to-pure step resting on an independent companion theorem rather than on an input assumption or fitted quantity.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. Theorem 4.11's forward direction is a direct definition check in Lemma 4.9, and the backward direction first proves, via Propositions 4.5 and 4.8, that Cu(A) is (1,1)-pure from purity of I and A/I, then invokes the companion reduction theorem: 'By [APTV24, Theorem 5.7], it follows that A is pure.' This final step is load-bearing and is self-cited, since the authors of [APTV24] overlap with the present authors, but it is a parameter-free theorem whose stated hypotheses (a C*-algebra that is (m,n)-pure for some m,n) do not include the target permanence statement and whose proof lives in a prior preprint. Under the review rules such a cited result counts as independent support, not as a definitional reduction or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The omitted proofs of Lemma 4.3 ('We omit the details') and Proposition 4.8 ('This is proved analogous to Proposition 4.5. We omit the details.') are genuine gaps and correctness risks, since Lemma 4.3 transfers club properties through quotient maps and Proposition 4.8 is the divisibility half of the extension argument, but they are not circularity: nothing here defines pureness in terms of extensions, and no equation is shown to equal its own input. The application in Example 4.16 is a direct consequence of Theorem 4.11 together with the external results [KNP10], [KNZ19], [AGKEP24], and [GO20], not a restatement of the main theorem.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities appear; the paper relies entirely on standard C*-algebra machinery plus the cited reduction phenomenon from the authors' own companion work.

assumptions (8)

standard math Cuntz semigroup functor preserves inductive limits (not necessarily countable index sets).
Invoked in Theorem 2.13 and Proposition 2.12; cited to [APT18, Corollary 3.2.9].
standard math Cu-semigroups of C*-algebras satisfy axioms (O5)-(O8).
Used in Lemmas 4.1, 4.6, 4.7 and Propositions 4.5, 4.8; cited to [APT18, Prop 4.6], [Rob13, Prop 5.1.1], [APRT21, Prop 2.2], [TV24, Theorem 7.4].
domain assumption Every (m,n)-pure C*-algebra is pure (reduction phenomenon).
Crucially invoked in the proof of Theorem 4.11 to pass from (1,1)-pure Cu(A) to pure A; cited to [APTV24, Theorem 5.7], a companion preprint by the same authors.
standard math Properties passing to approximated Cu-semigroups pass to inductive limits.
Used in Propositions 3.4 and 3.6; cited to [TV21, Proposition 3.5].
standard math Lowenheim-Skolem theorem for axiomatizable properties of C*-algebras.
Quoted in Remark 2.5 to show axiomatizable properties satisfy the Lowenheim-Skolem condition; cited to [Far19].
standard math Cu(I) embeds as an ideal in Cu(A) with Cu(A/I) isomorphic to Cu(A)/Cu(I).
Used in Theorem 4.11 to transfer ideal/quotient structure to Cuntz semigroups; cited to [CRS10] and [APT18, Section 5.1].
standard math In separable Cu-semigroups satisfying (O7), infima with idempotents exist and define a generalized Cu-morphism.
Used in Lemmas 4.1 and 4.7; cited to [APRT21, Theorems 2.4 and 2.5].
domain assumption Corona algebras under the given hypotheses are purely infinite (hence pure).
Used in Proposition 4.15 to apply Theorem 4.11; cited to [KNP10, Theorem 4.5] and [KNZ19, Corollaries 4.11 and 6.12].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Extensions of pure C*-algebras." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EGRWPJNK

@misc{pith2026250610529,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Extensions of pure C*-algebras},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EGRWPJNK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10529}
}

abstract

Given a closed ideal $I$ in a C*-algebra $A$, we show that $A$ is pure if and only if $I$ and $A/I$ are pure. More generally, we study permanence of comparison and divisibility properties when passing to extensions. As an application we show that stable multiplier algebras of reduced free group C*-algebras are pure.

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

Nonnuclear Bunce-Deddens algebras
math.OA 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

Free odometer crossed products by nonamenable residually finite groups yield simple nonnuclear C*-algebras that frequently have real rank zero, stable rank one, unique trace, and selflessness, with explicit K-theory o...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Amrutam , D

T. Amrutam , D. Gao , S. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli , and G. Patchell , Strict comparison in reduced group s , preprint (arXiv:2412.06031 [math.OA]), 2024

arXiv 2024
[2]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , L. Robert , and H. Thiel , Edwards' condition for quasitraces on s , Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 151 (2021), 525--547

2021
[3]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , L. Robert , and H. Thiel , Traces on ultrapowers of s , J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), Paper No. 110341

work page 2024
[4]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and L. Santiago , Pullbacks, C(X) -algebras, and their C untz semigroup, J. Funct. Anal. 260 (2011), 2844--2880

work page 2011
[5]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and H. Thiel , Tensor products and regularity properties of C untz semigroups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 251 (2018), viii+191

2018
[6]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and H. Thiel , Cuntz semigroups of ultraproduct s , J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 102 (2020), 994--1029

work page 2020
[7]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , H. Thiel , and E. Vilalta , Pure s , preprint (arXiv:2406.11052 [math.OA]), 2024

arXiv 2024
[8]

P. Ara , F. Perera , and A. S. Toms , K -theory for operator algebras. C lassification of s , in Aspects of operator algebras and applications, Contemp. Math. 534, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, pp. 1--71

work page 2011

Show all 38 references

[9]

B. Blackadar , Operator algebras, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences 122, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006, Theory of s and von Neumann algebras, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III

2006
[10]

Bosa and E

J. Bosa and E. Vilalta , Pure * -homomorphisms, J. Funct. Anal. 288 (2025), Paper No. 110739, 27

2025
[11]

Ciuperca , L

A. Ciuperca , L. Robert , and L. Santiago , The C untz semigroup of ideals and quotients and a generalized K asparov stabilization theorem, J. Operator Theory 64 (2010), 155--169

2010
[12]

K. T. Coward , G. A. Elliott , and C. Ivanescu , The C untz semigroup as an invariant for s , J.\ Reine Angew.\ Math. 623 (2008), 161--193

2008
[13]

G. A. Elliott , L. Robert , and L. Santiago , The cone of lower semicontinuous traces on a , Amer. J. Math. 133 (2011), 969--1005

2011
[14]

Farah , Combinatorial set theory of s , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Cham, [2019] 2019

I. Farah , Combinatorial set theory of s , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer, Cham, [2019] 2019

2019
[15]

Farah , B

I. Farah , B. Hart , M. Lupini , L. Robert , A. Tikuisis , A. Vignati , and W. Winter , Model theory of s , Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 271 (2021), viii+127

2021
[16]

Farah and G

I. Farah and G. Szab\' o , Coronas and strongly self-absorbing s , preprint (arXiv:2411.02274), 2024

2024 arXiv
[17]

Gardella and F

E. Gardella and F. Perera , The modern theory of C untz semigroups of s , EMS Surv. Math. Sci. (to appear), DOI: 10.4171/EMSS/84, 2024

2024 doi
[18]

Ge , Applications of free entropy to finite von N eumann algebras

L. Ge , Applications of free entropy to finite von N eumann algebras. II , Ann. of Math. (2) 147 (1998), 143--157

1998
[19]

Gerasimova and D

M. Gerasimova and D. Osin , On invertible elements in reduced s of acylindrically hyperbolic groups, J. Funct. Anal. 279 (2020), 108689, 22

2020
[20]

Kaftal , P

V. Kaftal , P. W. Ng , and S. Zhang , Purely infinite corona algebras, J. Operator Theory 82 (2019), 307--355

2019
[21]

Kaftal , P

V. Kaftal , P. W. Ng , and S. Zhang , Strict comparison of positive elements in multiplier algebras, Canad. J. Math. 69 (2017), 373--407

2017
[22]

Kirchberg and M

E. Kirchberg and M. R rdam , Central sequence s and tensorial absorption of the J iang- S u algebra, J. Reine Angew. Math. 695 (2014), 175--214

2014
[23]

Kucerovsky , P

D. Kucerovsky , P. W. Ng , and F. Perera , Purely infinite corona algebras of simple s , Math. Ann. 346 (2010), 23--40

2010
[24]

Raum , Twisted group s of acylindrically hyperbolic groups have stable rank one, Groups, Geom

S. Raum , Twisted group s of acylindrically hyperbolic groups have stable rank one, Groups, Geom. and Dyn. (to appear), preprint (2403.04649 [math.OA]), 2024

2024 arXiv
[25]

Robert , The cone of functionals on the C untz semigroup, Math

L. Robert , The cone of functionals on the C untz semigroup, Math. Scand. 113 (2013), 161--186

2013
[26]

Robert and A

L. Robert and A. Tikuisis , Nuclear dimension and Z -stability of non-simple s , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), 4631--4670

2017
[27]

R rdam , The stable and the real rank of Z -absorbing s , Internat

M. R rdam , The stable and the real rank of Z -absorbing s , Internat. J. Math. 15 (2004), 1065--1084

2004
[28]

Sato , Trace spaces of simple nuclear s with finite-dimensional extreme boundary, preprint (arXiv:1209.3000 [math.OA]), 2012

Y. Sato , Trace spaces of simple nuclear s with finite-dimensional extreme boundary, preprint (arXiv:1209.3000 [math.OA]), 2012

2012 arXiv
[29]

Thiel , Ranks of operators in simple s with stable rank one, Comm

H. Thiel , Ranks of operators in simple s with stable rank one, Comm. Math. Phys. 377 (2020), 37--76

2020
[30]

Thiel , The generator rank of subhomogeneous s , Canad

H. Thiel , The generator rank of subhomogeneous s , Canad. J. Math. 75 (2023), 1314--1342

2023
[31]

Thiel , Real rank of extensions of s , Studia Math

H. Thiel , Real rank of extensions of s , Studia Math. 276 (2024), 131--155

2024
[32]

Thiel and E

H. Thiel and E. Vilalta , Covering dimension of C untz semigroups II , Internat. J. Math. 32 (2021), 27 p., Paper No. 2150100

2021
[33]

Thiel and E

H. Thiel and E. Vilalta , Nowhere scattered s , J. Noncommut. Geom. 18 (2024), 231--263

2024
[34]

A. S. Toms , On the classification problem for nuclear s , Ann. of Math. (2) 167 (2008), 1029--1044

2008
[35]

A. S. Toms , S. White , and W. Winter , Z -stability and finite-dimensional tracial boundaries, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2015), 2702--2727

2015
[36]

A. S. Toms and W. Winter , Strongly self-absorbing s , Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 359 (2007), 3999--4029

2007
[37]

Winter , Nuclear dimension and Z -stability of pure s , Invent

W. Winter , Nuclear dimension and Z -stability of pure s , Invent. Math. 187 (2012), 259--342

2012
[38]

Winter , Structure of nuclear s : from quasidiagonality to classification and back again, in Proceedings of the I nternational C ongress of M athematicians--- R io de J aneiro 2018

W. Winter , Structure of nuclear s : from quasidiagonality to classification and back again, in Proceedings of the I nternational C ongress of M athematicians--- R io de J aneiro 2018. V ol. III . I nvited lectures , World Sci. Publ., Hackensack, NJ, 2018, pp. 1801--1823

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Amrutam , D

T. Amrutam , D. Gao , S. Kunnawalkam Elayavalli , and G. Patchell , Strict comparison in reduced group s , preprint (arXiv:2412.06031 [math.OA]), 2024

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , L. Robert , and H. Thiel , Edwards' condition for quasitraces on s , Proc. Roy. Soc. Edinburgh Sect. A 151 (2021), 525--547

2021

[3] [3]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , L. Robert , and H. Thiel , Traces on ultrapowers of s , J. Funct. Anal. 286 (2024), Paper No. 110341

work page 2024

[4] [4]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and L. Santiago , Pullbacks, C(X) -algebras, and their C untz semigroup, J. Funct. Anal. 260 (2011), 2844--2880

work page 2011

[5] [5]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and H. Thiel , Tensor products and regularity properties of C untz semigroups, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 251 (2018), viii+191

2018

[6] [6]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , and H. Thiel , Cuntz semigroups of ultraproduct s , J. Lond. Math. Soc. (2) 102 (2020), 994--1029

work page 2020

[7] [7]

Antoine , F

R. Antoine , F. Perera , H. Thiel , and E. Vilalta , Pure s , preprint (arXiv:2406.11052 [math.OA]), 2024

arXiv 2024

[8] [8]

P. Ara , F. Perera , and A. S. Toms , K -theory for operator algebras. C lassification of s , in Aspects of operator algebras and applications, Contemp. Math. 534, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, pp. 1--71

work page 2011