Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Local presentability and monadicity of forgetful functors for operator algebraic categories

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper proves that the categories of operator spaces, operator systems, (Archimedean) order unit spaces, and unital operator algebras are locally $\aleph_1$-presentable, and that unital operator algebras are the Eilenberg–Moore…

desk verdict The monadicity and negative results look solid, but the proof of the main local presentability claims has a clear circular gap in Corollary 1.4 that needs fixing before the paper can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.23152 v1 pith:AN5COOPA submitted 2025-07-30 math.CT math.FAmath.OA

Alexandru Chirvasitu , Ian Thompson This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.CTmath.FAmath.OA MSC 18C3518C1546L0747L2547L3046A5547L7518C20
keywords locallypresentablecategoryoperatorspacesystemorderunitunitalalgebraHaageruptensorproductEilenberg-Mooremonadicfunctor
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 aims to show that four standard categories from operator algebra—possibly non-complete operator spaces, operator systems, (Archimedean) order unit spaces, and unital operator algebras—are locally $\aleph_1$-presentable. Local presentability is a broad categorical regularity condition: it gives completeness and cocompleteness, and it says every object is a directed colimit of small ones. The proof proceeds by analysing forgetful functors, showing that the inclusion from operator systems into operator spaces is reflective, and proving that unital operator algebras are exactly the algebras of the monad on operator spaces built from the Haagerup tensor product. If correct, the general toolkit for locally presentable categories becomes available for these operator algebraic categories.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the transfer of local presentability from complete to non-complete objects: $\aleph_1$-directed colimits in OSp are computed set-theoretically ([23, Proposition 4.30]), and a reflective subcategory whose inclusion preserves $\aleph_1$-directed colimits inherits local presentability ([3, Theorem 1.39]). The second load-bearing mechanism is the monad $(\mathrm{OSp},\otimes_h,\mathbb{C})$: the Haagerup tensor product makes OSp monoidal, and OAlg is the category of monoids in that monoidal category; Theorem B asserts the Eilenberg–Moore category of this monad is exactly OAlg. Lemma 2.5, showing that $\otimes_h$ preserves $\aleph_1$-directed colimits, is what allows the monadicity to lift local presentability to OAlg.

What would settle it

Build a non-complete operator space that is not an $\aleph_1$-directed colimit of $\aleph_1$-presentable operator spaces, or exhibit an $\aleph_1$-directed colimit in OSp whose underlying set or matrix norms differ from the set-theoretic colimit; either would break Theorem A(a) and the monad-theoretic proof for OAlg.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem A: the category OSp of (possibly non-complete) operator spaces with completely contractive maps, the category OSys of operator systems, the category (A)OU of (Archimedean) order unit spaces, and the category OAlg of unital operator algebras are all locally $\aleph_1$-presentable. The proof path is categorical: Theorem 1.2 makes OSys a full reflective subcategory of OSp; Corollary 1.4 transfers local presentability from complete operator spaces to OSp itself; and Theorem 2.1 shows the forgetful functor OAlg → OSp is monadic, with OAlg identified as the Eilenberg–Moore category of the monad $(\mathrm{OSp},\otimes_h,\mathbb{C})$ (Theorem B). For commutative/function-system objects, Theorem C establishes that the duality-dual of compact convex sets is locally $\aleph_1$-presentable, while the subcategories dual to Bauer and Choquet simplices fail to have equalizers and hence are not locally presentable.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that every non-complete operator space can be assembled from small separable pieces through directed colimits that are computed by simply taking unions of underlying sets; the proof cites this transfer rather than proving it for non-complete objects.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All four categories are complete and cocomplete, and their objects are $\aleph_1$-directed colimits of $\aleph_1$-presentable objects.
  • Unital operator algebras can be studied as algebras for the Haagerup tensor monad, so free unital operator algebras and algebra quotients can be constructed inside OSp via Eilenberg–Moore theory.
  • The forgetful functor from unital C*-algebras to operator systems is monadic, so C*-algebras are encoded by an algebraic structure on operator systems.
  • The categories dual to compact convex sets are locally presentable, while the subcategories of simplex-dual systems are not, because they lack equalizers.
  • The forgetful functors from operator algebras to normed algebras fail to be monadic in a strong way: they are not even pre-monadic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the transfer in Corollary 1.4 is repaired, Theorem A(a) would make OSp an $\aleph_1$-accessible category with colimits, letting one treat non-complete operator spaces as built from separable ones; this would likely simplify many existence proofs in operator space theory.
  • The monadicity of OAlg suggests a route to defining operator-algebraic free products and pushouts via the Haagerup tensor monad, rather than through concrete representations on Hilbert space, though the paper does not construct those colimits explicitly.
  • The equalizer obstruction for simplex-dual categories indicates that other convexity-theoretic subcategories could be checked the same way; a concrete test is whether the category dual to metrizable simplices has equalizers, which would determine its local presentability.
  • The non-monadicity of the normed-algebra forgetful functor, witnessed by algebras failing the von Neumann inequality, suggests that being an operator algebra is a genuinely finer structure than being a Banach algebra; one could test whether the same failure persists for other tensor norms.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that the categories OSp (possibly non-complete operator spaces), OSys (operator systems), (A)OU ((Archimedean) order unit spaces), and OAlg (unital operator algebras) are all locally ℵ1-presentable, extending a result of Lindenhovius and Zamdzhiev for complete operator spaces. The proof strategy is categorical: use adjoint functor theorems to establish reflectivity, then use Beck's theorem to establish monadicity of forgetful functors, and finally lift presentability from a base category to an Eilenberg-Moore category. A second main result identifies OAlg with the Eilenberg-Moore category of the monad (OSp, ⊗_h, C) on the Haagerup tensor product. The paper also studies subcategories of commutative operator systems via Kadison duality, proving local presentability for commutative operator systems and minimal operator spaces and non-presentability results for categories corresponding to simplices.

Significance. If the main theorems were established, the paper would provide a useful categorical framework for operator algebraic categories, connecting local presentability with monadicity and giving a monadic description of unital operator algebras via the Haagerup tensor product. The paper contains several genuinely valuable ingredients: the detailed verification of solution-set conditions, the Beck-theorem check for the forgetful functor from OAlg to OSp, the colimit-preservation lemma for the Haagerup tensor product, and the Kadison-duality-based analysis of commutative function systems. The negative results in Theorem C(b) are also of interest. However, the local presentability claims are not supported by the written proofs, because the core argument for OSp and OSys rests on an invalid application of a reflectivity theorem.

major comments (3)
  1. [§1, Corollary 1.4] The proof contains a category error that is load-bearing. It begins: 'From Theorem 1.2, we know that OSys is full reflective in the locally ℵ1-presentable category OSp^.' Theorem 1.2 proves that OSys is full reflective in OSp, not in OSp^, and OSys is not a subcategory of OSp^ because its objects are not required to be complete. The subsequent appeal to [23, Proposition 4.30] does not repair the gap: that proposition concerns ℵ1-directed colimits of complete operator spaces, and no argument is given that these colimits, or the ℵ1-presentable-object generation, transfer to the non-complete category OSp. Consequently [3, Theorem 1.39] is applied to the wrong pair of categories, and Theorem A(a) and Theorem A(b) are not established by the written proof.
  2. [§2, Theorem 2.4] The proof states: 'The second claim follows from the first by [3, §2.78, Remark], given the local ℵ1-presentability of OSp [23, Theorem 4.35].' The reference [23, Theorem 4.35] establishes local ℵ1-presentability of OSp^ (complete operator spaces), not of OSp. Since local presentability of OSp is exactly the unproved assertion of Corollary 1.4, this step is circular. Moreover, the proof of the first claim assumes from the outset that an arbitrary ℵ1-directed diagram in OSp has a colimit; that existence is part of what local presentability would provide. The conclusion that OAlg ≅ OSp^T is locally ℵ1-presentable, and with it Theorem A(d), is therefore unsupported as written. The same misattribution occurs in the bullet list after Remark 2.6, where the local presentability of OSp is attributed to [23, Theorem 4.35].
  3. [§1.1, Theorem 1.14] The proof says it proceeds 'precisely along the lines of Corollary 1.4, employing [3, Theorem 1.39]'. Since Theorem 1.10 only gives reflectivity of OSys^_c in OSys, the ambient category in the application of [3, Theorem 1.39] is OSys; but OSys has not been shown locally ℵ1-presentable except through the defective Corollary 1.4. The verification that U_c preserves ℵ1-directed colimits is thus not sufficient by itself, and Theorem C(a) inherits the gap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several missing spaces in phrases such as 'categories ofC˚-algebras' and 'locallyℵ1-presentable'; these should be corrected throughout.
  2. [§1, Corollary 1.4] The phrase 'preserved by the forgetful functor OSp→Set' is inaccurate: the cited [23, Proposition 4.30] concerns the forgetful functor on complete operator spaces OSp^, and the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [§2, Lemma 2.5] In the proof, the sentence 'whose Haagerup norm is tends to ||x||_h' is ungrammatical, and the third application of ℵ1-directedness, which is used to assume that the norms of preimages are equal, would benefit from a brief justification.
  4. [References] References [24] and [25] are both listed as Mac Lane's 'Categories for the working mathematician' and should be merged or distinguished; as written they appear to be duplicate entries with different page details.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Theorem A's proof of local presentability for non-complete OSp is circular: Corollary 1.4 applies [3, Theorem 1.39] with OSp as the ambient locally presentable category, i.e. assumes the target; OAlg inherits this via Theorem 2.4.

  1. self definitional [Corollary 1.4, proof of Theorem A(a) and A(b)]
    "From Theorem 1.2, we know that OSys is full reflective in the locally ℵ1-presentable [23, Theorem 4.35] category OSp^. ... The conclusion will now follow from [3, Theorem 1.39] together with the routine observation that an ℵ1-directed colimit of operator systems in OSp inherits a natural operator-system structure making it into a colimit in OSys. In short: (1-1) is both reflective and ℵ1-directed-colimit-preserving."

    [3, Theorem 1.39] derives local presentability for a full reflective subcategory only when the ambient category is already locally presentable. If the ambient is taken to be OSp, the theorem's hypothesis is exactly the desired conclusion Theorem A(a), so the argument assumes what it proves. If the ambient is taken to be OSp^, the argument fails for a different reason: Theorem 1.2 establishes reflectivity in OSp, not OSp^, and the paper's own Notation 1.1 says OSys objects need not be complete, so OSys is not a subcategory of OSp^. Thus the written proof of local presentability for OSp (and for OSys, and later OAlg) reduces to assuming the target claim.

  2. other [Theorem 2.4, proof of OAlg local ℵ1-presentability]
    "The second claim follows from the first by [3, §2.78, Remark], given the local ℵ1-presentability of OSp [23, Theorem 4.35]."

    The cited [23, Theorem 4.35] is, as the paper itself states in Corollary 1.4, the local presentability of the complete operator space category OSp^, not of the non-complete OSp. The derivation of OAlg ≅ OSp^T locally ℵ1-presentable therefore imports as an input the very extension that Corollary 1.4 was supposed to establish. The conclusion is not independently supported; it inherits the circular step in Corollary 1.4.

full rationale

The paper does not rely on self-citation chains: its main external inputs are standard results (Kadison duality, Lindenhovius-Zamdzhiev, Haagerup tensor product projectivity) and the monadicity proof in Theorem 2.1 is largely independent. However, the proof of Theorem A(a) is locally circular. Corollary 1.4 claims local ℵ1-presentability for OSp and OSys by invoking [3, Theorem 1.39], but that theorem requires the ambient category to be locally presentable. On the only reading that makes the ambient category the target OSp, the hypothesis is the conclusion; on the reading that uses the genuinely known category OSp^, the reflectivity premise is false because OSys is not contained in OSp^. Theorem 2.4 then compounds the issue by citing [23, Theorem 4.35] as if it supplied local presentability of the non-complete category OSp. These two steps are load-bearing for Theorem A(b) and A(d) as well, so the central presentability claims are unsupported as written, even though the monadicity theorem and the function-system results have independent content. Score 6 reflects a partial circularity confined to the presentability proofs, not a collapse of the entire paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities. The central claims rest on standard categorical foundations and several deep external theorems (Kadison duality, local presentability of complete operator spaces, Haagerup tensor product projectivity), cited but not reproved.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math ZFC set theory with standard categorical foundations (sets, colimits, regular cardinals).
    Implicit throughout; definitions of local presentability and monads rely on it.
  • domain assumption Lindenhovius-Zamdzhiev: the category of complete operator spaces is locally ℵ1-presentable [23, Theorem 4.35].
    Foundational input for Corollary 1.4 and Theorem 2.4; not reproved here.
  • domain assumption Kadison duality: OSys^_c is contravariantly equivalent to compact convex sets with continuous affine maps [5, Theorem II.1.8].
    Basis for Theorems 1.10, 1.14 and Proposition 1.12 on function systems.
  • domain assumption Haagerup tensor product is associative and projective for operator-space quotients [17, 33].
    Used in Theorems 2.1 and Lemma 2.5 to construct algebra structures on quotient operator spaces and to preserve ℵ1-directed colimits.
  • standard math Hahn-Banach theorem and James theorem on non-attaining functionals.
    Used in Propositions 1.6 and 1.8 to exclude nonzero finitely presentable objects and regular projectives in Norm, Ban, OSp.
  • standard math Beck monadicity theorem and Freyd adjoint functor theorem.
    Used in Theorems 1.2, 2.1 and Corollary 2.3 to prove monadicity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Local presentability and monadicity of forgetful functors for operator algebraic categories." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AN5COOPA

@misc{pith2026250723152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Local presentability and monadicity of forgetful functors for operator algebraic categories},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AN5COOPA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.23152}
}
abstract

In recent work of Lindenhovius and Zamdzhiev, it was established that the category of complete operator spaces, with completely contractive linear maps as morphisms, is locally countably presentable. In this work, we extend their conclusion to the non-complete setting and prove that the categories of operator systems, (Archimedean) order unit spaces, and unital operator algebras are all locally countably presentable as well. This is established through an analysis of forgetful functors and the identification of Eilenberg-Moore categories. We provide a complete understanding of adjunction and monadicity for forgetful functors between these categories, together with the categories of $C^*$-algebras, Banach spaces, and normed spaces. In addition, for various subcategories of function-theoretic objects, we investigate completeness and local presentability through Kadison's duality theorem.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Adámek and J

    J. Adámek and J. Rosický. Approximate injectivity and smallness in metric-enriched categories. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 226(6):30, 2022. Id/No 106974. 15

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Strecker

    Jiří Adámek, Horst Herrlich, and George E. Strecker. Abstract and concrete categories: the joy of cats.Repr. Theory Appl. Categ., 2006(17):1–507, 2006. 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    Locally presentable and accessible categories, volume 189 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series

    Jiří Adámek and Jiří Rosický. Locally presentable and accessible categories, volume 189 of London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,

    work page

  4. [4]

    Erik M. Alfsen. On the geometry of Choquet simplexes.Math. Scand., 15:97–110, 1964. 9 18

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    Compact convex sets and boundary integrals, volume 57

    Erik M Alfsen. Compact convex sets and boundary integrals, volume 57. Springer Science & Business Media, 2012. 2, 7, 8, 9, 10

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Asimow and A

    L. Asimow and A. J. Ellis.Convexity theory and its applications in functional analysis, vol- ume 16 ofLond. Math. Soc. Monogr.Academic Press, London, 1980. 9

    work page 1980

  7. [7]

    Springer- Verlag, New York, 1985

    Michael Barr and Charles Wells.Toposes, triples and theories, volume 278 ofGrundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer- Verlag, New York, 1985. 12, 17, 18

    work page 1985

  8. [8]

    Šilovscher Rand und Dirichletsches Problem

    Heinz Bauer. Šilovscher Rand und Dirichletsches Problem. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 11:89–136,

    work page

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Blackadar

    B. Blackadar. Operator algebras, volume 122 of Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2006. Theory of C˚-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Operator Algebras and Non-commutative Geometry, III. 2

    2006

  2. [10]

    Blecher and Christian Le Merdy.Operator algebras and their modules – an operator space approach, volume 30 ofLond

    David P. Blecher and Christian Le Merdy.Operator algebras and their modules – an operator space approach, volume 30 ofLond. Math. Soc. Monogr., New Ser.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. 15, 16

    2004

  3. [11]

    Handbook of categorical algebra

    Francis Borceux. Handbook of categorical algebra. 2: Categories and structures, volume 51 of Encycl. Math. Appl.Cambridge: Univ. Press, 1994. 12, 16

    1994

  4. [12]

    Volume 1: Basic category theory, volume 50 of Encycl

    Francis Borceux.Handbook of categorical algebra. Volume 1: Basic category theory, volume 50 of Encycl. Math. Appl.Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1994. 4, 16

    1994

  5. [13]

    Conway.A course in functional analysis, volume 96 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics

    John B. Conway.A course in functional analysis, volume 96 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1990. 6, 7, 17

    1990

  6. [14]

    Davidson and Matthew Kennedy

    Kenneth R. Davidson and Matthew Kennedy. Noncommutative Choquet theory: A survey,

  7. [15]

    Tensor norms and operator ideals, volume 176 ofNorth- Holland Math

    Andreas Defant and Klaus Floret. Tensor norms and operator ideals, volume 176 ofNorth- Holland Math. Stud.Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1993. 17

    1993

  8. [16]

    Geometry of Banach spaces

    Joseph Diestel. Geometry of Banach spaces. Selected topics, volume 485 ofLect. Notes Math. Springer, Cham, 1975. 7

    1975

  9. [17]

    Effros and Zhong-Jin Ruan

    Edward G. Effros and Zhong-Jin Ruan. Operator spaces, volume 23 of Lond. Math. Soc. Monogr., New Ser.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16

    2000

  10. [18]

    Abelian categories.Repr

    Peter Freyd. Abelian categories.Repr. Theory Appl. Categ., 2003(3):xxiii + 1–164, 2003. 9

    2003

  11. [19]

    A. Ya. Helemskii.The homology of Banach and topological algebras. Transl. from the Russian by Alan West, volume 41 ofMath. Appl., Sov. Ser.Dordrecht etc.: Kluwer Academic Publishers,

  12. [20]

    Todorov, and MarkTomforde

    AliKavruk, Vern I.Paulsen, IvanG. Todorov, and MarkTomforde. Tensor products ofoperator systems. J. Funct. Anal., 261(2):267–299, 2011. 3, 5

    2011

  13. [21]

    Eberhard Kirchberg and Simon Wassermann.C˚-algebras generated by operator systems.J. Funct. Anal., 155(2):324–351, 1998. 15 19

    1998

  14. [22]

    Set theory

    Kenneth Kunen. Set theory. An introduction to independence proofs. 2nd print, volume 102 of Stud. Logic Found. Math.Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1983. 4

    1983

  15. [23]

    The category of operator spaces and complete contractions, 2024

    Bert Lindenhovius and Vladimir Zamdzhiev. The category of operator spaces and complete contractions, 2024. http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.20999v1. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13, 15

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1998

    Saunders Mac Lane.Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1998. 3, 4, 14

    1998

  17. [25]

    Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1998

    Saunders Mac Lane.Categories for the working mathematician, volume 5 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, New York, second edition, 1998. 9

    1998

  18. [26]

    V. I. Paulsen and R. R. Smith. Multilinear maps and tensor norms on operator systems.J. Funct. Anal., 73:258–276, 1987. 11

    1987

  19. [27]

    Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002

    Vern Paulsen.Completely bounded maps and operator algebras, volume 78 ofCambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2002. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 16, 17, 18

    2002

  20. [28]

    Vern I. Paulsen. Representations of function algebras, abstract operator spaces, and Banach space geometry.J. Funct. Anal., 109(1):113–129, 1992. 15

    1992

  21. [29]

    Paulsen and Mark Tomforde

    Vern I. Paulsen and Mark Tomforde. Vector spaces with an order unit.Indiana Univ. Math. J., 58(3):1319–1360, 2009. 3, 5

    2009

  22. [30]

    Generating the equational theory ofC˚-algebras and relatedcategories

    Joan Wick Pelletier and Jiří Rosický. Generating the equational theory ofC˚-algebras and relatedcategories. In Categorical topology and its relation to analysis, algebra and combinatorics (Prague, 1988), pages 163–180. World Sci. Publ., Teaneck, NJ, 1989. 15

    1988

  23. [31]

    Lectures on Choquet’s theorem, volume1757of Lecture Notes in Mathematics

    RobertR.Phelps. Lectures on Choquet’s theorem, volume1757of Lecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, second edition, 2001. 9

    2001

  24. [32]

    The Halmos problem

    Gilles Pisier. Similarity problems and completely bounded maps, volume 1618 ofLecture Notes in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, expanded edition, 2001. Includes the solution to “The Halmos problem”. 16

    2001

  25. [33]

    Gilles Pisier.Introduction to operator space theory, volume 294 ofLond. Math. Soc. Lect. Note Ser. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. 3, 13, 14, 18

    2003

  26. [34]

    Oncategoriesofmonoids, comonoids, andbimonoids

    Hans-E.Porst. Oncategoriesofmonoids, comonoids, andbimonoids. Quaest. Math., 31(2):127– 139, 2008. 11, 12

    2008

  27. [35]

    Projective and injective objects in the category of Banach spaces.Proc

    Kenneth Pothoven. Projective and injective objects in the category of Banach spaces.Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 22:437–438, 1969. 7

    1969

  28. [36]

    Banach spaces and totally convex spaces

    Dieter Pumplün and Helmut Röhrl. Banach spaces and totally convex spaces. I. Comm. Algebra, 12(7-8):953–1019, 1984. 17

    1984

  29. [37]

    J. Rosický. Are Banach spaces monadic?Commun. Algebra, 50(1):268–274, 2022. 11, 16

    2022

  30. [38]

    Ryan.Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces

    Raymond A. Ryan.Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Springer-Verlag London, Ltd., London, 2002. 17 20

    2002

  31. [39]

    Zbigniew Semadeni.Banach spaces of continuous functions. Vol. 1, volume 55 ofMonogr. Mat., Warszawa. PWN - Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warszawa, 1971. 7

    1971

  32. [40]

    Tensor products of commutative Banach algebras

    Jun Tomiyama. Tensor products of commutative Banach algebras. Tôhoku Math. J. (2), 12:147–154, 1960. 17

    1960

  33. [41]

    Representations of operator spaces.J

    Chun Zhang. Representations of operator spaces.J. Operator Theory, 33(2):327–351, 1995. 4 Department of Mathematics, University at Buff alo, Buff alo, NY 14260-2900, USA E-mail address : achirvas@buffalo.edu Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Univer...

    1995

  34. [1994]

    1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15

  35. [2024]

    http://arxiv.org/abs/2412.09455v1. 8

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.