Approximate ideal structures and K-theory

Rufus Willett

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Approximate ideal structures and K-theory

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Künneth formula passes from the pieces of a uniform approximate ideal decomposition to the whole C*-algebra.

desk verdict A genuinely new framework with an important Künneth permanence theorem, but the proof of the key exactness proposition has an unjustified conjugation step that needs fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.09241 v2 pith:HD72T6PS submitted 2019-08-25 math.OA math.KT

Rufus Willett This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.OAmath.KT MSC 46L8019K3546L05

keywords K-theoryC*-algebrasKünnethformulaapproximateidealstructureMayer-VietorissequenceBaum-Connesconjecturenucleardimensiongroupoid

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 introduces an 'approximate ideal structure' for a C*-algebra: a positive contraction h that almost commutes with any finite set and sends the algebra, up to small errors, into two subalgebras C and D, with certain products landing near their intersection. The headline result is a permanence theorem: if A admits a uniform approximate ideal structure over pairs (C,D) for which C, D, and C∩D all satisfy the Künneth formula, then A satisfies the Künneth formula. A second theorem shows that if the three pieces all have trivial K-theory, then A has trivial K-theory, and this reproves a Baum-Connes-style vanishing result without controlled K-theory. The paper also exhibits examples: groupoid decompositions give uniform structures, while nuclear-dimension-one algebras give only a weak version. If the main theorem is right, the Künneth property is stable under a much more flexible class of decompositions than the classical Mayer-Vietoris ideal setting.

What carries the argument

The object carrying the argument is an approximate ideal structure (Definition 1.1): for every finite set and tolerance there is a positive contraction h in the multiplier algebra such that h almost commutes with the set, h moves elements into C, $1-h$ moves them into D, and $h(1-h)$ and $h^2(1-h)$ move them into $C\cap D$. The uniform version (Definition 5.1) adds a decay function f: if $c\in C\otimes B$ and $d\in D\otimes B$ satisfy $\|c-d\|\le \delta$, some $x\in (C\cap D)\otimes B$ lies within $f(\delta)$ of both; this makes the intersection of tensor products behave correctly (Lemma 6.4) and drives exactness at the summation position (Proposition 5.7). Boundary classes $B_v(u)\in K_0(C\cap D)$, constructed from 'lifts' of unitaries, supply the missing connecting map in the approximate Mayer-Vietoris sequence. The inverse Bott map, implemented by an asymptotic family, is used to move between $K_1$ and $K_0$ statements in the Künneth product comparisons.

What would settle it

To refute Theorem 1.4 one would need a C*-algebra A with a uniform approximate ideal structure over pairs (C,D) for which C, D, and C∩D satisfy the Künneth formula, but for which the product map $K_*(A)\otimes K_*(B) \to K_*(A\otimes B)$ fails to be an isomorphism for some B with free abelian K-theory; the theorem asserts no such example exists. A concrete place to look is any pair violating f-uniformity, such as the hereditary subalgebras of the compact operators described in Example 5.3, checking whether a decomposition built from such pairs can still satisfy the other hypotheses and break Künneth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is Theorem 1.4: a C*-algebra A that admits a uniform approximate ideal structure over a set of pairs (C,D) of C*-subalgebras satisfies the Künneth formula whenever each C, each D, and each C∩D does. The proof develops partial exactness for the sequence $K_1(C\cap D) \to K_1(C)\oplus K_1(D) \to K_1(A) \to K_0(C\cap D) \to \cdots$ at three positions, using boundary classes built from approximate lifts. Exactness at the two harder positions requires the uniformity assumption (Definition 5.1), which guarantees that for every B the natural inclusion $(C\cap D)\otimes B \subseteq C\otimes B \cap D\otimes B$ is an equality with controlled error. Surjectivity and injectivity of the Künneth product $K_*(A)\otimes K_*(B) \to K_*(A\otimes B)$ are then transferred from the corresponding products for C, D, and C∩D. The paper also proves Theorem 1.2/3.8, that an approximate ideal structure over pieces with trivial K-theory forces A to have trivial K-theory.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the f-uniformity of every pair in the class: whenever an element of $C\otimes B$ is close to an element of $D\otimes B$, there must be one element of $(C\cap D)\otimes B$ close to both, with the closeness controlled by a fixed decay function. This condition is what makes the tensor-product intersection identification and the exactness-at-position-III argument work; the paper's own Example 5.3 shows it fails for natural hereditary subalgebras of the compact operators, so the Künneth theorem does not follow from the existence of an approximate ideal structure alone.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Theorem 1.4 implies that the Künneth property is closed under this kind of decomposition: once the three subalgebras in each pair satisfy Künneth, the ambient algebra does, for every B with free abelian K-theory.
Theorem 1.2 yields a proof, without controlled K-theory, that an algebra with an approximate ideal structure over pieces with trivial K-theory has trivial K-theory, recovering a Baum-Connes-style vanishing statement.
Appendix B shows that strong finite dynamical complexity for a principal ample groupoid implies its reduced C*-algebra satisfies Künneth, and that uniform Roe algebras of bounded geometry spaces with finite decomposition complexity satisfy Künneth.
Appendix A shows every separable nuclear-dimension-one C*-algebra has a weak approximate ideal structure over subhomogeneous pieces, evidence that the defining conditions are natural even though weak structures are not yet enough for the K-theory conclusions.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural test is whether the f-uniformity condition can be relaxed to a B-dependent decay; the paper's Example 5.3 shows ordinary approximate ideal structures need not satisfy it, since hereditary subalgebras of the compact operators can fail the property badly.
Remark A.3, if checked, would distinguish the weak and ordinary notions: weak structures from nuclear dimension one would not imply approximate ideal structures, because a Kirchberg algebra with torsion in $K_1$ would have no boundary-class construction over finite-dimensional pieces.
The paper explicitly leaves open whether its range of validity coincides with controlled K-theory; a reader could test this by seeking a uniform approximate ideal structure not arising from a controlled filtration.
Because the proof uses ordinary K-theory only, the same boundary-class technology may be adaptable to crossed products or exact groupoid algebras where controlled filtrations are unavailable, though the paper does not claim this.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Read the paper. The new notion of approximate ideal structure is the real thing: it gives a uniform reason for several K-theoretic permanence results, and Theorem 1.4 (Künneth property is permanent under uniform approximate ideal structure) is new as stated. The paper is also honest about its debt to Oyono-Oyono–Yu and avoids controlled K-theory, which is a genuine simplification. The vanishing theorem and the groupoid examples are useful.

The soft spot is Proposition 5.7, the exactness property at position (III) that carries the injectivity half of Theorem 1.4. In the proof, after Lemma 5.6 produces v^{C,a}, v^{D,a}, v^{C,b}, v^{D,b}, the author defines v^C = v^{D,a} v^{C,a} v^{C,b} (v^{D,a})^{-1} and asserts it is C-near. Lemma 5.6 only says v^{D,a} is close to 1+D and v^{C,a}, v^{C,b} to 1+C. For non-ideal C and D, conjugating a C-near element by a D-near element is not automatically C-near; the first-order cross terms involve [D,C], which f-uniformity does not control. The special form of the elements (roughly 1+hZ and 1+(1-h)Z) suggests the cross terms land in C∩D because of condition (iii), but the paper does not supply that computation, and it is not immediate that the relevant polynomials belong to the finite-dimensional subspace Y built earlier. Since Proposition 5.7 is used exactly in Theorem 9.1, this is load-bearing.

I would not call this fatal. The framework is coherent and the gap looks fixable by enlarging Y and doing the commutator estimate carefully. But an editor should send this to a careful referee rather than accept on faith.

Minor blemishes: a stray 'HERE' after Lemma 6.4, a 'Lemma 9' reference that should be 'Lemma 5.6', and a missing citation for the earlier Oyono-Oyono result mentioned in footnote 5. The citation pattern is otherwise fine: the paper credits [25] heavily, and self-citations to [16] are for examples, not assumptions of the main theorem.

Who it is for: anyone working on K-theoretic permanence, Baum-Connes, or controlled K-theory. It deserves a serious referee; I'd recommend conditional acceptance after the Proposition 5.7 gap is closed.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a notion of approximate ideal structure for C*-algebras: a quantitative partition of unity (h, 1-h) that approximately commutes with finite sets and sends h-times and (1-h)-times into prescribed subalgebras C and D, with an additional intersection condition. It develops boundary classes in K-theory and proves two main applications. The first is a vanishing theorem (Theorem 1.2): if A has an approximate ideal structure over pairs with trivial K-theory, then A has trivial K-theory. The second is a permanence theorem for the Künneth formula (Theorem 1.4): if A has a uniform approximate ideal structure over pairs (C,D) such that C, D, and C∩D satisfy the Künneth formula, then A satisfies the Künneth formula. The proof is elementary, avoiding controlled K-theory, and is modeled on the author's prior work with Guentner and Yu and on Oyono-Oyono-Yu. Appendices give a weak approximate ideal structure for nuclear dimension one and uniform approximate ideal structures from finite dynamical complexity of ample groupoids, with consequences for the Baum-Connes conjecture and the Künneth formula.

Significance. If the main theorem is correct, it provides a genuinely new permanence principle for the Künneth formula, reducing the problem to checking simpler subalgebras. The paper is also valuable as a self-contained exposition of an approximate Mayer-Vietoris method that avoids controlled K-theory. The strengths of the manuscript are its explicit quantitative lemmas, its honest discussion of the weak quantifiers in Proposition 5.7, and its non-vacuous examples from nuclear dimension and groupoid decompositions. The main theorem is not circular: it assumes Künneth for C, D, and C∩D and derives it for A, using newly constructed boundary classes. However, the proof contains one load-bearing gap in Proposition 5.7 that affects the injectivity half of Theorem 1.4, and the scope of Theorem 1.4 is narrower than the word 'approximate' in the title and abstract suggests because of the f-uniformity hypothesis.

major comments (1)

[§5, Proposition 5.7] The display after 'Note that v^C and v^D are δ2-in M_{2n}(rC) and M_{2n}(rD) respectively' asserts that v^C := v^{D,a} v^{C,a} v^{C,b} (v^{D,a})^{-1} is δ2-in M_{2n}(rC). Lemma 5.6 only guarantees that v^{D,a} is close to 1 + D while v^{C,a} and v^{C,b} are close to 1 + C. For non-ideal subalgebras, conjugation of a C-near element by a D-near element need not be C-near: to first order the error contains a commutator [d, c + c'], and f-uniformity (Definition 5.1) controls distances between elements of C⊗B and D⊗B, not commutators [D,C]. This step is load-bearing because the proof then uses v^C as a representative of the trivial class in K1(C) to conclude [x] = [u_C], and Proposition 5.7 is used exactly in the proof of Theorem 9.1. The step may be salvageable from the special structure v^C ≈ 1 + hZ, v^D ≈ 1 + (1-h)Z: condition (iii) of Definition 3.1 places h(1-h) terms in C∩D, which would control the conjugation error. But the paper does not supply this computation, so the proof as written is incomplete.

minor comments (5)

[§6, after Lemma 6.4] There is a leftover editorial marker 'HERE' immediately after Lemma 6.4; it should be removed.
[§5, introductory paragraph] The word 'quatifiers' should be 'quantifiers', and the statement that the quantifiers are 'in the wrong order' is accurate but should be followed by a precise explanation of why the order still suffices in the applications.
[§5, proof of Proposition 5.7] The reference to 'Lemma 9' in the proof should be to Lemma 5.6; this cross-reference error will confuse readers.
[§1, Theorem 1.4 and abstract] The abstract says 'if A can be decomposed into a pair (C,D) such that ...', omitting the word 'uniform' from the hypothesis of Theorem 1.4. Since the uniform version is substantially stronger and excludes natural examples (see Example 5.3), the abstract and introduction should state the hypothesis precisely.
[§8, proof of Theorem 8.1] The phrase 'commutates' should be 'commutes', and the diagram commutativity argument would benefit from naming the maps explicitly rather than relying only on 'naturality'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Künneth permanence theorem is a conditional result whose proof uses boundary classes, not the target conclusion.

full rationale

The paper's central claim (Theorem 1.4) is a conditional permanence statement: from the hypotheses that A admits a uniform approximate ideal structure over C and that each C, D, and C∩D satisfies the Künneth formula, it proves that A does. The conclusion is not an input: the assumptions quantify over subalgebras, not over A, and there is no displayed equation or fitting step in which the Künneth property of A is assumed, renamed, or fitted. The proof (Sections 8–9) constructs boundary classes from the approximate ideal structure and uses the product maps for C, D, and C∩D to transfer surjectivity and injectivity to A; even if the reviewer's concern about the reordering step in Proposition 5.7 were valid, that would be a correctness gap, not circularity. Self-citations to [16] occur in Appendix B (e.g., Definition B.1, Lemma A.12, Theorem A.9) and in the introduction as motivation; they supply examples and prior decomposition machinery, not the load-bearing Künneth permanence argument. The proof of Proposition 5.7 draws on the external work [25] of Oyono-Oyono and Yu, which is independent support. No pattern from the enumerated list — self-definition, fitted input called prediction, load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness, ansatz via citation, or renaming — is exhibited by quotation. Therefore no significant circularity.

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

The central claim rests on a new definition (approximate ideal structure), a strong uniformity condition (f-uniformity), and standard K-theory facts. No free parameters are fitted. The boundary classes are internal constructions proven in the text, not postulated entities with external handles.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption For each pair (C,D) in C, the C*-algebras C, D, and C∩D satisfy the Künneth formula.
This is the hypothesis of Theorem 1.4; the paper proves the conclusion only under this input.
domain assumption The pairs (C,D) are f-uniform for a common decay function f (Definition 5.1), i.e., the quantitative intersection property for tensor products holds.
This condition is assumed in the definition of uniform approximate ideal structure (Definition 1.3) and is used in Lemma 6.4 and Proposition 5.7. It is not implied by approximate ideal structure alone.
standard math Standard K-theory facts: Bott periodicity, the Kasparov product, the Künneth formula for commutative C*-algebras, and the freeness of K0(B) when B has free abelian K-groups.
These background facts are used throughout Sections 6-9; they are standard in operator algebra K-theory.
standard math Lemma 2.4 about approximating idempotents and invertibles in Banach subalgebras, with proof included in the text.
This lemma is proven in the paper and underlies the construction of boundary classes in Definition 2.6 and Proposition 2.7.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Approximate ideal structures and K-theory." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HD72T6PS

@misc{pith2026190809241,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Approximate ideal structures and K-theory},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HD72T6PS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.09241}
}

abstract

We introduce a notion of approximate ideal structure for a $C^*$-algebra, and use it as a tool to study $K$-theory groups. The notion is motivated by the classical Mayer-Vietoris sequence, by the theory of nuclear dimension as introduced by Winter and Zacharias, and by the theory of dynamical complexity introduced by Guentner, Yu, and the author. A major inspiration for our methods comes from recent work of Oyono-Oyono and Yu in the setting of controlled $K$-theory of filtered C*-algebras; we do not, however, use that language in this paper. We give two main applications. The first is a vanishing result for $K$-theory that is relevant to the Baum-Connes conjecture. The second is a permanence result for the K\"{u}nneth formula in $C^*$-algebra $K$-theory: roughly, this says that if $A$ can be decomposed into a pair of subalgebras $(C,D)$ such that $C$, $D$, and $C\cap D$ all satisfy the K\"{u}nneth formula, then $A$ itself satisfies the K\"{u}nneth formula.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[25]

Oyono-Oyono and G

H. Oyono-Oyono and G. Yu. Quantitative K-theory and K¨ unneth for- mula for operator algebras. J. Funct. Anal. , 277(7):2003–2091, 2019

work page 2003
[16]

Guentner, R

E. Guentner, R. Willett, and G. Yu. Finite dynamical complexity an d controlled operator K-theory. arXiv:1609.02093, 2016

arXiv 2016
[1]

M. Atiyah. Vector bundles and the K¨ unneth formula. Topology, 1:245– 248, 1962

work page 1962
[2]

Blackadar

B. Blackadar. K-Theory for Operator Algebras . Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1998

work page 1998
[3]

Blackadar

B. Blackadar. Operator Algebras: Theory of C ˚ -Algebras and Von Neu- mann Algebras. Springer, 2006

work page 2006
[4]

B¨ onicke and C

C. B¨ onicke and C. Dell’Aiera. Going down functors and the K¨ unne th formula for crossed products by ´ etale groupoids. arXiv:1810.04414, 2018

arXiv 2018
[5]

J. Bosa, N. Brown, Y. Sato, A. Tikuisis, S. White, and W. Winter. Covering dimension of C ˚ -algebras and 2-coloured classiﬁcation. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 1233, 2019

work page 2019
[6]

Brown and N

N. Brown and N. Ozawa. C ˚ -Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Approx- imations, volume 88 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, 2008

work page 2008

Show all 36 references

[7]

Chabert, S

J. Chabert, S. Echterhoﬀ, and H. Oyono-Oyono. Going-down f unctors, the K¨ unneth formula, and the Baum-Connes conjecture. Geom. Funct. Anal., 14(3):491–528, 2004

2004
[8]

A. Connes. Noncommutative Geometry. Academic Press, 1994. 62

1994
[9]

Connes and N

A. Connes and N. Higson. D´ eformations, morphismes asymptot iques et K-th´ eorie bivariante.C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S´ er. I Math., 311:101–106, 1990

1990
[10]

R. G. Douglas. Banach Algebra Techniques in Operator Theory . Aca- demic Press, 1972

1972
[11]

Elliott, T

G. Elliott, T. Natsume, and R. Nest. The Heisenberg group and K- theory. K-theory, 7:409–428, 1993

1993
[12]

R. Felix. Renault’s equivalence theorem for C ˚ -algebras of ´ etale groupoids. Master’s thesis, University of Hawai‘i at M¯ anoa, 2014

2014
[13]

Guentner, N

E. Guentner, N. Higson, and J. Trout. Equivariant E-theory. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 148(703), 2000

2000
[14]

Guentner, R

E. Guentner, R. Tessera, and G. Yu. A notion of geometric com plexity and its application to topological rigidity. Invent. Math. , 189(2):315– 357, 2012

2012
[15]

Guentner, R

E. Guentner, R. Tessera, and G. Yu. Discrete groups with ﬁnit e decom- position complexity. Groups, Geometry and Dynamics , 7(2):377–402, 2013

2013
[17]

Guentner, R

E. Guentner, R. Willett, and G. Yu. Dynamic asymptotic dimension : relation to dynamics, topology, coarse geometry, and C ˚ -algebras. Math. Ann., 367(1):785–829, 2017

2017
[18]

Higson and E

N. Higson and E. Guentner. Group C ˚ -algebras and K-theory. In Non- commutative Geometry, number 1831 in Springer Lecture Notes, pages 137–252. Springer, 2004

2004
[19]

Higson and J

N. Higson and J. Roe. Analytic K-homology. Oxford University Press, 2000

2000
[20]

S.-H. Kye. Counterexamples in intersections for C ˚ -tensor products. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. , 27:301–302, 1984. 63

1984
[21]

Laﬀorgue

V. Laﬀorgue. La conjecture de Baum-Connes ` a coeﬃcients p our les groupes hyperboliques. J. Noncommut. Geom. , 6(1):1–197, 2012

2012
[22]

J. Milnor. Introduction to Algebraic K-theory. Annals of Mathematics Studies. Princeton University Press, 1971

1971
[23]

Muhly, J

P. Muhly, J. Renault, and D. Williams. Equivalence and isomorphism for groupoid C ˚ -algebras. J. Operator Theory , 17:3–22, 1987

1987
[24]

Oyono-Oyono and G

H. Oyono-Oyono and G. Yu. On quantitative operator K-theory. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) , 65(2):605–674, 2015

2015
[26]

J. Renault. C ˚ -algebras and dynamical systems . Publica¸ c˜ oes Mathem´ aticas do IMPA, 27˝ Col´ oquio Brasilieiro de Mathem´ atica. In- stituto Nacional de Matem´ atica Pura e Aplicada, 2009

2009
[27]

M. Rørdam. Classiﬁcation of Nuclear C ˚ -algebras. Springer, 2002

2002
[28]

Rørdam, F

M. Rørdam, F. Larsen, and N. Laustsen. An Introduction to K-Theory for C ˚ -Algebras. Cambridge University Press, 2000

2000
[29]

Rosenberg and C

J. Rosenberg and C. Schochet. The K¨ unneth theorem and th e universal coeﬃcient theorem for Kasparov’s generalized K-functor. Duke Math. J., 55(2):431–474, 1987

1987
[30]

Schochet

C. Schochet. Topological methods for C ˚ -algebras II: geometric resolu- tions and the K¨ unneth formula. Paciﬁc J. Math. , 98(2):443–458, 1982

1982
[31]

Skandalis

G. Skandalis. Une notion de nucl´ earit´ e enK-th´ eorie (d’apr` es J. Cuntz). K-Theory, 1(6):549–573, 1988

1988
[32]

J.-L. Tu. La conjecture de Baum-Connes pour les feuilletages moyennables. K-theory, 17:215–264, 1999

1999
[33]

N. E. Wegge-Olsen. K-Theory and C ˚ -Algebras (A Friendly Approach) . Oxford University Press, 1993

1993
[34]

Winter and J

W. Winter and J. Zacharias. Completely positive maps of order ze ro. M¨ unster J. Math., 2:311–324, 2009. 64

2009
[35]

Winter and J

W. Winter and J. Zacharias. The nuclear dimension of C ˚ -algebras. Adv. Math. , 224(2):461–498, 2010

2010
[36]

G. Yu. The Novikov conjecture for groups with ﬁnite asymptot ic dimen- sion. Ann. of Math. , 147(2):325–355, 1998. 65

1998

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [25]

Oyono-Oyono and G

H. Oyono-Oyono and G. Yu. Quantitative K-theory and K¨ unneth for- mula for operator algebras. J. Funct. Anal. , 277(7):2003–2091, 2019

work page 2003

[2] [16]

Guentner, R

E. Guentner, R. Willett, and G. Yu. Finite dynamical complexity an d controlled operator K-theory. arXiv:1609.02093, 2016

arXiv 2016

[3] [1]

M. Atiyah. Vector bundles and the K¨ unneth formula. Topology, 1:245– 248, 1962

work page 1962

[4] [2]

Blackadar

B. Blackadar. K-Theory for Operator Algebras . Cambridge University Press, second edition, 1998

work page 1998

[5] [3]

Blackadar

B. Blackadar. Operator Algebras: Theory of C ˚ -Algebras and Von Neu- mann Algebras. Springer, 2006

work page 2006

[6] [4]

B¨ onicke and C

C. B¨ onicke and C. Dell’Aiera. Going down functors and the K¨ unne th formula for crossed products by ´ etale groupoids. arXiv:1810.04414, 2018

arXiv 2018

[7] [5]

J. Bosa, N. Brown, Y. Sato, A. Tikuisis, S. White, and W. Winter. Covering dimension of C ˚ -algebras and 2-coloured classiﬁcation. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. , 1233, 2019

work page 2019

[8] [6]

Brown and N

N. Brown and N. Ozawa. C ˚ -Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Approx- imations, volume 88 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics . American Mathematical Society, 2008

work page 2008