Berezin quantization of noncommutative projective varieties
Andreas Andersson

arXiv:1506.01454v8 [math.OA] 4 Feb 2018

Email: fornjotnr@hotmail.com
Max Planck Institute for Mathematics in the Sciences. Inselstrasse 22, D-04103 Leipzig, Germany
Wollongong University, School of Mathematics and Applied Statistics, 2522 Wollongong, Australia
Mathematics Subject Classification 2010 Primary: 58B32; Secondary: 58B34, 46L89
Keywords: Berezin quantization, Toeplitz operators, Cuntz–Pimsner algebras, compact quantum groups, generalized
inductive limits, noncommutative geometry, subproduct systems, noncommutative random walks, Arveson’s conjecture,
balanced metrics.

February 6, 2018

Abstract
We use operator algebras and operator theory to obtain new result concerning Berezin quantization of compact Kähler manifolds. Our main tool is the notion of subproduct systems of finitedimensional Hilbert spaces, which enables all involved objects, such as the Toeplitz operators, to be
very conveniently expressed in terms of shift operators compressed to a subspace of full Fock space.
This subspace is not required to be contained in the symmetric Fock space, so from finite-dimensional
matrix algebras we can construct noncommutative manifolds with extra structure generalizing that
of a projective variety endowed with a positive Hermitian line bundle and a Kähler metric in the class
of the line bundle. Even in the commutative setting these constructions are very fruitful. Firstly, we
show that the algebra of smooth functions on any smooth projective variety can be quantized in a
strong sense of inductive limits, as was previously only accomplished for homogeneous manifolds. In
this way the Kähler manifold is recovered exactly from quantization and not just approximately. Secondly, we obtain a strict quantization also for singular varieties. Thirdly, we show that the Arveson
conjecture is true in full generality for shift operators compressed to the subspace of symmetric Fock
space associated with any homogeneous ideal. For noncommutative examples we consider homogeneous spaces for compact matrix quantum groups which generalize q-deformed projective spaces,
and we show that these can be obtained as the cores of Cuntz–Pimsner algebras constructed solely
from the representation theory of the quantum group. We also discuss interesting connections with
noncommutative random walks.

Contents
1

Introduction
1.1 Kähler geometry . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 Algebraic geometry . . . . . . . .
1.3 Operator algebra . . . . . . . . . .
1.4 Operator theory . . . . . . . . . .
1.5 Quantum homogeneous manifolds

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

1

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

3
3
5
6
7
8

2

3

4

5

6

7

Subproduct systems
2.1 Basic properties . . . . .
2.2 Toeplitz algebras . . . . .
2.2.1 The Toeplitz core
2.2.2 The right shifts .
2.2.3 Normal ordering
2.3 Cuntz–Pimsner algebras .

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

9
9
10
11
11
12
12

Review of quantization of projective varieties
3.1 Berezin quantization with prequantum condition
3.2 Projectively induced quantization . . . . . . . .
3.3 The circle bundle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3.4 Singular varieties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

13
13
15
17
18

Inductive limits
4.1 Relaxed definition of inductive limits . . . . .
4.2 Inductive limits from subproduct systems . . .
4.3 Cuntz–Pimsner algebras from inductive limits
4.4 Formulas for covariant symbols . . . . . . . . .
4.5 Commutative case and the Arveson conjecture

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

19
19
21
23
24
25

Projective limits
5.1 Relaxing the notion of projective limit . .
5.2 Changing the inner products . . . . . . .
5.3 The isometries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.4 Projective system for subproduct systems
5.5 The state on OH . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.6 Contravariant symbols . . . . . . . . . .
5.7 The asymptotic multiplication . . . . . .
5.8 The adjoint of the total Toeplitz map . .
(0)
5.9 OH as a projective limit . . . . . . . . .
5.10 Strict quantization . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.11 OH assembled from projective limits . . .
5.12 Commutative case . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

26
27
27
28
30
32
33
35
35
37
38
39
39

Application to compact matrix quantum groups
6.1 Compact matrix quantum groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.1 Representations and actions . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.2 Universal quantum groups . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.1.3 The dual discrete quantum group . . . . . . . . .
6.2 First-row and first-column algebras . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.3 Subproduct systems of G-representations . . . . . . . . .
6.4 Berezin quantization of C(G/K) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.1 Covariant symbols as first-row matrix coefficients
6.4.2 Intertwining the actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.3 C(G/K) as an inductive limit . . . . . . . . . . .
6.4.4 C(SG ) as an inductive limit . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5 Comparison with Poisson and Martin boundaries . . . .
6.5.1 Poisson integral versus total Toeplitz map . . . .
6.5.2 Markov operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6.5.3 Martin boundaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

40
40
40
42
42
44
45
46
46
46
47
49
49
49
50
51

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

Concluding remarks

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

52

2

8

References

52

1 Introduction
With motivations from physics, Berezin introduced a way of approximating projective compact Kähler
manifolds M by finite-dimensional matrix algebras B(Hm ) parameterized by m ∈ N0 [Bere1, Bere2,
CGR1, Lan2, Schl1]. When M = G/K is a homogeneous space of some Lie group G, each Hilbert
space Hm carries an irreducible representation of G, and it is obtained by the Borel–Weil construction:
Hm is the space of holomorphic sections of a suitable line bundle L⊗m over M .
In order to apply Berezin quantization to quantum physics, the parameters (time or temperature
or energy etc.) should be chosen such that the limit m → ∞ simplifies the description of the system
at hand. This is a powerful method; for instance it gives the Hartree–Fock approximation as a special
case [Raj1]. The limit behavior is captured by a classical (compact Kähler) manifold M .
Nowadays it is however becoming more and more important to have a versatile theory of open
quantum systems. Recently we observed how to obtain a simplifying infinite-m limit in the standard
framework of quantum channels as driving the evolution of open quantum systems [An4, An5]. It so
happens though, that the infinite-m system is (in general) not given by a classical manifold but by
a noncommutative manifold, i.e. there is a noncommutative C ∗ -algebra C(M) which is supposed to
encode the properties of the dynamics and which is a surprisingly good analogue of the commutative
C ∗ -algebra C(M ) of continuous functions on a projective variety M . Here we use the symbol M
for a nonexisting object appearing only in the notation for the algebra C(M), while M denotes an
honest manifold. Such a C ∗ -algebra C(M) of continuous functions on a “noncommutative projective
variety” will be obtained as an inductive limit of matrix algebras B(Hm ). These in turn arise from
a sequence H• = (Hm )m∈N0 of finite-dimensional Hilbert spaces such that Hm+l ⊆ Hm ⊗ Hl for
all m, l ∈ M0 . Such a sequence has been referred to as a “subproduct system” [ShSo1] and it
generalizes the structure needed to perform ordinary Berezin quantization. In [An4] we discussed the
physical meaning of the special case when M = G/K is a “projective” quantum homogeneous space
(a generalization of compact coadjoint orbits).
The purpose of the present paper is to introduce and study the C ∗ -algebras C(M) defining these
noncommutative manifolds. They will be constructed in such a way that they possess a lot of extra
structure generalizing that complex-analytic structure, a positive line bundle and a Kähler metric.
The construction is new also in the commutative setting and we will solve some very interesting
problems in operator theory which provide new insight in the geometry of compact Kähler manifolds.
In this way we set the stage for a new interplay between operator theory and complex differential
geometry. We begin by outlining the results from several different viewpoints.

1.1 Kähler geometry
Let (M, L) be a polarized manifold, i.e. M is a compact connected complex-analytic manifold
admitting a Kähler metric and L is a holomorphic line bundle over M with the property that any
choice of basis for the finite-dimensional vector space H 0 (M ; L) of holomorphic sections of L gives
a holomorphic embedding of M into the projective space CPn−1 , where n := dim H 0 (M ; L). For
m ∈ N, let Lm be the mth tensor power of the line bundle L and let L0 = OM be the trivial
holomorphic line bundle. The idea of Berezin quantization is that if one chooses an inner product
on H 0 (M ; Lm ) for each m, so that we obtain a sequence H• = (Hm )m∈N0 of Hilbert spaces, then
the finite-dimensional matrix algebras B(Hm ) should give an increasingly good approximation of the
C ∗ -algebra C(M ) of continuous functions on M as m goes to infinity. This works for any polarized
manifold (M, L) [BMS] if the inner product on each Hm is given by
hφ|ψih,ω := md

ˆ

hm (φ(x), ψ(x))
M

3

ω(x)d
,
d!

∀ψ, φ ∈ H 0 (M, Lm )

for some fixed Kähler metric ω on M and a Hermitian metric h on L related to the Kähler metric
via the “prequantum condition”
√
¯ log h = ω.
(1.1)
−1∂∂

The approximation of C(M ) by the matrix algebras B(Hm ) is, more precisely, a “strict quantization”
of C(M ) realized by explicit surjective positive maps (“Toeplitz maps”) (see §3 for more details)
ς˘(m) : C(M ) → B(Hm )
and explicit injective positive maps (covariant symbol maps)
ς (m) : C(M ) → B(Hm ).
such that ς (m) is the adjoint of ς˘(m) with respect to the inner product on B(Hm ) and C(M ) defined
by the trace and by ω respectively, and such that the “Berezin transforms” ς (m) ◦ ς˘(m) converge to
the identity map on C(M ) as the “quantum number” m goes to infinity.
One could imagine however, that it should be possible to approximate C(M ) in some stronger
sense. It turns out that is not true for any polarized manifold (M, L), if we want the prequantum condition (1.1). We are now interested in the problem of relating properties of (M, L) to the
well-behavedness of the quantization H• . As has been well known every since the beginnings of quantization theory, and made very clear in [CGR1, CGR2], if (M, L) is a homogeneous manifold then
it can be quantized in a stronger sense than that provided by a strict quantization. Hawkins made
this very explicit in a C ∗ -algebraic setting [Hawk1] by realizing C(M ) as an inductive limit of the
matrix algebras B(Hm ). We shall show that these inductive limits are arising very intrinsically from
a choice of embedding M ֒→ CPn−1 and that the construction works for any projective variety M if
we drop the prequantum condition (1.1) and instead choose h and ω to be related in a different way.
In fact we need not refer to Hermitian metrics or Kähler metrics for the construction of the inductive
limit, and the covariant symbol ς (m) and the Toeplitz maps ς˘(m) arise naturally from the very maps
ιm,l : B(Hm ) → B(Hl ) which defines the inductive system. Nevertheless it is easy to recover the
metrics h and ω such that ς (m) and ς˘(m) attains the same geometric meaning as before.
Thus we drop the prequantum condition (1.1) and instead look at the Hilbert spaces Hm obtained
from a sequence (ω, hm ) where the metric on Lm varies with m ∈ N0 , or equivalently a sequence
(ωm , h) where the Kähler metric varies with m; the important datum is the sequence H• = (Hm )m∈N0
of Hilbert spaces. We call H• a “projectively induced quantization” of (M, L) (again see §3 for details)
if H• is a subproduct system in the sense of [ShSo1], i.e.
Hl ⊂ Hm ⊗ Hl−m ,

∀m ≤ l ∈ N.

This is the condition which allows the construction of an inductive system of unital completely
positive maps
ιm,l : B(Hm ) → B(Hl ),
∀m ≤ l ∈ N0

such that C(M ) is recovered as a C ∗ -algebra as the limit of the matrix algebras B(Hm ) as m goes to
infinity.
An inductive system which recovers C(M ) could possibly be constructed also from a prequantum
quantization, but the inductive system will have less nice properties, depending on the geometry of
M . It would be interesting to study further if one could characterize (“stability”) properties of M
as existence of an inductive system of matrix algebras with certain properties (see Conjecture 1.2
below).
What is special to the case when M is a coadjoint orbit is that then the maps ιm,l intertwine
the tracial states. In that case Hawkins showed that one obtains C(M ) as a projective limit is well
[Hawk2]. He also showed that a similar construction works for general polarized manifolds if one uses
a prequantum quantization [Hawk2]. Our contribution is the description of these constructions on a
single Hilbert space, namely the Hilbert-space direct sum
M
Hm ,
HN :=
m∈N0

4

which (as will be discussed in much more detail in future work) can be realized as a Hilbert space of
analytic functions on a subvariety of the unit ball in Cn (cf. [DRS1, DRS2]). The space HN sits as a
subspace of the symmetric Fock space H∨N over H1 , and the point is that H∨N can be identified with
the so-called Drury–Arveson space which has a very central role in multivariable operator theory.
Our ongoing work uses the results of the present paper to study the geometry of (M, L), in particular
the stability of vector bundles over M , using operator theory in Drury–Arveson space.
The subproduct property of the sequence H• says precisely that HN is invariant under the backward
shifts on H∨N . The inductive and projective limits mentioned above encode the data of a “strict
quantization”, as needed to generalize the classical setting, but they are much more convenient than
just knowing that there is a strict quantization because they are constructed using the shift operators
on HN . The notion of subproduct systems and the associated operator algebras of shift operators
provide a machinery for explicit calculations that has previously been available mainly in the case of
CPn−1 , where Berezin quantization and fuzzy geometry has been successfully described in terms of
creation and annihilation operators (the unnormalized shift operators) (see e.g. [BDLMC]).

1.2 Algebraic geometry
There is an analogue of Berezin quantization in projective algebraic geometry saying that the vector
spaces H 0 (M ; Lm ) of algebraic sections of higher tensor powers of a very ample line bundle L over
a projective complex variety M ⊂ CPn−1 determine all coherent sheaves on M . Namely, take the
Abelian category gr(A) of finitely generated graded modules over the graded algebra
M
H 0 (M ; Lm ).
A=
m∈N0

Elements of A are not functions on the variety M . In order to pass to objects defined on M we have
to work modulo the modules which are finite-dimensional as vector spaces over C, by replacing the
homomorphism spaces Homgr(A) (E, F ) by
Homqgr(A) (E, F ) := lim Homgr(A) (E≥m , F ),
m→∞

L
where E≥m := l≥m El is a tail of a graded A-module E = k∈Z Ek . It was shown in [Serre2] that in
this way we obtain an Abelian category qgr(A) which is equivalent to the Abelian category coh(M ) of
coherent sheaves on M . This result is also the starting point for noncommutative projective
L algebraic
geometry [ArZh1], namely one starts with a finitely generated graded algebra A =
m∈N0 Am
satisfying less stringent assumptions than commutativity and one studies the category qgr(A) guided
by the geometric intuition from analogy with commutative algebraic geometry.
Our observation in §4 is that if we endow the subspaces Am ⊂ A by inner products such that
the resulting Hilbert spaces Hm form a subproduct system then the above inductive system can be
explicitly described by unital completely positive maps and is compatible with the inner products in
a sense (namely we obtain a generalized inductive
limit of C ∗ -algebras as described below). Instead
L
of A one considers a N0 -graded ring R = m∈N0 Rm which can be concretely described as a (non∗-closed) algebra of operators on the Fock space HN . The limit
L

0

B∞ := lim Endgr(R) (R≥m )
m→∞

exists for the same reason as in the case of A. We show that 0 B∞ coincides with the normally ordered
part of the algebraic “Cuntz–Pimsner core” of the subproduct system (for the definitions see §2). In
the commutative case it is the algebra of real-algebraic C-valued functions on the variety M ⊂ CPn−1
associated with H• . Moreover, there is a natural norm on 0 B∞ such that its completion B∞ is (in
the commutative case) the C ∗ -algebra C(M ) of continous functions on M .
The quotient category qgr(R) is (as will be discussed in another publication) in the commutative
case equivalent to the category of torsionfree modules over the sheaf of real-algebraic functions on the
variety M . From there it is easy to go to modules over the sheaf of continuous functions. Thus we are

5

discussing a continuous version of Serre’s theorem and thereby a continuous analogue of Artin–Zhang
approach to noncommutative projective geometry.
The ring A is contained as a graded subring of R,
Am ⊂ Rm ,

∀m ∈ N0 ,

and one can define a “holomorphic structure” on (the continuous extensions of) objects in qgr(R)
as an operator on modules over B∞ possessing certain properties. Then we are lead to the following
research problem:
Problem 1.1 (Noncommutative GAGA). Find examples of noncommutative N0 -graded algebras A
such that qgr(A) is equivalent to the holomorphic subcategory of qgr(R).
The works [DRS1, DRS2] can be regarded as an operator-theoretic approach to noncommutative
projective geometry using shift operators on Fock space. What we are doing here suggest that this
gives the analytic version of Artin–Zhang’s algebraic approach.

1.3 Operator algebra
The C ∗ -algebra B∞ is a special case of a “generalized inductive limit” of C ∗ -algebras in the sense of
[BlKi1]. What is special with the inductive system coming from a subproduct system is not only that
it is “NF”, i.e. defined by completely positive maps, but also that the underlying algebraic inductive
limit of sets is already an algebra.
A tracial state ω on a C ∗ -algebra such as B∞ can have finite-dimensional approximation properties of various strengths, e.g. “quasidiagonality”, “uniform quasidiagonality”, “amenability” and
“uniform amenability”; see [Brow1, §3]. These notions involve tracial states φm : B(Hm ) → C on
finite-dimensional matrix algebras such that ω is in some sense the limit of the φm ’s as m → ∞,
in that there are completely positive maps ς˘(m) : B∞ → B(Hm ) intertwining ω and φm up to some
error. In this case we call (˘
ς (m) )m∈N0 an explicit realization of the approximation property of ω.
Consider the case of a commutative smooth projective variety M , where as mentioned we shall
show that the inductive limit B∞ coincides with C(M ). Berezin quantization can be regarded as
an explicit realization of the quasidiagonality of states on C(M ), namely the states associated with
volume forms of Kähler metric on M . The point is not to show that some traces are quasidiagonal,
but to obtain an explicit realization where the approximating finite-dimensional tracial states φm :
B(Hm ) → C are defined on matrix algebras whose dimension nm = χ(OM (m)) depend on the
complex-analytic structure of M.
With a prequantum quantization H• of (M, L) one will not obtain a subproduct system unless
the quantization is “regular” in the sense of [CGR2]. However, Blackadar–Kirchberg’s notion of
generalized inductive limit is very general and one can probably still obtain C(M ) as such an inductive
limit, albeit in a weaker sense than as the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra of a subproduct system. If one
could characterize precisely the properties of such an inductive limit needed for the existence of a
constant scalar curvature Kähler metric in the class c1 (L), one could hope to find the correct stability
condition on the manifold (M, L) which characterizes the existence of such a metric.
By analogue with the Donaldson–Tian–Yau conjecture about the equivalence of the exstence of a
constant scalar curvature Kähler metric and some stability property (“K-stability”) [Don9, Don12,
Tian1, Tian2] we formulate the following speculative but suggesting conjecture:
Conjecture 1.2. There exists an approximation property (say “QK-stability”) of traces on C ∗ algebras (perhaps quasidiagonality or amenability) such that the following holds: If ω is a Kähler
form on a smooth projective variety M ⊂ CPn−1 then ω has constant scalar curvature if and only if
there is a prequantum quantization H• of ω which explictly realizes ω as a QK-stable state on C(M ).
The inductive and projective limits constructed in the present papers may serve as guidance for
less well-behaved structures associated with quantizations with prequantum condition. Our ongoing
work is more focused on showing that such a characterization is possible for the analogous problem
of stability of vector bundles (where the analogue of the Donaldson–Tian–Yau conjecture is known
to be true [LuTe1]).

6

1.4 Operator theory
L
Starting from any subproduct system H• = (Hm )m∈N0 one can form its Fock space HN := m∈N0 Hm ,
L
which is a subspace of the full Fock space H⊗N := m∈N0 H⊗m which is invariant under the backward
shift operators. The shift operators S1 , . . . , SL
n on HN commute pairwisely if and only if HN is
contained in the symmetric Fock space H∨N = m∈N0 H∨m , where H∨m denotes the mth symmetric
tensor power of the Hilbert space H = H1 = Cn . The symmetric Fock space H∨N can be identified
with a Hilbert space of analytic functions on the unit ball Bn ⊂ Cn , called the Drury–Arveson
space and usually denoted by Hn2 , in such a way that the shifts on H∨N identify with the operators
M1 , . . . , Mn on Hn2 acting by multiplication by the coordinate functions z1 , . . . , zn on Bn .
Subspaces of Hn2 which are invariant under the adjoint shifts M1∗ , . . . , Mn∗ (briefly, “quotient
modules” of Hn2 ) have a simple description generalizing that of the Beurling representation of quotient
modules of the Hardy space H12 = H 2 (S1 ) of the unit circle [McTr1]. The most basic open question
about these quotient modules is whether the following is true.
Conjecture 1.3 (Arveson’s conjecture). Let HN be a graded quotient module of the Drury–Arveson
space H∨N . Then the shift operators S1 , . . . , Sn on HN form an essentially normal n-tuple, i.e.
[Sj∗ , Sk ] ∈ K,

∀j, k = 1, . . . , n.

In the present paper we shall prove Conjecture 1.3 by operator-algebraic methods. Moreover, the
geometric interpretations discussed here lead to an alternative more geometric proof which we will
present in a separate paper.
The conjecture has been proven previously in several special cases by different means (see e.g.
[Arv8, Arv9, Doug4, DoWa2, DoWa4, EnEs1, Esch1, Kenn1, KeSh1, KeSh2, Sha3] and references
therein), and the proofs have provided great new insights in the structure of submodules and quotient
modules of Drury–Arveson space, Hardy space and Bergman space. It is probably not possible to
have essential normality for any quotient module, as counterexamples have been found e.g. in the
case of the Hardy space of the polydisk [Doug4], and one has to restrict attention to some special
subclass of quotient modules. In relation to projective geometry one only needs graded quotient
modules, which is why Conjecture 1.3 is very important there.
Let TH be the C ∗ -algebra generated by S1 , . . . , Sn and let OH be the quotient TH /K by the ideal
of compact operators. Then Conjecture 1.3 can be reformulated by saying that the C ∗ -algebra OH
is commutative. The algebras TH and OH both have a natural Z-grading due to the grading of HN .
Our proof of the essential normality of the tuple (S1 , . . . , Sn ) is based on the observation that the
(0)
degree-0 part OH of OH can be constructed as an inductive system of sets. The inductive system
is given by explicit unital completely positive maps ιm,l : B(Hm ) → B(Hl ) for m ≤ l ∈ N0 . To show
that the limit is a unital C ∗ -algebra it is therefore enough to show that the ιm,l ’s are “asymptotically
multiplicative”. To see this we forget about the Hilbert-space structure and regard the ιm,l ’s as maps
between matrix rings. Then we observe that these matrix rings all sit inside a bigger N0 -graded ring
R and that the inductive system is of a certain type which is known to have a ring structure on the
set-theoretic limit.
The importance of the Arveson conjecture comes from the fact that, if the C ∗ -algebra TH generated
by S1 , . . . , Sn on HN is commutative modulo compacts, we have a short exact sequence of C ∗ -algebras
0 → K → TH → C(S) → 0,

where S is a subset of the unit sphere S2n−1 in Cn . Taking the U(1)-invariant part of this sequence
one obtains
(0)
0 → Γ0 → TH → C(M ) → 0,

and M is a compact Kähler manifold endowed with a positive line bundle L with associated circle
(0)
bundle equal to S. The algebra TH acts on HN which, just as the ambient space Hn2 , has the
property that every invariant subspace under S1 , . . . , Sn has a “Beurling decomposition” [McTr1].
Such submodules give rise to coherent sheaves on M and sometimes to vector bundles over M . We
expect that vector bundles arising like this have certain stability properties not possessed by an
arbitrary vector bundle over M .

7

1.5 Quantum homogeneous manifolds
Smooth projective varieties include in particular all coadjoint orbits G/K and, going noncommutative, we observe that every compact matrix quantum group G defines a “noncommutative manifold”
G/K with properties resembling very much those of a coadjoint orbit. Our main aim is then to show
that the C ∗ -algebra C(G/K) can be recovered from a suitably chosen subproduct system H• via the
noncommutative version of strict quantization sketched above.
In fact the definition of G/K is very simple. Let G be a compact matrix quantum group with
defining unitary representation u ∈ Mn (C) ⊗ C(G). We let zj := u1,j for j = 1, . . . , n denote the
elements of the first row of u. Then C(G/K) is defined as the C ∗ -algebra generated by elements
of the form zj1 · · · zjm zk∗m · · · zk∗1 for all multi-indices (j1 , . . . , jm ) and (k1 , . . . , km ) of equal length.
We also denote by C(SG ) the C ∗ -algebra generated by z1 , . . . , zn (and refer to it as the “first-row
algebra”).
Suppose that the compact matrix quantum group G is such that every element of C(G/K) can be
“normally ordered”, in the sense that all zj∗ ’s are to the right of the zk ’s (this is a crucial assumption).
Assume also that the Haar state is faithful on C(G/K). As recalled in §6.1, every compact quantum
group G has a dual discrete quantum group Ĝ, and both G and Ĝ “act” on the C ∗ -algebra C(G).
Hence they also act on the subalgebra C(SG ).
Theorem 1.4. For each m ∈ N0 , let Hm be the Hilbert space spanned by products zj1 · · · zjm with
inner product coming from the Haar measure on G (the sequence of Hm ’s is the “G-subproduct system”
H• ). Then there are explicit G-Ĝ-biequivariant injections (“Berezin covariant symbol maps”)
(m)

: B(Hm ) → C(G/K)

ςG

and explicit surjections (“Toeplitz quantization maps”)
(m)

: C(G/K) → B(Hm )

ς˘G
(m)

(m)

such that ςG ◦ ς˘G
isomorphism

converges point-norm to the identity on C(G/K) as m → ∞. This effects an
C(SG ) ∼
= OH

of the first-row algebra C(SG ) with the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH of the subproduct system H• , and
this isomorphism is equivariant for the natural ergodic actions of G and its discrete dual group Ĝ.
(0)

Denoting by OH the U(1)-invariant part of OH under the gauge action, we also have
(0)

C(G/K) ∼
= OH ,
(0)

(1.2)
(0)

and it is the C ∗ -algebra OH which will occupy most of the paper. We will first realize OH as a
“generalized inductive limit” in the sense of [BlKi1], [Hawk1] (as in the case of a general subproduct
system as described before), and then as a generalized projective limit in the spirit of [Hawk1]. Then
we do the same thing for C(G/K) to obtain the desired isomorphism (1.2).
The quantization of coadjoint orbits is studied in detail in [Hawk1] and [Rie2]. Berezin quantization for quantum homogeneous spaces of compact quantum groups with tracial Haar state was
discussed in [Sain].
The idea of looking at the G-subproduct system was partially motivated by Woronowicz’ reconstruction of a compact matrix quantum group G from its irreducible representations [Wor3]. Since
H• only contains a subset of all irreducible representations (in general), we recover not C(G) but
C(SG ).
For a classical manifold M , with quantization defined by a line bundle L over M , elements
(k)
(m)
of OH are continuous sections of the line bundle L⊗k . The subspace Hm ⊂ OH consists of the
holomorphic sections of the line bundle. For M = G/K a homogeneous space, the Hm ’s are irreducible
(k)
(0)
representations of G. In general, the subspaces OH for k ∈ Z \ {0} are Hilbert modules over OH ,

8

and for a quantum homogeneous space M = G/K each Hm is an irreducible representation of G. In
this sense, OH is a kind of “Borel–Weil algebra” for G (cf. [Seg1, Thm. 14.1]).
We shall also compare our results with “noncommutative random walks” on duals of compact
(0)
quantum groups [Iz1, INT1, Iz4]. The Toeplitz core TH plays the role of Martin compactification
(0)
of a walk restricted to the “dual” of G/K while OH is the boundary of the walk. Recalling that
the simplest Cuntz–Pimsner algebras C(S2n−1 ) of functions on spheres behave like boundaries of the
corresponding Toeplitz algebras, these observations are not too surprising.
This shows that in the presence of time-reversal symmetry, one obtains a noncommutative random walk, not on the dual of a compact quantum group, but on the dual of a compact quantum
homogeneous space. In this way one can use results from the theory of noncommutative random
walks to study physically relevant quantum walks, even though these two notions of “walks” are a
priori completely unrelated. Most significant is the possibility to describe the infinite-time limit in
a mathematically rigorous way, as provided by the Martin boundary of a noncommutative random
walk (or rather, since we really end up with random walks on homogeneous spaces, one has the
dequantization manifold replacing the Martin boundary as the infinite-time limit).
Acknowledgment. The author thanks Adam Rennie for great comments, support and inspiration.
Many thanks also to Orr Shalit and Guy Salomon for finding an important error in an earlier version
of this paper. We thank Orr Shalit also for other remarks of great value.

2 Subproduct systems
2.1 Basic properties
In this paper we write N0 := N ∪ {0} = {0, 1, 2, . . . }.
Definition 2.1. [[ShSo1, Def. 6.2]] A subproduct system is a sequence H• = (Hm )m∈N0 of finitedimensional Hilbert space Hm such that H0 = C and
Hm+l ⊆ Hm ⊗ Hl ,

∀m, l ∈ N0 .

(2.1)

We shall always denote H1 by H and, throughout this paper, n ∈ N will always be the dimension
of H,
H∼
= Cn .
Example 2.2. Given a finite-dimensional Hilbert space H, we set Hm := H⊗m for each m and refer to
it as the “product system” associated with H. Another example of a subproduct system is obtained
by taking Hm := H∨m to be the mth symmetric power of H; this is the “symmetric subproduct
system”.
Definition 2.3. A subproduct system is commutative if Hm ⊆ H∨m for all m ∈ N0 .
Lemma 2.4. [[ShSo1, Lemma 6.1]] Let H• be a subproduct system. Then the projections pm :
H⊗m → Hm satisfy
pl (pm ⊗ pl−m )pl = pl = pl (pl−m ⊗ pm )pl
(2.2)
whenver m ≤ l.
Proof. Replacing l by l − m for m ≤ l, the condition (2.1) reads
Hl ⊆ Hm ⊗ Hl−m ,

∀m ≤ l ∈ N0 .

Writing (2.3) in terms of projections,
pl ≤ pm ⊗ pl−m ,
the result is clear.

9

(2.3)

Definition 2.5. The Fock space associated with a subproduct system H• is the Hilbert space
M
HN :=
Hm .
m∈N0

P
L
We regard HN as a subspace of full Fock space H⊗N := m∈N0 H⊗m and denote by pN = m∈N0 pm
the projection from H⊗N onto HN . Thus pN is the identity in B(HN ), just as pm is the identity in
B(Hm ).
Example 2.6. If H• = H⊗• is the product system over a fixed Hilbert space H then HN is the full
(or “Boltzmannian”) Fock space H⊗N over H.

Example 2.7. If H• = H∨• is theLfull commutative subproduct system then HN is the symmetric
(or “Bosonic”) Fock space H∨N := m∈N0 H∨m over H.

Notation 2.8. We denote by Chzi = Chz1 , . . . , zn i the algebra of polynomials in n freely commuting
variables. We denote by C[z] = C[z1 , . . . , zn ] the algebra of polynomials in n commuting variables.
P
For any polynomial f (z1 , . . . , zn ) = j1 ,...,jn fj1 ,...,jn z1j1 · · · znjn in Chz1 , . . . , zn i, evaluation on the
basis e1 , . . . , en for H = H1 defines an element in Fock space,
X
fj1 ,...,jn ej11 ⊗ · · · ⊗ ejnn ∈ HN ,
f (e1 , . . . , en ) :=
j1 ,...,jn

and f is homogeneous iff
f (e1 , . . . , en ) ∈ H⊗m ,

for some m ∈ N0 .

Lemma 2.9. Every subproduct system H• = (Hm )m∈N0 defines a homogeneous ideal in Chzi, where
n = dim(H). Conversely, every homogeneous ideal in Chzi corresponds to a subproduct system
[ShSo1, Prop. 7.2]. For commutative subproduct systems the same is true with C[z] instead [DRS1,
§2.3].
Sketch of proof. Given H• , define a homogeneous ideal I in Chzi by
I := {f ∈ Chzi|f (e1 , . . . , en ) ∈ H⊗m ⊖ Hm for some m ∈ N0 }.
Conversely, given a homogeneous ideal I, we associate the Hilbert spaces
Hm := H⊗m ⊖ {f (e1 , . . . , en )|f ∈ I (m) },
where I (m) is the degree-m component of I.

2.2 Toeplitz algebras
Having fixed a subproduct system H• , we shall always denote by S1 , . . . , Sn the operators on Fock
space HN defined by
Sk φ := pm+1 (ek ⊗ φ),
∀φ ∈ Hm

for all m ∈ N0 , where pm+1 : H⊗(m+1) → Hm+1 is the orthogonal projection. They are the compressions to HN of the left shifts ψ → ek ⊗ ψ on full Fock space H⊗N . For more about compressed
n-tuples of shift operators, see [Pop1], [Pop2], [ShSo1], [DRS1], [DRS2].
Definition 2.10. The Toeplitz algebra of a subproduct system H• is the unital C ∗ -algebra TH of
operators on HN generated by the shifts S1 , . . . , Sn .
The backward shifts on H⊗N preserves the subspace HN , so the adjoints S1∗ , . . . , Sn∗ of S1 , . . . , Sn
are just the restrictions to HN of the backward shifts on H⊗N .

10

Definition 2.11. The vacuum state on the Toeplitz algebra TH is the restriction ε̂ : TH → C of
the vector state on B(HN ) defined by the unit vector Ω ∈ H0 = C. That is,
ε̂(X) := hΩ|XΩi,

∀X ∈ B(HN ).

If p0 denotes the unit in B(H0 ) then
Xp0 = ε̂(X)p0 = p0 X,

∀X ∈ B(HN ).

(2.4)

Notation 2.12. Let F+
n be the free unital semigroup generated by n elements 1, . . . , n (the empty
+
word ∅ is the identity in F+
n ). We write a word k ∈ Fn as k = k1 · · · km and refer to |k| := m as the
length of k. For the shifts S1 , . . . , Sn and the basis vectors e1 , . . . , en we then write
Sk∗ := (Sk )∗ = Sk∗m · · · Sk∗1 ,

Sk := Sk1 · · · Skm ,

ek := ek1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ ekm ,

and similarly for other n-tuples of elements defined below. Finally, jk := j1 · · · jl k1 · · · km for j, k ∈ F+
n
with |j| = l and |k| = m.

2.2.1

The Toeplitz core

L
Let N = m m pm be the number operator on HN . It generates a unitary group on HN which
implements an action γ• of the circle group U(1) on TH ,
γt (Sk ) := eit Sk ,

∀eit ∈ U(1), k ∈ {1, . . . , n},

(2.5)

referred to as the gauge action on TH .
The gauge action (2.5) splits TH into the C ∗ -direct sum of the subspaces
(k)

TH

:= {T ∈ TH |γt (T ) = eikt T for all eit ∈ U(1)},

k ∈ Z.

(0)

The fixed-point subalgebra TH (the Toeplitz core) will be of great importance to us. It is generated
by polynomials in the shifts Sj and Sk∗ which are “homogeneous of degree zero” in the sense that
each term contains equally many forward shifts Sj as backward shifts Sk∗ .

2.2.2

The right shifts

In addition to the “sinister” shift Sk by the basis vector ek ∈ H, we shall need the “rectus” shift
Rk ψ := pm+1 (ψ ⊗ ek ),

∀ψ ∈ Hm , m ∈ N0

(2.6)

acting on the same Fock space HN . Note that Rk commutes with each Sj , and that Rk∗ commutes
with each Sj∗ , but [Rk , Sj∗ ] 6= 0.
The following formulas will be used extensively.
Lemma 2.13. For all m, l ∈ N with m ≤ l we have
X
X
Rr Rr∗
Sr Sr∗ H = pl =
l

Hence

X

|r|=m

and, in particular (m = 1),

Hl

.

|r|=m

|r|=m

n
X

k=1

Sr Sr∗ =

X

pl

l≥m

Sk Sk∗ = 1 − |ΩihΩ|.

11

(2.7)

∗
Proof. For r, s ∈ F+
n with |r| = m = |s| we have Sr Ss |Hl = pl (|er ihes |⊗pl−m )pl = pl (|er ihes |⊗pl−m )pl ,
so

 X
X
|er iher | ⊗ pl−m pl
Sr Sr∗ H = pl
l

|r|=m

|r|=m

= pl (pm ⊗ pl−m )pl = pl ,

and similarly for the right shifts.
From (2.7) we see that the vacuum projection p0 = |ΩihΩ| belongs to the Toeplitz algebra.
Considering multiplying p0 from both sides with different shift operators, it is a simple matter to
deduce the following.
Corollary 2.14. The Toeplitz algebra TH contains the C ∗ -algebra K of all compact operators on Fock
space HN as a norm-closed two-sided ideal.

2.2.3

Normal ordering

In §5.9 we will obtain the following important result about the Toeplitz algebra, which we state here
for emphasis.
Lemma 2.15 (Normal ordering). Let H• be a subproduct system. Let AH denote the norm-closed
(non-∗) algebra generated by the shifts S1 , . . . , Sn and the identity in B(HN ). Then
span(AH A∗H ) = TH .
In particular, span(AH A∗H ) is an algebra.

2.3 Cuntz–Pimsner algebras
Definition 2.16 ([Vis2, Cor. 3.2]). The Cuntz–Pimsner algebra of a subproduct system H• is
the quotient of the Toeplitz algebra TH by the ideal K of all compact operators on HN ,
OH := TH /K.
We denote by Z1 , . . . , Zn the generators of OH , i.e. the images of the shifts S1 , . . . , Sn in the
quotient. They satisfy the sphere relation
n
X

Zk Zk∗ = 1,

k=1

Pn
which suggests viewing OH as the “boundary” of TH ; in the latter holds k=1 Sk Sk∗ ≤ 1, as we saw
in (2.7).
The formula (2.5), but with Zk replacing Sk , defines the gauge action on OH , which gives a
splitting
M (k) k·k
OH
OH =
k∈Z

of OH into spectral subspaces for this U(1)-action.
Remark 2.17 (Known examples). The most straightforward example of a subproduct Cuntz–
Pimsner algebra is the Cuntz algebra On , obtained from H• = H⊗• . As a commutative example, OH
for the symmetric subproduct system H∨• was shown in [Arv6c] to be isomorphic to the C ∗ -algebra
C(S2n−1 ) of continuous functions on the unit sphere S2n−1 ⊂ Cn . Cuntz–Pimsner algebras coming
from monomial ideals were described in [KaSh1].
We can reformulate Conjecture 1.3 as a statement about Cuntz–Pimsner algebras:

12

Conjecture 2.18 (Arveson’s conjecture). For every commutative subproduct system H• ⊂ H•∨ , the
Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH is commutative.
(k)

For any subproduct system H• , the spectral subspaces OH for the gauge action on OH are Hilbert
(0)
∗
C -bimodules over the fixed-point subalgebra OH , with left and right inner products
hξ|ηiright := ξ ∗ η,

hξ|ηileft := ξη ∗

(2.8)

(k)

for ξ, η ∈ OH .

3 Review of quantization of projective varieties
Let us formulate Berezin quantization of complex submanifolds of projective n-space CPn−1 in terms
of subproduct systems, just to make it clear how the results of the subsequent sections relate to the
classical ones.

3.1 Berezin quantization with prequantum condition
Recall that Chow’s theorem says that a submanifold of projective space P[Cn ] = CPn−1 is a nonsingular (i.e. smooth) projective variety, i.e. the zero-set of some finitely generated homogeneous ideal
in C[z1 , . . . , zn ]. These manifolds can be characterized without even referring to CPn−1 (see Lemma
3.3 below), but for this we need to recall some complex geometry. A Kähler manifold is a pair
(M, ω) consisting of a complex manifold M and a closed nondegenerate 2-form ω on M which equals
the imaginary part of a Hermitian metric on M .
Remark 3.1 (Poisson bracket). The Kähler form ω is in particular a symplectic (i.e. closed and
nondegenerate) form, making M a symplectic manifold. The nondegeneracy of ω allows us to use
the inverse ω −1 to define a Poisson bracket on C ∞ (M ) by
{f, g} := ω j,k

∂f ∂g
,
∂xj ∂xk

(3.1)

if we denote by ω j,k the coefficients of ω −1 in local Darboux coordinates xj .
Recall that for a holomorphic line bundle L with a fixed choice of Hermitian metric h, there is
a unique connection, the “Chern connection”, which is compatible with both the metric and the
holomorphic structure in a suitable sense [Huy, Prop. 4.2.14]. If we locally represent h by a matrix¯ log h.
valued function, the curvature of this connection is given by ∂∂
Definition 3.2 ([BeSl1, §2.1]). A compact Kähler manifold (M, ω) is quantizable if there is a
¯ log h of the Chern
holomorphic Hermitian line bundle (L, h) over M such that the curvature ∂∂
connection satisfies the prequantum condition
√
¯ log h = ω.
(3.2)
−1∂∂
Then (L, h) gives a quantization of the Kähler manifold (M, ω).
Condition (3.2) is there to ensure ensures the following.
Lemma 3.3 ([Schl2], [BeSl1, §2.1]). Every quantization (L, h) of a compact Kähler manifold (M, ω)
gives an embedding of M as a submanifold of CPn−1 for some n ∈ N, and hence M can be regarded
as a projective algebraic variety (by Chow’s theorem). Conversely, every smooth projective algebraic
variety is a quantizable compact Kähler manifold.
Example 3.4 (The hyperplane bundle). The “tautological line bundle” over CPn−1 is the holomorphic line bundle, usually denoted by O(−1), whose fiber over a point in CPn−1 is the corresponding
line in Cn . The dual O(1) := O(−1)∗ of this line bundle is the hyperplane line bundle over CPn−1 .
The triple (CPn−1 , O(1), ωFS ), where ωFS is the Fubini–Study form and O(1) is equipped with the
Fubini–Study metric, is the prototypical example of a quantizable Kähler manifold (M, L, ω) [Schl1].

13

The embedding into CPn−1 mentioned in Lemma 3.3 requires a sufficiently positive line bundle,
and (3.2) says only that L is positive (“ample” ). It may therefore be necessary to use some tensor
power L⊗m of the line bundle L. However, by replacing L by L⊗m and rescaling the Kähler form ω
to mω we can, and shall, assume that L is itself sufficiently positive (“very ample”).
The important requirement in Lemma 3.3 is that M admits a Kähler metric, but we do not
need to choose one in order to an embedding of M into CPn−1 as a complex-analytic submanifold
(similarly we do not have the choose a Hermitian metric on L). Also, if we choose a Kähler metric ω
on M and a Hermitian metric h on L, so that we can embed M as a Kähler submanifold of CPn−1 ,
there is no need to require the prequantum relation (3.2) between h and ω; it is just the existence of
metrics satisfying the prequantum condition which is needed, to ensure that there is an ample line
bundle on M . Therefore, we will often speak of a polarized manifold, i.e. a pair (M, L) where M
is a compact Kähler manifold (with no choice of Kähler metric) and L is a positive line bundle on M
(which we shall assume very ample for convenience, with no choice of Hermitian metric specified).
Let (M, ω) be a compact Kähler manifold and let (L, h) be a Hermitian line bundle over M .
The space H 0 (M ; L) of global holomorphic sections of L is finite-dimensional and hence made into
a Hilbert space after fixing any inner product on H 0 (M ; L). In Berezin quantization one looks at
the limit of large m for the spaces H 0 (M ; L⊗m ) of sections of the tensor powers of L, and therefore
the inner products on these spaces should be comparable in some way. A consequence of the fact
that the Kähler form ω is symplectic is that ω d /d! (where d := dimC M ) is a volume form on M (the
“Liouville form”) and we can take the inner product
hφ|ψih,ω := md

ˆ

hm (φ(x), ψ(x))

M

ω(x)d
,
d!

∀ψ, φ ∈ H 0 (M, Lm ),

(3.3)

where hm is the Hermitian metric on L⊗m induced by h. Note that (3.3) is determined for all m by
the choice of inner product on H 0 (M ; L). If (L, h) is a quantization of (M, ω) then it is reasonable
to leave out either h or ω from the notation in h·|·ih,ω .
Example 3.5 (Sections of the hyperplane bundle). Recall the hyperplane line bundle O(1) over
P[H∗ ] introduced in Example 3.4. Fixing a basis for H∗ ∼
= Cn , the global holomorphic sections of
the mth tensor power O(m) of O(1) are identified with the degree-m homogeneous polynomials on
Cn . In particular, the space of holomorphic sections of O(1) is just the space H of continuous linear
functionals on H∗ . If we define Hm to be the Hilbert space of holomorphic sections of O(m) with
inner product (3.3) then for L = O(1) we simply have Hm = H∨m (symmetrized tensor product).
Thus, the Hm ’s form the full symmetric subproduct system (see Example 2.2).
Let (L, h) be a quantization of (M, ω) and endow H 0 (M ; Lm ) with the inner product (3.3). The
Hilbert space L2 (M ; L⊗m ) of all square-integrable sections of the line bundle L⊗m is much larger
than the holomorphic subspace H 0 (M ; Lm ). If Πm denotes the projection from L2 (M ; L⊗m ) to
H 0 (M ; Lm ) then every function f ∈ C(M ) defines an operator ς˘(m) (f ) on H 0 (M ; Lm ) by
ς˘(m) (f )φ := Πm (f φ),

∀φ ∈ H 0 (M ; Lm ),

(3.4)

i.e. acting as multiplication by f (recall that a section of a line bundle can be multiplied by continuous
functions to yield a new section) followed by projection back to H 0 (M ; Lm ) (the latter step is needed
since f is not holomorphic unless it is constant). In the case (L, h) is a quantization of (M, ω), we
have the following.
Proposition 3.6 ([BMS, Thms. 4.1,4.2, §5]). Let (L, h) be a quantization of a compact Kähler
manifold (M, ω) and define a structure of Hilbert space on H 0 (M ; Lm ) by (3.3). Then the collection
of endomorphism algebras EndC H 0 (M ; Lm ) and maps C ∞ (M ) ∋ f → ς˘(m) (f ) ∈ EndC H 0 (M ; Lm )
defined by (3.4) gives a strict quantization of the algebra C ∞ (M ) in the sense of [Lan1, Def. 1.1.1],
i.e. for all f, g ∈ C ∞ (M ) we have
(i) limm→∞ k˘
ς (m) (f )k = kf k (Rieffel condition),

(ii) limm→∞ k˘
ς (m) (f g) − ς˘(m) (f )˘
ς (m) (g)k = 0 (von Neumann condition),

14

(iii) limm→∞ km−1 [˘
ς (m) (f ), ς˘(m) (g)] − {f, g}k = 0 (Dirac condition),

and every operator in EndC H 0 (M ; Lm ) is of the form ς˘(m) (f ) for some f ∈ C ∞ (M ) [BMS, Prop.
4.2]. Here {·, ·} is the Poisson bracket (3.1).

For any volume form ω d /d! of (M, L), we have the associated Lebesgue space L2 (M, ω). The
algebra C(M ) identifies with a subspace of L2 (M, ω). Let ς (m) : B(Hm ) → C(M ) denote the adjoint
of ς˘(m) : C(M ) → B(Hm ) with respect to the L2 -inner product on L2 (M, ω) and the normalized
Hilbert-Schmidt inner product on B(Hm ).
For A ∈ B(Hm ), the function ς (m) (A) is also called the Berezin covariant symbol of A, and if
A = ς˘(m) (f ) then f is a (non-unique) contravariant symbol of A. The map
ς (m) ◦ ς˘(m) : C(M ) → C(M )
is the Berezin transform at level m. Similar to the famous expansion of the integral kernel for the
Bergman projections Πm [Zeld1], the Berezin transform ς (m) ◦ ς˘(m) has an asymptotic expansion at
large m [KaSc1].
Since the Toeplitz maps ς˘(m) are surjective by Proposition 3.6, their adjoints ς (m) are injective.
Hence we may regard the B(Hm )’s as embedded in C ∞ (M ) as vector subspaces. One may then ask if
it is possible to use the covariant symbols to approximate the whole C ∗ -algebraic structure of C(M )
by that of finite-dimensional matrix algebras B(Hm ).
We shall see that by changing the definition of the Toeplitz maps ς˘(m) we can in fact obtain C(M )
as an inductive limit for any polarized manifold (M, L).

3.2 Projectively induced quantization
The vector spaces H 0 (M ; Lm ) equipped with the inner products (3.3) do not always form a subproduct system. For that one has to choose ω and h appropriately, and for most polarized manifolds
(M, L) one cannot choose them to satisfy the prequantum condition (3.2) at the same time.
If we do not require that h and ω are related as in (3.2) then any two of (i) an inner product on
H 0 (M ; L), (ii) a Hermitian metric on L with positive curvature and (iii) a volume form ω d /d! on M
determines the third via (3.3). By the Calabi–Yau theorem [Yau1], any volume form on M can be
obtained as ω d /d! for some ω in the cohomology class c1 (L) (for any choice of polarization L, after
normalization of the volume form). If we do not require h to have positive curvature then there are
infinitely many Hermitian metrics h giving rise to the same inner product via the same volume form
(see [LMS1, Eq. (3.25)]).
For us, the choice of inner product h·|·i on H 0 (M ; L) will be the important input, and it will not
matter which Hermitian metric on L and volume form on M was used to define it.
Given a polarized manifold (M, L), a choice of basis for the n-dimensional vector space H 0 (M ; L)
allows use to embed M into the projectivization P[H 0 (M ; L)∗ ] of the vector space dual to H 0 (M ; L).
The elements of the basis for H 0 (M ; L) become the restrictions of the homogeneous coordinate functions z1 , . . . , zn on P[H 0 (M ; L)∗ ] to the embedded M . Choosing an inner product h·|·i on H 0 (M ; L)
we obtain an n-dimensional Hilbert space H which after a choice of orthonormal basis identifies with
Cn , and so M embeds into P[H∗ ] = CPn−1 . Whatever inner product on H 0 (M ; L) we used to define
the Hilbert space H, it will produce the symmetric subproduct system H∨• of holomorphic sections of
the hyperplane bundle on P[H∗ ] as in Example 3.5. What Lemma 3.3 says is that the ideal determined
by the algebraic relations among the zj ’s, appearing when we restrict them to the submanifold M ,
is homogeneous. The subspaces H 0 (M ; Lm ) ⊂ H 0 (M ; L)∨m of holomorphic sections of the tensor
powers of L endowed with the inner product as a subspace of H∨m will be denoted by
Hm = (H 0 (M ; L), h·|·i).
Here h·|·i is thus the inner product (3.3) in the special case when ω and h are the restrictions to M of
the Fubini–Study metrics on P[H∗ ], depending only on the inner product on H 0 (M ; L) which defines
the one-particle Hilbert space H. We set H0 := C.

15

We therefore have a description of polarized manifolds (M, L) with the extra datum of an inner
product on H 0 (M ; L) as a collection of Hilbert spaces Hm satisfying (2.1) with Hm ⊆ H∨m , where ∨
is the symmetrized tensor product (recall Lemma 2.9). The subproduct system H• is obtained from
H∨• by quotiening out by the ideal in C[z1 , . . . , zn ] which defines the embedded M .
Corollary 3.7. Every commutative subproduct system H• = (Hm )m∈N0 (see Definition 2.3) determines (via its associated homogeneous ideal in C[z1 , . . . , zn ]) a polarized manifold (M, L) with a fixed
structure of Hilbert space on H 0 (M ; L). Conversely, every such datum (M, L, h·|·i) determines a
commutative subproduct system.
We stress that for obtaining the subproduct system H• , the inner product on H 0 (M ; L) is arbitrary;√we do not require h and ω in (3.3) to satisfy the pre-quantum condition. Even if we did require
¯ log h, the inner product on Hm ⊂ H∨m for m ≥ 2 would in general differ from the inner
ω = −1∂∂
product h·|·ih defined by the initial ω and h.
Lemma 3.8. Let (M, L) be a polarized manifold with d := dimC M . Then for any inner product
h·|·i on H 0 (M ; L), there exists a unique volume form on M , which we can express as ω d for a
Kähler metric in the class c1 (L), such that h·|·i is ω d -balanced in the sense of [Don3, §2.2], i.e. if
Z1 , . . . , Zn are the homogeneous coordinates
on M ⊂ P[H∗ ] associated with any orthonormal basis for
Pn
0
H = (H (M ; L), h·|·i), normalized to k=1 Zk Zk∗ = 1 ∈ C ∞ (M ), then
1
vol(M, L)

where vol(M, L) :=

´

M

ˆ

M

Zj∗ Zk

δj,k
ωd
=
,
d!
n

∀j, k = 1, . . . , n,

ω d /d!.

Proof. The statement follows from the Calabi–Yau theorem [Yau1] and the fact that every polarized
manifold (M, L) admits a unique ω d -balanced metric for every volume form ω d on M [BLY1], [Don3,
§2.2] (equivalently, every line bundle is stable and from this it follows that every very ample line
bundle is “balanced as a line bundle” in the sense of [Wa1]).
To say that (M, L) is balanced as a polarized manifold [Don1] means precisely that there exists a
Hilbert space structure H on H 0 (M ; L) such that the volume form ω d in Lemma 3.8 is the restriction
to M of the Fubini–Study volume form on P[H∗ ]. Not every polarized manifold is balanced, and so in
general one cannot form a subproduct system from a quantization (L, h) of a compact Kähler manifold
(M, ω) in the sense of the last section. In fact that would require (M, Lm ) to be balanced for each
m ∈ N, in which case one says that the quantization is regular [CGR2]. The only polarized manifolds
known to admit a regular quantization are coadjoint orbits; cf. [ArLo1]. Since the subproduct
condition clearly will lead to a stronger kind of quantization (as will be shown in this paper), to be
able to use it for any polarized manifold we therefore consider a new kind of quantization.
We shall see that the normalized traces on the B(Hm )’s converge to a faithful state ω on C(M ),
which we call the limit state of the subproduct system H• .
Definition 3.9. A projectively induced quantization of a polarized manifold (M, L) is the datum
of a subproduct system H• ⊆ H∨• associated with some choice of inner product h·|·i on H 0 (M ; L)
together with the covariant and contravariant symbol maps specified by H• . That is, we define
ς (m) : B(Hm ) → C(M ) as the Berezin covariant symbol map (see e.g. [?]) and we take the Toeplitz
map ς˘(m) : C(M ) → B(Hm ) to be the adjoint of ς (m) with respect to the limit state ω and the
normalized trace on B(Hm ).
Remark 3.10. The terminology in Definition 3.9 is slightly nonstandard unless (M, L) is balanced;
indeed, (M, L) is a balanced polarized manifold (in the sense of [Don1]) if and only if there exists a
¯ log h) is projectively induced for
Hermitian metric h on L such that the quantization (L, h) of (M, ∂∂
0
some choice of inner product on H (M ; L). In that sense the term “projectively induced” appeared in
[CGR1] (it says precisely that the epsilon function discussed there is constant at each level, i.e. that
we have a “regular” quantization in the sense of [CGR2]). In the less restricted sense of Definition 3.9,
which works for any polarized manifold (M, L) since we do not require the prequantization condition,

16

the families covariant symbols maps associated with projectively induced quantizations were referred
to as “Berezin–Bergman quantizations” in [LMS1, §5] (this is the only work we know of where it has
been discussed for not necessarily balanced manifolds). In order to choose Toeplitz operators one
needs
An explicit formula for the covariant symbol map ς (m) is easy to write down; see Theorem 4.15.
In order to define Toeplitz operators one also needs to choose a state ω : C(M ) → C. The choice of
state ω is very important if one wants the Toeplitz maps ς˘(m) to give a strict quantization. We will
show that there is a canonical choice of ω, appearing as the limit of the normalized traces on the
B(Hm )’s, which produces a strict quantization of (M, L) with covariant symbols determned by the
subproduct system H• . We will show that a projectively induced quantization gives
(i) C(M ) as the “generalized inductive limit” of the C ∗ -algebras B(Hm ), and

(ii) a strict quantization of (M, L).

In this paper we will mainly discuss (ii) in the case of (quantum) homogeneous manifolds, but due
to our results concerning point (i) in the next sections we can fill in the details to obtain (ii) for
any polarized manifold. The latter will be very important in future work where more details will be
given.
Both (i) and (ii) could be satisfied without the subproduct condition. However, the inductive
system in (i) has very nice properties in the subproduct case which strictly relies on this assumption.
Concerning (ii) it is not necessarily the case that the subproduct condition gives something extra.
Rather, the important fact is that one can have a strict quantization at the same time as an inductive
system.

3.3 The circle bundle
Recall the Toeplitz quantization maps ς˘(m) : C(M ) → B(Hm ) (for definiteness and later relevance we
will focus on the case of a projectively induced quantization). We can assemble them into a single
map
Y
B(Hm ),
(3.5)
ς˘ : C(M ) →
m∈N0

∗

where the C -algebra on the right-hand side is the C ∗ -direct product.
Let L∗ be the dual line bundle of L. Under the embedding of M into CPn−1 , when L becomes the
restriction of the hyperplane line bundle, L∗ becomes the restriction of the tautological line bundle.
Denote by
SM := {ζ ∈ L∗ | kζk = 1}
(3.6)

the total space of the associated principal U(1)-bundle. The U(1)-action on SM induces a Z-grading
C(SM ) =

M

k·k

C(SM )(k)

k∈Z

of the C ∗ -algebra of continuous functions on SM , with C(SM )(0) = C(M ) and more generally
C(SM )(k) = Γ(M ; Lk )
as vector spaces, where Γ(M ; Lm ) is the space of all global continuous sections of Lk . The strongly
Z-graded algebraic structure on C(SM ) comes from the C(M )-module structure on each Γ(M, Lm )
and the tensor operation
Γ(M ; Lj ) ⊗C(SM ) Γ(M ; Lk ) = Γ(M ; Lj+k ).
The ∗-operation on C(SM ) is obtained by endowing each module Γ(M, Lk ) with the structure of
a Hilbert module given by hk , where h is the Fubini–Study Hermitian metric on L. That is, the

17

C ∗ -algebra C(SM ) is generated by the homogeneous coordinate functions Z1 , . . . , Zn on M ⊂ CPn−1
satisfying
n
n
X
X
Zk Zk∗ = 1 =
Zk∗ Zk .
k=1

k=1

These “sphere” relations are a manifestation of the fact that SM is nothing but the preimage of M
under the map S2n−1 → CPn−1 which defines projective space. Thus we can make an identification
SM ⊂ S2n−1 .

Now let ω : C(M ) → C be any faithful state. It extends canonically to a faithful state on C(SM )
by setting
ω(Zj Zk∗ ) := 0,
∀j, k ∈ F+
n , |j| 6= |k|.
L
k·k
As just mentioned, we have C(SM ) = k∈Z Γ(M ; Lk ) as a C ∗ -algebra if we endow each Γ(M, Lk )
with the metric hk . The GNS space of ω is the L2 -space L2 (S, ω) of ω-square-integrable functions
on S, and the closed subspace H 2 (S, ω) spanned by the coordinate functions Z1 , . . . , Zn on S is a
Hardy-type space.
2
Fock space HN are completions of the homogeneous coordinate ring A =
L Both H (S, ω) and the
n−1
A
of
M
⊂
CP
in such a way that elements of Am are orthogonal to elements of Al
m
m∈N0
whenever m 6= l. If M = G/K is a coadjoint orbit and H• is a regular quantization of G/K then one
simply has (see the proof of Lemma 6.30)
hψ|ϕiL2 =

1
hψ|ϕi.
dim Hm

So in this case Fock space can be embedded into H 2 (SM ),
h·|·i
M
Hm
⊂ H 2 (SM ) ⊂ L2 (SM ).
HN =
m∈N0

In general the relation between HN and H 2 (SM , ω) is more involved. Hence H 2 (SM , ω) is far from
sitting inside H 2 (S2n−1 , ωFS ) as a coinvariant subspace. For this reason, the Fock space HN is better
suited for studying how well the geometric properties of M are compatible with an embedding
M ֒→ CPn−1 and the associated pullback quantities.
Suppose now that ω is the state on C(SM ) associated with a Kähler form on M (denoted by the
same symbol ω), and let Π : L2 (SM , ω) → HN be the orthogonal projection. Then, with ς˘ as in (3.5),
we have
ς˘(f )ψ = Π(f ψ),
∀ψ ∈ HN

if we identify f ∈ C(M ) with the multiplication operator it defines on L2 (SM , ω). Then f is just the
contravariant symbol of the operator ς˘(f ) in the general sense of [Bere3]. The interior of SM (the
disk bundle) is a bounded symmetric domain and Berezin quantization on spaces such as SM has
been studied even more than in the setting of compact Kähler manifolds, see e.g. [UnUp1], [Bere2].
The circle bundle comes with the structure of a Cauchy–Riemann manifold, the details of which
can be found in [Schl1, §2], [Zeld1, §2].
We can define the Berezin transform and the covariant symbol of an operator on HN , just as we
did on the components Hm , using the fact that HN is a reproducing kernel Hilbert space. Again the
covariant symbol map ς is the adjoint of ς˘. In the noncommutative setting we will just calculate the
adjoint of ς˘ and take that as the definition of the covariant symbol map.

3.4 Singular varieties
We have seen that Berezin quantization of quantizable Kähler manifolds is really the quantization
of smooth projective varieties. It was suggested in [Schl2] that it may be possible to quantize also
singular (non-smooth) projective varieties in the same fashion. We shall see that this is in fact so:
it will be covered by the constructions in the next two sections, as the case when the subproduct
system H• is commutative (Corollary 5.35).

18

4 Inductive limits
Recall [ArMa1, Def. 1.1.11] that a sequence (Bm )m∈N0 of ∗-algebras Bm forms an “inductive system”
if there are ∗-homomorphisms ιm,l : Bm
S → Bm+l for each m ≤ l, and that the algebraic inductive
limit of such a sequence is the algebra m∈N0 Bm obtained as the quotient of the algebra of eventually
constant sequences of elements in the Bm ’s,
n
o
Y
(bj )j∈N0 ∈
Bj ∃m ∈ N0 such that bj = bm for all j ≥ m ,
j∈N0

S
by its ideal of sequences (bj )j∈N0 which are eventually 0. If each Bm is a C ∗ -algebra, m∈N0 Bm can
be completed in a canonical C ∗ -norm to obtain a C ∗ -algebra which, if the ιm,l ’s are injective, can be
S
k·k
identified with the non-disjoint union m∈N0 Bm [ArMa1, §1.2].
It was observed in [Hawk1] that the sequence of algebras Bm := B(Hm ) arising in quantization
has a structure resembling that of an inductive system, although the map from Bm to Bm+1 is
not a homomorphism in the category of C ∗ -algebras. If we want to obtain a C ∗ -algebra C(M ) of
continuous functions on a manifold as an inductive limit of finite-dimensional matrix algebras, then
requiring Bm ⊂ Bm+1 says by definition that C(M ) is an AF algebra. This forces M to be totally
disconnected. Hence we must relax the notion of inductive limit.

4.1 Relaxed definition of inductive limits
Blackadar and Kirchberg introduced a more general inductive-limit-type construction [BlKi1]. Although never pointed out in the literature, the system of finite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras B(Hm )
obtained from a projective quantization (M, ω, L) fits perfectly into their framework. This is most
apparent in [Hawk1] where similar notions were introduced independently. We will follow the notation
of [Hawk1] as closely as possible.
Notation 4.1. If B• = (Bm )m∈N0 is a sequence of C ∗ -algebras, we write
Y
Bm
Γb (B• ) =
m∈N0

for the full C ∗ -direct product of the Bm ’s, i.e. the set of sequences X• = (Xm )m∈N0 of elements
Xm ∈ Bm with finite supremum norm
kX• k := sup kXm kBm < ∞.
m∈N0

The multiplication and ∗-operation in Γb (Bm ) is pointwise. We also write
Γ0 (B• ) =

M

m∈N0

Bm

for the C ∗ -direct sum, the closed two-sided ideal in Γb (B• ) consisting of the sequences converging
to zero in norm. We simply write Γb := Γb (B• ) etc. if it is clear which sequence B• it concerns. We
let
π : Γb → Γb /Γ0
be the quotient map
Since we will only deal with a special kind of the “generalized inductive systems” defined in [BlKi1]
(namely the “NF” ones), we will simply refer to them as “inductive systems”. See also [BrOz1, §11].
Definition 4.2. An inductive system is a sequence (B• , ι• ) of full matrix algebras Bm = Mk(m) (C)
and unital completely positive maps ιm,l : Bm → Bm+l for l ≥ m (with ιm,m := id) satisfying
ιm,l = ιr,l ◦ ιm,r ,

19

if m ≤ r ≤ l

(4.1)

and which are asymptotically multiplicative in the sense that for all A, B ∈ B(Hm ), ε > 0, there
are r ≤ l such that
kιr,l (ιm,r (A)ιm,r (B)) − ιm,l (A)ιm,l (B)k < ε.
(4.2)
The inductive limit of an inductive system (B• , ι• ) is the C ∗ -algebra
B∞ ⊂ Γb (B• )/Γ0 (B• )
generated by the elements
ς (m) (A) := π((ιl (A))l≥m ),

A ∈ B(Hm )

(4.3)

for all m ∈ N0 , where π : Γb → Γb /Γ0 is the quotient map.

Remark 4.3 (Norm). A norm on the quotient C ∗ -algebra Γb /Γ0 is given by
kπ(X• )k = lim sup kXm k,

∀X• ∈ Γb ,

m→∞

and this norm satisfies the C ∗ -identity, hence it is the unique C ∗ -norm on Γb /Γ0 . Moreover, since
the ιm,l ’s are norm-decreasing,
lim sup kς (m) (A)k = lim kιm,l (A)k,
l→∞

m→∞

∀A ∈ B(Hm ),

so the norm on B∞ is just the “norm-at-infinity” of π −1 (B∞ ).
It follows that the maps

ς (m) : Bm → B∞

(4.4)

(m)

are completely positive, and we refer to ς
as the covariant Berezin symbol map at level m.
The motivation for this terminology will become clear below. Due to (4.1), the covariant symbol
maps satisfy
ς (l) ◦ ιm,l = ς (m) ,
∀m ≤ l ∈ N0 .
(4.5)

We may say that a sequence A• ∈ Γb is eventually constant under ι•,• if there is a large enough
m ∈ N0 such that Al = ιr,l (Ar ) for all l ≥ r ≥ m. Then B∞ is the image under π of the norm closure
of the algebra of eventually constant sequences.
Remark 4.4 (Asymptotic multiplicativity). The condition (4.2) is chosen precisely to ensure that
ς (m) (A)ς (m) (B) belongs to the C ∗ -algebra B∞ for all A, B ∈ B(Hm ), without requiring it to be close
to ς (m) (AB). Conversely, if ς (m) (A)ς (m) (B) belongs to B∞ for all A and B then each ς (m) (A)ς (m) (B)
is an eventually constant sequence, so (4.2) must hold.
Remark 4.5 (Continuous fields). Suppose that B(•) is a continuous field of matrix algebras over
N0 ∪ {∞}. For each A ∈ B(∞), thereQis a continuous section x → A(x) of B(•) with A(∞) = A,
and this section
L defines an element of m∈N0 B(m). Two sections evaluating to A at ∞ differ by an
element in m∈N0 B(m). Hence [BlKi1, Prop. 2.2.3]
 Y
. M

B(∞) ⊂
B(m)
B(m) .
m∈N0

m∈N0

In fact, a C ∗ -algebra is an inductive limit (in the sense of Definition 4.2) if and only if it is a nuclear
separable C ∗ -algebra which is of the form B(∞) for some continuous field of matrix algebras over
N0 ∪ {∞} [BlKi1, Thm. 5.2.2].
Remark 4.6 (Quasi-diagonality). If a C ∗ -algebra B∞ is an inductive limit in the sense of Definition
4.2, there exists a short-exact sequence
0 −→ K −→ D −→ B∞

which is an “essential quasi-diagonal extension” of B∞ , meaning that D is a C ∗ -algebra of quasidiagonal operators containing the C ∗ -algebra K of compact operators as an essential ideal. In fact,
such an extension of a C ∗ -algebra B∞ exists if and only if B∞ can be embedded into Γb (B• )/Γ0 (B• )
for some sequence of full matrix algebras Bm [BlKi1].

20

Remark 4.7 (Nuclearity). Since B∞ is nuclear, the Choi–Effros lifting theorem [Blac1, IV.2.3.4]
says that the identity mapping id : B∞ → B∞ can be lifted to a unital completely positive map
ς˘ : B∞ → Γb such that if
ς˘(m) (f ) := ς˘(f )pm ∈ B(Hm ),

∀f ∈ B∞ ,

then the sequence ς (m) ◦ ς˘ converges in the point-norm topology to id : B∞ → B∞ . We shall calculate
ς˘ and its inverse ς explicitly in §5.8.

4.2 Inductive limits from subproduct systems
Lemma 4.8. Let H• be a subproduct system and define completely positive maps ιm,l : Bm → Bl by
ιm,l (A) := pl (A ⊗ 1H⊗(l−m) )pl ,

∀A ∈ B(Hm ),

where pl : H⊗l → Hl is the projection. Then for all A ∈ B(Hm ) we have the formulae
X
Rk ARk∗ H
ιm,l (A) =
l

(4.6)

(4.7)

|k|=l−m

=

X

Aj,k Sj Sk∗

Hl

(4.8)

|j|=m=|k|

where Rk is the right shift by the vector ek as in (2.6) and Aj,k := hej |Aek i.
Proof. Formula (4.8) is immediate from
Sj Sk∗ |Hl = pl (|pm ej ihpm ek | ⊗ 1Hl−m )pl .
Similarly, the expression (4.7) is deduced from straightforward calculations.
Theorem 4.9. Every subproduct system H• defines a generalized inductive system (B• , ι•,• ) by setting
Bm := B(Hm ) and letting ιm,l : Bm → Bl be as in (4.6).
Proof. It is clear that each ιm,l : Bm → Bl is unital and completely positive. For m ≤ r ≤ l and
A ∈ B(Hm ) we have
ιr,l ◦ ιm,r (A) = ιm,l (pr (A ⊗ 1H⊗(r−m) )pr ) = pl (pr (A ⊗ 1H⊗(r−m) )pr ⊗ 1H⊗(l−r) )pl
= pl (A ⊗ 1H⊗(l−m) )pl ,
where the last equality is due to (2.2). That is, the coherence condition (4.1) holds.
It remains to show that ι•,• is asymptotically multiplicative, i.e. that it satisfies (4.2). We have

ιr,l (ιm,r (A)ιm,r (B)) = ιr,l pr (A ⊗ 1)pr (B ⊗ 1)pr


= pl pr (A ⊗ 1)pr (B ⊗ 1)pr ⊗ 1 pl


= pl (A ⊗ 1)pr (B ⊗ 1) ⊗ 1 pl ,

so it is the failure of A ⊗ 1 to commute with the projection pr which spoils multiplicativity. It seems
hard to show directly from norm estimates that the maps (4.6) satisfy the asymptotic multiplicativity
condition (4.2). We shall instead obtain that by showing that the set of elements (4.3) forms an
algebra.
Consider the positively graded algebraic part R of the Toeplitz algebra TH , i.e. the N0 -graded
ring
M
M (m)
R=
Rm :=
TH .
m∈N0

21

m∈N0

Denote by Gr(R) the Abelian category of Z-graded right R-modules, with morphisms
L the gradingpreserving morphisms in the category of R-modules. Write R≥m for the R-module l≥m Rl . Then
it is straightforward to see that
EndGr(R) (R≥m ) = B(Hm )
as rings. Indeed, we have the left R-action on R≥m and the grading-preseving elements can all be
obtained by taking linear combinations of the elements Sj Sk∗ with |j| = m = |k|. Namely, the operator
Sj Sk∗ on HN is the direct sum T ⊕ 0 of an operator T ∈∈ B(H≥m ) and the zero operator 0 ∈ B(H<m ).
So Sj Sk∗ can be viewed as an operator of the R-module R≥m , and Sj Sk∗ is right R-linear because it
acts by multiplication from the left. Now the family (Sj Sk∗ )|j|=m=|k| forms an overcomplete set of
matrix units in B(Hm ), so their C-linear span identifies with B(Hm ). We have an inductive system
EndGr(R) (R≥m ) ∋ X|H≥m → Y |R≥l ∈ EndGr(R) (R≥l ),

∀m ≤ l ∈ N0

obtained by restriction to shorter tails R≥l ⊂ R≥m . From Equation (4.8) we see that this is precisely the algebraic inductive system underlying ιm,l : B(Hm ) → B(Hl ), under the identification
EndGr(R) (R≥m ) = B(Hm ).
By [Sten1, §IX.1] (see also [ArZh1, Example 5.4]), the algebraic inductive limit
0

B∞ = lim EndGr(R) (R≥m )
m→∞

is a ring (and an algebra over C since the maps ιm,l are C-linear). Therefore the norm closure
B∞ of 0 B∞ is an algebra as well. In particular, the asymptotic multiplicativity condition (4.2) is
satisfied.
Thus, subproduct systems give rise to generalized inductive limits of C ∗ -algebras with the special
property that the algebraic direct limit 0 B∞ is already an algebra (no need for norm closure). Still,
the asymptotic multiplicativity condition (4.2) cannot be formulated in a weaker fashion even for
subproduct systems, since the set of eventually constant sequences under ι•,• is only an algebra after
taking norm closure.
(0)
Our aim is to identify the inductive limit B∞ with the Cuntz–Pimsner core OH . For that we
need a lemma.
Q
Lemma 4.10. Let π −1 (B∞ ) be the norm closure of the subset of m B(Hm ) consisting of sequences
which are eventually constant under the coherent system ι•,• defined by (4.6). Then π −1 (B∞ ) coin(0)
cides with the normally ordered part of the Toeplitz core TH . Hence the normally ordered part of
(0)
(0)
TH is an algebra, and must coincide with all of TH , so
(0)

π −1 (B∞ ) = TH .
In this way we have proven Lemma 2.15.
(0)

Proof. It is clear that every normally ordered element of TH defines a sequence A• = (Am )m∈N0 of
operators Am ∈ B(Hm ) with ιm,l (Am ) = Al for sufficiently large m ≤ l. For example,
Y
Sj Sk∗ = (Sj Sk∗ |Hm )m∈N0 ∈
B(Hm ).
m∈N0

Suppose now that A = (Am )m∈N0 is any element of
(0)
TH

Q

m∈N0

B(Hm ) which is eventually constant.

Since B(Hm ) is contained in
for each m, we may for simplicity just as well look at the case
where ιr,l (Ar ) = Al for all r ≤ l for some r ∈ N0 while Am = 0 for m ≤ r. Then (4.8) in Lemma 4.8
shows that A is a combination of shift operators.
From the fact that B∞ is an algebra we have that π −1 (B∞ ) is an algebra, whence the last
statement.

22

Remark 4.11. Let B(•) be the continuous field of C ∗ -algebras over N0 ∪{∞} such that the fiber over
m ∈ N is B(m) = B(Hm ) and the fiber over ∞ is B(∞) = B∞ , the inductive limit (cf. Remark 4.5).
(0)
Then Lemma 4.10 says that TH is the algebra of continuous sections of this field. For commutative
case see also [Hawk2, Thm. 3.3].
(0)

Theorem 4.12. Let H• be a subproduct system and let OH denote the U(1)-invariant part of the
Cuntz–Pimsner algebra of H• . Then we have
(0)
OH ∼
= B∞ ,

where the right-hand side is the inductive limit defined by the inductive system ι•,• in (4.6).
(0)

Proof. The Toeplitz core TH is the norm closure of linear combinations of elements of the form
Sj Sk∗ with |j| = |k| as well as their products with the vacuum projection p0 = |ΩihΩ|. The elements
(0)
which are products with |ΩihΩ| belong to Γ0 = K ∩ TH . Hence,
(0)

(0)

(0)

(0)

B∞ = TH /Γ0 = TH /(K ∩ TH ) = OH ,
as asserted.
Remark 4.13. The quasi-diagonal extension of B∞ mentioned in Remark 4.6 can now be taken as
(0)
D = TH + K (cf. [Blac1, V.4.2.16]).

4.3 Cuntz–Pimsner algebras from inductive limits
For m > 0, let H−m := Hm denote the conjugate Hilbert space of Hm . For all k ∈ Z we can consider
the B(Hm )-module
(k)
Em
:= B(Hm , Hm+k ),
(k)

(k)

(k)

and the maps ιm,l : Em → El

defined by

(k)

ιm,l (X) :=

X

Rr XRr∗

Hl

,

|r|=l−m
(k)

(k)
∀X ∈ Em
.

(k)

We define the C ∗ -algebras Γb (E• ) and Γ0 (E• ) in the same way as in Notation 4.1 and we denote
(k)
(k)
(k)
by π (k) : Γb (E• ) → Γb (E• )/Γ0 (E• ) the quotient map.
0 (k)
Define E
to be the vector space consisting of all elements of the form


(k)
ς (m,k) (X) := π (k) ιm,l (X) l≥m ,

(k)
X ∈ Em

(0)
for all m ∈ N0 . In particular, 0 E (0) ≡ 0 B∞ is the algebraic part of B∞ ≡ E (0) ∼
= OH . Each 0 E (k) is
0
a module over B∞ . The linear span of

B∞ 0 E (k) := {f ψ|f ∈ B∞ , ψ ∈ 0 E (k) }
is a module over B∞ , which we denote by E (k) .

Theorem 4.14. The Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH is isomorphic to the C ∗ -algebra generated by E (1)
and B∞ . It allows the decomposition
k·k
M
E (k)
OH ∼
=
k∈Z

and E (k) ∼
=

(k)
OH

is the spectral subspace for the gauge action corresponding to k ∈ Z.

23

Proof. The vector space B(Hm , Hm+k ) has an overcomplete basis given by the operators Sk |Hm for
all k ∈ F+
n with |k| = k. In particular, B(Hm , Hm+1 ) is spanned by Sj |Hm for j = 1, . . . , n. Recalling
that Sj is the shift by the basis vector ej ∈ H, we see that
X
(k)
Rr Sj Rr∗ H
ιm,l (Sj |Hm ) =
l

|r|=l−m

=

X

Sj Rr Rr∗

Hl

|r|=l−m

= S j |H l .

We can identify a sequence X• = (Xm )m∈N0 of operators Xm ∈ B(Hm , Hm+k ) with an operator on
Fock space HN . The effect of the quotient map π (k) on such a sequence X• is to take it to its image
in the Calkin algebra B(HN )/K. From (4.5) we therefore have (for m ≥ 1)

ς (m,1) (Sj |Hm ) = ς (1,1) (Sj |H ) = π (1) (Sj Hm )m∈N0 = π (1) (Sj ) = Zj ,
where Z1 , . . . , Zn are the generators of OH . Similarly one gets that ς (l,k) (Sk |Hm ) is just Zk for all
(−m)
∗
k ∈ F+
) for |k| = m. So
n with |k| = k and all l ≥ m. The adjoints Sk define elements of Γb (E•
(k)
O
holds
for
all
k
∈
Z.
E (k) ∼
= H

4.4 Formulas for covariant symbols
Our discussion about inductive limits associated to subproduct system has been based on shift
operators on Fock space. We now observe that what we are doing is in fact a generalization of
Berezin quantization. First we show that there is a very simple expression for the maps ς (m) .
Theorem 4.15. Let Z1 , . . . , Zn be the images of the shifts of the subproduct system H• . Then the
(0)
covariant symbol map ς (m) : B(Hm ) → OH defined in (4.3) can be expressed as
X
Aj,k Zj Zk∗ .
ς (m) (A) =
|j|=m=|k|

Proof. From (4.3) we see that we need to express ιm in terms of the Toeplitz operators S1 , . . . , Sn ;
applying π transforms these into Z1 , . . . , Zn . But that is easily done using Lemma 4.8: the “second
quantization” of A,
X
Aj,k Sj Sk∗ ∈ B(HN ),
|j|=m=|k|

acts as ιm,l (A) on Hl for l ≥ m and as 0 on Hl for l < m. Applying the quotient map π to it, we
obtain

 X
Aj,k Sj Sk∗ = π((ιm,l (A))l≥m ) = ς (m) (A),
π
|j|=m=|k|

and on the other hand,
π



X

|j|=m=|k|


Aj,k Sj Sk∗ =

X

Aj,k Zj Zk∗ .

|j|=m=|k|

Corollary 4.16. For all j, k ∈ F+
n with |j| = |k| = m and all l ≥ m we have
ς (l) (Sj Sk∗ |Hl ) = Zj Zk∗ .
Example 4.17. Let H• be a commutative subproduct system and let M be the compact manifold it
(0)
defines (see Corollary 3.7). Then ς (m) : B(Hm ) → OH coincides with the Berezin covariant symbol
map ς (m) : B(Hm ) → C(M ) (mentioned in §3.2).

24

Notation 4.18. Fix a faithful representation of OH on a Hilbert space H and let
u ∈ Mn (C) ⊗ B(H)
be a unitary n × n matrix with values uj,k ∈ B(H) such that the first row of u is given by the
generators Z1 , . . . , Zn of OH . Let uc be the matrix obtained from u by taking adjoints of each entry
uj,k . Denote by um the restriction of u⊗m from H⊗m to Hm and similarly for uc . Finally,
α(m) : B(Hm ) → B(Hm ) ⊗ B(H)
will be the map which takes A ∈ B(Hm ) to um (A ⊗ 1)u∗m .

The following formulas are known from the classical case to define the “Berezin covariant symbol”
in case we quantize a coadjoint orbit M = G/K (cf. [Per1], [Lan2]).

Proposition 4.19. Assume that u⊗m preserves the subspace Hm ⊂ H⊗m , in the sense that um =
⊗m
⊗m
u⊗m (pm ⊗ 1). Let |e⊗m
1 ihe1 | be the rank-1 projection onto the line spanned by e1 , where e1 is the
first basis vector in H. Then for all A ∈ B(Hm ) we have

⊗m
⊗m
c
(4.9)
ς (m) (A) = (Tr ⊗ id) (A ⊗ 1)uc∗
m (|e1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)um

⊗m
= (Tr ⊗ id) α(m) (A)(|e⊗m
(4.10)
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1) .
Proof. We have

⊗m
⊗m
c
uc∗
m (|e1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)um =

X

|j|=m=|k|

so (4.9) is clear. For (4.10) we can use the formula
X
Ar,s Sj Sk∗
α(m) (A) =

Sj Sk∗ |Hm ⊗ Zk Zj∗

Hm

|j|=m=|k|

⊗ uj,r u∗k,s .

4.5 Commutative case and the Arveson conjecture
One of the most striking applications of our results is the Arveson conjecture (see Remark 2.17).
Corollary 4.20. Arveson’s conjecture holds for all homogeneous ideals I ⊂ C[z1 , . . . , zn ], i.e. the
Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH of the subproduct system H• associated to I (as in Lemma 2.9) is commutative.
Proof. Lemma 2.15 together with [KeSh1, Prop. 4.14] gives the result.
In [Vas1], [Vas3] it was shown that for any continuous line bundle L → M , the Cuntz–Pimsner
algebra OE (defined in [Pims1]) of the Hilbert C(M )-bimodule E of continuous sections of L is
isomorphic to the C ∗ -algebra C(SL ) of continuous functions on the total space of the circle bundle
SL associated to L∗ . Recall that in the definition of OE (which is Pimsner’s original one) the tensor
products are taken over the coefficient algebra C(M ). We shall now see that, in the case (M, L) is a
polarized manifold, from a projectively induced quantization we can also obtain C(SM ) := C(SL ) as
the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH of the associated subproduct system H• .

Proposition 4.21. Let (M, L) be a polarized (not necessarily smooth) variety and let H• be a projectively induced quantization of (M, L) (the definition still makes sense in the non-smooth case), and
endow M with the complex (Hausdorff ) topology [Serre1, §2]. Then
C(SM ) ∼
= OH ,

and for all k ∈ Z,

(k)
Γ(M ; L⊗k ) ∼
= OH

as a Hilbert C(M )-bimodule. In particular, k = 0 gives C(M ) as an inductive limit.

25

(4.11)

Proof. As in the general noncommutative case, the commutative algebra OH is built up from Hilbert
(0)
modules over OH and the latter is generated by the images of the covariant symbol maps ς (m) . An
argument given in [CGR1, §4] shows that the ς (m) (A)’s (for all m ∈ N0 and all A ∈ Bm ) separate
points. The Stone–Weierstrass theorem gives that they form a dense subalgebra of C(M ). The
inclusion of Hm into Hm+1 coincide by construction with our ιm,m+1 , and the supremum norm
on C(M ) is seen to coincide with the norm on the inductive limit B∞ . Therefore, C(M ) ∼
= B∞ .
The result now follows from Theorem 4.12 and the well-know decomposition of C(SM ) into the
Γ(M ; L⊗m )’s (see §3.3).
In fact, given Corollary 4.20 we get Proposition 4.21 from the calculation of the space of multiplicative U(1)-valued functionals on OH done in [KeSh1, Prop. 2.4]. Indeed, the circle bundle SL
can be identified with the preimage of M under the map Cn \ {0} → CPn−1 which defined projective
space, and this is the boundary of the analytic variety discussed [KeSh1].
Note that it is not so obvious that we couldL
recover M completely (as a topological space) from
0
⊗m
) of M ⊂ P[H∗ ] is not a ring of
H• because the homogeneous coordinate ring
m∈N0 H (M ; L
functions on M . The choice of basis on H 0 (M ; L⊗m ) corresponds to a choice of algebra structure on
the ring C(M ) and the inner product on H 0 (M ; L⊗m ) to a choice of C ∗ -algebra structure on C(M ),
but all possible C ∗ -algebra structures obtain in this way are isomorphic.
In the following we use the terminology from Lemma 3.8.
Corollary 4.22. Let (M, L) be a polarized manifold and let H• be a projectively induced quantization
of (M, L). Then the Fubini–Study metric FS(h·|·i) on L associated with the inner product on H
coincides with the ∗-operation which defines the C ∗ -algebra OH , and is thus equal to the inductive
limit of the Hermitian pairings
B(Hm+1 , Hm ) × B(Hm+1 , Hm ) → B(Hm ),

(A, B) → A∗ B.

Consequently, (M, L) is balanced if and only if the limit state ω coincides with the the unique FS(h·|·i)balancing state. If M = G/K is a coadjoint orbit one also has (using Notation 2.12) for all j, k ∈ F+
n
with |j| = m = |k| that
ˆ
pj,k
ωd
1
=
,
(4.12)
Zj∗ Zk
vol(M, L) M
d!
Tr(pm )
where pm : H⊗m → Hm is the orthogonal projection and H• ⊂ H∨• is the subproduct system of
(M, L, h·|·i) and we denote by ω also the Fubini–Study Kähler form on M ⊂ CPn−1 .
Proof. Recall that the generators Z1 , . . . , Zn of OH satisfy the relation of the ideal which
defines M ,
P
so they can be identified with the homogeneous coordinates on M . Recall also that nk=1 Zk Zk∗ = 1,
which says that the adjoint operation on the operator system in OH spanned by Z1 , . . . , Zn is the
Fubini–Study metric h on L. Since products of m of the generators Z1 , . . . , Zn identify with elements
of H 0 (M ; Lm ) and since the ∗-operation on OH is given by (Zk1 · · · Zkm )∗ = Zk∗m · · · Zk∗1 , we get that
it is induced by the tensor-product metric hm on H 0 (M ; Lm ) for all m ∈ N.
If M = G/K is a coadjoint orbit then the limit state ω = ωp1 : C(M ) → C satisfies ω(Zj∗ Zk ) =
δj,k /n. The formula for ω on the products Zj∗ Zk then gives (4.12).

5 Projective limits
(0)

We now want to realize the same algebra OH as a projective limit. For this we need some background
information from [Hawk1, §B2].

26

5.1 Relaxing the notion of projective limit
In this paper, a “projective limit” will always refer to the following object which, in comparison
to more conventional C ∗ -algebraic projective limits, is defined in terms of completely positive maps
instead of C ∗ -homomorphisms.
Definition 5.1 ([Hawk1, §B2]). A projective system (B• , •,• ) is a sequence of finite-dimensional
matrix algebras Bm and norm-contracting completely positive mappings l,m : Bl → Bm for m ≤ l
satisfying l,m = r,m ◦ l,r for all m ≤ r ≤ l. The projective limit of (B• , •,• ) is the vector space
defined by
B ∞ := {A• = (Am )m∈N0 ∈ Γb (B• )| Am−1 = m,m−1 (Am ) for all m ∈ N},
equipped with the norm
kA• k := lim kAm k.
m→∞

∞

Remark 5.2. The intersection of B with Γ0 is {0}. We always identify B ∞ with its embedding into
Γb (B• )/Γ0 (B• ) because it is more likely that B ∞ is an algebra when multiplication is taken modulo
Γ0 . If we do so and then pull back B ∞ via the quotient map π : Γb → Γb /Γ0 , we obtain a vector
space π −1 (B ∞ ) which is much larger than B ∞ , namely
π −1 (B ∞ ) = B ∞ ∪ Γ0 (B• ).

(5.1)

Importantly, B ∞ is an algebra (hence a C ∗ -algebra) if and only if (5.1) is.
Remark 5.3. We could also define B ∞ as the set of elements

f = π (∞,m (f ))m∈N0

where the components ∞,m (f ) ∈ Bm satisfy ∞,m (f ) = l,m ◦ ∞,l (f ). We can regard ∞,m :=
liml→∞ l,m as the map from B ∞ to Bm which evaluates A• = (Am )m∈N0 ∈ B ∞ at m,
∞,m (A• ) = Am .

5.2 Changing the inner products
From now on Q ∈ B(H) is a positive invertible n × n matrix and let
Qm := pm Q⊗m |Hm
be the compression of Q⊗m ∈ B(H⊗m ) to the subspace Hm = pm H⊗m . We choose the orthonormal
basis e1 , . . . , en for H1 such that Q is diagonal and, as before, we let S1 , . . . , Sn be the shifts on HN
by these basis vectors. We shall write
Qj,k := (Q−1
m )j,k .

Qj,k := (Qm )j,k ,
We associate to each Qm a density matrix
(m)

ρ(m) = ρQ

:=

Qm
,
Tr(Qm )

and denote by φm the state on B(Hm ) defined by
φm (A) := Tr(ρ(m) A),

∀A ∈ B(Hm ).

Sometimes it will be useful to change the inner product on Hm to
hψ|φiρ(m) := hψ|ρ(m) φi,

∀φ, ψ ∈ Hm .

We stress that (unless H• = H⊗• )
ρ(m) 6=

Qm
= pm (ρ(1) )⊗m pm .
Tr(Q)m

27

(5.2)

Assumption 5.4. From now on Q ∈ B(H) is a positive invertible n × n matrix such that

(i) the operator Q⊗m on H⊗m preserves the subspace Hm for all m ∈ N0 , i.e. Qm = Q⊗m |Hm , and

(ii) ιm,l preserves the Q-traces, i.e.

φl ◦ ιm,l = φm ,

for all m ≤ l ∈ N.

Property (i) allows the subproduct condition to be maintained with the new inner products
h·|·iρ(m) (see Proposition 5.8 below) while property (ii) allows the construction of a state on OH
with very nice properties. We will show that in the examples of subproduct systems coming from
compact quantum groups there is always a matrix Q which satisfies these assumptions (i) and (ii). It
is possible to drop either (or both) of the assumptions (i) and (ii) and many of the constructions in
the next section will carry over; in particular there will be a limit state but with weaker quantization
properties. We shall elaborate on this slightly in the commutative case, where assumptions (i) and
(ii) hold with Qm = pm for all m ∈ N precisely when H• is a regular quantization (in the sense of
Remark 3.10).
Remark 5.5. The property pm Q⊗m pm = Q⊗m pm ensures that Qm is invertible; its inverse is
pm (Q⊗m )−1 pm because
(Q⊗m )−1 pm Q⊗m pm = (Q⊗m )−1 Q⊗m pm = pm ,
Q⊗m pm (Q⊗m )−1 pm = Q⊗m (Q⊗m )−1 pm = pm ,
where we used the fact that the inverse A−1 of any invertible matrix A preserves every A-invariant
subspace. We denote by Q−1
m this inverse of Qm . For l ≥ m we have
⊗l −1
Q−1
((Q⊗m ) ⊗ (Q⊗(l−m) ))pl = pl ,
l (Qm ⊗ Ql−m ) = (Q )

where we regard pl as an operator from Hm ⊗ Hl−m onto Hl .

5.3 The isometries
Now that Hm is endowed with the inner product (5.2) we discuss how B(Hm ) can be mapped into
B(Hl ) when m < l and calculate the explicit isometries Hl ֒→ Hl−m ⊗ Hm and Hl ֒→ Hm ⊗ Hl−m .
This construction would fail without the assumption that Q⊗m preserves Hm .
Proposition 5.6. The isometry from Hl into Hl−m ⊗ Hm is given by
s
Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) X
pl−r er ⊗ Sr∗ ψ,
V̄m,l ψ =
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m

and its adjoint by
∗
V̄m,l

=

s

∀ψ ∈ Hl ,

(5.3)

Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) (l) −1 (l−m)
(ρ ) (ρ
⊗ ρ(m) ).
Tr(Ql )

Proof. We proceed by first calculating the adjoint of the given operator (5.3). Let λm,l :=
For all ξ ∈ Hl−m , η ∈ Hm and all ψ ∈ Hl we have
∗
hV̄m,l
(ξ ⊗ η)|ψiρ(l) = hξ ⊗ η|V̄m,l ψiρ(l−m) ⊗ρ(m)
X
hξ ⊗ η|pl (er ⊗ Sr∗ ψ)iρ(l−m) ⊗ρ(m)
= λm,l
|r|=l−m

= λm,l

X

|r|=l−m

hξ ⊗ η|Sr Sr∗ ψiρ(l−m) ⊗ρ(m)

= λm,l h(ρ(l) )−1 (ρ(l−m) ξ ⊗ ρ(m) η)|ψiρ(l)

28

(5.4)
q

Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m )
.
Tr(Ql )

and hence (5.4) holds. Finally, using Remark 5.5,
Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) X
(ρ(l) )−1 (ρ(l−m) er ⊗ ρ(m) Sr∗ ψ)
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m
X
X
−1
pl (er ⊗ Sr∗ ψ)
Ql (Ql−m er ⊗ Qm Sr∗ ψ) =
=

∗
V̄m,l
V̄m,l ψ =

|r|=l−m

|r|=l−m

=

X

Sr Sr∗ ψ = ψ,

|r|=l−m

so V is the desired isometry. Let us also calculate the final projection:
X
∗
Sr Sr∗ Q−1
=
V̄m,l V̄m,l
l (Ql−m ⊗ Qm ) = pl (pl−m ⊗ pm ).
|r|=l−m

Now let A ∈ B(Hl ) and define
∗
ῑm,l (A) := V̄m,l
(1Hl−m ⊗ A)V̄m,l .

(5.5)

We have
Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) X
(ρ(l) )−1 (ρ(l−m) er ⊗ ρ(m) ASr∗ ψ)
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m
X
∗
Q−1
=
l (Ql−m er ⊗ Qm ASr ψ)

∗
V̄m,l
(1Hl−m ⊗ A)V̄m,l ψ =

|r|=l−m

=

X

|r|=l−m

=

X

pl (er ⊗ ASr∗ ψ)
Sr ASr∗ ψ,

|r|=l−m

so ῑm,l is a “chirality-flipped” version of ιm,l , i.e. the Rr ’s are replaced by Sj ’s (cf. (4.7)). If we
use the inductive system ῑ•,• instead of ι•,• , the roles of the left and right Toeplitz algebras are
interchanged.
Proposition 5.7. Define a coherent system of maps ῑm,l : B(Hm ) → B(Hl ) by
∗
ῑm,l (A) := V̄m,l
(1Hl−m ⊗ A)V̄m,l
X
Ss ASs∗ H .
=
l

(5.6)
(5.7)

|s|=l−m

Then (B(H• ), ῑ•,• ) is an inductive system, and the C ∗ -subalgebra of Γb (B• ) consisting of norm limits
of the eventually constant sequences for ῑ•,• is equal to the U(1)-invariant part of the right Toeplitz
algebra C ∗ (R1 , . . . , Rn ).
Proof. The proof is very similar to the case of the ιm,l ’s (the “left case”).
P
We furthermore note that if we expand A ∈ B(Hm ) as A = |j|=m=|k| Aj,k Rj Rj∗ |Hm then
X
Aj,k Rj Rk∗ H ,
ῑm,l (A) =
l

|j|=m=|k|

again similar to the left case. More will be said on the “chiral duality” between ῑ•,• and ι•,• in
Remark 5.13.
We now want to find an isometric implementation of ιm,l similar to (5.5). For this we need to flip
the tensor factors.

29

Proposition 5.8. The isometry from Hl into Hm ⊗ Hl−m is given by
s
Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) X
Vm,l ψ =
Rr∗ ψ ⊗ pl−r er ,
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m

and its adjoint by
∗
Vm,l

=

s

∀ψ ∈ Hl ,

Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) (l) −1 (m)
(ρ ) (ρ
⊗ ρ(l−m) ).
Tr(Ql )

(5.8)

(5.9)

Proof. For all ξ ∈ Hl−m , η ∈ Hm and all ψ ∈ Hl we have
∗
hVm,l
(η ⊗ ξ)|ψiρ(l) = hη ⊗ ξ|Vm,l ψiρ(m) ⊗ρ(l−m)
X
hη ⊗ ξ|Rr Rr∗ ψiρ(m) ⊗ρ(l−m)
= λm,l
|r|=l−m

= λm,l h(ρ(l) )−1 (ρ(m) η ⊗ ρ(l−m) ξ)|ψiρ(l) ,

and the rest is similar to the proof of Proposition 5.8.
Corollary 5.9. The inductive system ι•,• is implemented by the system V•,• of isometries:
∗
ιm,l (A) = Vm,l
(A ⊗ 1Hl−m )Vm,l ,

∀A ∈ B(Hm ).

Proof. Follows from formula (4.7) and the calculation (with ψ ∈ Hl )
s
Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) X
∗
Vm,l (A ⊗ 1Hl−m )Vm,l ψ =
(ρ(l) )−1 (ρ(m) ARr∗ ψ ⊗ ρ(l−m) er )
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m
X
−1
Ql (Qm ARr∗ ψ ⊗ Ql−m er )
=
|r|=l−m

=

X

|r|=l−m

=

X

pl (ARr∗ ψ ⊗ er )
Rr ARr∗ ψ.

|r|=l−m

5.4 Projective system for subproduct systems
Let H• be a subproduct system. We let Q ∈ B(H) be as in Assumption 5.4 and endow Hm with the
inner product defined by the density matrix ρ(m) := Qm / Tr(Qm ).
Lemma 5.10. Define maps l,m : B(Hl ) → B(Hm ) for m ≤ l by
l,m (A) :=

Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )

X

(Q⊗m )k,k Rk∗ ARk

Hm

,

|k|=l−m

∀A ∈ B(Hl ).

(5.10)

Then, with Vm,l as in Proposition 5.8, we have the formula
∗
)
l,m (A) = (idBm ⊗φl−m )(Vm,l AVm,l

and •,• is a projective system.

30

(5.11)

Proof. First of all, for all A ∈ B(Hl ) we have
r,m ◦ l,r (A) =
=
=

X

Tr(Qr ) Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql ) Tr(Qr )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )

(Q⊗m )j,j (Q⊗m )k,k Rj∗ Rk∗ ARk Rj

Hm

|j|=r−m,|k|=l−r

X

∗
(Q⊗m )kj,kj Rkj
ARkj

Hm

|kj|=l−m

X

(Q⊗m )r,r Rr∗ ARr

Hm

= l,m (A),

|r|=l−m

and it is obvious that each l,m is completely positive. The norm-contracting property holds because
l,m is in fact unital. To see this we first prove the alternative formula (5.11). We have
l,m (A) =
=
=
=

Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )

X

(Q⊗m )r,r Rr∗ ARr

Hm

|r|=l−m

X

X

(Q⊗m )r,r hej |Rr∗ ARr ek iSj Sk∗

Hm

|r|=l−m |j|=m=|k|

X

X

(Q⊗m )r,r hej ⊗ er |A(ek ⊗ er )iSj Sk∗

Hm

|r|=l−m |j|=m=|k|

X

X

(Q⊗m )r,r (A)jr,kr Sj Sk∗

Hm

|r|=l−m |j|=m=|k|

∗
= (id ⊗φl−m )(Vm,l AVm,l
),

where in the last equality we used that, for all ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ Hm , η1 , η2 ∈ Hl−m ,
∗
∗
hVm,l
(ξ1 ⊗ η1 )|AVm,l
(ξ2 ⊗ Ql−m η2 )i

=

Tr(Qm ) Tr(Ql−m ) (l)−1 (m)
hρ
(ρ ξ1 ⊗ ρ(l−m) η1 )|Aρ(l)−1 (ρ(m) ξ2 ⊗ ρ(l−m) Ql−m η2 )i
Tr(Ql )

= hξ1 ⊗ η1 |Aρ(l)−1 (ρ(m) ξ2 ⊗ ρ(l−m) Ql−m η2 )i
=

Tr(Ql )
hξ1 ⊗ η1 |A(ξ2 ⊗ Ql−m η2 )i,
Tr(Ql−m ) Tr(Qm )

m)
∗
so that summing such inner products over a basis for Hm ⊗Hl−m and multiplying with Tr(Q
Tr(Ql ) Sj Sk Hm
∗
is the same thing as partially tracing Vm,l AVm,l
with Ql−m / Tr(Ql−m ).
The formula (5.11) shows that l,m is the adjoint of ιm,l with respect to φl and φm (see details in
5.11 below). Our assumption φl ◦ ιm,l = φm is then equivalent to the unitality

l,m (pl ) = pm ,
and hence l,m is contractive.
Notice that since l,m intertwines the normalized traces, the unitality assumption on l,m is
equivalent to assuming that l,m is contractive.
Proposition 5.11. Let m, l ∈ N0 with m ≤ l. Then l,m is the adjoint of ιm,l : for all A ∈ B(Hl )
and all B ∈ B(Hm ) we have


φl (Aιm,l (B) = φm l,m (A)B .
(5.12)
In particular, taking A = pl respectively B = pm we obtain the equivalences
φl ◦ ιm,l = φm ⇐⇒ l,m (pl ) = pm ,

31

(5.13)

φl = φm ◦ l,m ⇐⇒ ιm,l (pm ) = pl ,

(5.14)

where (5.14) holds for any subproduct system while (5.13) is our standing assumption for this section.
Proof. We have
∗
φl (Aιm,l (B)) = φl (AVm,l
(B ⊗ pl−m )Vm,l )

∗
= (φm ⊗ φl−m )(Vm,l AVm,l
(B ⊗ pl−m ))


∗
(B ⊗ pl−m ))
= φm (idBm ⊗φl−m )(Vm,l AVm,l

∗
)B ,
= φm (idBm ⊗φl−m )(Vm,l AVm,l


which equals φm l,m (A)B by (5.11).

Corollary 5.12. The states φm satisfy the “right invariance” condition
φm (l,m ◦ ιm,l (A)) = φm (A),

∀A ∈ B(Hm ).

(5.15)

Proof. Just use (5.14) and then (5.13).
Remark 5.13. Similarly one shows that
φm = φl ◦ ῑm,l .

(5.16)

for the “right” inductive system ῑ•,• . The adjoint of ῑm,l is
̄l,m (A) =

Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )

X

(Q⊗m )r,r Sr∗ ASr

Hm

|r|=l−m

∗
= (φl−m ⊗ id)(V̄m,l AV̄m,l
).

A “left invariance” condition similar to (5.15) is also deduced using the ῑm,l ’s and their adjoints.

5.5 The state on OH

Corollary 5.14. The limit
φ∞ := lim φm
m→∞

is a well-defined state on

(0)
TH .

It annihilates

(0)
TH

(0)

∩ K, so it descends to a state ωQ on OH = B∞ .
(0)

Proof. For well-definedness we use (5.13) and recall that the elements of TH are norm limits of
(0)
(0)
eventually constant under ι•,• . The fact that φ∞ descends to TH /(TH ∩ K) follows from
|φm (A)| ≤ kAk,

∀A ∈ B(Hm ), m ∈ N0 ,
(0)

since this shows that limm kAm k = 0 implies φ∞ (A• ) = 0 for all A• = (Am )m∈N0 ∈ TH .
Proposition 5.15. The state ωQ : B∞ → C is KMS, with modular automorphism group σ• = (σt )t∈R
given by
−it
σt ◦ ς (m) (A) = ς (m) (Qit
m AQm )
for all A ∈ B(Hm ) and all m ∈ N0 , and ωQ satisfies
ωQ (Zj Zk∗ ) =

Qk,j
Tr(Qm )

(5.17)

(m)
for all j, k ∈ F+
: B(Hm ) → B∞
n with |j| = |k| = m. Moreover, the covariant symbol map ς
intertwines ωQ and φm :
ωQ ◦ ς (m) = φm .
(5.18)

32

Proof. Due to (5.13) we have, if |j| = |k| = m,
ωQ (Zj Zk∗ ) = φ∞ (Sj Sk∗ )
= lim φl (Sj Sk∗ pl )
m≤l→∞

= φm (Sj Sk∗ pm ),
and so the first formula in (5.17) follows from
X
(Q⊗m )r,r her |pm ej ihek |pm er i
Tr(Qm )φm (Sj Sk∗ ) =
|r|=m

= hek |Qm ej i.

The definition of ς (m) immediately gives (5.18), again using (5.13).
That ωQ is KMS follows from (5.18), in view of the fact that the ∗-algebra generated by the
covariant symbols ς (m) (A) is dense in B∞ and that each φm is KMS. Finally, for t ∈ R the modular
−it
automorphism σtφm of φm takes A ∈ B(Hm ) to (ρ(m) )it A(ρ(m) )−it = Qit
m AQm .
We can extend ωQ to a state, still denoted by ωQ , on the whole Cuntz–Pimsner algebra by defining
(k)
(0)
it to be zero on each spectral subspace OH except OH .
Remark 5.16. The property (5.18) of the limit state relies on Assumption 5.4(ii) and ensures that
ω is faithful. Without this assumption we could still obtain a limit ωQ of the states φm but it is not
clear what would guarantee its faithfulness. We could go the GNS representation of B∞ associated
with ωQ and use the faithful state induced by ωQ on the image of B∞ , which is a quotient of B∞
(recall that ωQ is KMS). Then analogous results hold for the image of B∞ in the GNS representation.

Example 5.17. For the product system H⊗• , the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH is the Cuntz algebra
On and ωQ is the quasi-free state on On defined by the density matrix Q/ Tr(Q) [Ev1].

5.6 Contravariant symbols
Proposition 5.18. The adjoint ς˘(m) : B∞ → B(Hm ) of the covariant symbol map ς (m) : B(Hm ) →
B∞ , defined by the relation

∀A ∈ B(Hm ), f ∈ B∞ ,
ωQ (ς (m) (A)∗ f ) = φm A∗ ς˘(m) (f ) ,
is given by

X

ς˘(m) (f ) = Tr(Qm )

∗
∗
(Q⊗m )−1
j,j ωQ (Zj Zk f )Sk Sj

Hm

(5.19)

|j|,|k|=m

Proof. Let ς˘(m) (f ) be defined by (5.19). Then
X
(A∗ )j,k ωQ (Zj Zk∗ f )
ωQ (ς (m) (A)∗ f ) =
|j|=m=|k|

=

X

∗
∗
(Q⊗m )j,j (Q⊗m )−1
j,j (A )j,k ωQ (Zj Zk f )

|j|=m=|k|


= φm A∗ ς˘(m) (f ) .
Corollary 5.19. We have
(m)

and, moreover, each ς˘

ωQ = φm ◦ ς˘(m)
is unital.

33

(5.20)

Proof. Equation (5.20) is a direct consequence of the fact that ς˘(m) is adjoint to the unital map ς (m) .
Unitality of ς˘(m) follows from ωQ (ς (m) (A)∗ 1) = φm (A∗ ), which we know from (5.18).
We can now assembly the ς˘(m) ’s to a map
Y
Y
B(Hm ),
ς˘(m) : B∞ →
ς˘ :=

(5.21)

m∈N0

m∈N0

which is a noncommutative generalization of the total Toeplitz map (3.5). We can recover its components as
ς˘(m) (f ) = ς˘(f )pm .
The following result which relies on the fact that ωQ is faithful (cf. Remark 5.16).
(0)

Lemma 5.20. No nonzero element of B∞ is mapped to Γ0 = TH ∩ K under the map ς˘.

Proof. We have φm ς˘(m) (f ) = ωQ (f ), so if ς˘(m) (f ) → 0 as m → ∞ then ωQ (f ) = 0. Hence if f ≥ 0
then f = 0 and the result follows.
Let M = πωQ (B)′′ be the von Neumann algebra generated by the inductive limit B∞ in the GNS
representation of the limit state ωQ . Then we can define ς˘(f ) ∈ Γb also for elements in M, and
Lemma 5.20 extends to M.
Lemma 5.21. For all f ∈ M and all l ≥ m,

ς˘(m) (f ) = l,m ◦ ς˘(l) (f ).

(5.22)

Hence the image of M under the total Toeplitz map ς˘ is contained in the projective limit B ∞ , and in
fact we have equality
ς˘(M) = B ∞ .
Therefore B ∞ can be identified with the weak-∗-closed operator system of elements of the form
ς˘(f ) = (˘
ς (m) (f ))m∈N0 ,

f ∈M

and, as in Remark 5.3,
ς˘(m) = ∞,m
is the map which evaluates (Xm )m∈N0 ∈ B ∞ at m ∈ N0 . The norm-closed subset ς˘(B∞ ) equals the
anti-normally ordered part of the Toeplitz core.
Proof. We know that ς˘ is injective (Lemma 5.20). Since we have shown that l,m is adjoint to ιm,l ,
we obtain (5.22) by taking adjoints of
ς (l) ◦ ιm,l = ς (m) .
From (5.22) follows that ς˘(f ) ∈ B ∞ for all f ∈ M. Moreover, ς˘ : M → Γb is onto B ∞ because each
ς˘(m) is onto. Thus B ∞ is in bijection with M via ς˘.
(0)
We need to show that ς˘(B∞ ) equals the anti-normally part of the Toeplitz core TH . Firstly,
since the left and right shifts commute outside the vacuum subspace, for all r, s = 1, . . . , n we have
l,m (Sr∗ Ss pl ) =
=

Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )
Tr(Qm )
Tr(Ql )

X

(Q⊗m )k,k Rk∗ Sr∗ Ss Rk

Hm

|k|=l−m

X

(Q⊗m )k,k Sr∗ Rk∗ Rk Ss

|k|=l−m

Hm

= Sr∗ Ss |Hm
(0)

(where we used that l,m (pl ) = pm ), which shows that the anti-normally ordered elements of TH are
constant under •,• . Secondly, an explicit calculation using (5.19) shows that ς˘(f ) is anti-normally
ordered for each f ∈ B∞ .

34

Remark 5.22. Now we can give an alternative proof for the fact that the contravariant symbol map
ς˘(l) : B∞ → B(Hm ) intertwines ωQ with φl ,
ωQ = φl ◦ ς˘(l) .
Recall that ωQ denotes the limit state φ∞ := limm→∞ φm when regarded as a state on the quotient
(0)
B∞ of TH . Then ωQ = φl ◦ ς˘(l) follows from the compatibility φm = φl ◦ m,l (see (5.13)) and the
fact that ∞,l = ς˘(l) .

5.7 The asymptotic multiplication
We now endow the projective limit B ∞ with a multiplication which is the m → ∞ limit of the
multiplication on B(Hm ).
Definition 5.23. The projective-limit multiplication on B ∞ ⊂ Γb is defined by
ς˘(f ) · ς˘(g) := lim ς˘(m) (f g)
m→∞

(5.23)

for all f, g ∈ B∞ .

The projective limit B ∞ is not an algebra under the projective-limit multiplication, but we shall
see that the subset ς˘(B∞ ) is.
The multiplication on B ∞ taken modulo Γ0 is the one where sequences (˘
ς (m) (f ))m∈N0 and
(m)
(˘
ς (g))m∈N0 are multiplied componentwise but the finite-m part is ignored. That is,
π(˘
ς (f )˘
ς (g)) = lim ς˘(m) (f )˘
ς (m) (g).
m→∞

(5.24)

We will see momentarily that the products (5.23) and (5.24) coincide for f, g ∈ B∞ . Comparing the
two formulas one then concludes that the Toeplitz maps ς˘(m) are “asymptotically multiplicative”.
Again the projective limit B ∞ is not an algebra under the multiplication modulo compacts, while
ς˘(B∞ ) will be shown to be so.
Remark 5.24 (Filters). A projective-limit multiplication can be defined using any filter ω on N.
On the C ∗ -level this corresponds to considering not a subalgebra of Γb /Γ0 but a subalgebra of Γb /Γω
where Γω is the ideal consisting of the sequences A• with
lim kAm k = 0.
ω

We recover Γ0 if ω is the free filter of all cofinite subsets of N0 . Confer [RoSt1, §6.2].

5.8 The adjoint of the total Toeplitz map
Lemma 5.25. For A ∈ B(Hl ) we have
l,0 (A) = φl (A)p0 .

(5.25)

(0)

and hence, if ε̂ denotes the vacuum state restricted to TH ,
ε̂ ◦ l,0 = φl .
The vacuum state ε̂ restricted to B ∞ is equal to ε̂ ◦ ∞,0 and coincides with the limit state φ∞ :=
liml→∞ φl ,
ε̂ ◦ ∞,0 = φ∞ .

35

Proof. We use φm ◦ l,m = φl for m = 0. This gives (5.25). Alternatively, note that for each positive
operator A on B(Hm ) one has
X
Ak,k
Tr(A) =
|k|=m

where Ak,k := hpm ek |Apm ek i. Consequently,
φm (A) =

X
1
hΩ|Sk∗ ASk Ωi = φ0 (m,0 (A)).
dim Hm
|k|=m

Letting m → ∞ one obtains
ω(f ) = φ0 (˘
ς (0) (f )),

∀f ∈ C 0 (M), f ≥ 0.

The rest is obvious.
We can therefore regard ε̂ as a state on the projective limit modulo compact operators as well,
i.e. on the algebra π(B ∞ ) ⊂ Γb /Γ0 .
Recall that the covariant-symbol map ς (m) is the adjoint of ς˘(m) , for each m ∈ N. We now show
that the total Toeplitz map ς˘ has an adjoint as well. This should be compared with [INT1, Lemma
2.3].
Proposition 5.26. There exists a completely positive map
ς˘∗ : ς˘(B∞ ) → B∞
such that, for all X ∈ ς˘(B∞ ) and all f ∈ B∞ ,
ωQ (˘
ς ∗ (X ∗ )f ) = ε̂(π(X ∗ )π(˘
ς (f ))).

(5.26)

Explicitly, this map is given by the point-norm limt ς˘∗ = limm→∞ ς (m) ,
ς˘∗ (X) = lim ς (m) (Xpm ),
m→∞

∀X ∈ ς˘(B∞ ),

and will be denoted by ς.
Proof. We identify X ∈ ς˘(B∞ ) with a bounded sequence (Xm )m∈N0 of operators Xm = Xpm ∈
B(Hm ). Using the formula (5.24) for the multiplication in π(B ∞ ) we have, by norm-continuity of the
vacuum state, the norm limits
∗ (m)
ε̂(π(X ∗ )π(˘
ς (f )))p0 = Ω lim Xm
ς˘ (f )Ω p0
m→∞

∗ (m)
ς˘ (f )
= ∞,0 lim Xm
m→∞

∗ (m)
ς˘ (f )
= lim m,0 Xm
m→∞

∗ (m)
= lim φm Xm
ς˘ (f ) p0
m→∞

∗
)f p0
= lim ωQ ς (m) (Xm
m→∞


∗
)f p0 .
= ωQ lim ς (m) (Xm
m→∞

Being a point-norm limit of completely positive maps, ς is completely positive.
Since B ∞ = ς˘(M) contains no compact operator, it is clear from the definition of the covariant
symbol that ς restricts to a bijection from B ∞ onto M and that ς ◦ ς˘ is the identity on M. Hence ς˘
is an isometry. So we have a decomposition of the identity map on B∞ ,
id = ς ◦ ς˘ = lim ς (m) ◦ ς˘(m) ,
m→∞

36

making Remark 4.7 explicit. We have now seen that ς˘ : B∞ → ς˘(B∞ ) is a complete order isomorphism,
i.e. a bijective unital completely positive map with completely positive inverse.
There is also a version of this result on the level of von Neumann algebras. As we shall see in
§6.5.2, for any subproduct system H• , the weak-∗-closed operator system B ∞ becomes a von Neumann
algebra when equipped with a SOT-version of the projective-limit multiplication (5.23). When H•
is the G-subproduct system (see §6 below), B ∞ is an operator system in the group-von Neumann
algebra R(G).
Corollary 5.27. The total Toeplitz map ς˘ intertwines the state ωQ on M = πωQ (B∞ )′′ with the
vacuum state ε̂ on B ∞ ⊂ B(HN ),
ωQ = ε̂ ◦ ς˘,
(5.27)
and similarly
ωQ ◦ ς = ε̂,

(5.28)

Proof. Take X = 1 respectively f = 1 in (5.26) to get (5.27) respectively (5.28).
(0)

5.9 OH as a projective limit

Theorem 5.28. The operator system ς˘(B∞ ) ⊂ B ∞ is a C ∗ -algebra with the multiplication taken
(0)
modulo compacts; indeed π(˘
ς (B∞ )) is isomorphic as a C ∗ -algebra to the inductive limit B∞ ∼
= OH .
Remark 5.29. We saw in Lemma 5.20 that the image of ς˘ does not contain Γ0 . On the other hand,
ς˘(B∞ ) + Γ0 is generated by Ran ς˘ alone as a C ∗ -algebra. The theorem implies that
ς˘(f )˘
ς (g) − ς˘(f g) ∈ Γ0
even for nontrivial f, g ∈ B∞ . These elements do not belong to B ∞ , which is why we need to apply
the quotient map π : Γb → Γb /Γ0 in order to obtain an algebra.
Proof. This is a well-known consequence of the fact that ς˘ : B∞ → ς˘(B∞ ) is a complete order
isomorphism from a C ∗ -algebra B∞ onto the operator system ς˘(B∞ ); see [Arv10, Prop. 2.2].
Corollary 5.30. The projective-limit multiplication on ς˘(B∞ ) ⊂ Γb coincides with the multiplication
on ς˘(B∞ ) taken modulo Γ0 .
Proof. By uniqueness of the C ∗ -algebraic structure we know that any two multiplications on ς˘(B∞ )
compatible with the norm must be isomorphic. But as remarked in §5.7, the exact equality of the
two products at hand is equivalent to the statement that ς˘ is multiplicative modulo Γ0 , whence the
result.
(0)

Recall that it is the normally ordered elements of TH which are constant under the inductive
system ι•,• . The partial inverse ς(m) : ς (m) (Bm ) → Bm Q
of the covariant symbol map ς (m) gives a
normally ordered “quantization” of B∞ , and the image of m∈N0 ς(m) is the normally ordered part of
(0)

the Toeplitz core, which is all of TH . In contrast, the projective limit B ∞ contains (as an operator
(0)
space) only the anti-normally ordered elements in TH , so “Toeplitz quantization” gives the anti−1
normal ordering. Lemma 2.15 shows that π (π(˘
ς (B∞ ))) = ς˘(B∞ ) + Γ0 nevertheless gives all of
(0)
TH .

37

5.10 Strict quantization
Some authors ([Hawk3], [Rie1], [Sain]) do not require commutativity of the “classical limit algebra”
in an axiomatic approach to “strict quantization”. Adapting such a definition, we can show that
what we have done here is a strict quantization.
Let 0 B∞ denote the ∗-algebra generated by the ς (m) (A)’s for all A ∈ B(Hm ) and all m ∈ N0 ; thus
0
B∞ is a dense ∗-subalgebra (the “algebraic part”) of the inductive-limit C ∗ -algebra B∞ .
Definition 5.31. The Berezin product on 0 B∞ is defined for all f, g ∈ 0 B∞ by

(m)
f ⋆ g := ς (m) ς(m) (f )ς(m) (g) ,

where ς(m) : ς (m) (Bm ) → Bm denotes the partial inverse of ς (m) . The Poisson bracket on 0 B∞ is
defined by (cf. [Hawk1, §D.1])
(m)
(m)
m
{f, g} := lim √ (f ⋆ g − g ⋆ f ).
m→∞
−1

(5.29)

Of course we do not expect (5.29) to be a Poisson bracket in the ordinary sense, and {·, ·} is not
likely to be interesting unless H• is commutative.
Corollary 5.32. The sequence (B• , ς˘(•) ) = (Bm , ς˘(m) )m∈N0 is a strict quantization of 0 B∞ in the
sense that each ς˘(m) is surjective and, for all f, g ∈ 0 B∞ ,
lim k˘
ς (m) (f g) − ς˘(m) (f )˘
ς (m) (g)k = 0,

(5.30)

lim k˘
ς (m) (f )k = kf k,

(5.31)

lim km−1 [˘
ς (m) (f ), ς˘(m) (g)] − {f, g}]k = 0.

(5.32)

m→∞

m→∞

m→∞

(0)

Proof. We have seen that π ◦ ς˘ : B∞ → TH /Γ0 is injective, so
ς˘(f )˘
ς (g) − ς˘(f g) ∈ Γ0 ,
which is equivalent to von Neumann’s condition (5.30). Rieffel’s condition (5.31) coincides with the
definition of the norm on B ∞ . Similarly, the Dirac condition (5.32) is tautology in view of our
definition of {·, ·} in (5.29).
We have seen that a subproduct system H• comes with a sequence B• = (Bm )m∈N0 of finite(0)
dimensional algebras Bm := B(Hm ), to which we can add B∞ ∼
= OH , and two sequences ς (•) =
(•)
(m)
(m)
ς )m∈N0 of positive unital maps
(ς )m∈N0 and ς˘ = (˘
ς (m) : Bm → B∞ ,

ς˘(m) : B∞ → Bm

such that ς (m) ◦ ς˘(m) converges to the identity map on B∞ . As in [Sain, Prop. 2.2] we can associate
to this data a continuous field of C ∗ -algebras, making explicit the assertion in Remark 4.5.
(0)

Corollary 5.33. The C ∗ -algebra TH can be identified with the space of continuous sections of the
continuous field N0 ∪ {∞} ∋ m → Bm , i.e.
o
n
Y
(0)
Bm X∞ = lim ς (m) (Xm ) .
TH ∼
= (Xm )m∈N0 ∪{∞} ∈
mN0 ∪{∞}

m→∞

Proof. We have seen that ς : ς˘(B∞ ) → B∞ can be obtained as

ς(X) = lim ς (m) (Xpm ).
m→∞

∗

Thus, the C -algebra of continuous sections of B• consists of the image of ς˘(B∞ ) under ς together
with the sequences (Xm )m∈N0 ∪{∞} such that X∞ = 0. Hence the result follows from the facts that
(0)

ς˘(B∞ ) + Γ0 = TH

and that ς is an isomorphism.

38

5.11 OH assembled from projective limits

We now define modules over the projective limit B ∞ .
(k)
Recall that we defined in §4.3 an inductive system ιm,l : B(Hm , Hm+k ) → B(Hl , Hl+k ). Define the
(k)

(k)

adjoint l,m : B(Hl+k , Hl ) → B(Hm+k , Hm ) of ιm,l by the property that


(k)
(k)
φm l,m (X)Y = φl Xιm,l (Y )

for all X ∈ B(Hl+k , Hl ) and all Y ∈ B(Hm , Hm+k ). We deduce that
Tr(Qm ) X
(k)
l,m (X) =
∀X ∈ B(Hl+k , Hl ),
(Q⊗m )r,r Rr∗ XRr Hm ,
Tr(Ql )
|r|=l−m

(k)

and that the opertors on HN which are constant with respect to the system •,• are precisely those
(l)
of the form ς˘k (f ) = (˘
ςk (f ))l∈N0 for some f ∈ B∞ , where
X
(l)
−1
(Q⊗m )j,j
ωQ (Zj Zk∗ f )Sj Sk∗ H .
ς˘k (f ) = Tr(Ql )
l

|j|=l,|k|=l+k

Define E(k) to be the set of ς˘k (f )’s for all f ∈ B∞ . Then E(k) is an operator system.
(k)

Let Γ0
l → ∞.

be the vector space of sequences of operators in B(Hl+k , Hl ) which converge to zero as
(k)

(−k)

Proposition 5.34. The vector space E(k) + Γ0 coincides with the subspace TH
of the Toeplitz
(k)
∗
∞
algebra. Hence E(k) is a module over the C -algebra B , the module action taken modulo Γ0 . In
∼ O(−k) .
fact, E(k) is isomorphic as a Hilbert bimodule to E (−k) =
H

Proof. The first statements are proven in the same way as for k = 0. For the last assertion, note
that the algebras of compact module operators KB∞ (E (−k) ) and KB∞ (E(k) ) are isomorphic, namely
to B∞ ∼
= B ∞ . Hence the modules E(k) and E (−k) are isomorphic [Frank1].

5.12 Commutative case
If H• is associated with the radical homogeneous ideal which defines a projective variety M ⊂ CPn−1 ,
Assumption 5.4 is satisfies if and only if M is a coadjoint orbit G/K under some Lie group G, and
then one may take Q = p1 (the identity operator on H1 ). However, there are many commutative and
noncommutative subproduct systems H• for which a projective limit can be constructed in a weaker
sense.
Let us focus on the case when commutative H• . Then we know that the right shifts R1 , . . . , Rn
coincide with the left shifts S1 , . . . , Sn , and from our discussion about inductive limits we know
that [Sj∗ , Sk ] is compact for all j, k = 1, . . . , n. Therefore, the maps l,m , and hence the Toeplitz
maps ς˘(m) , become asymptotically multiplicative. That is, ς˘ is a homomorphism modulo compacts.
Furthermore, the asymptotic unitality of the maps m+1,m allows us to define a norm on B ∞ by the
same formula as before. The map ς˘ then becomes isometric, and it is adjoint to the map ς which
(0)
identifies TH /Γ0 with B∞ = C 0 (M ). One easily sees that no Toeplitz operator is in Γ0 and that
ς ◦ ς˘ = id .
The main difference from the special case M = G/K is that for general M one has
ς˘(1) 6= 1

P
and the passage from S to a spherical isometry is more involved since nk=1 Sk∗ Sk pm is not just a
scalar multiple of pm for each m.
As we have seen (recall Proposition 3.6), from the version of Berezin quantization with prequantum condition one obtains a strict quantization of C(M ). With projectively induced quantization we
obtain from Corollary 5.32 a strict quantization of C(M ), and we do not require M to be smooth.

39

Corollary 5.35. For any projective variety M , the sequence (Bm , ς˘(m) )m∈N0 is a strict quantization
of the dense ∗-subalgebra of C(M ) generated by the ς (m) (Bm )’s.
Corollary 5.35 was inspired [Hawk2], where the Toeplitz operators where defined geometrically in
the case of a prequantum quantization. When M is smooth we see from the proof of [Hawk2, Lemma
4.2] that the limit state on B∞ = C(M ) is faithful and hence C(M ) is also isomorphic to the subset
ς˘(B∞ ) of the projective limit B ∞ with the multiplication taken modulo compacts. For non-smooth
M we do not know if the limit state on B∞ is faithful.

6 Application to compact matrix quantum groups
6.1 Compact matrix quantum groups
For the theory of compact quantum groups we refer to [KlS], [MaVD], [Timm1]. We shall restrict
attention to compact matrix quantum groups, defined as follows.
Definition 6.1 ([Wang3], [Wor1]). A compact matrix quantum group G is defined by a C ∗ algebra C(G) generated by the entries uj,k of a single unitary matrix u ∈ Mn (C) ⊗ C(G) (for some
n ∈ N) such that the map ∆ : C(G) → C(G) ⊗ C(G) defined by
∆(uj,k ) :=

n
X
r=1

uj,r ⊗ ur,k

is a ∗-homomorphism, and such that the transpose ut is invertible.
We refer to the generating matrix u as the defining representation of the “group” G.
The Haar state on C(G) (or the Haar measure on G) is the unique state on C(G) which is
left G-invariant, in the sense that
(id ⊗h) ◦ ∆(f ) = h(f )1.
The Haar state is always faithful on the ∗-algebra generated by the uj,k ’s but not necessarily so on
the norm closure C(G). There is a canonical construction of a “reduced version” of G, which is a
compact quantum group with faithful Haar state [BMT1, §2] and has the same dense Hopf ∗-algebra.
We shall always work with the reduced version or, what amounts to the same thing, assume that h
is faithful on all of C(G). Then h is a KMS state [Wor4].

6.1.1

Representations and actions

Definition 6.2. A representation of G is a corepresentation of C(G), i.e. an invertible element
v ∈ B(Hv ) ⊗ C(G), for some Hilbert space Hv , satisfying (in leg-numbering notation)
(id ⊗∆)(v) = v13 v23
as elements of B(Hv ) ⊗ B(Hv ) ⊗ C(G). A representation v is irreducible if the set
HomG (v, v) := {T ∈ B(Hv )|(T ⊗ 1)v = v(T ⊗ 1)}
is trivial.
Definition 6.3. Two representations v ∈ B(Hv ) ⊗ C(G) and w ∈ B(Hw ) ⊗ C(G) are equivalent,
denoted v ≃ w, if there is a unitary U : Hv → Hw such that
(U ⊗ 1)v = w(U ⊗ 1)
(in particular, this requires dim Hv = dim Hw ). We denote by Irrep G the (countable) set of equivalence classes of irreducible representations of G. We choose a representative u(λ) ∈ B(Hλ ) ⊗ C(G)
for each λ ∈ Ĝ.

40

Definition 6.4. The tensor product of two representations u ∈ B(H) ⊗ C(G) and v ∈ B(K) ⊗ C(G)
is the representation
u ⊗ v := u13 v23 ∈ B(H ⊗ K) ⊗ C(G).

In particular, u⊗m = u1,m+1 · · · um,m+1 is the matrix whose entries in the product basis for H⊗m is
given by
uj,k = uj1 ,k1 · · · ujm ,km .

Now let us explain the motivation for the invertible operator Q ∈ B(H) that we incorporated in
the Berezin quantization (recall §5.2).
It is a crucial consequence of the axioms of compact matrix quantum groups that for any finitedimensional representation v ∈ B(Hv ) ⊗ C(G) of G, one can find an invertible matrix Fv ∈ B(Hv )
such that
v̄ := (Fv ⊗ 1)v c (Fv−1 ⊗ 1)
(6.1)
is unitary, where v c = (v t )∗ is the matrix whose coefficients are the adjoints of those of v. The
equivalence class of v̄ is the conjugate of the equivalence class of v (we shall also say that v̄ is a
conjugate of v). The matrix Fv in (6.1) is usually chosen such that Qv := Fv∗ Fv satisfies
Tr(Q−1
v ) = Tr(Qv ) ≡ dimq (v),
and this quantity is the “quantum dimension” of v. We have Qv̄ = (Qtv )−1 . We shall write Qλ :=
Qu(λ) etc. for irreducibles λ ∈ Irrep G and we denote by λ̄ the conjugate of λ.
Every representation of G decomposes completely into a direct sum of irreducibles. Hence, for
each pair of irreps λ, µ ∈ G there are integers mult(ν, λ ⊗ µ) ∈ N0 such that
M
u(λ) ⊗ u(µ) ≃
mult(ν, λ ⊗ µ)u(ν) .
(6.2)
ν∈Irrep G

Definition 6.5. The equations (6.2) dictate the fusion rules of G. The fusion rules are commutative if
mult(ν, λ ⊗ µ) = mult(λ ⊗ µ, ν),
∀λ, µ, ν ∈ Irrep G.
Example 6.6. Compact groups G = G have commutative fusion rules. More generally, q-deformations
of compact Lie groups have commutative fusion rules because the equivalence class of an irreducible
representation is determined by the highest weight of the representation.
The quantum groups in the next two examples are introduced in Definition 6.10 below.
Example 6.7. For any F , the fusion rules of the quantum group Bu (F ) are identical to those of
SU(2); in particular this is true for SUq (2). These fusion rules in fact characterize the Bu (F )’s among
compact quantum groups [Ban3, Théorème 2].
Example 6.8. The fusion rules of Au (Q) are far from commutative, see [Ban4].
Definition 6.9 ([Wang1, Def. 3.1]). A left action of a compact matrix quantum group G on a
C ∗ -algebra B is a unital ∗-homomorphism α : B → B ⊗ C(G) such that
(i) (α ⊗ id) ◦ α = (id ⊗∆) ◦ α,

(ii) (id ⊗ε) ◦ α = id, where ε is the counit on the dense Hopf-∗-subalgebra of C(G), and

(iii) there is a dense ∗-subalgebra 0 B of B such that α(0 B) ⊂ 0 B ⊗ C ∞ (G).

Similarly, a right action of G on B is a unital ∗-homomorphism α : B → C(G) ⊗ B satisfying the
obvious analogues of the properties (i), (ii) and (iii).
If B is a von Neumann algebra then we replace C(G) by its weak closure L∞ (G) in the GNS
representation of the Haar state, and only condition (i) is required in the definition of an action.
Every unitary representation v ∈ B(H) ⊗ C(G) of G induces a left action of G on B(H) given by
Adv : B(H) → B(H) ⊗ L∞ (G),

41

Adv (A) := v(A ⊗ 1)v ∗ .

(6.3)

6.1.2

Universal quantum groups

In the following, for a matrix u with entries in C(G), we write uc for the transpose of u∗ , i.e.
(uc )j,k := u∗j,k where u∗j,k is the adjoint of uj,k in C(G).
Definition 6.10 ([Wang3], [Ban4, Déf. 1]). Let F ∈ GL(n, C) be an invertible matrix and write
Q := F ∗ F . The universal unitary quantum group G = Au (Q) is the compact matrix quantum
group G whose algebra of continuous functions C(G) is generated by the entries of a unitary n × n
matrix u satisfying the relations making (F ⊗ 1)uc (F −1 ⊗ 1) a unitary matrix.
The universal orthogonal quantum group G = Bu (F ) is the compact matrix quantum group
whose algebra C(G) is the quotient of that of Au (Q) by the relation u = (F ⊗ 1)uc (F −1 ⊗ 1).
The prototype example of a Bu (F ) is the quantum SUq (2) group G := SUq (2). In general, Bu (F )
is some kind of higher-dimensional quantum SU(2) group which has no classical counterpart.
Suppose that H and G are compact matrix quantum groups such that C(H) is a quotient of
C(G). If the quotient map π : C(G) → C(H) fulfills (π ⊗ π) ◦ ∆G = ∆H ◦ π, i.e. if π intertwines the
comultiplication of G with that of H, then H is a quantum subgroup G. We have seen that Bu (F )
is a quantum subgroup of Au (Q) when F ∗ F = Q.
The name “universal” is motivated by the following fact, which we should anticipate from (6.1).
Lemma 6.11 ([VaDW]). Any compact matrix quantum group G is a quantum subgroup of Au (Q)
for some Q. If G in addition has a self-conjugate defining representation, then C(G) is a quantum
subgroup of some Bu (F ). We write G ⊂ Au (Q) and G ⊂ Bu (F ) ⊂ Au (Q) for these cases respectively.
Let u be the fundamental representation of G ⊂ Au (Q), with Q ∈ GL(n, C). Then the elements
z1 := uk,1 , . . . , zn := uk,n of the first row of u satisfy the Q-sphere relations
(Q−1 )1,1 1 =

n
X

(Q−1 )r,s zr∗ zs ,

r,s=1

6.1.3

1=

n
X

zs zs∗ .

(6.4)

s=1

The dual discrete quantum group

Let G be a compact matrix quantum group such that the GNS representation C(G) → B(L2 (G)) of
the Haar state is faithful. We shall identify C(G) with its image in B(L2 (G)) and denote by L∞ (G)
the von Neumann algebra generated by C(G) in B(L2 (G)).
In perfect analogy to the case of ordinary compact groups, the C ∗ -algebra C(G) has a Peter–
Weyl decomposition
M
C(G) =
B(Hλ )∗ ,
(6.5)
λ∈Irrep G

2

and the completion L (G) of C(G) in the inner product defined by the Haar state then allows for a
similar decomposition. The comultiplication ∆ on C(G) ⊂ B(L2 (G)) takes the form
∆(f ) = W (f ⊗ 1)W ∗ ,

∀f ∈ C(G)

for a unitary operator W on L2 (G) ⊗ L2 (G) referred to as the multiplicative unitary of G. The
dual of G is then defined via the (multiplier) Hopf C ∗ -algebra
M
c0 (Ĝ) :=
B(Hλ ),
(6.6)
λ∈Irrep G

with the comultiplication given by
ˆ
∆(X)
:= W ∗ (1 ⊗ X)W,

∀X ∈ c0 (Ĝ).

We denote by pλ the identity in B(Hλ ), regarded as an element of c0 (Ĝ). Then the counit ε̂ on c0 (Ĝ)
is characterized by (cf. (2.4))
ε̂(X)p0 = Xp0 ,

42

∀X ∈ c0 (Ĝ),

where 0 ∈ Irrep G is the trivial representation. Every irreducible representation u(λ) of G is obtained
from W by means of
u(λ) = W (pλ ⊗ 1).
The object Ĝ is referred to as a discrete quantum group. In the general theory of “locally
compact quantum groups”, there is a canonical dual quantum group associated also to Ĝ, and this
quantum group is precisely G. In particular, the dual of an ordinary compact group G is a discrete
quantum group, which is an honest group only if G is abelian.
The C ∗ -algebra c0 (Ĝ) is contained in the C ∗ -algebra K of compact operators on L2 (G). The
multiplier algebra of c0 (Ĝ) can be identified with the C ∗ -direct product
Y
cb (Ĝ) :=
B(Hλ ),
λ∈Irrep G

ˆ is a map from c0 (Ĝ) into cb (Ĝ) ⊗ cb (Ĝ). Continuing the analogy with the
and the comultiplication ∆
theory of honest groups, we shall denote by
M
cc (Ĝ) :=
B(Hλ )
λ∈Irrep G

the algebraic sum, and we denote the weak closure of c0 (Ĝ) in B(L2 (G)) by
Y
R(G) = ℓ∞ (Ĝ) := ℓ∞ B(Hλ ).
λ∈Irrep G

This “group-von Neumann algebra” R(G) is contained in the dual C(G)∗ of C(G).
Finally, the algebra of operators on L2 (G) affiliated with R(G) can be identified with the product
Q
b
λ∈Irrep G B(Hλ ), containing all (not necessarily bounded) sequences of elements in the B(Hλ )’s. Of
particular importance is the operator QG := (Qλ )λ∈Irrep G , where Qλ is as in §6.1.1.
From (6.6) we see that the irreducible representations of the C ∗ -algebra c0 (Ĝ) (also referred to
as the irreducible “corepresentations” of Ĝ) are parameterized by λ ∈ Irrep G. In fact, if u(λ) ∈
B(Hλ ) ⊗ C(G) is the irreducible representation of G with label λ (as in §6.1.1) then
πλ (X) := (id ⊗X)(u(λ) )

(6.7)

is the corresponding irreducible corepresentation of Ĝ, where X ∈ c0 (Ĝ) is regarded as a functional
on C(G). In general, if v is a unitary representation of G then (6.7) defines a representation πv of Ĝ
by substituting u(λ) with v. Then the commutant of πv (c0 (Ĝ)) in B(Hv ) equals
πv (c0 (Ĝ))′ = B(Hv )G ,
the fixed-point subalgebra under the G-action Adv (recall (6.3)).
The same equation (6.7) represents any (possibly unbounded) operator X affiliated to R(G) on
B(Hλ ). For each finite-dimensional representation v of G,
πv (QG ) = Qtv ,
where Qv is as in §6.1.1 and Qtv denotes its transpose. In particular, Qtv commutes with the projection
ˆ G ) = QG ⊗ QG , and it gives
onto any irreducible subrepresentation of v. It is well known that ∆(Q
Qv⊗w = Qv ⊗ Qw
for all finite-dimensional representations v and w.

43

6.2 First-row and first-column algebras
Throughout this section, G is a compact matrix quantum group. We denote by (u, H) the defining
representation of G. Thus the C ∗ -algebra C(G) is generated by the matrix coefficients of the unitary
matrix u ∈ B(H) ⊗ C(G). Set n := dim(H) and fix an orthonormal basis e1 , . . . , en of H so that
H∼
= Cn , and let uj,k be the matrix coefficients of u in this basis.
Definition 6.12. The first-row algebra of G is the C ∗ -algebra C(SG ) generated by the first row
z1 := u1,1 , . . . , zn := u1,n . This defines the quantum homogeneous space SG .
There is a Z-grading on C(SG ) obtained by letting the zk ’s have degree 1 while their adjoints
are given degree −1. We write the decomposition into spectral subspaces for the corresponding
U(1)-action as
k·k
M
C(SG ) =
C(SG )(k) .
k∈Z

Definition 6.13. The quantum homogeneous space G/K is defined as the noncommutative manifold
corresponding to the C ∗ -subalgebra of fixed points in C(SG ) for the U(1)-action:
C(G/K) := C(SG )(0) .
It is clear that C(G/K) is generated by the n2 elements {zj∗ zk }nj,k=1 (but this is obviously not a
minimal set of generators).

Example 6.14. If G = G is a compact semisimple Lie group then G/K is a coadjoint orbit and SG is
a principal U(1)-bundle over G/K. Indeed, let (U−1 , H−1 ) be the irreducible unitary representation
of G with highest weight (−1, 0, . . . , 0) and let K be the stabilizer of the complex line spanned by the
highest-weight vector ξ−1 . The action U−1 of G on H−1 is unitary, and hence Hamiltonian for the
symplectic form given by the imaginary part of the inner product on H−1 . The orbit U−1 (G) · [ξ−1 ]
of the line spanned by ξ−1 is then a Hamiltonian G-homogeneous space, and a characterization of
coadjoint orbits shows that G/K ∼
= U−1 (G) · [ξ−1 ] is a coadjoint orbit.
The hyperplane bundle over the projectivization P[H−1 ] restricts to a holomorphic line bundle L
over G/K and we let SG be the total space of the principal U(1)-bundle over G/K associated with
L∗ (cf. §3.3). A basis for the space of holomorphic sections of L generates C(SG ) and, after fixing
a basis e∗1 , . . . , e∗n for H−1 ∼
= Cn , such a basis is provided by the coordinate functions z1 , . . . , zn of
n−1
CP
restricted to G/K. Choosing the basis such that e∗1 ∝ ξ−1 we get G/K = G/K and SG = SG .
For example, if G = SU(n) then K = U(1) × SU(n − 1) and G/K = G/K is complex projective
n-space CPn−1 , whereas SSU(n) = S2n−1 is the unit sphere in Cn .
Example 6.15. The preceding discussion carries over to q-deformations of G, and we get that G/K
is a quantum flag manifold. For G = SUq (n) we obtain quantum projective n-space G/K = CPqn−1 ,
and SG is the q-deformed (2n − 1)-sphere S2n−1
(cf. [DDL1]).
q
Example 6.16 ([BaGo1, Thm. 3.3]). Let G := O∗ (n) be the half-liberated orthogonal group. Then
C(G/K) is in fact commutative and G/K is just the ordinary complex projective n-space CPn−1 ,
C(G/K) ∼
= C(CPn−1 ).
The spectral subspaces C(SG )(k) for the U(1) action on C(SG ) are Hilbert bimodules over the
fixed-point subalgebra C(G/K), where the multiplication in the ambient algebra C(SG ) defines left
and right C(G/K)-valued inner products
hξ|ηiright := ξ ∗ η,

hξ|ηileft := ξη ∗

(6.8)

between elements ξ and η in C(SG )(k) .
Remark 6.17 (Row vs column). We can also consider the C ∗ -algebra generated by the first column
elements wj := uj,1 of u (the “first-column algebra”). Everything proven about the first-row algebra
C(SG ) in this paper has a version where one instead uses the generators of the first-column algebra.

44

Lemma 6.18. The first-row algebra C(SG ) carries an ergodic action of G which contains every
irreducible representation of G with multiplicity one.
Proof. We define a left action C(SG ) → C(SG ) ⊗ C(G) by restriction of the comultiplication. The
Peter–Weyl decomposition (6.5) of C(G) gives the decomposition
M
C(SG ) ∼
Hλ ,
=
λ∈Irrep G

and the comultiplication restricts to the irreducible G-representation u(λ) on each Hλ .
In view of Lemma 6.18 and the above examples, the quantum homogeneous G-space G/K is a
natural generalization of the q-deformed projective spaces (in particular the standard Podleś sphere
S2q = CP1 ). In all cases the unique invariant state under the G-action is the restriction to C(SG ) of
the Haar state on C(G).

6.3 Subproduct systems of G-representations
The subproduct system associated with a compact quantum group G will be a subproduct H• in which
the Hilbert space Hm is contained in the mth tensor power H⊗m of the fundamental representation
H of G.
The idea is based on the observation that if u ∈ Mn (C) ⊗ C(G) is a representation of a compact matrix quantum group G then the first row z1 := u1,1 , . . . , zn := u1,n of u transforms as the
representation u under the “left translation” action λ of G given by restricting the comultiplication
∆:
n
X
zj ⊗ uj,k .
λ(zk ) := ∆(zk ) =
j=1

The constructions below can easily be made more general but we shall always assume that u is
irreducible. In fact we shall, for simplicity and concreteness, from now on assume that u is the
defining representation of G. Let H be the n-dimensional Hilbert space with basis vectors z1 , . . . , zn .
In most cases there are subrepresentations of G contained in the tensor product H ⊗ H. Keeping only
the largest G-invariant subspace H2 of H ⊗ H we obtain another irreducible representation u(2) of G.
Indeed, H2 can be identified with the span of zj zk for j, k = 1, . . . , n, and then u(2) is obtained by
the restricting the comultiplication, just as for u. Continuing like this we obtain a family (Hm )m∈N0
of Hilbert spaces satisfying the subproduct condition (2.1).
Definition 6.19. Let G be a compact matrix quantum group. The subproduct system H• just
described will be referred to as the the G-subproduct system.
If we dropped the requirement that u generates C(G) then Definition 6.19 makes no use of the
fact that C(G) is finitely generated, and hence it works for all compact quantum groups. On the
other hand, if we do not require irreducibility but G is a matrix group, we may always find a selfconjugate unitary finite-dimensional representation u whose coefficients generate C(G). Indeed, if u
generates C(G) then so does u⊕ ū, and the latter is self-conjugate. If u is self-conjugate and generates
C(G), every irreducible representation of G is obtained as Hm for a unique m ∈ N0 . However, for
definiteness we shall always suppose that G is a compact matrix quantum group and that u is the
defining representation, assumed irreducible.
Example 6.20. For G = G a classical compact Lie group, it is well known that the representation
Hλ+µ with dominant weight λ + µ occurs exactly once in the tensor product Hλ ⊗ Hµ ; this is the
“Cartan product” of Hλ and Hµ [East1]. In particular, if H• denotes the G-subproduct system then
Hm+1 is the Cartan product of Hm and H. This subproduct system is commutative, i.e. H• ⊆ H∨• ,
and the associated projective variety mentioned in §3.1 is a coadjoint orbit, isomorphic to G/K for
some closed subgroup K of G.

45

Example 6.21. The SU(n)-subproduct system coincides with the fully symmetric subproduct system
H∨• (Example 2.2).
Example 6.22. The G-subproduct system of the universal quantum group G = Au (Q) with positive
Q ∈ GL(n, C) is the product system H⊗• because each power u⊗m of the defining representation is
irreducible [Ban4].
Example 6.23. For G = Bu (F ) we have self-conjugacy u ≃ ū [Ban3]. So if u is irreducible then, as
mentioned above, every λ ∈ Irrep G occurs as Hλ ∼
= Hm for some m ∈ N0 .
The Hm ’s are all irreducible and usually pairwise inequivalent. The only examples where they
are not all inequivalent are those where C(G) is finite-dimensional.

6.4 Berezin quantization of C(G/K)
6.4.1

Covariant symbols as first-row matrix coefficients

Recall the formula (4.9) for the covariant symbol derived in Proposition 4.19. We now observe
that for any compact matrix quantum groups G, the same formula (with u now being the defining
representation of G) appears when taking matrix coefficients of the representation Ad(u(m) ) ≃ u(m) ⊗
ū(m) on B(Hm ).
Definition 6.24. We say that an element of C(G/K) is normally ordered if all zj ’s occur to the
left of the zk∗ ’s.
Lemma 6.25. Suppose that every element in C(G/K) can be written in normally ordered form.
Then the C ∗ -algebra C(G/K) can be generated by covariant symbols

(m)
⊗m
(m)c
ςG (A) := (Tr ⊗ id) (A ⊗ 1)u(m)c∗ (|e⊗m
(6.9)
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)u

for all A ∈ B(Hm ) and all m ∈ N0 .

Proof. Write φA := Tr(A·). Then the elements

(m)
⊗m
(m)c
,
ςG (A) = (φA ⊗ id) u(m)c∗ (|e⊗m
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)u

A ∈ B(Hm )

form a set which consists exactly of those matrix coefficients of the representation u(m)c∗ ⊗ u(m)c ≃
u(m) ⊗ ū(m) which are contained in C(G/K).

6.4.2

Intertwining the actions

Let W be the multiplicative unitary of G, i.e. the unitary on L2 (G) ⊗ L2 (G) implementing the
comultiplication ∆ (cf. §6.1.3). Then the restriction of W to L2 (G/K) ⊗ L2 (G) identifies with
u(N) := (u(m) )m∈N0 ∈ cb (Ĝ) ⊗ C(G).
We have an action of G on R(G) given by Ad(W ) (i.e. the same formula as for ∆ but now applied
to elements of a different algebra; of course this action extends to all of B(L2 (G))). The restriction
ˆ to B(L2 (G)) restricts to a
of this G-action to B(HN ) is just Ad(u(N) ). Similarly, the extension of ∆
∞
right Ĝ-action on L (G).
So we have the following actions of G and Ĝ on C(G/K).
Definition 6.26. The left G-action αG : C(G/K) → C(G/K) ⊗ C(G) is defined by
(m)

(m)

αG (ςG (A)) := (ςG

⊗ id)(u(m) (A ⊗ 1)u(m)∗ )

for all A ∈ B(Hm ) and all m ∈ N0 . The right Ĝ-action α̂G : C(G/K) → cb (Ĝ) ⊗ C(G/K) is defined
by
(m)
(m)
α̂G (ςG (A)) := (id ⊗ςG )(u(m)∗ (1 ⊗ A)u(m) ).

46

(m)

Lemma 6.27. The map ςG

is G- and Ĝ-equivariant,
(m)

(m)

⊗ id)(u(m) (A ⊗ 1)u(m)∗ ),

(6.10)

ˆ ◦ ς (m) (A) = (id ⊗ς (m) )(u(m)∗ (1 ⊗ A)u(m) ).
∆
G
G

(6.11)

∆ ◦ ςG (A) = (ςG

G

G

∞

The actions α and α̂ therefore coincide on C(G/K) ⊂ L (G) with the left regular action of G and
the right regular action of Ĝ, respectively.
Proof. Let α(m) (A) := u(m) (A ⊗ 1)u(m)∗ and α̂(m) (A) := u(m)∗ (1 ⊗ A)u(m) . We use the defining
property of a left action,
(α(m) ⊗ id) ◦ α(m) = (id ⊗∆) ◦ α(m) .
Formula (4.9) gives
(m)

(ςG


m
⊗ id)(α(m) (A)) = (Tr ⊗ id ⊗ id) (α(m) ⊗ id) ◦ α(m) (A)(|em
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)

m
= (Tr ⊗ id ⊗ id) (id ⊗∆) ◦ α(m) (A)(|em
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1)

(m)
m
= ∆(Tr ⊗ id) α(m) (A)(|em
1 ihe1 | ⊗ 1) = ∆ ◦ ςG (A).

ˆ ⊗ id) ◦ α̂(m) .
The proof of (6.11) is identical, using (id ⊗α̂(m) ) ◦ α̂(m) = (∆

6.4.3

C(G/K) as an inductive limit

Now we will, for certain compact matrix quantum groups G, realize the first-row algebra C(G/K) as a
projective limit B ∞ . From our previous results we have then obtained C(G/K) as the U(1)-invariant
part of the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra of the G-subproduct system.
Let G ⊂ Au (Q) be a compact matrix quantum group (with faithful Haar measure), with Q ∈
GL(n, C), and let C(G/K) be the U(1)-invariant part of the first-row algebra C(SG ).
Let H• = HG
• be the G-subproduct system and let OH be its Cuntz–Pimsner algebra. In §5 we
defined the Toeplitz quantization ς˘(m) as a map from OH to B ∞ . In that way we could realize an
(0)
isomorphism between OH ∼
= B∞ and the projective limit B ∞ . In this section we shall use the same
strategy but with a map
(m)
ς˘G : C(G/K) → B(Hm ),
(6.12)
(0)

(m)

i.e. we quantize C(G/K) instead of OH . We define (6.12) to be the adjoint of the map ςG appearing
in (6.9). We shall in this way obtain an isomorphism between C(G/K) and B ∞ , and hence, due to
B∞ ∼
= B ∞ , we will arrive at the following result.

Theorem 6.28. Assume that normal ordering is possible in C(G/K). Then there is a C ∗ -isomorphism
between C(G/K) and the U(1)-invariant part of the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH of the G-suproduct
system:
(0)
C(G/K) ∼
= OH .
Q (m)
This isomorphism is given by the total Toeplitz map ς˘G = m ς˘G , and it intertwines the ergodic Gand Ĝ-actions as well as the G-invariant states.
Remark 6.29 (Normal ordering). For general G, the map ς˘G maps the normally ordered part of
(0)
C(G/K) onto OH . For instance, normal ordering is possible for G = Bu (F ) but not for Au (Q). In
fact, Au (Q) is our only example where ς˘G is not an isomorphism. Commutative fusion rules implies
normal ordering (recall Definition 6.5).
So let us begin by defining B ∞ to be the projective limit of the system (B(H• ), •,• ), where H• is
the G-subproduct system. Here the operator Q on H which appears in the construction of B ∞ (§5.2)
is taken to be the same as the matrix defining Au (Q) ⊃ G, assuming Q is equal to its transpose.
(m)
Thus, B(Hm ) is equipped with the φm -inner product, where φm = Tr(ρQ ·) is the state defined by

47

(m)

(0)

the density matrix ρQ := Qm / Tr(Qm ). We may therefore regard B ∞ ∩ TH
having trivial intersection with c0 (Ĝ).

as a subset of cb (Ĝ)

Lemma 6.30. The G-subproduct system H• and the matrix Q satisfy Assumption 5.4.
Proof. That Q⊗m preserves the subspace Hm ⊂ H⊗m follows from the fact, mentioned in §6.1.3, that
Q⊗m belongs to the commutant of the G-action on H⊗m .
Let L2 (S) be the GNS Hilbert space of the restriction of the Haar state to the subalgebra C(S) ⊂
C(G). Then the generators z1 , . . . , zn of C(S) are represented ∗-homomorphically as operators on
L2 (S). If we denote these by Z1 , . . . , Zn we thus have (assuming Q1,1 = 1) from (6.4) that
n
X

Qk,k Zk∗ Zk = 1.

k=1

Let H 0 (S) be the closed subspace of L2 (S) spanned by z1 , . . . , zn . Then H 0 (S) is invariant under
Z1 , . . . , Zn . Denote by Tk the restriction of Zk to H 0 (S) for each k ∈ {1, . . . , n}. If P is the orthogonal
projection of L2 (S) onto H 2 (S), we get
n
X

Qk,k Tk∗ Tk = P

n
X

Qk,k Zk∗ Zk

H 2 (S)

= 1.

(6.13)

k=1

k=1

Now the tuple T1 , . . . , Tn is unitarily equivalent to an operator tuple T̃1 , . . . , T̃n on the Fock space
HN satisfying
Tr(Qm+1 ) ∗
T̃j∗ T̃k |Hm =
∀m ∈ N0 , j, k ∈ {1, . . . , n}.
S S k |H m ,
Tr(Qm ) j
where S1 , . . . , Sn are the standard shifts on HN and we used again that Qm is simply the restriction
of Q⊗m to an invariant subspace. Equation (6.13) then says that the maps l,m are unital, i.e. that
ιm,l preserves the Q-traces.
Remark 6.31 (Q-spherical isometries and Q-subnormality). One may say that a tuple of operators
T1 , . . . , Tn satisfying Equation (6.13) is a Q-spherical isometry’. For Q = 1 we obtain the usual
notion of a spherical isometry. The particular Q-spherical isometry T1 , . . . , Tn obtained in the
proof of Lemma 6.30 is moreover Q-subnormal
P in that it is the restriction to an invariant subspace
of a tuple of operators Z1 , . . . , Zn satisfying nk=1 Zk Zk∗ = 1. In the commutative case (where we
must have Q = 1) we know from [Atha3, Prop. 2] that a subnormal operator tuple is a spherical
isometry if and only if it is subnormal and its normal extension has joint spectrum contained in the
unit sphere S2n−1 .
From our general results we have an isomorphism ς˘(B∞ ) ∼
= B∞ which realizes the projective limit
as an inductive limit. We stress again that this isomorphism ς˘ is not the same as the map ς˘G which
we now try to prove is an isomorphism.
The matrix coefficients of the operator ς˘(m) (f ) are of the form
h(zj zk∗ f ),

j, k ∈ F+
n with |j| = m = |k|.
(m)

(6.14)
(m)

Proof of Theorem 6.28. Since the “coefficient map” ςG in (6.9) is injective, its adjoint ς˘G is surjective. As in the case of B∞ , we get that the image of L∞ (G/K) under ς˘G is exactly B ∞ as a
set.
We cannot use the reasoning in the proof of Lemma 5.20 to deduce that ς˘G is an injection of
C(G/K) into the operator system B ∞ . On the other hand, we see directly that if ς˘(f ) = 0 then,
using that the matrix coefficients of ς˘(f ) are given by (6.14) for all m ∈ N, we get that f must be
orthogonal to the whole normally ordered part of C(G/K) ⊂ L2 (G). Since we have assumed that
each f ∈ C(G/K) can be normally ordered and that that the Haar state is faithful, this means that
f = 0.

48

(0)

Moreover, π −1 (˘
ς (B∞ )) is again equal to TH . Namely, the proof in §5.9 carries over completely.
As before we get that ς˘(m) = ∞,m . Since we know that ς˘(B∞ ) is a C ∗ -algebra (using that it is a
quotient of the Toeplitz algebra) with a unique multiplication, we obtain the von Neumann condition,
i.e. ς˘(m) is asymptotically a homomorphism (see Corollary 5.30). Thus ς˘ is an isomorphism for the
projective-limit multiplication.
We also know that ς˘G intertwines the vacuum state ε̂ with the Haar state h restricted to C(G/K).
Composing with the isomorphism ς˘ : B∞ → ς˘(B∞ ) we get that h is intertwined with the limit state
ωQ . Finally, Lemma 6.27 shows that ς˘G is G-Ĝ-equivariant.

6.4.4

C(SG ) as an inductive limit

Corollary 6.32. Let G be a compact matrix quantum group with faithful Haar measure h : C(G) → C
such that normal ordering is possible in C(G/K). Then there is a G-Ĝ-equivariant isomorphism
between the first-row algebra C(SG ) and the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra OH of the G-subproduct system,
C(SG ) ∼
= OH .
In particular, OH carries an ergodic action of G in which each irreducible representation of G occurs
exactly once.
(0)

(k)

Proof. For notation simplicity we identify OH with the inductive limit B∞ and the modules OH
with the modules E (k) .
Since B∞ ∼
= C(G/K), we know that there is a basis e1 , . . . , en for H such that the Q-sphere
condition (6.4) is satisfied by the generators Z1 , . . . , Zn of OH , just as it is for the generators z1 , . . . , zn
−1/2
−1/2
of C(SG ). This says precisely that Z1 , . . . , Zn and Q1,1 Z1 , . . . , Qn,n Zn are standard right and left
tight normalized frames for the B∞ -bimodule E (1) , respectively; for all ξ ∈ E (1) ,
n
X

k=1

n
X

k=1

−1/2

hξ|Zk iright hZk |ξiright = hξ|ξiright ,

−1/2

hξ|Qk,k Zk ileft hQk,k Zk |ξileft =

n
X

k=1

−1 ∗
ξQk,k
Zk Zk ξ ∗ = ξξ ∗ = hξ|ξileft ,

and identically for C(SG )(1) and the zj ’s. If we identify C(G/K) with B∞ , this means that the
projection P (1) ∈ Mn (C) ⊗ C(G/K) which defines the module C(SG )(1) coincides with the projection
which defines the module E (1) . So the modules are the same and the isomorphism C(SG ) ∼
= OH is
clear.
For the G-Ĝ-equivariance, we must first define actions on OH . But since we know that C(SG ) ∼
=
OH we can just specify these action on generators Z1 , . . . , Zn by the same formulas as for C(SG ).
The last statement is due to Lemma 6.18.

6.5 Comparison with Poisson and Martin boundaries
6.5.1

Poisson integral versus total Toeplitz map

Let G be a compact matrix quantum group with commutative fusion rules (see Definition 6.5) and
faithful Haar measure. The Poisson boundary to be discussed here is the one defined in [Iz1], so if
we were phrasing things in terms of random walks (we shall not), there would in the background be
a representation u of G whose coefficients generate C(G) (without any need of the adjoints u∗j,k ).
Izumi defines [Iz1, Lemma 3.8] the Poisson integral to be the unital completely positive map
Θ : L∞ (G) → R(G) given by
Θ(f ) := (id ⊗h)(W ∗ (1 ⊗ f )W ),
(6.15)

49

where W is the fundamental unitary (§6.1.3). Similar to the projective limit B ∞ which is the image
of our total Toeplitz map ς˘, the image of map Θ is an operator system, usually denoted by H ∞ (Ĝ),
which can be made into a von Neumann algebra by replacing the operator multiplication by the
new one. Moreover, Θ is a complete order isomorphism onto its image. A possible definition of the
Poisson boundary of Ĝ is then as the preimage, say L∞ (G/T), of Θ in L∞ (G). We then refer to
the abstract object G/T as the Poisson boundary of Ĝ. The notation G/T is chosen to indicate that
G and Ĝ act ergodically on L∞ (G/T).
The Poisson boundary G/T is defined in terms of a von Neumann algebra. In order to compare
G/T with what we have denoted G/K, note that ς˘ extends to a normal completely positive map
(denoted by the same symbol)
ς˘ : L∞ (G/K) → B ∞
(6.16)

and this is the “first-row” version of the Poisson integral. Using it one can carry out Berezin quantization on the level of von Neumann algebras. Inspiring work here is [INT1].
The Poisson integral (6.15) can be decomposed into components Θλ : L∞ (G) → B(Hλ ) for
λ ∈ Irrep G, and doing so one easily calculates the adjoints Θ∗λ : B(Hλ ) → L∞ (G). Noticing
the similarity to Berezin quantization, [INT1] referred to the composition Θ∗λ ◦ Θλ as the “Berezin
transform”. This terminology is not entirely fortunate because Θ∗λ ◦ Θλ does not coincide with the
usual notion of Berezin transform when G = G is an ordinary group. The issue is that Θ∗λ is obtained
by tracing against the invertible operator Qλ (which is of full rank) instead of a rank-1 projection.
The distinction is the use of “first-row” versus all of G. This distinction persists even if we, as Izumi
does, assume that every irreducible representation of G is contained in some power of u.
It is therefore interesting that the final results (G/K and G/T) are not very different. For SUq (2)
they even coincide. In general, we should view G/K as a (noncommutative) non-maximal flag variety
(prototype example being CPqn−1 ) while G/T is the maximal flag variety (so T is the “maximal
torus”); cf. [Tom1].
The transition between classical and quantum Poisson boundaries is rather involved [NT1]. In
fact, if G = G is an ordinary compact group then the Poisson boundary is trivial: L∞ (G/T) = C1
[Iz1, Cor. 3.9]. In contrast, Berezin quantization carries over in perfect analogy with the commutative
case.

6.5.2

Markov operator

The set H ∞ (Φ) of fixed points of a normal completely positive map Φ on a von Neumann algebra is
an ultraweakly closed operator system which can be made into a von Neumann algebra by replacing
the operator multiplication by the so-called “Choi–Effros multiplication” [Arv10, Thm. 3.1], [Iz4].
The new multiplication on the Poisson boundary H ∞ (Ĝ) mentioned above is just an example
of a Choi–Effros multiplication. The completely positive map on R(G) whose fixed-point set equals
H ∞ (Ĝ) takes the role of Markov operator for the “noncommutative random walk” on Ĝ.
The following can be summarized by saying that with Berezin quantization one ends up with a
random walk on the “dual” of G/K instead of the dual of G. Note however that it works for any
subproduct system H• . Fix thus a subproduct system H• and denote as usual by Γb = Γb (B• ) the
von Neumann-algebraic direct sum of the matrix algebras Bm := B(Hm ).
Definition 6.33. The Markov operator on B• is the unital normal completely positive map
Φ : Γb → Γb defined by
Φ(X• ) := X•−1 = (m,m−1 (Xm ))m∈N .

Proposition 6.34. The set H ∞ (Φ) of Φ-fixed points in Γb (B• ) is equal to the projective limit B ∞ . In
particular, B ∞ is a von Neumann algebra. On the subset ς˘(B∞ ) ⊂ B ∞ , the Choi–Effros multiplication
coincides with the projective-limit multiplication.
Proof. The first statement is clear, so B ∞ is a von Neumann algebra. To prove the last statement
we use the result [Iz3, Cor. 5.2] that the Choi–Effros product of X, Y ∈ H ∞ (Φ) is given by
X ⋄ Y = lim Φr (XY ),
r→∞

50

where XY is the multiplication in B(HN ) and the limit is in the strong operator topology. Now, the
mth component of X ⋄ Y is

(X ⋄ Y )m = lim Φr (XY ) m = lim m+r,m ((XY )m+r )
r→∞
r→∞

= ∞,m lim (XY )m+r
r→∞

= lim ς˘(l) (XY ) m ,
l→∞

where we used that Xm = ∞,m (X) = ς˘(m) (X). This shows that ⋄ is the projective-limit multiplication (5.23) whenever we have convergence in norm. Since norm-convergence holds for X = ς˘(f ) and
Y = ς˘(g) with f, g ∈ B∞ , the claim holds.

6.5.3

Martin boundaries

While the Poisson boundary is a measure-theoretic object defined via a von Neumann algebra, the
Martin boundary is specified in terms of a C ∗ -algebra [NT1]. Its relation to Berezin quantization is
the same ”first-row versus all-of-G“ story as with the Poisson boundary but we shall discuss only a
special case in which G/K agrees with the Martin boundary of Ĝ. The reason for this coincidence is
that the defining representation of the chosen G is self-conjugate and irreducible, so that H• contains
all irreducible representations.
Our approach here via inductive limits was partially inspired by [VVer1], where they construct a
“Martin boundary” of the dual of G for G = Bu (F ) in the same way. Our notation B∞ is chosen to
make comparison with that paper easy. Let F ∈ GL(n, C) such that F̄ F = ±1; this ensures that the
defining representation of G = Bu (F ) is irreducible. By construction, the Martin boundary of Ĝ is
equal to the inductive limit B∞ of the G-subproduct system.
In [VaVe1], another realization of the Martin boundary was accomplished. First define Bu (F, Fq )
to be the universal C ∗ -algebra generated by the entries of a unitary 2 × n matrix Y satisfying
Y = Fq Y c F −1 .
where Fq :=

0
|q|1/2
±|q|−1/2
0

(6.17)


, with q defined by |q + q −1 | = Tr(F ∗ F ) and F F̄ = ±q and we wrote

q = ∓|q|. It is shown in [VaVe1] that the U(1)-action ρ on Bu (F, Fq ) given by


λ 0
ρλ (Y ) :=
Y,
∀λ ∈ C, |λ| = 1
0 λ̄

allows recovering the Martin boundary as the fixed-point algebra Bu (F, Fq )U(1) .
Since our inductive limit B∞ coincides with the Martin boundary of the dual of Bu (F ), we know
(using Theorem 6.28) that Bu (F, Fq )U(1) must coincide with C(G/K). This can be seen directly. Let
z1 , . . . , zn and w1 , . . . , wn be the elements of the first and second row of Y respectively. Then (6.17)
reads
n
X
−1
zk = |q|1/2
ws∗ Fs,k
,
∀k = 1, . . . , n.
(6.18)
s=1

The action ρz is given by

ρλ (zk ) = λzk ,

ρλ (wk ) = λ̄wk ,

so the fixed-point algebra consists of elements of the form zj wk , and their adjoints, as well as zj zk∗
and wj wk∗ . Now (6.18) shows that Bu (F, Fq )U(1) = C(G/K), as asserted.
Note however that Bu (F, Fq ) is not at all the same as the first-row algebra C(SG ).
Thus we have one example where the Martin boundary of a discrete quantum group identifies
with the object G/K defined in this paper. Also, let q ∈ (0, 1]. Then for the G = SUq (2)-subproduct
system H• we have an equivariant isomorphism
(0)
OH ∼
= C(S2q ),

51

where G/K = S2q is the Podleś sphere. For q < 1, this shows again that our inductive limit B∞
coincides with the C ∗ -algebra referred to as the Martin boundary of the dual of SUq (2) in [VVer1]
(because the same boundary is known to be the Podleś sphere [NT1]). For q = 1, we have agreement
with Biane’s Martin boundary of the dual of SU(2) [Biane1].

7 Concluding remarks
We have seen that the inductive limit B∞ associated with a subproduct system H• is a sensible
generalization of the C ∗ -algebra C(M ) of continuous functions on a quantizable Kähler manifold,
in the case the Kähler structure is projectively induced (so M is embeddable as a submanifold of
projective space). We may therefore write
C(M) := B∞ ,
and say that M is the noncommutative projective variety associated to H• . We may also refer
to elements of
C(SM ) := OH .
as functions on the total space SM of a noncommutative circle bundle over M. Thus the notation
M := G/K and SM := SG would be consistent with that in §6 when H• is the G-subproduct system.
In [An5] we refer to M as the “dequantization manifold”.
By defining C(M) to be equal (and not just isomorphic) to the inductive limit B∞ , the noncommutative space M comes with more structure than just its topology. Namely, if M = M is
commutative then the inductive system gives an embedding into projective space CPn−1 and, if M
is non-singular, endows M with a complex-analytic (in particular smooth) structure, a polarization
L (choice of ample line bundle), an inner product on H 0 (M ; L) (the one we started with, making
H 0 (M ; L) into the Hilbert space H), a Hermitian metric on L (the one defining the ∗-structure on
OH ; this is just the Fubini–Study metric associated with the inner product on H) and a volume
form on M (viz. the limit state, which need not be the same as Fubini–Study volume form). As we
have seen, these structures have perfect generalizations to the noncommutative setting. Note that
the quantum homogeneous spaces G/K are “balanced” in the sense that the limit state on C(G/K)
coincides with the state induced by the Haar state on C(G).
The covariant symbols ς (m) (A) and the Toeplitz operators ς˘(m) (f ) can be expressed in terms of
the projections P (m) ∈ B(Hm ) ⊗ C(M) which define the modules E (m) . In this way one generalizes
the Rawsnely coherent-state projections in [RCG1], and in particular the coherent states in [Per1].
We will use this when we discuss the (fuzzy) geometry of M in another paper.
There are also projections P (−m) and maps ς (−m) , ς˘(−m) etc. associated with the modules E (−m) .
In this way one quantizes instead the anti-normal part of C(G/K).

8 References
11-124 (2000).
[An4] Andersson A. Detailed balance as a quantum-group symmetry of Kraus operators. arXiv:1506.00411
(2015).
[An5] Andersson A. Dequantization via quantum channels. Lett. Math. Phys. Vol 106, Issue 10, pp.
1397-1414 (2016).
[ArMa1] Ara P, Mathieu M. Local multipliers of C ∗ -algebras. Springer (2003).
[ArLo1] Arezzo C, Loi A. Quantization of Kähler manifolds and the asymptotic expansion of Tian–
Yau–Zelditch. J. Geom. Phys. Vol 47, Issue1, pp. 87-99 (2003).
[ArZh1] Artin M, Zhang JJ. Noncommutative projective schemes. Adv. in Math. Vol 109, Issue 2, pp.
228-287 (1994).

52

[Arv6c] Arveson W. Subalgebras of C ∗ -algebras III: Multivariable operator theory. Acta Math. Vol
181, pp. 159-228 (1998).
[Arv8] Arveson W. p-Summable commutators in dimension d. J. Operator Theory. Vol 54, pp. 101-117
(2005).
[Arv9] Arveson W. Quotients of standard Hilbert modules. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol 359, pp.
6027-6055 (2007).
[Arv10] Arveson W. Noncommutative Poisson boundaries. Unpublished. Available at http://math.berkeley.edu/ arve
son/Dvi/290F04/22Sept.pdf (2004).
[Atha3] Athavale A. On the intertwining of joint isometries. J. Oper. Theory. Vol 23, pp. 339-350
(1990).
[BDLMC] Balachandran AP, Dolan BP, Lee JH, Martin X, O’Connor D. Fuzzy complex projective
spaces and their star-products. J. Geom. Phys. Vol 43, pp. 184 (2002).
[Ban3] Banica T. Théorie des représentations du groupe quantique compact libre O(n). C. R. Acad.
Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. Vol 322, pp. 241-244 (1996).
[Ban4] Banica T. Le groupe quantique compact libre U(n). Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 190, pp. 143–172
(1997).
[BaGo1] Banica T, Goswami D. Quantum isometries and noncommutative spheres. Comm. Math.
Phys. Vol 298, Issue 2, pp. 343-356 (2010).
[BMT1] Bédos E, Murphy GJ, Tuset L. Co-amenability of compact quantum groups. J. Geom. Phys.
Vol 40, Issue 2, pp. 129-153 (2001).
[BeSl1] Berceanu S, Schlichenmaier M. Coherent state embeddings, polar divisors and Cauchy formulas.
J. Geom. Phys. Vol, Issue 34, pp. 336-358 (2000).
[Bere1] Berezin FA. Quantization. Math. USSR-Izv. Vol 38, pp. 1116-1175 (1974).
[Bere2] Berezin FA. General concept of quantization. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 40, pp. 153-174 (1995).
[Bere3] Berezin FA. Covariant and contravariant symbols of operators. Math. USSR-Izv. Vol 6, Issue
5, p. 1117 (1972).
[Bere4] Berezin FA. Some remarks about the associative envelope of a Lie algebra. Funct. Anal. Appl.
Vol 1, pp. 91-102 (1967).
[Biane1] Biane P. Introduction to random walks on noncommutative spaces. In: Quantum Potential
Theory. pp. 61-116. Springer (2008).
[Bied1] Biedenharn LC. The quantum group SUq (2) and a q-analogue of the boson operators. J. Phys.
A: Math. Gen. Vol 22, pp. L873-L878 (1989).
[Blac1] Blackadar B. Operator algebras: theory of C ∗ -algebras and von Neumann algebras. Springer
(2006).
[BlKi1] Blackadar B, Kirchberg E. Generalized inductive limits of finite-dimensional C ∗ -algebras. Math.
Ann. Vol 307, pp. 343-380 (1997).
[BMS] Bordemann M, Meinrenken E, Schlichenmaier M. Toeplitz quantization of Kähler manifolds and
gl(n), n → ∞ limits. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 165, Issue 2, pp. 281–296 (1994).
[BHSS] Bordemann M, Hoppe J, Schaller P, Schlichenmaier M. gl(∞) and geometric quantization.
Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 138, Issue 2, pp. 209-244 (1991).
[BLY1] Bourguignon J-P, Li P, Yau ST. Upper bound for the first eigenvalue of algebraic submanifolds.
Comment. Math. Helv. Vol 69, pp. 199-207 (1994).
[Brow1] Brown NP. Invariant means and finite representation theory of C ∗ -algebras. Mem. Amer.
Math. Soc. Vol 184, Issue 865 (2006).
[BrOz1] Brown NP, Ozawa N. C ∗ -algebras and finite-dimensional approximations. Amer. Math. Soc.
(2008).
[CGR1] Cahen M, Gutt S, Rawnsley J. Quantization of Kähler manifolds I: geometric interpretation of
Berezin’s quantization. J. Geom. Phys. Vol 7, Issue 1 (1990).

53

[CGR2] Cahen M, Gutt S, Rawnsley J. Quantization of Kähler manifolds II. Trans. Amer. Math. Vol
337, Issue 1 (1993).
[DDL1] D’Andrea F, Dabrowski L, Landi G. The noncommutative geometry of the quantum projective
plane. Reviews in Mathematical Physics. Vol 20, Issue 08, pp. 979-1006 (2008).
[DRS1] Davidson KR, Ramsey C, Shalit OM. The isomorphism problem for some universal operator
algebras. Adv. Math. Vol 228, Issue 1, pp. 167-218 (2011).
[DRS2] Davidson KR, Ramsey C, Shalit OM. Operator algebras for analytic varieties. Trans. Amer.
Math. Soc. Vol 367, Issue 2, pp. 1121-1150 (2015).
[Don1] Donaldson SK. Scalar curvature and projective embeddings, I J. Differential Geom. Vol 59, pp.
479-522 (2001).
[Don2] Donaldson SK. Scalar curvature and projective embeddings, II. Quart. J. Math. Vol 56, pp.
345-356 (2005).
[Don3] Donaldson SK. Some numerical results in complex differential geometry. Pure Appl. Math. Q.
Vol 5, Issue 2, pp. 571-618 (2009).
[Don9] Donaldson SK. Scalar curvature and stability of toric varieties. J. Differential Geom. Vol 62,
pp. 289-349 (2002).
[Don12] Donaldson SK. Lower bounds on the Calabi functional. J. Differential Geom. Vol 70, pp.
453-472 (2005).
[Doug4] Douglas RG. Essentially reductive Hilbert modules. J. Operator Theory. Vol 55, Issue 1, pp.
117-133 (2006).
[DoWa2] Douglas RG, Wang K. Geometric Arveson–Douglas conjecture and holomorphic extension.
arXiv:1511.00782v1 (2015).
[DoWa4] Douglas RG, Wang K. Essential normality of cyclic submodule generated by any polynomial.
J. Funct. Anal. Vol 261, pp. 3155-3180 (2011).
[East1] Eastwood M. The Cartan product. Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin. Vol. 11, Issue 5, pp.
641-651 (2005).
[EnEs1] Engliš M, Eschmeier J. Geometric Arveson–Douglas conjecture. Adv. Math. Vol 274, pp.
606-630 (2015).
[Esch1] Eschmeier J. Essential normality of homogeneous submodules. Integr. Equ. Oper. Theory.
Vol 69, Issue 2, pp. 171-182 (2011).
[Ev1] Evans DE. On On . Publ. RIMS, Kyoto Univ. Vol 16, pp. 915-927 (1980).
[Frank1] Frank M. Isomorphisms of Hilbert C ∗ -modules and*-isomorphisms of related operator C ∗ algebras. Math. Scand. Vol 80, pp. 313-319 (1997).
[Hawk1] Hawkins E. Quantization of equivariant vector bundles. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 202, Issue
3, pp. 517-546 (1999).
[Hawk2] Hawkins E. Geometric quantization of vector bundles and the correspondence with deformation
quantization. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 215, Issue 2, pp. 409-432 (2000).
[Hawk3] Hawkins E. An obstruction to quantization of the sphere. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 283, Issue
3, pp. 675-699 (2008).
[Huy] Huybrechts D. Complex geometry. An introduction. Springer (2005).
[Iz1] Izumi M. Non-commutative Poisson boundaries and compact quantum group actions. Adv. Math.
Vol 169, Issue 1, pp. 1-57 (2002).
[Iz2] Izumi M. Non-commutative Markov operators arising from subfactors. Operator algebras and
applications. Adv. Stud. Pure Math. Vol 38, pp. 201-217 (2004).
[Iz3] Izumi M. E0 -semigroups: around and beyond Arveson’s work. J. Operator Theory. Vol 68, Issue
2, pp. 335-363 (2012).
[Iz4] Izumi M. Non-commutative Poisson boundaries, Discrete geometric analysis. Contemp. Math.
Vol 347, pp. 69-81 (2004).

54

[INT1] Izumi M, Neshveyev S, Tuset L. Poisson boundary of the dual of SUq (n). Comm. Math. Phys.
Vol 262, Issue 2, pp. 505-531 (2006).
[KaSh1] Kakariadis E, Shalit O. On operator algebras associated with monomial ideals in noncommuting
variables. arXiv:1501.06495 (2015).
[KaSc1] Karabegov AV, Schlichenmaier M. Identification of Berezin–Toeplitz deformation quantization.
J. Reine Angew. Math. Issue 540, p.49-76 (2001).
[Kenn1] Kennedy M. Essential normality and the decomposability of homogeneous submodules. Trans.
Amer. Math. Socl. Vol 367, Issue 1, pp. 293-311 (2015).
[KeSh1] Kennedy M, Shalit OM. Essential normality and the decomposability of algebraic varieties.
New York J. Math. Vol 18, pp. 877-890 (2012).
[KeSh2] Kennedy M, Shalit OM. Essential normality, essential norms and hyperrigidity. New York J.
Math. Vol 18, pp. 877-890 (2012).
[KlS] Klimyk AU, Schmüdgen K. Quantum groups and their representations. Vol. 552, Springer, Berlin
(1997).
[Lan1] Landsman NP. Mathematical topics between classical and quantum mechanics. Springer (1998).
[Lan2] Landsman NP. Strict quantization of coadjoint orbits. J. Math. Phys. Vol 39, Issue 12, pp.
6372-6383 (1998).
[LMS1] Lazaroiu CI, McNamee D, Sämann C. Generalized Berezin quantization, Bergman metrics and
fuzzy Laplacians. J. High Energy Phys. Issue 9, pp. 1-59 (2008).
[LuTe1] Lübke M, Teleman A. The Kobayashi–Hitchin correspondence. World Scienlific Publishing
(1995).
[MaVD] Maes A, Van Daele A. Notes on compact quantum groups. arXiv: math/9803122 (1998).
[McTr1] McCullough S, Trent TT. Invariant subspaces and Nevanlinna–Pick kernels. J. Funct. Anal.
Vol 178, Issue 1, pp. 226-249 (2000).
[NT1] Neshveyev S, Tuset L. The Martin boundary of a discrete quantum group, J. Reine Angew.
Math. Vol 568, pp. 23-70 (2004).
[Per1] Perelomov AM. Generalized coherent states and applications. Springer (1986).
[Pims1] Pimsner MV. A class of C ∗ -algebras generalizing both Cuntz-Krieger algebras and crossed
products by Z. Fields Inst. Commun. Vol 12, pp. 189–212 (1997).
[Pop1] Popescu G. Operator theory on noncommutative varieties. Indiana Univ. Math. J. Vol 56, Issue
2, pp. 389-442 (2006).
[Pop2] Popescu G. Operator theory on noncommutative varieties II. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol 135,
Issue 7, pp. 2151-2164 (2007).
[Raj1] Rajeev SG. New classical limits of quantum theories. In: Infinite Dimensional Groups and
Manifolds. Vol 5, 213 (2004).
[RCG1] Rawnsley J, Cahen M, Gutt S. Quantization of Kähler manifolds I: geometric interpretation of
Berezin’s quantization. J. Geom. Phys. Vol 7, Issue 1, pp. 45-62 (1990).
[RCG2] Rawnsley J, Cahen M, Gutt S. Quantization of Kähler manifolds II. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc.
Vol 337, Issue 1 (1993).
[Rie1] Rieffel M. Deformation quantization for actions of Rd . Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol 506 (1993).
[Rie2] Rieffel M. Matrix algebras converge to the sphere for quantum Gromov–Hausdorff distance.
Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. Vol 168, Issue 796, pp. 67-91 (2004).
[RoSt1] Rørdam M, Størmer E (Eds.). Classification of nuclear C ∗ -algebras. Entropy in operator
algebras. Vol 7. Springer (2002).
[Sain] Sain J. Berezin quantization from ergodic actions of compact quantum groups, and quantum
Gromov–Hausdorff distance. PhD thesis, University of California (2009).
[Schl1] Schlichenmaier M. Berezin-Toeplitz quantization for compact Kähler manifolds. A review of
results. Adv. Math. Phys. Article ID 927280, 38 pages (2010).

55

[Schl2] Schlichenmaier M. Singular projective varieties and quantization. In: Quantization of Singular
Symplectic Quotients. pp. 259-282 (2001).
[Seg1] Segal G. Lectures on Lie groups. In: Lectures on Lie groups and Lie algebras. Cambridge
University Press (1995).
[Serre1] Serre JP. Géométrie algébrique et géométrie analytique. Ann. Inst. Fourier, Grenoble. Vol 6,
pp. 1-42 (1956).
[Serre2] Serre JP. Faisceaux algébriques cohérents. Ann. Math. Vol 61, Issue 2, pp. 197-278 (1955).
[Sha3] Shalit OM. Stable polynomial division and essential normality of graded Hilbert modules. J.
London Math. Soc. Vol 83, Issue 2, pp. 273-289 (2011).
[ShSo1] Shalit OM, Solel B. Subproduct systems. Doc. Math. Vol 14, pp. 801-868 (2009).
[Sten1] Stenstrom B. Rings of quotients – An introduction to methods of ring theory. Springer (1975).
[Tian1] Tian G. Kähler–Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature. Invent. Math. Vol 137, pp.
1-37 (1995).
[Tian2] Tian G. Canonical metrics in Kähler geometry. Birkhauser (2000).
[Timm1] Timmermann T. An invitation to quantum groups and duality: from Hopf algebras to multiplicative unitaries and beyond. Eur. Math. Soc. (2008).
[Tom1] Tomatsu R. A characterization of right coideals of quotient type and its application to classification of Poisson Boundaries. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 275, Issue 1, pp 271-296 (2007).
[UnUp1] Unterberger A, Upmeier H. The Berezin transform and invariant differential operators. Comm.
Math. Phys. Vol 164, pp. 563-597 (1994).
[VaVe1] Vaes S, Vennet N. Identification of the Poisson and Martin boundaries of orthogonal discrete
quantum groups. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu. Issue 7, pp. 391-412 (2008).
[VVer1] Vaes S, Vergnioux R. The boundary of universal discrete quantum groups, exactness and factoriality. Duke Math. J. Vol 140, Issue 1, pp. 35-84 (2006).
[VaDW] Van Daele A, Wang SZ. Universal quantum groups. Int. J. Math. Vol 7, Issue 2, pp. 255-264
(1996).
[Vas1] Vasselli E. Continuous fields of C ∗ -algebras arising from extensions of tensor C ∗ -categories. J.
Funct. Anal. Vol 199, pp. 122-152 (2003).
[Vas3] Vasselli E. The C ∗ -algebra of a vector bundle and fields of Cuntz algebras. J. Funct. Anal. 222,
Issue 2, pp. 491-502 (2005).
[Vis2] Viselter A. Cuntz–Pimsner algebras for subproduct systems. Int. J. Math. Vol 23, Issue 8, p.
1250081 (2012).
[Wang1] Wang SZ. Ergodic actions of universal quantum groups on operator algebras. Comm. Math.
Phys. Vol 203, pp. 481-498 (1999).
[Wang3] Wang SZ. Structure and isomorphism classification of compact quantum groups Au (q) and
Bu (q). arXiv:math/9807095v2 (2000).
[Wa1] Wang X. Balance point and stability of vector bundles over a projective manifold. Math. Res.
Lett. Vol 9, Issues 2-3, pp. 393-411 (2002).
[Wor1] Woronowicz SL. Compact matrix pseudogroups. Comm. Math. Phys. Vol 111, pp. 613-665
(1987).
[Wor3] Woronowicz SL. Tannaka–Krein duality for compact matrix pseudogroups. Twisted SU(n)
groups, Inv. Math. Vol 93, pp. 35-76 (1988).
[Wor4] Woronowicz SL. Compact quantum groups. Symétries quantiques, Les Houches 1995, pp. 845884 (1998).
[Yau1] Yau S-T. On the Ricci curvature of a compact Kähler manifold and the complex Monge–Amère
equation, I. Commun. Pure Appl. Math. Vol 31, pp. 339-411 (1978).
[Zeld1] Zelditch S. Szegö kernels and a theorem of Tian. Int. Math. Res. Not. Issue 6, pp. 317-331
(1998).

56

