--- abstract: 'We use the boundary-path space of a finitely-aligned $k$-graph $\Lambda$ to construct a compactly-aligned product system $X$, and we show that the graph algebra $C^*(\Lambda)$ is isomorphic to the Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra $\NO(X)$. In this setting, we introduce the notion of a crossed product by a semigroup of partial endomorphisms and partially-defined transfer operators by defining it to be $\NO(X)$. We then compare this crossed product with other definitions in the literature.' address: | Nathan Brownlowe, School of Mathematical and Applied Statistics\ University of Wollongong\ NSW 2522\ Australia author: - Nathan Brownlowe title: 'Realising the $C^*$-algebra of a higher-rank graph as an Exel crossed product' --- [^1] Introduction {#Introduction} ============ In @e1, Exel proposed a new definition for a crossed product of a unital $C^*$-algebra $A$ by an endomorphism $\alpha$. Exel's definition depends not only on $\alpha$, but also on the choice of <span>*transfer operator*</span>: a positive continuous linear map $L:A\to A$ satisfying $L(\alpha(a)b)=aL(b)$. We call a triple $(A,\alpha,L)$ an <span>*Exel system*</span>. In his motivating example, Exel finds a family of Exel systems whose crossed products model the Cuntz-Krieger algebras @ck. This marked the first time a crossed product by an endomorphism could successfully model Cuntz-Krieger algebras. There are two obvious extensions of Exel's construction. Firstly, to a theory of crossed products of <span>*non-unital*</span> $C^*$-algebras capable of modeling the directed-graph generalisation of the Cuntz-Krieger algebras @r. In @brv, the authors successfully built such a theory, and they realised the graph algebras of locally-finite graphs with no sources as Exel crossed products @brv [Theorem 5.1]. The crossed product in question was built from the infinite-path space $E^{\infty}$ and the shift map $\sigma$ on $E^{\infty}$. The hypotheses on $E$ ensure that $E^{\infty}$ is locally compact, and $\sigma$ is everywhere defined, and this allows an Exel system to be defined. The other extension of Exel's work is to crossed products by <span>*semigroups*</span> of endomorphisms and transfer operators. In @l, Larsen has a crossed-product construction for dynamical systems $(A,P,\alpha,L)$ in which $P$ is an abelian semigroup, $\alpha$ is an action of $P$ by endomorphisms, and $L$ is an action of $P$ by transfer operators. Exel has also worked in this area with his theory of interaction groups @e2 [@e3]. Motivated by these ideas, we construct a semigroup crossed product that can model the $C^*$-algebras of the higher-rank graphs, or $k$-graphs, of Kumjian and Pask @kp. The only restriction we place on the $k$-graphs $\Lambda$ whose $C^*$-algebras we model is a necessary finitely-aligned hypothesis, so our result applies in the fullest possible generality. This does come at a price, however, as without a locally-finite hypothesis, or a restriction on sources, the space of infinite paths is not locally compact. To get a locally-compact space we need to consider the bigger <span>*boundary-path space*</span> $\partial\Lambda$, and on this space the shift maps $\sigma_n$, $n\in\N^k$, will not in general be everywhere defined. This means we can not form Exel systems, or even a dynamical system in the sense of Larsen @l. We overcome this problem by first ignoring the crossed-product construction, and focusing on building a <span>*product system*</span>. A product system of Hilbert $A$-bimodules over a semigroup $P$ is a semigroup $X=\bigsqcup_{p\in P}X_p$ such that each $X_p$ is a Hilbert $A$-bimodule, and $x\otimes_A y\mapsto xy$ determines an isomorphism of $X_p\otimes_A X_q$ onto $X_{pq}$ for each $p,q\in P$. Fowler introduced such product systems in @f. Fowler also defined a Cuntz-Pimsner covariance condition for representations of product systems, and introduced the universal $C^*$-algebra $\OO(X)$ for Cuntz-Pimsner covariant representations of $X$. This generalised Pimsner's $C^*$-algebra for a single Hilbert bimodule @p. In @sy, Sims and Yeend looked at the problem of associating a $C^*$-algebra to product systems which satisfies a gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem, and noted in particular that Fowler's $\OO(X)$ will not in general do the job. For a large class of semigroups, and a class of product systems called compactly aligned, Sims and Yeend introduced a covariance condition for representations — called Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner covariance — and a $C^*$-algebra $\NO(X)$ universal for such representations. A gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem for $\NO(X)$ is proved in @clsv. We build from $\partial\Lambda$ and the $\sigma_n$ topological graphs in the sense of Katsura @k, and then we apply the construction from @k to get Hilbert $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$-bimodules $X_n$. We glue the bimodules together to form the <span>*boundary-path product system*</span> $X$ over $\N^k$. This gives a new class of product systems for which the Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra $\NO(X)$ is tractable. The main result in this paper says that for $\Lambda$ a finitely-aligned $k$-graph, the graph algebra $C^*(\Lambda)$ is isomorphic to $\NO(X)$. A result, we feel, that gives extra credence to Sims and Yeend's construction, at least in the case for the semigroup $\N^k$. We then construct for each $n\in\N^k$ a partial endomorphism $\alpha_n$ on $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$ and a partially-defined transfer operator $L_n$, and we <span>*define*</span> the crossed product $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$ to be $\NO(X)$. This gives us our desired result: $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k\cong C^*(\Lambda)$. We begin with some preliminaries in Section \[preliminaries\]. We state some necessary definitions from the $k$-graph literature, and we state the definition of the Cuntz-Krieger algebra of a $k$-graph. We then state the definitions from @sy needed to make sense of the notion of Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner covariance, and the Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra of a compactly-aligned product system. In Section \[the product system section\] we construct from a finitely-aligned $k$-graph $\Lambda$ the boundary-path product system $X$. The proof that $X$ is compactly aligned requires substantial detail, so we leave this result for the appendix. In Section \[the CNP\] we prove the existence of a canonical isomorphism $C^*(\Lambda)\to \NO(X)$. In Section \[conn to scp\] we introduce the crossed product $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$, and we discuss the relationship between this crossed product and the crossed product in @brv; Exel and Royer's crossed product by a partial endomorphism @er; and Larsen's semigroup crossed product @l. Preliminaries ============= $k$-graphs and their Cuntz-Krieger algebras ------------------------------------------- A higher-rank graph, or $k$-graph, is a pair $(\Lambda,d)$ consisting of a countable category $\Lambda$ and a degree functor $d:\Lambda\rightarrow\N^k$ satisfying the unique factorisation property: for all $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and $m,n\in\N^k$ with $d(\lambda)=m+n$, there are unique elements $\mu,\nu\in\Lambda$ such that $d(\mu)=m$, $d(\nu)=n$ and $\lambda=\mu\nu$. We now recall some definitions from the $k$-graph literature; for more details see @fmy. For $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ we denote $$\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu):=\{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda\times\Lambda:\lambda\alpha=\mu\beta\text{ and }d(\lambda\alpha)=d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)\}.$$ A $k$-graph $\Lambda$ is <span>*finitely aligned*</span> if $\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)$ is at most finite for all $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$. For each $v\in\Lambda^0$ we denote by $v\Lambda:=\{\lambda\in\Lambda:r(\lambda)=v\}$. A subset $E\subseteq v\Lambda$ is <span>*exhaustive*</span> if for every $\mu\in v\Lambda$ there exists a $\lambda\in E$ such that $\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)\not=\emptyset$. We denote the set of all <span>*finite*</span> exhaustive subsets of $\Lambda$ by $\FE(\Lambda)$. We denote by $v\FE(\Lambda)$ the set $\{E\in\FE(\Lambda):E\subseteq v\Lambda\}$. For each $m\in(\N\cup\{\infty\})^k$ we get a $k$-graph $\Omega_{k,m}$ through the following construction. The set $\Omega_{k,m}^0:=\{p\in\N^k:p\le m\}$, and $$\Omega_k^*:=\{(p,q)\in\Omega_{k,m}^0\times\Omega_{k,m}^0:p\le q\}.$$ The range map is given by $r(p,q)=p$; the source map by $s(p,q)=q$; and the degree functor by $d(p,q)=q-p$. Composition is given by $(p,q)(q,r)=(p,r)$. For $k$-graph $\Lambda$ we define a <span>*graph morphism*</span> $x$ to be a degree-preserving functor from $\Omega_{k,m}$ to $\Lambda$. The range and degree maps are extended to all graph morphisms $x:\Omega_{k,m}\to \Lambda$ by setting $r(x):=x(0)$ and $d(x):=m$. We define the <span>*boundary-path space*</span> $\partial\Lambda$ to be the set of all graph morphisms $x$ such that for all $n\in\N^k$ with $n\le d(x)$, and for all $E\in x(n)\FE(\Lambda)$, there exists $\lambda\in E$ such that $x(n,n+d(\lambda))=\lambda$. We know from @fmy [Lemmas 5.13] that if $\lambda\in\Lambda x(0)$, then $\lambda x\in\partial\Lambda$. We know from @fmy [Lemma 5.15] that for each $v\in\Lambda^0$ there exists $x\in v\partial\Lambda=\{x\in\partial\Lambda:r(x)=v\}$. We recall from @sy the following definition. \[CK family\] Let $\Lambda$ be a finitely-aligned $k$-graph. A <span>*Cuntz-Krieger family*</span> in a $C^*$-algebra $B$ is a collection $\{t_{\lambda}:\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ of partial isometries in $B$ satisfying - $\{t_v:v\in\Lambda^0\}$ consists of mutually orthogonal projections; - $t_{\lambda}t_{\mu}=t_{\lambda\mu}$ whenever $s(\lambda)=r(\mu)$; - $t_{\lambda}^*t_{\mu}=\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}t_{\alpha}t_{\beta}^*$; and - $\prod_{\lambda\in E}(t_v-t_{\lambda}t_{\lambda}^*)=0$ for every $v\in \Lambda^0$ and $E\in v\FF\EE(\Lambda)$. The <span>*Cuntz-Krieger algebra*</span>, or <span>*graph algebra*</span>, $C^*(\Lambda)$ is the universal $C^*$-algebra generated by a Cuntz-Krieger $\Lambda$-family. Product systems and their Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebras {#section on ps etc} ----------------------------------------------------- In this subsection we state some key definitions from @sy [Sections 2 and 3]; see @sy for more details. Suppose $A$ is a $C^*$-algebra, and $(G,P)$ is a quasi-lattice ordered group in the sense that: $G$ is a discrete group and $P$ is a subsemigroup of $G$; $P\cap P^{-1}=\{e\}$; and with respect to the partial order $p\le q\Longleftrightarrow p^{-1}q\in P$, any two elements $p,q\in G$ which have a common upper bound in $P$ have a least upper bound $p\vee q\in P$. Suppose $X:=\bigcup_{p\in P}X_p$ is a product system of Hilbert $A$-bimodules. For each $p\in P$ and each $x,y\in X_p$ the operator $\Theta_{x,y}:X_p\to X_p$ defined by $\Theta_{x,y}(z):= x\cdot{\langle y,z\rangle}_A$ is adjointable with $\Theta_{x,y}^*=\Theta_{y,x}$. The span $\KK(X_p):=\overline{\newspan}\{\Theta_{x,y}:x,y\in X_p\}$ is a closed two-sided ideal in $\LL(X_p)$ called the <span>*algebra of compact operators on*</span> $X_p$. For $p,q\in P$ with $e<p\le q$ there is a homomorphism $\iota_p^q:\LL(X_p)\rightarrow\LL(X_q)$ characterised by $$\label{char of iota map} \iota_p^q(S)(xy)=(Sx)y\quad\text{for all $x\in X_p,y\in X_{p^{-1}q}$.}$$ For $p\not\le q$ we define $\iota_p^q(S)=0_{\LL(X_q)}$ for all $S\in\LL(X_p)$. The product system $X$ is called <span>*compactly aligned*</span> if for all $p,q\in P$ such that $p\vee q<\infty$, and for all $S\in\KK(X_p)$ and $T\in\KK(X_q)$, we have $\iota_p^{p\vee q}(S)\iota_q^{p\vee q}(T)\in\KK(X_{p\vee q})$. A <span>*representation*</span> $\psi$ of $X$ in a $C^*$-algebra $B$ is a map $X\to B$ such that - each $\psi|_{X_p}:=\psi_p:X_p\to B$ is linear, and $\psi_e:A\to B$ is a homomorphism; - $\psi_p(x)\psi_y(q)=\psi_{pq}(xy)$ for all $p,q\in P$, $x\in X_p$, and $y\in X_q$; and - $\psi_e({\langle x,y\rangle}_A^p)=\psi_p(x)^*\psi_p(y)$ for all $p\in P$, and $x,y\in X_p$. It follows from Pimsner's results @p that for each $p\in P$ there is a homomorphism $\psi^{(p)}:\KK(X_p)\to B$ satisfying $\psi^{(p)}(\Theta_{x,y})=\psi_p(x)\psi_p(y)^*$ for all $x,y\in X_p$. A representation $\psi$ of $X$ is <span>*Nica-covariant*</span> if for all $p,q\in P$ and all $S\in\KK(X_p), T\in\KK(X_q)$ we have $$\psi^{(p)}(S)\psi^{(q)}(T)= \begin{cases} \psi^{(p\vee q)}\big(\iota_p^{p\vee q}(S)\iota_q^{p\vee q}(T)\big) & \text{if $p\vee q<\infty$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ We denote by $\phi_p$ the homomorphism $A\rightarrow\LL(X_p)$ implementing the left action of $A$ on $X_p$. We define $I_e=A$, and for each $q\in P\setminus\{e\}$ we write $I_q:=\cap_{e<p\le q}\ker\phi_p$. We then denote by $\widetilde{X}_q$ the Hilbert $A$-bimodule $$\widetilde{X}_q:=\bigoplus_{p\le q}X_p\cdot I_{p^{-1}q},$$ and we denote by $\widetilde{\phi}_q$ the homomorphism implementing the left action of $A$ on $\widetilde{X}_q$. The product system $X$ is said to be $\widetilde{\phi}$-<span>*injective*</span> if every $\widetilde{\phi}_q$ is injective. For $p,q\in P$ with $p\not= e$ there is a homomorphism $\widetilde{\iota}_p^q:\LL(X_p)\rightarrow\LL(\widetilde{X}_q)$ determined by $S\mapsto \bigoplus_{r\le q}\iota_p^r(S)$ for all $S\in\LL(X_p)$; and characterised by $$\label{char of iota-tilde map} (\widetilde{\iota}_p^q(S)x)(r)=\iota_p^r(S)x(r)\quad\text{for all $x\in\widetilde{X}_q$}.$$ A representation $\psi$ of a $\widetilde{\phi}$-injective product system $X$ in a $C^*$-algebra $B$ is <span>*Cuntz-Pimsner covariant*</span> if $\sum_{p\in F}\psi^{(p)}(T_p)=0_B$ whenever $F\subset P$ is finite, $T_p\in\KK(X_p)$ for each $p\in F$, and $\sum_{p\in F}\widetilde{\iota}_p^s(T_p)=0$ for large $s$ (see @sy [Definition 3.8] for the meaning of "for large $s$"). A representation $\psi$ of a $\tilde{\phi}$-injective product system $X$ is <span>*Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner covariant*</span> if it is both Nica covariant and Cuntz-Pimsner covariant. It is proved in @sy [Proposition 3.12] that there exists a $C^*$-algebra $\NO(X)$, called the <span>*Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra of*</span> $X$, which is universal for Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner covariant representations of $X$. We denote the universal Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner representation by $j_X:X\rightarrow\NO(X)$. The boundary-path product system of a $k$-graph {#the product system section} =============================================== Let $\Lambda$ be a finitely-aligned $k$-graph. For $\lambda\in\Lambda$ we denote the set $D_{\lambda}:=\{x\in\partial\Lambda:x(0,d(\lambda))=\lambda\}$. For $n\in\N^k$ we denote $$\AA^n:=\{(\lambda,F):\lambda\in\Lambda\text{ with $d(\lambda)\ge n$},\, F\subseteq s(\lambda)\Lambda\text{ a finite set}\},$$ and $\AA:=\bigcup_{n\in\N^k}\AA^n$. For $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$ we denote $D_{\lambda F}:=\bigcup_{\nu\in F}D_{\lambda\nu}$. It is proved in @fmy [Section 5] that the family of sets $\{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA\}$ is a basis of compact and open sets for a Hausdorff topology on $\partial\Lambda$, and $\partial\Lambda$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space. For each $n\in\N^k$ we denote $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}:=\{x\in\partial\Lambda:d(x)\ge n\}$ and $\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge n}:=\partial\Lambda\setminus\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$. We now use the subsets $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$ to construct topological graphs in the sense of Katsura @k [@k2]. \[top graph\] Let $n\in\N^k$ with $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} \not=\emptyset$. Denote by $\sigma_n$ the shift on $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$ given by $\sigma_n(x)(m)=x(m+n)$, and $\iota:\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}\rightarrow\partial\Lambda$ the inclusion mapping. Then $E_n:=(\partial\Lambda,\partial\Lambda^{\ge n},\sigma_n,\iota)$ is a topological graph. We use the definition of convergence given in @fmy [Remark 5.6]. Let $(x_i)$ be a sequence in $\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge n}$ converging to $x$. If $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} $, then there exists $j\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ and a subsequence $({x_i}_k)$ of $(x_i)$ such that ${d({x_i}_k)}_j<{d(x)}_j$ for all ${x_i}_k$. This contradicts that $({x_i}_k)$ converges to $x$, so we must have $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge n} $, and hence $\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge n} $ is closed in $\partial\Lambda$. Hence $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$ is locally compact. Let $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$. Then $D_{x(0,n)}$ is an open neighbourhood of $x$, with $D_{x(0,n)}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$. The map $\sigma_n|_{D_{x(0,n)}}:D_{x(0,n)}\rightarrow D_{s(x(0,n))}$ is a bijection, and $\sigma_n(D_{x(0,n)})=D_{s(x(0,n))}$ is open in $\partial\Lambda$. Now suppose $\lambda\in s(x(0,n))\Lambda$ and $F\subseteq s(\lambda)\Lambda$. Then $$\sigma_n|_{D_{x(0,n)}}(D_{x(0,n)\lambda}\setminus D_{x(0,n)\lambda F})= D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$$ is open in $D_{s(x(0,n))}$, and $${\left(\sigma_n|_{D_{x(0,n)}}\right)}^{-1}(D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})=D_{x(0,n)\lambda}\setminus D_{x(0,n)\lambda F}$$ is open in $D_{x(0,n)}$. Hence, $\sigma_n|_{D_{x(0,n)}}$ is continuous and open, and so it is a homeomorphism of $D_{x(0,n)}$ onto $D_{s(x(0,n))}$. Hence $\sigma_n$ is a local homeomorphism. We know that $\iota$ is continuous, so the result follows. We now use Katsura's construction @k to form Hilbert bimodules. For $f,g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ and $a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda)$, we define $$\label{the right action} (f\cdot a)(x):= f(x)a(\sigma_n(x))$$ and $$\label{the inner product} {\langle f,g\rangle}_n(x):=\sum_{\sigma_n(y)=x}\overline{f(y)}g(y).$$ We complete $C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ under the norm $\|\cdot\|_n$ given by ${\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle}_n$ to get a Hilbert $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$-module $X_n=X(E_n)$. The formula $$\label{the left action} (a\cdot f)(x):=a(\iota(x))f(x)=a(x)f(x),$$ defines an action of $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$ by adjointable operators on $X_n$, which we denote by $\phi_n:C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rightarrow\LL(X_n)$, and then $X_n$ becomes a Hilbert $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$-bimodule. For $n\in\N^k$ with $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} =\emptyset$ we set $X_n:=\{0\}$. Note that $X_0=C_0(\partial\Lambda)$. \[the pi map\] Let $m,n\in\N^k$ with $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m} ,\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} \not=\emptyset$. Then the map $$\pi:C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})\times C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})\rightarrow C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n})$$ given by $\pi(f,g)(x)=f(x)g(\sigma_m(x))$ is a surjective map which induces an isomorphism $\pi_{m,n}:X_m\otimes X_n\to X_{m+n}$ satisfying $\pi_{m,n}(f\otimes g)=f(g\circ\sigma_m)$. To prove this proposition we need some results. To state these results we use the following notation. <span class="nodecor">(a)</span> Recall from @fmy [Definition 3.10] that given $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and $E\subseteq r(\lambda)\Lambda$ we denote $$\Ext(\lambda;E):=\bigcup_{\nu\in E}\{\alpha\in\Lambda:(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\nu)\text{ for some $\beta\in\Lambda$}\}.$$ For $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ we denote $F(\lambda,\mu):=\Ext(\lambda;\{\mu\})$. Since $\Lambda$ is finitely aligned, $F(\lambda,\mu)$ is a finite subset of $s(\lambda)\Lambda$, and so $(\lambda,F(\lambda,\mu))\in\AA$. We have $$\label{eq for F notation} D_{\lambda F(\lambda,\mu)}=D_{\mu F(\mu,\lambda)}.$$ <span class="nodecor">(b)</span> Let $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ and $x\in\partial\Lambda$ with $d(x)\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)$. Then we denote by $x_{\lambda}^{\mu}$ the path $$x_{\lambda}^{\mu}:=x(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)).$$ \[set result for being an algebra\] Let $(\lambda,F),(\mu,G)\in\AA$. Then we have $$\label{eq for set result for being an algebra} (D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})\cap(D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}) =\bigsqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}D_{\lambda\alpha}\setminus D_{\lambda\alpha F_{\alpha}},$$ where $$F_{\alpha}:=\left(\bigcup_{\nu\in F}F(\lambda\alpha,\lambda\nu)\right)\cup\left(\bigcup_{\xi\in G}F(\lambda\alpha,\mu\xi)\right).$$ The factorisation property ensures that the union in (\[eq for set result for being an algebra\]) is disjoint. Let $x\in(D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})\cap(D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G})$. Then $d(x)\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)$; the pair $(x_{\lambda}^{\mu},x_{\mu}^{\lambda})\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)$; and $x\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu}}$. Using (\[eq for F notation\]) we have $$x\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu} F(\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu},\lambda\nu)}=D_{\lambda\nu F(\lambda\nu,\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu})}\Longrightarrow x\in D_{\lambda F},$$ which contradicts $x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$, so we must have $x\not\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu}F(\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu},\lambda\nu)}$ for all $\nu\in F$. By symmetry, we also have $x\not\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu}F(\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu},\mu\xi)}$ for all $\xi\in G$. Hence $x\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu}}\setminus D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\mu}F_{ x_{\lambda}^{\mu}}}$. Now suppose $y$ is an element of the right-hand-side of (\[eq for set result for being an algebra\]). So there exists $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)$ with $y\in D_{\lambda\alpha}\setminus D_{\lambda\alpha F_{\alpha}}$. We have $y\in D_{\lambda\alpha}\subseteq D_{\lambda}$. Assume $y\in D_{\lambda\nu}$ for some $\nu\in F$. Then $d(y)\ge d(\lambda\alpha)\vee d(\lambda\nu)$; the pair $(y_{\lambda\alpha}^{\lambda\nu},y_{\lambda\nu}^{\lambda\alpha})\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda\alpha,\lambda\nu)$; and $y\in D_{\lambda\alpha F(\lambda\alpha,\lambda\nu)}\subseteq D_{\lambda\alpha F_{\alpha}}$. This is a contradiction, and so $y\not\in D_{\lambda\nu}$ for all $\nu\in F$. Hence $y\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$. By symmetry, we also have $y\in D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}$. Hence $y\in (D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})\cap(D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G})$. \[lem about the finite union\] Let $n\in \N^k$ and $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$ with $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$. Then we have $$\label{the finite, disj union} D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}=\bigsqcup_{\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda^{d(\lambda)\vee n-d(\lambda)}}D_{\lambda\mu}\setminus D_{\lambda\mu \Ext(\mu;F)},$$ where $(\lambda\mu,\Ext(\mu;F))\in\AA^n$ for each $\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda^{d(\lambda)\vee n-d(\lambda)}$. The factorisation property ensures that the union in (\[the finite, disj union\]) is disjoint. Suppose $x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$, and consider the path $\mu:=x(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)\vee n)\in s(\lambda)\Lambda^{d(\lambda)\vee n-d(\lambda)}$. Then $x\in D_{\lambda\mu}$. If $x\in D_{\lambda\mu \Ext(\mu;F)}$, then there exists $\nu\in F$ and $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\mu,\nu)$ with $x\in D_{\lambda\mu\alpha}=D_{\lambda\nu\beta}\subseteq D_{\lambda\nu}\subseteq D_{\lambda F}$. But this is a contradiction, and so we must have $x\in D_{\lambda\mu}\setminus D_{\lambda\mu\Ext(\mu;F)}$. Now, let $y\in D_{\lambda\mu}\setminus D_{\lambda\mu \Ext(\mu;F)}$ for some $\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda^{d(\lambda)\vee n-d(\lambda)}$. Then $y\in D_{\lambda}$. If $y\in D_{\lambda\nu}$ for some $\nu\in F$, then the pair $$\Big(y_{\lambda\mu}^{\lambda\nu}\big(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)+d(\mu)\vee d(\nu)\big),y_{\lambda\nu}^{\lambda\mu}\big(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)+d(\mu)\vee d(\nu)\big)\Big)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\mu,\nu),$$ and $y\in D_{\lambda\mu\Ext(\mu;F)}$. This is a contradiction, and so we must have $y\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$. Finally, for each $\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda^{d(\lambda)\vee n-d(\lambda)}$ the set $\Ext(\mu;F)$ is finite because $F$ is finite and $\Lambda$ is finitely aligned. We obviously have $d(\lambda\mu)\ge n$, and so $(\lambda\mu,\Ext(\mu;F))\in\AA^n$. \[Proof of Proposition \[the pi map\]\] To show that $\pi$ is surjective we let $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n})$. For each $x\in\supp f$ there exists $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$ with $x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq \partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}$. So there exists a subset $\JJ\subseteq\AA$ such that $\supp f\subseteq\bigcup_{(\lambda,F)\in\JJ} D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F},$ where $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}$ for each $(\lambda,F)\in \JJ$. It follows from Lemma \[lem about the finite union\] that each $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$ is a disjoint union of sets of the form $D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}$ with $(\mu,G)\in\AA^{m+n}$, and so there exists a subset $\JJ'\subseteq\AA^{m+n}$ such that $\supp f\subseteq\bigcup_{(\mu,G)\in\JJ'} D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}$, where $D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}$ for each $(\mu,G)\in \JJ'$. Since $\supp f$ is compact, there exists a finite number of pairs $(\mu_j,G_j)\in\JJ'$ with $\supp f\subseteq\bigcup_{j=1}^h D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}$. Now for each $1\le j\le h$ let $\lambda_j:=\mu_j(m,d(\mu_j))$, and consider the function $\XX_{\cup_j D_{\lambda_j}\setminus D_{\lambda_j G_j}}\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$. Consider also $\tilde{f}\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})$ which is equal to $f$ on $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}$ and zero on the complement. Then we have $\pi(\tilde{f},\XX_{\cup_j D_{\lambda_j}\setminus D_{\lambda_j G_j}})=f$, and so $\pi$ maps onto $C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n})$. Routine calculations show that $\pi$ is bilinear, and so it induces a surjective linear map $\pi_{m,n}:C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})\odot C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})\rightarrow C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n})$ satisfying $\pi_{m,n}(f\otimes g)(x)=f(x)g(\sigma_m(x))$. It follows immediately from the formulas (\[the right action\]) and (\[the left action\]) that $\pi$ preserves the left and right actions. To see that $\pi_{m,n}$ preserves the inner product, we let $f,h\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})$ and $g,l\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$. Then for $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \langle f\otimes g,h\otimes l\rangle(x) &= {\langle {\langle h,f\rangle}_m\cdot g,l\rangle}_n(x)= \sum_{\sigma_n(y)=x}\overline{{\langle h,f\rangle}_m(y)}\overline{g(y)}l(y)\nonumber\\ &= \sum_{\sigma_n(y)=x}\left(\sum_{\sigma_m(z)=y}h(z)\overline{f(z)}\right)\overline{g(y)}l(y)\nonumber\\ &= \sum_{\sigma_{m+n}(z)=x}\overline{g(\sigma_m(z))}l(\sigma_m(z))\overline{f(z)}h(z).\label{eq for zero checking}\end{aligned}$$ Now $$\begin{aligned} {\langle\pi_{m,n}(f\otimes g),\pi_{m,n}(h\otimes l)\rangle}_{m+n}(x) &= \sum_{\sigma_{m+n}(z)=x}\overline{\pi_{m,n}(f\otimes g)(z)}\pi_{m,n}(h\otimes l)(z)\\ &= \sum_{\sigma_{m+n}(z)=x}\overline{f(z)}\overline{g(\sigma_m(z))}h(z)l(\sigma_m(z))\\ &= \langle f\otimes g,h\otimes l\rangle(x),\end{aligned}$$ and so $\pi_{m,n}$ preserves the inner product. Hence it extends to an isomorphism $\pi_{m,n}:X_m\otimes X_n\rightarrow X_{m+n}$. \[remark for zeros\] Suppose $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m} ,\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} \not= \emptyset$ and $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}=\emptyset$. We claim that $X_m\otimes X_n=\{0\}$. To see this is true, we assume the contrary. Then there exists $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})$ and $g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ with $f\otimes g\not=0$. It follows from Equation (\[eq for zero checking\]) that $$\langle f\otimes g,f\otimes g\rangle(x) = \sum_{\sigma_{m+n}(z)=x}{|f(z)|}^2{|g(\sigma_m(z))|}^2,$$ and this implies $$\begin{aligned} \langle f\otimes g,f\otimes g\rangle\not=0 &\Longleftrightarrow \sigma_{m+n}^{-1}(x)\not=\emptyset\text{ for some $x\in\partial\Lambda$}\\ &\Longleftrightarrow \partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}\not=\emptyset.\end{aligned}$$ This is a contradiction, and so we must have $X_m\otimes X_n=\{0\}=X_{m+n}$. Now suppose that $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m} \not=\emptyset$ and $\partial\Lambda^{\ge n} =\emptyset$. Then we have $\partial\Lambda^{\ge m+n}=\emptyset$, and so $X_n=\{0\}=X_{m+n}$. Then $X_m\otimes X_n=X_m\otimes\{0\}=\{0\}=X_{m+n}$. So we can extend Proposition \[the pi map\] to include all $m,n\in\N^k$, and we think of $\pi_{m,n}$ for $m,n$ as in this remark as the trivial map from $\{0\}$ to itself. \[the product system\] The family $X:=\sqcup_{n\in \N^k}X_n$ of Hilbert bimodules over $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$ with multiplication given by $$\label{def of mult in ps} xy:=\pi_{m,n}(x\otimes y)$$ is a product system over $\N^k$. We just need to check that $ax=a\cdot x$ and $xa=x\cdot a$ for all $x\in X_n$, $n\in\N^k$ and $a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda)$, but this follows from (\[the right action\]), (\[the left action\]) and the definition of multiplication (\[def of mult in ps\]). We prove that $X$ is compactly aligned in the Appendix. Given the definition (\[def of mult in ps\]) of multiplication within $X$, we now have the following restatement of Proposition \[the pi map\]. This corollary plays an important role in subsequent sections. \[imp cor for dense subs\] Let $n\in\N^k$ and $h\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$. Then for every $l,m\in\N^k$ with $n=l+m$, there exists $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge l})$ and $g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})$ with $h=fg$. The Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra $\NO(X)$ {#the CNP} ======================================= Recall that we denote by $j_{X}:X\to \NO(X)$ the universal Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner representation of $X$. For each $m\in\N^k$ we denote by $j_{X,m}$ the restriction of $j_{X}$ to $X_m$. For each $\lambda\in\Lambda$ the set $D_\lambda$ is closed and open, and so the characteristic function $\XX_{D_\lambda}\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)})\subset X_{d(\lambda)}$. \[the main result\] Let $\Lambda$ be a finitely aligned $k$-graph and $X$ be the associated product system of Hilbert bimodules given in . Denote by $\{s_{\lambda}:\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ the universal Cuntz-Krieger $\Lambda$-family in $C^*(\Lambda)$. There exists an isomorphism $\pi: C^*(\Lambda)\rightarrow\NO(X)$ such that $\pi(s_{\lambda})=j_{X,d(\lambda)}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}})$. To prove this result we first show that $S:=\{S_{\lambda}:=j_{X,d(\lambda)}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}}):\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is a set of partial isometries in $\NO(X)$ satisfying (CK1) and (CK2). We use the Nica covariance of $j_{X}$ to show that $S$ satisfies (CK3), and the Cuntz-Pimsner covariance of $j_{X}$ to show that $S$ satisfies (CK4). The universal property of $C^*(\Lambda)$ then gives us a map $\pi: C^*(\Lambda)\rightarrow\NO(X)$ with $\pi(s_{\lambda})=j_{X}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}})$ for each $\lambda\in\Lambda$. We show that $S$ generates $\NO(X)$, and we use the gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem for $C^*(\Lambda)$ @rsy [Theorem 4.2] to prove that $\pi$ is injective. \[the first 2 ck relations\] The set $S=\{S_{\lambda}:\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is a family of partial isometries satisfying and . Let $\lambda\in\Lambda$. Using (\[the right action\]) and (\[the inner product\]) we get $\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\cdot{\langle \XX_{D_{\lambda}},\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\rangle}_{d(\lambda)}=\XX_{D_{\lambda}}$, and it follows that $S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*S_{\lambda}=S_{\lambda}$. It follows from the properties of characteristic functions that $\{S_v=j_{X,0}(\XX_{D_v})\}$ is a set of mutually orthogonal projections, thus (CK1) is satisfied. Relation (CK2) follows from the calculation $$\begin{aligned} \XX_{D_{\lambda}}\XX_{D_{\mu}}(x) &= \pi_{d(\lambda),d(\mu)}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\otimes\XX_{D_{\mu}})(x)\\ &= \XX_{D_{\lambda}}(x)\XX_{D_{\mu}}(\sigma_{d(\lambda)}(x))\\ &= \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $x(0,d(\lambda))=\lambda$ and $x(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)+d(\mu))=\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\\ &= \XX_{D_{\lambda\mu}}(x).\qedhere\end{aligned}$$ \[ck3\] The set $S$ satisfies relation : $$S_{\lambda}^*S_{\mu}=\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{\alpha}S_{\beta}^*\quad\text{for all $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$.}$$ To prove this proposition we need the next result. For $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ with $d(\lambda)=d(\mu)$ we denote by $\Theta_{\lambda,\mu}$ the rank-one operator $\Theta_{\XX_{D_{\lambda}},\XX_{D_{\mu}}}\in\KK(X_{d(\lambda)})$. \[the iota maps\] Let $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$. Then we have $$\label{eq for iotas} \iota_{d(\lambda)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\iota_{d(\mu)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu}) = \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}\Theta_{\lambda\alpha,\mu\beta}.$$ Let $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\mu)})$ and $g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)-d(\mu)})$. We show that the operators in (\[eq for iotas\]) agree on the product $fg\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)})$, and then the result will follow from Corollary \[imp cor for dense subs\] and the fact that $C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)})$ is dense in $X_{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}$. We know that for each $\mu\in\Lambda$ we have $\Theta_{\mu,\mu}(f)=\XX_{D_{\mu}}\cdot{\langle \XX_{D_{\mu}},f\rangle}_{d(\mu)}$. It follows from a routine calculation using (\[the right action\]) and (\[the inner product\]) that $\Theta_{\mu,\mu}(f)=\XX_{D_{\mu}}f$, where $\XX_{D_{\mu}}f$ is a product of functions in $C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\mu)})$. It now follows from (\[char of iota map\]) that $$\label{ex eq} \iota_{d(\mu)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(fg)=(\Theta_{\mu,\mu}(f))g=(\XX_{D_{\mu}}f)g.$$ We now use Corollary \[imp cor for dense subs\] to factor $(\XX_{D_{\mu}}f)g=hl$, where $h\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)})$ and $l\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)-d(\lambda)})$. For $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \iota_{d(\lambda)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\iota_{d(\mu)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(fg)(x)&= \iota_{d(\lambda)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})(hl)(x)\\ &= (\XX_{D_{\lambda}}h)l(x)\\ &= \begin{cases} hl(x) & \text{if $x\in D_{\lambda}$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\\ &= \begin{cases} fg(x) & \text{if $x\in D_{\lambda}\cap D_{\mu}$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\end{aligned}$$ We know from Lemma \[set result for being an algebra\] that $D_{\lambda}\cap D_{\mu}=\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}D_{\lambda\alpha}$. So we have $$\begin{aligned} \iota_{d(\lambda)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\iota_{d(\mu)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(fg)(x) &= \begin{cases} fg(x) & \text{if $x\in \sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}D_{\lambda\alpha}$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\\ &= \left(\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}\Theta_{\lambda\alpha,\mu\beta}\right)(fg)(x),\end{aligned}$$ and the result follows. \[Proof of Proposition \[ck3\]\] It follows from the Nica covariance of $j_{X}$ that $$\begin{aligned} S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*&= j_{X}^{(d(\lambda))}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})j_{X}^{(d(\mu))}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\\ &= j_{X}^{(d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu))}\left(\iota_{d(\lambda)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\iota_{d(\mu)}^{d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu)}(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\right). \end{aligned}$$ It follows from this equation and Lemma \[the iota maps\] that $$\begin{aligned} S_{\lambda}\left(\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{\alpha}S_{\beta}^*\right)S_\mu^* &= \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{\lambda\alpha}{S_{\mu\beta}}^*\\ &= \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}j_{X}^{(d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu))}(\Theta_{\lambda\alpha,\mu\beta})\\ &= j_{X}^{(d(\lambda)\vee d(\mu))}\left(\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}\Theta_{\lambda\alpha,\mu\beta}\right)\\ &= S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*.\end{aligned}$$ It then follws that $$\begin{aligned} S_{\lambda}^*S_{\mu} = (S_{\lambda}^*S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*)(S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*S_{\mu}) &= S_{\lambda}^*(S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*)S_{\mu}\\ &= S_{\lambda}^*S_{\lambda}\left(\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{\alpha}S_{\beta}^*\right)S_\mu^*S_{\mu}\\ &= \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{s(\lambda)}S_{\alpha}{(S_{s(\mu)}S_{\beta})}^*\\ &= \sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)}S_{\alpha}S_{\beta}^*.\qedhere\end{aligned}$$ Recall from Section \[section on ps etc\] that $I_n$ is given by $I_n:=\bigcap_{0<m\le n}\ker\phi_m$. To prove that $S$ satisfies (CK4), we need to find families which span dense subspaces of the Hilbert bimodules $X_m\cdot I_{n-m}$, for $m,n\in\N^k$ with $m\le n$. To do this, we must first find families which span dense subspaces of the bimodules $X_n$ and the ideals $I_n$. \[res for X m\] For each $n\in \N^k$ we have $X_n=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA^n\}$. Let $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$. We can use the same argument as in the beginning of the proof of Proposition \[the pi map\] to write $\supp f\subseteq\bigcup_{j=1}^h D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}$, where $(\mu_j,G_j)\in\AA^n$ and $D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}$ for each $1\le j\le h$. We now take a partition of unity $\rho_1,\dots,\rho_h$ subordinate to $\{D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}:1\le j\le h\}$, and for $f_j:=f\rho_j\in C(D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j})$ we have $$\label{splitting f} f=\sum_{j=1}^hf_j.$$ Now for each $1\le j\le h$ we have $d(\mu_j)\ge n$. So $\sigma_n$ is injective on $D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}$, and hence $$\label{matching norms} \|f_j\|_n=\sup\{|f_j(x)|:x\in D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j G_j}\}={\|f_j\|}_{\infty}.$$ Now, it follows from Lemma \[set result for being an algebra\] that for each $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$ the set $$\newspan\{\XX_{D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}}:(\mu,G)\in\AA\textup{ and }D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G}\subseteq D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\}$$ is a subalgbera of $C(D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})$. An application of the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem shows that the closure of that span is equal to $C(D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})$, and hence each $f_j$ can be uniformly approximated by elements in $\newspan\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:d(\lambda)\ge n\}$. It now follows from (\[matching norms\]) that $f_j$ can be uniformly approximated by elements in $\newspan\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:d(\lambda)\ge n\}$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_n$, and then (\[splitting f\]) says that $f$ can be approximated by elements in $\newspan\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:d(\lambda)\ge n\}$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_n$. The result follows because $C_c(\partial\Lambda\setminus\partial_n)$ is dense in $X_n$ with respect to $\|\cdot\|_n$. \[condition K i\] Let $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ and $e_i$ denote the standard basis element of $\N^k$. We say that $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$ satisfies condition $K(i)$ if $$\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda\text{ with }d(\mu)\ge e_i\Longrightarrow D_{\mu}\subseteq D_{\nu}\text{ for some $\nu\in F$}.$$ \[res for I n\] For each $n\in\N^k$ we have $$I_n=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:n_i>0\Longrightarrow{d(\lambda)}_i=0\text{ and $(\lambda,F)$ sat. cond. $K(i)$}\}.$$ To prove this proposition we need the following result. \[kernel for the e i's\] Let $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ and $(\lambda,F)\in\AA$. Then $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i}$ if and only if ${d(\lambda)}_i=0$ and $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$. Moreover, we have $$\label{eq for ker phi e i} \ker\phi_{e_i}=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA,\,{d(\lambda)}_i=0\text{ and $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$}\}.$$ Suppose $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i}$. Then we obviously have ${d(\lambda)}_i=0$. Suppose that $(\lambda,F)$ does not satisfy condition $K(i)$. Then there exists $\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda$ with $d(\mu)\ge e_i$, and $x\in D_{\mu}$ with $x\not\in D_{\nu}$ for all $\nu\in F$. Consider the boundary path $\lambda x$. We have ${d(\lambda x)}_i>0$ and $\lambda x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$. But ${d(\lambda x)}_i>0\Longrightarrow \lambda x \in\partial\Lambda^{\ge e_i}$, and this is a contradiction, so $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$. Now suppose that ${d(\lambda)}_i=0$ and $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$. Assume that $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\not\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i}$, so there exists $x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$ with $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge e_i}$. This implies that ${d(x)}_i>0$. Consider the edge $\mu:=x(d(\lambda),d(\lambda)+e_i)$, which we know exists because ${d(\lambda)}_i=0$. We have $\mu\in s(\lambda)\Lambda\text{ and }d(\mu)=e_i$. The boundary path $\sigma_{d(\lambda)}(x)$ satisfies $\sigma_{d(\lambda)}(x)\in D_{\mu}$ and $\sigma_{d(\lambda)}(x)\not\in D_{\nu}$ for all $\nu\in F$, and so $D_{\mu}\not\subseteq D_{\nu}\text{ for all $\nu\in F$}$. But this contradicts that $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$, so we must have $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i}$. Now, it follows from Lemma \[set result for being an algebra\] and an application of the Stone-Weierstrass Theorem for locally compact spaces that for any open subset $U$ of $\partial\Lambda$ we have $$C_0(U)=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA\text{ and }D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq U\}.$$ It follows that $$\begin{aligned} \ker\phi_{e_i}&=\{a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda):a|_{\partial\Lambda^{\ge e_i}}=0\}\\ &= \{a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda):a|_{\overline{\partial\Lambda^{\ge e_i}}}=0\}\\ &= C_0(\interior\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i})\\ &= \overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}: (\lambda,F)\in\AA\text{ and }D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\interior\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i} \}\\ &=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}: (\lambda,F)\in\AA\text{ and }D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge e_i} \}\\ &= \overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA,\,{d(\lambda)}_i=0,\text{ $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$}\}.\end{aligned}$$ \[Proof of Proposition \[res for I n\]\] We have $$\begin{aligned} \ker\phi_{n} &= \{a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda):a|_{\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}}=0\}= \{a\in C_0(\partial\Lambda):a|_{\overline{\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}}}=0\}\\ &= C_0(\interior\partial\Lambda^{\ge n}).\end{aligned}$$ Since $m\le n\Longrightarrow\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge m} \subseteq\partial\Lambda^{\not\ge n} $, it follows that $m\le n\Rightarrow\ker\phi_m\subseteq\ker\phi_n$. Hence $I_n=\bigcap_{\{i:\,n_i>0\}}\ker\phi_{e_i}$, and the result now follows from Lemma \[kernel for the e i's\]. \[note for curly I's\] Let $n\in\N^k$. We define $$\begin{aligned} \II(I_n):=\{(\lambda,F)\in\AA:\,& D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\not=\emptyset\text{ and }\\ & n_i>0\Longrightarrow d(\lambda)_i=0\text{ and $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$}\},\end{aligned}$$ and for $\mu\in\Lambda$ we write $\mu\II(I_n):=\{(\mu\lambda,F):(\lambda,F)\in\II(I_n)\text{ with }s(\mu)=r(\lambda)\}$. The reason for introducing this notation is that we can now write $$I_n=\overline{\newspan}\{ \XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\II(I_n)\}.$$ \[X m dot I n-m\] Let $m,n\in\N^k$ with $m\le n$. Then we have $$\label{eq for X m dot I n-m} X_m\cdot I_{n-m} =\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}: (\lambda,F)\in\AA^m\cap\lambda(0,m)\II(I_{n-m})\}.$$ We have $X_m\cdot I_{n-m}= \overline{\newspan}\{x\cdot a:x\in X_m,\,a\in I_{n-m}\}$. To prove that the right-hand side of (\[eq for X m dot I n-m\]) is contained in the left-hand side, we let $m,n\in\N^k$ with $m\le n$, and suppose $(\lambda,F)\in\AA^m\cap\lambda(0,m)\II(I_{n-m})$. Then $(\lambda(m,d(\lambda)),F)\in \II(I_{n-m})$, and for $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge m}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}(x) &= \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $x(0,d(\lambda))=\lambda$ and $x(0,d(\lambda\nu))\not=\lambda\nu$}\\ & \text{for all $\nu\in F$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\\ &= \XX_{D_{\lambda}}(x)\XX_{D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda)) F}}(\sigma_m(x))\\ &= (\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\cdot\XX_{D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda)) F}})(x).\end{aligned}$$ So $\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}=\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\cdot\XX_{D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(m,d(\lambda)) F}}\in X_m\cdot I_{n-m}$, and it follows that $$\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\AA^m\cap\lambda(0,m)\II(I_{n-m})\}\subset X_m\cdot I_{n-m}.$$ It follows from Proposition \[res for I n\] and Proposition \[res for X m\] that $$X_m\cdot I_{n-m}= \overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F}}\cdot\XX_{D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}}:(\rho,F)\in\AA^m\text{ and }(\tau,G)\in\II(I_{n-m})\}.$$ So to prove that the left-hand side of (\[eq for X m dot I n-m\]) is contained in the right-hand side, it suffices to show that for $(\rho,F)\in\AA^m$ and $(\tau,G)\in\II(I_{n-m})$ the product $\XX_{D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F}}\cdot\XX_{D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}}$ is an element of the right-hand side. Since $\sigma_m^{-1}$ is continuous, the intersection $$\label{int} (D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F})\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G})$$ is an open and compact subset of $D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F}$. Since it is open, we know there exists a subset $\JJ\subseteq\AA^m$ such that $(D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F})\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G})=\bigcup_{(\eta,H)\in\JJ}D_{\eta}\setminus D_{\eta H}$; since it is compact, there is a finite number, say $h$, of pairs $(\eta_j,H_j)\in\JJ$ with $$(D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F})\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G})=\bigcup_{j=1}^hD_{\eta_j}\setminus D_{\eta_j H_j},$$ We know from Lemma \[set result for being an algebra\] that the intersection of sets in the above finite union is a finite, disjoint union of sets of the same form. So it follows that there is a finite number, say $l$, of pairs $(\mu_j,L_j)\in\AA^m$ and constants $c_j$ such that $$\label{supp of prod} \XX_{D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F}}\cdot\XX_{D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}}=\XX_{(D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F})\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G})}=\sum_{j=1}^lc_j\XX_{D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j L_j}}.$$ To finish the proof, we need to show that each $(\mu_j,L_j)\in\mu_j(0,m)\II(I_{n-m})$. Suppose $n_i>m_i$ and $d(\mu_j)_i>m_i$. Then for $x\in D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j L_j}$ we have $\sigma_m(x)\in D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}$ and ${\sigma_m(x)}_i>0$. Since $d(\tau)_i=0$, there exists a path $\alpha:=\sigma_m(x)(d(\tau),d(\tau)+e_i)$ satisfying $\alpha\in s(\tau)\Lambda^{e_i}$. Since $(\tau,G)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$, we have $D_{\alpha}\subseteq D_{\xi}$ for some $\xi\in G$. But this implies that $\sigma_m(x)=\tau\alpha\sigma_m(x)(d(\tau)+e_i,d(x))\in D_{\tau\xi}\subseteq D_{\tau G}$, which contradicts $\sigma_m(x)\in D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}$. So we must have $d(\mu_j)_i=m_i$. Now suppose $n_i>m_i$ and there exists an edge $\zeta\in s(\mu_j)\Lambda^{e_i}$ with $D_{\zeta}\not\subseteq D_{\nu}$ for any $\nu\in L_j$. Let $x\in s(\zeta)\partial\Lambda$. Then $\mu_j\zeta x\in D_{\mu_j}\setminus D_{\mu_j L_j}$, which implies $$\label{imp for lambda j} \sigma_m(\mu_j\zeta x)\in D_{\tau}\setminus D_{\tau G}.$$ Since $d(\tau)_i=0$, there exists a path $\beta:=\sigma_m(\mu_j\zeta x)(d(\tau),d(\tau)+e_i)$ satisfying $\beta\in s(\tau)\Lambda^{e_i}$. Since $(\tau,G)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$, we have $D_{\beta}\subseteq D_{\xi}$ for some $\xi\in G$. But this implies that $\sigma_m(\mu_j\zeta x)=\tau\beta\sigma_m(\mu_j\zeta x)(d(\tau)+e_i,d(x))\in D_{\tau\xi}\subseteq D_{\tau G}$, which contradicts (\[imp for lambda j\]). So $D_{\zeta}\subseteq D_{\nu}$ for some $\nu\in L_j$, and hence $(\mu_j,L_j)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$. Let $m,n\in\N^k$ with $m\le n$. We denote $$\II(X_m\cdot I_{n-m}) := \{(\lambda,F): D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\not=\emptyset,\, (\lambda,F)\in\AA^m\cap\lambda(0,m)\II(I_{n-m})\}.$$ So we have $$X_m\cdot I_{n-m}=\overline{\newspan}\{\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}:(\lambda,F)\in\II(X_m\cdot I_{n-m})\}.$$ \[ck4\] The set $S=\{S_\lambda:\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ satisfies : $$\prod_{\mu\in\FF}(S_v-S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*)=0$$ for all $v\in\Lambda^0$ and all nonempty finite exhaustive sets $\FF\subset r^{-1}(v)$. To prove this proposition we need the following results. For a finite subset $G\subset\Lambda$ we denote by $\vee d(G)$ the element $\bigvee_{\mu\in G}d(\mu)$ of $\N^k$. \[res for ext\] Let $v\in\Lambda^0$ and $\FF\subseteq v\Lambda$ a finite exhaustive set; $n\in\N^k$ with $n\ge\vee d(\FF)$ and $m\in\N^k$ with $m\le n$; and $\lambda\in v\Lambda$ and $F\subseteq s(\lambda)\Lambda$ with $(\lambda,F)\in\II(X_m\cdot I_{n-m})$. Then there exists $\eta\in\FF$ such that $\lambda$ extends $\eta$. Suppose $\lambda$ does not extend any element of $\FF$. Since $D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}\not=\emptyset$, there exists a boundary path $x\in D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}$. Since $\FF$ is exhaustive, there exists $\eta\in \FF$ with $x(0,d(\eta))=\eta$. So $x\in D_{\eta}\cap(D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})$, and the pair $(x_{\lambda}^{\eta},x_{\eta}^{\lambda})\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\eta)$. Since $\lambda$ does not extend $\eta$, there exists $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ with ${d(\lambda)}_i<{d(\eta)}_i$, and hence $d(x_{\lambda}^{\eta})\ge e_i$. Since $m_i\le {d(\lambda)}_i<{d(\eta)}_i\le n_i$, we know $(\lambda,F)$ satisfies condition $K(i)$, and hence $D_{x_{\lambda}^{\eta}}\subseteq D_{\nu}$ for some $\nu\in F$. But this implies that $x\in D_{\lambda x_{\lambda}^{\eta}}\subseteq D_{\lambda\nu}$, which contradicts the fact $x\not\in D_{\lambda F}$. So $\lambda$ must extend an element of $\FF$. \[res for elt of x tilde\] Suppose $n\in\N^k$ and $\mu\in\Lambda$ with $d(\mu)\le n$. Consider the element $\widetilde{x}$ given by $\widetilde{x}:=(0,\dots,0,\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}},0,\dots,0)\in{\widetilde{X}}_n$, where $(\lambda,F)\in\II(X_m\cdot I_{n-m})$ for $m\le n$. Then we have $${\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^n(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\widetilde{x})= \begin{cases} \widetilde{x} & \text{if $\lambda$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ It follows from (\[char of iota-tilde map\]) that for $r\le n$ we have $$\label{eq 1 for tilde lem} {\tilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^n(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\widetilde{x})(r)= \iota_{d(\mu)}^r(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\widetilde{x}(r)) =\begin{cases} \iota_{d(\mu)}^m(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}) & \text{if $r=m$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}$$ Now assume $m\ge d(\mu)$. A straightforward calculation shows that $$\label{eq 2 for tilde lem} \XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}=\XX_{D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}\XX_{D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))F}}.$$ We also have $$\begin{aligned} \Theta_{\mu,\mu}(\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}})(x) &= \left(\XX_{D_{\mu}}\cdot{\langle \XX_{D_{\mu}}^*,\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}\rangle}_{d(\mu)}\right)(x)\nonumber\\ &= \XX_{D_{\mu}}(x){\langle \XX_{D_{\mu}}^*,\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}\rangle}_{d(\mu)}(\sigma_{d(\mu)}(x))\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} \sum_{\sigma_{d(\mu)}(y)=\sigma_{d(\mu)}(x)}\XX_{D_{\mu}}(y)\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}(y) & \text{if $x(0,d(\mu))=\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} 1 & \text{if $\lambda(0,d(\mu))=\mu$ and $x(0,d(\mu))=\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} \XX_{D_{\mu}}(x) & \text{if $\lambda$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} \XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}(x) & \text{if $\lambda$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\label{eq 3 for tilde lem}\end{aligned}$$ It now follows from Equations (\[eq 2 for tilde lem\]) and (\[eq 3 for tilde lem\]) that $$\begin{aligned} \iota_{d(\mu)}^m(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}) &= \iota_{d(\mu)}^m(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}\XX_{D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))F}})\nonumber\\ &= \Theta_{\mu,\mu}(\XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}})\XX_{D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))F}}\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} \XX_{D_{\lambda(0,d(\mu))}}\XX_{D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))}\setminus D_{\lambda(d(\mu),d(\lambda))F}} & \text{if $\lambda$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise} \end{cases}\nonumber\\ &= \begin{cases} \XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}} & \text{if $\lambda$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\label{eq 4 for tilde lem}\end{aligned}$$ Equations (\[eq 1 for tilde lem\]) and (\[eq 4 for tilde lem\]) now give the result. We are now ready to prove that $S$ satisfies relation (CK4). The proof runs through the main argument from the proof of @sy [Proposition 5.4]. \[Proof of Proposition \[ck4\]\] Fix $v\in\Lambda^0$ and a finite exhaustive set $\FF\subset v\Lambda$. We must show that $$\prod_{\mu\in\FF}(S_v-S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*)=0.$$ Recall from @rs that for a nonempty subset $G$ of $\FF$, $\Lambda^{\min}(G)$ denotes the set $\{\lambda\in\Lambda:d(\lambda)=\vee d(G),\,\lambda\text{ extends $\mu$ for all $\mu\in G$}\}$. Recall also that $\vee\FF:=\bigcup_{G\subset\FF}\Lambda^{\min}(G)$ is finite and is closed under minimal common extensions. We have $$\begin{aligned} \prod_{\mu\in\FF}(S_v-S_{\mu}S_{\mu}^*)&=S_v+\sum_{\substack{\emptyset \not= G \subset F \\ \lambda \in \Lambda^{\min}(G)}} {(-1)}^{|G|}S_{\lambda}S_{\lambda}^*\\ &= j_{X}^{(0)}(\Theta_{v,v})+\sum_{\substack{\emptyset \not= G \subset F \\ \lambda \in \Lambda^{\min}(G)}} {(-1)}^{|G|}j_{X}^{(\vee d(G))}(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda}),\end{aligned}$$ where the first equation can be obtained through repeated application of (CK3). Since $j_{X}$ is Cuntz-Pimsner covariant, it suffices to show that for each $q\in\N^k$ there exists $r\ge q$ such that for all $s\ge r$, we have $$\widetilde{\iota}_0^s(\Theta_{v,v}) + \sum_{\substack{\emptyset \not= G \subset F \\ \lambda \in \Lambda^{\min}(G)}} {(-1)}^{|G|}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{\vee d(G)}^s(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})=0.$$ For this, fix $q\in\N^k$, let $r=q\vee(\vee d(\FF))$ and fix $s\ge r$. It suffices to show that $$\label{eq 1 for ck4} \Big(\widetilde{\iota}_0^s(\Theta_{v,v}) + \sum_{\substack{\emptyset \not= G \subset F \\ \lambda \in \Lambda^{\min}(G)}} {(-1)}^{|G|}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{\vee d(G)}^s(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\Big)(\widetilde{x})=0,$$ where $\widetilde{x}\in {\widetilde{X}}_s$ is given by $\widetilde{x}:=(0,\dots,0,\XX_{D_{\rho}\setminus D_{\rho F}},0,\dots,0)$, for $(\rho,F)\in\II(X_t\cdot I_{s-t})$, $t\le s$. For any $\mu\in\FF$ we have $s\ge d(\mu)$. It then follows from Lemma \[res for elt of x tilde\] that $$\label{eq 2 for ck4} {\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})(\widetilde{x})= \begin{cases} \widetilde{x} & \text{if $\rho$ extends $\mu$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ Fix a nonempty subset $G$ of $\FF$. Then $$\Big(\prod_{\mu\in G}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\Big)(\widetilde{x})= \begin{cases} \widetilde{x} & \text{if $\rho$ extends each $\mu\in G$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}$$ The factorisation property implies that $\rho$ extends each $\mu\in G$ if and only if there exists $\lambda\in\Lambda^{\min}(G)$ such that $\rho$ extends $\lambda$. The factorisation property also implies that if there does exist such a $\lambda\in\Lambda^{\min}(G)$, then it is necessarily unique. We therefore have $$\Big(\prod_{\mu\in G}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\Big)(\widetilde{x})=\Big(\sum_{\lambda\in\Lambda^{\min}(G)}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{\vee d(G)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\Big)(\widetilde{x}).$$ Since $G$ was an arbitrary subset of $\FF$, we have $$\begin{aligned} \Big(\prod_{\mu\in \FF}({\widetilde{\iota}}_{0}^s(\Theta_{v,v})&-{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu}))\Big)(\widetilde{x})\\ &= \Big({\widetilde{\iota}}_{0}^s(\Theta_{v,v})+\sum_{\emptyset\not= G\subset\FF}\Big({(-1)}^{|G|}\prod_{\mu\in G}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu})\Big)\Big)(\widetilde{x})\\ &= \Big(\widetilde{\iota}_0^s(\Theta_{v,v}) + \sum_{\substack{\emptyset \not= G \subset F \\ \lambda \in \Lambda^{\min}(G)}} {(-1)}^{|G|}{\widetilde{\iota}}_{\vee d(G)}^s(\Theta_{\lambda,\lambda})\Big)(\widetilde{x}).\end{aligned}$$ Now we can apply Lemma \[res for ext\] to see that there exists $\eta\in\FF$ such that $\rho$ extends $\eta$. It now follows from Equation (\[eq 2 for ck4\]) that $$\begin{aligned} &\Big(\prod_{\mu\in \FF}({\widetilde{\iota}}_{0}^s(\Theta_{v,v})-{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu}))\Big)(\widetilde{x})\\ &\qquad\qquad= \Big(\prod_{\mu\in \FF\setminus\{\eta\}}({\widetilde{\iota}}_{0}^s(\Theta_{v,v})-{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\mu)}^s(\Theta_{\mu,\mu}))\Big)(({\widetilde{\iota}}_{0}^s(\Theta_{v,v})-{\widetilde{\iota}}_{d(\eta)}^s(\Theta_{\eta,\eta})))(\widetilde{x})\\ &\qquad\qquad=0,\end{aligned}$$ and hence Equation (\[eq 1 for ck4\]) is established. \[Proof of Theorem \[the main result\]\] Lemma \[the first 2 ck relations\], Proposition \[ck3\] and Proposition \[ck4\] show that the set $S:=\{S_{\lambda}=j_{X}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}}):\lambda\in\Lambda\}$ is a family of partial isometries satisfying the Cuntz-Krieger relations (CK1)–(CK4). It follows from the universal property of $C^*(\Lambda)$ that there exists a homomorphism $\pi:C^*(\Lambda)\rightarrow\NO(X)$ such that $\pi(s_{\lambda})=j_{X}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}})$ for each $\lambda\in\Lambda$. We know from @sy [Proposition 3.12] that $\NO(X)=\overline{\newspan}\{j_{X}(x)j_{X}(y)^*:x,y\in X\}$. For each $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and $F\subseteq s(\lambda)\Lambda$ we have $\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}}=\XX_{D_{\lambda}}-\sum_{\nu\in F}\XX_{D_{\lambda\nu}}$, and so $$j_{X}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F}})=j_{X}(\XX_{D_{\lambda}})-j_{X}\left(\sum_{\nu\in F}\XX_{D_{\lambda\nu}}\right)=S_{\lambda}-\sum_{\nu\in F}S_{\lambda\nu}.$$ It then follows from Proposition \[res for X m\] that $S$ generates $\NO(X)$, and hence $\pi$ is surjective. It follows from @fmy [Lemma 5.13(2) and Lemma 5.15] that each $D_{\lambda}\not=\emptyset$, and hence each $\XX_{D_{\lambda}}\not=0$. It then follows from @sy [Theorem 4.1] that each $S_{\lambda}\not=0$. (Note that the quasi-lattice ordered group $(\N^k,\Z^k)$ satisfies @sy [Condition (3.5)], and so @sy [Theorem 4.1] can indeed be applied.) Since $\pi$ intertwines the gauge actions of $\T^k$ on $\NO(X)$ and $C^*(\Lambda)$, the gauge-invariant uniqueness theorem for $C^*(\Lambda)$ @rsy [Theorem 4.2] implies that $\pi$ is an isomorphism. Connections to semigroup crossed products {#conn to scp} ========================================= We begin this section by building a crossed product from a finitely-aligned $k$-graph $\Lambda$. For each $n\in\N^k$ we define a <span>*partial endomorphism*</span> $\alpha_n:C_0(\partial\Lambda)\to C_0(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ given by $\alpha_n(f)=f\circ\sigma_n$. We claim that for $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ the function $L_n(f)$ given by $$L_n(f)(x)= \begin{cases} \sum_{\sigma_n(y)=x}f(y) & \text{if $x\in\sigma_n(\partial\Lambda)$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases}$$ is well-defined and is an element of $C_c(\partial\Lambda)$. We can cover $\supp f$ with finitely many sets $U_i$ such that $\sigma_n(U_i)$ is open, $\overline{\sigma_n(U_i)}$ is compact, and $\sigma_n|_{U_i}$ is a homeomorphism. The function $f$ must be zero on all but a finite number of points in $\sigma_n^{-1}(x)$. Then near any $x\in\sigma_n(\partial\Lambda)$, $L_n(f)=\sum_{\{i:x\in\sigma_n(U_i)\}} f\circ{(\sigma_n|_{U_i})}^{-1}$ is a finite sum of continuous functions with compact support. Since $\sigma_n(x)$ is open, $L_n(f)\in C_c(\partial\Lambda)$, and the claim is proved. Routine calculations show that each $L_n$ satisfies the transfer-operator identity: $L_n(\alpha_n(f)g)=fL_n(g)$ for all $f\in C_0(\partial\Lambda)$, $g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$. Adapting Exel's construction of a Hilbert bimodule @e1 to accommodate the partial maps, and applying it to $(C_0(\partial\Lambda),\alpha_n,L_n)$, gives the Hilbert $C_0(\partial\Lambda)$-bimodule $X_n$ from Section \[the product system section\]. So we consider the boundary-path product system $X$, and take the suggested route of @brv [Section 9] for defining a crossed product for the system $(C_0(\partial\Lambda),\N^k,\alpha,L)$: \[def of cross prod\] Let $\Lambda$ be a finitely-aligned $k$-graph, and consider the product system $X$ given in Proposition \[the product system\]. We define the <span>*crossed product*</span> $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$ to be the Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra $\NO(X)$. \[goal result\] Let $\Lambda$ be a finitely-aligned $k$-graph. Then $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k\cong C^*(\Lambda)$. For the remainder of this section we discuss the relationship between the crossed product $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$ and the other crossed products in the literature which are given via transfer operators; namely, the non-unital version of Exel's crossed product @brv, Exel and Royer's crossed product by a partial endomorphism @er, and Larsen's crossed product for semigroups @l. The upshot of this discussion is that, when these crossed products can be defined, they coincide with $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$. To be make things clear, we use the following notation. \(1) For $(A,\beta,\LL)$ a dynamical system in the sense of Exel and Royer @er we denote by $A\rtimes_{\beta,\LL}^{\ER}\N$ the crossed product given in @er [Definition 1.6]. \(2) For $(A,\beta,\LL)$ a dynamical system in the sense of @brv [@e1] we denote by $A\rtimes_{\beta,\LL}^{\BRV}\N$ the crossed product given in @brv [Section 4]. \(3) For $P$ an abelian semigroup and $(A,P,\beta,\LL)$ a dynamical system in the sense of Larsen @l we denote by $A\rtimes_{\beta,\LL}^{\Lar}P$ the crossed product given in @l [Definition 2.2]. Directed graphs --------------- Suppose $\Lambda$ is a 1-graph. Then for each $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ we have $|\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)|\in\{0,1\}$, and so $\Lambda$ is finitely aligned. As shown in @r [Examples 10.1–10.2], $\Lambda$ is the path category of the directed graph $E:=(\Lambda^0,d^{-1}(1),r,s)$. We know from @rsy [Proposition B.1] that $C^*(\Lambda)$ coincides with the graph algebra $C^*(E)$ as given in @flr. We denote by $E^*$ the set of finite paths in $E$ and by $E^{\infty}$ the set of infinite paths in $E$. We define $E_{\inf}^*:=\{\mu\in E^*:|r^{-1}(s(\mu))|=\infty\}$ and $E_{\s}^*:=\{\mu\in E^*:r^{-1}(s(\mu))=\emptyset\},$ so $E_{\inf}^*$ is the set of paths whose source is an infinite receiver, and $E_{\s}^*$ is the set of paths whose source is a source in $E$. Then the boundary-path space $\partial\Lambda$ coincides with $\partial E:=E^{\infty}\cup E_{\inf}^*\cup E_{\s}^*$. We now freely use directed graphs $E$ in place of 1-graphs $\Lambda$ in Definition \[def of cross prod\]. \[rel to ER for 1-graph\] Let $E$ be a directed graph. Then $(C_0(\partial E),\alpha, L)$ is a dynamical system in the sense of @er, and we have $C_0(\partial E)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N\cong C_0(\partial E)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}^{\ER}\N$. To prove this proposition we need the following result. \[ER cros prod is kat O\_M\] Let $(A,\beta,\LL)$ be a dynamical system in the sense of @er, and consider the Hilbert $A$-bimodule $M$ constructed in @er [Section 1]. Then $A\rtimes_{\beta,\LL}^{\ER}\N$ is isomorphic to Katsura's Cuntz-Pimsner algebra $\OO_M$ @kat. The arguments in @br [Section 3] (or @brv [Section 4]) extend across to this setting, except $A\rtimes_{\beta,\LL}^{\ER}\N$ is defined by modding out redundancies $(a,k)$ with $a\in (\ker\phi)^{\perp}\cap\phi^{-1}(\KK(M))$ instead of $\overline{A\alpha(A)A}\cap\phi^{-1}(\KK(M))$. But $(\ker\phi)^{\perp}\cap\phi^{-1}(\KK(M))$ is precisely the ideal involved in Katsura's definition of $\OO_M$ @kat [Definition 3.5]. \[Proof of Proposition \[rel to ER for 1-graph\]\] The construction of the Hilbert $A$-bimodule $M$ from @er gives $X_1$. We know from @sy [Proposition 5.3] that $\NO(X)$ is isomorphic to Katsura's $\OO_{X_1}$. We know from Proposition \[ER cros prod is kat O\_M\] that $C_0(\partial E)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}^{\ER}\N\cong\OO_M$. So we have $$C_0(\partial E)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N=\NO(X)\cong\OO_{X_1}=\OO_M\cong C_0(\partial E)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}^{\ER}\N.\qedhere$$ Locally-finite directed graphs with no sources ---------------------------------------------- For a locally-finite directed graph $\Lambda:=E$ with no sources we have $\partial E=E^{\infty}$. We denote by $\sigma$ the backward shift on $E^{\infty}$, and $\alpha_E$ the endomorphism of $C_0(E^{\infty})$ given by $\alpha_E(f)=f\circ\sigma$. So $\alpha_E=\alpha_1$. For each $f\in C_0(E^{\infty})$ we denote by $L_E(f)$ the function given by $$L_E(f)(x)= \begin{cases} \frac{1}{|\sigma^{-1}(x)|}\sum_{\sigma(y)=x}f(y) & \text{if $x\in\sigma(E^{\infty})$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases}$$ So $L_E$ is the normalised version of $L_1$. It is proved in @brv [Section 2.1] that $L_E$ is a transfer operator for $(C_0(E^{\infty}),\alpha_E)$. \[rel to BRV for 1-graph\] Let $E$ be a locally-finite directed graph with no sources. Then we have $C_0(E^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N\cong C_0(E^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha_E,L_E}^{\BRV}\N$. Recall the construction of the Hilbert $C_0(E^{\infty})$-bimodule $M_{L_E}$ @brv [Section 3], and in particular that $q:C_0(E^{\infty})\to M_{L_E}$ denotes the quotient map. Since $E$ is locally finite, the shift $\sigma$ is proper. We can use this fact to find for each $x\in E^{\infty}$ an open neighbourhood $V$ of $\sigma(x)$ such that $|\sigma^{-1}(v)|=|\sigma^{-1}(\sigma(x))|$ for each $v\in V$, and it follows that the map $d:E^{\infty}\to\C$ given by $d(x)=\sqrt{|\sigma^{-1}(\sigma(x))|}$ is continuous. Straightforward calculations show that $U:C_c(E^{\infty})\to M_{L_E}$ given by $U(f)=q(df)$ extends to an isomorphism of $X_1$ onto $M_{L_E}$. So $\OO_{X_1}\cong\OO_{M_{L_E}}$. Since $E$ has no sources, the homomorphism $\phi:C_0(E^{\infty})\to\LL(M_{L_E})$ giving the left action on $M_{L_E}$ is injective, and so ${(\ker\phi)}^{\perp}=C_0(E^{\infty})$. It then follows from @brv [Corollary 4.2] that $C_0(E^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha_E,L_E}^{\BRV}\N\cong\OO_{M_{L_E}}$. Finally, we know from @sy [Proposition 5.3] that $\NO(X)\cong \OO_{X_1}$, so we have $$C_0(E^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N=\NO(X)\cong\OO_{X_1}\cong\OO_{M_{L_E}}\cong C_0(E^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha_E,L_E}^{\BRV}\N.\qedhere$$ Regular $k$-graphs ------------------ We now examine how $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$ fits in with the theory of Larsen's semigroup crossed products @l. If $\Lambda$ is a row-finite $k$-graph with no sources, then $\partial\Lambda$ is the set $\Lambda^{\infty}$ of all graph morphisms from $\Omega_{k,(\infty,\dots,\infty)}$ to $\Lambda$, and the shift maps are everywhere defined. So $\alpha$ is an action by endomorphisms. We say a $k$-graph $\Lambda$ is <span>*regular*</span> if it is row-finite with no sources, and there exists $M_1,\dots,M_k\in\N\setminus\{0\}$ such that for each $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ we have $|\Lambda^{e_i}v|=M_i$ for all $v\in\Lambda^0$. For each $x\in\Lambda^{\infty}$ and $n\in\N^k$ define $$\omega(n,x):={|\sigma_n^{-1}(\sigma_n(x))|}^{-1}=\prod_{i=1}^kM_i^{-n_i}.$$ Then for each $f\in C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})$ the map $\LL_n(f)$ given by $$\LL_{n}(f)(x)= \begin{cases} \sum_{\sigma_{n}(y)=x}\omega(n,y)f(y) & \text{if $x\in\sigma_{n}(\Lambda^{\infty})$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\\ \end{cases}$$ is a transfer operator for $(C_0(\Lambda^{\infty}),\alpha_n)$. Simple calculations show that $$\sum_{\sigma_n(y)=x}\omega(n,y)=1$$ for all $x\in\Lambda^{\infty},n\in\N^k$, and that $\omega(m+n,x)=\omega(m,x)\omega(n,\sigma_m(x))$ for all $x\in\Lambda^{\infty},m,n\in\N^k$. Hence @e-Ren [Proposition 2.2], which still holds in the non-unital setting, gives an action $\LL$ of $\N^k$ of transfer operators on $C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})$. It follows that $(C_0(\Lambda^{\infty}),\N^k,\alpha,\LL)$ is a dynamical system in the sense of Larsen @l [Section 2]. \[rel to Lar for k-graph\] Let $\Lambda$ be a regular $k$-graph. Then we have $C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k\cong C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,\LL}^{\Lar}\N^k$. We apply the construction in @l [Section 3.2] to the dynamical system $(C_0(\Lambda^{\infty}),\N^k,\alpha,\LL)$ to form a product system $M=\cup_{n\in\N^k}M_{\LL_n}$, and then @l [Proposition 4.3] says $C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,\LL}^{\Lar}\N^k$ is isomorphic to Fowler's Cuntz-Pimsner algebra $\OO(M)$ @f [Proposition 2.9]. Suppose $M_1,\dots,M_k\in\N\setminus\{0\}$ such that for each $i\in\{1,\dots,k\}$ we have $|\Lambda^{e_i}v|=M_i$ for all $v\in\Lambda^0$. For each $n\in\N^k$ denote $M_n:=\prod_{i=1}^kM_i^{-n_i}$. Then the map $f\mapsto q_n(\sqrt{M_n}f)$ from $C_c(\Lambda^{\infty})$ to $M_{\LL_n}$ extends to an isomorphism of $X_n$ onto $M_{\LL_n}$. These maps induce an isomorphism of the product systems $X$ and $M$ (observe the formulae for multiplication within $X$, Proposition \[the pi map\], and $M$, @l [Equation 3.8]). So $\OO(X)\cong\OO(M)$. Recall that each $X_n$ is constructed from the topological graph $(\Lambda^{\infty},\Lambda^{\infty},\sigma_n,\iota)$, where $\iota$ is the inclusion map. It then follows from @k [Proposition 1.24] that each $\phi_n$ is injective and acts by compact operators. So we can apply @sy [Corollary 5.2] to see that $\NO(X)$ coincides with $\OO(X)$. So we have $$C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k=\NO(X)=\OO(X)\cong\OO(M)\cong C_0(\Lambda^{\infty})\rtimes_{\alpha,\LL}^{\Lar}\N^k.\qedhere$$ Conclusion ---------- The results in this section justify our decision to define the crossed product $C_0(\partial\Lambda)\rtimes_{\alpha,L}\N^k$ to be the Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra $\NO(X)$, and we propose that the same definition is made for a general crossed product by a quasi-lattice ordered semigroup of partial endomorphisms and partially-defined transfer operators. The problem is that Sims and Yeend's Cuntz-Nica-Pimsner algebra is only appropriate for a particular family (containing $\N^k$) of quasi-lattice ordered semigroups. The "correct" definition of a Cuntz-Pimsner algebra of a product system over an arbitrary quasi-lattice ordered semigroup is yet to be found. (See @sy [@clsv] for more discussion.) Appendix ======== Recall that for $(G,P)$ a quasi-lattice ordered group, and $X$ a product system over $P$ of Hilbert bimodules, we say that $X$ is <span>*compactly aligned*</span> if for all $p,q\in P$ such that $p\vee q<\infty$, and for all $S\in\KK(X_p)$ and $T\in\KK(X_q)$, we have $\iota_p^{p\vee q}(S)\iota_q^{p\vee q}(T)\in\KK(X_{p\vee q})$. \[comp al\] The product system $X$ constructed in is compactly aligned. We start with a definition and some notation. \[disjoint set\] Let $n\in\N^k$. We say that a subset $\JJ\subseteq\AA^n$ is <span>*disjoint*</span> if $$(\lambda,F),(\mu,G)\in\JJ\text{ with }(\lambda,F)\not=(\mu,G)\Longrightarrow (D_{\lambda}\setminus D_{\lambda F})\cap(D_{\mu}\setminus D_{\mu G})=\emptyset.$$ For $(\lambda,F),(\mu,G)\in\AA^n$ we write $$\Theta_{(\lambda,F),(\mu,G)}:=\Theta_{\XX_{D_\lambda\setminus D_{\lambda F}},\XX_{D_\mu\setminus D_{\mu G}}}\in\KK(X_n).$$ Let $m,n\in\N^k$. To prove Proposition \[comp al\] we first need to show that for each $(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)\in\AA^m$ and $(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)\in\AA^n$ we have $$\iota_m^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}\right)\iota_n^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}\right)\in\KK(X_{m\vee n}).$$ We do this by finding for each $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)$ finite subsets $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)},\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}\subseteq\AA^{m\vee n}$ such that $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are disjoint, and $$\begin{aligned} \label{suff eq} \iota_m^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}\right)\iota_n^{m\vee n}&\left(\Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}\right)\\ &=\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)}\sum_{\substack{(\kappa,H)\in\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)} \\ (\omega,J)\in\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}}}\Theta_{(\kappa,H),(\omega,J)}.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ To find the correct $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$, we evaluate both sides of (\[suff eq\]) on products $fg$, where $f\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge n})$ and $g\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m\vee n-n})$. For the left-hand-side of (\[suff eq\]) we use (\[char of iota map\]) and Corollary \[imp cor for dense subs\] to factor $$\iota_n^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}\right)(fg) = \Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}(f)g=hl,$$ where $h\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m})$ and $l\in C_c(\partial\Lambda^{\ge m\vee n-m})$. Then for $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge m\vee n}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} &\iota_m^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}\right)\iota_n^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}\right)(fg)(x)\\ &= \iota_m^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}\right)(hl)(x)\\ &= \Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}(h)l(x)\\ &= \XX_{D_{\lambda_1}\setminus D_{\lambda_1 F_1}}(x){\langle\XX_{D_{\lambda_2}\setminus D_{\lambda_2 F_2}} ,h\rangle}_m(\sigma_m(x))l(\sigma_m(x)) \\ &= \XX_{D_{\lambda_1}\setminus D_{\lambda_1 F_1}}(x)\left(\sum_{\sigma_m(y)=\sigma_m(x)}\overline{\XX_{D_{\lambda_2}\setminus D_{\lambda_2 F_2}}(y)}h(y)\right)l(\sigma_m(x)) \\ &= \begin{cases} hl(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)) & \text{if $x\in \left(D_{\lambda_1}\setminus D_{\lambda_1 F_1}\right)\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))}\setminus D_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2)) F_2})$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ A similar calculation to the one above gives $$\begin{aligned} &hl(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x))\\ &= \Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}(f)g(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x))\\ &= \begin{cases} fg(\mu_2(0,n)\sigma_n(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x))) & \text{if $\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)\in \left(D_{\mu_1}\setminus D_{\mu_1 G_1}\right)\cap$}\\ &\qquad\quad\quad \text{$\sigma_n^{-1}(D_{\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2))}\setminus D_{\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2)) G_2})$,} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ So we label conditions $$\label{eq 1 for set res for comp al} x\in \left(D_{\lambda_1}\setminus D_{\lambda_1 F_1}\right)\cap\sigma_m^{-1}(D_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))}\setminus D_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2)) F_2}),$$ and $$\label{eq 2 for set res for comp al} \lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)\in \left(D_{\mu_1}\setminus D_{\mu_1 G_1}\right)\cap\sigma_n^{-1}(D_{\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2))}\setminus D_{\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2)) G_2}),$$ and then we have $$\begin{aligned} \iota_m^{m\vee n}&\left(\Theta_{(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)}\right)\iota_n^{m\vee n}\left(\Theta_{(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)}\right)(fg)(x)\label{res for iotas}\\ &= \begin{cases} fg(\mu_2(0,n)\sigma_n(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x))) & \text{if $x$ satisfies (\ref{eq 1 for set res for comp al}) and(\ref{eq 2 for set res for comp al}),} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Now, for each $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)$, $(\kappa,H)\in\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $(\omega,J)\in\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ we have $$\begin{aligned} \Theta_{(\kappa,H),(\omega,J)}&(fg)(x)\\ &= \XX_{D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\kappa H}}(x){\langle \XX_{D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J}},fg\rangle}_{m\vee n}(\sigma_{m\vee n}(x))\\ &= \XX_{D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\kappa H}}(x)\left(\sum_{\sigma_{m\vee n}(y)=\sigma_{m\vee n}(x)}\overline{\XX_{D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J}}(y)}fg(y)\right)\\ &= \begin{cases} fg(\tau(0,m\vee n)\sigma_{m\vee n}(x)) & \text{if $x\in \left(D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\kappa H}\right)\cap\sigma_{m\vee n}^{-1}(D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J})$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases} \end{aligned}$$ Since $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are disjoint, we have $$\begin{aligned} &\left(\sum_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)}\sum_{\substack{(\kappa,H)\in\HH \\ (\tau,J)\in\JJ}}\Theta_{(\kappa,H),(\omega,J)}\right)(fg)(x)\label{res for big sum}\\ &= \begin{cases} fg(\tau(0,m\vee n)\sigma_{m\vee n}(x)) & \text{if $\displaystyle x\in\sqcup_{\substack{(\alpha,\beta) \\ (\kappa,H),(\omega,J)}}\left(D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\rho H}\right)\cap\sigma_{m\vee n}^{-1}(D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J})$,}\\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Equation (\[suff eq\]) now follows from (\[res for iotas\]), (\[res for big sum\]) and the following lemma. \[set res for comp al\] Let $m,n\in\N^k$, and suppose the pairs $(\lambda_1,F_1),(\lambda_2,F_2)\in\AA^m$ and $(\mu_1,G_1),(\mu_2,G_2)\in\AA^n$. Then for each pair $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)$ there exists finite and disjoint subsets $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}, \JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}\subseteq\AA^{m\vee n}$ such that $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge m\vee n}$ satisfies Equations and if and only if $$\label{single cond} x\in\bigsqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)}\bigsqcup_{\substack{(\kappa,H)\in\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)} \\ (\omega,J)\in\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}}}\left(D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\kappa H}\right)\cap\sigma_{m\vee n}^{-1}(D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J}).$$ Moreover, if $x$ satisfies and and $x\in\left(D_{\kappa}\setminus D_{\kappa H}\right)\cap\sigma_{m\vee n}^{-1}(D_{\omega}\setminus D_{\omega J})$, then we have $$\mu_2(0,n)\sigma_n(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x))=\omega(0,m\vee n)\sigma_{m\vee n}(x).$$ Recall that for $\lambda,\mu\in\Lambda$ we denote by $$F(\lambda,\mu)=\{\alpha\in\Lambda:(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda,\mu)\text{ for some }\beta\in\Lambda\}.$$ Let $(\alpha,\beta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1)$. For each $(\gamma,\delta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1)),\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha)$ we define $$\begin{aligned} H_{\gamma,\alpha}:=\left(\bigcup_{\nu\in F_1}F(\lambda_1\gamma,\lambda_1\nu)\right)&\cup\left(\bigcup_{\zeta\in F_2}F(\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha\delta,\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\zeta)\right)\\ &\cup\left(\bigcup_{\eta\in G_1}F(\mu_1\beta\delta,\mu_1\eta)\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}:=\{(\lambda_1\gamma,H_{\gamma,\alpha})\in\AA^{m\vee n}:(\gamma,\delta)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1)),\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha)\}.$$ For each $(\rho,\tau)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2)),\mu_1(n,d(\mu_1))\beta)$ we define $$\begin{aligned} J_{\rho,\beta}:=\left(\bigcup_{\xi\in G_2}F(\mu_2\rho,\mu_2\xi)\right)&\cup\left(\bigcup_{\eta\in G_1}F(\mu_1(n,d(\mu_1))\beta\tau,\mu_1(n,d(\mu_1))\eta)\right)\\ &\cup\left(\bigcup_{\zeta\in F_2}F(\lambda_2\alpha\tau,\lambda_2\zeta)\right),\end{aligned}$$ and $$\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}:=\{(\mu_2\rho,H_{\rho,\beta})\in\AA^{m\vee n}:(\rho,\tau)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2)),\mu_1(n,d(\mu_1))\beta)\}.$$ The sets $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are finite sets because $\Lambda$ is finitely aligned. Since the paths in the elements of $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are of the same length, the factorisation property ensures that each $\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is disjoint. For the same reason, each $\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ is disjoint. This explains why the second union in (\[single cond\]) is a disjoint union. Moreover, the sets $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\HH_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ and $\sqcup_{(\alpha,\beta)}\JJ_{(\alpha,\beta)}$ are disjoint, and hence why the first union in (\[single cond\]) is a disjoint union. To prove the 'only if' part of the statement, we assume $x\in\partial\Lambda^{\ge m\vee n}$ satisfies (\[eq 1 for set res for comp al\]) and (\[eq 2 for set res for comp al\]). We have to find pairs $$\begin{aligned} (\alpha,\beta)&\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1),\\ (\gamma,\delta)&\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1)),\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha),\text{ and}\\ (\rho,\tau)&\in\Lambda^{\min}(\mu_2(n,d(\mu_2)),\mu_1(n,d(\mu_1))\beta)\end{aligned}$$ such that - $x\in D_{\lambda_1\gamma}\setminus D_{\lambda_1\gamma H_{\gamma,\alpha}}$, and - $\sigma_{m\vee n}(x)\in D_{\mu_2\rho(m\vee n,d(\mu_2\rho))}\setminus D_{\mu_2\rho(m\vee n,d(\mu_2\rho)) J_{\rho,\beta}}$. Now, we know from (\[eq 1 for set res for comp al\]) and (\[eq 2 for set res for comp al\]) that $\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)\in D_{\lambda_2}\cap D_{\mu_1}$, so we take $$\label{the alpha beta} (\alpha,\beta):=\left(\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)_{\lambda_2}^{\mu_1},\lambda_2(0,m)\sigma_m(x)_{\mu_1}^{\lambda_2}\right)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_2,\mu_1).$$ We know from (\[eq 1 for set res for comp al\]) and (\[eq 2 for set res for comp al\]) that $\sigma_m(x)\in D_{\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1))}\cap D_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha}$, so we define $(\gamma,\delta)$ to be the pair $$\label{the gamma delta} \left(\sigma_m(x)_{\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1))}^{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha},\sigma_m(x)_{\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha}^{\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1))}\right)\in\Lambda^{\min}(\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1)),\lambda_2(m,d(\lambda_2))\alpha).$$ We now have $\sigma_m(x)\in D_{\lambda_1(m,d(\lambda_1))\gamma}$, and this along with (\[eq 1 for set res
{'source': 'arXiv_out/0912'}