text:
# topological entropy of free product automorphisms

## 1. Introduction.

The study of non–commutative topological dynamical systems, in other words, automorphisms of $`C^{}`$–algebras, goes back a long way. Among the most important invariants of such systems is entropy, first introduced in the operator algebra context by Connes and Størmer in . (See  for an extensive survey of this subject.) In this paper, we deal with the non–commutative generalization of topological entropy, discovered by Voiculescu  for nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebras and extended by Brown  to the exact case. Although this entropy has been computed in many examples, we are very far from a good understanding of its behavior. For example, to this day we do not know in full generality the exact value of the topological entropy $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )`$ of a tensor product of two automorphisms. In general the inequality $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )+\mathrm{ht}(\beta )`$ is known. Equality is only known to hold when both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ satisfy a CNT–variational principle.

In this paper, we address four general types of questions regarding topological entropy.

The first question concerns the behavior of topological entropy under free products. The precise question is the value of $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )`$ of the topological entropy of the (possibly amalgamated) reduced free product automorphism $`\alpha \beta `$. The main theorem of this paper states that $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha ),\mathrm{ht}(\beta ))`$, if the free product is with amalgamation over a finite dimensional $`C^{}`$–algebra. One surprising feature of this result is that the answer is precise — this is to be contrasted with the situation for tensor products. Although the free product of $`C^{}`$–algebras is more complex than the tensor product, it seems to behave more like the direct sum for the purposes of entropy, which is, curiously, close to its behaviour for the purposes of K–theory. One direct consequence of our result is that the free shift on an arbitrary reduced free product $`_i(A,\varphi )`$ has zero entropy.

Giving a bound on the topological entropy of a free product of two automorphisms can be considered a refinement of the result  that the reduced amalgamated free product of two exact $`C^{}`$–algebras is exact. Indeed, exactness of a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`B`$ is the statement that $`\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{id}:BB)<+\mathrm{}`$. The reader will find that our proof is related to the argument given in  for the exactness of reduced amalgamated free products.

The second general question concerns the Connes–Narnhofer–Thirring (CNT) variational principle. The Connes–Narnhofer–Thirring (CNT) entropy  is a generalization to non–commutative measure spaces of the classical Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy. An automorphism $`\alpha `$ is said to satisfy the CNT variational principle if its topological entropy is equal to the supremum of the CNT entropy computed with respect to all invariant states. Although this principle fails for general non–commutative dynamical systems, we show that if two automorphisms $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ and $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ satisfy the CNT variational principle, then so does $`\alpha \beta `$.

The third general question concerns embeddings of dynamical systems. Kirchberg has shown that any separable exact $`C^{}`$–algebra can be embedded into the Cuntz algebra on two generators. We show that any nuclear $`C^{}`$–dynamical system can be covariantly embedded into the Cuntz algebra $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ in an entropy–preserving way.

The last question concerns the possible values of entropy that can be attained by automorphisms of a given $`C^{}`$–algebra $`A`$, i.e., the set $`TE(A)=\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Aut}(A))`$. This is clearly an invariant of $`A`$. For instance, $`TE(A)=\{+\mathrm{}\}`$ is $`A`$ is not exact; $`TE(A)=\{0\}`$ if $`A`$ is finite dimensional. We show that $`TE(𝒪_{\mathrm{}})=[0,+\mathrm{}]`$. Thanks to Kirchberg’s absorption results, this implies that any separable purely infinite nuclear simple $`C^{}`$ –algebra $`A`$ admits an automorphism with any given value of entropy; i.e., $`TE(A)=[0,+\mathrm{}]`$.

The main result of this paper, computing entropy of amalgamated free products of automorphisms, applies only to the case that amalgamation takes place over a finite dimensional subalgebra. Our results are likely to extend to the case of amalgamation over an arbitrary $`C^{}`$–subalgebra, if the following question can be answered in the affirmative:

###### Question 1.1.

Let $`0IE\stackrel{\pi }{}B0`$ be an exact sequence of $`C^{}`$–algebras, which is split (i.e., there exists a $``$–homomorphism $`\eta :BE`$, so that $`\pi \eta =\mathrm{id}_B`$ ). Let $`\alpha `$ be an automorphism of $`E`$, so that $`\alpha (I)=I`$; denote the resulting automorphism of $`B`$ by $`\widehat{\alpha }`$. Assume that $`\eta \widehat{\alpha }=\alpha \eta `$. Is it true that $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\alpha }),\mathrm{ht}(\alpha |_I))`$?

###### Acknowledgement.

An early part of this work was carried out at Institute Henri Poincaré, Paris, France, to which the authors would like to express their warmest gratitude for the exciting and encouraging atmosphere. We would like to thank also N. Ozawa and E. Germain for helpful conversations. K.D. would like to thank Uffe Haagerup and Odense University for their kind hospitality when part of this work was carried out.

## 2. Preliminaries.

### 2.1. A review of topological entropy.

Let $`A`$ be an exact $`C^{}`$ algebra and let $`\omega A`$ be a finite subset. Fix a faithful representation $`\pi :AB(H)`$. Define the set $`CPA(A)`$ to be the set of triples $`(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi },X)`$, where $`X`$ is a finite dimensional $`C^{}`$–algebra, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AX`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }:XB(H)`$ are contractive completely–positive maps. For $`ϵ>0`$, define

$$\mathrm{rcp}(\omega ,ϵ)=inf(\mathrm{rank}(X):(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi },X)CPA(A),a\omega \mathrm{\Psi }\mathrm{\Phi }(a)\pi (a)<ϵ).$$

(This quantity is independent of the choice of $`\pi `$, cf. ). If $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is an automorphism, then its topological entropy $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$ is defined as

$$\underset{\omega A}{sup}\underset{ϵ}{sup}\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{1}{n}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rcp}(\omega \mathrm{}\alpha ^{n1}(\omega ),ϵ).$$

This definition, obtained in , gives the same quantity as Voiculescu’s original definition of dynamical topological entropy  for nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebras $`A`$. We summarize below some properties of $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$, which we will need in this paper. The proofs can be found in .

###### Theorem.

Let $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ be as above. Then

1. $`\mathrm{ht}`$ is monotone: if $`BA`$, and $`\alpha (B)B`$, then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha |_B)\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.
2. If $`A=\overline{A_n}`$, with $`A_nA_{n+1}`$ subalgebras and $`\alpha (A_n)A_n`$, then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=lim_n\mathrm{ht}(\alpha |_{A_n})`$.
3. If $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(B)`$, let $`\alpha \beta \mathrm{Aut}(A_{\mathrm{min}}B)`$ be the tensor product automorphism. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )+\mathrm{ht}(\beta )`$. If $`A`$ contains an $`\alpha `$–invariant projection, then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )\mathrm{ht}(\beta )`$.
4. If $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(B)`$, let $`\alpha \beta \mathrm{Aut}(AB)`$ be the direct sum automorphism. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \beta )=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha ),\mathrm{ht}(\beta ))`$.
5. If $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ commutes with $`\alpha `$, i.e., $`\beta \alpha =\alpha \beta `$, then $`\alpha `$ extends to the obvious automorphism $`\overline{\alpha }\mathrm{Aut}(A_\beta )`$. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\overline{\alpha })=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

### 2.2. Amalgamated free products.

Let $`D`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$–algebra. Recall that a $`D`$*valued non–commutative probability space* is a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`A`$, containing $`D`$ as a unital subalgebra, and endowed with a conditional expectation $`E:AD`$.

Let now $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ be two unital $`C^{}`$–algebras with a common unital subalgebra $`D`$ and with conditional expectations $`E_j:A_jD`$, so that the GNS representation associated to each $`E_j`$ is faithful. Then there exists a $`C^{}`$–algebra $`A`$, generated by $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$ (in such a way that the copies of $`D`$ inside $`A_jA`$ are identified), a conditional expectation $`E:AD`$, and such that $`A_jA`$ are *free with respect to $`E`$* (see ), and $`E`$ gives rise to a faithful GNS representation of $`A`$. The $`C^{}`$–algebra $`A`$ is the *reduced amalgamated free* product over $`D`$ of $`(A_1,E_1)`$ and $`(A_2,E_2)`$ and is denoted

(2.1)
$$(A,E)=(A_1,E_1)_D(A_2,E_2).$$

When the conditional expectations $`E_j`$ are clear from context we may write $`A=A_1_DA_2`$. In the case that $`D=1A_1,A_2`$, then $`E_1`$, $`E_2`$ and $`E`$ are states and $`A`$ is the reduced free product of $`A_1`$ and $`A_2`$, denoted simply

(2.2)
$$(A,E)=(A_1,E_1)(A_2,E_2).$$

Moreover, in the situation of a free product (2.1) or (2.2), one has conditional expectations $`\mathrm{\Phi }_1:AA_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_2:AA_2`$ such that $`E_j\mathrm{\Phi }_j=E`$.

###### Definition 2.2.1.

Let $`(A,E:AD)`$ be a $`D`$–valued non–commutative probability space. We say that $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is an automorphism of this space, if (i) $`\alpha (D)=D`$ and (ii) $`\alpha E=E\alpha `$.

Notice that in the case that $`D=`$, an automorphism of a $`D`$–probability space $`A`$ is simply an automorphism of $`A`$, fixing the state $`E:AD=`$.

Assume now that $`(A_1,E:A_1D)`$ and $`(A_2,E_2:A_2D)`$ are $`D`$–probability spaces. Assume further that $`\alpha _j\mathrm{Aut}(A_j)`$ are $`D`$–space automorphisms, and $`\alpha _1|_D=\alpha _2|_D`$. Then is a unique automorphism $`\alpha _1\alpha _2:A_1_DA_2A_1_DA_2`$, satisfying $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)|_{A_jA_1_DA_2}=\alpha _j`$, $`j=1,2`$.

We will need the following theorem of Blanchard and Dykema.

###### Theorem.

 Let $`D`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ be unital $`C^{}`$–algebras, let $`(A_1,E_1)`$, $`(A_2,E_2)`$ be $`D`$–probability spaces and let $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_1)`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{A}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_2)`$ be $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$–probability spaces. Assume that the GNS representations associated to $`E_j`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_j`$ are faithful ($`j=1,2)`$. Let

$`(A,E)`$ $`=(A_1,E_1)_D(A_2,E_2)`$
$`(\stackrel{~}{A},\stackrel{~}{E})`$ $`=(\stackrel{~}{A}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_1)_{\stackrel{~}{D}}(\stackrel{~}{A}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_2).`$
Suppose that $`\pi _D:D\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is a (not necessarily unital) injective $``$–homomorphism and that there are injective $``$–homomorphisms $`\pi _1:A_1\stackrel{~}{A}_1`$ and $`\pi _2:A_2\stackrel{~}{A}_2`$ such that $`\pi _DE_j=\stackrel{~}{E}_j\pi _j`$. Then there is an injective $``$–homomorphism $`\pi :A\stackrel{~}{A}`$ such that $`\pi |_{A_j}=\pi _j`$ ($`j=1,2`$) and $`\stackrel{~}{E}\pi =E`$.

### 2.3. $`K`$–theory for reduced free products.

Thanks to fundamental work of E. Germain on K–theory of free products , one has the following six–term exact sequence for free products of nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebras.

###### Theorem.

, ,  Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be unital nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebras and $`\varphi S(A),\psi S(B)`$ be states with faithful GNS representations. Let $`C=(A,\varphi )(B,\psi )`$ and $`\iota _A:AC`$ and $`\iota _B:BC`$ denote the canonical inclusions. Then there is an exact sequence

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& \stackrel{1[1_A][1_B]}{}& K_0(A)K_0(B)& \stackrel{(\iota _A)_{}+(\iota _B)_{}}{}& K_0(C)\\ & & & & & & \\ K_1(C)& \stackrel{(\iota _A)_{}+(\iota _B)_{}}{}& K_1(A)K_1(B)& & 0.\end{array}$$

Moreover, if both $`A`$ and $`B`$ satisfy the Universal Coefficient Theorem of Rosenberg and Schochet (see e.g. ) then so does $`C`$.

### 2.4. Cuntz–Pimsner algebras.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$–algebra, and $`H`$ be a Hilbert bimodule over $`A`$. Assume that $`H`$ is *full*, i.e., $`H,H_A`$ is dense in $`A`$. Let

$$F(H)=A\underset{n1}{}H^{_An},$$

and for $`\xi H`$, let

$`l(\xi ):F(H)`$ $``$ $`F(H),`$
$`l(\xi )\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n`$ $`=`$ $`\xi \xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n.`$
The Cuntz–Pimsner $`C^{}`$–algebra $`E(H)`$ (cf. ) is then defined as $`C^{}(l(\xi ):\xi H).`$ It is not hard to see that

$$l(\xi )^{}l(\zeta )=\xi ,\zeta _A,$$

and hence $`A=\overline{H,H}E(H)`$, acting on the left of $`F(H)`$. The projection from $`F(H)`$ onto $`AF(H)`$ gives rise to a conditional expectation $`E:E(H)A`$. We summarize some of the properties of $`E(H)`$ below; the proofs can be found in ,  and .

###### Theorem.

Let $`H`$ and $`A`$ be as above. Then

1. If $`KH`$ is a Hilbert $`A`$–subbimodule which is full, then $`E(K)`$ is canonically isomorphic to $`C^{}(l(\xi ):F(H)F(H)\text{s}.\text{t}.\xi K)E(H)`$.
2. Let $`H^{}`$ be another full Hilbert $`A`$–bimodule, then $`E(HH^{})=E(H)_AE(H^{})`$, where the reduced free product is taken with respect to the canonical conditional expectations from $`E(H)`$ (respectively, $`E(H^{})`$) onto $`A`$.
3. Assume that $`\overline{\alpha }:HH`$ is a linear map, so that for some $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$,

(2.3) $`\overline{\alpha }(a_1\xi a_2)=\alpha (a_1)\overline{\alpha }(\xi )\alpha (a_2),`$ $`a_1,a_2A,\xi H`$
(2.4) $`\overline{\alpha }(\xi _1),\overline{\alpha }(\xi _2)_A=\alpha (\xi _1,\xi _2_A),`$ $`\xi _1,\xi _2H.`$
Then there is a unique automorphism $`E(\overline{\alpha })`$ of the $`A`$–probability space $`(E(H),E:E(H)A)`$, so that $`E(\overline{\alpha })|_{AE(H)}=\alpha `$, and $`E(\overline{\alpha })(l(\xi ))=l(\overline{\alpha }(\xi ))`$. The automorphism $`E(\overline{\alpha })`$ is called the Bogoljubov automorphism associated to $`\overline{\alpha }`$.

### 2.5. Some examples of Bogoljubov automorphisms.

In the course of proving the main theorem of the paper, we will encounter a particular class of Bogoljubov automorphisms of $`E(H)`$, which we will presently describe. Let $`D`$ be a $`C^{}`$–algebra and $`(A,E:AD)`$ be a $`D`$–probability space. Let

$$K^o=AA$$

(algebraic tensor product), and endow $`K^o`$ with the $`A`$–valued inner product given by

$$ab,a^{}b^{}_A=b^{}E(a^{}a^{})b^{},a,a^{},b,b^{}A.$$

Denote by $`K_D`$ the Hilbert $`A`$–bimodule obtained from $`K^o`$ after separation and completion. Another description of $`K_D`$ is as the internal tensor product $`K_D=L^2(A,E)_DA`$. Notice that any automorphism $`\alpha `$ of the $`D`$–probability space $`A`$ extends to a linear map $`\overline{\alpha }:K_DK_D`$, satisfying equations (2.3) and (2.4).

###### Theorem.

 $`E(K_D)(A,E)_D(D𝒯,\mathrm{id}\psi )`$, where $`𝒯`$ denotes the Toeplitz algebra (the algebra generated by the unilateral shift on $`\mathrm{}^2()`$), and $`\psi :𝒯`$ is the vacuum state (corresponding to the vector $`\delta _1\mathrm{}^2()`$). Moreover, $`E(\overline{\alpha })`$ corresponds in this isomorphism to $`\alpha ((\alpha |_D)\mathrm{id})`$.

Let $`(A,E:AD)`$ be a $`D`$–probability space, and let $`\alpha `$ be an automorphism of this $`D`$–probability space. Assume that $`D`$ is finite dimensional. Let $`\varphi `$ be an $`\alpha |_D`$–invariant faithful trace on $`D`$. Consider the Hilbert $`A,A`$–bimodule

$$H=L^2(A,\varphi E)_{}A,$$

together with the vector $`\xi =11H`$ and the inner product

$$a_1a_2,b_1b_2=a_1,b_1_{L^2(A,\varphi E)}a_2^{}b_2.$$

We will henceforth also write $`\varphi `$ to mean $`\varphi E`$. Let $`U:HH`$ be given by

$$U(xa)=V(x)\alpha (a),$$

where $`V:L^2(A,\varphi )L^2(A,\varphi )`$ is the unitary induced by $`\alpha :AA`$. Then $`UaU^{}=\alpha (a)`$ where $`a`$ and $`\alpha (a)`$ act on the left of $`H`$.

###### Lemma 2.5.1.

There exists a vector $`\zeta H`$, with the following properties:

1. $`d\zeta =\zeta d`$ for all $`dD`$
2. $`U\zeta =\zeta `$
3. $`\zeta ,a\zeta =E(a)`$ for all $`aA`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`U(D)`$ denote the unitary group of $`D`$, endowed with Haar measure $`\mu `$. Let

$$\zeta ^{}=_{uU(D)}u\xi u^{}𝑑\mu (u).$$

For each $`wU(D)`$, we get

$$w\zeta ^{}=w_{uU(D)}u\xi u^{}𝑑\mu (u)=\left(_{uwU(D)}wu\xi uw^{}𝑑\mu (u)\right)w=\zeta ^{}w,$$

so $`d\zeta ^{}=\zeta ^{}d`$ for all $`dD`$. Furthermore,

$`U\zeta ^{}={\displaystyle _{uU(D)}}U(uu^{})𝑑\mu (u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{uU(D)}}\alpha (u)1\alpha (u^{})𝑑\mu (u)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{uU(D)}}\alpha (u)\xi \alpha (u^{})𝑑\mu (u)=\zeta ^{}.`$
Lastly, for $`aA`$, set

$`\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=\zeta ^{},a\zeta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{u,vU(D)}}uu^{},avv^{}𝑑\mu (u)𝑑\mu (v)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{u,v}}u\varphi (u^{}av)v^{}𝑑\mu (u)𝑑\mu (v)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{u,v}}\varphi (vu^{}a)uv^{}𝑑\mu (u)𝑑\mu (v)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _{w=uv^{},v}}\varphi (wa)w^{}𝑑\mu (w)𝑑\mu (v)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _w}\varphi (wa)w^{}𝑑\mu (w).`$
Assume now that $`E(a)=0`$, i.e., $`\varphi (da)=0`$ for all $`dD`$. Then

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=_w\varphi (wa)w^{}𝑑\mu (w)=0.$$

Since whenever $`vU(D)`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(v)=_w\varphi (wv)w^{}𝑑\mu (w)=_{u=wv}\varphi (u)vu^{}𝑑\mu (u)=v\mathrm{\Phi }(1),$$

and any $`dD`$ is a linear combination of unitaries from $`U(D)`$, we get that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(d)=d\mathrm{\Phi }(1),dD.$$

Since for any $`aA`$, $`a=(aE(a))+E(a)`$ and $`E(a)d`$, we get that

$$\mathrm{\Phi }(a)=\mathrm{\Phi }(aE(a))+\mathrm{\Phi }(E(a))=E(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(1).$$

We also have $`d\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=\mathrm{\Phi }(d)=\zeta ^{},d\zeta ^{}=\zeta ^{},\zeta ^{}d=\mathrm{\Phi }(1)d`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)`$ is in the center of $`D`$; moreover, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=\zeta ^{},\zeta ^{}0`$ and $`\alpha (\mathrm{\Phi }(1))=\alpha (\zeta ^{},\zeta ^{})=U\zeta ^{},U\zeta ^{}=\zeta ^{},\zeta ^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(1)`$. We claim that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)`$ is invertible. Writing $`D=M_{n_k}`$ as a direct sum of matrix algebras, we find that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)=_{uU(D)}\varphi (u)u^{}𝑑\mu (u)=\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$, where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k=\alpha _k1_{M_{n_k}}_{uU(n_k)}\text{Tr}(u)u^{}𝑑\mu (u)`$, and $`\alpha _k0`$ is related to the value of $`\varphi `$ on the minimal projection of $`D`$ corresponding to the $`k`$-th matrix summand in the direct sum decomposition of $`D`$. To show that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)`$ is invertible, is it sufficient to show that $`c_k=_{uU(k)}\text{Tr}(u)u^{}𝑑\mu (u)`$ is a strictly positive scalar for all $`k1`$. Repeating the argument above with $`D`$ replaced by $`M_k`$, we find that $`c_k`$ is in the center of $`M_k`$ and is non–negative. Furthermore,

$$\text{Tr}(c_k)=_{uU(k)}\text{Tr}(u)\text{Tr}(u^{})𝑑\mu (u)=_{uU(k)}|\text{Tr}(u)|^2𝑑\mu (u)>0,$$

since the subset of $`uM_k`$ with $`\text{Tr}(u)0`$ has non–zero measure.

Now let $`\zeta =\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}`$. Then $`U\zeta =U\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}U^{}U\zeta ^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}=\zeta `$; for all $`dD`$, $`d\zeta =d\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}d\zeta ^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}d=\zeta d`$; and for all $`aA`$,

$`\zeta ,a\zeta =\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{},a\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}`$ $`=`$ $`\zeta ^{},\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}a\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\zeta ^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}a\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}E(a)\mathrm{\Phi }(1)^{1/2}\mathrm{\Phi }(1)`$
$`=`$ $`E(a),`$
as desired. ∎

###### Corollary 2.5.2.

Let $`\alpha `$ be an automorphism of a $`D`$–probability space $`(A,E:AD)`$ with $`dim(D)<\mathrm{}`$. Assume that $`E:AD`$ gives rise to a faithful GNS representation. Let $`\varphi `$ be an $`\alpha `$–invariant trace on $`D`$. Consider the automorphism $`\beta =\alpha \mathrm{id}`$ on $`B=(A,\varphi E)𝒯`$, where $`𝒯`$ is the Toeplitz algebra with its vacuum state. Consider the automorphism $`\gamma =\alpha (\alpha |_D\mathrm{id})`$ on $`C=(A,E)_D(D𝒯)`$. Then there exists a covariant embedding of $`(C,\gamma )`$ into $`(B,\beta )`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`H`$ be as above. Consider the Cuntz–Pimsner $`C^{}`$–algebra $`E(H)`$, generated by the operators $`l(h):hH`$ and $`A`$. Then $`B=E(H)=C^{}(A,l(h):hH)=C^{}(A,l(\xi ))`$. The automorphism $`\beta `$ is identified with the Bogoljubov automorphism $`E(U)`$: indeed we have $`\beta (a)=\alpha (a)`$, $`aA`$ and $`E(U)(l(ab))=l(U(ab))=l(\alpha (a)\alpha (b))=\alpha (a)l(\xi )\alpha (b)=\beta (al(\xi )b)`$. Choose $`\zeta `$ as in Lemma 2.5.1. Let $`L=l(\zeta )`$. Then $`L^{}aL=\zeta ,a\zeta =E(a)`$. Let $`K=\overline{A\zeta A}H`$. It follows that $`C^{}(A,L)=C^{}(aLb:a,bA)=C^{}(l(h):hK)=E(K)`$. It is easily seen that the map $`a\zeta bab`$ defines an isomorphism of $`K`$ with the $`A`$ bimodule $`K_D`$ defined in §2.5. Hence by the results of that section, $`C^{}(A,L)C`$. Moreover, since

$`E(U)(a)=\alpha (a),aA`$
$`E(U)(L)=l(U(\zeta ))=l(\zeta )=L`$
we get that $`E(U)|_{C^{}(A,L)}=\gamma `$. ∎

## 3. Toplogical entropy in certain extensions

The main result of this section gives an estimate of topological entropy in certain extensions. We begin with a lemma which gives a way of estimating the $`\delta `$–rank of finite sets in an extension.

Consider a short exact sequence $`0IE\stackrel{\pi }{}B0`$ where $`E`$ is a unital exact $`C^{}`$–algebra and assume that there exists a unital completely positive splitting $`\rho :BE`$ (i.e. $`\pi \rho =\mathrm{id}_B`$).

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`I,E,B,\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ be as above. Given $`ϵ>0`$ there exists a $`\delta >0`$ with the following property: if $`\omega =\{\rho (b_1)+x_1,\mathrm{},\rho (b_s)+x_s\}E`$ is a finite set containing the unit of $`E`$ and such that each $`b_iB`$, $`x_iI`$ and $`b_i,x_i1`$, $`1is`$ and if $`0e1_E`$ is an element of $`I`$ such that $`[e,\rho (b_i)],x_iex_i,x_ix_ie<\delta `$ for $`1is`$ then

$$\mathrm{rcp}_E(\omega ,30ϵ)\mathrm{rcp}_I(e^{1/n}\omega e^{1/n},ϵ)+\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega ),ϵ),$$

for any $`n>1/ϵ`$.

###### Proof.

Fix $`ϵ>0`$. By the lemma in \[1, page 332\] we can find a $`\stackrel{~}{\delta }>0`$ such that for every pair of elements $`f,g`$ in the unit ball of $`E`$ such that $`f0`$ we have the implication

$$[f,g]<\stackrel{~}{\delta }[f^{1/2},g]<ϵ.$$

Let $`\delta =\mathrm{min}(\stackrel{~}{\delta },ϵ^2/4)`$.

So assume that $`\omega =\{\rho (b_1)+x_1,\mathrm{},\rho (b_s)+x_s\}E`$ is a finite set such that each $`b_iB`$, $`x_iI`$ and $`b_i,x_i1`$, $`1is`$ and $`0e1_E`$ is an element of $`I`$ such that $`[e,\rho (b_i)],x_iex_i,x_ix_ie<\delta `$ for $`1is`$. By our choice of $`\delta `$ we then have $`[e^{1/2},\rho (b_i)],[(1_Ee)^{1/2},\rho (b_i)]<ϵ`$ for all $`1is`$.

We also claim that $`[e^{1/2},x_i]<ϵ`$ for all $`1is`$. To see this we first note that since $`ee^{1/2}`$ we have that $`1_Ee1_Ee^{1/2}`$. Thus

$$e^{1/2}xx^2=x^{}(1_Ee^{1/2})^2xx^{}(1_Ee^{1/2})xx^{}(1_Ee)xxex,$$

for all $`xI`$ with $`x1`$. Similarly, $`xe^{1/2}xxxe`$ and hence

$$[e^{1/2},x_i]e^{1/2}x_ix_i+x_ie^{1/2}x_iex_ix_i^{1/2}+x_iex_i^{1/2}<ϵ.$$

Since $`0e1_E`$ some routine functional calculus shows that $`e^{1/2+1/n}e^{1/2}2/n`$ and $`e^{1+2/n}e2/n`$. Combining these inequalities, the inequalities in the previous paragraphs and a standard interpolation argument we get

$`[e^{1/2+1/n},\rho (b_i)]`$ $`<`$ $`4/n+ϵ,`$
$`[e^{1/2+1/n},x_i]`$ $`<`$ $`4/n+ϵ,`$
$`\rho (b_i)e^{1+2/n}\rho (b_i)e`$ $``$ $`2/n,`$
$`x_ie^{1+2/n}x_ie`$ $``$ $`2/n.`$
These four inequalities will be needed at the end of the proof.

Assume that $`EB(H)`$ and $`BB(K)`$. By Arveson’s extension theorem we may assume that $`\rho :BEB(H)`$ is defined on all of $`B(K)`$ (and takes values in $`B(H)`$). Now choose $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1,\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2,D_1)CPA(B)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1(b_i)b_i<ϵ`$, $`1is`$, and $`\mathrm{rank}(D_1)=\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega ),ϵ).`$ Using the techniques in the proof of Proposition 1.4 in  we may replace the (not necessarily unital) maps $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_2`$ with unital maps $`\varphi _1:BD_1`$ and $`\varphi _2:D_1B(K)`$ such that $`\varphi _2\varphi _1(b_i)b_i<14ϵ`$. (Here we use the facts that $`1_B\pi (\omega )`$ and $`b_i1,1is`$.)

Similarly, choose $`(\psi _1,\psi _2,D_2)CPA(I)`$ such that

$$\psi _2\psi _1(e^{1/n}(b_i+x_i)e^{1/n})e^{1/n}(b_i+x_i)e^{1/n}<ϵ,$$

$`1is`$, and $`\mathrm{rank}(D_2)=\mathrm{rcp}_I(e^{1/n}\omega e^{1/n},ϵ).`$ By Arveson’s extension theorem we may assume that $`\psi _1`$ is defined on all of $`B(H)`$.

Define $`\chi _1:ED_1D_2`$ by

$$\chi _1(y)=\varphi _1(\pi (y))\psi _1(e^{1/n}ye^{1/n}),$$

for all $`yE`$ and $`\chi _2:D_1D_2B(H)`$ by

$$\chi _2(ST)=(1_Ee)^{1/2}\rho (\varphi _2(S))(1_Ee)^{1/2}+e^{1/2}\psi _2(T)e^{1/2},$$

for all $`SD_1,TD_2`$. Since we have arranged that $`\varphi _2`$ is unital (and $`\rho `$ is unital by assumption) we see that $`\chi _2(1_{D_1}1_{D_2})=1_Ee+e^{1/2}\psi _2(1_{D_2})e^{1/2}=1_E\left(e^{1/2}(1_E\psi _2(1_{D_2}))e^{1/2}\right)`$. Since $`\psi _2`$ is a contractive completely positive map, this shows that $`\chi _2(1_{D_1}1_{D_2})`$ is a positive operator of norm less than or equal to one. Since it is clear that $`\chi _2`$ is a completely positive map this, in turn, implies that $`\chi _2`$ is also a contractive map (see \[31, Proposition 3.5\]).

Hence $`(\chi _1,\chi _2,D_1D_2)CPA(E)`$ and

$$\mathrm{rank}(D_1D_2)=\mathrm{rcp}_I(e^{1/n}\omega e^{1/n},ϵ)+\mathrm{rcp}_B(\{\pi (\omega )\},ϵ).$$

Thus we only have to check that $`\chi _2\chi _1(\rho (b_i)+x_i)\rho (b_i)x_i<31ϵ`$, for $`1is`$. But, letting $`y=\rho (b_i)+x_i`$ we have

$`\chi _2\chi _1(y)y`$ $`=(1_Ee)^{1/2}\rho (\varphi _2(\varphi _1(b_i)))(1_Ee)^{1/2}+`$
$`e^{1/2}\psi _2\psi _1(e^{1/n}(\rho (b_i)+x_i)e^{1/n})e^{1/2}\rho (b_i)x_i`$
$`(1_Ee)^{1/2}\rho (\varphi _2(\varphi _1(b_i)))(1_Ee)^{1/2}`$
$`(1_Ee)^{1/2}\rho (b_i)(1_Ee)^{1/2}`$
$`+e^{1/2}\psi _2\psi _1(e^{1/n}(\rho (b_i)+x_i)e^{1/n})e^{1/2}`$
$`e^{1/2}\left(e^{1/n}(\rho (b_i)+x_i)e^{1/n}\right)e^{1/2}`$
$`+(1_Ee)^{1/2}\rho (b_i)(1_Ee)^{1/2}+e^{\frac{n+2}{2n}}(\rho (b_i)+x_i)e^{\frac{n+2}{2n}}`$
$`\rho (b_i)x_i`$
$`15ϵ+[(1_Ee)^{1/2},\rho (b_i)]+[e^{\frac{n+2}{2n}},\rho (b_i)]+[e^{\frac{n+2}{2n}},x_i]`$
$`+\rho (b_i)(1_Ee)+(\rho (b_i)+x_i)e^{1+2/n}\rho (b_i)x_i`$
$`18ϵ+8/n+\rho (b_i)e^{1+2/n}\rho (b_i)e`$
$`+x_ie^{1+2/n}x_ie`$
$`18ϵ+12/n.`$
Hence for any $`n>1/ϵ`$ we have the desired inequality. ∎

###### Remark 3.2.

The previous lemma is easily generalized to arbitrary extensions, though a precise formulation is somewhat awkward (and does not appear to be useful for entropy calculations). The idea is that if $`E`$ is a unital exact $`C^{}`$–algebra then the quotient map $`\pi :EB`$ is always locally liftable (cf. \[25, Prop. 7.2\]). Hence the $`\delta `$–rank of any finite subset of $`E`$ can be estimated in terms of finite subsets of $`I`$ and $`B`$.

Though it will not be needed in what follows it seems appropriate to point out the following application.

###### Proposition 3.3.

With $`I,E,B,\pi `$ and $`\rho `$ as above, let $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(E)`$ be an automorphism such that $`\alpha (I)=I`$ and let $`\widehat{\alpha }\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ be the induced automorphism. Assume that $`\rho \widehat{\alpha }=\alpha \rho `$ and there exists an approximate unit $`\{e_\lambda \}I`$ such that $`\alpha (e_\lambda )=e_\lambda `$, for all $`\lambda `$ (which happens, for example, if there exists a strictly positive element $`hI`$ such that $`\alpha (h)=h`$). Then

$$\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha |_I),\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\alpha })).$$

###### Proof.

By \[7, Prop. 2.10\] it suffices to show the inequality $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha |_I),\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\alpha }))`$.

Let $`ϵ>0`$ be given and $`\omega =\{\rho (b_1)+x_1,\mathrm{},\rho (b_s)+x_s\}E`$ be any finite set containing the unit of $`E`$ and such that $`b_i,x_i1`$, $`1is`$. Let $`\{e_\lambda \}I`$ be an approximate unit such that $`\alpha (e_\lambda )=e_\lambda `$, for all $`\lambda `$. Since we can manufacture a *quasicentral* approximate unit out of the convex hull of $`\{e_\lambda \}`$ , we may further assume that $`\{e_\lambda \}`$ is quasicentral in $`E`$ (and still fixed by $`\alpha `$).

Choose $`\delta >0`$ according to the previous lemma and take $`\lambda `$ large enough that $`[e_\lambda ,\rho (b_i)]`$, $`x_ie_\lambda x_i,,x_ix_ie_\lambda <\delta `$ for $`1is`$. Since $`\alpha ^j(e_\lambda )=e_\lambda `$ for all $`j`$ it is clear that $`[e_\lambda ,\alpha ^j(\rho (b_i))],\alpha ^j(x_i)e_\lambda \alpha ^j(x_i),\alpha ^j(x_i)\alpha ^j(x_i)e_\lambda <\delta `$ for $`1is`$ and all $`j`$. Hence letting $`\omega _I=e_\lambda ^{1/k}\omega e_\lambda ^{1/k}I`$, for some $`k>1/ϵ`$, the previous lemma implies that $`\mathrm{rcp}(\omega \mathrm{}\alpha ^n(\omega ),30ϵ)`$ is bounded above by

$$\mathrm{rcp}_I(\omega _I\mathrm{}\alpha ^{n1}(\omega _I),ϵ)+\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega )\mathrm{}\widehat{\alpha }^{n1}(\pi (\omega )),ϵ)$$

which is bounded above by

$$2\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{rcp}_I(\omega _I\mathrm{}\alpha ^{n1}(\omega _I),ϵ),\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega )\mathrm{}\widehat{\alpha }^{n1}(\pi (\omega )),ϵ)).$$

This inequality implies the result. ∎

The next lemma is inspired by section 5 in .

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`FB(H)`$ be a finite set of self-adjoint contractive operators on a Hilbert space $`H`$. Let $`P`$ be a projection in $`B(H)`$, of rank $`\mathrm{}<\mathrm{}`$. Then for any $`\delta >0`$, there exists a positive finite–rank contraction $`XB(H)`$, so that:

1. $`XP=PX=P`$
2. $`[X,T]<\delta `$ for all $`TF`$
3. The rank of $`X`$ is no bigger than $`\mathrm{}(|F|+1)^{(2/\delta )+1}`$.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`K_1H`$ the range of $`P`$. Define recursively

$$K_n=\text{span}\{K_{n1}\underset{TF}{}TK_{n1}\}.$$

Let $`q=|F|`$ be the cardinality of $`F`$. Then $`K_n`$ has dimension at most $`(q+1)`$ times the dimension of $`K_{n1}`$, so that $`dimK_n\mathrm{}(q+1)^n`$.

Let $`P_n`$ be the orthogonal projection onto $`K_n`$; then $`P_n`$ are clearly an increasing sequence, and $`P_iP=PP_i=P=P_1`$ for all $`i`$. Let

$$X_n=\frac{1}{n}(P_1+\mathrm{}+P_n).$$

Then $`X_nP=PX_n=\frac{1}{n}(PP_1+\mathrm{}+PP_n)=P`$ for all $`n`$. Note that the rank of $`X_n`$ is the same as that of $`P_n`$, which is bounded by $`\mathrm{}(q+1)^n`$

Set $`Q_n=P_nP_{n1}`$, $`Q_1=P_1`$. Since $`TK_nK_{n+1}`$ and thus $`TP_n=P_{n+1}TP_n`$, if $`mn>2`$ then we have $`Q_mTQ_n=Q_mTP_nQ_n=Q_mP_{n+1}TP_nQ_n=0`$ for all $`TF`$. Since $`T`$ is self-adjoint, also $`Q_nTQ_m=0`$ if $`mn>2`$. Hence $`Q_nTQ_m=0`$ if $`|nm|>2`$. Let $`Z`$ be the orthocomplement of $`\overline{K_n}`$ in $`H`$. Then in the decomposition $`H=Q_nHZ`$, each $`TF`$ has the form

$$\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}Q_1TQ_1& Q_1TQ_2& 0& & \\ Q_2TQ_1& Q_2TQ_2& Q_2TQ_3& 0& \\ 0& Q_3TQ_2& Q_3TQ_3& Q_3TQ_4& \mathrm{}\\ & 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right),$$

i.e., it is a “block tri–diagonal” matrix. Hence using the convention $`Q_0=0`$ we have the identities

$`Q_nT={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}Q_nTQ_{n+j},`$
$`TQ_n={\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}Q_{n+j}TQ_n.`$
Now $`X_n=Q_1+(1\frac{1}{n})Q_2+\mathrm{}+\frac{1}{n}Q_n=_{i=1}^n(\frac{ni+1}{n})Q_i`$ so that for any $`TF`$,

$$X_nT=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{ni+1}{n}\right)Q_iT=\underset{j=1,0,1}{}\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\left(\frac{ni+1}{n}\right)Q_iTQ_{i+j}.$$

Similarly,

$`TX_n={\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ni+1}{n}}\right)TQ_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ni+1}{n}}\right)Q_{i+j}TQ_i`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{ni+1j}{n}}\right)Q_iTQ_{i+j}`$
Hence

$`X_nTT_nX`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(ni+1)(ni+1j)}{n}}\right)Q_iTQ_{i+j}`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{j}{n}}Q_iTQ_{i+j}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,0,1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|j|}{n}}{\displaystyle \underset{i}{}}Q_iTQ_{i+j}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{j=1,1}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{|j|}{n}}={\displaystyle \frac{2}{n}}`$
The last inequality is due to the fact that for a fixed $`j`$, the operator $`Q_iTQ_{i+j}`$ is a block-diagonal operator, with the blocks having orthogonal ranges, so that $`Q_iTQ_{i+j}\mathrm{max}\{Q_iTQ_{i+j}\}1`$.

Choose the smallest integer $`n`$ with $`n>\frac{2}{\delta }`$, and set $`X=X_n`$. Then $`[X,T]\frac{2}{n}<\delta `$; by construction, $`XP=PX=P`$ and the rank of $`X`$ is bounded by $`\mathrm{}(q+1)^n\mathrm{}(q+1)^{\frac{2}{\delta }+1}`$. ∎

We finally come to the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 3.5.

Let $`A,BB(H)`$ be unital exact $`C^{}`$–algebras such that $`B𝒦(H)=\{0\}`$ and $`C=B1+𝒦(H)AB(HH)`$. For any two unitaries $`V,WB(H)`$ such that $`\mathrm{Ad}V(B)=B`$ and $`\mathrm{Ad}W(A)=A`$, the unitary $`U=VW`$ has the property that $`\mathrm{Ad}U(C)=C`$ and

$$\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}U|_C)\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}V|_B),\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}W|_A)).$$

###### Proof.

We have a short exact sequence

(3.1)
$$0𝒦(H)AC\stackrel{𝜋}{}B0$$

with splitting $`\rho :BC`$ given by $`\rho (b)=b1`$.

Let $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_N𝒦(H)`$, $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_NA`$ and $`b_1,\mathrm{},b_NB`$ be self-adjoint elements, each of norm at most $`1`$, so that each $`k_i`$ has finite rank. Let $`L`$ be the sum of the ranks of $`k_1,\mathrm{},k_N`$. Let

$$\omega =\{k_ia_i+b_i1:1iN\}.$$

Fixing $`ϵ>0`$ and a positive integer $`n`$, let

$`\omega (n)`$ $`=`$ $`\omega (\mathrm{Ad}U)(\omega )\mathrm{}(\mathrm{Ad}U)^{n1}(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`\{1\}\{V^rk_iV^rW^ra_iW^r+V^rb_iV^r1:1iN,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rn1\}.`$
Then the sum of the ranks of

$$k_1,\mathrm{},k_N,\mathrm{},V^{n1}k_1V^{(n1)},\mathrm{},V^{n1}k_NV^{(n1)}$$

is at most $`nL`$, so there exists a projection $`P`$ of rank $`nL`$, so that $`PV^rk_jV^r=V^rk_jV^rP=V^rk_jV^r`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},N`$ and $`r=0,\mathrm{},n1`$.

Consider the collection

$$F=\{b_1,\mathrm{},b_N\}\mathrm{}\{V^{n1}b_1V^{(n1)},\mathrm{},V^{n1}b_NV^{(n1)}\},$$

of at most $`nN`$ self-adjoint operators on $`B(H)`$. Let $`\delta `$ be as in Lemma 3.1 for the given value of $`ϵ`$ and the short exact sequence (3.1). By applying Lemma 3.4 with these choices of $`\delta `$, $`P`$, $`F`$, and $`\mathrm{}=nL`$, we find a positive, finite–rank $`X𝒦(H)`$, so that:

1. $`XP=PX=P`$, hence $`XV^rk_jV^r=XPV^rk_jV^r=PV^rk_jV^r=V^rk_jV^r=V^rk_jV^rX`$ for all $`1jN`$ and $`0rn1`$
2. $`[X,V^rb_jV^r]\delta `$ for all $`1jN`$ and $`0rn1`$
3. The rank of $`X`$ is at most $`nL(nN+1)^{(2/\delta )+1}`$.

Let $`e=X1`$. Then $`e`$ satisfies the hypotheses of Lemma 3.1. Indeed,

$$[e,V^rb_iV^r1]=[X,V^rb_iV^r]\delta ,1iN,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rn1$$

and

$`eV^rk_iV^rW^ra_iW^rV^rk_iV^rW^ra_iW^r`$ $`=`$
$`=(XV^rk_iV^rV^rk_iV^r)W^ra_iW^r`$ $`=0`$
if $`1iN`$, and $`0rn1`$, etc. Hence by Lemma 3.1, as long as $`m>ϵ^1`$ we have

$$\mathrm{rcp}_C(\omega (n),30ϵ)\mathrm{rcp}_{𝒦(H)A}(e^{1/m}\omega (n)e^{1/m},ϵ)+\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega (n)),ϵ).$$

Note that

$`e^{1/m}\omega (n)e^{1/m}=`$ $`\{X^{2/m}1\}`$
$`\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \{X^{1/m}V^rk_iV^rX^{1/m}W^ra_iW^r+& X^{1/m}V^rb_iV^rX^{1/m}1\hfill \\ & :1iN,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rn1\}.\hfill \end{array}`$
Hence setting

$`\omega _A(n)`$ $`=\{1\}\{W^ra_iW^r:1iN,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rn1\}`$
$`\omega _B(n)`$ $`=\{1\}\{V^rb_iV^r:1iN,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}rn1\}`$
we have

$$\mathrm{rcp}_{𝒦(H)A}(e^{1/n}\omega (n)e^{1/n},ϵ)\mathrm{rcp}_A(\omega _A(n),ϵ/2)\text{rank}(X).$$

On the other hand,

$$\mathrm{rcp}_B(\pi (\omega (n)),ϵ)=\mathrm{rcp}_B(\omega _B(n),ϵ).$$

Since the rank of $`X`$ is at most $`nL(nN+1)^{(\delta /2)+1}`$ it follows that

$`\mathrm{rcp}(\omega (n),30ϵ)`$ $``$ $`\mathrm{rcp}_A(\omega _A(n),ϵ/2)nL(nN+1)^{2/\delta +1}+\mathrm{rcp}_B(\omega _B(n),ϵ)`$
$``$ $`2(nL+1)(nN+1)^{2/\delta +1}\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{rcp}_A(\omega _A(n),ϵ/2),\mathrm{rcp}_B(\omega _B(n),ϵ))`$
so that

$`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}`$ $`\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rcp}(\omega (n),30ϵ)`$
$`\mathrm{max}(\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rcp}(\omega _A(n),ϵ/2),\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{n}}\mathrm{log}\mathrm{rcp}(\omega _B(n),ϵ))`$
$`\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}W|_A),\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}V|_B))_.`$
Since $`C`$ can be written as the closure of the linear span of elements of the form appearing in $`\omega `$, the statement of the theorem follows. ∎

We shall record the following corollary, which will be the basis for entropy computations in this paper.

###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`A`$ be a $`C^{}`$–algebra, $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$, $`\pi :AB(H)`$ be a faithful representation of $`A`$ and $`UU(H)`$ be such that $`\pi (\alpha (a))=U\pi (a)U^{}`$. Assume that $`\pi (A)K(H)=\{0\}`$. Let $`A_0=A`$, $`\alpha _0=\alpha `$, $`\pi _0=\pi `$, $`H_0=H`$ and $`U_0=U`$. Recursively construct $`C^{}`$–algebras $`A_n,\alpha _n\mathrm{Aut}(A_n)`$, $`\pi _n:A_nB(H_n)`$ and $`U_nU(H_n)`$ by setting

$`H_n`$ $`=`$ $`H_{n1}H,`$
$`A_n`$ $`=`$ $`K(H_{n1})\pi (A)+\pi _{n1}(A_{n1})\mathrm{Id}_H,`$
$`\pi _n`$ $`=`$ $`\text{obvious representation on }H_n,`$
$`U_n`$ $`=`$ $`U_{n1}U,`$
$`\alpha _n`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{Ad}U_n.`$
View $`A_{n1}A_n`$ as $`A_{n1}\pi _{n1}(A_n)\mathrm{Id}_H`$. Let

$$A_{\mathrm{}}=\overline{_nA_n,}\alpha _{\mathrm{}}=\underset{}{lim}\alpha _n.$$

Then:

(i) $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

(ii) If $`\gamma `$ is an injective endomorphism of $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$, so that $`\gamma \alpha _{\mathrm{}}=\alpha _{\mathrm{}}\gamma `$, denote by $`\overline{\alpha }`$ the obvious extension of $`\alpha _{\mathrm{}}`$ to $`A_{\mathrm{}}_\gamma `$. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\overline{\alpha })=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

Statement (ii) follows from statement (i) and the results of . Hence it is sufficient to prove (i); for that one only needs to prove that $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _n)\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$, in view of the behavior of entropy with respect to inductive limits. We now proceed by induction on $`n`$. Since $`\alpha _0=\alpha `$, the statement is true for $`n=0`$. Applying Theorem 3.5 to $`A_n=K(H_{n1})\pi (A)+\pi _{n1}(A_{n1})\mathrm{Id}_H`$ gives $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _n)\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _{n1}),\mathrm{ht}(\alpha ))`$, which is equal to $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$ by the induction hypothesis. ∎

## 4. Free products with the Toeplitz algebra.

The main technical result of this section (which will be used to prove the more general result about entropy of amalgamated free products of automorphisms) is the following theorem.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`\alpha `$ be an automorphism of a $`D`$–probability space $`(A,E:DA)`$. Assume that $`D`$ is finite dimensional. Assume that the GNS representation associated to $`E`$ is faithful. Let $`𝒯B(\mathrm{}^2)`$ be the Toeplitz algebra generated by the unilateral shift $`\mathrm{}(\delta _n)=\delta _{n+1}`$ ($`n1`$), and $`\psi `$ be the vector state on $`𝒯`$ associated to $`\delta _1\mathrm{}^2`$. Consider on the algebra $`(A,E)_D(D𝒯,\mathrm{id}_D\psi )`$ the automorphism $`\alpha (\alpha |_D\mathrm{id})`$. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha (\alpha |_D\mathrm{id}))=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

Because of Corollary 2.5.2 and monotonicity of $`\mathrm{ht}`$, it is sufficient to prove Theorem 4.1 in the particular case that $`D=`$. For convenience, we’ll restate this particular case as

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`A`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$–algebra, $`\varphi :A`$ a state with a faithful GNS representation. Let $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ be an automorphism, so that $`\varphi \alpha =\varphi `$ . Consider the algebra $`(A,\varphi )(𝒯,\psi )`$. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \mathrm{id})=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`H=L^2(A,\varphi )`$ be the GNS Hilbert space associated to $`A`$, and let $`1H`$ be the cyclic vector associated to $`\varphi `$. Let $`𝒪_2`$ be the Cuntz algebra on two generators . Without loss of generality, by replacing $`A`$ with $`A𝒪_2`$ and $`\alpha `$ with $`\alpha \mathrm{id}`$ we may assume that the GNS representation $`\pi :AB(H)`$ satisfies $`\pi (A)K(H)=\{0\}`$. Let $`U:HH`$ be the unitary induced on $`H=L^2(A,\varphi )`$ by $`\alpha `$. We shall covariantly identify $`((A,\varphi )(𝒯,\psi ),\alpha \mathrm{id})`$ as the crossed product by an certain endomorphism $`\gamma `$ of the algebra $`A_{\mathrm{}}`$ described in Corollary 3.6, taken with the automorphism $`\overline{\alpha }`$. By Corollary 3.6, we then have $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\mathrm{ht}(\overline{\alpha })`$, which, in view of our identification, is the same as $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha \mathrm{id})`$, hence proving the Proposition. The remainder of the proof is essentially a special case of the techniques used in  where more general Cuntz–Pimsner algebras were shown to have a crossed product structure.

Consider now the Hilbert space

$$F=L^2(A,\varphi )\underset{n2}{}L^2(A,\varphi )^n,$$

and the representation $`\rho :AB(H)`$ given by $`\rho =\pi (_{n2}\pi 1)`$. Consider the isometry $`\mathrm{}:FF`$ defined by

$$\mathrm{}(\xi )=1\xi ,$$

where $`1`$ denotes the image of the unit of $`A`$ in $`L^2(A,\varphi )`$, and $`\xi F`$. Denote by $`U:L^2(A,\varphi )L^2(A,\varphi )`$ the unitary implementing $`\alpha `$. Denote by $`V`$ the unitary $`U_nU^n`$ acting on the Hilbert space $`F`$. One sees that $`\mathrm{Ad}_V(\mathrm{})=\mathrm{}`$, and $`\mathrm{Ad}_V(\rho (a))=\rho (\alpha (a))`$.

###### Claim 4.3.

$`(C^{}(\rho (A),\mathrm{}),\mathrm{Ad}_V)((A,\varphi )(𝒯,\psi ),\alpha \mathrm{id})`$.

###### Proof.

This actually follows from §2.5, since $`C^{}(\rho (A),\mathrm{})`$ is isomorphic to the Cuntz–Pimsner algebra associated to the $`A,A`$ bimodule $`L^2(A,\varphi )A`$. For the reader’s convenience, we give a proof.

Let $`\theta `$ be the vector–state on $`B(F)`$, associated to the vector $`1L^2(A,\varphi )0F`$. Then $`\mathrm{}^{}1=0`$, and one can easily verify that: (i) $`\theta (a_0\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+m})=0`$ for all $`a_j\rho (A)`$, $`n,m0`$, $`n+m>0`$; and (ii) $`\mathrm{}^{}\rho (a)\mathrm{}=\varphi (a)`$, for all $`aA`$. It follows from  that $`A`$ and $`C^{}(\mathrm{})`$ are free in $`(B(F),\theta )`$. Since $`C^{}(\mathrm{})`$ is (obviously) isomorphic to $`𝒯`$, $`\theta |_{C^{}(\mathrm{})}=\psi `$, and since $`\rho `$ is injective and $`\theta |_{\rho (A)}=\varphi `$, the claim is proved. ∎

From now on, write $`C=C^{}(A,\mathrm{})`$.

Denote by $`C_n`$ the closed linear span

$$C_n=\overline{\mathrm{span}}\{a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_m\mathrm{}^{}a_{m+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2m}:mn,a_0,\mathrm{},a_{2m}\rho (A)\}.$$

(each monomial above has exactly $`m`$ terms equal to $`\mathrm{}`$ and the same number of terms equal to $`\mathrm{}^{}`$). Note that because of the relation $`\mathrm{}^{}\rho (a)\mathrm{}=\varphi (a)`$, $`aA`$, each $`C_n`$ is a $`C^{}`$–subalgebra of $`C`$. The action of $`w=a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2n}C_k`$ on a vector $`\xi =\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _rH`$ can be described as follows:

$`w\xi `$ $`=`$ $`0,\text{if }nr`$
$`w\xi `$ $`=`$ $`(a_0a_1\mathrm{}(a_n\xi _{n+1})\mathrm{}\xi _r){\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\xi _j,a_{2nj+1}^{},\text{otherwise}`$
(here we identify $`a_j\rho (A)`$ with $`a_j1L^2(A,\varphi )H`$).

Denote by $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ the $`C^{}`$–algebra $`\overline{_{n0}C_n}`$. Then $`\mathrm{}C_n\mathrm{}^{}C_{n+1}`$ and hence $`\gamma =\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}`$ determines an endomorphism of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$. It can be easily seen that $`C`$ is isomorphic to the crossed product of $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ by this endomorphism (cf. the discussion after Proposition 1.2 in  for the definition). Moreover, $`\mathrm{Ad}_V`$ leaves $`C_{\mathrm{}}`$ invariant and commutes with the endomorphism $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^{}`$ (\[20, Proposition 1.5\]).

It remains to show that $`(C_n,\mathrm{Ad}_V|_{C_n})(A_n,\alpha _n)`$, where $`A_n`$ and $`\alpha _n`$ are as in Corollary 3.6.

We proceed by induction. In the case that $`n=0`$, $`C_0=A`$, $`\mathrm{Ad}_V|_{C_0}=\alpha `$.

Let

$$F_n=L^2(A,\varphi )\underset{k=2}{\overset{n+1}{}}L^2(A,\varphi )^kF.$$

Then $`F_n`$ is invariant under the action of $`C_n`$ on $`F`$. Consider the isomorphism $`W`$

$`W:L^2(A,\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{k2}{}}L^2(A,\varphi )^k`$
$`\left(L^2(A,\varphi ){\displaystyle \underset{k=2}{\overset{n+1}{}}}L^2(A,\varphi )^k\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{m1}{}}L^2(A,\varphi )^{m(n+1)}\right)=F_nK_n`$
For each $`aC_n`$, $`W^{}aW:F_nK_nF_nK_n`$ has the form $`a|_{F_n}\mathrm{Id}_{K_n}`$. It follows that the representation of $`C_n`$ on $`F_n`$ is faithful.

Denote by $`B_nC_n`$ the ideal

$$B_n=\mathrm{span}\{a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2n}:a_0,\mathrm{},a_{2n}\rho (A)\}.$$

Write

$$F_n=L^2(A,\varphi )\underset{k=2}{\overset{n+1}{}}L^2(A,\varphi )^k=F_{n1}L^2(A,\varphi )^{(n+1)}.$$

Then $`B_nF_{n1}=0`$; hence the representation of $`B_n`$ obtained by restricting its action to the space $`L^2(A,\varphi )^{(n+1)}`$ is faithful. The action of $`a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2n}B_n`$ on $`\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _{n+1}L^2(A,\varphi )^{(n+1)}`$ can be explicitly written as

$`a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2n}\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n\xi _{n+1}=`$
$`\xi _1,a_{2n}^{}\mathrm{}\xi _n,a_{n+1}^{}a_0\mathrm{}a_{n1}(a_{n+1}\xi _{n+1}).`$
Denote by $`\theta (a_0,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n})B(L^2(A,\varphi )^n)`$ the compact operator given by

$$\theta (a_0,\mathrm{},a_{n1}^{},a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n})\xi _1\mathrm{}\xi _n=\xi _1,a_{2n}^{}\mathrm{}\xi _n,a_{n+1}^{}a_0\mathrm{}a_{n1}.$$

Then the map

$`a_0\mathrm{}a_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{}a_n\mathrm{}^{}a_{n+1}\mathrm{}^{}\mathrm{}a_{2n}\theta (a_0,\mathrm{},a_{n1}^{},a_{n+1},\mathrm{},a_{2n})a_n`$
$`K(L^2(A,\varphi )^n)AB(L^2(A,\varphi )^nL^2(A,\varphi ))`$
is a $`C^{}`$–algebra isomorphism of $`B_n`$ with $`K(L^2(A,\varphi )^n)A`$.

For all $`mn+1`$, the subspaces $`L^2(A,\varphi )^mF_n`$ are invariant under the action of $`C_n`$. Denote by $`\rho _n`$ the representation of $`C_n`$ obtained by restricting its action on $`H`$ to the space $`L^2(A,\varphi )^{(n+1)}`$. The image $`\rho _n(A_{n1})`$ lies inside $`B(L^2(A,\varphi )^{(n1)})A\mathrm{Id}_{L^2(A,\varphi )}`$. By our assumption, $`\pi (A)K(L^2(A,\varphi ))=\{0\}`$. This implies that $`\rho _n(C_n)\rho _n(B_n)=\rho _n(C_n)K(L^2(A,\varphi )^n)A=\{0\}`$.

We claim that $`\rho _n`$ is faithful. Indeed, assume it’s not, and some $`0aC_n`$ is annihilated by $`\rho `$. Write $`a=a_{n1}+b`$, where $`a_{n1}C_{n1}`$ and $`bB`$. Since $`\rho _n(a)=\rho _n(a_{n1})+\rho _n(b)=0`$, and $`\rho _n(B_n)\rho _n(C_{n1})=\{0\}`$, it follows that $`\rho _n(a_{n1})=0`$ and $`\rho _n(b)=0`$. But for $`a_{n1}C_{n1}`$, $`\rho (a_{n1})=\rho _{n1}(a_{n1})\mathrm{Id}_{L^2(A,\varphi )}`$. Proceeding inductively, we see that $`\rho _n`$ is faithful.

We have therefore proved that

$$C_n=\rho _{n1}(A_{n1})\mathrm{Id}_{L^2(A,\varphi )}+K(L^2(A,\varphi )^{n1})\pi (A),$$

which means that $`C_nA_n`$. Since $`\mathrm{Ad}V_n|_{C_n}`$ is given by $`\mathrm{Ad}_{U^{n1}U}`$, it follows that the dynamical system $`(C_n,\mathrm{Ad}V|_{C_n})(A_n,\alpha _n)`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`\alpha `$ be an automorphism of a non–commutative probability space $`(A,E:AD)`$, and assume that $`D`$ is finite dimensional. Assume that the GNS representation with respect to $`E`$ is faithful. Let $`\overline{\alpha }`$ be the Bogoljubov automorphism of the Cuntz–Pimsner $`C^{}`$–algebra described in §2.5. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\overline{\alpha })=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

It would be interesting to find a formula for the entropy of more general Bogoljubov automorphisms of Cuntz–Pimsner algebras. For example, we believe that the Corollary above should hold for more general $`D`$.

## 5. Entropy for free products of automorphisms.

We have now almost arrived at the main result of the paper (Theorem 5.7), calculating entropy of the free product of two automorphisms. First, we shall prove several technical lemmas which reduce the general case to the case of a free product with the Toeplitz algebra as in Theorem 4.1.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`DB`$ $`C^{}`$–subalgebras, and let $`U`$ be a unitary. Let $`E`$ be a conditional expectation from $``$ onto $`D`$. Assume that: (i) $`C^{}(D,U)`$ and $`B`$ are free with respect to $`E`$ and that (ii) $`[U,D]=0`$ and $`E(U)=E(U^{})=0`$. Then the algebras $`B`$ and $`UBU^{}`$ are free with respect to $`E`$. If in addition, $`E(U^k)=0`$ for all $`k0`$, then the algebras $`\{U^kBU^k\}_k`$ are free with respect to $`E`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`U`$ is free from $`B`$ and commutes with $`D`$, we see that for all $`bB`$, $`E(UbU^{})=E(U(bE(b))U^{})+E(UE(b)U^{})=0+E(E(b)UU^{})=E(b)`$. Now let $`b_jB`$ be such that $`E(b_j)=0`$. Then

$$E(b_0Ub_1U^{}b_2Ub_3U^{}\mathrm{})=0$$

because $`U`$ and $`B`$ are free with respect to $`E`$. But then $`B`$ and $`UBU^{}`$ are free with respect to $`E`$, since for all $`j`$, $`Ub_{2j+1}U^{}UBU^{}\mathrm{ker}E`$, and any element in $`UBU^{}\mathrm{ker}E`$ has the form $`UbU^{}`$, for some $`bB\mathrm{ker}E`$.

The proof that $`\{U^kBU^k\}_k`$ are free with respect to $`E`$ proceeds along similar lines. ∎

The following lemma is included for completeness. We will use the implications (i) $``$ (ii) $``$ (iii) in the sequel.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`DBA`$ be unital inclusions of unital $`C^{}`$–algebras, and suppose there are conditional expectations $`E_B^A:AB`$ and $`E_D^B:BD`$. Let $`E_D^A=E_D^BE_B^A:AD`$. Consider the following statements:

1. The GNS representations associated to $`E_B^A`$ and $`E_D^B`$ are faithful.
2. The GNS representation associated to $`E_D^A`$ is faithful.
3. The GNS representation associated to $`E_B^A`$ is faithful.

Then we have (i)$``$(ii)$``$(iii). None of the reverse implications hold in general.

###### Proof.

We will denote by $`a\widehat{a}`$ the defining map from $`A`$ onto a dense subspace of $`L^2(A,E_D^A)`$, and similarly for the other $`L^2`$ spaces. We will also need the isomorphism $`\pi :L^2(A,E_D^A)L^2(A,E_B^A)_BL^2(B,E_D^B)`$ given by $`\pi (\widehat{a})=\widehat{a}\widehat{1}`$.

(i)$``$(ii): Let $`aA`$. Choose $`a_1A`$ so that $`(aa_1)\widehat{}L^2(A,E_B^A)\backslash \{0\}`$, i.e. $`E_B^A(a_1^{}a^{}aa_1)`$ $`0`$. There exists and element $`b_1B`$ such that

$$(E_B^A(a_1^{}a^{}aa_1))^{1/2}b_1L^2(B,E_D^B)\backslash \{0\},$$

i.e.

$$0E_D^B(b_1^{}E_B^A(a_1^{}a^{}aa_1)b_1)=E_D^A(b_1^{}a_1^{}a^{}aa_1b_1).$$

Thus $`(aa_1b_1)\widehat{}L^2(A,E_D^A)\backslash \{0\}`$.

(ii)$``$(iii): Given $`aA`$ take $`a_1A`$ such that $`E_D^A(a_1^{}a^{}aa_1)0`$, hence $`E_B^A(a_1^{}a^{}aa_1)0`$.

A counter example to (ii)$``$(i) is provided by taking $`D=`$, $`B=`$, $`A=M_2()`$, $`E_B^A((c_{ij})_{1i,j2})=c_{11}c_{22}`$ and $`E_D^B(z_1z_2)=z_1`$.

A counter example to (iii)$``$(ii) is provided by taking $`D`$, $`B`$ and $`E_D^B`$ as in the above example, $`A=M_2()M_2()`$ and $`E_B^A((c_{ij})_{1i,j2}(d_{ij})_{1i,j2})=c_{11}d_{11}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 5.3.

Let $`E_i:A_iD`$, $`i=1,2`$ be $`D`$–probability spaces, with automorphisms $`\alpha _i`$. Assume that the GNS representations associated to $`E_i`$ are faithful, and that $`\alpha _1|_D=\alpha _2|_D`$. Let $`E_1E_2:A_1A_2DD`$ be the obvious conditional expectation. Consider the algebra $`M_2(D)`$ of $`2\times 2`$ matrices over $`D`$, and view $`DDM_2(D)`$ as diagonal matrices. Let $`F:M_2(D)DD`$ be the conditional expectation $`F\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& b\\ c& d\end{array}\right)=ad`$.

Then there exists an isomorphism

$$\varphi :(A_1A_2,E_1E_2)_{DD}(M_2(D),F)((A_1,E_1)_D(A_2,E_2))M_2(),$$

so that $`\varphi `$ intertwines the automorphisms $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)(\mathrm{id}\alpha _1|_D)`$ and $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{id}`$.

###### Proof.

Consider in $`M_2(D)(A_1A_2,E_1E_2)_{DD}(M_2(D),F)`$ the unitary $`w=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)`$. Consider the subalgebras

$`A_1^{}`$ $`=`$ $`a0,aA_1`$
$`A_2^{}`$ $`=`$ $`w(0a)w^{},aA_2.`$
Since $`w`$ is free from $`A_1A_2`$ with amalgamation over $`DD`$, it is easily seen from the definition of freeness and Lemma 5.1 that the algebras $`A_1^{}`$ and $`A_2^{}`$ are also free with amalgamation over $`D0`$. Furthermore, the restriction of $`(E_1E_2)F`$ to $`A_i^{}`$ is $`E_i`$, and hence the GNS representation associated to each $`E_i`$ is faithful. It follows from the embedding result (see §2.2) that $`A_1^{}`$ and $`A_2^{}`$ together generate the reduced free product $`A_1_DA_2`$. It is easily seen that the algebra $`(A_1A_2)_{DD}(M_2(D))`$ is generated by $`A_1^{},A_2^{}`$ and $`C^{}(1_D1_D,w)M_2()`$, and is isomorphic to $`(A_1_DA_2)M_2()`$ via the map

$`\varphi :A_1^{}a_10`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)A_1M_2(),a_1A_1`$
$`\varphi :A_2^{}w0a_2w^{}`$ $``$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a_2& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)A_2M_2(),a_2A_2`$
$`\varphi (w)`$ $`=`$ $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right).`$
It is clear that $`\varphi `$ intertwines the automorphisms $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{id}`$ and $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)1`$. ∎

In the following lemma, $`𝒪_2`$ will be the Cuntz algebra  generated by isometries $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ such that $`S_1S_1^{}+S_2S_2^{}=1`$ and $`\sigma `$ will denote the state on $`𝒪_2`$ satisfying

$$\sigma (S_{i_1}\mathrm{}S_{i_p}S_{j_q}^{}\mathrm{}S_{j_1}^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}2^p\hfill & \text{if }p=q\text{ and }i_1=j_1,\mathrm{},i_p=j_p\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{ otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that $`\sigma `$ is faithful.

###### Lemma 5.4.

Let $`\sigma `$ be the state on $`𝒪_2`$ as above. Let $`C`$ be a commutative $`C^{}`$–algebra having a faithful state $`\rho `$ and a unitary $`uC`$ such that $`\rho (u)=0`$. Consider the algebra $`B=(()𝒪_2,\theta \sigma )(C,\rho )`$, where $`\theta (ab)=\frac{1}{2}(a+b)`$. Then $`B`$ is simple and purely infinite. Moreover, denoting by $`E=E_{()𝒪_2}^B`$ the conditional expectation from $`B`$ onto $`()𝒪_2`$ arising from the free product construction, there exists a subalgebra $`MB`$, so that:

1. $`MM_2()`$ in such a way that the element $`(ab)1`$ corresponds to the diagonal matrix $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}a& 0\\ 0& b\end{array}\right)`$,
2. $`E(M)()1`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`𝒪_2`$ has trivial $`K`$–theory, it follows from Germain’s exact sequence for free products (see §2.3) that $`K_0(B)`$ is zero. Once $`B`$ is known to be simple and purely infinite, it will follow from Cuntz’s fundamental results , that there exists a partial isometry $`wB`$ so that $`ww^{}=(10)1`$ and $`w^{}w=(01)1`$. Set $`M=C^{}(w)`$. Then $`MM_2()`$, in such a way that $`w`$ corresponds to the partial isometry $`\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$, and therefore (i) is satisfied. To see that (ii) is satisfied, note that $`M`$ is the linear span of $`w,w^{},ww^{},w^{}w`$; hence it is sufficient to check that $`E(w),E(w^{}w),E(ww^{})`$ and $`E(w^{})=E(w)^{}`$ all lie in $`()1`$. This is clearly true of $`E(w^{}w)`$ and $`E(ww^{})`$, since $`ww^{}`$ and $`w^{}w`$ lie in $`()1`$. Furthermore, since $`(ww^{})E(w)=E(ww^{}w)=E(w)w^{}w)`$, and the projections $`ww^{}`$ and $`w^{}w`$ are orthogonal, it follows that $`ww^{}E(w)ww^{}`$ and $`w^{}wE(w)w^{}w`$ are both zero. Since $`ww^{}`$ and $`w^{}w`$ lie in the center of $`()𝒪_2`$ and $`ww^{}+w^{}w=1`$, it follows that $`E(w)=0`$, and hence $`E(w^{})=0`$, so that (ii) is satisfied as well.

Note that $`B(𝒪_2𝒪_2,\sigma ^{})(C,\rho )`$, where $`\sigma ^{}=\frac{1}{2}(\sigma +\sigma )`$. We shall now apply Theorem 3.1 of  to show that $`B`$ is simple and purely infinite; the following five observations show that the hypotheses of this theorem are satisfied.

1. $`\sigma ^{}`$ and $`\rho `$ are faithful states.
2. Let $`v=S_2S_2S_1^{}0𝒪_2𝒪_2`$; then $`v`$ is a partial isometry belonging to the spectral subspace of the state $`\sigma ^{}\rho `$ corresponding to $`2`$, i.e. $`F(xv)=2F(vx)`$ for all $`xB`$.
3. Let $`q_1=v^{}v`$ and $`q_2=vv^{}`$; then $`q_1q_2`$ and we have $`F(q_1)=\frac{1}{4}`$, $`F(q_2)=\frac{1}{8}`$.
4. Consider

$`B_1`$ $`=C^{}(q_1,q_2,u)B`$
$`B_2`$ $`=C^{}(uq_1u^{},q_2)B_1.`$
By Lemma 5.1, $`uq_1u^{}`$ and $`q_2`$ are free with respect to $`F`$, so

$$B_2(\underset{3/4}{}\underset{1/4}{\overset{uq_1u^{}}{}})(\underset{7/8}{}\underset{1/4}{\overset{q_2}{}})$$

and it is well known (cf. Proposition 2.7 of ) that

$$B_2C([0,1],M_2())$$

with

$`uq_1u^{}`$ $`1\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 0& \\ 0& 0& \end{array}\right)0`$
$`q_2`$ $`0\left(\begin{array}{cc}t& \sqrt{t\left(1t\right)}\\ \sqrt{t\left(1t\right)}& 1t\end{array}\right)0.`$
Therefore, $`q_2`$ is equivalent in $`B_1`$ to a subprojection of $`q_1`$ and $`q_2B_1q_2`$ contains the diffuse abelian subalgebra $`q_2B_2q_2`$.
5. The centralizer of $`\sigma ^{}`$ contains a diffuse abelian subalgebra; hence by Proposition 3.2 of , $`B`$ is simple and thus $`q_1+q_2`$ is full in $`B`$.

The above facts allow us to apply Theorem 3.1 of , and we conclude that $`B`$ is simple and purely infinite. ∎

###### Lemma 5.5.

Let $`W`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$–algebra and let $`E_W^X:XW`$ and $`E_W^Y:YW`$ be $`W`$–probability spaces, with automorphisms $`\alpha _X`$ and $`\alpha _Y`$, respectively, which agree on $`W`$. Assume that $`WZX`$ is an $`\alpha _X`$–invariant subalgebra, and let $`E_W^Z`$ be the restriction of $`E_W^X`$ to $`Z`$. Assume that there exists an $`E_W^X`$–preserving $`\alpha _X`$–invariant conditional expectation $`E_Z^X:XZ`$, and assume that the GNS representations associated to $`E_W^X,E_W^Z,E_Z^X`$ and $`E_W^Y`$ are faithful. Then there exists an isomorphism of the reduced free products

$$X_Z(Z_WY)X_WY,$$

which intertwines the automorphisms $`\alpha _X(\alpha _X|_Z\alpha _Y)`$ and $`\alpha _X\alpha _Y`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the free product conditional expectation $`E_Z:(X_Z(Z_WY)Z`$. The GNS representation associated to $`E_Z`$ is faithful, by definition. Let $`E_W=E_W^ZE_Z`$. By Lemma 5.2, $`E_W`$ also gives rise to a faithful GNS representation. By Lemma 2.6 in , $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are free with respect to $`E_W`$. It follows from the assumptions and the embedding result (see §2.2) that the $`C^{}`$–algebra generated by $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in the GNS representation of $`X_Z(Z_WY)`$ associated to $`E_W`$ is isomorphic to $`X_WZ`$. The desired isomorphism follows.

###### Lemma 5.6.

Let $`E_i:A_iD`$, $`i=1,2`$ be $`D`$–probability spaces, with automorphisms $`\alpha _i`$. Assume that the GNS representations associated to $`E_i`$ are faithful, and that $`\alpha _1|_D=\alpha _2|_D`$.

Let $`E:A_1A_2D=(dd:dD)A_1A_2`$ be given by

$$E(a_1a_2)=\frac{1}{2}([E(a_1)+E(a_2)][E(a_1)E(a_2)]).$$

Let $`\sigma :𝒪_2`$ be as in Lemma 5.4. Let $`C`$ be any $`C^{}`$–algebra with a state $`\widehat{\rho }`$, giving rise to a faithful GNS representation, and containing a unitary $`u`$, s.t. $`\rho =\widehat{\rho }|_{C^{}(u)}`$ is faithful and $`\rho (u)=0`$.

Then there exists an embedding

$`\lambda :(A_1,E_1)_D(A_2,E_2)B=((A_1A_2)𝒪_2),E\sigma )_D(C_{\mathrm{min}}D,\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{id}),`$
so that $`\lambda `$ intertwines $`(\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$ and $`((\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{id})(\mathrm{id}\alpha _1|_D)`$.

###### Proof.

Using the embedding result (see §2.2), we can reduce to the case that $`C=C^{}(u)`$ and $`\widehat{\rho }=\rho `$, by replacing $`B`$ with the algebra generated by $`(A_1A_2)𝒪_2`$ and $`C^{}(u)DC_{\mathrm{min}}D`$.

We have the following sequence of covariant inclusions, justified below:

$`A_1_DA_2`$ $``$ $`M_2(A_1_DA_2)`$
$`\stackrel{\text{Lemma }\text{5.3}}{}`$ $`M_2D_{DD}(A_1A_2)`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{a})}{}`$ $`([(^2)𝒪_2)C]D)_{(^2)𝒪_2D}[(A_1A_2)𝒪_2]`$
$``$ $`\left((^2𝒪_2D)_D(CD)\right)_{(^2)𝒪_2D}[(A_1A_2)𝒪_2]`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{b})}{}`$ $`CD_D[(A_1A_2)𝒪_2].`$
Inclusion (a) is implied by Lemma 5.4, together with the embedding result (see §2.2).

Isomorphism (b) is implied by Lemma 5.5.

###### Theorem 5.7.

Let $`D`$ be a finite dimensional C–algebra and let $`\alpha _j`$, be an automorphism of a $`D`$–probability space $`(A_j,E_j:A_jD)`$, ($`jJ`$, $`J`$ a finite or countably infinite set). Assume that the GNS representations associated to $`E_j`$ ($`jJ`$) are faithful. Assume that $`\alpha _j|_D=\alpha _i|_D`$ for all $`i,jJ`$. Let $`(A,E)=_D((A_j,E_j),jJ)`$ and let $`_j\alpha _j`$ denote the free product automorphism of $`A`$. Then

(5.2)
$$\mathrm{ht}(_j\alpha _j)=\underset{jJ}{sup}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _j)).$$

###### Proof.

Because of the embedding result (see §2.2) and the behavior of entropy with respect to inductive limits, it suffices to prove the statement when $`J=\{1,2\}`$ is a set with two elements.

By monotonicity of $`\mathrm{ht}`$, the inequality $``$ in (5.2) is clear. Let $`𝒯`$ be the Toeplitz algebra generated by the unilateral shift $`\mathrm{}`$ and denote by $`\widehat{\rho }`$ the vacuum expectation on $`𝒯`$. Voiculescu  showed that $`\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{}`$ is a semicircular element with its spectrum an interval. Hence by functional calculus $`C=C^{}(\mathrm{}^{}+\mathrm{})`$ contains a unitary $`u`$ such that $`\widehat{\rho }(u^k)=0`$, for all $`k0`$. It is not difficult to see that $`C`$ contains no nonzero compact operator, and thus $`\rho =\widehat{\rho }|_C`$ is faithful. By Lemma 5.6 and Lemma 5.3, the amalgamated free product dynamical system $`(A_1_DA_2,\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$ can be covariantly embedded into $`(B,\beta )`$, where

$$(B,F)=((A_1A_2)𝒪_2,\stackrel{~}{E}\sigma )_D(𝒯D,\widehat{\rho }\mathrm{id}_D)$$

and where

$$\beta =((\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{id}_{𝒪_2})(\mathrm{id}_𝒯(\alpha _1|_D)).$$

So by monotonicity again, $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{ht}(\beta )`$. Using Theorem 4.1 we have

$$\mathrm{ht}(\beta )=\mathrm{ht}((\alpha _1\alpha _2)\mathrm{id}_{𝒪_2})=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1),\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _2)).$$

###### Remarks 5.8.

5.8.1. The only reason that the hypotheses of Theorem 5.7 require finite dimensionality of $`D`$ is because the proof appeals to Theorem 4.1. If one could prove a version of Theorem 4.1 for more general types of $`D`$, then Theorem 5.7 would be valid for those more general algebras $`D`$, with the same proof.

5.8.2. Theorem 5.7 also holds for amalgamated free products of injective endomorphisms of non–commutative probability spaces. This can be seen by realizing an injective endomorphism as the restriction of an automorphism (see e.g. ), and then utilizing our result for automorphisms.

5.8.3. One can actually prove a partial version of Theorem 5.7 with amalgamation taking place over an AF algebra. Assume that $`E_1:A_1D`$ and $`E_2:A_2D`$ are $`D`$–probability spaces, with automorphisms $`\alpha _1`$, $`\alpha _2`$, which restrict to the same automorphism on $`D`$. Assume that $`D=\overline{_iD^{(i)}}`$, with $`D^{(i)}D^{(i+1)}`$ finite dimensional. Assume further that $`A_j=\overline{_iA_j^{(i)}}`$, $`A_j^{(i)}A_j^{(i+1)}`$, and that $`E_j(A_j^{(i)})=D^{(i)}`$ and $`D^{(i)}A_j^{(i)}`$, $`j=1,2`$. Let $`\alpha _1\alpha _2`$ denote the free product automorphism on $`A_1_DA_2`$. Then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)=\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1),\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _2))`$. This is due to the fact that under these assumptions, $`A_1_DA_2`$ is the direct limit of $`A_1^{(i)}_{D^{(i)}}A_2^{(i)}`$.

## 6. Applications

### 6.1. Shifts on infinite free products and twisted free permutations.

Let $`A`$ be a unital $`C^{}`$–algebra, $`D`$ a finite dimensional unital subalgebra and let $`E:AD`$ be a conditional expectation with a faithful GNS representation. Let $`I`$ be a nonempty set and for every $`iI`$ let $`(A_i,E_i)`$, be a copy of $`(A,E)`$. Let

$$(B,F)=(_D)_{iI}(A_i,E_i)$$

be the reduced amalgamated free product. Let $`\sigma :II`$ be a bijection. The free permutation arising from $`\sigma `$ is the automorphism $`\beta `$ of $`B`$ that permutes the copies of $`A`$ inside $`B`$ by sending $`A_i`$ to $`A_{\sigma (i)}`$. (The free shift is the free permutation arising from the shift on $`I=`$.) The following theorem is a generalization of results of Størmer , Brown and Choda  and Dykema  and a partial generalization of other results of Størmer, . It answers affirmatively in the case of amalgamation over a finite dimensional $`C^{}`$ algebra Question 11 of :

###### Theorem 6.1.1.

If $`A`$ is an exact unital C–algebra and $`D`$ is finite dimensional then for every free permutation $`\beta `$ of $`B=(_D)_{iI}A`$ one has $`\mathrm{ht}(\beta )=0`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the reduced group $`C^{}`$–algebra $`C_r^{}(𝔽_{|I|})`$ of the nonabelian free group on $`|I|`$ generators, where $`|I|`$ is the cardinality of $`I`$. Let $`(u_i)_{iI}`$ be the unitary generators of $`C_r^{}(𝔽_{|I|})`$ corresponding to the free generators of $`𝔽_{|I|}`$. Let $`\sigma _{}\mathrm{Aut}(C_r^{}(𝔽_{|I|}))`$ be the automorphism such that $`\sigma _{}(u_i)=u_{\sigma (i)}`$. Then from  and , $`\mathrm{ht}(\sigma _{})=0`$, Let

$$(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{F})=(C_r^{}(𝔽_{|I|})D,\tau \mathrm{id}_D)_D(A,E),$$

where $`\tau `$ is the canonical tracial state on $`C_r^{}(𝔽_{|I|})`$, and let

$$\stackrel{~}{\beta }=(\sigma _{}\mathrm{id}_D)\mathrm{id}_A\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{B}).$$

Then by Theorem 5.7, $`\mathrm{ht}(\stackrel{~}{\beta })=\mathrm{ht}(\sigma _{})=0`$. Let $`B^{}=C^{}(_{iI}u_iAu_i^{})\stackrel{~}{B}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{F}(u_iau_i^{})=E(a)`$ for all $`aA`$ and $`iI`$ and, by Lemma 5.1, the family $`(u_iAu_i^{})_{iI}`$ is free with respect to $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$. It is not difficult to see, though somewhat tedious to write down in detail, that the inclusion representation of $`B^{}`$ on $`L^2(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{F})`$ is a multiple of the GNS representation, $`\rho `$, of $`B^{}`$ on $`L^2(B^{},\stackrel{~}{F}|_B^{})`$. Indeed, one chooses vectors $`\xi _iL^2(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{F})`$ such that $`_iB^{}\xi _i`$ spans a dense subset of $`L^2(\stackrel{~}{B},\stackrel{~}{F})`$ and so that the representation of $`B^{}`$ on $`B^{}\xi _i`$ is equivalent to $`\rho `$, for all $`i`$. Hence there is an isomorphism $`\pi :BB^{}`$ sending the copy of $`A_i`$ in $`B`$ to $`u_iAu_i^{}`$. We see that the automorphisms $`\beta `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }|_B^{}`$ are conjugate via $`\pi `$. Hence, by monotonicity of $`\mathrm{ht}`$ we have $`\mathrm{ht}(\beta )\mathrm{ht}(\stackrel{~}{\beta })=0`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.1.2.

Just as in 5.8.3, it is possible to weaken the hypothesis of the preceding Theorem by requiring that $`(A,D,E:AD)`$ is an inductive limit of $`(A^{(i)},D^{(i)},E_i)`$, with $`D^{(i)}`$ finite dimensional.

###### Definition 6.1.3.

Let $`D`$ be a unital C–algebra, let $`I`$ be a set and for every $`iI`$ let $`(A_i,E_i)`$ be a $`D`$–probability space such that the GNS representation associated to $`E_i`$ is faithful. Let

$$(A,E)=(_D)_{iI}(A_i,E_i)$$

be the reduced amalgamated free product. Let $`\sigma :II`$ be a bijection such that for every $`iI`$ there is an isomorphism $`\alpha _i:A_iA_{\sigma (i)}`$ such that $`\alpha _i(D)=D`$ and $`E_{\sigma (i)}\alpha _i=E_i`$. Assume that $`\alpha _i|_D`$ is the same for all $`i`$. Then there is an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $`A`$ sending the copy of $`A_i`$ in $`A`$ onto the copy of $`A_{\sigma (i)}`$ in $`A`$ via $`\alpha _i`$. An automorphism $`\alpha `$ arising in this way is called a twisted free permutation of $`A`$.

The next theorem generalizes Theorem 6.1.1 and also some results of .

###### Theorem 6.1.4.

Suppose that $`D`$ is finite dimensional and $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ is a twisted free permutation as described above. If the permutation $`\sigma `$ of $`I`$ has no cycles then $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=0`$. Otherwise, whenever $`c`$ is a cycle of $`\sigma `$ let $`\mathrm{}(c)`$ be the length of the cycle, let $`iI`$ be one of the elements moved by the cycle and let $`\beta _c\mathrm{Aut}(A_i)`$ be the restriction of $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{}(c)}`$ to the copy of $`A_i`$ in $`A`$. (Note that $`\beta _c`$ depends on $`i`$ only up to conjugation.) Then

(6.1)
$$\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\underset{c}{sup}\frac{\mathrm{ht}(\beta _c)}{\mathrm{}(c)},$$

where the supremum is over all cycles $`c`$ of $`\sigma `$.

###### Proof.

If $`\sigma `$ has no cycles then $`\alpha `$ is (conjugate to) a free permutation so $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=0`$ by Theorem 6.1.1. In general, by making a cycle decomposition of $`\sigma `$ and using Theorem 5.7, we see that in order to prove (6.1) we may without loss of generality assume that $`\sigma `$ itself is a cyclic permutation, $`\sigma =c`$, of a finite set $`I`$. However, then $`\alpha ^{\mathrm{}(c)}=_{iI}\gamma _i`$, where each $`\gamma _i\mathrm{Aut}(A_i)`$ is conjugate to $`\beta _c`$. Hence again applying Theorem 5.7 we have $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha ^{|I|})/|I|=\mathrm{ht}(\beta _c)/\mathrm{}(c)`$. ∎

### 6.2. The CNT variational principle.

In classical ergodic theory an important result connecting topological and measurable entropy is the variational principle.

###### Definition 6.2.1.

Let $`(A,\alpha )`$ be a unital exact $`C^{}`$–dynamical system. We say that $`(A,\alpha )`$ satisfies a CNT–variational principle if

$$\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=\underset{\varphi }{sup}h_\varphi (\alpha ),$$

where the supremum is taken over all $`\alpha `$–invariant states on $`A`$ and $`h_\varphi (\alpha )`$ denotes the CNT–entropy of $`\alpha `$ with respect to $`\varphi `$ (cf. ).

By \[18, Prop. 9\] we always have the inequality

$$\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )\underset{\varphi }{sup}h_\varphi (\alpha ).$$

Not every $`C^{}`$–dynamical system satisfies a CNT–variational principle. In  an example of a highly non–asymptotically abelian system was given for which $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )(\mathrm{log}2)/2`$ while $`h_\varphi (\alpha )=0`$ for the unique $`\alpha `$–invariant (tracial) state. But, since $`\mathrm{ht}()`$ agrees with classical topological entropy and $`h_\varphi ()`$ agrees with classical Kolmogorov–Sinai entropy when $`A`$ is abelian, the classical variational principle says that if $`A`$ is unital and abelian then $`(A,\alpha )`$ always satisfies a CNT–variational principle. The list of examples of noncommutative dynamical systems which satisfy a CNT–variational principle is also rapidly growing (cf. \[44, 4.7\], \[10, 4.6, 4.7\], \[7, 3.6, 3.7\], , , ). Moreover, the class of $`C^{}`$–dynamical systems which satisfy a CNT–variational principle is closed under taking (minimal) tensor products (cf. \[41, Lemma 3.4\]) and crossed products by $``$ (cf. \[7, Theorem 3.5\]). Unfortunately it is *not* closed under taking quotients or subalgebras (even those with a conditional expectation onto them — simply take a direct sum of something abelian with large entropy and the example from ) and it not yet known what happens in extensions. However we now show that it is also closed under taking reduced free products. The next theorem also gives lots of examples of non–asymptotically abelian dynamical systems for which the CNT–variational principle holds.

###### Theorem 6.2.2.

Let $`E_j:A_jD`$, $`j=1,2`$ be non–commutative probability spaces with automorphisms $`\alpha _1`$ and $`\alpha _2`$. Assume that $`D`$ is finite dimensional and that $`\alpha _1|_D=\alpha _2|_D`$, and that $`E_j`$ give rise to faithful GNS representations. If both $`(A_1,\alpha _1)`$ and $`(A_2,\alpha _2)`$ satisfy the CNT variational principle, then so does $`(A_1_DA_2,\alpha _1\alpha _2)`$.

###### Proof.

Assume without loss of generality that $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1)\mathrm{ht}(\beta _1)`$. Given $`ϵ>0`$ we can find an $`\alpha _1`$–invariant state $`\gamma S(A_1)`$ such that $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1)h_\gamma (\alpha _1)+ϵ`$.

Let $`E:A_1A_2A_1`$ be the canonical conditional expectation and define a state $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }=\gamma ES(A_1_DA_2)`$. Then one checks that $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }(\alpha _1\alpha _2)=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\gamma }E=\stackrel{~}{\gamma }`$. But under these conditions, CNT–entropy is also monotone (cf. \[12, III.6\]) and so $`\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha _1)h_\gamma (\alpha _1)+ϵh_{\stackrel{~}{\gamma }}(\alpha _1\alpha _2)+ϵ`$. Since $`ϵ`$ was arbitrary, we are done. ∎

A particularly interesting class of dynamical systems for which one would like to have a CNT–variational principle is those arising from automorphisms of discrete groups. For any discrete group $`G`$ let $`C_r^{}(G)`$ be the reduced group $`C^{}`$–algebra and $`\tau _G`$ the canonical trace on $`C_r^{}(G)`$. $`G`$ is called exact if $`C_r^{}(G)`$ is exact. If $`\gamma :GG`$ is a group automorphism then there is an induced automorphism $`\widehat{\gamma }\mathrm{Aut}(C_r^{}(G))`$ such that $`\tau _G\widehat{\gamma }=\tau _G`$. If $`G`$ is abelian then a classical theorem of Berg  implies that $`\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\gamma })=h_{\tau _G}(\widehat{\gamma })`$.

###### Theorem 6.2.3.

Let $`H`$ be a finite group and let $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ be discrete exact groups having a $`H`$ as a common subgroup. Suppose that $`\gamma _i\mathrm{Aut}(G_i)`$, ($`i=1,2`$) are automorphisms preserving $`H`$ such that $`\gamma _1|_H=\gamma _2|_H`$. Let $`\gamma _1\gamma _2`$ denote the resulting automorphism of the free product $`G_1_HG_2`$ with amalgamation over $`H`$. If $`\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\gamma }_i)=h_{\tau _{G_i}}(\widehat{\gamma }_i)`$, ($`i=1,2`$), then $`\mathrm{ht}((\gamma _1\gamma _2)\widehat{})=h_{\tau _{G_1_HG_2}}((\gamma _1\gamma _2)\widehat{})`$.

###### Corollary 6.2.4.

If $`G_1,G_2`$ are discrete exact groups with automorphisms $`\gamma _i\mathrm{Aut}(G_i)`$, ($`i=1,2`$), and if $`\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\gamma }_i)=h_{\tau _{G_i}}(\widehat{\gamma }_i)`$ ,($`i=1,2`$), then $`\mathrm{ht}(\widehat{\gamma }_1\widehat{\gamma }_2)=h_{\tau _{G_1G_2}}(\widehat{\gamma }_1\widehat{\gamma }_2)`$.

It would be interesting to know whether or not the above theorem or its corollary can be extended to the dual entropy defined in  as well.

### 6.3. Entropy–preserving embeddings.

Kirchberg first proved that every separable exact $`C^{}`$–algebra is isomorphic to a subalgebra of the Cuntz algebra on two generators (cf. ). In \[7, Remark 2.3\] it was asked whether or not one can always find a unital embedding $`\rho :A_\alpha 𝒪_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{ht}_{𝒪_2}(\mathrm{Ad}\rho (u))=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$, where $`uA_\alpha `$ is the implementing unitary. We now solve this problem affirmatively in the case that $`A`$ is nuclear and there exists an $`\alpha `$–invariant state $`\varphi S(A)`$ with faithful GNS representation. We also show that if $`(A,\alpha )`$ is *any* nuclear $`C^{}`$–dynamical system then there always exists an entropy preserving covariant embedding into the Cuntz algebra on infinitely many generators. Since many $`C^{}`$–algebras are stable under tensor products with $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ we thus get entropy preserving embeddings into a very large class of $`C^{}`$–algebras. It follows that the topological entropy invariant of all such algebras is $`[0,\mathrm{}]`$.

We begin with a simple proposition.

###### Proposition 6.3.1.

Assume $`A`$ is a unital exact $`C^{}`$–algebra, $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ and there exists an $`\alpha `$–invariant state $`\varphi S(A)`$ with faithful GNS representation. Let $`B`$ be unital and exact, let $`\psi S(B)`$ have faithful GNS representation, let $`E:A_\alpha A`$ be the canonical conditional expectation and let $`uA_\alpha `$ be the implementing unitary. Regarding $`u`$ as a unitary in $`(A_\alpha ,\varphi E)(B,\psi )`$ we have $`\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}u)=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`E:A_\alpha A`$ is faithful, by Lemma 5.2 the GNS representation of $`\varphi E`$ is faithful.

Consider the $`C^{}`$–algebra $`(A,\varphi )\left(_{}(B,\psi )\right)_{\alpha S}`$, where $`S:_{}(B,\psi )_{}(B,\psi )`$ is the free shift and let $`v(A,\varphi )\left(_{}(B,\psi )\right)_{\alpha S}`$ be the implementing unitary. It is fairly easy to see (cf. the proof of \[11, Claims 2 and 4\]) that there exists a $``$–isomorphism

$$\rho :(A_\alpha ,\varphi E)(B,\psi )(A,\varphi )\left(\left(_{}(B,\psi )\right)_{\alpha S}\right),$$

such that $`\rho (u)=v`$. Hence $`\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}u)=\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}v)`$. But \[7, Theorem 3.5\], Theorem 6.1.1 above and our main result imply that $`\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}v)=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha S)=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$. ∎

###### Theorem 6.3.2.

Let $`A`$ be a unital separable nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebra and $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ be an automorphism such that there exists an $`\alpha `$–invariant state $`\varphi S(A)`$ with faithful GNS representation. If $`𝒪_2`$ denotes the Cuntz algebra on two generators then there exists a unital embedding $`\rho :A_\alpha 𝒪_2`$ such that $`\mathrm{ht}_{𝒪_2}(\mathrm{Ad}\rho (u))=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$, where $`uA_\alpha `$ is the implementing unitary.

###### Proof.

Replacing $`(A,\alpha )`$ with $`(AC(𝕋),\alpha \mathrm{id}_{C(𝕋)})`$, if necessary, we may assume that there exists a Haar unitary in the centralizer of $`\varphi `$. In this setting, \[16, Prop. 3.2\] ensures that $`(A_\alpha ,\varphi E)(𝒯,v)`$ is a simple $`C^{}`$–algebra, where $`𝒯`$ is the Toeplitz algebra and $`v`$ is the vacuum state. Moreover, this free product is nuclear since it is isomorphic to a Cuntz–Pimsner algebra over $`A_\alpha `$. Thus Kirchberg’s absorption theorem for $`𝒪_2`$ (i.e. $`B𝒪_2𝒪_2`$, for any simple, separable, unital, nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebra $`B`$, cf. ) together with the previous proposition implies the result. ∎

We now turn to covariant entropy preserving embeddings into $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Theorem 6.3.3.

Let $`A`$ be any separable nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebra and $`\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)`$ be an automorphism. If $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ denotes the Cuntz algebra on infinitely many generators then there exists an automorphism $`\beta \mathrm{Aut}(𝒪_{\mathrm{}})`$ and a nonunital $``$–monomorphism $`\pi :A𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\beta \pi =\pi \alpha `$ and $`\mathrm{ht}(\beta )=\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )`$.

###### Proof.

By adding a unit to $`A`$ and replacing $`A`$ by its crossed product by $`\alpha `$, we may assume that $`A`$ is unital and $`\alpha `$ is inner. We may also assume that there exists an $`\alpha `$–invariant state $`\varphi S(A)`$ with faithful GNS representation. Indeed, it follows from Theorem 3.5 that the covariant embedding $`(A,\alpha )(AA+𝒦(HH),\mathrm{Ad}(u1_A))`$, where we regard $`AB(H)`$ and $`uA`$ is a unitary which implements $`\alpha `$, is entropy preserving. Now any vector state arising from the second copy of $`H`$ will be $`\mathrm{Ad}(u1_A)`$–invariant and have faithful GNS representation since it is a cyclic vector.

So, we assume that $`A`$ is unital, $`\alpha `$ is inner and $`\varphi S(A)`$ is $`\alpha `$–invariant with faithful GNS representation. Consider the free product

$$B=\left((AC[0,1]𝒪_2C[0,1],\eta )\right)(𝒯,v).$$

Here $`\eta `$ is the average of Lebesgue measure on the second copy of $`C[0,1]`$ and the tensor product of $`\varphi `$, Lebesgue measure and an arbitrary faithful state on $`𝒪_2`$, and $`v`$ is the vacuum state on the Toeplitz algebra $`𝒯`$. Since there is a Haar unitary in the centralizer of $`\eta `$ (coming from the copies of $`C[0,1]`$), \[16, Prop. 3.2\] implies that $`B`$ is simple. Moreover, $`B`$ is nuclear being isomorphic to a Cuntz–Pimsner algebra over $`AC[0,1]𝒪_2C[0,1]`$ (cf. , ). Since $`𝒪_2`$ is $`KK`$–equivalent to zero, $`AC[0,1]𝒪_2C[0,1]`$ satisfies the Universal Coefficient Theorem. Since $`𝒯`$ is type I it also satisfies the UCT and hence, by a result of Germain  so does $`B`$. Moreover, it follows from Germain’s six term exact sequence for $`K`$–theory (see §2.3) that $`B`$ has the $`K`$–theory of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$. Hence $`B𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$ is a simple, unital, purely infinite, nuclear $`C^{}`$–algebra which satisfies the UCT and has the $`K`$–theory of $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$. So, by the classification results of Kirchberg–Phillips (, ), $`B𝒪_{\mathrm{}}𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$. By our main result we have that the automorphism $`\gamma =(\alpha \mathrm{id}_{C[0,1]}\mathrm{id}_{𝒪_2}\mathrm{id}_{C[0,1]})\mathrm{id}_𝒯\mathrm{Aut}(B)`$ has the same entropy as $`\alpha `$. Hence defining $`\beta =\gamma \mathrm{id}_𝒪_{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{Aut}(B𝒪_{\mathrm{}})=\mathrm{Aut}(𝒪_{\mathrm{}})`$ we get the desired entropy preserving covariant embedding. ∎

###### Question 6.3.4.

Let $`uA`$ be a unitary and regard $`\mathrm{Ad}u`$ as an automorphism of $`(A,\varphi )(B,\psi )`$. As in Proposition 6.3.1, is it true that $`\mathrm{ht}_{AB}(\mathrm{Ad}u)=\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}u|_A)`$? Clearly, an affirmative answer to this question would imply that the automorphism in Theorem 6.3.3 can be taken to be inner.

### 6.4. Possible values of entropy of all automorphisms of a $`C^{}`$–algebra.

###### Definition 6.4.1.

If $`A`$ is an exact $`C^{}`$–algebra then put

$$TE(A)=\{t[0,\mathrm{}]:\text{there exists}\alpha \mathrm{Aut}(A)\text{such that}\mathrm{ht}(\alpha )=t\}.$$

For $`A`$ unital, we can also consider the set

$$TE_{Inn}(A)=\{t[0,\mathrm{}]:\text{there exists a unitary}uA\text{such that}\mathrm{ht}(\mathrm{Ad}u)=t\}.$$

The results of §6.3 imply, in particular, that $`TE(𝒪_{\mathrm{}})=[0,\mathrm{}]`$ and $`TE_{Inn}(𝒪_2)=[0,\mathrm{}]`$, since there are automorphisms of nuclear (in fact, abelian) algebras with any prescribed entropy. (See  for some nice examples.) Clearly, if $`B`$ contains a projection, then $`TE(BA)TE(A)`$. If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are both unital, we have $`TE_{Inn}(AB)TE_{Inn}(A)TE_{Inn}(B)`$.

If $`B`$ is any nuclear simple separable purely infinite $`C^{}`$–algebra then Kirchberg has shown that $`B𝒪_{\mathrm{}}B`$ (see ). Recently Kirchberg and Rørdam introduced a class of nonsimple purely infinite $`C^{}`$–algebras (cf. ). Though it is not yet known whether all of their nuclear purely infinite $`C^{}`$–algebras will absorb $`𝒪_{\mathrm{}}`$, many examples are known.

###### Theorem 6.4.2.

Let $`B`$ be any exact $`C^{}`$–algebra which contains a projection. Then $`TE(B𝒪_{\mathrm{}})=[0,\mathrm{}]`$. If $`B`$ is unital then $`TE_{Inn}(B𝒪_2)=[0,\mathrm{}]`$.

In particular, if $`B`$ is nuclear, simple, separable and purely infinite then $`TE(B)=[0,\mathrm{}]`$.