text:
# Characterizations of essential ideals as operator modules over C*-algebras

## 1. Introduction.

Let $`A`$ denote a C\*-algebra. In the C\*-algebra literature a two-sided ideal, $`J`$, of $`A`$ is called essential if $`aJ=\{0\}`$ implies $`a=0.`$ Given a category and an object $`X`$ contained in an object $`Y,`$ then $`Y`$ is called an essential extension of $`X`$ provided that every morphism of $`Y`$ that restricts to be an isomorphism of $`X`$ must necessarily be an isomorphism of $`Y.`$ In this paper we study the relationships between these two different approaches to essentiality as we vary the category.

Every left ideal can be regarded as an object in the category of operator left $`A`$-modules, with morphisms either the completely contractive or completely bounded left $`A`$-module maps. Thus, it is interesting to know the relationships between an ideal $`J`$ being essential in $`A`$, in the C\*-algebraic sense, and $`A`$ being an essential extension of $`J`$ in these categories. For two-sided ideals we show that all three concepts coincide. Moreover, these conditions are equivalent to the injective envelopes, $`I(J)`$ and $`I(A)`$, being completely isometrically isomorphic via a map that restricts to be the identity on $`J.`$

However, for left ideals these concepts differ. It is still true that if $`I(J)`$ and $`I(A)`$ are completely isometrically isomorphic via a map that restricts to be the identity on $`J,`$ then $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A.`$ But the converse does not necessarily hold.

In this paper, we characterize the essential left ideals of $`A`$ via their properties as modules in the above categories. We also give some characterizations of the left ideals for which $`A`$ is an essential extension in some of these categories in C\*-algebraic terms. But there are some categories for which we are unable to give C\*-algebraic characterizations of these families of left ideals.

As in the earlier work of M. Frank and the second author , we find that when the morphisms are the completely contractive maps, then our questions reduce to the case of completely positive maps and rely mostly on the earlier results of M. Hamana. However, when the morphisms are taken to be the completely bounded maps or in the case of one-sided ideals, then we are dealing with a completely isomorphic situation which requires new techniques or the recent results of  and .

Two of M. Hamana’s original characterizations of the injective envelope $`I(A)`$ of $`A`$ were as the minimal injective object containing $`A`$ and as a maximal essential extension of $`A`$ in the category of operator systems and completely positive maps. In the work of M. Frank and the second author , it was shown that $`I(A)`$ could also be characterized as the minimal injective containing $`A`$ in the category of operator left $`A`$-modules and completely bounded maps. Completing this set of ideas we show that $`I(A)`$ can also be characterized as the maximal essential extension of $`A`$ in this latter category.

Throughout this paper, C\*-algebras are not necessarily unital. In Section 3 we cite a result of  where ‘unital’ is assumed. But as is remarked there, many results, including this one, follow in the case of a non-unital C\*-algebra $`A`$, by taking its minimal unitization $`A^1`$ and observing that $`A`$-modules are naturally $`A^1`$-modules.

## 2. Definitions.

We begin by recalling a remark from . When dealing with a category whose morphisms are vector spaces of bounded linear maps, then requiring that an object is injective only guarantees that every bounded linear map has a bounded extension, but not necessarily of the same norm. When we want to insist that extensions also have the same norm, then we shall refer to the objects as tight injectives. It is easy to see that tight injectivity is equivalent, by scaling, to requiring that every contractive linear map has a contractive linear extension. Thus tight injectivity is the same as saying that the object is injective in a category where the morphisms are all contractive linear maps. Throughout this paper we shall refer to situations as tight, or simply omit the word tight, instead of constantly referring to a change of categories. But of course, both viewpoints are useful.

We start with definitions of several notions many of which are already known, but perhaps not in our particular setting.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be operator algebras.

(1) An operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$ is an operator space which is also an $`AB`$-bimodule with $`(a_{lm})(x_{lm})(a_{lm})(x_{lm})`$ and $`(x_{lm})(b_{lm})(x_{lm})(b_{lm})`$ $`(x_{lm})𝕄_n(X)`$, $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$, $`(b_{lm})𝕄_n(B)`$, $`n`$. If $`A`$ (resp., $`B`$) contains identity $`1_A`$ (resp., $`1_B`$), we always assume that $`x,1_Ax=x`$ (resp., $`x,x1_B=x`$) We also say an operator left A-module (resp., operator right A-module, operator A-bimodule) for an operator $`A`$-bimodule (resp., operator $`A`$-bimodule, operator $`AA`$-bimodule).

(2) A (resp., tight) $`AB`$-rigid extension of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$ is a pair $`(Y,\iota )`$ of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`Y`$ and a completely bounded isomorphism111A one-to-one completely bounded linear map whose inverse $`\iota (X)X`$ is also completely bounded. (resp., a complete isometry) $`\iota :XY`$ which is also an $`AB`$-bimodule map, such that the identity map on $`Y`$ is the only completely bounded (resp., completely contractive) $`AB`$-bimodule map on $`Y`$ which fixes each element of $`\iota (X).`$

(3) A (resp., tight) $`AB`$-essential extension of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$ is a pair $`(Y,\iota )`$ of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`Y`$ and a completely boundedly isomorphic (resp., completely isometric) $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\iota :XY`$ such that for any operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`W`$ and for any completely bounded (resp., completely contractive) $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\varphi :YW`$, $`\varphi `$ is a completely bounded isomorphism (resp., a complete isometry) whenever $`\varphi |_{\iota (X)}`$ is. If there is no proper embedding of $`Y`$ by a completely boundedly isomorphic (resp., completely isometric) $`AB`$-bimodule map into any (resp., tight) $`AB`$-essential extension of $`X`$ (or, equivalently, there is no proper (resp., tight) $`AB`$-essential extension of $`Y`$), then we say $`(Y,\iota )`$ is a maximal (resp., tight) $`AB`$-essential extension of $`X`$.

(4) An operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`W`$ is (resp., tight) $`AB`$-injective, if for any operator $`AB`$-bimodules $`Y`$ and $`Z`$ with $`YZ`$ ($`Y`$ has a matrix norm and a module action inherited from $`Z`$) any completely bounded $`AB`$-bimodule map $`YW`$ extends to a completely bounded $`AB`$-bimodule map $`ZW`$ (resp., preserving the completely bounded norm).

(5) A (resp., tight) $`AB`$-injective extension of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$ is a pair $`(Y,\iota )`$ of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`Y`$ and a completely boundedly isomorphic (resp., completely isometric) $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\iota :XY`$ with $`Y`$ (resp., tight) $`AB`$-injective.

(6) An $`AB`$-injective envelope of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$ is a pair $`(Y,\iota )`$ of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`Y`$ and a complete isometric $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\iota :XY`$ with $`Y`$ a minimal tight $`AB`$-injective operator $`AB`$-bimodule containing $`\iota (X)`$ (i.e. for any tight $`AB`$-injective operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`Z`$ with $`\iota (X)ZY`$, necessarily $`Y=Z`$ holds, where $`Z`$ has a matrix norm and a module action inherited from $`Y`$.). We denote this $`Y`$ by $`I(X)`$. Frequently we identify $`X`$ with $`\iota (X)`$ and regard it as $`XI(X)`$.

In the above (2), (3), (5), and (6), often we simply write $`Y`$ for $`(Y,\iota ).`$

###### Remark 2.2.

(1) There are still some difficulties involved in trying to define injective envelopes in the non-tight setting. In (6) above we really are defining injective envelopes only in the tight setting.

(2) The following is a well-known argument (). Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be C\*-algebras. For any operator $`AB`$-bimodule, take any tight $`AB`$-injective extension $`(Y,\iota )`$ of $`X`$ 222Such an extension exists even if $`X`$ is an operator $`AB`$-bimodule, since $`X`$ can be considered as $`X𝔹()`$ for some Hilbert space $``$ by the representation theorem for operator modules (, , ) and $`𝔹()`$ is a tight $`AB`$-injective by the bimodule version of G. Wittstock’s extension theorem (Theorem 4.1 in . See also .).. Given a minimal $`\iota (X)`$-projection on $`Y`$ 333The existence of a minimal projection can be shown in the same way as ., then it follows that “$`(Y,\iota )`$ is an $`AB`$-injective envelope of $`X`$ $``$ $`Y`$ is the range of a minimal $`\iota (X)`$-projection on some $`AB`$-injective operator $`AB`$-bimodule containing $`\iota (X)`$”. In particular, for any operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$, its tight $`AB`$-injective envelope exists.

(3) When $`A`$ and $`B`$ are C\*-algebras, as is proved in Corollary 2.6 in , an operator $`AB`$-bimodule is tight $`AB`$-injective if and only if it is $``$-injective, and also when $`X`$ is an operator $`AB`$-bimodule, $`Y`$ is an $`AB`$-injective envelope of $`X`$ if and only if $`Y`$ is a $``$-injective envelope of $`X`$. For this reason, when $`X`$ is an operator $`AB`$-bimodule we frequently call $`I(X)`$ just an injective envelope of $`X`$. Also this fact justifies that we use the simple notation $`I(X)`$ without mentioning $`A`$ and $`B.`$

## 3. Essential extensions with module actions.

In this section we obtain the necessary characterizations of injective envelopes as maximal essential extensions. In the tight situation, these are basically restatements of results of M. Hamana. However, in the non-tight situation, these characterizations rely on recent work of M. Frank and the second author () which extends Hamana’s rigidity results to completely bounded module maps. Analogous results to the known results in the category of modules over a ring (Theorem 2.10.20 in ) were obtained by M. Hamana in the cases of Banach modules, C\*-algebras, operator systems and operator spaces (, , , ). Without any intrinsic changes in his proofs, similar results hold for the case of operator modules over C\*-algebras. We summarize the key facts below.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let A, B be C\*-algebras, and X an operator $`AB`$-bimodule. Then the following are equivalent:

* $`(Y,\iota )`$ is a maximal tight $`AB`$-essential extension of X,
* $`(Y,\iota )`$ is a tight $`AB`$-injective and tight $`AB`$-essential extension of X,
* $`(Y,\iota )`$ is an $`AB`$-injective envelope of X,
* $`(Y,\iota )`$ is a tight $`AB`$-injective and tight $`AB`$-rigid extension of X.

Moreover, such $`Y`$ is complete.

Proof. First, we suppose that $`X`$ is an operator $`AB`$-bimodule.

That (ii)$``$(iii)$``$(iv) immediately follows from the operator module over C\*-algebra version of Lemma 2.11 in , but this result relies on several earlier results. For the convenience of the reader, we also include an outline of the proof of this part.

(ii)$``$(iii): We only need to show minimality of $`Y`$. Let $`Z`$ be a tight $`AB`$-injective operator $`AB`$-bimodule such that $`\iota (X)ZY`$. Then $`id_Z`$ extends to a completely contractive $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\varphi :YZ`$. By the assumption (ii), $`\varphi `$ has to be a complete isometry, so that $`Y=Z`$.

(iii)$``$(iv): The same as the proof of Lemma 3.6 in . When applying this proof, note that, if $`\varphi `$ is an $`\iota (X)`$-projection on $`Y`$ (i.e. a completely contractive $`AB`$-bimodule map on $`Y`$ with $`\varphi ^2=\varphi `$ and $`\varphi |_{\iota (X)}=id_{\iota (X)}`$), then Im$`\varphi Y`$ is a tight $`AB`$-injective operator $`AB`$-bimodule, so that Im$`\varphi `$=$`Y`$ by minimality of $`Y`$. Hence $`\varphi (=id_Y)`$ is a minimal $`\iota (X)`$-projection on $`Y`$ and $`Y`$ is its range.

(iv)$``$(ii): The same as the proof (Necessity) of Theorem 3.7. in .

(i)$``$(ii): Let $`(I(Y),\kappa )`$ be an $`AB`$-injective envelope of $`Y`$. By (iii)$``$(ii), $`(I(Y),\kappa )`$ is a tight $`AB`$-essential extension of $`Y`$, so that $`(I(Y),\kappa \iota )`$ is a tight $`AB`$-essential extension of $`X`$, hence $`I(Y)=\kappa (Y)`$ by maximality. Thus $`Y`$ is tight $`AB`$-injective.

(ii)$``$(i): Let $`(Z,\kappa )`$ be a tight $`AB`$-essential extension of $`Y`$. By injectivity of $`Y`$, $`\kappa ^1:\kappa (Y)Y`$ extends to a completely contractive $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\varphi :ZY`$. But by essentiality of $`Z`$, $`\varphi `$ has to be a complete isometry. Thus $`\kappa (Y)=Z`$.

Finally, we show completeness. Let $`Y`$ satisfy the equivalent conditions (i)—(iv) and let $`(\stackrel{~}{Y},\kappa )`$ be its completion. Then $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ is an $`AB`$-bimodule and obviously a tight $`AB`$-essential extension of $`Y`$. By injectivity of $`Y`$, $`\kappa (Y)Y`$ extends to a completely contractive $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ with $`\varphi |_{\kappa (Y)}`$ completely isometric. But by an essentiality of $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, $`\varphi `$ has to be a complete isometry, so that $`\stackrel{~}{Y}=\kappa (Y)`$.

###### Remark 3.2.

(1) From this theorem, in particular, for any operator $`AB`$-bimodule $`X`$, a maximal tight $`AB`$-essential extension exists, since $`AB`$-injective envelope exists (Remark2.2 (2)).

(2) It immediately follows from rigidity in the above theorem that the $`AB`$-injective envelope is unique up to completely isometric $`AB`$-bimodule isomorphisms.

(3) In particular, if $`X=A`$ with $`A`$ a unital C\*-algebra, $`I(A)`$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to M. Hamana’s injective envelope C\*-algebra $`I_C^{}(A)`$ () of $`A`$. This is easily seen by observing unital completely positive maps are just the same as unital completely contractive maps, and using rigidities of $`I(A)`$ and $`I_C^{}(A)`$. If $`A`$ is a non-unital C\*-algebra, still $`I(A)`$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to $`I_C^{}(A^1),`$ via a map that restricts to be the identity on $`A,`$ by Proposition 2.8 in , where $`A^1`$ is the minimal unitization of $`A`$. Namely, $`I(A^1)`$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to $`I(A)`$. Actually the above identification of $`I(A)`$ with $`I_C^{}(A)`$ or $`I_C^{}(A^1)`$ is also as $`AA`$-, $`A`$\- and $`A`$-bimodules by Remark2.2 (3).

In the non-tight case a similar result holds thanks to Corollary 2.2 in  which is the generalization of ‘rigidity’ to the non-tight case in the presence of a module action.

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let A be a C\*-algebra, I(A) its injective envelope and let E be an operator left $`A`$-module with A $``$ E. Then the following are equivalent:

* E is a maximal $`A`$-essential extension of A,
* E is an $`A`$-injective and $`A`$-essential extension of A,
* E is a minimal $`A`$-injective extension of A,
* E is completely boundedly isomorphic to I(A) as left $`A`$-modules,
via a map that restricts to the identity on A,
* E is an $`A`$-injective and $`A`$-rigid extension of A.

The analogous result holds for the operator right A-module case and the operator A-bimodule case.

Proof. Throughout the proof, without loss of generality, we may assume that $`I(A)=I_C^{}(A)`$ (Remark3.2 (3)).

That (iii)$``$(iv) was proven in Theorem 3.3 in .

That (iv)$``$(iii) follows by noting that any $`A`$-injective extension of $`A`$ which is completely boundedly isomorphic to a minimal $`A`$-injective extension as left $`A`$-modules is also minimal and that $`I(A)`$ is a minimal $`A`$-injective extension by Theorem 3.1 in .

(iv)$``$(i): Without loss of generality we may assume that $`E=I(A)`$. Let $`W`$ be any operator left $`A`$-module and $`\varphi :I(A)W`$ a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map which is a completely bounded isomorphism on $`A`$. Let $`\psi :\varphi (A)A`$ be the inverse of this map and extend $`\psi `$ to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }:WI(A)`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }\varphi :I(A)I(A)`$ is the identity on $`A`$, it is the identity on $`I(A)`$ by rigidity (Corollary 2.2 in ). This shows that $`\varphi (I(A))`$ is completely boundedly isomorphic to $`I(A)`$. Maximality: Suppose that $`(F,\iota )`$ is an $`A`$-essential extension of $`I(A)`$. A completely boundedly isomorphic left $`A`$-module map $`\iota ^1:\iota (I(A))I(A)`$ extends to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\rho :FI(A)`$. By essentiality of $`F`$, $`\rho `$ has to be a completely bounded isomorphism, so that $`F=\iota (I(A))`$.

(i)$``$(iv): We may assume that $`AE𝔹()`$ for some Hilbert space $``$ by the representation theorem for operator modules (, , ). Extend the identity map on $`A`$ to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\psi :𝔹()I(A)`$, then $`\psi (E)I(A)`$ is completely boundedly isomorphic to $`E`$. The map $`\psi ^1:\psi (E)E`$ extends to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\varphi :I(A)𝔹().`$ By rigidity (Corollary 2.2 in ), $`\psi \varphi `$ is the identity on $`I(A)`$. Hence we have $`AE\varphi (I(A))`$ with $`\varphi (I(A))`$ completely boundedly isomorphic to $`I(A)`$. This makes $`\varphi (I(A))`$ an operator $`A`$-essential extension of $`A`$ by applying (iv)$``$(i) that we have already proved. Thus, by maximality of $`E`$, $`E=\varphi (I(A))`$ so that $`I(A)`$ is completely boundedly isomorphic to $`E`$ as left $`A`$-modules by $`\varphi `$.

Now we have that (i)$``$(ii), since clearly (i) and (iv) imply (ii).

Next, we show that (ii)$``$(iv). By the assumption (ii), the identity map on $`A`$ extends to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\varphi :EI(A)`$ and the map $`\varphi (E)E`$ extends to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\psi :I(A)E`$. Then $`\psi \varphi `$ is the identity on $`E`$. But by rigidity (Corollary 2.2 in ), $`\varphi \psi `$ is the identity on $`I(A)`$.

(iv)$``$(v): Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`E=I(A)`$. Then (v) immediately follows from Corollary 2.2 in .

(v)$``$(iv): By injectivity of $`E`$, the identity map on $`A`$ extends to a completely bounded left $`A`$-module map $`\varphi :I(A)E`$. Similarly, by injectivity of $`I(A)`$, the identity map on $`A`$ extends to a completely contractive $`AB`$-bimodule map $`\psi :EI(A)`$. But $`\psi \varphi =id_{I(A)}`$ and $`\varphi \psi =id_E`$ by rigidity of $`I(A)`$ (Corollary 2.2 in ) and $`E`$, respectively.

As is seen in the above proof, Corollary 2.2 in  played a crucial role.

Before moving on to the main results, let us introduce some definitions.

## 4. Essential left ideals.

Recall that a closed two-sided ideal $`K`$ in a C\*-algebra $`A`$ is $`essential`$, if $`aK=\{0\}`$ implies $`a=0`$, or, equivalently, $`Ka=\{0\}`$ implies $`a=0`$, or, equivalently, $`KK^{}\{0\}`$ for all non-zero closed two-sided ideal $`K^{}`$ in $`A`$, where $`aA`$. We now generalize these ideas to the one-sided case. Note that a subset $`JA`$ is a closed left ideal in $`A`$ if and only if $`J^{}`$ is a closed right ideal in $`A`$. Let $`J`$ be a closed left ideal in $`A.`$ As is well known (say, , , ), $`J`$ has a contractive right approximate identity $`\{e_\alpha \}`$. Namely, $`\{e_\alpha \}(JJ^{})_+`$ is an increasing net and $`lim_\alpha \mathrm{}je_\alpha =jjJ`$ and $`e_\alpha 1\alpha `$. Clearly, it is also a contractive left approximate identity of $`J^{}`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let A be a C\*-algebra, I a closed right ideal in A, and J a closed left ideal in A. Then

$$IJ=IJ,$$

where $`IJ:=\overline{\text{span}}\{ij;iI,jJ\},`$ here the closure is taken in $`A.`$

Proof.$`IJIJ`$ is clear. We show $`IJIJ`$. Let $`iIJ`$ and $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ a right approximate identity of $`J`$, then $`i=lim_\alpha \mathrm{}ie_\alpha IJ`$.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let A be a C\*-algebra and J a closed left ideal in A. Then the following are equivalent.

* JJ\* is an essential two-sided ideal in A,
* If $`aA`$ and $`aJ=\{0\}`$, then a=0,
* $`IJ\{0\}`$ for any non-zero closed right ideal I in A,
* $`KJ\{0\}`$ for any non-zero closed two-sided ideal K in A.

Proof. (i)$``$(ii): Suppose $`aJ=\{0\}`$ for $`aA`$, then $`aJJ^{}=\{0\}`$, so that $`a=0`$.

(ii)$``$(iii): Let $`I`$ be a closed right ideal in $`A`$ with $`IJ=\{0\}`$, then $`IJ=\{0\}`$ by Lemma4.1, so that $`I=\{0\}`$ by the assumption (ii).

(iii)$``$(iv): Clear.

(iv)$``$(i): Obviously $`JJ^{}`$ is a closed two-sided ideal in $`A`$, so we only show essentiality. Let $`K:=\{aA;aJJ^{}=\{0\}\}`$, then $`K`$ is a closed two-sided ideal in $`A`$. Suppose that $`aK`$ and $`aJJ^{}=\{0\}`$, then $`0=ajj^{}a^{}=aj(aj)^{}`$ for all $`jJ`$, so that $`aJ=\{0\}`$, hence $`KJ=KJ=\{0\}`$. The assumption (iv) yields $`K=\{0\}`$.

###### Remark 4.3.

Let $`A`$ and $`J`$ be the same as the assumptions of Proposition4.2, and let $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ be a right approximate identity of $`J.`$

(1) $`JJ^{}`$ is the two-sided ideal in $`A`$ generated by $`J`$ in $`A`$. Also $`JJ^{}=JA`$ since, for any $`aA`$, $`ja=lim_\alpha \mathrm{}(je_\alpha )a=jlim_\alpha \mathrm{}e_\alpha a`$.

(2) Any $`jJ`$ is written as $`j=lim_\alpha \mathrm{}je_\alpha `$, hence $`JJJ^{}`$ even if $`A`$ is non-unital. Similarly, $`J^{}JJ^{}`$.

###### Definition 4.4.

Let $`A`$ and $`J`$ be the same as the assumptions in Proposition4.2. When the equivalent statements in Proposition4.2 hold, we say $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A`$.  Essential right ideals are defined similarly.

## 5. Main results.

In this section we present our main results, showing the relationships between the various notions of “essential” for left ideals. We apologize to the reader in advance for the rather long list of conditions that are equivalent to a left ideal being essential in the C\*-algebraic sense. However, it is convenient to know that all of these are equivalent. We have presented the results in this particular fashion so that one can more easily contrast the non-tight and two-sided cases.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let A be a C\*-algebra, J a closed left ideal in A, and $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ a contractive right approximate identity of J. Then statements in (I) and (II) are equivalent respectively, and “each statement in (I)$``$ (4) $``$ (5) $``$ “each statement in (II)”.

| (I) | $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{(1)}\hfill & \text{I(J) is completely isometrically isomorphic to I(A),}\hfill \\ & \text{via a map that restricts to the identity on J,}\hfill \\ \text{(2)}\hfill & \text{A is a tight }\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \\ \text{(3)}\hfill & \text{A is a tight }A\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \end{array}`$ |
| --- | --- |
|  | (4) $`(a_{lm})=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$, |
|  | (5) There exists $`n`$ such that |
|  | $`(a_{lm})=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$, |
| (II) | $`\{\begin{array}{cc}\text{(6)}\hfill & (a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}\hfill \\ & \text{for all }(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)\text{ and for all }n\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(7)}\hfill & \text{There exists }n\text{ such that}\hfill \\ & (a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}\hfill \\ & \text{for all }(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(8)}\hfill & \text{There exists }c1\text{ such that}\hfill \\ & (a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}\hfill \\ & \text{for all }(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)\text{ and for all }n\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(9)}\hfill & \text{There exist }c1\text{ and }n\text{ such that}\hfill \\ & (a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}\hfill \\ & \text{for all }(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(10)}\hfill & \text{A is a tight }J\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \\ \text{(11)}\hfill & \text{A is a }J\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \\ \text{(12)}\hfill & \text{A is a tight }AJ\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \\ \text{(13)}\hfill & \text{A is an }AJ\text{-essential extension of J,}\hfill \\ \text{(14)}\hfill & 𝕄_n(J)\text{ is an essential left ideal in }𝕄_n(A)\text{ for all }n\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(15)}\hfill & 𝕄_n(J)\text{ is an essential left ideal in }𝕄_n(A)\text{ for some }n\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(16)}\hfill & 𝕄_n(A)\text{ is canonically *-isomorphically embedded in }(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))\hfill \\ & \text{for all }n\text{,}\hfill \\ \text{(17)}\hfill & 𝕄_n(A)\text{ is canonically *-isomorphically embedded in }(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))\hfill \\ & \text{for some }n\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$ |

where $`(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))`$ is the multiplier algebra of $`𝕄_n(JJ^{}).`$

Proof. (1)$``$(2): Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`AI(J)=I(A)`$. Let $`W`$ be any operator space, $`\varphi :AW`$ any complete contraction which is completely isometric on $`J`$. Since $`I(J)`$ is tight $``$-injective, $`\varphi ^1:\varphi (J)J`$ extends to a complete contraction $`\psi :WI(J)`$. Then, again, by tight $``$-injectivity of $`I(J)`$, $`\psi \varphi `$ extends to a complete contraction $`\rho :I(J)I(J)`$ with $`\rho |_J=id_J`$. By rigidity (Theorem3.1), $`\rho =id_{I(J)}`$, hence $`\varphi `$ has to be a complete isometry.

(2)$``$(3): Clear.

(3)$``$(1): Since $`I(J)`$ is tight $`A`$-injective, $`id_J`$ extends to a completely contractive left $`A`$-module map $`\varphi :I(A)I(J)`$. By the assumption (2), $`\varphi |_A`$ is a complete isometry. Since $`I(A)`$ is tight $`A`$-injective, $`(\varphi |_A)^1:\varphi (A)A`$ extends to a completely contractive left $`A`$-module map $`\psi :I(J)I(A)`$. Then $`\psi \varphi `$ and $`\varphi \psi `$ are completely contractive left $`A`$-module map, so that $`\psi \varphi =id_{I(A)}`$ and $`\varphi \psi =id_{I(J)}`$ by rigidity (Theorem3.1). Hence $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are onto complete isometries, so that $`I(J)`$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to $`I(A).`$

(2)$``$(4): Let us define $`\mathrm{}:A_+`$ by $`\mathrm{}(a):=sup_\alpha ae_\alpha ,`$ $`aA`$. And let $`\stackrel{~}{A}:=A/`$Ker$`\mathrm{}`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ is an operator space with a well-defined matrix norm $`||,`$ where $`|(a_{lm}+`$Ker$`\mathrm{})|:=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha ),`$ $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$, $`nN`$. Define $`\varphi :A\stackrel{~}{A}`$ by $`\varphi (a):=a+`$Ker$`\mathrm{}`$. Then $`\varphi `$ is a completely contractive liner map which is completely isometric on $`J`$, so that, $`\varphi `$ is completely isometric on $`A`$ by the assumption (2). Hence $`(a_{lm})=|(a_{lm})|=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha ),`$ $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$, $`nN`$.

That (4)$``$(5)$``$(7)$``$(9)$``$(15), that (6)$``$(7), and that (6)$``$(8)$``$(9) are clear.

(6)$``$(10): Let $`W`$ be any operator right $`J`$-module and $`\varphi :AW`$ any completely contractive right $`J`$-module map which is completely isometric on $`J`$. Then $`n`$ and $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,

|  | $`(a_{lm})`$ |
| --- | --- |
| = | $`sup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| = | $`sup\{\varphi _n((a_{lm})(j_{lm}));(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| = | $`sup\{(\varphi (a_{lm}))(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| $``$ | $`(\varphi (a_{lm}))`$, |

which shows that $`\varphi `$ is completely isometric on $`A.`$ Where $`\varphi _n:𝕄_n(A)𝕄_n(W)`$ is defined by $`\varphi _n((a_{lm})):=(\varphi (a_{lm})).`$

(10)$``$(12): Clear.

(12)$``$(15): Let $`K:=\{aA;aJ=\{0\}\}`$, then $`K`$ is a closed two-sided ideal in $`A`$ and $`KJJ^{}=KJJ^{}=\{0\}`$. Let $`A/K`$ be equipped with the quotient norm that makes $`A/K`$ a C\*-algebra, hence an operator $`AJ`$-bimodule with induced matrix norms and natural module actions. Let $`\pi :AA/K`$ be the quotient map that is a \*-homomorphism and also a completely contractive $`AJ`$-bimodule map. Since $`KJJ^{}=\{0\}`$, $`\pi `$ is one-to-one on $`JJ^{}`$, hence \*-isometric on $`JJ^{}`$. Thus $`\pi `$ is completely isometric on $`JJ^{}`$, especially on $`J`$. By the assumption (12), $`\pi `$ is one-to-one on $`A`$, so that $`K=\{0\}`$, which means $`J`$ is an essential left ideal.

(6)$``$(11): Let $`W`$ be any operator right $`J`$-module and $`\varphi :AW`$ any completely bounded right $`J`$-module map which is completely boundedly isomorphic on $`J`$. Then there exists $`c>0`$ such that $`(j_{lm})c(\varphi (j_{lm})),`$ $`(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J)`$ with $`(j_{lm})1`$, $`n`$. Hence $`n`$ and $`(a_{lm})𝕄(A)`$,

|  | $`(a_{lm})`$ |
| --- | --- |
| = | $`sup(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| $``$ | $`csup\{\varphi _n((a_{lm})(j_{lm}));(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| = | $`csup\{(\varphi (a_{lm}))(j_{lm});(j_{lm})𝕄_n(J),(j_{lm})1\}`$ |
| $``$ | $`c(\varphi (a_{lm}))`$. |

Thus, $`\varphi `$ is a completely bounded isomorphism.

(11)$``$(13): Clear.

(13)$``$(15): Just the same as that (12)$``$(15).

(15)$``$(14): Suppose $`aJ=\{0\},`$ $`aA`$. Let $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ be the matrix such that $`a_{11}=a`$ and all other entries are $`0`$. Then, by the assumption, $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(J)=\{0\}`$ which implies $`(a_{lm})=(0)`$ from (15), so that $`a=0`$. Hence $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A,`$ so that $`𝕄_n^{}(J)`$ is an essential left ideal in $`𝕄_n^{}(A),`$ $`n^{}.`$

(14)$``$(16): Fix $`n.`$ Since $`𝕄_n(J)`$ is an essential left ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$, the canonical embedding $`\phi :𝕄_n(A)(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))`$ is one-to-one (Proposition4.2), hence it is a \*-isomorphism.

(16)$``$(17): Clear.

(16)$``$(6): Let an $`n.`$ Let us consider the following maps.

$$𝕄_n(A)\stackrel{\phi }{}(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))\stackrel{\stackrel{~}{\rho }}{\stackrel{}{}}(𝕂(𝕄_n(J)))\stackrel{\tau }{\stackrel{}{}}𝔹(𝕄_n(J))$$

Where we regard $`𝕄_n(J)`$ as a right Hilbert C\*-module over $`𝕄_n(J^{}J)`$ with the inner product $`<|>:𝕄_n(J)\times 𝕄_n(J)𝕄_n(J^{}J)`$ defined by $`<j|j^{}>:=j^{}j^{},`$ $`j,j^{}𝕄_n(J).`$

$`𝔹(𝕄_n(J))`$ is the set of adjointable maps on $`𝕄_n(J).`$

$`𝕂(𝕄_n(J))`$ is the set of compact adjointable operators on $`𝕄_n(J).`$ Namely, $`𝕂(𝕄_n(J)):=\overline{\text{span}}\{\theta _{j,j^{}};j,j^{}𝕄_n(J)\},`$ where $`\theta _{j,j^{}}:𝕄_n(J)𝕄_n(J)`$ is defined by $`\theta _{j,j^{}}(j^{\prime \prime }):=jj_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}j^{\prime \prime }`$ for $`j,j^{},j^{\prime \prime }𝕄_n(J),`$ and the closure is taken in $`𝔹(𝕄_n(J)).`$

The map $`\phi `$ is the canonical embedding.

The map $`\rho :𝕄_n(JJ^{})𝕂(𝕄_n(J))`$ is defined in the following way: $`\rho (_m(j_mj_{m}^{}{}_{}{}^{}))=_m\theta _{j_m,j_m^{}},`$ $`j_m,j_m^{}𝕄_n(J)`$ is a well-defined \*-homomorphism and extends to an onto \*-homomorphism $`𝕄_n(JJ^{})𝕂(𝕄_n(J)).`$ By Proposition4.2, $`𝕄_n(J)`$ is an essential left ideal in $`𝕄_n(JJ^{}),`$ thus $`\rho `$ is one-to-one and hence a \*-isomorphism. Therefore, we obtain a \*-isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{\rho }:(𝕄_n(JJ^{}))(𝕂(𝕄_n(J))).`$

The map $`\tau ^1:𝔹(𝕄_n(J))(𝕂(𝕄_n(J)))`$ is defined in the following way: $`\tau ^1(T):=(T_1,T_2),`$ where $`T_1(\theta _{j,j^{}}):=T\theta _{j,j^{}},`$ $`T_2(\theta _{j,j^{}}):=\theta _{j,j^{}}T,`$ $`T𝔹(𝕄_n(J)).`$ For a proof that $`\tau ^1`$ is a \*-isomorphism, see , .

We can easily see that $`\tau \stackrel{~}{\rho }\phi (a)=T_a,`$ where $`T_a(j):=aj,`$ $`a𝕄_n(A),j𝕄_n(J).`$ Hence (6) follows.

(17)$``$(7): The same as that (16)$``$(6).

###### Remark 5.2.

(1) $`sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ does not depend on a choice of contractive right approximate identities. In fact, take another contractive right approximate identity $`f_\beta .`$ Then, by noting that $`\{e_\alpha \}JJ^{}`$ and $`f_\beta `$ is also a contractive left approximate identity of $`J^{}`$ (Remark4.3), $`lim_\beta \mathrm{}e_\alpha f_\beta =e_\alpha =lim_\beta \mathrm{}f_\beta e_\alpha ,\alpha .`$ Hence,

|  | $`sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ |
| --- | --- |
| = | $`sup_\alpha lim_\beta \mathrm{}(a_{lm}e_\alpha f_\beta )`$ |
| = | $`sup_\alpha lim_\beta \mathrm{}(a_{lm}f_\beta e_\alpha )`$ |
| $``$ | $`sup_\alpha sup_\beta (a_{lm}f_\beta e_\alpha )`$ |
| $``$ | $`sup_\beta (a_{lm}f_\beta ).`$ |

Similarly, the other inequality holds. The similar thing holds in Theorem5.3, Corollary5.4 and Corollary5.5.

(2) It is interesting to note that injective envelopes are related to tight “$``$”-, or, “$`A`$”-essential extensions, while essential left ideals are related to tight “$`J`$”-, or, “$`AJ`$”-essential extensions.

(3) In (4) and (5) of Theorem5.1, we can replace $`(a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ by $`(e_\alpha a_{lm})`$. In fact, $`(a_{lm})=(a_{lm})^{}=sup_\alpha (a_{ml}^{}e_\alpha )=sup_\alpha (e_\alpha a_{lm})`$. Similar considerations hold in Theorem5.3, Corollary5.4, and Corollary5.5.

(4) (5) of Theorem5.1 is equivalent to saying that $`a=sup_\alpha ae_\alpha `$ for all $`aA`$. Similar considerations hold in Theorem5.3, Corollary5.4, and Corollary5.5.

(5) The statement (9) with $`n=1`$ is equivalent to saying that the left $`A`$-module $`J`$ is c-faithful in the terminology of . Hence we saw that if we regard left ideals of $`A`$ as operator left $`A`$-modules, then $`J`$ being faithful444This is equivalent to saying that $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A`$ in our definition (Definition4.4). and $`J`$ being $`c`$-faithful are equivalent for any $`c1.`$

(6) In the proof that (16)$``$(6) and that (17)$``$(7), we used the Hilbert C\*-module theory. We can give an alternative proof of these parts that looks easier but is less informative (The involution is not given explicitly.). First, note that, that (16)$``$(14) and that (17)$``$(15) easily follow. So it suffices to show that (14)$``$(6). We use an already known principle (, ) : Any contractive homomorphism from C\*-algebra to Banach algebra is a \*-homomorphism with a certain involution in the range. In fact, $`𝔹(𝕄_n(J))`$ is a Banach algebra and the canonical embedding $`𝕄_n(A)𝔹(𝕄_n(J))`$ is a contractive homomorphism. (14) implies that this embedding is one-to-one, hence a \*-isomorphism, so that (6) follows.

For the non-tight case, we could not connect essential extensions with injective envelopes. This is mainly because we can not say $`I(J)`$ is a (non-tight) $`A`$-rigid extension of $`J`$. But still a similar result holds.

###### Theorem 5.3.

Let A, J and $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ be the same as the assumptions in Theorem5.1. Then (2a)$``$ (3a) $``$ (4a) $``$ (5a) $``$ “each statement of (II) in Theorem5.1”.

* A is a $``$-essential extension of J,
* A is an $`A`$-essential extension of J,
* There exists $`c1`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and all $`n`$,
* There exist $`c1`$ and $`n`$
such that $`(a_{lm})csup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$.

Proof. (2a)$``$(3a): Clear.

(3a)$``$(4a): Similar to that (3)$``$(4) in Theorem5.1.

That (4a)$``$(5a)$``$“(9) in Theorem5.1” is clear.

Note that the statement (2a) says just that $`A=J.`$ In fact, if $`JA,`$ then we can take a $`J`$-projection $`\varphi `$ on $`A`$ (i.e. a completely bounded linear map on $`A`$ with $`\varphi ^2=\varphi `$ and $`\varphi |_J=id_J`$) such that $`J`$Im$`\varphi A`$ with the codimension of Im$`\varphi `$ in $`A`$ is 1.

Together with the right ideal versions of Theorem5.1 and Theorem5.3, and by noting that, when $`J`$ is a two-sided ideal in $`A,`$ $`J`$\- or $`AJ`$\- in (10)—(13) of Theorem5.1 can be replaced by $`A`$\- or $`AA`$\- with trivial modifications in the proof, the next corollary immediately follows.

###### Corollary 5.4.

Let A be a C\*-algebra, K a closed two-sided ideal in A, and $`\{e_\alpha \}`$ a contractive approximate identity of K. Then the following are equivalent.

* I(K) is completely isometrically isomorphic to I(A),
via a map that restricts to the identity on K,
* A is a tight $``$-essential extension of K,
* A is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of K,
* A is an $`A`$-essential extension of K,
* $`(a_{lm})=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`c1`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`n`$ such that $`(a_{lm})=sup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* There exist $`c1`$ and $`n`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup_\alpha (a_{lm}e_\alpha )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* $`(a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(K),(k_{lm})1\}`$
for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`n`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(j_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(K),(k_{lm})1\}`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* There exists $`c1`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(K),(k_{lm})1\}`$
for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exist $`c1`$ and $`n`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(K),(k_{lm})1\}`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* A is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of K,
* A is a $`A`$-essential extension of K,
* A is a tight $`AA`$-essential extension of K,
* A is an $`AA`$-essential extension of K,
* $`𝕄_n(K)`$ is an essential ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$ for all $`n`$,
* $`𝕄_n(K)`$ is an essential ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$ for some $`n`$,
* $`𝕄_n(A)`$ is \*-isomorphically embedded in $`(𝕄_n(K))`$ for all $`n`$,
* $`𝕄_n(A)`$ is \*-isomorphically embedded in $`(𝕄_n(K))`$ for some $`n`$.

Thus, in the two-sided case, all the concepts of essentiality that we have introduced are equivalent.

From the above corollary and by observing “$`𝕄_n(J)`$ is an essential left ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$ $`𝕄_n(JJ^{})`$ is an essential two-sided ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$” (Definition4.4), the following also holds.

###### Corollary 5.5.

Let A, J be as the assumptions in Theorem5.1 and let $`\{u_\beta \}`$ be a contractive approximate identity of JJ\*. Then each statement of (II) in Theorem5.1 is equivalent to each of the following.

* I(JJ\*) is completely isometrically isomorphic to I(A),
via a map that restricts to the identity on JJ\*,
* A is a tight $``$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* A is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* A is an $`A`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* $`(a_{lm})=sup_\beta (a_{lm}u_\beta )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`c1`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup_\beta (a_{lm}u_\beta )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`n`$ such that $`(a_{lm})=sup_\beta (a_{lm}u_\beta )`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* There exist $`c1`$ and $`n`$ such that $`acsup_\beta ae_\beta `$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* $`(a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(JJ^{}),(k_{lm})1\}`$
for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exists $`n`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})=sup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(JJ^{}),(k_{lm})1\}`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* There exists $`c1`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(JJ^{}),(k_{lm})1\}`$
for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ and for all $`n`$,
* There exist $`c1`$ and $`n`$ such that
$`(a_{lm})csup\{(a_{lm})(k_{lm});(k_{lm})𝕄_n(JJ^{}),(k_{lm})1\}`$ for all $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$,
* A is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* A is a $`A`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* A is a tight $`AA`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* A is an $`AA`$-essential extension of JJ\*,
* $`𝕄_n(JJ^{})`$ is an essential ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$ for all $`n`$,
* $`𝕄_n(JJ^{})`$ is an essential ideal in $`𝕄_n(A)`$ for some $`n`$,

## 6. Examples and applications.

It is easy to construct an example of a left but not two-sided ideal which satisfies all the statements in Theorem5.1.

###### Example 6.1.

Let $`A`$ be any C\*-algebra which properly contains an essential two-sided ideal $`K`$. Set

$$J:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& K\\ A& K\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`J`$ is a left but not two-sided ideal in $`𝕄_2(A)`$ and $`𝕄_2(K)J𝕄_2(A)`$, hence we can make $`I(𝕄_2(K))I(J)I(𝕄_2(A))`$ with an injective envelope $`(I(𝕄_n(K)),\iota )`$ of $`𝕄_n(K).`$ The identity map on $`I(𝕄_2(K))`$ extends to a completely contractive linear map $`\varphi :I(𝕄_2(A))I(𝕄_2(K)).`$ $`𝕄_2(A)`$ is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of $`𝕄_2(K)`$ by Corollary5.4, and $`I(𝕄_2(A))`$ is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of $`𝕄_2(A)`$ by Theorem3.1, so that $`I(𝕄_2(A))`$ is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of $`𝕄_2(K)`$. Hence by rigidity (Theorem3.1), $`\varphi `$ is a complete isometry since it fixes each element of $`\iota (𝕄_2(K))`$. Thus $`I(𝕄_2(A))=I(J)=I(𝕄_2(K))`$.

The following example shows that each statement in (II) in Theorem5.1 does not necessarily imply (5) in Theorem5.1 or (5a) in Theorem5.3. Especially, $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A`$ is equivalent to saying that $`A`$ is a (tight) $`J`$-essential extension of $`J,`$ but those do not necessarily imply that $`A`$ is a (tight) $`A`$-essential extension of $`J.`$

###### Example 6.2.

Let $`A:=𝕄_2`$ and

$$J:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}& O\\ & O\end{array}\right).$$

Then $`A`$ is a C\*-algebra and $`J`$ is a closed left ideal in $`A`$ with a contractive right identity. $`e:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}1& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right)`$. It is easy to see $`JJ^{}=A`$, so especially, $`JJ^{}`$ is an essential two-sided ideal in $`A`$, hence $`J`$ is an essential left ideal in $`A`$ by Definition4.4. Let $`a:=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right),`$ and let $`(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A)`$ be such that $`a_{11}=a,`$ $`a_{lm}=0`$ if $`l1`$ or $`m1.`$ Then $`(a_{lm})=1`$, while $`(a_{lm}e)=0.`$

###### Remark 6.3.

In general, if $`A`$ is a C\*-algebra and $`J`$ is a closed left ideal in $`A`$, and if $`A`$ is a (resp., tight) $`A`$-essential extension of $`J`$, and $`J`$ is properly contained in $`A`$, then $`J`$ does not have a (resp., contractive) right identity. In fact, suppose that $`J`$ has a (resp., contractive) right identity $`e`$. Then $`(a_{lm})(a_{lm}e)(a_{lm})𝕄_n(A),n`$ defines a completely bounded (resp., completely contractive) left $`A`$-module map $`\varphi :AJ`$ which is completely isometric on $`J`$, so that $`\varphi `$ is a completely bounded isomorphism (resp., a complete isometry). But $`0(aae)`$Ker$`\varphi `$ for $`aAJ`$, hence a contradiction. Especially, for any finite dimensional left ideal $`JA,`$ $`A`$ can not be a (tight) $`A`$-essential extension of $`J.`$

We close this section with another application of a part of Theorem5.1. As is defined in , for two C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ with $`A,B𝔹()`$ for some Hilbert space $`,`$ we say that $`A`$ norms $`B`$ when the following equation holds for each $`n1`$ and for each $`X𝕄_n(B).`$

$$X=sup\{RXC;RRow_n(A),CCol_n(A),R,C1\}$$

Where $`Row_n(A)`$ and $`Col_n(A)`$ are, respectively, row and column matrices over $`A.`$ We show that, if $`A`$ is an essential two-sided ideal in $`B,`$ then $`A`$ norms $`B.`$ By Lemma 2.4 in , it suffices to show that, for each $`n1`$ and for each $`X𝕄_n(B),`$

$$X=sup\{XC;CCol_n(A),C1\}.$$

But $`Col_n(A)`$ is an essential left ideal in $`𝕄_n(B),`$ so the equation follows from Theorem5.1 (14)$``$(6).

## 7. Conclusions and questions.

(1) Compared with the tight case, the non-tight case is generally unknown. The difficulty in the non-tight case mainly comes from the lack of a rigidity result that does not need some module actions. Even in the Banach space case, there are a few deep results, but the entire picture is unclear. We do not know the existence of a “non-tight injective envelope”, namely a minimal injective extension, for an arbitrary operator space. Also the lack of rigidity makes it difficult to connect essential extensions with even tight injective envelopes. As a result, we do not know if either of the following implications is true: $`A`$ is a tight $`A`$-essential extension of $`J`$ $`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$ $`A`$ is an $`A`$-essential extension of $`J.`$

(2) The implications (5)$`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$(4)$`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$(3) in Theorem5.1 and (5a)$`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$(4a)$`\stackrel{\mathrm{?}}{}`$(3a) in Theorem5.3 are still unknown.

(3) As one possible generalization of the results in this paper, one can consider replacing C\*-algebras by operator algebras. In such a case, the difficulty comes from the fact that we still do not know whether or not the representation $`𝔹()`$ of an operator $`AB`$-bimodule (, , ) is $`AB`$-injective. Consequently, we do not know the existence of any $`AB`$-injective operator modules. Such modules play an important role in characterizing and constructing essential extensions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. The first author wishes to express his gratitude to the second author, who is also his advisor, for introducing him to this subject and for constant encouragement. Both authors thank Professor David Peter Blecher for many useful helps.


format: text

text:
# Self-Organized Critical Random Boolean Networks

## I Introduction

Random Boolean Networks (RBN) were proposed  as discrete genetic networks models. The network is composed of nodes (automata). The state of an automaton represents the state of a gene with two possible values (on-off). This state is the output of a Boolean function, which has as inputs the output activity of some other genes. The connectivity of the system and the bias used for the Boolean functions are relevant parameters in order to statistically determine the network dynamics. If the system has a high connectivity and a low bias, the dynamics of the automata is disordered; it seems that there is no correlation between the gene switching on and off. On the other hand, the dynamics is ordered if a low connectivity and a high bias are used. Only the ordered dynamics have biological sense. S. Kauffman says that this parametric region offers “free order” and it seems that natural selection works where the order exist previously . In the critical region, which is the boundary between ordered and disordered phase, there are some scaling relations that have been the subject of recent works . S. Kauffman points out that genetic networks evolve to the boundary between order and disorder. In this region there is more diversity of patterns for activity and greater possibilities for complex evolution (anti-chaos hypothesis) .

There is great interest in the evolution of topology in networks . Several schemes have been proposed for RBN evolution. For instance, in  a RBN evolves from an initial $`K=1`$ mean connectivity (using a random initial condition) to an attractor. At this point a copy of the network is made which has a connection randomly removed or/and added. The new network also reaches an attractor. If the same attractor has been obtained, the network is maintained. Otherwise, the previous one is restored. During the RBN evolution, it appears some stasi periods and punctuations like in real evolutionary processes.

In  the performance of an automaton is defined as the number of steps that it is in majority during a given set of steps. An automaton in majority means that it has the same state as the majority of the automata. The automaton with the highest performance is replaced by another automaton with a new random Boolean function and the process is repeated. The authors show how the genetic network is able to modify its bias in order to reach the critical region.

In  is presented a method which is able to lead the connectivity of binary neural networks to their critical value. These neural networks have a phase transition similar to RBN . Using a fixed connectivity initialization the network evolves to an attractor. If an automaton does not change its state in the attractor, a connection is added to it. Otherwise, if it changes then a connection is removed. The different networks (with different initial connectivities) reach and remain close to the critical region.

From a more general perspective, some works  have shown the relation between critical and self-organized critical phenomena. In particular, D. Sornette et al.  point out a heuristic method that transforms a system with a critical transition (Ising or bond percolation) into a self-organized critical system. They propose to add some kind of mechanism (a feedback between the order and control parameters) which slowly drives the system towards the critical point.

RBN are a classical example where complex global behavior emerges from local simple rules. They exhibit a phase transition similar to the Ising model or bond percolation. Forgetting its initial biological inspiration, our goal is to develop RBN which spontaneously evolve towards a global critical stationary state. For this purpose we use a disconnection rule which induces a feedback between the control and order parameters. These networks reach a critical state without changing externally the control parameter. These systems show characteristics related to self-organized criticality. Our evolution method is distinct from earlier works in the following: we introduce a well-defined coupling between order and control parameters as in , but the method is able to stabilize (the individuals connectivities become constant in time) the networks along the critical curve.

In section II we give an introduction to RBN and we present the disconnection local rule which gives to the RBN a SOC behavior. In section III statistical results of the evolution of the self-organized RBN are presented. In section IV we show its SOC behavior in response to external perturbations. In section V we apply an analytical treatment to the model and discuss the results, and finally, in section VI we make a summary and point out for future works.

## II How does one make a critical self-organized RBN

A RBN is a discrete dynamical system composed of $`N`$ automata. Each automaton is a Boolean variable with two possible states: $`\{0,1\}`$, such that

$$𝐅:\{0,1\}^N\{0,1\}^N,$$
(1)
where $`𝐅=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_i,\mathrm{},f_N)`$ and each $`f_i`$ is a Boolean function of $`K_i`$ inputs (the automaton $`i`$ is connected to $`K_i`$ automata randomly chosen from the set of $`N`$ automata):

$$f_i:\{0,1\}^{K_i}\{0,1\}.$$
(2)
An automaton state $`x_i^t\{0,1\}`$ is updated using its corresponding Boolean function:

$$x_i^{t+1}=f_i(x_{i_1}^t,x_{i_2}^t,\mathrm{},x_{i_{K_i}}^t).$$
(3)
Each $`f_i`$ is represented as a look-table of $`K_i`$ inputs. Initially, $`K_i`$ neighbors and a look-table of bias $`p`$ are assigned to each automaton. In order to generate such a look-table, the value $`1`$ is assigned to an output with a probability $`p`$ and $`0`$ with a probability $`1p`$. When the neighborhood and the functions are established, they are maintained (quenched).

We randomly initialize the states of the automata (initial condition of the RBN). The automata are updated synchronously using its corresponding Boolean functions:

$$𝐱^{t+1}=𝐅(𝐱^t),$$
(4)
These RBN exhibit a second order phase transition . The control parameters ($`K`$ and $`p`$) determine two regions: a frozen phase for $`K<1/2p(1p)`$ and a disordered phase for $`K>1/2p(1p)`$. Thus, the critical boundary is represented as follows:

$$K_c(p)=\frac{1}{2p(1p)}.$$
(5)
The above description corresponds to a classical RBN. We incorporate a disconnection rule to the system leading the RBN to a stationary critical state with connectivity $`K_c(p)`$ (see equation 5). The rule is also applied synchronously to each automaton $`i`$ which has a local connectivity, $`K_i(t)`$, in such a way that:

1. Disconnection threshold: if $`K_i(t)>2`$ then

$`K_i(t+1)=K_i(t)1,\mathrm{if}{\displaystyle \underset{j=1}{\overset{K_i(t)}{}}}x_{i_j}<K_i(t)1`$ (6)
$`K_i(t+1)=K_i(t),\mathrm{otherwise}.`$ (7)
2. Minimal connectivity: if $`K_i(t)=2`$ then

$$K_i(t+1)=K_i(t).$$
(8)

The rule is inspired in the Bak-Tang-Wiesenfeld (BTW) model . As in the sandpile-like model we have incorporated a threshold. If the number of $`0`$’s in the input of a Boolean function is greater than one and the local connectivity of its corresponding automaton is $`K_i(t)>2`$, a connection of this automaton (randomly chosen) will be cut. Then, a new Boolean function with connectivity $`K_i(t)1`$ will be assigned.

The disconnection mechanism is illustrated in Figure 1. The automaton $`i`$ has a connectivity $`K_i(t)=3`$ and an input vector composed by two $`0^{}s`$ and one $`1`$. Hence, a random connection is cut ($`K_i(t+1)=2`$) and another Boolean function with bias $`p=0.5`$ is assigned. A new state is then computed.

In a sandpile-like system there is a decrease in the mass, energy, tension, etc. at the boundaries . In the proposed RBN, there is a decrease in the number of connections. Our system is a random graph with no boundaries. But, there is a diffusion effect which is able to cause an avalanche of disconnections. If one automaton connection is cut (at $`t`$), its state can change from $`1`$ to $`0`$ (at $`t+1`$). The last change may cause a disconnection (at $`t+1`$) in any of the automata that are connected to the first one, and so on until a stationary state is reached.

## III Results

The average of the evolution of the mean connectivity $`K(t)`$ of $`1000`$ RBN, each one with $`N=10000`$ automata, is represented in Figure 2. Each RBN diminishes its connectivity due to equations 7 and 8. A fixed bias $`p`$ has been used for every RBN: $`100`$ different RBN and for each one $`10`$ initial conditions of the automata states ($`50\%`$ of $`1^{}s`$ and $`50\%`$ of $`0^{}s`$ approximately). All the RBN automata have a connectivity $`K_i(t=0)=10`$. The bias $`p`$ ranges from $`0.5`$ to $`0.9`$ in steps of $`0.01`$. The stationary state (when no more connections are cut) is quickly reached in about $`50`$ iterations. The mean connectivity $`K(t)`$ stabilizes close to the transition curve between order and disorder ($`K_c(t)`$). This curve is determined by equation 5 and it is represented as a continuous line in Figure 3. In the same figure, the circles are the stationary result of the averaged mean connectivity (corresponding to section $`p`$ versus $`K`$ at $`t=100`$, in Figure 2). It can be observed that the RBN stabilizes at the transition curve. In the same figure, three instances of the evolution of three RBN ($`p=0.50`$, $`p=0.70`$ and $`p=0.85`$) have been represented. The fill-down triangles represent the values of the RBN mean connectivity evolving towards equilibrium. In addition the patterns evolution of the above three examples are represented in Figure 4.

The self-overlap $`a(t)`$ is the unitary percentage of automata with the same value in $`t1`$ and in $`t`$. The stationary self-overlap, $`a(t\mathrm{})=a^{}`$, is an order parameter for the RBN transition . Therefore in the disordered state we have $`a^{}<1`$ and in the ordered state the self-overlap is given by $`a^{}=1`$. In Figure 5 we have represented the self-overlap evolution (averages are calculated as in Figure 2). The initial self-overlap is $`a(t=1)=0.5`$ due to the random state initialization. It can be observed that the self-overlap grows quickly reaching the stationary value $`a^{}=1`$ for high values of the bias. This is to be expected because in the critical boundary with $`K=K_c`$, the self-overlap reaches the value $`a(t)=1`$ for the first time. On the other hand, for low values of the bias, the self-overlap is stable at a value lower than $`1`$. We will show in section V that this is an RBN size effect.

In order to compare the different velocities to approach the stability in the self-overlap and the connectivity, the self-overlap of the connectivities $`q(t)`$ has been represented in Figure 6. The quantity $`q(t)`$ is defined as the unitary percentage of automata which have the same connectivity at times $`t1`$ and $`t`$. As it can be observed, the connectivity is stabilized, approximately, in 50 time-steps. On the other hand, the self-overlap needs about 100 time-steps to stabilize.

In short: the evolution of an RBN with dynamics given by equations 7-8 is such that the RBN is driven from the disordered phase to the critical boundary (equation 5) with mean connectivity $`K_c(p)`$ and self-overlap $`a1`$.

In the next Section we study the nature of the RBN equilibrium state, and whether it is meta-stable or not. In order to do so we analyse the response of the system to external perturbations.

## IV Perturbation Analysis

We now evolve the RBN using the disconnection rule (equations 7 and 8). We perturb the RBN making use of sandpile-like methods . For this purpose we start with a relaxed RBN and a fixed bias $`p`$. In order to perturb the RBN, we randomly choose an automaton $`i`$, and add to it a connection (i.e., its connectivity changes from $`K_i`$ to $`K_i+1`$). A new Boolean function $`f_i`$ with $`K_i+1`$ inputs is assigned to $`i`$ using the bias $`p`$, so that one obtains a new state for the automaton $`i`$. If the automaton state is maintained, then there is only a small increase in the RBN mean connectivity. If the automaton state changes, it is possible to cause a disconnection, originating an avalanche via branching. When the avalanche stops, the RBN is minimally perturbed again, and so on.

In order to characterize the avalanches, we have measured two different variables: the time $`T`$ needed for the net to reach a stationary state and the total number of disconnections $`B`$ during $`T`$. In Figure 7 the histogram $`S(T)`$ of avalanche times is represented after $`5\times 10^6`$ perturbations. For this purpose we have used a RBN with $`p=0.65`$ and different sizes: $`N=100`$ (triangles), $`N=1000`$ (unfilled circles), $`N=10000`$ (filled circles), and $`N=100000`$ (diamonds). The dotted line is a visual guide to see the size effect. It is easy to see that when $`N\mathrm{}`$, the histograms tend to a power law. A fit with the first points gives $`S(T)T^z`$ with $`z=2.9\pm 0.1`$. Figure 8 shows the histogram $`S(B)`$ of disconnections using the same numerical simulations as before. We obtain again a possible power law described by $`S(B)B^D`$ with $`D=2.2\pm 0.2`$. In both figures, insets in linear-log form are showed in order to exclude posible exponential fits.

In the inset of Figure 9 we show the temporal evolution of the mean connectivity $`K(t)`$ for a perturbed RBN ($`N=10000`$, $`p=0.65`$). In Figure 9 we represent the power spectrum $`S(f)`$ (log-log) obtained by averaging $`305`$ temporal series of $`16384`$ time-steps. A power law described by $`S(f)f^\varphi `$ with $`\varphi =1.92\pm 0.09`$ is in good agreement with the data.

The numerical results do not seem definitive. The power law regime for $`T`$ and $`B`$ lasts almost for a decade, but there is a clear finite size effect. There are strong computational restrictions for working with bigger RBN because the size of the avalanches is limited by the number of RBN automata. Nevertheless, in the $`S(f)`$ histogram there is scaling for more than two decades. In conclusion, we think that the results point out a SOC behavior.

## V Analytic treatment

At this point we ask ourselves: why are the evolution rules able to drive an RBN to the critical boundary between the order and disorder phases? As the bias has been already fixed, there can only be variations in the mean connectivity $`K(t)`$ (acting as order parameter) and the self-overlap $`a(t)`$ (control parameter). In this section we show that there is a feed-back mechanism between both parameters that leads the system to a SOC behavior .

As we mentioned before, the self-overlap $`a(t)`$ is the unitary percent of automata which has the same state in $`t+1`$ and $`t`$. If the mean connectivity $`K(t)`$ is known, the value of the self-overlap at time $`t+1`$ can be determined by the following equation:

$$a(t+1)=a^{K(t)}(t)+𝒫(1a^{K(t)}(t)).$$
(9)
If we interpret $`a(t)`$ as the probability for an arbitrary automaton to remain in the same state at both $`t1`$ and $`t`$, the term $`a^{K(t)}(t)`$ gives the probability that all the inputs of a given automaton are the same for $`t1`$ to $`t`$. It is clear that $`1a^{K(t)}(t)`$ is the probability that at least one of the inputs will be different at $`t`$ and $`t1`$. In that case, there is still a probability that this particular automaton remains in the same state at $`t`$ and $`t+1`$ by chance. This probability is given by $`𝒫=p^2+(1p)^2`$ . In a standard RBN the mean connectivity $`K`$ does not have an explicit dependence on time. If one includes the disconnection rule described above, the mean connectivity of the system evolves with time. If $`P_k(t)`$ is the probability of an automaton to have connectivity $`k`$, then:

$$K(t)=\underset{k=2}{\overset{10}{}}P_k(t)k,$$
(10)
where the maximum connectivity value has been taken as $`10`$, without loss of generality. The connectivity distribution evolves according to the following system of equations:

$`P_{10}(t+1)=[\mathrm{\Phi }_{10}+(1\mathrm{\Phi }_{10})a^{10}(t)]P_{10}(t)`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (13)
$`P_k(t+1)=(1\mathrm{\Phi }_{k+1})(1a^{k+1}(t))P_{k+1}(t)`$ (14)
$`+[\mathrm{\Phi }_k+(1\mathrm{\Phi }_k)a^k(t)]P_k(t)`$ (15)
$`\mathrm{}`$ (16)
$`P_2(t+1)=(1\mathrm{\Phi }_3)(1a^3(t))P_3(t)+P_2(t),`$ (17)
where $`k=9,8,\mathrm{},3`$. The variable $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k=p^k+kp^{k1}(1p)`$ is the automaton probability to maintain its connectivity by chance. Equation 12 describes the loss of connections for all the automata with connectivity $`10`$ at instant $`t`$. The rest of the equations 15, except for the last one 17, have two contributions: the first one represents the creation of automata with connectivity $`k`$ that previously had connectivity $`k+1`$, and the second one describes the automata that maintain their same value of connectivity $`k`$. The last equation 17 describes the growth of automata population with connectivity $`2`$. The evolution of the critical self-organized RBN is described by the coupled system of equations 9 and 12-17.

One can see than $`a^{}=1`$ is the only possible value that makes the probability distribution become stationary. In equation (9), $`a^{}=1`$ is a fixed point when $`K^{}(1𝒫)1`$, where $`K^{}=K(t\mathrm{})`$ is the asymptotic connectivity, that is, whenever the stationary mean connectivity satisfies:

$$K^{}\frac{1}{2p(1p)},$$
(18)
whose boundary is the critical curve depicted in Figure 3. From the system of equations 12-17 it can be easily deduced that:

$`K(t+1)=K(t)(1P_2(t))`$ (19)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=3}{\overset{10}{}}}[\mathrm{\Phi }_k+(1\mathrm{\Phi }_k)a^k(t)]P_k(t),`$ (20)
so that the mean connectivity of the system always decreases during its dynamical evolution. Therefore, if the initial condition satisfies $`K(t=0)>1/(2p(1p))`$, it will slowly fall towards the critical condition. The first time $`a^{}=1`$ is when the system reaches the critical curve and it, therefore, stabilizes.

We can study more rigorously the evolution of the system by the classical analysis of linear stability. We perturb the fixed point $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}(a^{}=1,P_{10}^{},\mathrm{},P_k^{},\mathrm{},P_2^{})`$, with $`K^{}=_{k=2}^{10}P_k^{}k`$, and compute the Jacobi matrix of the system at $`\mathrm{\Omega }^{}`$:

$$𝐋(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})=\left(\begin{array}{cccccc}K^{}(1𝒫)& 0& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 10(1\mathrm{\Phi }_{10})P_{10}^{}& 1& \mathrm{}& 0& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ k(1\mathrm{\Phi }_k)P_k^{}& & & & & \\ (k+1)(1\mathrm{\Phi }_{k+1})P_{k+1}^{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& 1& 0\\ 3(1\mathrm{\Phi }_3)P_3^{}& 0& 0& 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$
(21)
We can calculate the characteristic polynomial by means of the determinantal condition:

$$\left|𝐋(\mathrm{\Omega }^{})\lambda 𝐈\right|=0.$$
(22)
Thus:

$$P(\lambda )=(K^{}(1𝒫)\lambda )(1\lambda )^9=0,$$
(23)
and then the associated eigen-values are $`\lambda _1=K^{}(1𝒫)`$ and the (9 times) degenerated eigen-value $`\lambda _2=1`$. This means that for $`\lambda _11`$ the critical point will indeed be linearly stable. One can see that the characteristic polynomial is independent of the stationary distribution $`\{P_k^{}\}`$. Obviously this distribution depends on the initial conditions, but fulfills the condition $`K^{}=_{k=2}^{10}P_k^{}k`$ and thus the condition 18.

In order to check this theoretical analysis we have performed several numerical simulations. In Figure 10 the theoretical evolution of the self-overlap $`a(t)`$ has been represented with continuous line. We have used the following values: $`a(t=0)=0.5`$, $`p=0.5`$, and $`P_k(t=0)=0.0`$ for all $`k`$ but $`P_{10}=1.0`$, that is, $`K(t=0)=10`$. It can be seen that the self-overlap converges asymptotically to $`1`$. With the same parameters and initial conditions we have performed our set of numerical simulations. In the same figure we have also plotted the average evolution of the self-overlap for $`1000`$ RBN of different sizes: $`N=10000`$ (circles), $`N=1000`$ (triangles), and $`N=100`$ (squares). As can be seen from the plot, the first steps of the simulation agree with the theoretical curve. It can be observed that the stationary state of the simulations approaches the theoretical one as $`N`$ increases. In order to perform a scaling size effect study we have represented the stationary states ($`1a^{}`$) for different sizes (see the inset in Figure 10). The fitting shows that $`(1a^{})(1/N)^\alpha `$ with $`\alpha =0.27\pm 0.05`$, in such a way that in the thermodynamic limit ($`N\mathrm{}`$) we get $`a^{}=1`$, as is to be expected.

In a similar way, the four graphs in Figure 11 show the theoretical evolution (continuous line) and the numerical simulation (circles) of the overlap for RBN ($`N=10000`$). For each graph we have used $`1000`$ averaged simulations and four different values for the bias $`p`$. In Figure 12 we have plotted the evolution of the theoretical $`K(t)`$ mean connectivity (lines) and simulations with RBN (symbols) for the same bias values of Figure 11. Finally, in Figure 13 we show $`\{P_k^{}\}`$ the stationary distributions as functions of the bias $`p`$: theoretical (top one ) and simulation (bottom).

From the previous figures it can be clearly observed that the computer RBN simulations agree with our theoretical analysis, in spite of the size effect, that is due to computational restrictions.

## VI Summary

RBN are classic complex systems which show that global order is able to emerge from local rules. They exhibit a phase order-disorder transition modulated by the values of their connectivity and bias. Some authors have already proposed mechanisms for RBN evolution . We have, following the Sornette et al. criterium , coupled the control parameter (connectivity for a fixed bias) and the order parameter (self-overlap) in order to convert a critical system into a self-organized critical one. From the numerical simulations it can be deduced that the system evolves from the disordered phase to the critical transition curve independently of the fixed bias. Moreover, the response to external perturbations points to a SOC behavior.

The theoretical analysis fits with the numerical simulations and it is able to predict RBN behaviors to govern variations. We tested other disconnection rules (similar to 7 and 8): for example, we change the breaking threshold of a connection. If there is a disconnection when no $`0`$-inputs arrive to the automata, the system stabilizes under the critical curve. If there is a disconnection when there are more than one $`0`$-inputs in the automata, the system stabilizes over the critical curve. In the theoretical analysis, this modifications imply that the probabilities $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ change. In the first case the probabilities increase and in the second case they decrease. The values of these probabilities control the rate at which the mean connectivity decreases. In the first case, the rate is greater and the self-overlap reaches the value $`1`$ deep inside the ordered phase. In the second case, the rate is very small and the net stabilizes in the disordered phase with self-overlap lower than $`1`$. There is a range for the values of the $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ functions that gives the correct rate. The chosen rule produces values in that range. From the theoretical point of view it seems easy to obtain similar results using a fixed connectivity and changing the bias, or modifying both of them simultaneously.

Much future work is open. We think that the order-control coupling parameter proposed in  also works for RBN. And vice-versa: the proposed method in this article works in this type of binary neural nets. In order to consider biological implications the automata (to be considered as genes) dynamics and the disconnection rule (to be thought of as mutations) should have different characteristic times. We should also include a rule that allows for a possible connection growth, and not simply consider connection loss as we have done in this article. We think that the point of view considered here can have further applications along these lines. In any case, we can already extrapolate our results to a different type of nets that show a clear transition between the ordered and disordered phases with well defined order and control parameters.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank C. Molina-París, U. Bastolla, and S. C. Manrubia and the referee for their critical reading of the manuscript. This work has been supported by Centro de Astrobiología (CAB).


text:
# Evidence for Strong-coupling 𝑆-wave Superconductivity in MgB2 :11B NMR Study

(Februray 15, 2001)

## Abstract

We have investigated a gap structure in a newly-discovered superconductor, MgB2 through the measurement of 11B nuclear spin-lattice relaxation rate, $`{}_{}{}^{11}(1/T_1)`$. $`{}_{}{}^{11}(1/T_1)`$ is proportional to the temperature ($`T`$) in the normal state, and decreases exponentially in the superconducting (SC) state, revealing a tiny coherence peak just below $`T_c`$. The $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state can be accounted for by an $`s`$-wave SC model with a large gap size of 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c`$ 5 which suggests to be in a strong-coupling regime.

preprint: MgB2 1/T1

Quite recently, Akimitsu and co-workers have discovered a new superconducting (SC) material MgB2 that reveals a remarkably high SC transition temperature of $`T_c40`$ K Akimitsu . MgB2 crystallizes in the hexagonal AlB2-type structure, consisting of alternating hexagonal layers of Mg atoms and graphite-like layers of B atoms. The discovery of superconductivity with a relatively high value of $`T_c`$ in this compound gives a new impact in the solid state physics, since it may give other possibility for finding the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity in some binary intermetallic compounds besides cuprates and C60-based compounds. It may be promising to discover new compounds with a high-$`T_c`$ value exceeding the liq.-N2 temperature other than cuprates. Soon after the discovery, Bud’ko and co-workers reported that $`T_c`$ increases from 39.2 K for Mg11B2 to 40.2 K for Mg10B2, giving a clear indication that electron-phonon interactions are playing an important role Bud'ko . However, the observed high $`T_c`$ value of this compound seems to be either beyond or at a limitation for the phonon-mediated superconductivity that was predicted theoretically several decade agoMcMillan . Therefore we speculate on that a new exotic mechanism might be possible for the occurrence of the high-$`T_c`$ superconductivity in MgB2. In order to gain an insight into a possible mechanism, it is quite important to understand its pairing symmetry and a SC-gap structure.

In this letter, we report 11B-NMR study that has shed light on the above issues. Spin-lattice relaxation rate ($`1/T_1`$) of 11B has been measured in a temperature ($`T`$) range of 15 - 260 K. We have found a $`T_1T`$=constant behavior in the normal state, and an exponential decrease of $`1/T_1`$ that was accompanied with a tiny coherence peak in the SC state. From the $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state that is consistent with an $`s`$-wave model with a larger isotropic gap of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c`$ 5 than the BCS value of 3.5, the superconductivity in MgB2 is concluded to be in a strong coupling regime and suggested to be mediated by strong-electron phonon interactions.

A polycrystalline sample of MgB2 was prepared as in referenceNagamatsu . Electric resistivity and DC magnetization show the SC transition at 39 K. The bulk sample without powdering has been used for NMR measurements to avoid some crystal defects if any. $`T_1`$ was measured by monitoring the nuclear magnetization after a saturation rf-pulse under an external field $`H=`$13.5 kOe at a frequency $`f`$=18.5 MHz in the normal state and $`H`$=44.2 kOe at $`f`$=60.4 MHz in the SC state. $`T_c`$=29 K under $`H`$=44.2 kOe was determined from an ac-susceptibility that was measured using an ”in-situ” NMR coil, as shown in an inset of Fig.1. The result is in good agreement with the references reported recentlyFinnemore ; Takano .

11B-NMR spectrum has a simple shape with a full width at the half maximum of $``$ 10 Oe. Its resonance peak does not show any $`T`$ dependence in the normal state within an experimental error of 2 Oe. $`T_1`$ measured at the peak in spectrum was determined by fitting the relaxation function of the nuclear magnetization $`m(t)`$ to the following theoretical two-exponential form,Narath

$`\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill m(t)& =& \frac{M(\mathrm{})M(t)}{M(\mathrm{})}\hfill \\ & =& \frac{1}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{t}{T_1}\right)+\frac{9}{10}\mathrm{exp}\left(\frac{6t}{T_1}\right).\hfill \end{array}`$ (3)
Here $`M(t)`$ is the nuclear magnetization at time $`t`$ after saturation pulses. From good fits to this formula, $`T_1`$ was precisely determined over a measured $`T`$ range, although a short component of $`T_1`$ appears at low temperatures below 20 K, associated with the presence of vortex cores in the mixed state.

Figure 1 shows the $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the $`T`$ range of 15 - 260 K. In the normal state, $`1/T_1`$ obeys a $`T_1T`$=constant relation with $`T_1T`$ = 1.8$`\times 10^2`$ ($`s`$ K) down to $`T_c`$. In the SC state, we have found a tiny coherence peak in $`1/T_1`$ just below $`T_c`$, followed by an exponential decrease of $`1/T_1`$.

In general, $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state is related to the density of states (DOS) in the SC state, $`N_s(E)`$ as follow,

$$\frac{1}{T_1}_0^{\mathrm{}}(N_s(E)^2+M(E)^2)f(E)(1f(E))𝑑E$$
(4)
where $`M(E)`$ and $`f(E)`$ are the so-called ”anomalous” DOS arising from the coherence effect of scattering inherent to a spin-singlet SC state and the Fermi-distribution function, respectively MacLaughlin . Note $`M(E)`$ =0 in the case of spin-triplet pairing state. The $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ is calculated by using a typical $`s`$-wave model where a phenomenological energy broadening function in $`N_s(E)`$ is assumed to be of a rectangle type with a width $`2\delta `$ and a height $`1/2\delta `$ as presented by Hebel Hebel . A calculation is shown by a solid curve in Fig.1. The $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ except just below $`T_c`$ can be well reproduced by the calculation that assumes the SC gap size of $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_\mathrm{B}T_\mathrm{c}5`$ and $`\delta /\mathrm{\Delta }(0)1/3`$. It should be noted that the $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ cannot be reproduced by a model of the spin-triplet Balian-Werthamer (BW) state with an isotropic gapBW , therefore the spin-triplet state should be ruled out. Remarkable findings of the tiny coherence peak in $`1/T_1`$ just below $`T_c`$ that is followed by the exponential decrease below 0.8 $`T_c`$ provide convincing evidence for the spin-singlet $`s`$-wave pairing realized in MgB2. The SC-gap value larger than the weak-coupling BCS value suggests that the superconductivity in MgB2 is in a strong coupling regime. The strong electron-phonon coupling may give rise to some intense lifetime broadening of quasiparticles just below $`T_c`$, suppressing the coherence peak more substantially than a behavior expected from the calculation. The $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state of MgB2 is quite similar to that in Chevrel-phase compound TlMo6Se7.5 with $`T_c`$ = 12.2 K Ohsugi . Therefore we conclude that the superconductivity in MgB2 is of a strong-coupling $`s`$-wave type with the larger value $`2\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c5`$ than the weak coupling BCS one.

Present results of $`1/T_1`$ in MgB2 are in quite contrast with that in cuprates such as La1.85Sr0.15CuO4 that reveals a comparable $`T_c`$ value of 38 K Ishida . The $`1/T_1T`$ in the cuprates shows a Curie-Weiss behavior in the normal state, which evidences that the superconductivity appears on the verge of the antiferromagnetism. $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state decreases sharply without the coherence peak just below $`T_c`$, followed by a $`T^3`$ dependence far below $`T_c`$. This evidences that the symmetry of the Cooper pairs is of a $`d`$-wave type with a line-node gap. Various experiments that were reported so far tell us that the Cooper pairs are presumably mediated via magnetic interactions other than electron-phonon interactions. On the other hand, the $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in MgB2 shows that magnetic correlations are absent in the normal state and that the SC state is characterized by the large isotropic gap that is consistent with the strong coupling $`s`$-wave superconductor. In this context, it is natural to consider that the mechanism of the superconductivity in MgB2 is quite different from in cuprates. Rather the electron-phonon interactions may play an important role. We suggest that the high value of $`T_c`$ in MgB2 may be due to the strong electron-phonon coupling via some phonon modes inherent to a light element of boron.

In conclusion, we report that the $`1/T_1`$ of 11B decreases exponentially in the SC state, revealing a tiny coherence peak just below $`T_c`$. The $`T`$ dependence of $`1/T_1`$ in the SC state can be accounted for by a spin-singlet $`s`$-wave model where 2$`\mathrm{\Delta }/k_BT_c`$ 5 is substantially larger than the weak coupling BCS value of 3.5. It is suggested that the strong electron-phonon interaction may play an important role for the high temperature superconductivity in MgB2.

We are grateful for helpful discussion with G.-q. Zheng. This work was supported by the COE Research (10CE2004) in Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Sport, Science, and Culture of Japan.