format: text

text:
# Competition in Social Networks: Emergence of a Scale-free Leadership Structure and Collective Efficiency

## Abstract

Using the minority game as a model for competition dynamics, we investigate the effects of inter-agent communications on the global evolution of the dynamics of a society characterized by competition for limited resources. The agents communicate across a social network with small-world character that forms the static substrate of a second network, the influence network, which is dynamically coupled to the evolution of the game. The influence network is a directed network, defined by the inter-agent communication links on the substrate along which communicated information is acted upon. We show that the influence network spontaneously develops hubs with a broad distribution of in-degrees, defining a robust leadership structure that is scale-free. Furthermore, in realistic parameter ranges, facilitated by information exchange on the network, agents can generate a high degree of cooperation making the collective almost maximally efficient.

In a competitive environment with seriously limited resources, an individual will be able to make the most gains, if he avoids the crowds, and finds strategies that places him into the distinguished class of the elites, or of the “few”. Even though this class forms a minority group when compared to the whole agent society, it can largely influence the dynamics of the entire society for the simple reason that the elites hold the best strategies in the given situation, and thus they become key target nodes for others to communicate with, and follow. For our purposes, an agent is a leader if at least one agent is following, and thus acting on his advice. The influence of a leader is measured by the number of followers he has. Agents who are not leaders are simply coined “followers”. However, leaders can follow other leaders, thereby creating a leadership structure. Certainly, the leadership structure, and even which particular agents are leaders at all, is often very dynamic (mostly because the success of a certain strategy is determined by the context of the strategies used by the other agents).

One of the most ubiquitous mechanisms guiding people in deciding whom, or what to follow is reinforcement learningKLM96 , which is a mechanism for statistical inference created through repeated interactions with the environment. For example, in iterated situations/games, it can be argued that we all monitor our social circle, and “score” our acquaintances, including ourselves, based on past performance (success measure). We then take more seriously, and often follow those with a higher score (success rate)SP00 .

In order to study the scenario described above, in this Letter we use a well known multi-agent model of competition, the Minority GameCZ97 ; SMR99 ; JHH99  (MG), which we modify to include inter-agent communications/influences across a social network. The two main questions we address here are: 1) What type of leadership structure is generated? and 2) Can the effects of inter-agent communications aggregate up to the level of the collective and affect its behavior?

The original MG is an abstraction of a market played by agents with bounded rationality, inspired by the El Farol bar problem introduced by Brian W. ArthurA94 . In this iterated game, at every step, $`N`$ agents must choose between two different options, symbolized by A and B, e.g. “buy” and “sell”. Only agents in the minority group get a reward. The agents have access to global information, which is the identity of the minority group for the past $`m`$ rounds. Each agent bases his choice on a set of $`S`$ strategies available to them. A strategy, which is an agent’s ‘way of thinking’, is a prediction A94  for outcome A or B, in response to all possible histories of length $`m`$. The strategies are distributed randomly among agents, and thus in general each agent has different set of $`S`$ strategies. They make their next choice in the game using reinforcement learning: every agent keeps a score for each of the $`S`$ strategies which he then increments by one each round if that strategy correctly predicted the minority outcome (regardless of usage). The strategy used to make the new choice is the one with the best score up to that time. If two, or more strategies share the best score, then one of those strategies is picked randomly. Previously, the effects of local information in the MG were studied both with reinforcement learning type PBC00  and non-reinforcement learning type EZ00 ; KSB00 ; S00  of agent communication mechanisms on Kauffman networks K93 , and with non-reinforcement learning type of mechanisms on linear chains KSB00 ; S00 .

In our model, a social network of agents is described by a graph with vertices representing the agents, and edges representing acquaintanceship between pairs of agents. This network of acquaintances forms the substrate network (G), or skeleton for inter-agent communications SP00 ; PBC00 ; EZ00 ; KSB00 ; S00 ; NM92 . An edge $`ab`$ in $`𝐆`$ means that agents $`a`$ and $`b`$ may exchange game-relevant information. However, it does not indicate whether the exchanges influence the action by any of the involved agents. That information is modeled by a second network, the influence network $`(𝐅)`$, which is a directed subset of $`𝐆`$, and in which an edge $`ab`$, pointing from $`a`$ to $`b`$, means that agent $`a`$ acts on the advice of agent $`b`$ when deciding the minority choice. In the competitive environment of the stock market, Kullman, Kertész and Kaski, by studying time-dependent cross-correlations have recently shown the existence of such a directed network of influence among companies($`𝐅`$) based on data taken from the New York Stock Exchange KKK02 . We do not, in general, know the precise topology of the social networks. However, it is known that social networks have a small-world character WS98 ; W99 ; JGN01 . Here we take $`𝐆`$ to be an Erdős - Rényi (ER) random graph with link probability $`p`$. An ER random graph shows the small world effect, since the diameter of the graph increases only logarithmically with the number of vertices N00  and the nodes also have a well defined average degree, $`pN`$, which results from cognitive limitation JGN01 . Studies using other types of network topologies, which are more suited to describe social networks (one drawback of ER is its low clustering coefficient WS98 ) will be presented in future publications. Just as in the original MG, in our model, in order to make his next decision, each agent uses his best performing strategy to predict what the next minority choice will be. However, he does not necessarily act on that prediction. Instead, the prediction simply constitutes the agent’s opinion, which he then shares with all his first neighbors on the substrate network $`𝐆`$. This is done by all agents simultaneously, and thus every agent obtains as information the predictions of all their first neighbors. Each agent then uses this information to make their final choice, via reinforcement learning: they keep scores of the prediction performance of all their first neighbors and themselves, and update the scores after every round by incrementing the scores of the agents whose prediction was correct. Each agent then acts on the prediction/opinion of the neighboring agent with the highest score. Of course, if they have a higher score than any of their neighbors, then they act on their own prediction.

The game is initialized by fixing at random $`S`$ strategies for each agent, an arbitrary initial history string, and a fixed instance of the substrate network $`𝐆`$. After many iterations, the game evolution becomes insensitive to the particular initial history string. However, it may remain sensitive to the quenched disorders in the strategy space of the $`NS`$ strategies that are used, and in the quenched disorder associated with the particular social network chosen. Thus, there are four relevant parameters in this game: $`N`$, $`S`$, $`m`$, and $`p[0,1]`$. Of course, in reality the substrate network can also change (we make new friends and others fade away). However, we assume its dynamics to be much slower than that of $`𝐅`$, and therefore it is neglected here. As defined previously, an agent $`i`$ is a leader if it has at least one follower, $`j`$, and thus agent $`j`$ follows through action what agent $`i`$ suggests. For this to happen, $`i`$ has to have the largest prediction score among the acquaintances of $`j`$, which are defined as the $`k_j`$ edges $`j`$ has in $`𝐆`$. In an ER graph, the number of $`k_j`$ links has a Poisson distribution with an average value at $`\lambda =pN`$, and an exponential tail. An agent $`j`$ will follow only one agent’s opinion to decide his action, and thus its number of out-links is always one, $`k_j^{(out)}=1`$. However, the number of in-links for agent $`j`$, $`k_j^{(in)}`$, can be any number between $`0`$ and $`k_j`$, according to the number of agents acting on his advice. Fig.1 shows the in-degree distribution for various numbers of agents $`N`$, network connectivity $`p`$, and memory length $`m`$. The first striking observation from Fig.1a) is that over a wide range of parameters the in-link distribution is described by a power-law with a sharp cut-off. Thus, the average number of leaders with $`k`$ followers, $`N_k`$, is a scale-free distribution AB02 . This happens in spite of the fact that the substrate network, which is an ER graph is not a scale free network, and therefore it was not introduced a priori into the underlying structure. The scale-free character of the influence network $`𝐅`$ is selected for by the reinforcement learning nature of the agent-agent interaction rules. The fact that a broad scale-free structure is selected on the back of a Poisson distributed network, seriously limits the size of the leadership. Indeed, Fig.1d), which shows the non-leaders, or followers, expresses this fact: the pure followers constitute over 90% of the population for the cases presented in Fig.1a).

Plotting $`N_k/N_1`$, all the curves can be collapsed in the scaling regime up to their cut-offs, indicating that $`N_k(N,m;p)k^\beta N_1(N,m;p)`$. The power of the decay, $`\beta `$ is very close to unity, which means that $`kN_k`$ is independent of $`k`$ and the other parameters in the scaling regime. Since $`k`$ is the influence of a leader with $`k`$ followers, $`kN_k`$ represents the total influence of the $`k`$-th layer in the leadership hierarchy. The above observation therefore means that all layers of the hierarchy are equally influential; influence is evenly distributed among all levels of the leadership hierarchy. This result is robust, and insensitive to the particular parameters, even in the low $`m`$ (memory) regime. Here, however, oscillations build up around the $`1/k`$ behavior which still serves as a backbone for the leadership structure, but it becomes less obvious as $`m`$ is decreased, see Fig.1b).

Another important observation is that $`N_1(N,m;p)`$ depends strongly only on $`p`$ and not on $`N`$ or $`m`$, thus $`N_1(N,m;p)=a(p)`$, as shown in Fig. 1c). Therefore, we have

$$N_k(N,m;p)=k^\beta a(p)f_k(N,m;p).$$
(1)
The fact that $`N_1(N,m;p)`$ is virtually independent of $`N`$, means that if the number of agents is increased, the leadership structure and size in the scaling regime will not change! What changes though, is the number of the “sheep” or followers, which is $`N_0`$. It will grow in proportion to $`N`$, as seen in Fig.1d). Also, the cut-off at the high-$`k`$ end of the distribution will occur at larger $`k`$ as $`N`$ is increased. The deviation of the function $`f_k(N,m;p)`$ from a constant accounts for the fluctuations in the leadership structure which vanish (the fluctuations) with increasing $`m`$. This is due to the fact that the strategy space suffers a combinatorial explosion as $`m`$ is increased (there are in total $`2^{2^m}`$ strategies), and the agents’ strategies therefore become highly uncorrelated CZ97 ; SMR99 ; JHH99 .

This suggests that the results for large $`m`$ can be reproduced if the agents simply play a Random Choice Game ( RCG) on the network. In a RCG, agents do not use strategies, but instead just toss a coin when making predictions. Indeed, Fig. 1a) shows that the RCG on the ER network produces the same scale - free backbone of the leadership structure. Thus, in our model the closeness to the scale-free backbone is determined by the level of mutual de-correlation of agents’ strategies. This is to say that increased trait diversity (strategy space) leads to stable scale-free leadership structure.

Although the leadership structure is stable for large $`m`$, the position of an individual agent in the leadership hierarchy is not. By computing the time correlations present in the number of in-links we can show that the average lifetime of an agent in a particular leadership position is short for large $`m`$, as detailed in Ref. proc . In contrast, at low $`m`$ values, leaders become frozen in their positions. In other words, in the low $`m`$ regime, where trait diversity is small, as in a dictatorship, where agents’ action space is severely limited, leaders “live” longer in their positions.

Next, we briefly study the global performance of the collective on the network. Consider choice A as the reference option, and denote by $`A(t)`$ the attendance, or the number of agents choosing option A at time $`t`$. One of the most frequently used measures for a “world utility” function for the collective WT02  is the variance $`\sigma `$ of the fluctuations in the time series of $`A(t)`$. In the language of economics, it is the volatility of the market, and from a systems design point of view WT02  it is the quantity that we ultimately want to minimize.

As mentioned before, this game has two types of quenched disorder embedded into it. A natural question then is if one can find/evolve networks that achieve zero, or almost zero volatility given a group and their strategies, or, alternatively, if one can find strategies that achieve zero, or near zero volatility, given a particular substrate network. To answer this question, we performed simple random searches in one of the quenched disorder spaces (network or strategy) keeping the other quench disorder fixed (strategy or network). An example with $`m=2`$ and $`m=8`$ is displayed in Fig.2a) as a function of connectivity $`p`$. The first conclusion is that overall, the collective does worse with “smart agents” (large $`m`$) on highly connected networks if they exchange information about their strategies. However, in the low $`m`$ regime ($`m=2`$), the system efficiency can improve not only beyond that of the standard MG, but also beyond that of the RCG without network (blue line with $`\sigma _{RCG}=0.5\sqrt{N}`$), and even beyond the standard MG’s best performance (which is at a different value of $`m=6`$ for these parameters). Thus, a networked, low trait diversity system can be more effective as a collective, than a sophisticated group. Note that the optimal $`p`$ values are still much larger than the critical value for the giant component in the ER network, which is $`1/N`$, and thus we need well connected single component graphs in order to observe the collective efficiency emerge from the agent-agent interactions. However, the optimal values are actually in the realistic range for social networks, giving for the average number of contacts $`\lambda =pN1020`$. If $`N`$ is varied the optimum range for $`p`$ shifts such that optimum value of $`pN`$ remains constant.

Fig.2b) shows a sample time-series from the optimal connectivity region. Notice the low volatility compared to the best performance of the MG (in the background). In the standard MG the variations in $`\sigma `$ at the best performance point are low, and even an extended search (500 samples) in the strategy disorder space could not generate $`\sigma `$-s lower than 2.0, while in contrast, time series such as the red one in Fig.2b) are easily generated within 50 random samples in the optimal connectivity region. This emerging collective efficiency can be understood in terms of the crowd-anticrowd description of the MG, as introduced by Johnson, Hart and Hui JHH99 . In the MG, low $`m`$ means that only a small number of different strategies are possible, thus many agents are forced to use the same strategy and thus they behave as a crowd, or a group. This grouping effect generates the large volatility in the ordinary MG. When the game is played on a network, however, an agent, even if it shares the same strategy as the others in a large group, now has the possibility to listen to some other agents, and possibly even from other groups. Thus, it is no longer forced to behave the same way as its own group, thereby breaking the grouping behavior. If, however, $`p`$ is too large, there is a grouping behavior appearing due to the network, because an agent will have too many followers if his score is the highest, creating a group on the network. The two crowding effects compete and a balance between them is reached in the optimum connectivity region.

In summary, we have shown that the evolution of multi-agent games can strongly depend on the nature of the agent’s information resources, including local information gathered on the social network, a network whose structure in turn is influenced by the fate of the game itself. In our study, we allowed for this dynamic coupling between the game and the network by using reinforcement learning as an ubiquitous mechanism for inter-agent communications. Our observations are: 1) if reinforcement learning is used, a scale-free leadership structure can be created, even on the backbone of non-scale free networks; 2) in low trait diversity collectives, enhanced collective efficiency may appear, making this effect worthwhile for systems design studies WT02 .

Z.T. and M.A. are supported by the Department of Energy under contract W-7405-ENG-36, K.E.B. is supported by the NSF-DMR through 0074613, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. G.K. is supported by the NSF-DMR through DMR-0113049 and the Research Corporation through RI0761.


text:
# Inverse Limits of Rings and Multiplier Rings

## Introduction

Given a sequence $`(R_n)`$ of rings with connecting morphisms (i.e. ring homomorphisms) $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ for all $`n`$ (setting $`R_0=R_1`$ and $`\pi _1=\mathrm{id}`$) we define the inverse limit as the ring $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ of strings $`x=(x_n)`$ in $`R_n`$, i.e. sequences such that $`\pi _n(x_n)=x_{n1}`$ for all $`n`$. For each $`m`$ there is a natural morphism $`\rho _m:\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_nR_m`$ (the coordinate evaluation) obtained by evaluating a string $`x=(x_n)`$ at $`m`$, and we see that $`\pi _n\rho _n=\rho _{n1}`$ for every $`n`$. The ring $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ has the universal property that for each coherent sequence of morphisms $`\sigma _n:SR_n`$ from a ring $`S`$ (i.e. $`\pi _n\sigma _n=\sigma _{n1}`$ for all $`n`$) there is a unique morphism $`\sigma :SR`$ such that $`\sigma _n=\rho _n\sigma `$ for all $`n`$.

If for each $`m`$ we let $`S_m=\rho _m(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n)R_m`$, then $`\pi _n(S_n)=S_{n1}`$ and $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S_n`$. This shows that every ring which can be obtained as an inverse limit can also be obtained as an inverse limit in which each morphism $`\pi _n`$ is surjective. We shall refer to this case as a surjective inverse limit, and will concentrate exclusively on it.

By their very construction inverse limits tend to be large. For example, if the morphisms are not eventually constant, an inverse limit will be uncountable even if the rings are finite. This might be considered a detracting factor. In this paper we shall try to redeem the construction by showing that in many instances multiplier rings (which we expect to be large) can be obtained as inverse limits. Since the structural properties of inverse limits are good, we hereby obtain information about multiplier rings that would otherwise seem unreachable.

We prove in Section 1 that a surjective inverse limit of exchange rings is again an exchange ring. In Section 2 we show that the Bass stable rank of a surjective inverse limit of rings $`(R_n)`$ is the supremum of the Bass stable ranks of the $`R_n`$’s. In Section 3 we extend this to an important infinite case by proving that the surjective inverse limit of quasi-Bass rings is again a quasi-Bass ring.

In Sections 4 and 5 we establish the basic properties of approximate units and multiplier rings that we shall need. In particular we show that for every proper morphism $`\phi :RS`$ between non-degenerate rings there is a unique extension $`\overline{\phi }:(R)(S)`$ between their multiplier rings. We also show that $`\overline{\phi }`$ is strictly continuous, cf. . If $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital, i.e. has a countable approximate unit, and $`\phi `$ is surjective we show that $`\overline{\phi }`$ is surjective as well, thereby giving an algebraic analogue of the Tietze extension theorem (see e.g. ).

Finally in Section 6 we combine our results by showing that many multiplier rings can be obtained as inverse limits. Thus if $`(R_n)`$ is a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital rings with surjective morphisms $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ we prove that $`(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$. Going further we show that if a semi-prime $`\sigma `$unital ring $`R`$ has two sequences of ideals $`(I_n)`$ and $`(J_n)`$, one increasing to $`R`$, the other decreasing to $`0`$, such that $`I_nJ_n=0`$ and $`R/J_n`$ is unital for every $`n`$, then $`(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R/J_n`$.

The inspiration for this paper comes from , where a similar list of results are obtained for $`C^{}`$algebras. In this category one must of course consider only bounded strings as elements in the inverse limit, so although our results are the same as in , our proofs are completely different - sometimes harder, sometimes easier. It is worth mentioning that inverse limits of $`C^{}`$algebras in the algebraic sense (with arbitrary, unbounded strings) have been explored by Phillips in  and  to obtain examples of pro $`C^{}`$algebras. The aim was to create a non-commutative analogue of normal spaces that are not necessarily locally compact. The unpublished notes  by Goodearl have also influenced our work, although we fail to answer the question that motivated them: Will a surjective inverse limit of separative exchange rings itself be separative? A negative answer would provide a solution to the Fundamental Separativity Problem (see ).

## 1. Exchange Rings

Recall from  and  that a (unital) ring $`R`$ is an exchange ring if for each $`x`$ in $`R`$ there is an idempotent $`e`$ in $`xR`$ such that $`1x=(1e)(1y)`$ for some $`y`$ in $`R`$. This is not the original definition, which concerns a finite exchange property for $`R`$modules, see , but an equivalent formulation better suited for our purposes.

The class of exchange rings is pleasantly large and includes all (von Neumann) regular rings, all $`\pi `$regular rings, the semi-perfect rings (identified with the semi-local exchange rings) and the $`C^{}`$algebras of real rank zero (identified with the exchange $`C^{}`$algebras by \[4, Theorem 7.2\]).

We shall show that every surjective inverse limit of exchange rings again has the exchange property. As an hors d’œuvre we present the following simpler result from  (see also \[19, Example 1.10\]). Recall that an element $`x`$ in a ring $`R`$ is said to be *regular* provided that $`x=xyx`$ for some $`y`$ in $`R`$. We shall refer to such an element $`y`$ as a *partial inverse* for $`x`$. If all elements of $`R`$ are regular we say that $`R`$ is *(von Neumann) regular*.

###### Proposition 1.1.

(Goodearl) If $`R`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence $`(R_n)`$ of regular rings, then $`R`$ is also regular.

###### Proof.

Put $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ and let $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ denote the connecting morphisms. If $`x=(x_n)`$ is an element in $`R`$ and if for all $`k<n`$ we have found elements $`y_k`$ in $`R_k`$ such that $`\pi _k(y_k)=y_{k1}`$ and $`x_ky_kx_k=x_k`$, we choose an element $`y`$ in $`R_n`$ with $`\pi _n(y)=y_{n1}`$. Then $`u=x_nx_nyx_n\mathrm{ker}\pi _n`$, and since this ideal is a regular ring in its own right we can find a $`v`$ in $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _n`$ such that $`uvu=u`$. By computation

$`x_nx_nyx_n=(x_nx_nyx_n)v(x_nx_nyx_n)`$
$`=`$ $`x_nvx_nx_nvx_nyx_nx_nyx_nvx_n+x_nyx_nvx_nyx_n,`$
and it follows that the element $`y_n=y+vyx_nvvx_ny+yx_nvx_ny_n`$ is a partial inverse for $`x_n`$ with $`\pi _n(y_n)=y_{n1}`$.

By induction we can therefore find an element $`y=(y_n)`$ in $`R`$ such that $`x=xyx`$, so every element in $`R`$ is regular, as desired. ∎

Note that in the definition of an exchange ring the role of the unit is superfluous. Thus we say that a (not necessarily unital) ring $`R`$ is an exchange ring if for each $`x`$ in $`R`$ there is an idempotent $`e`$ in $`xR`$ such that $`x=e+yey`$ for some $`y`$ in $`R`$. This idea was successfully exploited by Ara in . If $`I`$ is a non-unital exchange ring embedded as a two-sided ideal of a unital ring $`R`$, we will adopt the terminology from  and say that $`I`$ is an *exchange ideal of* $`R`$.

###### Lemma 1.2.

Let $`I`$ be a two-sided exchange ideal in a unital ring $`R`$. If $`x`$ and $`y`$ are elements in $`R`$ and $`p`$ is an idempotent such that $`pxyI`$, there is an idempotent $`q`$ in $`I`$ and an element $`r`$ in $`pRp`$ with $`pr`$ in $`I`$, such that both elements $`a=(pq)x`$ and $`b=yr`$ are regular and partial inverses for one another. By construction $`apxI`$ and $`bypI`$, so $`abpI`$.

This is a restatement of \[1, Lemma 2.1\]. The result is obtained by applying the exchange condition to the element $`ppxyp`$ in $`pIp`$ to get $`q`$.

If $`R`$ is a non-unital ring, it is sometimes convenient to adjoin a unit in order to obtain the ring $`R^+=R`$, with elementwise addition and multiplication given by the rule $`(x,n)(y,m)=(xy+mx+ny,nm)`$. In this way $`R`$ sits as a two-sided ideal in $`R^+`$ with quotient $``$.

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`\pi :RS`$ be a surjective morphism between (not necessarily unital) exchange rings, and let $`\overline{x},\overline{y}`$ and $`\overline{z}`$ be elements in $`S`$ such that with $`\overline{e}=\overline{x}\overline{y}`$ we have

$$\overline{y}=\overline{y}\overline{e},1\overline{e}=(1\overline{x})(1\overline{z}),(1\overline{z})\overline{e}=0.$$

For each choice of $`x`$ in $`R`$ with $`\pi (x)=\overline{x}`$ there are then elements $`y`$ and $`z`$ in $`R`$ with $`\pi (y)=\overline{y}`$ and $`\pi (z)=\overline{z}`$, such that with $`e=xy`$ we have

$$y=ye,1e=(1x)(1z),(1z)e=0.$$

###### Proof.

This proof amalgamates arguments from \[1, Theorem 2.2\] and \[28, Proposition 1.1\], which are included for convenience. As usual we shall write $`pq`$ for idempotents $`p`$ and $`q`$ such that $`pq=qp=p`$. Moreover, if $`R`$ is not unital we adjoin a unit to obtain the unital ring $`R^+=R`$ and we identify $`S`$ with an exchange ideal in $`S^+`$, setting $`\pi (1)=1`$.

Observe first that $`\overline{e}`$ is an idempotent by necessity, since $`\overline{e}\overline{e}=\overline{x}\overline{y}\overline{e}=\overline{x}\overline{y}=\overline{e}`$. Thus also $`\overline{p}_1=\overline{y}\overline{x}`$ is an idempotent. Since $`R`$ is an exchange ring $`\overline{p}_1`$ can be lifted to an idempotent $`p_1`$ in $`R`$ by \[1, Theorem 2.2\]. Let $`y_1`$ and $`z_1`$ be any lifts in $`R`$ of the elements $`\overline{y}`$ and $`\overline{z}`$. By Lemma 1.2 (with $`I=\mathrm{ker}(\pi )`$ and exchanging the roles of $`x`$ and $`y`$) we can find regular elements $`a_1`$ and $`b_1`$ in $`R`$ that are partial inverses for one another, such that $`a_1=(p_1q_1)y_1`$ and $`b_1=xr_1`$ for some idempotent $`q_1`$ in $`I`$ and some $`r_1`$ in $`p_1Rp_1`$ with $`\pi (r_1)=\overline{p}_1`$. Thus $`e_1=b_1a_1`$ is an idempotent with

$$\pi (e_1)=\overline{x}\overline{p}_1\overline{p}_1\overline{y}=\overline{e}\overline{e}\overline{e}=\overline{e}.$$

Put $`z_2=1(1z_1)(1e_1)`$, so that $`\pi (z_2)=1(1\overline{z})(1\overline{e})=\overline{z}`$. Observe that $`\overline{p}_2=(1\overline{z})(1\overline{x})`$ is an idempotent in $`1S`$ and lift it to an idempotent $`p_2`$ in $`1R`$. Again by Lemma 1.2 there are regular elements $`a_2`$ and $`b_2`$ in $`1R`$, partial inverses for one another, such that $`a_2=(p_2q_2)(1z_2)`$ and $`b_2=(1x)r_2`$ for some idempotent $`q_2`$ in $`I`$ and some element $`r_2`$ in $`p_2R^+p_2`$ with $`\pi (r_2)=\overline{p}_2=(1\overline{z})(1\overline{x})`$ (so that $`r_21R`$ as well).

The idempotent $`f=b_2a_2`$ belongs to $`(1x)(1R)(1z_2)`$ and satisfies

$$\pi (f)=(1\overline{x})\overline{p}_2(1\overline{z})=(1\overline{x})(1\overline{z})(1\overline{x})(1\overline{z})=1\overline{e}.$$

Since $`f=f(1e_1)`$ by construction of $`z_2`$, we may consider the idempotent $`(1e_1)f`$, where now $`(1e_1)f1e_1`$. Thus $`q=(1e_1)(1f)`$ is an idempotent in $`I`$ with $`q1e_1`$.

Now apply the exchange property to the element $`qxq`$ in the corner ring $`qRq=qR^+q(I)`$ to find an idempotent $`t`$ in $`qRq`$ such that $`t=qxqcq`$ and $`qt=q(1x)qdq`$ for some elements $`c,d`$ in $`R`$. Put $`s=xqct`$, and note that $`sq=s`$ and $`qs=t`$, whence $`s^2=s`$. Since $`tq1e_1`$, the element $`e_2=e_1+(1e_1)s`$ is an idempotent in $`R`$ with $`e_1e_2`$ and $`\pi (e_2)=\overline{e}`$. Let $`y_2=r_1a_1(1s)+qct`$. Then $`\pi (y_2)=\overline{p}_1\overline{y}=\overline{y}\overline{x}\overline{y}=\overline{y}`$. Moreover,

(1)
$$xy_2=b_1a_1(1s)+s=e_1(1s)+s=e_1+(1e_1)s=e_2.$$

The argument in \[1, Theorem 2.2\] proceeds to show that the right ideal $`A=e_2R^++(1x)R^+`$ equals $`R^+`$, and does so by showing that both $`1q`$ and $`q`$ belong to $`A`$. All we need is the last assertion, but there seems no easy way to obtain the specific decomposition of $`q`$ except by the full argument.

Evidently $`e_2e_1A`$ and $`e_2(1e_1)A`$. We know that $`e_2e_1=e_1`$, and therefore $`e_2(1e_1)=e_2e_1=(1e_1)s=se_1s`$. Consequently both $`e_1A`$ and $`sA`$. Now $`f=(1x)r_2a_2A`$, so also $`(1e_1)f=fe_1fA`$. It follows that $`1q=e_1+(1e_1)fA`$. As $`sA`$ and $`t=qs`$ we now conclude that $`t=s(1q)sA`$. Since

$$qt=q(1x)qdq=(1x)qdq(1q)(1x)qdq(1x)R+A=A,$$

we finally see that $`q=qt+tA`$. We can therefore write

(2)
$$q=e_2u+(1x)v$$

for some elements $`u`$ and $`v`$ in $`Rq`$. In particular, both elements belong to $`I`$.

Put $`z_3=1(r_2a_2+v)`$ and $`e_3=e_1(1f)+u`$, and note that $`\pi (1z_3)=\overline{p}_2\overline{p}_2(1\overline{z})=(1\overline{z})(1\overline{x})(1\overline{z})=1\overline{z}`$ and $`\pi (e_3)=\overline{e}\overline{e}=\overline{e}`$. Moreover, by (2)

(3)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill (1x)(1z_3)+e_2e_3=& b_2a_2+(1x)v+e_2e_1(1f)+e_2u\hfill \\ \hfill =& f+e_1(1f)+q=f+e_1(1f)+(1e_1)(1f)=1.\hfill \end{array}$$

We can now make our final choices as follows:

$$e=e_2+e_2e_3(1e_2),y=y_2e,z=1(1z_3)(1e_2)(1e).$$

It is easy to check that

$$\pi (e)=\overline{e},\pi (y)=\overline{y}\overline{e}=\overline{y},\pi (z)=1(1\overline{z})(1\overline{e})(1\overline{e})=\overline{z}.$$

Moreover, by (1) and (3) we have the desired relations:

$`xy`$ $`=xy_2e=e_2e=e`$
$`ye`$ $`=y\text{and}(1z)e=0`$
$`(1x)(1z)`$ $`=(1x)(1z_3)(1e_2)(1e)=(1e_2e_3)(1e_2)(1e)`$
$`=(1e_2e_2e_3(1e_2))(1e)=(1e)(1e)=1e.`$
###### Theorem 1.4.

If $`R`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence $`(R_n)`$ of exchange rings, then $`R`$ is also an exchange ring.

###### Proof.

Consider an element $`x`$ in $`R`$, identified with a string $`(x_n)`$ in $`R_n`$. We must then find an idempotent $`e=(e_n)`$ in $`R`$ such that $`exR`$ and $`1e(1x)(1R)`$.

Since $`R_1`$ is an exchange ring we can find an idempotent $`e_1`$ and elements $`y_1,z_1`$ such that $`e_1=x_1y_1`$ and $`1e_1=(1x_1)(1z_1)`$. Evidently we may also assume that $`y_1=y_1e_1`$ and $`(1z_1)e_1=0`$.

Assume now that for some $`n`$ we have found elements $`y_k`$ and $`z_k`$ in $`R_k`$ for $`0kn`$, such that $`\pi _k(y_k)=y_{k1}`$ and $`\pi _k(z_k)=z_{k1}`$ for all $`k2`$, and moreover with $`e_k=x_ky_k`$ we have the relations

$$y_k=y_ke_k,1e_k=(1x_k)(1z_k),(1z_k)e_k=0,$$

for all $`k`$. By Lemma 1.3 we can then find elements $`y_{n+1}`$ and $`z_{n+1}`$ in $`R_{n+1}`$ with $`\pi _{n+1}(y_{n+1})=y_n`$ and $`\pi _{n+1}(z_{n+1})=z_n`$, such that with $`e_{n+1}=x_{n+1}y_{n+1}`$ we have

$$y_{n+1}=y_{n+1}e_{n+1},1e_{n+1}=(1x_{n+1})(1z_{n+1}),(1z_{n+1})e_{n+1}=0.$$

By induction this defines elements $`y=(y_n)`$ and $`z=(z_n)`$ in $`R`$, such that the element $`e=xy`$ is an idempotent and $`1e=(1x)(1z)`$, as desired. ∎

## 2. Bass Stable Rank

Let $`R`$ be a unital ring. As usual we say that a row $`𝐚=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)`$ in $`R^d`$ is *right unimodular* provided that $`a_1R+\mathrm{}+a_dR=R`$. To facilitate the computations with rows in $`R^d`$ we introduce the $`R`$valued inner product $`𝐚𝐛=a_ib_i`$, so that $`𝐚`$ is right unimodular precisely if $`𝐚𝐛=1`$ for some $`𝐛`$ in $`R^d`$. Also, if $`𝐚=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_d)R^d`$ and $`sR`$, we write $`s𝐚=(sa_1,\mathrm{},sa_d)`$.

Recall from  (see also e.g. ) that the Bass stable rank of a unital ring $`R`$ is the smallest number $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)`$ such that for each $`d\mathrm{bsr}(R)`$ every right unimodular row $`𝐚=(a_0,\mathrm{},a_d)`$ in $`R^{d+1}`$ can be reduced to a right unimodular row in $`R^d`$ of the form $`𝐚^r+a_0𝐛`$ for a suitable row $`𝐛`$ in $`R^d`$. Here $`𝐚^r=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ and we regard $`R^d`$ as a two-sided module over $`R`$. Evidently this definition favours right unimodular rows and should be called the right Bass rank, but it turns out that the analogous concept for left unimodular rows gives the same lower bound ( ). In particular $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)=1`$ (in which case we say that $`R`$ is a Bass ring) if every equation $`ax+b=1`$ implies that $`a+by`$ is invertible in $`R`$ for a suitable $`y`$, cf. .

###### Lemma 2.1.

Let $`R`$ be a unital ring with $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$. Given rows $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐱`$ in $`R^d`$ with $`𝐚𝐱=1s`$ for some $`s`$ in $`R`$, there exist rows $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐲`$ in $`R^d`$ and $`z`$ in $`R`$ such that

$$(𝐚+s𝐛)(𝐱+𝐲sz)=1.$$

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$, the equation $`𝐚𝐱+s1=1`$ produces rows $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐲`$ in $`R^d`$ such that $`(𝐚+s𝐛)𝐲=1`$. Define the elements $`y=𝐚𝐲,b=𝐛𝐲`$ and $`z=1𝐛𝐱`$, and note that $`y+sb=1`$. By computation we therefore get

$`(𝐚+s𝐛)(𝐱+𝐲sz)=1s+ysz+s(1z)+sbsz`$
$`=`$ $`1s+(y+sb)sz+s(1z)=1s+sz+s(1z)=1,`$
as desired. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2.

Consider a surjective morphism $`\pi :RS`$ between unital rings, where $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$. Assume that $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐱`$ are unital rows in $`R^{d+1}`$ such that $`𝐚𝐱=1`$, and that we have chosen rows $`\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`\overline{𝐲}`$ in $`S^d`$ such that $`(\pi (𝐚^r)+\pi (a_0)\overline{𝐛})\overline{𝐲}=1`$ . We can then find $`𝐛`$ and $`𝐲`$ in $`R^d`$ such that $`\pi (𝐛)=\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`\pi (𝐲)=\overline{𝐲}`$, and moreover $`(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛)𝐲=1`$ .

###### Proof.

Take any lifts $`𝐛^{}`$ of $`\overline{𝐛}`$ and $`𝐲^{}`$ of $`\overline{𝐲}`$. Then $`(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})𝐲^{}=1t`$ for some $`t`$ in $`I=\mathrm{ker}\pi `$. Since $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$ we can use Lemma 2.1 to find $`𝐬`$ and $`𝐭`$ in $`I^d`$ such that

(4)
$$(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{}+𝐬)(𝐲^{}+𝐭)=1.$$

¿From the original condition, setting $`b=x_0𝐛^{}𝐱^r`$, we get

$$1=𝐚^r𝐱^r+a_0x_0=(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})𝐱^r+a_0b.$$

It follows from (4) that with $`s=𝐬(𝐲^{}+𝐭)`$ in $`I`$ we have

(5)
$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& =(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})(𝐲^{}+𝐭)+s\hfill \\ & =(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})(𝐲^{}+𝐭)+(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})𝐱^rs+a_0bs\hfill \\ & =(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{})(𝐲^{}+𝐭+𝐱^rs)+a_0bs.\hfill \end{array}$$

Using Lemma 2.1 on (5) we find rows $`𝐮`$ in $`R^d`$ and $`𝐯`$ in $`(Ra_0bsR)^dI^d`$ such that

$$1=(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛^{}+a_0bs𝐮)(𝐲^{}+𝐭+𝐯).$$

Clearly the rows $`𝐛=𝐛^{}+bs𝐮`$ and $`𝐲=𝐲^{}+𝐭+𝐯`$ verify the desired conditions. ∎

###### Theorem 2.3.

If $`R`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence $`(R_n)`$ of rings with $`\mathrm{bsr}(R_n)d`$ for all $`n`$, then also $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ with $`R_0=R_1`$ and $`\pi _1=\mathrm{id}`$, and consider an equation $`𝐚𝐱=1`$ in $`R^{d+1}`$. Identify the rows $`𝐚`$ and $`𝐱`$ with strings $`(𝐚_n)`$ and $`(𝐱_n)`$ in $`R_n^{d+1}`$. Write $`𝐚_n=(a_{n,0},\mathrm{},a_{n,d})`$. Since $`\mathrm{bsr}(R_1)d`$ there are rows $`𝐛_1`$ and $`𝐲_1`$ in $`R_1^d`$ such that $`(𝐚_1^r+a_{1,0}𝐛_1)𝐲_1=1`$. Assume now for some $`n`$ that we have found rows $`𝐛_k`$ and $`𝐲_k`$ in $`R_k^d`$ for $`1kn`$ such that $`(𝐚_k^r+a_{k,0}𝐛_k)𝐲_k=1`$, and moreover $`\pi _k(𝐛_k)=𝐛_{k1}`$ and $`\pi _k(𝐲_k)=𝐲_{k1}`$ for all $`k`$. By Lemma 2.2 there are rows $`𝐛_{n+1}`$ and $`𝐲_{n+1}`$ in $`R_{n+1}^d`$ such that $`(𝐚_{n+1}^r+a_{n+1,0}𝐛_{n+1})𝐲_{n+1}=1`$, and moreover $`\pi _{n+1}(𝐛_{n+1})=𝐛_n`$ and $`\pi _{n+1}(𝐲_{n+1})=𝐲_n`$. By induction we can then define rows $`𝐛=(𝐛_n)`$ and $`𝐲=(𝐲_n)`$ in $`R^d`$ such that $`(𝐚^r+a_0𝐛)𝐲=1`$ in $`R`$, which proves that $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$, as desired. ∎

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$, where all the morphisms $`R_nR_{n1}`$ are surjective. Then

$$\mathrm{bsr}(R)=\underset{n}{sup}\mathrm{bsr}(R_n).$$

###### Proof.

For each $`n`$ the coordinate projections $`\rho _n:RR_n`$ are surjective, whence $`\mathrm{bsr}(R_n)\mathrm{bsr}(R)`$ (see, e.g. \[37, Theorem 4\]). Thus $`sup_n\mathrm{bsr}(R_n)\mathrm{bsr}(R)`$.

For the converse inequality, we may of course assume that $`\mathrm{bsr}(R_n)d`$ for all $`n`$ (and some finite $`d`$). By Theorem 2.3 $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)d`$ as well. ∎

## 3. $`QB`$Rings

As shown in  a $`QB`$ring is an infinite version of a Bass ring, i.e. a ring $`R`$ with $`\mathrm{bsr}(R)=1`$. To arrive at the definition we replace the set $`R^1`$ of invertible elements in $`R`$ with the set $`R_q^1`$ of quasi-invertible elements, where $`uR_q^1`$ if $`(1vu)R(1uw)=0=(1uw)R(1vu)`$ for some $`v,w`$ in $`R`$. (We then write $`1vu1uw`$.) It follows easily that $`u`$ is a (von Neumann) regular element in $`R`$, and that one may take $`v=w`$ and demand that $`u`$ and $`v`$ are partial inverses for one another (i.e. $`u=uvu`$ and $`v=vuv`$). We refer to this situation by saying that $`v`$ is a *quasi-inverse* for $`u`$. The ring $`R`$ is then a quasi-Bass ring (a $`QB`$ring for short) if whenever $`ax+b=1`$ in $`R`$ we can find $`y`$ in $`R`$ such that $`a+byR_q^1`$, cf. the definition of Bass rings in the introduction to Section 2. As with the notion of stable rank, the concept of $`QB`$rings is left-right symmetric, see \[6, Theorem 3.6\].

The theory of $`QB`$rings has been developed in the papers  and  with the aim of extending as much as possible of the theory of Bass rings. The inspiration is the corresponding series of papers  and , in which the theory of $`C^{}`$algebras of topological stable rank one is being extended to the class of extremally rich $`C^{}`$algebras, which are the $`C^{}`$analogues of $`QB`$rings.

We are going to prove that any surjective inverse limit of $`QB`$rings is again a $`QB`$ring. To establish this in full detail turns out to be quite intricate, and we would have preferred an easier, more accessible proof. The basic techniques come from \[8, Lemmas 1.4 and 1.5\], and we include part of the discussion carried out there. The following Proposition examines the situation in an easier setting, hence gives an idea of what is going on.

In Theorem 3.3 below we are going to use the left-handed version of the concept of a $`QB`$ring. This is done in order to make the techniques developed in  readily accessible. Although it will not be strictly necessary for Proposition 3.1 we have chosen the same version there to avoid confusion.

For the convenience of the reader we are only going to prove the unital versions of these results. The non-unital versions follow by straightforward, but sometimes quite exasperating computations, where invertible and quasi-invertible elements are replaced by adversible and quasi-adversible elements à la Kaplansky, cf. \[6, Section 4\]. Basically an element $`u`$ in a non-unital ring $`R`$ is (left/right/quasi) adversible if $`1u`$ is (left/right/quasi) invertible in some (hence any) unital ring $`\stackrel{~}{R}`$ containing $`R`$ as an ideal.

Recall that a non-unital ring $`I`$ has *stable rank one* if whenever $`(1x)(1a)+b=1`$ in $`I^+`$, where $`x`$, $`aI`$, we can find $`y`$ in $`I`$ such that $`1a+yb(I^+)^1`$.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`(R_n)`$ be a sequence of unital $`QB`$rings, and assume that we have surjective morphisms $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ such that $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _n`$ has stable rank one for every $`n`$. Then $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ is also a $`QB`$ring.

###### Proof.

Arguing along the lines of Theorem 1.4 and Theorem 2.3, it suffices to consider the case of a surjective morphism $`\pi :RS`$, where $`R`$ and $`S`$ are unital $`QB`$rings and $`I=\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ has stable rank one, along with equations $`xa+b=1`$ in $`R`$ and $`\overline{x}\overline{a}+\overline{b}=1`$ in $`S`$, so that $`\pi (a)=\overline{a}`$, $`\pi (b)=\overline{b}`$ and $`\pi (x)=\overline{x}`$. Since $`S`$ is a $`QB`$ring, there are elements $`\overline{y}`$ in $`S`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ in $`S_q^1`$ such that $`\overline{a}+\overline{y}\overline{b}=\overline{u}`$. We wish to find elements $`y`$ in $`R`$ and $`u`$ in $`R_q^1`$ such that $`\pi (y)=\overline{y}`$, $`\pi (u)=\overline{u}`$ and $`a+yb=u`$.

First, by \[6, Proposition 7.1\] lift $`\overline{u}`$ to a quasi-invertible element $`u_1`$ in $`R`$, and let $`y_1`$ be any lift of $`\overline{y}`$. We then get

$$a+y_1b=u_1+t,$$

where $`t\mathrm{ker}\pi =I`$. Next, choose a quasi-inverse $`v_1`$ for $`u_1`$. By computation

$$x(u_1+t)+(1xy_1)b=x(u_1+ty_1b)+b=xa+b=1,$$

so, multiplying left and right with $`u_1`$ and $`v_1`$ we have

$$u_1x(u_1v_1+tv_1)+u_1(1xy_1)bv_1=u_1v_1.$$

Rearranging terms this gives the equation

$$u_1x(1+tv_1)+u_1(1xy_1)bv_1+(1u_1x)(1u_1v_1)=1.$$

By \[6, Lemma 4.6\] we can choose $`t_1`$ and $`s_1`$ both in $`I`$ such that

$$(1+t_1)(1+tv_1)+s_1\left(u_1(1xy_1)bv_1+(1u_1x)(1u_1v_1)\right)=1.$$

Since $`I`$ has stable rank one we can find $`s_2`$ in $`I`$ such that

$$w=(1+tv_1)+s_2s_1\left(u_1(1xy_1)bv_1+(1u_1x)(1u_1v_1)\right)(I^+)^1,$$

and we note that $`1wI`$. It follows that we can write

$$wu_1=u_1+tv_1u_1+sbv_1u_1+0=u_1+(t+sb)v_1u_1,$$

where $`s=s_2s_1u_1(1xy_1)I`$. By \[6, Theorem 2.3\] we have that the element

$$u_2=u_1+w^1(t+sb)(1v_1u_1)R_q^1.$$

Consequently also

$$u=wu_2=wu_1+(t+sb)(1v_1u_1)R_q^1.$$

Moreover, $`\pi (u)=\pi (u_2)=\pi (u_1)=\overline{u}`$. Define $`y=y_1+s`$. Then = $`\pi (y)=\overline{y}`$ and

$`a+yb`$ $`=a+y_1b+sb=u_1+t+sb`$
$`=u_1+(t+sb)v_1u_1+(t+sb)(1v_1u_1)`$
$`=wu_1+(t+sb)(1v_1u_1)=u,`$
as desired. ∎

Let $`R`$ be a unital ring with an ideal $`I`$. Consider an element $`u`$ in $`R_q^1`$ with quasi-inverse $`v`$, so that $`u=uvu`$ and $`v=vuv`$, and if $`p=uv`$ and $`q=vu`$ then $`(1p)(1q)`$. Let $`w`$ be an element in $`(qRq)_q^1`$ such that $`qwI`$, and choose a quasi-inverse $`w^{}`$, satisfying the analogous equations $`w=ww^{}w`$, $`w^{}=w^{}ww^{}`$ and $`(qww^{})(qw^{}w)`$ (whence also $`qw^{}I`$). Observe that $`puww^{}v=u(qww^{})v`$ is an idempotent equivalent to $`qww^{}`$, whence $`(puww^{}v)(qw^{}w)`$. Set

$$p_1=1p,p_2=puww^{}v,q_1=qw^{}w,\text{and}q_2=1q,$$

and note that $`p_2`$, $`q_1I`$.

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`I`$ be an ideal in a unital $`QB`$ring $`R`$. If $`uR_q^1`$ and $`w(qRq)_q^1`$ as in the setup above, we consider an element $`a=uw+t_1+t_2`$, where $`t_ip_iRq_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$. If $`xa+b=1`$ for some elements $`x`$ and $`b`$ in $`R`$, then there is an element $`y`$ in $`I`$ such that $`a+ybR_q^1`$.

###### Proof.

This follows from a verbatim repetition of the arguments in \[8, Lemma 1.4 (ii)\], using the additional assumption that $`p_iRq_iI`$ for $`i=1`$, $`2`$. Observe also that by \[8, Theorem 1.6\] (cf. also \[6, Lemma 6.1\]) we can use the following fact: either $`p_iq_i`$, or else $`p_iRq_i`$ is a $`QB`$corner (for each $`i`$) in the sense of \[6, Definition 5.2\]. ∎

###### Theorem 3.3.

If $`R`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence $`(R_n)`$ of unital $`QB`$rings, then $`R`$ is also a $`QB`$ring.

###### Proof.

As in Proposition 3.1 we only need to consider the case of a surjective morphism $`\pi :RS`$, where $`R`$ and $`S`$ are unital $`QB`$rings, along with equations $`xa+b=1`$ in $`R`$ and $`\overline{x}\overline{a}+\overline{b}=1`$ in $`S`$, so that $`\pi (a)=\overline{a}`$, $`\pi (b)=\overline{b}`$, $`\pi (x)=\overline{x}`$. Since $`S`$ is a $`QB`$ring, there are elements $`\overline{y}`$ in $`S`$ and $`\overline{u}`$ in $`S_q^1`$ such that $`\overline{a}+\overline{y}\overline{b}=\overline{u}`$. We wish to find elements $`y`$ in $`R`$ and $`u`$ in $`R_q^1`$ such that $`\pi (y)=\overline{y}`$, $`\pi (u)=\overline{u}`$ and $`a+yb=u`$.

Lift $`\overline{u}`$ to a quasi-invertible element $`u_1`$ in $`R`$ (again by \[6, Proposition 7.1\]), and let $`y_1`$ be any lift of $`\overline{y}`$. We then get

$$a+y_1b=u_1+t,$$

where $`t\mathrm{ker}\pi =I`$. By computation,

$$x(u_1+t)+(1xy_1)b=x(u_1+ty_1b)+b=xa+b=1.$$

If $`b_1=(1xy_1)b`$ the above equation reads

(6)
$$x(u_1+t)+b_1=1$$

Next, choose a quasi-inverse $`v_1`$ of $`u_1`$, so that $`(1u_1v_1)(1v_1u_1)`$ and $`u_1=u_1v_1u_1`$, $`v_1=v_1u_1v_1`$. Let $`p=u_1v_1`$ and $`q=v_1u_1`$. The computations carried out in \[8, Lemma 1.5\] can be performed in this situation also (to the equation (6)). Hence we obtain an element $`w`$ in $`(qRq)_q^1(q+qIq)`$ and an element $`z`$ in $`I`$ such that, if $`w^{}`$ is any quasi-inverse for $`w`$, and if we let $`p_1=1p`$, $`p_2=pu_1ww^{}v_1`$, $`q_1=qw^{}w`$ and $`q_2=1q`$, then

$$u_1+t+u_1zqb_1=w_1a_1w_2,$$

where $`w_1`$, $`w_2`$ are invertible elements in $`R`$, and $`a_1=u_1w+t_1+t_2`$, with $`t_i`$ in $`p_iRq_i`$ for $`i=1,2`$.

Since $`x(u_1+t)+b_1=1`$, we also have

$$x(u_1+t+u_1zqb_1)+(1xu_1zq)b_1=1.$$

Conjugating with $`w_2`$ we get

$$(w_2xw_1)a_1+w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1w_2^1=1.$$

By Lemma 3.2, there is an element $`y_2I`$ such that

$$a_1+y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1w_2^1R_q^1,$$

whence $`w_1a_1w_2+w_1y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1R_q^1`$. This means that the element

$$u=u_1+t+u_1zqb_1+w_1y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1R_q^1,$$

and also $`\pi (u)=\pi (u_1)=\overline{u}`$. Now let $`y=y_1+u_1zq(1xy_1)+w_1y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)(1xy_1)`$. Then $`\pi (y)=\overline{y}`$, and

$`a+yb=a+y_1b+u_1zqb_1+w_1y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1`$
$`=`$ $`u_1+t+u_1zqb_1+w_1y_2w_2(1xu_1zq)b_1=u,`$
as desired. ∎

## 4. Approximate Units

$`𝝈\mathbf{}`$Unital Rings. Contrary to popular belief rings do not come automatically equipped with a unit. Of course, a unit can be adjoined, passing from $`R`$ to $`R^+`$ as decribed before, but his may destroy other desirable relations for the ring, like being an ideal in a larger ring or being a Bass stable ring or a $`QB`$ring. Also, indiscriminate adjoining of units may deprive the category of rings some of the applications of general category theory.

For some rings adjoining of a unit may be unneccesary because the ring itself already possesses elements that locally act as units. As in  a net $`(e_\lambda )_{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ in $`R`$ is called an approximate unit for $`R`$ if eventually $`e_\lambda x=xe_\lambda =x`$ for every $`x`$ in $`R`$. We do not expect that the net consists of idempotents, but in many cases it will (for example, in the case where $`R`$ is an exchange ring). Far more important is the case where we can choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=`$. We say in this case that $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital. Evidently we may then choose the approximate unit $`(e_n)`$ such that $`e_{n+1}e_n=e_ne_{n+1}=e_n`$ for all $`n`$, see \[9, Lemma 1.5\]. Note that for such a sequence to be an approximate unit it suffices to show that for each $`x`$ in $`R`$ there is some $`n`$ such that $`e_nx=xe_n=x`$. The same equations will then automatically hold for all indices larger than $`n`$. Thus in what follows we shall often assume that a $`\sigma `$unit $`(e_n)`$ satisfies $`e_ne_{n+1}=e_{n+1}e_n=e_n`$ for all $`n`$.

Rings with approximate units are examples of *$`s`$unital* rings (see e.g. ). If the ring is countable it is $`\sigma `$unital if and only if it is $`s`$unital, see \[2, Lemma 2.2\].

It should also be remarked that all $`C^{}`$algebras and all classical (non-unital) Banach algebras have approximate units in the topological sense, which implies that certain dense ideals – representing elements with compact support or finite rank – have approximate units in the algebraic sense. It is instructing though to note that the ring $`𝔹_f()`$ of operators with finite rank on an infinite dimensional Hilbert space $``$ does not have a countable approximate unit (although it certainly has an (uncountable) approximate unit consisting of projections). By contrast, the ring $`𝕄_{\mathrm{}}(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}𝕄_n(R)`$ of finite matrices over a unital or just $`\sigma `$unital ring $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`0IRS0`$ be a short exact sequence of rings. If both $`I`$ and $`S`$ are $`\sigma `$unital then also $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :RS`$ denote the quotient map and choose an approximate unit $`(e_n)`$ for $`I`$. Choose also a sequence $`(f_n)`$ in $`R`$ such that $`(\pi (f_n))`$ is an approximate unit for $`S`$.

For each $`x`$ in $`R`$ there is an $`n`$ such that $`\pi (f_nx)=\pi (xf_n)=\pi (x)`$. Thus $`(1f_n)xI`$ and $`x(1f_n)I`$, so for a suitable $`m`$ we have $`(1e_m)(1f_n)x=0`$ and $`x(1f_n)(1e_m)=0`$. It follows that if we define $`u_{nm}`$ in $`R`$ by

$$1u_{nm}=(1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n),$$

then $`u_{nm}x=xu_{nm}=x`$ for some $`(n,m)`$ in $`^2`$. (Note here that the use of $`1`$ is purely formal.)

We claim that for each $`(p,q)`$ in $`^2`$ there is an $`n>p`$ and $`m>q`$ such that

$$u_{nm}u_{kl}=u_{kl}u_{nm}=u_{kl}$$

for all $`kp`$ and $`lq`$. This is equivalent to the claim that

$$\left((1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n)\right)\left((1f_k)(1e_l)(1f_k)\right)=(1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n),$$

together with the similar adjoint version. Note now that $`(1f_k)(1e_l)(1f_k)=1a_{kl}`$ for some elements $`a_{kl}`$ in $`R`$. Choosing $`n`$ sufficiently large we may assume that $`(1f_n)a_{kl}I`$ for all $`kp`$ and $`lq`$. For a sufficiently large $`m`$ we therefore have $`(1e_m)(1f_n)a_{kl}=0`$ for all $`kp`$ and $`lq`$. Consequently,

$`\left((1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n)\right)\left((1f_k)(1e_l)(1f_k)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`(1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n)(1a_{kl})=(1f_n)(1e_m)(1f_n),`$
as desired. The proof for the adjoint version is quite similar.

Using the claim we now inductively choose a sequence $`(v_i)`$ in $`R`$ with $`v_i=u_{n(i)m(i)}`$ such that $`v_iu_{nm}=u_{nm}v_i=u_{nm}`$ for all $`ni`$ and $`mi`$; but also such that $`v_{i+1}v_i=v_iv_{i+1}=v_i`$ for all $`i`$. As we saw above, there is for each $`x`$ in $`R`$ some $`(n,m)`$ in $`^2`$ such that $`u_{nm}x=xu_{nm}=x`$, and it follows that if $`i\mathrm{max}\{n,m\}`$ then

$$v_ix=v_iu_{nm}x=u_{nm}x=x,$$

and similarly $`xv_i=x`$. Thus $`(v_i)`$ is a $`\sigma `$unit for $`R`$. ∎

###### Definition 4.2.

If $`I`$ is an ideal in a ring $`R`$ we say that $`I`$ has a unit in $`R`$ if $`ex=xe=x`$ for some $`e`$ in $`R`$ and every $`x`$ in $`I`$. Similarly we say that $`I`$ has a $`\sigma `$unit in $`R`$ if there is a sequence $`e_n`$ in $`R`$ such that eventually $`e_nx=xe_n=x`$ for each $`x`$ in $`I`$.

Inspection of the proof of Proposition 4.1 shows that in order for $`R`$ to be $`\sigma `$unital it suffices that $`S`$ is $`\sigma `$unital and $`I`$ has a $`\sigma `$unit in $`R`$. In this formulation the requirements are both necessary and sufficient.

The argument also shows that $`R`$ is unital if and only if $`S`$ is unital and $`I`$ has a unit in $`R`$. If $`e`$ is a unit for $`I`$ in $`R`$ and $`f`$ is an element in $`R`$ such that $`\pi (f)`$ is the unit in $`S`$ then the element $`u`$ in $`R`$ given by $`1u=(1f)(1e)(1f)`$ is the unit in $`R`$.

###### Theorem 4.3.

let $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ be a surjective inverse limit of a sequence of rings with coordinate evaluations $`\rho _n:RR_n`$. Then $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital if and only if each $`R_n`$ is $`\sigma `$unital and the ideals $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _n`$ have a unit in $`R`$ eventually.

###### Proof.

If $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital then so is every $`R_n`$, since the morphisms $`\rho _n`$ are surjective. The ideals $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _n`$ form a decreasing sequence, so if they do not eventually have a unit in $`R`$ none of them will. To obtain a contradiction, let us assume this to be the case, and let $`(e_n)`$ be an approximate unit for $`R`$.

Given $`x_1`$ in $`R_1`$ we claim that there is an $`x`$ in $`R`$ such that $`\rho _1(x)=x_1`$ and either $`e_2xx`$ or $`xe_2x`$. For if this were not the case then

$$e_2(x+s)=(x+s)e_2=x+s$$

for each fixed $`x`$ in $`R`$ with $`\rho _1(x)=x_1`$ and every $`s`$ in $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _1`$. In particular, $`e_2`$ would be a unit for $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _1`$ in $`R`$, contradicting our assumptions. Assuming therefore, as we may, that $`e_2xx`$ we can find a (first) coordinate $`k_2`$ in which they differ. Thus, if we let $`x_2=\rho _{k_2}(x)`$, then $`\rho _{k_2}(e_2)x_2x_2`$ and $`\pi _2\mathrm{}\pi _{k_2}(x_2)=x_1`$. By the same argument we can now find an element $`y`$ in $`R`$ with $`\rho _{k_2}(y)=x_2`$, such that either $`e_3yy`$ or $`ye_3y`$. This produces a coordinate number $`k_3`$ and an element $`x_3=\rho _{k_3}(x)`$ such that either $`\rho _{k_3}(e_3)x_3x_3`$ or $`x_3\rho _{k_3}(e_3)x_3`$ and $`\pi _{k_21}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_3}(x_3)=x_2`$. Continuing by induction we find a coherent sequence $`x=(x_n)`$ in $`(R_{k_n})`$, i.e. $`\pi _{k_n1}\mathrm{}\pi _{k_{n+1}}(x_{n+1})=x_n`$ for all $`n`$, such that for each $`n`$ either $`\rho _{k_n}(e_n)x_nx_n`$ or $`x_n\rho _{k_n}(e_n)x_n`$. Identifying $`x=(x_n)`$ with an element in $`R`$ we see that either $`e_nxx`$ or $`xe_nx`$ for every $`n`$, contradicting the assumption that $`(e_n)`$ was an approximate unit.

In the converse direction, if $`R_k`$ is $`\sigma `$unital and $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _k`$ has a unit in $`R`$, then $`R`$ is $`\sigma `$unital by Proposition 4.1 and the comments after Definition 4.2 applied to the extension

$$0\mathrm{ker}\rho _kRR_k0.$$

The Theorem above shows that in all but a few cases a surjective inverse limit of non-unital rings will not be $`\sigma `$unital. The demand of an eventual unit for $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _n`$ in $`R`$ translates to the demand that with the morphisms $`\pi _m:R_mR_{m1}`$ there is a unit $`e_m`$ for $`\mathrm{ker}\sigma _m`$ in $`R_m`$ for each $`m>n`$, where $`\sigma _m=\pi _{n+1}\pi _{n+2}\mathrm{}\pi _m`$, and moreover these can be chosen coherent, i.e. $`\pi _{m+1}(e_{m+1})=e_m`$ for all $`m`$. Clearly this is not likely to happen in actual examples.

## 5. Multiplier Rings

Centralizers. Throughout this section we assume that $`R`$ is a non-degenerate ring, i.e. $`xR=0`$ or $`Rx=0`$ implies $`x=0`$ for every $`x`$ in $`R`$. This concept is of course only relevant for non-unital rings, but note that rings with approximate units will automatically be non-degenerate. Eventually we are going to need the stronger concept that $`R`$ is semi-prime, which means that $`xRx=0`$ implies $`x=0`$ for every $`x`$ in $`R`$.

Following Hochschild, \[22, Definition 3.1\], although using the terminology from , we define a left centralizer to be a map $`\lambda :RR`$ such that $`\lambda (xy)=\lambda (x)y`$ for all $`x,y`$ in R. Similarly, a right centralizer $`\rho `$ is a map such that $`\rho (xy)=x\rho (y)`$. A double centralizer is a pair $`(\lambda ,\rho )`$ of left-right centralizers satisfying the coherence relation $`x\lambda (y)=\rho (x)y`$ for all $`x,y`$ in $`R`$. It is easy to see that (in the presence of non-degeneracy) this relation alone will imply that $`\lambda `$ and $`\rho `$ are both $`R`$module maps, cf. \[23, Theorem 7\]. For such pairs we define a product by setting

$$(\lambda _1,\rho _1)(\lambda _2,\rho _2)=(\lambda _1\lambda _2,\rho _2\rho _1).$$

With the obvious sum $`(\lambda _1,\rho _1)+(\lambda _2,\rho _2)=(\lambda _1+\lambda _2,\rho _1+\rho _2)`$ the set $`(R)`$ of double centralizers becomes a unital ring with the unit $`1=(\mathrm{id},\mathrm{id})`$. We shall refer to $`(R)`$ as the multiplier ring for $`R`$.

For each $`x`$ in $`R`$ we define the left and right centralizers $`\lambda _x`$ and $`\rho _x`$ by $`\lambda _x(y)=xy`$ and $`\rho _x(y)=yx`$. Then $`(\lambda _x,\rho _x)`$ is a double centralizer, and since $`(\lambda _x,\rho _x)(\lambda _y,\rho _y)=(\lambda _{xy},\rho _{xy})`$ it follows that we have a morphism $`x(\lambda _x,\rho _x)`$ of $`R`$ into $`(R)`$. The non-degeneracy of $`R`$ ensures that this morphism is injective, so we may identify $`R`$ with its image in $`(R)`$. The easily verified formulas

$$\lambda \lambda _x=\lambda _{\lambda (x)},\lambda _x\lambda =\lambda _{\rho (x)},\rho \rho _x=\rho _{\rho (x)},\rho _x\rho =\rho _{\lambda (x)},$$

show that

(7)
$$(\lambda ,\rho )(\lambda _x,\rho _x)=(\lambda _{\lambda (x)},\rho _{\lambda (x)}),(\lambda _x,\rho _x)(\lambda ,\rho )=(\lambda _{\rho (x)},\rho _{\rho (x)}),$$

which proves that $`R`$ is a two-sided ideal in $`(R)`$. At the same time we see from (7) that $`R`$ is an essential ideal in $`(R)`$, because $`R(\lambda ,\rho )=0`$ or $`(\lambda ,\rho )R=0`$ for some $`(\lambda ,\rho )`$ in $`(R)`$ implies that $`\lambda =0`$ or $`\rho =0`$, which forces $`(\lambda ,\rho )=0`$ by the coherence relation. It is easy to show that the multiplier ring has the universal property that if $`S`$ is any ring containing $`R`$ as an ideal there is a morphism $`\phi :S(R)`$ extending the embedding morphism $`RS`$. Moreover, $`\phi `$ is injective precisely when $`R`$ is an essential ideal in $`S`$. For each $`y`$ in $`S`$ one just defines $`\phi (y)=(\lambda _y,\rho _y)`$.

The multiplier ring $`(R)`$, or rather its quotient $`(R)/R`$, is an indispensable tool in Hochschild’s classification of extensions of $`R`$, see the remarks at the end of the paper. It also occurs naturally as the function-theoretic method to describe the Stone-Čech compactification of a (locally compact) topological space. In $`K`$theory it is used to describe the ring $`𝔹(R)`$ of row- and column-finite matrices over a unital ring $`R`$. Specifically, if $`𝕄_{\mathrm{}}(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}𝕄_n(R)`$, identified with the ring of finite matrices over $`R`$, we find that its multiplier ring is identified with $`𝔹(R)`$ (see e.g. \[9, Proposition 1.1\]).

###### Definition 5.1.

A morphism $`\pi :RS`$ between rings $`R`$ and $`S`$ is called proper of $`\pi (R)`$ is not contained in any proper left or right ideal of S, i.e. $`S\pi (R)=\pi (R)S=S`$ (in the sense that $`\pi (R)S`$ denotes the set of finite sums of products $`\pi (x)y`$). If $`R`$ is unital then $`\pi `$ is proper if and only if both $`S`$ and $`\pi `$ are also unital.

The origin of this notion comes from $`C^{}`$algebra theory, cf.  or , where one notices that if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are locally compact Hausdorff spaces and $`R=C_0(X)`$ and $`S=C_0(Y)`$ denote the rings of complex-valued continuous functions vanishing at infinity, then a morphism (which in this category means a \*-homomorphism) $`\pi :RS`$ is proper if and only if it is the transposed of a proper continuous map $`f:YX`$, i.e. one for which $`f^1(C)`$ is compact in $`Y`$ for every compact subset $`C`$ in $`X`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`\pi :RS`$ be a proper morphism between non-degenerate rings $`R`$ and $`S`$. There is then a unique unital morphism $`\overline{\pi }:(R)(S)`$ that extends $`\pi `$.

###### Proof.

If $`(\lambda ,\rho )(R)`$ and $`y,z`$ are elements in $`S`$ we can write them in the form $`y=\pi (u_i)y_i`$ and $`z=z_j\pi (v_j)`$ for suitable finite subsets $`\{u_i\},\{v_j\}`$ in $`R`$ and $`\{y_i\},\{z_j\}`$ in $`S`$. Now define

$$\overline{\lambda }(y)=\pi (\lambda (u_i))y_i\text{and}\overline{\rho }(z)=z_j\pi (\rho (v_j)).$$

If $`xR`$ then

$$\pi (x)\overline{\lambda }(y)=\pi (x\lambda (u_i)y_i)=\pi (\rho (x)u_i)y_i=\pi (\rho (x))\pi (u_i)y_i=\pi (\rho (x))y.$$

Similarly, $`\overline{\rho }(z)\pi (x)=z\pi (\lambda (x))`$. For one thing, this implies that the elements $`\overline{\lambda }(y)`$ and $`\overline{\rho }(z)`$ are independent of the representations of $`y`$ and $`z`$. If namely $`\overline{\lambda ^{}}(y)`$ arises from another representation $`y=\pi (u_i^{})y_i^{}`$, then $`\pi (x)(\overline{\lambda }(y)\overline{\lambda ^{}}(y))=\pi (\rho (x))(yy)=0`$ for all $`x`$ in $`R`$, which forces $`\overline{\lambda }(y)=\overline{\lambda ^{}}(y)`$ by properness and non-degeneracy. On the other hand the equations show that we have the coherence relation

$$z\overline{\lambda }(y)=z_j\pi (v_j)\overline{\lambda }(y)=z_j\pi (\rho (v_j))y=\overline{\rho }(z)y.$$

We may therefore define $`\overline{\pi }(\lambda ,\rho )=(\overline{\lambda },\overline{\rho })`$ in $`(S)`$, and it is straightforward to check that $`\overline{\pi }`$ is a unital morphism from $`(R)`$ to $`(S)`$. By construction $`\overline{\pi }`$ is an extension of $`\pi `$, and since $`S`$ is an essential ideal of $`(S)`$ there can be only one extension, so $`\overline{\pi }`$ is unique. ∎

The Strict Topology. If $`R`$ is a non-degenerate ring with multiplier ring $`(R)`$ we can for each $`a`$ in $`R`$ define

$$𝒪_a=\{xM(R)xa=ax=0\}.$$

As shown in  the sets $`𝒪_a`$ form a subbasis for the neighbourhood system around $`0`$ in the strict topology on $`(R)`$. In this topology addition is continuous (by construction) and multiplication is continuous by \[9, Lemma 1.3\]. A *strict Cauchy* net $`(x_\lambda )`$ in $`(R)`$ is a net such that each product net $`(ax_\lambda )`$ or $`(x_\lambda a)`$ is eventually constant. It follows easily from this that $`(R)`$ is strictly complete, cf. \[9, Proposition 1.6\].

If $`R`$ has an approximate unit $`(e_\lambda )`$, then $`e_\lambda 1`$ strictly in $`(R)`$, and $`R`$ is therefore strictly dense in $`(R)`$. Conversely, if $`1`$ is a strict limit point for $`R`$ then every net $`(e_\lambda )`$ in $`R`$ converging strictly to $`1`$ will be an approximate unit for $`R`$, and $`R`$ is strictly dense in $`(R)`$, cf. \[9, Proposition 1.6\].

###### Proposition 5.3.

If $`\pi :RS`$ is a proper morphism between non-degenerate rings $`R`$ and $`S`$ then the extension $`\overline{\pi }:(R)(S)`$ from Theorem 5.2 is strictly continuous.

###### Proof.

Let $`(x_\lambda )`$ be a net in $`(R)`$ converging strictly to $`0`$. Given $`y`$ in $`S`$ we can then by properness write $`y=\pi (x_i)y_i`$. Consequently

$$\overline{\pi }(x_\lambda )y=\pi (x_\lambda x_i)y_i=0$$

eventually. Similarly $`y\overline{\pi }(x_\lambda )=0`$ eventually, which proves that $`\overline{\pi }(x_\lambda )0`$ strictly in $`(S)`$. ∎

The next theorem is the algebraic counterpart of a rather useful result from $`C^{}`$algebra theory, known as the non-commutative Tietze extension theorem, cf. \[31, Proposition 3.12.10\] or \[32, Theorem 10\]. Applied to the ring $`R=C_0(X)`$ of complex-valued continuous functions on some locally compact Hausdorff space $`X`$, we find that $`(R)=C_b(X)`$, the ring of bounded continuous functions on $`X`$. The content of the theorem is then that for any bounded continuous function $`f`$ on a closed subset $`Y`$ of $`X`$ (and these are the only ways quotients of the ring $`C_0(X)`$ can arise), there is an extension $`\overline{f}`$ of $`f`$ to a bounded continuous function on all of $`X`$. The necessity of a countable approximate unit for $`R`$ reflects the fact that a general locally compact space $`X`$ need not be normal (and only for normal spaces will the Tietze extension theorem hold), but if in addition $`X`$ is $`\sigma `$compact, then it is normal.

###### Theorem 5.4.

Let $`\pi :RS`$ be a surjective morphism between $`\sigma `$unital rings. Then the extension $`\overline{\pi }:(R)(S)`$ from Theorem 5.2 is also surjective.

###### Proof.

Let $`(e_n)`$ be a countable approximate unit for $`R`$, and without loss of generality assume that $`e_{n+1}e_n=e_n=e_ne_{n+1}`$ for all $`n`$. Consider now an element $`\overline{x}`$ in $`(S)`$. Since the elements $`\overline{e}_n=\pi (e_n)`$ form an approximate unit for $`S`$ we have for each $`n`$ that $`\overline{e}_m\overline{x}\overline{e}_n=\overline{x}\overline{e}_n`$ for $`m`$ large enough. Passing to a subsequence we may therefore assume that

(8)
$$\overline{e}_{n+1}\overline{x}\overline{e}_n=\overline{x}\overline{e}_n$$

for all $`n`$.

Assume that for some $`n2`$ we have found elements $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_n`$ in $`R`$ with $`\pi (x_k)=\overline{e}_k\overline{x}`$ such that with $`e_1=e_0=0`$ we have

(9)
$$(x_kx_{k1})e_{k3}=0=e_{k3}(x_kx_{k1})$$

for $`2kn`$. Choose $`z`$ in $`R`$ with $`\pi (z)=\overline{e}_{n+1}\overline{x}`$. Then by (8)

$`\pi ((zx_n)e_{n1})=(\overline{e}_{n+1}\overline{e}_n)\overline{x}\overline{e}_{n1}=0,`$
$`\pi (e_{n1}(zx_n))=\overline{e}_{n1}(\overline{e}_{n+1}\overline{e}_n)\overline{x}=0.`$
Thus $`(zx_n)e_{n1}\mathrm{ker}\pi `$ and $`e_{n1}(zx_n)\mathrm{ker}\pi `$. Now define

$$x_{n+1}=z(zx_n)e_{n1}e_{n1}(zx_n)(1e_{n1}),$$

so that $`\pi (x_{n+1})=\overline{e}_{n+1}\overline{x}`$. Moreover,

$`x_{n+1}x_n`$ $`=(zx_n)(1e_{n1})e_{n1}(zx_n)(1e_{n1})`$
$`=(1e_{n1})(zx_n)(1e_{n1}).`$
This means that

$$e_{n2}(x_{n+1}x_n)=0=(x_{n+1}x_n)e_{n2}.$$

By induction we can therefore find a sequence $`(x_n)`$ in $`R`$ satisfying (9) such that also $`\pi (x_n)=\overline{e}_n\overline{x}`$ for all $`n3`$.

For each $`a`$ in $`R`$ there is a number $`k`$ such that $`e_ka=a=ae_k`$. It follows from (9) that

$$(x_mx_n)a=(x_mx_n)e_ka=0,\text{and similarly}a(x_mx_n)=0$$

for all $`n,mk+2`$. Consequently $`(x_n)`$ is a strict Cauchy sequence in $`(R)`$, hence convergent to an element $`x`$ in $`(R)`$. Since $`\overline{\pi }`$ is strictly continuous by Proposition 5.3 we finally see that

$$\overline{\pi }(x)=lim\pi (x_n)=lim\overline{e}_n\overline{x}=\overline{x},$$

as desired. ∎

## 6. Multiplier Rings as Inverse Limits

As before we let $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ for a sequence of rings $`R_n`$ with surjective morphisms $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ and consider the surjective coordinate evaluation morphisms $`\rho _n:RR_n`$. If $`I`$ is an ideal in $`R`$ we evidently obtain a sequence $`(I_n)`$ of ideals, where $`I_n=\rho _n(R)R_n`$, and by restriction this defines surjective morphisms $`\pi _n:I_nI_{n1}`$. Conversely, if we have a sequence of ideals $`I_nR_n`$ such that $`\pi _n(I_n)=I_{n1}`$ for all $`n`$, we may identify the inverse limit $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n`$ with an ideal $`\overline{I}`$ in $`R`$. Note that if we start with an ideal $`I`$ in $`R`$ then $`I\overline{I}`$, and in general the inclusion is strict.

###### Theorem 6.1.

If $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital rings and $`I`$ is an ideal of $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ such that $`\rho _n(I)=R_n`$ for every $`n`$ then $`(I)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$.

###### Proof.

Put $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ and $`=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$. We then claim that there is a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}I& \stackrel{\iota _0}{}& R& \stackrel{\rho _n}{}& R_n& \stackrel{\pi _n}{}& R_{n1}\\ \iota & & \rho & & \iota _n& & \iota _{n1}& & \\ (I)& & & \stackrel{\overline{\rho }_n}{}& (R_n)& \stackrel{\overline{\pi }_n}{}& (R_{n1})\end{array}$$

Here $`\iota `$ and $`\iota _k`$ for $`k0`$ are the natural embeddings, and $`\overline{\pi }_n`$ is the surjective morphism obtained from Theorem 5.4. It follows that $``$ is the surjective inverse limit of the multiplier rings $`(R_n)`$, and the coordinate evaluations $`\overline{\rho }_n`$ are therefore also surjective.

Since the right-hand square of the diagram is commutative we can define the morphism $`\rho `$ by $`(x_n)(\iota _n(x_n))`$ for every string $`x=(x_n)`$ in $`R`$, and we note that $`\overline{\rho }_n\rho =\iota _n\rho _n`$ by this definition. Evidently $`\rho `$ is injective. If moreover $`y=(y_n)`$ is a string in $``$ then for any $`x`$ in $`R`$ we have that $`\overline{\rho }_n(\rho (x)y)=\iota _n(x_n)y_n=x_ny_n`$. Identifying $`(x_ny_n)`$ with a string in $`R`$ (using the commutativity of the diagram) we see that $`\rho (R)`$ is an ideal in $``$, which must even be essential, since $`\rho (R)y=0`$ implies $`R_n\overline{\rho }_n(y)=\rho _n(R)\overline{\rho }_n(y)=\overline{\rho }_n(\rho (R)y)=0`$, hence $`\overline{\rho }_n(y)=0`$ for all $`n`$ by non-degeneracy, and so $`y=0`$.

We claim that $`I`$ is essential in $`R`$. For if $`xI=0`$ for some $`x`$ in $`R`$, then $`\rho _n(x)R_n=0`$ for every $`n`$ by our assumption on $`I`$, whence $`\rho _n(x)=0`$ since $`R_n`$ is non-degenerate (being $`\sigma `$unital), and therefore $`x=0`$. Since the property of being essential is hereditary it follows that $`\rho (\iota _0(I))`$ is an essential ideal in $``$. By the universal property of multiplier rings there is therefore an injective morphism $`\phi :(I)`$ such that $`\phi \rho \iota _0=\iota `$.

Each surjective morphism $`\rho _n\iota _0`$ extends uniquely to a (not necessarily surjective) morphism $`\psi _n:(I)(R_n)`$ by Theorem 5.2. Since $`\pi _n\rho _n\iota _0=\rho _{n1}\iota _0`$ and $`I`$ is essential in $`(I)`$ it follows that also $`\overline{\pi }_n\psi _n=\psi _{n1}`$ for all $`n`$. By the universal property of inverse limits this means that we have a unique morphism $`\psi :(I)`$ such that $`\overline{\rho }_n\psi =\psi _n`$ for all $`n`$. It follows that

$$\overline{\rho }_n\rho \iota _0=\iota _n\rho _n\iota _0=\psi _n\iota =\overline{\rho }_n\psi \iota $$

for all $`n`$, which implies that $`\psi \iota =\rho \iota _0`$.

Combining these results we find that

$$(\phi \psi )\iota =\phi \rho \iota _0=\iota \text{and}(\psi \phi )\rho \iota _0=\psi \iota =\rho \iota _0.$$

Since $`\iota (I)`$ is an essential ideal in $`(I)`$ and $`\rho (\iota _0(I))`$ is an essential ideal in $``$ these equations imply that $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are the inverse of one another, and we have our natural isomorphism. ∎

###### Corollary 6.2.

If $`(R_n)`$ is a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital rings with surjective morphisms $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$, and if $`\overline{\pi }_n:(R_n)(R_{n1})`$ denote the unique surjective extensions of the $`\pi _n`$’s then

$$(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n).$$

O’Meara proved in  that if $`R`$ is a $`\sigma `$unital von Neumann regular ring then $`(R)`$ is an exchange ring (but is generally not regular). His arguments used critically the $`\sigma `$unital assumption on the ring $`R`$. In the next result we show that in certain cases, multiplier rings of not necessarily $`\sigma `$unital regular rings are also exchange rings. These are obtained as inverse limits of $`\sigma `$unital regular rings, which will generally not be $`\sigma `$unital themselves, cf. Theorem 4.3.

###### Corollary 6.3.

If $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ is a surjective limit of a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital von Neumann regular rings then $`(R)`$ is an exchange ring.

###### Proof.

If $`R_n`$ is von Neumann regular and $`\sigma `$unital for all $`n`$, then $`(R_n)`$ is an exchange ring, by \[29, Theorem 2\]. The conclusion now follows from Corollary 6.2 and Theorem 1.4. ∎

Let as before $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ be a surjective inverse limit of a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital rings. Assume moreover that all $`R_n`$ are semi-prime. This implies that also $`R`$ is semi-prime. For if $`xRx=0`$ for some $`x`$ in $`R`$ then $`\rho _n(x)R_n\rho _n(x)=0`$ for every $`n`$, whence $`\rho _n(x)=0`$ so that $`x=0`$. If now $`I`$ is an ideal in $`R`$ we define the (two-sided) annihilator ideal by

$$I^{}=\{xRxI=0\}=\{xRIx=0\}.$$

Then $`I^{}I=0`$; in fact $`I^{}`$ is the largest ideal orthogonal to $`I`$. In particular, $`I+I^{}`$ is essential in $`R`$, cf. \[24, Exer. 6.8\] or \[5, 1.1.1\].

###### Definition 6.4.

Let $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ be a surjective inverse limit of a sequence of semi-prime rings. We say that an ideal $`I`$ in $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ is $`m`$constant if $`I\mathrm{ker}\rho _m=0`$. Equivalently, $`I(\mathrm{ker}\rho _m)^{}`$. We may graphically view $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _m`$ as the strings $`x=(x_n)`$ in $`R`$ such that $`x_n=0`$ for $`nm`$. Evidently these coordinate ideals decrease, so that if $`I`$ is $`m`$*constant*, then $`I\mathrm{ker}\rho _n=0`$ for all $`nm`$.

Since $`\pi _n\rho _n=\rho _{n1}`$ we see that $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _n\rho _n(\mathrm{ker}\rho _m)`$ for $`n>m`$. If therefore $`I_n=\rho _n(I)`$ denotes the associated sequence of ideals in $`R_n`$, then $`I_n\mathrm{ker}\pi _n=0`$ for $`n>m`$. Thus $`I`$ is isomorphic to $`I_m`$ and $`I_n`$ is isomorphic to $`I_m`$ for all $`nm`$. In particular, $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n=I`$.

Conversely, if $`(I_n)`$ is a sequence of ideals in $`(R_n)`$ such that $`\pi _n(I_n)=I_{n1}`$ for all $`n`$ and $`I_n\mathrm{ker}\pi _n=0`$ for all $`nm`$ for some $`m`$ then $`I=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n`$ will be an $`m`$constant ideal in $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$.

If $`I`$ is an $`n`$constant and $`J`$ is an $`m`$constant ideal with $`nm`$, then $`I+J(\mathrm{ker}\rho _m)^{}`$ since $`\mathrm{ker}\rho _m\mathrm{ker}\rho _n`$, so $`I+J`$ is an $`m`$constant ideal. Thus $`(\mathrm{ker}\rho _m)^{}`$ is the largest $`m`$constant ideal. It follows that $`I_c=(\mathrm{ker}\rho _m)^{}`$ is equal to the sum of all constant ideals, and we shall refer to it as the quasi-constant ideal of $`R`$.

The motivating example for considering constant and quasi-constant ideals arises from the Stone-Čech compactification. If $`X`$ is a locally compact Hausdorff space then its Stone-Čech compactification $`\beta X`$ has the property that $`C(\beta X)=C_b(X)=(C_0(X))`$, and this ring is always a $`C^{}`$inverse limit. In the case where $`X`$ is also $`\sigma `$compact we can write $`X=X_n`$, where each $`X_n`$ is a compact subset of $`X`$ contained in the interior $`X_{n+1}^{}`$ of $`X_{n+1}`$. Put $`R_n=C(X_n)`$ and let $`\pi _n(f)=f|X_{n1}`$ for each $`f`$ in $`C(X_n)`$. Then $`C_b(X)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$. The large constant ideals will be of the form $`(\mathrm{ker}\pi _m)^{}=C_0(X_m^{})`$, so the quasi-constant ideal of $`C_b(X)`$ can (in this category) be identified with the norm-closed ideal $`C_0(X)`$.

If the construction is carried out in a purely algebraic context we find that the ring $`C(X)`$ of all continuous functions on $`X`$ is the (algebraic) inverse limit of the sequence $`(C(X_n))`$, and the quasi-constant ideal of $`C(X)`$ is the ring $`C_c(X)`$ of continuous functions with compact supports.

Theorem 6.1 provides an immediate generalization of this construction:

###### Corollary 6.5.

If $`R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ is the surjective inverse limit of a sequence of $`\sigma `$unital rings such that the quasi-constant ideal $`I_c`$ of $`R`$ satisfies $`\rho _n(I_c)=R_n`$ for every $`n`$, then $`(I_c)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$.

###### Theorem 6.6.

Let $`(I_n)`$ and $`(J_n)`$ be two sequences of ideals in a semi-prime $`\sigma `$unital ring $`R`$, one increasing, the other decreasing, but such that $`I_nJ_n=0`$ for all $`n`$. If $`I=I_n`$ is essential in $`R`$ and $`I+J_n=R`$ for every $`n`$, then with $`R_n=R/J_n`$ and $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ the natural morphisms we have an embedding $`\overline{\phi }:R\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ such that $`\overline{\phi }(I)`$ is an ideal. Moreover, $`(I)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`xJ_n`$ then it annihilates $`I_n`$ for every $`n`$, whence $`xI^{}`$. But then $`x=0`$ since $`I`$ is essential and $`R`$ is semi-prime. Thus our assumptions imply that $`J_n=0`$.

The quotient morphisms $`\phi _n:RR_n`$ satisfy $`\pi _n\phi _n=\phi _{n1}`$ for all $`n`$, and therefore define a morphism $`\overline{\phi }:R\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ such that $`\rho _n\overline{\phi }=\phi _n`$ for all $`n`$, where $`\rho _n:\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_nR_n`$ are the coordinate evaluations. Since $`\mathrm{ker}\overline{\phi }=J_n=0`$, this is an embedding.

Observe that $`\phi _n(I_m)=(I_m+J_n)/J_n`$ is an ideal in $`R_n`$ for every $`n`$ and $`m`$. Since $`\mathrm{ker}\pi _n=J_{n1}/J_n`$ we see moreover that $`\phi _n(I_m)\mathrm{ker}\pi _n=0`$ for $`n>m`$. Consequently $`(\phi _n(I_m))`$ is a coherent sequence of ideals in $`(R_n)`$, all isomorphic for $`nm`$, thus giving rise to the $`m`$constant ideal $`\overline{\phi }(I_m)`$ in $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$.

It follows from this that $`\overline{\phi }(I)`$ is an ideal in $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$, isomorphic to $`I`$ (and contained in the quasi-constant ideal of $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$). Since by assumption

$$\rho _n(\overline{\phi }(I))=\phi _n(I)=(I+J_n)/J_n=R_n,$$

it follows from Theorem 6.1 that $`(I)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(R_n)`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.7.

Let $`(I_n)`$ and $`(J_n)`$ be two sequences of ideals in a semi-prime $`\sigma `$unital ring $`R`$, one increasing, the other decreasing, but such that $`I_nJ_n=0`$ for every $`n`$. If $`I_n=R`$ and each quotient $`R_n=R/J_n`$ is unital, then with $`\pi _n:R_nR_{n1}`$ the natural morphisms we have an embedding of $`R`$ as an ideal in $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$ such that $`(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$.

###### Examples 6.8.

Let $`(e_n)`$ be a countable approximate unit consisting of central elements in a semi-prime ring $`R`$. Assuming, as we may, that $`e_ne_{n+1}=e_n`$ for all $`n`$ we consider the principal ideals $`I_n=e_nR`$ and $`J_n=(1e_{n+1})R`$ in $`R`$. Note that $`e_nI_n`$, whereas $`J_n`$ consists of elements of the form $`xe_{n+1}x`$, where $`xR`$. Evidently $`I_nJ_n=0`$ and $`I_n=R`$. Moreover $`R_n=R/J_n`$ is unital with unit $`e_{n+1}+J_n`$. It follows from Corollary 6.7 that $`(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$.

Along the same lines we may assume that the semi-prime ring $`R`$ has a countable approximate unit $`(e_n)`$, such that $`e_{n+1}x=x=xe_{n+1}`$ for every $`x`$ in the principal ideal $`I_n`$ generated by $`e_n`$. This could be accomplished by placing suitable finiteness conditions on $`I_n`$, for example finite dimensionality. As before we let $`J_n`$ be the principal ideal in $`R`$ generated by $`1e_{n+1}`$ (consisting of sums of elements of the form $`xxe_{n+1},ye_{n+1}y`$ and $`xyxe_{n+1}y`$, with $`x,y`$ in $`R`$). By assumption $`I_nJ_n=0`$ and $`I_n=R`$. Moreover, each quotient $`R_n=R/J_n`$ is unital with unit $`e_{n+1}+J_n`$, so again $`(R)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n`$.

Note that in both examples the quotients $`R_{n1}=R/J_{n1}`$ can be identified with the local rings $`R_{e_n}`$ ($`=e_nRe_n`$ as an additive group, but with the product $`(e_nxe_n)(e_nye_n)=e_nxe_nye_n`$).

Pullbacks. Since the functor $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}`$ has a left adjoint it commutes with extensions and pullbacks. Thus if for each $`n`$ we have a commutative diagram of rings with morphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}R_n& \stackrel{\alpha _n}{}& T_n& \stackrel{\beta _n}{}& S_n\\ \pi _n& & \tau _n& & \rho _n& & \\ R_{n1}& \stackrel{\alpha _{n1}}{}& T_{n1}& \stackrel{\beta _{n1}}{}& S_{n1}\end{array}$$

we can form the pullback rings and obtain induced morphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccc}R_n_{T_n}S_n& \stackrel{\sigma _n}{}& R_{n1}_{T_{n1}}S_{n1}.\end{array}$$

If for simplicity we put

$$R=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n,S=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S_n\text{and}T=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}T_n$$

we also have induced morphisms $`RTS`$, and as in \[33, Proposition 4.16\] we obtain a natural isomorphism

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\left(R_n_{T_n}S_n\right)=R_TS$$

Extensions. If we have a commutative diagram of extensions

(10)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}I_n& \stackrel{\iota _n}{}& R_n& \stackrel{\alpha _n}{}& S_n\\ \pi _n& & \omega _n& & \theta _n& & \\ I_{n1}& \stackrel{\iota _{n1}}{}& R_{n1}& \stackrel{\alpha _{n1}}{}& S_{n1}\end{array}$$

then, again by category theory, we obtain an extension

(11)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n& \stackrel{\overline{\iota }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n& \stackrel{\overline{\alpha }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S_n.\end{array}$$

We know from  that every extension is determined (up to an obvious isomorphism) by the morphism $`\sigma `$ (the Hochschild invariant) occurring in the natural diagram below:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}I& \stackrel{\iota }{}& R& \stackrel{\alpha }{}& S\\ & & \phi & & \sigma & & \\ I& \stackrel{\iota }{}& (I)& \stackrel{\beta }{}& 𝒬(I)\end{array}$$

Here $`(I)`$ is the multiplier ring of the ideal $`I`$, assumed to be non-degenerate, and $`𝒬(I)`$, the corona ring, is the quotient $`(I)/I`$. The morphism $`\phi `$ is the one obtained by the universal property of $`(I)`$, and $`\sigma `$ is the morphism induced by $`\phi `$ to make the whole diagram commutative. The salient fact to know is that the right-hand square in the diagram is a pullback.

As a consequence of our results about multipliers of inverse limits, in particular Corollary 6.2, we can compute the Hochschild invariant of an inverse limit of extensions:

###### Proposition 6.9.

Given a coherent sequence of extensions as in the diagram (10), each determined by a Hochschild invariant $`\sigma _n:S_n𝒬(I_n)`$, where $`(I_n)`$ is sequence of $`\sigma `$unital ideals and all the morphisms $`\pi _n`$ and $`\omega _n`$ (hence also $`\theta _n`$) are surjective, then since $`𝒬(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}𝒬(I_n)`$, the Hochschild invariant for the extension (11) is the induced morphism $`\overline{\sigma }`$ occurring in the diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n& \stackrel{\overline{\iota }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}R_n& \stackrel{\overline{\phi }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}S_n\\ & & \overline{\phi }& & \overline{\sigma }& & \\ \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}I_n& \stackrel{\overline{\iota }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}(I_n)& \stackrel{\overline{\psi }}{}& \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}𝒬(I_n)\end{array}$$


text:
# The magnetic stress tensor in magnetized matter

## 1 Introduction

The equilibrium thermodynamics of magnetized matter is important to understand the structure and evolution of compact astrophysical objects such as white dwarfs and neutron stars. Of particular relevance is the pressure, since it enters in an important way in the equations that determine the structure of the star (Newtonian hydrostatic equilibrium equation or its relativistic Oppenheimer-Volkov generalization). If the gas that conforms the star is made of electromagnetically active matter (i.e., ionized matter or magnetic dipoles) in the presence of macroscopic electromagnetic fields, the total pressure will have both a kinetic and an electromagnetic component.

There seems to be some confusion and disagreement about the nature of the latter (and also about the isotropy of the total pressure). For instance, recent papers claim that, for a magnetization parallel to the magnetic field, the electromagnetic contribution to the pressure takes the form

$$P_{}=0,P_{}=MB,$$
(1)
where $``$ and $``$ refer to the direction of the magnetic field. The authors of reference claim that, with an electromagnetic pressure of the this form and some assumptions about the growth of the magnetic field from the surface of the star towards its center, magnetars with surface fields of the order of $`10^{15}`$ Gauss would be unstable to collapse.

However, the correct electromagnetic pressure in the case of no magnetization, as derived from the Maxwell stress tensor for fields in vacuum is

$$P_{}^{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{B^2}{8\pi },P_{}^{\mathrm{vac}}=\frac{B^2}{8\pi },$$
(2)
which clearly does not correspond to the zero magnetization limit of expressions (1).

In this work we address this problem by studying the electromagnetic force on a piece of magnetized matter from a purely classical point of view and constructing thereby the corresponding magnetic stress tensor for the system. Our results imply that the electromagnetic contribution to the pressure, defined as the negative of the diagonal components of the stress tensor, in the case of parallel magnetization and magnetic field is given by

$$P_{}=\frac{B^2}{8\pi },P_{}=\frac{B^2}{8\pi }MB,$$
(3)
which has the correct vacuum limit (2) and, naturally, disagrees with (1).

Other works where the problem of the electromagnetic pressure has been touched upon are.

## 2 Magnetic force density on matter

Macroscopic matter interacts with a magnetic field through its electrical currents (due to motion of free charges) and macroscopic magnetization (due to the alignment of microscopic magnetic dipoles, usually associated with quantized spins).

The force density (force per unit volume) on the currents is well-known to be $`\stackrel{}{f}^{\mathrm{curr}}=\stackrel{}{j}\times \stackrel{}{B}/c`$, where $`\stackrel{}{j}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the electric current density, and $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ is the magnetic flux density.

The force on the dipoles can be found by considering the force on a single dipole of moment $`\stackrel{}{m}`$, whose Cartesian components are $`F_i=m_j_iB_j`$. Adding the dipole moments in a small volume, we obtain the net force density, $`f_i^{mag}=M_j_iB_j`$, so the total force density can be written as

$$f_i=\frac{1}{c}ϵ_{ijk}j_jB_k+M_j_iB_j,$$
(4)
where $`ϵ_{ijk}`$ are the components of the totally antisymmetric (Levi-Civita) tensor, and the Einstein convention of summation over repeated indices is understood here and in what follows.

We emphasize that this force density is not the same as obtained from defining a “magnetization current” $`\stackrel{}{j}^{mag}\times \stackrel{}{M}`$ and writing $`\stackrel{}{f}^{mag^{}}=\stackrel{}{j}^{mag}\times \stackrel{}{B}/c`$, although they agree when integrated over a bounded material body. This is most clearly seen in the simple case of a uniformly magnetized medium in a uniform magnetic field. Our expression for $`f_i^{mag}`$ gives a uniform force per unit volume, as physically expected from the uniform distribution of dipoles acted on by the magnetic field. The alternative expression, for $`\stackrel{}{f}^{mag^{}}`$, gives a vanishing force in the interior of the body (zero “magnetization current” in the interior), but a compensating force on the surface.

## 3 The magnetic stress tensor

### 3.1 Derivation

The component $`T_{ij}`$ of the stress tensor is generally defined as minus the flux in the $`j`$direction of the $`i`$component of the linear momentum. The force density $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ on a matter element is the time derivative of its momentum density, i.e., minus the divergence of the momentum flux, thus

$$\stackrel{}{f}=𝐓,\mathrm{or}f_i=_jT_{ij}.$$
(5)
Using Maxwell’s equations

$$\stackrel{}{B}=0\mathrm{and}\times \stackrel{}{H}=\frac{4\pi }{c}\stackrel{}{j},$$
(6)
together with the definition $`\stackrel{}{H}=\stackrel{}{B}4\pi \stackrel{}{M}`$, eq. (4) can be manipulated to write $`\stackrel{}{f}`$ as the divergence of a possible stress tensor, with components

$`T_{ij}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4\pi }}\left[H_iB_j\left(\stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{B}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}B^2\right)\delta _{ij}\right]`$ (7)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{B_iB_j}{4\pi }}{\displaystyle \frac{B^2}{8\pi }}\delta _{ij}M_iB_j+\stackrel{}{M}\stackrel{}{B}\delta _{ij}.`$ (8)
### 3.2 Uniqueness?

Of course, the form just obtained is not unique, since any tensor with vanishing divergence can be added to $`𝐓`$ without changing eq. (5). Thus, we search for a divergence-free tensor $`\stackrel{~}{𝐓}`$, quadratic in the magnetic fields ($`\stackrel{}{B}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}`$), whose general form is

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}=\alpha _{ijkl}H_kH_l+\beta _{ijkl}H_kB_l+\gamma _{ijkl}B_kB_l,$$
(9)
where $`\alpha _{ijkl}`$, $`\beta _{ijkl}`$, and $`\gamma _{ijkl}`$ are components of constant tensors. These tensors must be rotationally invariant (in order not to introduce preferred directions other than those defined by the magnetic fields), which constrains them to be linear combinations of $`\delta _{ij}\delta _{kl}`$, $`\delta _{ik}\delta _{jl}`$, and $`\delta _{il}\delta _{jk}`$. Thus, we write

$$\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}=(\alpha \stackrel{}{H}^2+\beta \stackrel{}{H}\stackrel{}{B}+\gamma \stackrel{}{B}^2)\delta _{ij}+\alpha ^{}H_iH_j+\beta ^{}H_iB_j+\beta ^{\prime \prime }B_iH_j+\gamma ^{}B_iB_j,$$
(10)
where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`\gamma `$, $`\alpha ^{}`$, $`\beta ^{}`$, $`\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`\gamma ^{}`$ are constant coefficients to be adjusted so as to make the tensor divergence-free for any choice of the vector fields $`\stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, with the only restriction that $`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$, i.e., $`_jB_j=0`$.

In particular, we may first choose $`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$ and $`\stackrel{}{H}=x_a\widehat{e}_b`$ (i.e., $`H_k=x_a\delta _{kb}`$), where $`a`$ and $`b`$ are any given two different Cartesian indices, which implies $`_j\stackrel{~}{T}_{ij}=2\alpha x_a\delta _{ia}=0`$ (no summation over $`a`$), so $`\alpha =0`$. Changing $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ to be any other vector field with $`\stackrel{}{H}=0`$ but $`(\stackrel{}{H})\stackrel{}{H}0`$ gives $`\alpha ^{}=0`$. Exchanging the roles of $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ in the arguments just given, we obtain $`\gamma =\gamma ^{}=0`$. Finally, putting $`\stackrel{}{H}=x_a\widehat{e}_b`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}=x_c\widehat{e}_d`$ with different combinations of values for $`a`$, $`b`$, $`c`$, $`d`$ (respecting the constraint that $`cd`$ to satisfy $`\stackrel{}{B}=0`$) implies $`\beta =\beta ^{}=\beta ^{\prime \prime }`$.

Thus, among tensors quadratic in $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, the one we originally obtained is unique in giving the correct magnetic force density.

### 3.3 Vacuum limit

In the absence of magnetization, the stress tensor given by eq. (7) takes the form

$$T_{ij}=\frac{B_iB_j}{4\pi }\frac{B^2}{8\pi }\delta _{ij},$$
(11)
which is the correct, symmetric, well-known form in vacuum.

### 3.4 Asymmetry and magnetic torque

For arbitrary, non-parallel $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, the tensor is manifestly non-symmetric, $`T_{ij}T_{ji}`$. It is usually argued that the stress tensor must be symmetric, on the ground that a non-symmetric stress tensor would produce a torque on a small matter element which decreases less quickly with decreasing volume than the moment of inertia of the element, thus producing a divergent angular acceleration. We note that this argument applies to the total stress tensor, which could be composed of (in principle non-symmetric) pieces of different physical origin.

In the present case, the asymmetry is present only if $`\stackrel{}{H}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ or, equivalently, $`\stackrel{}{M}`$ and $`\stackrel{}{B}`$ are not collinear. This means that the microscopic dipoles are not aligned with the macroscopic field, which therefore indeed causes a torque on each dipole, which add up to a torque per unit volume $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\stackrel{}{M}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$. As a consistency check, we calculate a component of the torque density in terms of the stress tensor (as in Ref. , but note the opposite sign convention for the stress tensor), $`\tau _i=ϵ_{ijk}T_{jk}=ϵ_{ijk}H_jB_k/(4\pi )`$, thus $`\stackrel{}{\tau }=\stackrel{}{H}\times \stackrel{}{B}/(4\pi )=\stackrel{}{M}\times \stackrel{}{B}`$, completing the consistency check.

Of course, if there is no counter-acting torque (for example due to microscopic interactions among neighboring dipoles), the dipoles will orient themselves along $`\stackrel{}{B}`$, in which case the stress tensor becomes symmetric and the torque disappears. If there are microscopic interactions keeping the dipoles locally aligned and at fixed positions with respect to each other, then a macroscopic matter element may act as a rigid body with a finite angular acceleration, that can not be subdivided into infinitesimal pieces with a divergent angular acceleration, because their magnetic torques are cancelled by the local microscopic interactions.

### 3.5 Magnetized fluid and anisotropic pressure

In a stationary, magnetized fluid, there are no microscopic forces keeping the the magnetization misaligned with the magnetic field, therefore $`\stackrel{}{M}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, $`\stackrel{}{B}(\stackrel{}{r})`$, and $`\stackrel{}{H}(\stackrel{}{r})`$ are collinear at every point $`\stackrel{}{r}`$. Choosing a local Cartesian basis with $`z`$axis aligned in the same direction, the stress tensor becomes diagonal, with components $`T_{xx}=T_{yy}=P_{}=MBB^2/(8\pi )`$ and $`T_{zz}=P_{}=B^2/(8\pi )`$. Thus, the parallel pressure $`P_{}<0`$ always, corresponding to the usual tension along field lines, while $`P_{}>0`$ as usual, unless $`MB/(8\pi )`$.

## 4 Conclusions

On the basis of physical arguments, we have found a magnetic stress tensor in magnetized matter that, although manifestly asymmetric, has the correct vacuum limit and appears to be consistent with all conceptual tests that we have applied. For the special case of a magnetized fluid, with magnetization parallel to the macroscopic field, we show that the longitudinal pressure remains negative and, unless the magnetization is extremely strong, the perpendicular pressure remains positive. Thus, a neutron star with an extremely strong magnetic field will definitely not collapse to a prolate structure, as has been proposed, but, if anything, to an oblate structure, assuming that the star’s fluid pressure does not impede it.

## Acknowledgments

The authors thank the organizers of the International Workshop on Strong Magnetic Fields for providing the stage for several interesting discussions, and our fellow participants for motivating us to do the present calculation and refine the arguments presented here. The main calculation was carried out over an excellent crab dinner at the “paladar” Aries. (The astronomical overtones of both the menu and the restaurant’s name are pure chance!) This work and our participation in the workshop were supported by the workshop organizers, and by FONDECYT-Chile through the regular research grant 1020840 and the L.C. grant 8000017.