text:
# Spectral synthesis and masa-bimodules

## 1 Introduction and preliminaries

The interaction between Harmonic Analysis and Operator Theory has been fruitful. In  Arveson related results in the Theory of Operator Algebras to such in Spectral Synthesis. He defined synthesis for subspace lattices and proved that certain classes of lattices are synthetic. The main result in this note is a generalization of a result of Arveson for the case of subspace maps. In order to describe in more detail the content of the present work, we need to introduce some definitions and facts from  and .

Let $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ be separable complex Hilbert spaces, $`𝒫_i`$ the lattice of all (orthogonal) projections on $`_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Following Erdos , we let $`(𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$ denote the set of all maps $`\phi :𝒫_1𝒫_2`$ which are 0-preserving and $``$-continuous (i.e. preserve arbitrary suprema). We will call such maps subspace maps. It was shown in  that each $`\phi (𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$ uniquely defines semi-lattices $`𝒮_{1\phi }𝒫_1`$ and $`𝒮_{2\phi }=\phi (𝒫_1)𝒫_2`$ such that $`\phi `$ is a bijection between $`𝒮_{1\phi }`$ and $`𝒮_{2\phi }`$ and is uniquely determined by its restriction to $`𝒮_{1\phi }`$. Moreover, $`𝒮_{1\phi }`$ is meet-complete and contains the identity projection while $`𝒮_{2\phi }`$ is join-complete and contains the zero projection. If $`𝒮_{1\phi }`$ and $`𝒮_{2\phi }`$ are commutative, we say that $`\phi `$ is a commutative subspace map.

Note that the set

$$_{max}(\phi )=\{T(_1,_2):\phi (P)^{}TP=0\text{for each }P𝒫_1\}$$

is also uniquely determined by $`\phi |_{𝒮_{1\phi }}`$: if $`T`$ satisfies $`\phi (P)^{}TP=0`$ for each $`P𝒮_{1\phi }`$, then $`T_{max}(\phi )`$. Let us note that in the work of Erdos  the notation $`Op\left(\phi \right)`$was used to denote the space $`_{max}(\phi )`$. However, it was more convenient for us to use the above notation (see below).

Given a subspace $`𝒰(_1,_2)`$, we define its map $`Map𝒰:𝒫_1𝒫_2`$ by

$$Map𝒰(P)=\overline{[𝒰(P)]}(P𝒫_1)$$

(where the symbol $`\overline{[𝒰(P)]}`$ stands for the projection onto the closed subspace spanned by $`\{Sx:xP(_1),S𝒰\}`$).

If $`\phi ^{}=Map𝒰^{}`$, then $`𝒮_{1\phi }=\{P^{}:P\phi ^{}(𝒫_2)\}`$ .

If $`\phi _1,\mathrm{},\phi _n`$ are maps, by $`\phi _1\mathrm{}\phi _n`$ we denote the map of the space $`_{max}(\phi _1)\mathrm{}_{max}(\phi _n)`$.

A subspace $`𝒰`$ is called reflexive, if $`𝒰=_{max}(\phi )`$ for some subspace map $`\phi `$ , . If $``$ is reflexive, it follows from the separability of the Hilbert spaces that there exist (countable) families $`\{E_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ and $`\{F_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`=\{T:F_iTE_i=0,i\}`$. Conversely, every set of this type is reflexive.

Given $`\phi (𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$, the subspace

$$𝒱=\{T(_1,_2):\phi (L)TL^{}=0\text{for each }L𝒮_{1\phi }\}$$

is clearly reflexive. We denote its map by $`\phi ^{}`$. Thus $`𝒱=_{max}(\phi ^{})`$ and $`\phi ^{}(𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$ satisfies $`\phi ^{}(L^{})\phi (L)^{}`$ for each $`L𝒮_{1\phi }`$.

Let us note that subspace maps are a generalization of subspace lattices. Indeed, if $``$ is a subspace lattice, there is a unique map $`\phi (𝒫_1,𝒫_2)`$ which has semi-lattices equal to $``$ and the restriction of $`\phi `$ to $``$ is the identity map on $``$. Moreover, we have that $`_{max}(\phi )=Alg`$, the algebra of all operators leaving each element of $``$ invariant .

Now we describe the notion of synthesis for subspace maps. Recall first that a masa-bimodule $`𝒰(_1,_2)`$ is a subspace of operators, such that $`𝒟_2𝒰𝒟_1𝒰`$ for some maximal abelian selfadjoint algebras (masas) $`𝒟_1(_1)`$ and $`𝒟_2(_2)`$. If $`\phi `$ is a commutative subspace map, we consider the family

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=\{𝒰(_1,_2):𝒰\text{ is a weak*-closed }𝒟_2,𝒟_1\text{-bimodule },Map𝒰=\phi \}.$$

By a result of Arveson and Erdos , the family $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$, along with its maximal element, $`_{max}(\phi )`$, contains also a minimal element, denoted by $`_{min}(\phi )`$. The map $`\phi `$ is called synthetic, if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contains only one element, or equivalently, if $`_{max}(\phi )=_{min}(\phi )`$. A reflexive masa-bimodule $``$ is called synthetic, if $`Map`$ is synthetic.

There is an alternative description of the spaces $`_{max}(\phi )`$ and $`_{min}(\phi )`$ , . If $`(X,m)`$ and $`(Y,n)`$ are standard measure spaces, then the sets of the form $`M\times YX\times N`$, where $`MX`$ and $`NY`$ are null sets, and their subsets, are said to be marginally null . If $`\kappa X\times Y`$ is a Borel set whose complement is a union of Borel rectangles, then an operator $`T`$ is said to be supported on $`\kappa `$ if $`P(\beta )TP(\alpha )=0`$ for each Borel rectangle $`\alpha \times \beta `$ whose intersection with $`\kappa `$ is a marginally null set (by $`P(\alpha )`$ we denote the projection which corresponds to multiplication by the characteristic function of the set $`\alpha )`$. The space $`_{max}(\kappa )`$ consisting of all operators, supported on $`\kappa `$, is a reflexive masa-bimodule. Each reflexive space $`(L^2(X,m),L^2(Y,n))`$, which is a bimodule over the multiplication masas, is of this form . A set $`\kappa X\times Y`$ is called synthetic, if $`_{max}(\kappa )`$ is a synthetic masa-bimodule. The minimal ultraweakly closed masa-bimodule whose map is equal to the map of $`_{max}(\kappa )`$, is denoted by $`_{min}(\kappa )`$. To obtain more explicit description of $`_{min}(\kappa )`$, we need topology. If $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are compact metric spaces with Borel measures $`m`$ and $`n`$ and if $`(L^2(X,m),L^2(Y,n))`$ is a reflexive masa-bimodule, then a closed set $`\kappa X\times Y`$ can be chosen such that $`=_{max}(\kappa )`$. Then $`_{min}(\kappa )`$ equals to the ultaweak closure of the space of “pseudointegral” operators supported on $`\kappa `$ (see  for details).

Recall  that a subspace map $`\phi `$ is called an ortho-map, if $`\phi (L)\phi (L^{})`$, for each $`L𝒮_{1\chi }`$. Ortho-maps are the subspace analogue of the orthocomplemented lattices. In  Arveson proved that each commutative Boolean lattice is synthetic. A generalization of this fact  will be of importance for us:

###### Theorem 1.1

Commutative subspace ortho-maps are synthetic.

On the other edge of the ortho-maps are the nest maps - these are those subspace maps which have totally ordered semi-lattices. Nest maps are also synthetic .

Now we introduce the map analogue of the finite width lattices.

###### Definition 1.2

A (commutative) subspace map $`\phi `$ will be called map of finite width, if there exist nest maps $`\chi _1,\chi _2,\mathrm{},\chi _n`$ such that the (respective) semi-lattices of $`\chi _i`$ commute with each other and $`\phi =\chi _1\chi _2\mathrm{}\chi _n`$.

It is clear that if $`\phi `$ is a map of finite width, then the space $`_{max}(\phi )`$ is a bimodule over two finite width algebras. As we shall see later, the converse does not hold.

The next Section contains the main result of the paper, namely that every map of finite width is synthetic. In Section 3 we investigate the following question: Suppose that $``$ is a masa-bimodule and let $`𝒜`$ and $``$ be the biggest algebras, over which $``$ is a bimodule. If $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are synthetic, does it follow that $``$ is synthetic as well? We introduce a class of masa-bimodules, which we call thin masa-bimodules; these are the reflexive masa-bimodules which are not bimodules over any algebras bigger than the masa’s. Our main example (Theorem 3.5) answers the above question negatively. Next we characterize the thin masa-bimodules in the class of normalizing masa-bimodules (for the respective definition see the paragraph preceding Theorem 3.7). We give a criterion for the union of two synthetic sets to be again a synthetic set and use it to describe an example of a non-normalizing synthetic thin masa-bimodule.

## 2 The main result

###### Theorem 2.1

Maps of finite width are synthetic.

The proof of this theorem follows the ideas of Arveson  and relies on several lemmas.

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`\{_i\}_{i=1}^n`$ ($`_i(_1,_2)`$) be a (finite) family of reflexive masa-bimodules, let $`\phi _i=Map_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, and suppose that the respective semi-lattices of $`\phi _i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, commute with each other. Then there are compact metric spaces $`X`$ and $`Y`$, regular Borel measures $`m`$ and $`n`$ on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively and closed sets $`\kappa _iX\times Y`$ such that $`_1`$ and $`_2`$ are unitarily equivalent to $`L^2(X,m)`$ and $`L^2(Y,n)`$, the masas are unitarily equivalent to the multiplication algebras of $`L^{\mathrm{}}(X,m)`$ and $`L^{\mathrm{}}(Y,n)`$ and $`_i`$ is unitarily equivalent to $`_{max}(\kappa _i)`$, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Moreover, if $`=_{i=1}^n_i`$, then $`=_{max}(_{i=1}^n\kappa _i)`$.

The lemma follows immediately from the work in Theorem 4.6 of  and we omit the proof.

###### Lemma 2.3

If $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ are commutative maps and $`_{max}(\phi )`$ $``$ $`_{max}(\psi )`$, then $`_{min}(\phi )`$ $``$ $`_{min}(\psi )`$.

Proof.  From Lemma 2.2 it follows that we can choose representations $`_1=L^2(X,m)`$ and $`_2=L^2(Y,n)`$ and closed sets $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ with $`\kappa _1\kappa _2`$ such that $`_{max}(\phi _1)=_{max}(\kappa _1)`$ and $`_{max}(\phi _2)=_{max}(\kappa _2)`$. From  we have that $`_{min}(\kappa _1)`$ is the ultraweak closure of the space of pseudointegral operators with measures supported on $`\kappa _1`$, and similarly for $`_{min}(\kappa _2)`$. The conclusion follows since $`\kappa _1\kappa _2`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.4

Let $`\phi `$ be a synthetic commutative subspace map and $`\chi `$ be a nest map with semi-lattices $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ which commute with the semi-lattices of the map $`\phi `$. Then, for each $`P\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$, we have

$$\chi (P)_{max}(\phi )P^{}_{min}(\phi \chi ).$$

Proof.  Choose families $`=\{E_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`=\{F_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ such that $`P\{E_i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`\chi (E_i)=F_i`$, $``$ is strongly dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $``$ is strongly dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. Next, acording to Theorem 4.6 of  and Lemma 2.2 choose representations $`_1=L^2(X,m)`$, $`_2=L^2(Y,n)`$, in such a way that there exist closed and open sets $`\alpha _iX`$ and $`\beta _iY`$ such that $`E_i=P(\alpha _i)`$ and $`F_i=P(\beta _i)`$ and the support $`\kappa `$ of $`_{max}(\phi )`$ can be taken to be a closed set. Then the support $`\lambda X\times Y`$ is (marginally equivalent to) the complement of the set $`_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _i\times \beta _i^c`$. Let $`\alpha =\alpha _{i_0}`$ and $`\beta =\beta _{i_0}`$ where $`i_0`$ is the index with the property $`P=P(\alpha _{i_0})`$. It is straightforward to verify that $`\alpha ^c\times \beta \lambda `$.

Let $`T_{max}(\phi )`$. Since $`\phi `$ is synthetic, it follows that $`T`$ is a limit of a net $`\{T_\gamma \}_{\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }}`$ of pseudointegral operators supported on $`\kappa `$. Then the operators $`S_\gamma =\chi (P)T_\gamma P^{}`$, $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$, are pseudointegral and the previous paragraph shows that $`S_\gamma `$ is supported on $`\kappa \lambda `$, for each $`\gamma \mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Obviously $`S_\gamma \chi (P)TP^{}`$. This shows that $`\chi (P)TP^{}_{min}(\kappa \lambda )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.5

Let $`\phi `$ be a commutative subspace map and $`\chi `$ be a nest map such that the respective semi-lattices of $`\phi `$ and $`\chi `$ commute. If the maps $`\phi `$ and $`\phi \chi \chi ^{}`$ are synthetic, then the map $`\phi \chi `$ is synthetic.

Proof.  Let $`T_{max}(\phi \chi )`$. We will show that $`T_{min}(\phi \chi )`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ be the semi-lattices of $`\chi `$. Since $`\chi `$ is a nest map, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$ are totally ordered. Let $`\{E_i\}\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ be a countable family dense in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ in the strong operator topology. If $`E`$ is a projection, we set $`E^{+1}=E`$ and $`E^1=E^{}`$. For each $`s=(s_1,\mathrm{},s_n)`$, where $`n`$, we let

$$E^s=E_1^{s_1}E_2^{s_2}\mathrm{}E_n^{s_n}.$$

It is clear that the projections $`E^s`$ are just the atoms of the Boolean lattice generated by the family $`\{E_i\}_{i=1}^n`$. We set also

$$\chi (E^s)=\chi (E_1)^{s_1}\chi (E_2)^{s_2}\mathrm{}\chi (E_n)^{s_n}.$$

We let

$$R_n=\underset{s}{}\chi (E^s)TE^s,S_n=\underset{st}{}\chi (E^s)TE^t.$$

Obviously $`T=R_n+S_n`$, for each $`n`$. We will show first that $`S_n_{min}(\phi \chi )`$. It is enough to see that $`\chi (E^s)TE^t_{min}(\phi \chi )`$, if $`st`$. So let $`st`$ and $`i`$, $`1in`$, be such that $`s_it_i`$. If $`s_i=+1`$ and $`t_i=1`$, then there are projections $`F`$ and $`G`$ in the respective masas such that $`\chi (E^s)TE^t=G\chi (E_i)^{}TE_iF`$. The last expression is equal to zero, since $`T_{max}(\phi \chi )_{max}(\chi )`$. If $`s_i=+1`$ and $`t_i=1`$, then there are projections $`F`$ and $`G`$ in the respective masas such that $`\chi (E^s)TE^t=G\chi (E_i)TE_i^{}F`$. From Lemma 2.4 it follows that $`\chi (E_i)TE_i^{}_{min}(\phi \chi )`$ and thus $`\chi (E^s)TE^t_{min}(\phi \chi )`$ and so we proved that $`S_n_{min}(\phi \chi )`$.

In order to deal with $`R_n`$, we notice first that for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ we have that $`R_nE_i=\chi (E_i)R_n`$. Since the sequence $`\{R_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is $``$-bounded, there is a subsequence $`\{R_n^{}\}`$, ultraweakly converging to an operator $`R`$. It is easy to see that $`R(\chi \chi ^{})`$. Indeed, for each $`n^{}`$ and $`m^{}`$ with $`m^{}>n^{}`$, we have that $`\chi (E_i)R_m^{}=R_m^{}E_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n^{}`$. Thus $`\chi (E_i)R=RE_i`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n^{}`$. Since this holds for each $`n^{}`$, we conclude that $`R_{max}(\chi \chi ^{})`$.

If $`S=TR`$, we have that $`S_n^{}S`$ in the ultraweak topology. We showed that $`S_n^{}_{min}(\phi \chi )`$. Since the last space is ultarweakly closed, we have that $`S_{min}(\phi \chi )`$. On the other hand, we have that

$$_{max}(\phi \chi \chi ^{})_{max}(\phi \chi ).$$

So, according to Lemma 2.3, we have that

$$R_{max}(\phi \chi \chi ^{})=_{min}(\phi \chi \chi ^{})_{min}(\phi \chi ).$$

Thus $`T=R+S_{min}(\phi \chi )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Proof of Theorem 2.1.  It suffices to show the following:

Claim. If $`\chi _1,\mathrm{},\chi _n`$ are nest maps, $`\psi =\chi _1\chi _1^{}\mathrm{}\chi _n\chi _n^{}`$, $`\phi `$ is a finite width map such that the respective semi-lattices of $`\chi _i`$ and $`\phi `$ commute with each other, then the map $`\psi \phi `$ is synthetic.

Indeed, suppose that the claim holds and let $`\phi `$ be a finite width map. We will show that $`\phi `$ is synthetic using induction on its width. If $`\phi `$ is a nest map, then it is of course synthetic. Now let $`\phi `$ have width $`n+1`$, $`\phi _0`$ be a map of width $`n`$ and $`\chi `$ a nest map such that $`\phi =\phi _0\chi `$. From the Claim we have that the map $`\phi _0\chi \chi ^{}`$ is synthetic. Now from Lemma 2.5 it follows that $`\phi _0\chi =\phi `$ is synthetic.

To prove the Claim we use again induction on the width of $`\phi `$. Let $`\phi `$ be a nest map. From  we have that $`\psi `$ and $`\psi \phi \phi ^{}`$ are synthetic maps. From Lemma 2.5 we conclude that $`\psi \phi `$ is synthetic. Let $`\phi `$ have width $`n+1`$. Then $`\phi =\phi _0\chi `$ where $`\phi _0`$ has width $`n`$ and $`\chi `$ is a nest map. Thus $`\phi _0\psi `$ and $`\phi _0\psi \chi \chi ^{}`$ are synthetic and so again from Lemma 2.5 we obtain that $`\phi _0\psi \chi =\phi \psi `$ is synthetic. $`\mathrm{}`$

Remarks (i) We do not know whether the result on the synthesis of finite width maps can be inferred directly from the Arveson’s result for finite width lattices by using a suitable two by two matrix algebra.

(ii) It is known that the support of a nest algebra bimodule is of the form $`\{(x,y):f(x)g(y)\}`$, for some Borel functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ (see  for a detailed proof). Thus Theorem 2.1 can be rephrased by saying that the set of solutions of a system of inequalities of the form

$$f_1(x)g_1(y)$$

$$f_2(x)g_2(y)$$

$$.\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}\mathrm{}.$$

$$f_n(x)g_n(y),$$

where $`f_1,f_2,\mathrm{},f_n`$ and $`g_1,g_2,\mathrm{},g_n`$ are Borel functions, is a synthetic set.

(iii) Theorem 2.1 is a generalization of the result on the synthesis of orthomaps (Theorem 1.1) , . Indeed, a set of the form

$$\{(x,y):f(x)=g(y)\}$$

is clearly the set of solutions of a system of two inequalities (see the paragraph before Theorem 3.7).

## 3 Thin masa-bimodules

If a reflexive subspace $`(_1,_2)`$ is a bimodule over two masas $`𝒟_1(_1)`$ and $`𝒟_2(_2)`$, then $``$ is automatically a bimodule over two, in general bigger, CSL algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$. Indeed, if $`\phi =Map`$ and $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ are the semi-lattices of $`\phi `$, then it is enough to put $`𝒜=Alg𝒮_1`$ and $`=Alg𝒮_2`$. It is also easy to see that the algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are the biggest algebras over which the space $``$ is bimodule. Of course, crucial here is the fact that $``$ is reflexive. We are interested in the following question: If the algebras $`𝒜`$ and $``$ are synthetic, does it follow that the bimodule $``$ is synthetic as well? We show that the answer to this question is negative. More generally, we investigate the class of masa-bimodules which are not bimodules over any bigger algebras.

###### Definition 3.1

A reflexive masa-bimodule $``$ will be called thin, if the biggest algebras over which $``$ is a bimodule, are the masas.

It is clear that a masa is a thin masa-bimodule. A simple class of thin masa-bimodules consists of the bimodules of the form $`U𝒟V`$, where $`𝒟`$ is a masa and $`U`$ and $`V`$ are unitary operators (the last space is obviously a bimodule over the masas $`𝒟_1=U𝒟U^{}`$ and $`𝒟_2=V^{}𝒟V`$). It is not true, however, that every thin masa-bimodule is of this form (see Theorem 3.5 and Example 3.11).

We first give a criterion which we will use in determining whether a (reflexive) masa-bimodule is thin. It is an immediate consequence of a rather well-known condition that a family of projections generates the multiplication masa (as a W\*-algebra). The proof is omited.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`(Z,\mu )`$ be a standard measure space, $`=L^2(Z,\mu )`$ and $`𝒟`$ be the multiplication masa. Let $`𝒮𝒟`$ be a family of projections and $`𝒞=Alg𝒮`$. Then $`𝒞=𝒟`$ if and only if there is a countable family $`\{\beta _i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ of Borel subsets of $`Z`$ such that $`\{P(\beta _i)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}𝒮`$ and which separates almost all points of $`Z`$ (in the sense that there is a null set $`AZ`$ such that for each $`x,yA`$, there is an $`i`$ such that $`x\beta _i`$ and $`y\beta _i`$).

Before proceeding, we state two Propositions which will be useful for us throughout this section. They relate the work of Erdos  to that of Erdos, Katavolos and Shulman . The proof of the first Proposition is omited. Let $`(X,m)`$ and $`(Y,n)`$ be standard measure spaces, $`_1=L^2(X,m)`$ and $`_2=L^2(Y,n)`$.

###### Proposition 3.3

Let $`\kappa X\times Y`$ be a Borel set, $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa )`$ and $`\phi =Map𝒰`$. Let $`\alpha X`$ and $`\beta Y`$. Then $`\phi (P(\alpha ))=P(\beta )^{}`$ if and only if

(a) $`(\alpha \times \beta )\kappa \mathrm{}`$ and

(b) if $`(\alpha \times \beta ^{})\kappa \mathrm{}`$ for some Borel set $`\beta ^{}Y`$, then $`\beta ^{}\beta `$ modulo null set.

###### Proposition 3.4

Let $`f:YX`$ be a Borel function, $`\kappa =\{(f(y),y):yY\}`$, $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa )`$ and $`\phi =Map𝒰`$. Then $`\phi (P(\alpha ))=P(f^1(\alpha ))`$ if and only if $`f`$ preserves null sets (in the sense that $`f^1(\alpha )`$ is null whenever $`\alpha `$ is null).

Proof.  If $`\phi `$ is given as in the Lemma and $`\alpha X`$ is a null set, then $`P(\alpha )=0`$ and thus $`\phi (P(\alpha ))=0`$. This means that $`P(f^1(\alpha ))=0`$ and so $`f^1(\alpha )`$ is a null set.

Conversely, suppose that $`f`$ preserves null sets. Fix a Borel set $`\alpha X`$. It is clear that $`(\alpha \times f^1(\alpha )^c)\kappa =\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\beta Y`$ be such that $`(\alpha \times \beta )\kappa \mathrm{}`$. Put $`\gamma =\beta f^1(\alpha )`$. We have that

$$\{(f(y),y):y\gamma \}(\alpha \times \beta )\kappa $$

and thus

$$\{(f(y),y):y\gamma \}M\times YX\times N,$$

for some null sets $`MX`$ and $`NY`$. This means that, if $`y\gamma `$, then either $`yN`$ or $`f(y)M`$. Thus $`f(\gamma N^c)M`$, or, $`\gamma N^cf^1(M)`$. Since $`f`$ preserves null sets, we have that $`\gamma N^c`$ is null, and so $`\gamma `$ is null. This means that $`\beta f^1(\alpha )^c`$ modulo null set and from Proposition 3.3 we have that $`P(f^1(\alpha ))=\phi (P(\alpha ))`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The main result in this section is the following.

###### Theorem 3.5

There exists a non-synthetic thin masa-bimodule.

Proof.  Let $`𝕋=[0,1)`$ be the group of the circle and let $`E𝕋`$ be a closed set such that

(a) $`E`$ fails spectral synthesis;

(b) $`diamE<\frac{1}{3}`$;

(c) if $`a=infE`$ and $`b=supE`$, then $`\frac{1}{2}`$ is the centre of the interval $`[a,b]`$.

In order to establish the existence of such an $`E`$ we recall that each Cantor set of $`𝕋`$ contains a set which fails spectral synthesis (see , p. 231). We choose a Cantor set $`C`$ with $`0=infC`$ and $`diamC<\frac{1}{3}`$ and a subset $`E_0C`$ which fails spectral synthesis. Then we translate $`E_0`$ to get the required set $`E`$. (We note that the class of sets of spectral synthesis is invariant under translations.)

Let $`s=\frac{ba}{2}`$ and $`\lambda =\{(x,y)𝕋\times 𝕋:yxE\}`$. It follows from  that the space $`=_{max}(\lambda )(L^2(𝕋))`$ is a non-synthetic masa-bimodule. In order to finish the proof we need only show that $``$ is thin. Let $`\phi =Map`$ and $`𝒮_1`$ and $`𝒮_2`$ be the semi-lattices of $`\phi `$. We will show only that $`Alg𝒮_2`$ is a masa, the fact that $`Alg𝒮_1`$ is also a masa obviously follows by symmetry. We will apply Proposition 3.2. Let $`\{r_i\}_i`$ be the set of rationals in $`𝕋`$. We fix $`i`$.

1) If $`0<r_i<a2s`$, we let $`\alpha _i^1=[0,a+r_i]`$, $`\alpha _i^2=[b+r_i,1]`$, $`\beta _i^1=[r_i,a]`$ and $`\beta _i^2=[0,r_i][b,1]`$. Then according to Proposition 3.3, we have that $`\phi (P(\alpha _i^j))^{}=P(\beta _i^j)`$, $`j=1,2`$.

2) If $`a2s<r_i<a`$, we let $`\alpha _i^1=[0,a+r_i]`$, $`\alpha _i^2=[b+r_i,1]`$, $`\beta _i^1=[r_i,a]`$, $`\gamma _i^2=[0,r_i][b,1]`$ and $`\delta _i=[0,r_i][b,1][a,r_i+2s]`$. By Proposition 3.3, we have that $`P(\beta _i^1)=\phi (P(\alpha _i^1))^{}`$. If $`\beta _i^2`$ is such that $`P(\beta _i^2)=\phi (P(\alpha _i^2))^{}`$, then it is easy to see that $`\gamma _i^2\beta _i^2\delta _i^2`$, modulo null sets.

3) If $`a<r_i<b`$, we let $`\alpha _i^1=[r_ia,b]`$, $`\alpha _i^2=[a,a+r_i]`$, $`\beta _i^1=[2s,r_i]`$ and $`\beta _i^2=[r_i,12s]`$. Again by Proposition 3.3, we have that $`\phi (P(\alpha _i^j))^{}=P(\beta _i^j)`$, $`j=1,2`$.

4) If $`b<r_i<b+2s`$, we let $`\alpha _i^1=[0,r_ib]`$, $`\alpha _i^2=[r_ia,1]`$, $`\gamma _i^1=[0,a][r_i,1]`$, $`\delta _i^1=[0,a][r_i2s,b][r_i,1]`$, $`\beta _i^2=[b,r_i]`$. As above we have that $`P(\beta _i^1)=\phi (P(\alpha _i^1))^{}`$. If $`\beta _i^2`$ is such that $`P(\beta _i^2)=\phi (P(\alpha _i^2))^{}`$, then it is easy to see that $`\gamma _i^2\beta _i^2\delta _i^2`$, modulo null sets.

5) If $`b+2s<r_i<1`$, we let $`\alpha _i^1=[0,r_ib]`$, $`\alpha _i^2=[r_ia,1]`$, $`\beta _i^1=[0,a][r_i,1]`$ and $`\beta _i^2=[b,r_i]`$. As above we have $`\phi (P(\alpha _i^j))^{}=P(\beta _i^j)`$, $`j=1,2`$.

We have that $`\{P(\beta _i^{jc}):i,j=1,2\}𝒮_2`$, since the projections $`P(\beta _i^j)^{}`$ are in the image of $`\phi `$. In order to complete the proof, it will suffice to show that the family $`\{\beta _i^j:i,j=1,2,3\}`$ separates almost all points of $`𝕋`$, since then, by symmetry, the family $`\{\beta _i^{jc}:i,j=1,2,3\}`$ will also separate almost all points of $`𝕋`$. So we will show that $`\{\beta _i^j:i,j=1,2\}`$ separates the points of $`𝕋\{0,a2s,a,b,b+2s,1\}`$. Let $`x𝕋\{0,a2s,a,b,b+2s,1\}`$. We consider the following cases:

1) $`0<x<a2s`$. Then

$`\{x\}`$ $``$ $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,i,j=1,2\}`$
$``$ $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,0<r_i<a2s,j=1,2\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\beta _i^1\beta _k^2:x\beta _i^1x\beta _k^2,0<r_k<r_i<a2s\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{[r_k,r_i]:x[r_k,r_i]\}=\{x\}.`$
2) $`a2s<x<a`$. Then

$`\{x\}`$ $``$ $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,i,j=1,2\}`$
$``$ $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,a2s<r_i<a,j=1,2\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\beta _i^1\beta _k^2:x\beta _i^1x\beta _k^2,a2s<r_i<r_k<a\}.`$
Since $`\gamma _k^2\beta _k^2\delta _k^2`$, we have that $`\beta _i^1\gamma _k^2\beta _i^1\beta _k^2\beta _i^1\delta _k^2`$. If $`r_i<r_k`$, then $`\beta _i^1\gamma _k^2=\beta _i^1\delta _k^2=[r_i,r_k]\{a\}`$. This implies that $`\beta _i^1\beta _k^2=(r_i,r_k)\{a\}`$ and it follows that $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,i,j=1,2\}\{a\}=\{x\}`$.

3) $`a<x<b`$. Then

$`\{x\}`$ $``$ $`\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,i,j=1,2\}\{\beta _i^j:x\beta _i^j,a<r_i<b,j=1,2\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\beta _i^1\beta _k^2:x\beta _i^1x\beta _k^2,a<r_i<r_k<b\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{[r_i,r_k]:x[r_i,r_k]\}=\{x\}.`$
4) $`b<x<b+2s`$. This case is similar to 2)

5) $`b+2s<x<1`$. This case is similar to 1) $`\mathrm{}`$

Remarks (i) It is clear that the only thin (reflexive) masa-bimodule that is also an algebra, is the masa. Thus, one might imagine that thin (reflexive) masa-bimodules are the module analogue of the masa’s. Theorem 3.5 shows that this is not the case. The proper module analogue of the masa are the normalizing thin masa-bimodules, which are characterized in Theorem 3.7.

(ii) Every thin CSL algebra is synthetic since it must be equal to the masa. Thus Theorem 3.5 contains another example where algebra results do not carry over to bimodules.

Theorem 3.5 implies the following.

###### Corollary 3.6

There exists a reflexive masa-bimodule $``$ such that the maximal algebras over which it is a bimodule are of finite width, but $``$ is not a finite width bimodule.

Proof.  Let $``$ be the masa-bimodule from the proof of Theorem 3.5. Then the maximal algebras over which $``$ is a bimodule are masas, and so have width two. On the other hand, $``$ is not a finite width bimodule itself, because if it were, then it would have been synthetic (Theorem 2.1). $`\mathrm{}`$

We proceed by describing a class of examples of thin masa-bimodules. Let us recall that an ultraweakly closed masa-bimodule $`𝒰`$ is called normalizing , if $`Map𝒰`$ is an ortho-map. (These are precisely the reflexive masa-bimodules which are also ternary rings of operators in the sense of , that is, closed under the triple product $`(T,S,R)TS^{}R`$. Here we have retained the terminology from .) The ultraweakly closed normalizing masa-bimodules were characterized in  as the reflexive masa-bimodules whose support have the form $`\{(x,y):f(x)=g(y)\}`$, where $`f:X`$ and $`g:Y`$ are measurable functions.

###### Theorem 3.7

Let $`(X,m)`$ and $`(Y,n)`$ be standard measure spaces, $`_1=L^2(X,m)`$, $`_2=L^2(Y,n)`$, $`𝒟_1`$ and $`𝒟_2`$ be the multiplication masas on $`_1`$ and $`_2`$. Then an ultraweakly closed normalizing $`𝒟_2,𝒟_1`$-bimodule $`𝒰`$ is thin if and only if there exists an almost one-to-one and onto Borel function $`f:XY`$ which preserves null sets, such that $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa )`$, where $`\kappa =\{(x,f(x)):xX\}`$ is the graph of $`f`$.

Proof.  Suppose that a normalizing masa-bimodule $`𝒰`$ is thin. Since $`𝒰`$ is a bimodule over the algebras $`(𝒰𝒰^{})^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`(𝒰^{}𝒰)^{\prime \prime }`$, it follows that these algebras are abelian. By Corollary 3.3 of  we have that there exist Borel sets $`X_0X`$ and $`Y_0Y`$ and Borel functions $`f:X_0Y`$ and $`g:Y_0X`$ which preserve null sets, such that both of the sets

$$\{(g(y),y):yY_0\}$$

and

$$\{(x,f(x)):xX_0\}$$

are marginally equivalent to the support of $`𝒰`$. It follows that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are (almost) one-to-one functions. On the other hand, $`𝒰`$ is easily seen to be a bimodule over the algebras $`Q(_2)Q`$ and $`P(_1)P`$, where $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are the projections corresponding to the complements of $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ respectively. Since these algebras must be abelian, it follows that $`P=Q=0`$, so that $`X_0`$ and $`Y_0`$ have full measure. Thus the support of $`𝒰`$ is the graph of an almost one-to-one and onto function which preserves null sets.

Conversely, suppose that $`f:XY`$ is an almost one-to-one and onto Borel function which preserves null sets and let $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa )`$, where $`\kappa =\{(x,f(x)):xX\}`$. By Proposition 3.4 we have that $`\phi (P(\alpha ))=P(f(\alpha ))`$, for each Borel set $`\alpha X`$. Thus, for each Borel set $`\alpha X`$, the projection $`P(f(\alpha ))`$ is an element of the right semi-lattice of $`\phi `$. Since $`X`$ is standard, there is a family $`\{\alpha _i\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ which separates the points of $`X`$. Since $`f`$ is one-to-one and onto, the family $`\{f(\alpha _i)\}_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ separates the points of $`Y`$. From Proposition 3.2 it follows that the maximal algebra over which $`𝒰`$ is right module is the masa. By symmetry we get that $`𝒰`$ is a thin masa-bimodule. $`\mathrm{}`$

Before giving the last example of this section, we want to state a simple criterion, in terms of masa-bimodules, for the union of two synthetic sets to be again a synthetic set. We state also two Corollaries of this criterion. Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be compact metric spaces and $`m`$ and $`n`$ regular Borel measures on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. Let $`_1=L^2(X,m)`$ and $`_2=L^2(Y,n)`$.

###### Proposition 3.8

Let $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2X\times Y`$ be closed synthetic sets. Then the set $`\kappa =\kappa _1\kappa _2`$ is synthetic if and only if $`_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)`$ is dense in $`_{max}(\kappa )`$ in the ultarweak topology.

Proof.  First we show that

$`_{min}(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{_{min}(\kappa _1)+_{min}(\kappa _2)}^w^{}`$
$``$ $`\overline{_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)}^w^{}_{max}(\kappa ).`$
Let $`T_\mu `$ be a pseudointegral operator in $`_{min}(\kappa )`$ corresponding to a measure $`\mu `$. We define measures $`\mu _1`$ and $`\mu _2`$ by setting

$$\mu _1(E)=\mu (E\kappa _1\kappa _2^c),\mu _2(E)=\mu (E\kappa _2),EX\times Y\text{ Borel}.$$

It is obvious that $`\mu =\mu _1+\mu _2`$, hence $`T_\mu =T_{\mu _1}+T_{\mu _2}`$, and that $`\mu _i`$ is supported on $`\kappa _i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Thus $`_{min}(\kappa )\overline{_{min}(\kappa _1)+_{min}(\kappa _2)}^w`$.

It is clear that $`_{min}(\kappa _i)_{min}(\kappa )`$, $`i=1,2`$, so $`\overline{_{min}(\kappa _1)+_{min}(\kappa _2)}^w`$ $``$ $`_{min}(\kappa )`$; thus the first equality is proved.

The second inclusion is obvious. For the last inclusion, note that $`_{max}(\kappa _i)`$ $``$ $`_{max}(\kappa )`$, $`i=1,2`$. Since $`_{max}(\kappa )`$ is an ultraweakly closed space, we conclude that $`\overline{_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)}^w^{}_{max}(\kappa )`$.

Since $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ are synthetic, we have that $`_{min}(\kappa _i)=_{max}(\kappa _i)`$, $`i=1,2`$. If $`\overline{_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)}=_{max}(\kappa )`$, then

$`_{min}(\kappa )`$ $`=`$ $`\overline{_{min}(\kappa _1)+_{min}(\kappa _2)}^w^{}`$
$`=`$ $`\overline{_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)}^w^{}=_{max}(\kappa ).`$
Conversely, if $`\kappa `$ is synthetic, then $`_{min}(\kappa )=_{max}(\kappa )`$ and thus from the established inclusions it follows that $`\overline{_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)}=_{max}(\kappa )`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

We have the following immediate corollaries. The second is a classical result of Kadison and Singer .

###### Corollary 3.9

If $`\kappa _1,\kappa _2X\times Y`$ and $`\kappa _1\kappa _2=X\times Y`$, then $`_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)`$ is dense in $`(_1,_2)`$ in the ultraweak topology.

###### Corollary 3.10

If $`𝒜`$ is a nest algebra on a separable Hilbert space $``$, then $`𝒜+𝒜^{}`$ is dense in $`()`$ in the ultraweak topology.

Since each normalizing masa-bimodule is synthetic , Proposition 3.7 gives a family of synthetic thin masa-bimodules. As the next example shows, in the class of thin masa-bimodules, there are synthetic bimodules which are not normalizing.

###### Example 3.11

Let $`=L^2(0,1)`$ (Lebesgue measure) and $`\kappa =\{(x,y)[0,1]\times [0,1]:y=x\text{ or }y=\sqrt{x}\}`$. Then $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa )`$ is a synthetic non-normalizing thin masa-bimodule.

Proof.  Normalizing masa-bimodules have supports of the form $`\{(x,y):f(x)=g(y)\}`$ for some Borel functions $`f`$ and $`g`$ . Thus a support $`\lambda `$ of a normalizing masa-bimodule has necessarily the “rectangle” property

$$(x,y),(x^{},y),(x,y^{})\lambda (x^{},y^{})\lambda $$

for marginally almost all points of $`\lambda `$. (In fact, this property is characteristic for the supports of normalizing masa-bimodules .) It is obvious that the set $`\kappa `$ does not have this property.

To show that $`𝒰`$ is a thin bimodule, as in Theorem 3.5, we use Proposition 3.3. In this case we consider the images under the map of $`𝒰`$ of the sets $`\alpha _i^1=[0,r_i]`$ and $`\alpha _i^2=[r_i,1]`$ (see the proof of Theorem 3.5).

Now we prove that $`𝒰`$ is a synthetic bimodule. Let $`\{a_i\}_{i=\mathrm{}}^+\mathrm{}`$ be a sequence such that $`a_i[0,1]`$, $`i`$, $`\{a_i\}_{i0}`$ is decreasing and tends to zero, $`\{a_i\}_{i0}`$ is increasing and tends to one, $`a_0=\frac{1}{2}`$, $`a_i>a_{i+1}^2`$, $`i`$. Let $`\alpha _i=\beta _i^1=[a_{i+1},a_i]`$, $`\beta _i^2=[a_{i+1}^{\frac{1}{2}},a_i^{\frac{1}{2}}]`$, $`i`$. Set $`P_i=P(\alpha _i)`$ and $`G_n=P((_{i=1}^n\alpha _i)^c)`$, $`Q_i^j=P(\beta _i^j)`$, $`T_i^j=Q_i^jTP_i`$, $`j=1,2`$. We have that, for each $`n`$, $`T=_{nin}TP_i+TG_n`$. Since $`T`$ is supported on $`\kappa `$, we have that

$$TP_i=(Q_i^1Q_i^2)TP_i=Q_i^1TP_i+Q_i^2TP_i=T_i^1+T_i^2.$$

Thus, for each $`n`$, we have that

$$T=\underset{nin}{}(T_i^1+T_i^2)+TG_n.$$

Now let $`S_n=_{nin}T_i^1+TG_n`$. It is easy to see that the sequence $`\{S_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is bounded in norm and thus there is a subsequence $`\{S_n^{}\}`$ which converges to some operator $`T_1`$ in the ultraweak topology. Now, the operator $`T_1`$ is supported on the set

$$\lambda _n=\kappa _2\{(x,x):a_nxa_n\}.$$

So $`T_1`$ is supported on the intersection of $`\lambda _n`$, which is equal to $`\kappa _2`$.

Letting $`T_2=TT_1`$, we have that $`_{i=1}^nT_i^2_nT_2`$ in the ultarweak topology and obviously $`T_2`$ is supported on $`\kappa _1`$ (we have that $`_{i=1}^nT_i^2`$ is supported on $`\kappa _1`$ for each $`n`$). Thus we showed that $`𝒰=_{max}(\kappa _1)+_{max}(\kappa _2)`$. Since the sets $`\kappa _1`$ and $`\kappa _2`$ are supports of normalizing masa-bimodules, they are synthetic . From Proposition 3.8 it follows that $`𝒰`$ is synthetic. $`\mathrm{}`$

Let us note that the minimal normalizing masa-bimodule containing the bimodule from Example 3.11 has support $`\stackrel{~}{\kappa }=\{(x,y):n\text{ with }y=x^{2^n}\}`$.

Acknowledgements A part of the present work was done while the author was working on his PhD thesis at the University of Athens. The author wishes to express his deepest gratitude to his supervisor Aristides Katavolos for his help during the preparation of the paper. The author would also like to thank the referee for his/her comments.

This work was supported by the Hellenic State Scholarship Foundation.

Note After this work was completed, we were informed that V. S. Shulman and L. Turowska have independently obtained related results on the synthesis of finite width masa-bimodules (Section 2); see  and .

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification Numbers: Primary 47L05; Secondary 47L35