text:
# One-Sided Projections on 𝐶^∗-Algebras

## 1. Introduction

One of the main results of the present paper is the following:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra, and let $`P:𝒜𝒜`$ be a idempotent linear map. The following are equivalent:

* there is an orthogonal projection $`eM(𝒜)`$ such that $`Px=ex`$ for all $`x𝒜`$,
* the map $`x\left[\begin{array}{c}Px\\ xPx\end{array}\right]`$ is isometric as a map from $`𝒜`$ to $`C_2(𝒜)`$,
* the map $`\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Px\\ y\end{array}\right]`$ on $`C_2(𝒜)`$ is contractive,
* the map $`(Px,yPy)\left[\begin{array}{cc}Px& yPy\end{array}\right]`$ is isometric as a map from $`P𝒜_{\mathrm{}}(IdP)𝒜`$ to $`R_2(𝒜)`$,
* $`(Px)^{}Pxx^{}x`$ for all $`x𝒜`$,
* $`(Px)^{}(yPy)=0`$ for all $`x,y𝒜`$.

In the above, and throughout this paper, $`C_2(𝒜)`$ and $`R_2(𝒜)`$ are the first column and row of $`M_2(𝒜)`$, respectively. Since $`M_2(𝒜)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra, $`C_2(𝒜)`$ and $`R_2(𝒜)`$ have canonical norms. Indeed, the norm of a column (resp. row) with entries $`x`$ and $`y`$ from $`𝒜`$ is $`\sqrt{x^{}x+y^{}y}`$ (resp. $`\sqrt{xx^{}+yy^{}}`$). We write $`M(𝒜)`$ for the multiplier algebra of $`𝒜`$ (see  for example). Of course $`M(𝒜)=𝒜`$ if $`𝒜`$ has an identity. An idempotent map is a map $`P`$ for which $`PP=P`$. A projection on a Hilbert space, or in a $`C^{}`$-algebra, will mean an orthogonal projection. If $`e`$ is such a projection, then $`e^{}`$ will denote the complementary projection, $`1e`$. Throughout we use the symbol $``$ for a Hilbert space.

Let $`X`$ be a general operator space (i.e. a closed linear subspace of some $`B()`$). A linear map $`T`$ from $`X`$ to another operator space $`Y`$ induces a canonical map $`T_n:M_n(X)M_n(Y)`$. We say that $`T`$ is $`n`$-isometric if $`T_n`$ is an isometry, and that $`T`$ is completely isometric if it is $`n`$-isometric for every $`n`$. In , we defined a complete left $`M`$-projection on $`X`$ (resp. left $`M`$-projection on $`X`$) to be an idempotent linear map $`P`$ on $`X`$ such that the associated map in (ii) above is completely isometric (resp. isometric). Indeed, in the rest of the paper we will write $`\nu _P^c`$ for this map (from $`X`$ to $`C_2(X)`$). We showed in  that the complete left $`M`$-projections on a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ are exactly the maps in (i) of the Theorem above. Thus the equivalence of (i) and (ii) may be interpreted as the statement that every left $`M`$-projection on a $`C^{}`$-algebra is a complete left $`M`$-projection. Note also that (ii) is a non-commutative analog of the formula

$$x=\mathrm{max}\{Px,xPx\},$$

which characterizes classical $`M`$-projections on a Banach space .

In  we proved that $`P`$ being a complete left $`M`$-projection on a general operator space $`X`$ is equivalent to a number of other conditions. For example, it is equivalent to saying that the associated map in (iii) of the Theorem above is completely contractive. It is also equivalent to a ‘matricial version’ of (v) holding on $`X`$ (see , Section 4). Condition (iv) in fact also characterizes complete left $`M`$-projections on general (possibly non-self-adjoint) operator algebras which possess a contractive approximate identity, as we shall see in Section 6.

The other main result in our paper is the fact that the predual or dual of a von Neumann algebra possesses no nontrivial complete one-sided $`M`$-projections (or complete one-sided $`M`$-ideals).

In the final section of the paper we show that the intersection of finitely many complete one-sided $`M`$-summands in a $`C^{}`$-algebra need not be a complete one-sided $`M`$-summand, unlike the classical situation.

For the history of some of the topics discussed in our paper, and references to some related work of others, we refer the reader to the discussion in the introduction of . One part of this history should be amplified. Part (iii) of our Theorem 1.1 above, and its generalization below in Lemma 4.1, may be viewed as a strengthening of the characterization of ‘left multipliers of operator spaces’ given in Theorem 4.6 of , in the particular case that the operator space is a $`C^{}`$-algebra. We made much use of this Theorem 4.6 in  and elsewhere. Historically, left multipliers for an operator system $`S`$ were first considered by W. Werner in  around 1998, where he obtained the version appropriate to operator systems of our Theorem 4.6 of ; he also characterized left multipliers in terms of the injective envelope $`I(S)`$. A year later the first author, unaware of this work, considered left multipliers of operator spaces in  and . Theorem 4.6 in  was inspired by W. Werner’s characterization, but it was only recently that we saw that our result can be deduced from W. Werner’s original theorem from . Briefly, the point is that any operator space $`X`$ may be studied in terms of the off-diagonal $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& X\\ X^{}& 0\end{array}\right]`$ inside the ‘Paulsen system’; and thus may (after making a few appropriate choices) be seen to fall within the framework of the ‘non-unital operator systems’ that Werner considers in his theorem.

## 2. The Glimm-Halpern Reduction Theory

In this section we give a brief account of the Glimm-Halpern reduction theory (cf.  and ). The use of this theory in the proof of the main result in the next section was generously suggested by Edward Effros, who noticed its effective use in .

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ be the spectrum of the center $`𝒵()`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is an extremely disconnected compact Hausdorff space (, Theorem 5.2.1), meaning that the closure of every open set is open. We have that $`𝒵()C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ via the Gelfand transform. For each $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`_\omega =\mathrm{ker}(\omega )𝒵()`$ be the corresponding maximal ideal. Let $`_\omega `$ be the norm-closed, 2-sided ideal generated by $`_\omega `$. It is easy to check that

$$_\omega =\overline{\mathrm{span}\{zr:z_\omega ,r\}}.$$

Define $`_\omega =/_\omega `$, a $`C^{}`$-algebra. We regard $`\{_\omega :\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\}`$ as a decomposition of $``$. It has several attractive features, which we now discuss. We include the simpler proofs.

First some notation: for each $`x`$ and each $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, let $`x(\omega )=x+_\omega _\omega `$.

###### Theorem 2.1 (, Remarks before Lemma 9).

Let $`x`$. Then $`x=sup\{x(\omega ):\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\}`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`sup\{x(\omega ):\omega \mathrm{\Omega }\}x`$. On the other hand, there exists a pure state $`\phi :`$ such that $`x=\phi (x^{}x)^{1/2}`$ (, Theorem 4.3.8). We claim that $`\omega =\phi |_{𝒵()}\mathrm{\Omega }`$. Let us assume the claim for the moment. Because $`\phi |__\omega =\omega |__\omega =0`$, it follows that $`\phi |__\omega =0`$, by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

Thus for any $`y_\omega `$,

$$x+y^2\phi ((x+y)^{}(x+y))=\phi (x^{}x)=x^2,$$

giving $`x(\omega )x`$.

We now prove the claim. Let $`(\pi _\phi ,_\phi )`$ be the GNS construction for $``$ corresponding to $`\phi `$. Because $`\phi `$ is pure, $`\pi _\phi ()B(_\phi )`$ is irreducible (, Theorem 10.2.3). Thus $`\pi _\phi (𝒵())𝒵(\pi _\phi ())=`$ (, Theorem 5.4.1), which implies that $`𝒵()/(\mathrm{ker}(\pi _\phi )𝒵())`$. Now let $`z_1,z_2𝒵()`$. By the previous discussion, there exist $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2`$ and $`u_1,u_2\mathrm{ker}(\pi _\phi )𝒵()`$ such that $`z_1=\lambda _1+u_1`$ and $`z_2=\lambda _2+u_2`$. Since $`\mathrm{ker}(\pi _\phi )\mathrm{ker}(\phi )`$,

$$\phi (z_1z_2)=\lambda _1\lambda _2=\phi (z_1)\phi (z_2).$$

###### Corollary 2.2.

Let $`x,y`$. Then $`x=y`$ if and only if $`x(\omega )=y(\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`x`$. Then $`x𝒵()`$ if and only if $`x(\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`x𝒵()`$. Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ be arbitrary. Then $`\omega (x\omega (x))=0`$ $``$ $`x\omega (x)_\omega _\omega `$. Thus, $`x(\omega )=\omega (x)`$. Conversely, suppose $`x(\omega )`$ is a scalar for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then for any $`y`$,

$$(xy)(\omega )=x(\omega )y(\omega )=y(\omega )x(\omega )=(yx)(\omega )$$

for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Thus $`xy=yx`$. ∎

###### Corollary 2.4.

Let $`fC(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Then there exists an $`x𝒵()`$ such that $`x(\omega )=f(\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`𝒵()C(\mathrm{\Omega })`$ via the Gelfand transform. Thus, there exists an $`x𝒵()`$ such that $`\omega (x)=f(\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. By the proof of the previous corollary, $`x(\omega )=\omega (x)`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. ∎

###### Theorem 2.5 (, Lemma 10).

Let $`x`$. Then the map $`\mathrm{\Omega }:\omega x(\omega )`$ is continuous.

###### Theorem 2.6 (, Theorem 4.7).

Let $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Then $`_\omega `$ is primitive (i.e. $`_\omega `$ has a faithful irreducible representation).

## 3. A Theorem on “Solving” Multi-linear Equations in von Neumann Algebras

In recent years, several authors have considered ‘elementary operators’ on von Neumann algebras (see e.g. ), and their relation to multi-linear equations in von Neumann algebras. In this section we state and prove a theorem on “solving” such equations. Many of the preliminary steps used in reaching this main result are themselves quite interesting.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then the map $`\theta :𝒜𝒜CB(𝒜)`$ defined by

$$\theta (\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_jb_j)(x)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_jxb_j$$

for all $`x𝒜`$ is well-defined. A result of Chatterjee and Smith (, Lemma 2.2) identifies the kernel of an extension of $`\theta `$ to a certain completed tensor product, in the case that $`𝒜=`$, a von Neumann algebra. We shall only need the following algebraic result, for which a streamlined proof is provided.

###### Lemma 3.1 (Chatterjee-Smith).

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra and $`\theta :CB()`$ be as in the preceding discussion. Let

$$𝒥=\mathrm{span}\{azbazb:a,b,z𝒵()\}.$$

Then $`\mathrm{ker}(\theta )=𝒥`$.

###### Proof.

Certainly $`𝒥\mathrm{ker}(\theta )`$. On the other hand, suppose $`u=_{k=1}^nr_ks_k`$ and $`\theta (u)=0`$. Letting

$$r=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}r_1& r_2& \mathrm{}& r_n\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right]\text{ and }s=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}s_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ s_2& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& & \mathrm{}\\ s_n& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right],$$

one has that $`r(xI_n)s=0`$ for all $`x`$. Here $`I_n`$ is the multiplicative identity of $`M_n`$. Let $`=\overline{\mathrm{span}\{M_n()r(I_n)\}}^{\mathrm{WOT}}`$, a WOT-closed left ideal of $`M_n()`$. Then (cf. , Theorem 6.8.8) there exists a projection $`zM_n()`$ such that $`=M_n()z`$. In particular, $`z`$. We claim that $`zM_n(𝒵())`$. Indeed, for all $`x`$, $`(xI_n)`$, which implies that $`z(xI_n)z=z(xI_n)`$. Replacing $`x`$ by $`x^{}`$, we conclude that $`z(xI_n)=(xI_n)z`$. Since the choice of $`x`$ was arbitrary, $`z(I_n)^{}=M_n(^{})`$ and so $`zM_n()M_n(^{})=M_n(𝒵())`$, proving the claim. Since $`r`$, $`rz=r`$. Since $`s=0`$, $`zs=0`$. Letting $``$ stand for the matrix inner product (cf. , §9.1), if $`a,bM_n()`$, then

$$azbazbmodM_n(𝒥)$$

since the $`(i,j)`$ entry of the left-hand side is

$$\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(az)_{i,k}b_{k,j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{i,l}z_{l,k})b_{k,j}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{i,l}z_{l,k}b_{k,j}$$

and the $`(i,j)`$ entry of the right-hand side is

$$\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{i,l}(zb)_{l,j}=\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{i,l}(\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}z_{l,k}b_{k,j})=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}\underset{l=1}{\overset{n}{}}a_{i,l}z_{l,k}b_{k,j}.$$

In particular, letting $`0_n`$ denote the additive identity of $`M_n()`$, we have that

$$u0_{n1}=rs=rzz^{}srzz^{}s=0_nmodM_n(𝒥).$$

Hence, $`u𝒥`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

Let $`V`$ be a vector space and $`a,b,c,d,eV`$, with $`e0`$. If

$$ae+eb+cd=0,$$

then either $`a`$ and $`c`$ are multiples of $`e`$, or $`b`$ and $`d`$ are multiples of $`e`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\phi `$ be a linear functional on $`V`$ such that $`\phi (e)0`$. Applying $`\phi Id`$ to the above equation yields

$$\phi (a)e+\phi (e)b+\phi (c)d=0.$$

Thus $`b`$, $`d`$, and $`e`$ are linearly dependent. Let $`E=\mathrm{span}\{b,d,e\}`$. Then $`dim(E)=1\text{ or }2`$. Case 1: Suppose $`dim(E)=1`$. Then $`b`$ and $`d`$ are multiples of $`e`$. Case 2: Suppose $`b`$ and $`e`$ are linearly independent. Then $`d=\lambda b+\mu e`$. Thus,

$$ae+eb+c(\lambda b+\mu e)=0$$

$``$

$$(a+\mu c)e+(e+\lambda c)b=0$$

$``$ $`c=\frac{1}{\lambda }e`$ and $`a=\frac{\mu }{\lambda }e`$. Case 3: Suppose $`d`$ and $`e`$ are linearly independent. Then $`b=\lambda d+\mu e`$. Thus

$$ae+e(\lambda d+\mu e)+cd=0$$

$``$

$$(a+\mu e)e+(\lambda e+c)d=0$$

$``$ $`a=\mu e`$ and $`c=\lambda e`$. ∎

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra and $`a,b,c,d`$. If

$$ax+xb+cxd=0$$

for all $`x`$, then there exists a central projection $`p`$ such that $`pa,pc,p^{}b,p^{}d𝒵()`$. Conversely, if $`pa,pc,p^{}b,p^{}d𝒵()`$ for a central projection $`p`$, and if $`a+b+cd=0`$, then $`ax+xb+cxd=0`$ for all $`x`$.

###### Proof.

For the converse, we observe that if $`pa,pc,p^{}b,p^{}d𝒵()`$, then

$`ax+xb+cxd`$ $`=`$ $`p^{}ax+xap+xbp+p^{}bx+xcdp+p^{}cxd`$
$`=`$ $`p^{}ax+xap+xbp+p^{}bx+xcdp+p^{}cdx`$
$`=`$ $`p^{}(a+b+cd)x+x(a+b+cd)p,`$
giving the result.

For the direct statement, we will use the notation of Section 2 without further explanation. By Lemma 3.1,

$$a1+1b+cd=\underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}(x_kz_ky_kx_kz_ky_k)$$

for some $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n,y_1,y_2,\mathrm{},y_n`$ and some $`z_1,z_2,\mathrm{},z_n𝒵()`$. Fix $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ and apply the map $`_\omega _\omega :xyx(\omega )y(\omega )`$ to the previous equation. One obtains that

$`a(\omega )1(\omega )`$ $`+`$ $`1(\omega )b(\omega )+c(\omega )d(\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}[x_k(\omega )z_k(\omega )y_k(\omega )x_k(\omega )z_k(\omega )y_k(\omega )]`$
$`=`$ $`0`$
by Corollary 2.3. If $`1(\omega )0`$, Lemma 3.2 tells us that either $`a(\omega )`$ and $`c(\omega )`$ are scalars, or $`b(\omega )`$ and $`d(\omega )`$ are scalars. If $`1(\omega )=0`$, then $`_\omega =0`$ and so $`a(\omega )=b(\omega )=c(\omega )=d(\omega )=0`$. For each $`x`$, set

$$F_x=\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:x(\omega )\text{ is a scalar}\}.$$

Since $`_\omega `$ has a faithful irreducible representation for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$ (Theorem 2.6), $`𝒵(_\omega )=`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Hence

$`F_x`$ $`=`$ $`\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:x(\omega )y(\omega )=y(\omega )x(\omega )\text{ for all }y\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:x(\omega )y(\omega )y(\omega )x(\omega )=0\text{ for all }y\}`$
$`=`$ $`\{\omega \mathrm{\Omega }:(xyyx)(\omega )=0\text{ for all }y\}`$
is closed by Theorem 2.5. Set $`F=F_aF_c`$. Then $`G=\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash F`$ is open $``$ $`\overline{G}`$ is both open and closed. We have that $`GF_bF_d`$ $``$ $`\overline{G}F_bF_d`$. Also, $`\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash \overline{G}\mathrm{\Omega }\backslash G=F=F_aF_c`$. Let $`f=1\chi _{\overline{G}}`$. Then $`fC(\mathrm{\Omega })`$. Thus (Corollary 2.4) there exists a $`p𝒵()`$ such that $`p(\omega )=f(\omega )`$ for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$. Clearly $`p`$ is a projection. Since

$$(pa)(\omega )=p(\omega )a(\omega )=f(\omega )a(\omega )$$

for all $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`pa𝒵()`$ (Corollary 2.3). Likewise, $`pc,p^{}b,p^{}d𝒵()`$. ∎

A shorter proof of the last theorem, avoiding reduction theory, may be given using the Dixmier approximation theorem . However the above arguments illustrate the Glimm-Halpern techniques, which we feel will be useful elsewhere.

## 4. One-Sided $`M`$-Projections on $`C^{}`$-Algebras

In this section, we give all but one of the promised characterizations of complete one-sided $`M`$-projections on $`C^{}`$-algebras. The following result, which gives the equivalence of (i) and (iii) in Theorem 1.1, was used in . In the statement below, $`LM(𝒜)`$ is the left multiplier algebra .

###### Lemma 4.1.

Suppose that $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then a linear mapping $`\phi :𝒜𝒜`$ has the form $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for some $`bLM(𝒜)`$ with $`b1`$ if and only if the column mapping

$$\tau _\phi ^c:C_2(𝒜)C_2(𝒜):\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\phi (x)\\ y\end{array}\right]$$

is contractive. Moreover if these conditions hold, then $`b`$ is an orthogonal projection in $`M(𝒜)`$ if and only if $`\phi `$ is an idempotent linear map.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for some $`bLM(𝒜)`$ with $`b1`$. The fact that $`x^{}b^{}bx+y^{}yx^{}x+y^{}y`$, for any $`x,y𝒜`$, yields immediately that $`\tau _\phi ^c`$ is contractive. It is fairly clear that $`b^2=b`$ if and only if this $`\phi `$ is idempotent, and since $`b1`$ it follows that $`b^{}=bM(𝒜)`$.

For the remaining implication, we suppose that $`\tau _\phi ^c`$ is contractive. We first claim that it suffices to prove the result in the case that $`𝒜`$ is a von Neumann algebra. To see this, note that the second dual $`(\tau _\phi ^c)^{}`$ is contractive, and may be equated with the map $`\tau _\phi ^{}^c`$ on $`C_2(𝒜^{})`$. If the lemma is true in the von Neumann algebra case, then there exists an element $`b𝒜^{}`$ with $`b1`$ such that $`\phi ^{}(x)=bx`$ for all $`x𝒜^{}`$. Thus $`\phi (a)=ba`$ for $`a𝒜`$. Since $`\phi (a)𝒜`$, we see that $`bLM(𝒜)`$.

Henceforth assume that $`𝒜`$ is a von Neumann algebra, and apply $`\tau _\phi ^c`$ to the column in $`C_2(𝒜)`$ with entries $`e`$ and $`1e`$, for an orthogonal projection $`e𝒜`$. We obtain $`\phi (e)^{}\phi (e)+(1e)1`$ and thus

$$(1e)\phi (e)^{}\phi (e)(1e)=0,$$

giving $`\phi (e)(1e)=0.`$ But this relation also holds for the projection $`1e,`$ i.e., we have $`\phi (1e)e=0.`$ We conclude that

$$\phi (e)=\phi (e)e=\phi (1)e.$$

Since the linear span of the projections is norm dense in $`𝒜,`$ $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for all $`x𝒜`$, where $`b=\phi (1)`$. ∎

As we pointed out in , unitary elements in a $`C^{}`$-algebra may be characterized in terms of the maps $`\phi `$ on $`𝒜`$ such that $`\tau _\phi `$ is a surjective isometry.

The following result, a ‘sharpening’ of the ‘order-bounded’ condition in Section 4 of , gives the equivalence of (i) and (v) in Theorem 1.1:

###### Corollary 4.2.

Suppose that $`𝒜`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then a linear mapping $`\phi :𝒜𝒜`$ has the form $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for some $`bLM(𝒜)`$ with $`b1`$ if and only if for all $`x𝒜`$, there is a 2-isometric linear embedding $`\sigma :𝒜B()`$ such that $`\sigma (\phi (x))^{}\sigma (\phi (x))\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (x)`$. This is also equivalent to saying that $`\phi (x)^{}\phi (x)x^{}x`$ for all $`x𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

If $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for some $`bLM(𝒜)`$ with $`b1`$, then $`\phi (x)^{}\phi (x)=x^{}b^{}bxx^{}x`$ for all $`x𝒜`$.

Conversely, if $`x𝒜`$, and if a 2-isometric $`\sigma `$ exists as above, then for $`y𝒜`$ we have

$`\left[\begin{array}{c}\phi (x)\\ y\end{array}\right]^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\sigma (\phi (x))\\ \sigma (y)\end{array}\right]^2`$
$`=`$ $`\sigma (\phi (x))^{}\sigma (\phi (x))+\sigma (y)^{}\sigma (y)`$
$``$ $`\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (x)+\sigma (y)^{}\sigma (y)`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}x\\ y\end{array}\right]^2.`$
By the previous result, $`\phi (x)=bx`$ for some $`bLM(𝒜)`$ with $`b1`$. ∎

Theorem 3.3 will give our next characterization, the equivalence of (i) and (ii) in Theorem 1.1. First we need some preliminary results.

We recall that an element $`b`$ of a unital Banach algebra $``$ is said to be Hermitian if $`e^{itb}=1`$ for all $`t`$. Accordingly, a bounded linear map $`T`$ of a Banach space $`X`$ into itself is said to be Hermitian if it is a Hermitian element of the unital Banach algebra $`B(X)`$.

###### Lemma 4.3 (Sakai-Sinclair).

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra. If $`T:`$ is Hermitian, then there exist $`h,k_{sa}`$ such that $`Tx=hx+xk`$ for all $`x`$.

###### Proof.

By , there exists an $`a_{sa}`$ and a \*-derivation $`D:`$ such that $`Tx=ax+D(x)`$ for all $`x`$. For the reader’s convenience, we recall that a derivation is a linear map such that $`D(xy)=xD(y)+D(x)y`$ for all $`x,y`$. A \*-derivation satisfies the additional requirement that $`D(x^{})=D(x)^{}`$ for all $`x`$. By , $`D`$ is inner. That is, there exists a $`b`$ such that $`D(x)=bxxb`$ for all $`x`$. We claim that $`bb^{}𝒵()`$. Indeed, for all $`x`$,

$$bx^{}x^{}b=D(x^{})=D(x)^{}=(bxxb)^{}=b^{}x^{}x^{}b^{}$$

and so

$$(bb^{})x^{}=x^{}(bb^{}).$$

Now let $`b=c+id`$, with $`c,d_{sa}`$. Then it is easy to verify that $`d𝒵()`$. Thus,

$$Tx=ax+D(x)=ax+(c+id)xx(c+id)=(a+c)xxc=hx+xk$$

for all $`x`$, where $`h=a+c`$ and $`k=c`$ are elements of $`_{sa}`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`X`$ be an operator space and let $`P:XX`$ be a linear idempotent. If $`\nu _P^c:XC_2(X)`$ is an isometry, then $`P`$ is Hermitian.

###### Proof.

Let $`t`$. Then for any $`xX`$,

$`e^{itP}x`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(itP)^k}{k!}}x=x+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(it)^k}{k!}}Px`$
$`=`$ $`x+(e^{it}1)Px=\nu _P^c(x+(e^{it}1)Px)_{C_2(X)}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}Px+(e^{it}1)Px\\ (IdP)x\end{array}\right]_{C_2(X)}=\left[\begin{array}{c}e^{it}Px\\ (IdP)x\end{array}\right]_{C_2(X)}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}e^{it}& 0\\ 0& 1\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}Px\\ (IdP)x\end{array}\right]_{C_2(X)}=\left[\begin{array}{c}Px\\ (IdP)x\end{array}\right]_{C_2(X)}`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _P^c(x)_{C_2(X)}=x.`$
Hence $`e^{itP}=1`$. Since the choice of $`t`$ was arbitrary, $`P`$ is Hermitian. ∎

In the language of , the last result says that any ‘one-sided $`M`$-projection’ (as opposed to ‘complete one-sided $`M`$-projection’) is Hermitian. An almost identical argument shows that any ‘one-sided $`L`$-projection’ is Hermitian.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra and let $`P:𝒜𝒜`$ be a linear idempotent. Then $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection if and only if $`\nu _P^c:𝒜C_2(𝒜)`$ is an isometry.

###### Proof.

If $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection, then $`\nu _P^c`$ is a complete isometry. For the converse, it suffices (as in Lemma 4.1) to prove the assertion under the assumption that $`𝒜=`$, a von Neumann algebra. Indeed, if the assertion is true for von Neumann algebras then given a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$ and a linear idempotent $`P:𝒜𝒜`$ such that $`\nu _P^c:𝒜C_2(𝒜)`$ is an isometry, we have that $`(\nu _P^c)^{}:𝒜^{}C_2(𝒜)^{}`$ is an isometry. This implies that $`\nu _P^{}^c:𝒜^{}C_2(𝒜^{})`$ is an isometry, so that $`P^{}`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection. Thus $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection by , Corollary 3.5, for example.

By Lemma 4.4 and Theorem 4.3, there exist $`h,k_{sa}`$ such that $`Px=hx+xk`$ for all $`x`$. Since $`P`$ is idempotent,

$$(h^2h)x+x(k^2k)+2hxk=0$$

for all $`x`$. By Theorem 3.3, there exists a central projection $`p`$ such that $`p(h^2h),ph,p^{}(k^2k),p^{}k𝒵()`$. Thus

$`Px`$ $`=`$ $`phx+p^{}hx+xpk+xp^{}k`$
$`=`$ $`p^{}(h+k)x+xp(h+k)`$
$`=`$ $`p^{}ex+xpe,`$
where $`e=h+k_{sa}`$. Note that $`P(1)=e`$, so that

$`e`$ $`=`$ $`P(1)=P^2(1)=P(e)=P(h+k)`$
$`=`$ $`h^2+2hk+k^2=(h+k)^2+(hkkh)`$
$`=`$ $`e^2+(hkkh).`$
Since $`e`$ is self-adjoint, we also have that $`e=e^2+(khhk)`$. Averaging, we obtain that $`e=e^2`$ and so $`e`$ is a projection. Also,

$`x^2`$ $`=`$ $`\nu _P^c(x)_{C_2()}^2=\left[\begin{array}{c}Px\\ (IdP)x\end{array}\right]_{C_2()}^2`$
$`=`$ $`[Px]^{}[Px]+[(IdP)x]^{}[(IdP)x]`$
$`=`$ $`(p^{}ex+xpe)^{}(p^{}ex+xpe)+(p^{}e^{}x+xpe^{})^{}(p^{}e^{}x+xpe^{})`$
$`=`$ $`x^{}exp^{}+ex^{}xep+x^{}e^{}xp^{}+e^{}x^{}xe^{}p`$
$`=`$ $`x^{}xp^{}+(ex^{}xe+e^{}x^{}xe^{})p`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{xp^{},xep,xe^{}p\}^2.`$
for all $`x`$. In particular, for all $`xp`$,

$$x=\mathrm{max}\{xe,xe^{}\},$$

which says that the map $`pp:xxe`$ is a (classical) $`M`$-projection. Thus $`ep𝒵(p)`$ (cf. V.4.7 in ). But then

$$Px=p^{}ex+xpe=p^{}ex+pex=ex$$

for all $`x`$. Hence, $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection. ∎

###### Remark 4.6.

This theorem is not valid for general operator spaces. For any Hilbert space $``$ and any nontrivial projection $`PB()`$, $`P`$ (regarded as a linear map of the operator space $`X=\mathrm{max}()`$ into itself) is an idempotent such that $`\nu _P^c:XC_2(X)`$ is an isometry. Yet $`P`$ is not a complete left $`M`$-projection (, Proposition 6.10). The same example shows that Lemma 4.1 is not valid for general operator spaces.

The equivalence of (i) and (iv) in Theorem 1.1 is taken up in Section 6. The equivalence of (i) and (vi) is straightforward and is left to the interested reader (hint: (i) implies (vi) is trivial and (vi) implies (v) by the ‘Pythagorean theorem’).

## 5. One-Sided $`M`$-Projections in von Neumann Algebra Preduals

Using the techniques of the previous section, we can prove that von Neumann algebra preduals and duals have trivial complete one-sided $`M`$-structure.

###### Theorem 5.1.

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra. Then $``$ has no nontrivial complete right $`L`$-projections. Hence, $`_{}`$ has no nontrivial complete right $`M`$-ideals.

###### Proof.

First we prove the second assertion. So assume the first assertion and suppose $`J_{}`$ is a nontrivial complete right $`M`$-ideal. Then $`J^{}`$ is a complete left $`L`$-summand (, Corollary 3.6). Let $`P:`$ be the corresponding complete right $`L`$-projection. By assumption, $`P=0\text{ or }Id`$. Thus, $`J^{}=\{0\}\text{ or }`$ $``$ $`J=\overline{J}^{\mathrm{wk}}=J^{}_{}=\{0\}\text{ or }_{}`$, a contradiction.

Now we prove the first assertion. So suppose $`P:`$ is a complete right $`L`$-projection. Then $`P`$ is Hermitian (by the remark after Lemma 4.4; or by Lemma 4.4 and the duality results in ). Arguing exactly as in the proof of Theorem 4.5, there exist projections $`e,p`$, with $`p`$ central, such that

$$Px=p^{}ex+xpe$$

for all $`x`$. Since $`P`$ is nontrivial, $`e`$ is nontrivial. Thus there exist unit vectors $`\xi ,\eta `$ (the Hilbert space on which $``$ acts) such that $`e\xi =\xi `$ and $`e\eta =0`$. Define $`f^{}`$ by

$$f(x)=x\xi ,\xi +x\eta ,\eta $$

for all $`x`$. Then

$$f|f(1)|=|\xi ,\xi +\eta ,\eta |=2.$$

On the other hand,

$`|P^{}(f)(x)|`$ $`=`$ $`|f(Px)|=|f(p^{}ex)+f(xpe)|`$
$`=`$ $`|p^{}ex\xi ,\xi +p^{}ex\eta ,\eta +xpe\xi ,\xi +xpe\eta ,\eta |`$
$`=`$ $`|p^{}x\xi ,\xi +xp\xi ,\xi |=|x\xi ,\xi |x`$
and

$`|(IdP^{})(f)(x)|`$ $`=`$ $`|f((IdP)x)|`$
$`=`$ $`|f(p^{}e^{}x)+f(xpe^{})|`$
$`=`$ $`|p^{}e^{}x\xi ,\xi +p^{}e^{}x\eta ,\eta +xpe^{}\xi ,\xi +xpe^{}\eta ,\eta |`$
$`=`$ $`|p^{}x\eta ,\eta +xp\eta ,\eta |=|x\eta ,\eta |x`$
for all $`x`$. Thus $`P^{}(f),(IdP^{})f1`$, which leads to the contradiction

$`2`$ $``$ $`f=\nu _P^{}^c(f)_{C_2(^{})}=\left[\begin{array}{c}P^{}f\\ (IdP^{})f\end{array}\right]_{C_2(^{})}`$
$``$ $`\sqrt{P^{}f^2+(IdP^{})f^2}\sqrt{2}.`$
We remark that an analysis of the proof shows in fact that there are no nontrivial ‘strong right $`L`$-projections’, in the language of , on a von Neumann algebra. Indeed there are no nontrivial projections $`P`$ on a von Neumann algebra, such that $`P^{}`$ is a one-sided $`M`$-projection.

The following result, the classical analog of Theorem 5.1, is surely well-known. However, we could not find a reference for it. While it may be proven by a slight modification to the proof of Theorem 5.1, we will give an elementary argument. Note the crucial use of extreme points of classical $`L`$-summands, a technology which is not available yet in the one-sided theory.

###### Proposition 5.2.

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra. Then $``$ has no nontrivial classical $`L`$-summands.

###### Proof.

Suppose that $`=X_1Y`$. By Lemma 1.5 in ,

$$\mathrm{ext}(\mathrm{ball}())=\mathrm{ext}(\mathrm{ball}(X))\mathrm{ext}(\mathrm{ball}(Y)).$$

Thus for every $`u𝒰()`$, the unitary group of $``$, either $`uX`$ or $`uY`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume $`1Y`$. Now let $`u𝒰()X`$. For any $`\theta `$, one has that

$$u+e^{i\theta }1=u+e^{i\theta }1=2.$$

On the other hand,

$$u+e^{i\theta }1=r(u+e^{i\theta }1)=\underset{\lambda \sigma (u)}{sup}|\lambda +e^{i\theta }|.$$

Thus, we must have that $`e^{i\theta }\sigma (u)`$. Since the choice of $`\theta `$ was arbitrary, $`\sigma (u)=𝕋`$. Now let $`a\mathrm{ball}(_{sa})`$. Then $`a=\frac{u+u^{}}{2}=\mathrm{Re}(u)`$, where $`u=a+i\sqrt{1a^2}𝒰()`$. Suppose $`uX`$. Then, as we just saw, $`\sigma (u)=𝕋`$, so that $`\sigma (a)=\sigma (\mathrm{Re}(u))=\mathrm{Re}(\sigma (u))=[1,1]`$. Likewise, since $`a=\mathrm{Re}(u^{})`$, one has that if $`u^{}X`$ then $`\sigma (a)=[1,1]`$. Thus if $`a`$ is a projection in $``$, it must be that $`aY`$. Consequently $`Y=`$, and $`X=\{0\}`$. ∎

As a consequence of the previous two results, we have:

###### Corollary 5.3.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a $`C^{}`$-algebra. Then $`𝒜`$ has no nontrivial classical $`L`$-projections or complete right $`L`$-projections.

###### Proof.

Let $`P:𝒜𝒜`$ be a complete right $`L`$-projection. Then $`P^{}:𝒜^{}𝒜^{}`$ is also a complete right $`L`$-projection (, Corollary 3.5). By Theorem 5.1, $`P^{}=0\text{ or }Id`$. Thus $`P=P^{}|_𝒜=0\text{ or }Id`$. A similar proof gives the other assertion. ∎

In fact (cf. the discussion after Theorem 5.1), there are no nontrivial projections $`P`$ on a $`C^{}`$-algebra such that $`P^{}`$ is a one-sided $`M`$-projection.

## 6. One-Sided Pseudo-Orthogonality

In this section we give our final characterization of the complete one-sided $`M`$-projections on a $`C^{}`$-algebra (the equivalence of (i) and (iv) in Theorem 1.1). This characterization is also valid for operator algebras having a contractive approximate identity. The definitions and results of this section, with the exception of the last two corollaries, are from the thesis of the last author ().

Let $`X`$ be an operator space and $`x,yX`$. We recall  that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are *left orthogonal* (written $`x_Ly`$) if there exists a complete isometry $`\sigma :XB()`$ such that $`\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (y)=0`$. We say that $`x`$ and $`y`$ are *left pseudo-orthogonal* (and write $`x_Ly`$) if $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\end{array}\right]_{R_2(X)}=\mathrm{max}\{x,y\}`$. We have that $`x_Lyx_Ly`$. Indeed, if $`\sigma :XB()`$ is a complete isometry (or even a 2-isometry) such that $`\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (y)=0`$, then

$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\end{array}\right]_{R_2(X)}^2`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma (x)& \sigma (y)\end{array}\right]_{R_2(B())}^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{c}\sigma (x)^{}\\ \sigma (y)^{}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma (x)& \sigma (y)\end{array}\right]_{M_2(B())}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (x)& \sigma (x)^{}\sigma (y)\\ \sigma (y)^{}\sigma (x)& \sigma (y)^{}\sigma (y)\end{array}\right]_{M_2(B())}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\sigma (x)^{}\sigma (x)& 0\\ 0& \sigma (y)^{}\sigma (y)\end{array}\right]_{M_2(B())}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{\sigma (x),\sigma (y)\}^2=\mathrm{max}\{x,y\}^2.`$
In , Theorem 5.1, it is shown that an idempotent linear map $`P:XX`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection if and only if $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,yX`$. Combining this with the previous observation, if $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection then $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,yX`$. The converse is false in general (Remark 6.6), but true for operator algebras having a contractive approximate identity (Theorem 6.4).

We begin with some lemmas. The first lemma concerns the concept of “peaking”. We say that an operator $`xB()`$ *peaks* at $`\xi `$ if $`\xi =1`$ and $`x\xi =x`$.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Let $`x,yB()`$. If $`x_Ly`$, $`xy`$, and $`x`$ peaks at $`\xi `$, then $`x\xi y`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`x0`$, for otherwise the lemma is trivially true. Suppose that it is false that $`x\xi y`$. Then there exists a unit vector $`\eta `$ such that $`y\eta =\alpha x\xi +\zeta `$, where $`\alpha >0`$ and $`\zeta `$ is orthogonal to $`x\xi `$. For all $`\beta ,\gamma >0`$, we have that

$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}\beta \xi \\ \gamma \eta \end{array}\right]^2`$ $`=`$ $`\beta x\xi +\gamma y\eta ^2`$
$`=`$ $`\beta x\xi +\gamma (\alpha x\xi +\zeta )^2`$
$`=`$ $`(\beta +\gamma \alpha )x\xi +\gamma \zeta ^2`$
$`=`$ $`(\beta +\gamma \alpha )^2x\xi ^2+\gamma ^2\zeta ^2`$
$``$ $`(\beta +\gamma \alpha )^2x^2`$
and

$$\left[\begin{array}{c}\beta \xi \\ \gamma \eta \end{array}\right]^2=\beta ^2\xi ^2+\gamma ^2\eta ^2=\beta ^2+\gamma ^2$$

Thus,

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\end{array}\right]_{R_2(B())}^2\frac{(\beta +\gamma \alpha )^2x^2}{\beta ^2+\gamma ^2}$$

for all $`\beta ,\gamma >0`$. Choosing $`\beta =1/\alpha `$ and $`\gamma =1`$ yields

$$\left[\begin{array}{cc}x& y\end{array}\right]_{R_2(B())}^2(1+\alpha ^2)x^2>x^2=\mathrm{max}\{x,y\}^2,$$

a contradiction. Thus $`x\xi y`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.2.

Let $`XB()`$ be an operator space and let $`P:XX`$ be an idempotent linear map such that $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,yX`$. Set $`Y=PX`$ and $`Z=(IdP)X`$. If $`yY`$ peaks at $`\xi `$, then $`y\xi Z`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`y0`$, for otherwise the lemma is trivially true. Let $`zZ`$. There exists a $`\kappa >0`$ such that $`\kappa yz`$. Since $`\kappa yY`$, $`\kappa y_Lz`$. Since $`y`$ peaks at $`\xi `$, the same is true for $`\kappa y`$. By Lemma 6.1, $`\kappa y\xi z`$. Thus, $`y\xi z`$. Since the choice of $`z`$ was arbitrary, $`y\xi Z`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`X`$ be an operator space and let $`P:XX`$ be an idempotent linear map such that $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,yX`$. Then $`P`$ is contractive.

###### Proof.

By Ruan’s theorem (, Theorem 2.3.5), we may assume that $`XB()`$. By passing to the universal representation of $`B()`$, if necessary, we may assume that every $`xX`$ peaks at some $`\xi `$. Now let $`xX`$. Then $`x=y+z`$, where $`y=Px`$ and $`z=(IdP)x`$. Let $`\xi `$ be such that $`y`$ peaks at $`\xi `$. Then $`y\xi z`$ by Lemma 6.2. Hence,

$$Px=y=y\xi \sqrt{y\xi ^2+z\xi ^2}=y\xi +z\xi =x\xi x.$$

Since the choice of $`x`$ was arbitrary, $`P`$ is contractive. ∎

###### Theorem 6.4.

Let $``$ be a unital operator algebra and $`P:`$ be an idempotent linear map. Then $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection (that is, $`Px=ex`$ for a projection $`e`$ of norm $`1`$ in $`A`$) if and only if $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,y`$.

###### Proof.

We have already indicated the proof of the forward implication. For the reverse implication, represent $``$ faithfully on a Hilbert space $``$ in such a way that every $`x`$ peaks at some $`\xi `$ (e.g. use the universal representation of the C\*-algebra generated by $``$). Let $`X=P`$ and $`Y=(IdP)`$, so that $`x_Ly`$ for all $`xX`$ and all $`yY`$. Then there exists a unique decomposition $`I=x_0+y_0`$ with $`x_0X`$ and $`y_0Y`$. It suffices to prove that $`x_0`$ is a projection in $``$, because if so, setting $`e=x_0`$ and invoking Lemma 6.2, we have that $`eY`$ and $`(Ie)X`$. But then $`ey=0`$ for all $`yY`$ and $`(Ie)x=0`$ for all $`xX`$, and so $`P(x+y)=x=e(x+y)`$ for all $`xX`$ and all $`yY`$.

By Lemma 6.3, we know that $`x_01`$ and $`y_01`$. Thus, the closed linear subspaces $`𝔏=\{\xi :x_0\xi =\xi \}`$ and $`𝔐=\{\eta :y_0\eta =\eta \}`$ of $``$ are orthogonal, since $`𝔏Y𝔐`$ by Lemma 6.2. To complete the proof it suffices to show that $`𝔑=𝔏^{}𝔐^{}=\{0\}`$, because if that is the case, one quickly deduces (using the fact that $`x_0+y_0=I`$) that

$$x_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ 0& 0\end{array}\right]$$

with respect to the decomposition $`=𝔏𝔐`$.

We claim that if $`0xX`$ peaks at $`\xi `$, then $`x\xi 𝔏`$. By Lemma 6.2, $`x\xi Y`$. Thus with respect to the decomposition $`=x\xi (x\xi )^{}`$,

$$x_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}x_{11}& x_{12}\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}\right]\text{ and }y_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}0& 0\\ y_{21}& y_{22}\end{array}\right].$$

Combining this with the fact that $`x_0+y_0=I`$ implies that

$$x_0=\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}\right].$$

Thus

$$x_0x\xi =\left[\begin{array}{cc}I& 0\\ x_{21}& x_{22}\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}x\xi \\ 0\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}x\xi \\ x_{21}x\xi \end{array}\right].$$

If $`x_{21}x\xi 0`$, then

$$x_0x\xi ^2=x\xi ^2+x_{21}x\xi ^2>x\xi ^2,$$

a contradiction to the fact that $`x_01`$.

Now suppose that $`𝔑\{0\}`$. With respect to the decomposition $`=𝔏𝔐𝔑`$,

$$x_0=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}I& & \\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& & \end{array}\right]\text{ and }y_0=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ & I& \\ & 0& \end{array}\right],$$

where the \*’s represent (possibly) nonzero bounded linear operators. Because $`x_0+y_0=I`$,

$$x_0=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}I& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& z\end{array}\right]\text{ and }y_0=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& I& 0\\ 0& 0& Iz\end{array}\right],$$

where $`zB(𝔑)`$. It must be that

$$x_0y_0=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& zz^2\end{array}\right]0.$$

To see this, we first note that if $`z=0`$, then for any $`0\xi 𝔑`$,

$$y_0\xi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& I& 0\\ 0& 0& I\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \xi \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \xi \end{array}\right]=\xi ,$$

which means that $`\xi 𝔐`$, a contradiction. If $`zz^2=0`$, then for any $`\xi 𝔑`$ with $`z\xi 0`$,

$$x_0z\xi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}I& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& z\end{array}\right]\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ z\xi \end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ z^2\xi \end{array}\right]=z^2\xi =z\xi ,$$

which means that $`z\xi 𝔏`$, a contradiction.

Now there exists a unique decomposition $`x_0y_0=x_1+y_1`$ with $`x_1X`$ and $`y_1Y`$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $`x_10`$. With respect to the decomposition $`=𝔏𝔐𝔑`$,

$$x_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}& & \\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \end{array}\right]\text{ and }y_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ & & \\ & & \end{array}\right].$$

Because $`x_1+y_1=x_0y_0`$,

$$x_1=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\\ & & \end{array}\right].$$

If $`x_1`$ peaks at $`\xi _1`$, then by a previous claim we have that $`x_1\xi _1𝔏`$. On the other hand, we plainly have that $`x_1\xi _1𝔑`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Corollary 6.5.

Let $``$ be an operator algebra having a contractive approximate identity and $`P:`$ be an idempotent linear map. Then $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection (that is, $`Px=ex`$ for a projection $`e`$ of norm $`1`$ in $`LM(A)`$) if and only if $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,y`$.

###### Proof.

Again, we need only prove the reverse implication. Recall that $`^{}`$ is a unital operator algebra with respect to the Arens product (cf. , Theorem 2.1). Since $`P`$ is a linear idempotent such that $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,y`$, the map

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:P_{\mathrm{}}(IdP)R_2():(Px,(IdP)y)\left[\begin{array}{cc}Px& (IdP)y\end{array}\right]$$

is an isometry. By usual duality arguments, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}:(P_{\mathrm{}}(IdP))^{}R_2()^{}`$ is also an isometry. Now under the isometric identifications

$$(P_{\mathrm{}}(IdP))^{}(P)^{}_{\mathrm{}}((IdP))^{},$$

$$(P)^{}(P)^{}=P^{}^{},$$

$$((IdP))^{}((IdP))^{}=(IdP^{})^{},$$

and

$$R_2()^{}R_2(^{}),$$

$`\mathrm{\Phi }^{}`$ corresponds to the map

$`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ $`:`$ $`P^{}^{}_{\mathrm{}}(IdP^{})^{}R_2(^{}):`$
$`(P^{}\overline{x},(IdP^{})\overline{y})\left[\begin{array}{cc}P^{}\overline{x}& (IdP^{})\overline{y}\end{array}\right].`$
Thus $`P^{}\overline{x}_L(IdP^{})\overline{y}`$ for all $`\overline{x},\overline{y}^{}`$. By Theorem 6.4, $`P^{}`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection. By , Corollary 3.5, $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection. ∎

###### Remark 6.6.

Theorem 6.4 is not true for general operator spaces. Let $`XM_3`$ be the linear subspace spanned by

$$s=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}\sqrt{2}& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right]\text{ and }t=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 1& 0\\ 0& 0& \sqrt{2}\end{array}\right].$$

Then $`P:XX:\alpha s+\beta t\alpha s`$ is an idempotent linear map such that $`Px_L(IdP)y`$ for all $`x,yX`$. However $`P`$ is not a complete left $`M`$-projection (cf. , §2.9).

Indeed, with a little more work, the last example reveals that the ‘matricial version’ of one-sided pseudo-orthogonality does not characterize one-sided complete $`M`$-projections on general operator spaces. However we do have the following result:

###### Corollary 6.7.

Let $`X`$ be a TRO (or, equivalently, a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module) and let $`P:XX`$ be an idempotent linear map. Then $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection if and only if $`P_nx_L(IdP_n)y`$ for all $`x,yM_n(X)`$ and all $`n`$. If $`X`$ is a right Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module say, then such $`P`$ are exactly the adjointable projections on $`X`$.

###### Proof.

The idea is similar to that of the proof of Theorem 4.6 in , so we will simply sketch the argument. Suppose that $`P_nx_L(IdP_n)y`$ for all $`x,yM_n(X)`$ and all $`n`$. Then it is easy to see that $`P^{}\overline{x}_L(IdP^{})\overline{y}`$ for all $`\overline{x},\overline{y}M_n(X^{})`$ and all $`n`$. Thus, by Corollary 3.5 of , we may assume $`X`$ is self-dual. By Lemma 4.4 of , there exists a cardinal $`J`$ such that $`M_J(X)`$ is completely isometrically isomorphic to a von Neumann algebra. Because $`P`$ is completely contractive (Lemma 6.3), the amplification $`P_J:M_J(X)M_J(X)`$ is well-defined. Since $`P_nx_L(IdP_n)y`$ for all $`x,yM_n(X)`$ and all $`n`$, one has that $`P_J\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}x_{i,j}\end{array}\right]\right)_L(IdP_J)\left(\left[\begin{array}{c}y_{i,j}\end{array}\right]\right)`$ for all $`\left[\begin{array}{c}x_{i,j}\end{array}\right],\left[\begin{array}{c}y_{i,j}\end{array}\right]M_J(X)`$. By Theorem 6.4, $`P_J`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection. Fixing $`j_0J`$ and restricting $`P_J`$ to those elements of $`M_J(X)`$ with zeros everywhere except possibly the $`(j_0,j_0)`$ position, we conclude that $`P`$ is a complete left M-projection. The converse is trivial. ∎

We saw in Section 4 that the condition that $`\nu _P^c`$ is isometric is sufficient to characterize complete left $`M`$-projections on $`C^{}`$-algebras. It would be interesting to know if this was also true for general operator algebras. As another corollary to the methods of this section, we do at least have the following:

###### Corollary 6.8.

Let $``$ be an operator algebra with contractive approximate identity, and suppose that $`P`$ is an idempotent linear map on $``$. Then $`P`$ is a complete left $`M`$-projection if and only if $`\nu _P^c:C_2()`$ is 2-isometric.

###### Proof.

Indeed, in the case that $`\nu _P^c`$ is 2-isometric, one has for $`x,y`$ that

$`\left[\begin{array}{cc}Px& (IdP)y\end{array}\right]_{R_2()}`$ $`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}\nu _P^c(Px)& \nu _P^c((IdP)y)\end{array}\right]_{M_2()}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}P(Px)& P((IdP)y)\\ (IdP)(Px)& (IdP)((IdP)y)\end{array}\right]_{M_2()}`$
$`=`$ $`\left[\begin{array}{cc}Px& 0\\ 0& (IdP)y\end{array}\right]_{M_2()}`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{max}\{Px,(IdP)y\},`$
which says that $`Px_L(IdP)y`$. The result then follows from Corollary 6.5. ∎

## 7. Intersections of One-Sided $`M`$-Summands

In the classical theory, there is a well known ‘calculus’ of $`M`$-summands, $`L`$-summands, and $`M`$-ideals (see section I.1 in ). Many of these results go through in the quantized, one-sided case considered in . A few do fail without extra hypotheses. The state of this ‘calculus’ of complete one-sided $`M`$-summands and ideals will be described in a forthcoming paper. We display next one classical result, namely that the intersection of two $`M`$-summands is again an $`M`$-summand, which fails for general complete one-sided $`M`$-summands. (We remark however that if the complete one-sided $`M`$-projections corresponding to these summands commute, then this result is valid). Indeed for a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$, the (complete) right M-summands are exactly the principal right ideals $`p𝒜`$, for a projection $`p𝒜`$. However for projections $`p,q𝒜`$, it need not be the case (unless $`𝒜`$ is a von Neumann algebra) that $`(p𝒜)(q𝒜)=r𝒜`$ for any projection $`r𝒜`$. Although this may be known, we could not find this fact in the literature.

The following is a modification of an example shown to us by Stephen Dilworth.

###### Example 7.1.

There exists a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜B()`$ and projections $`P,Q𝒜`$ such that

1. $`PQ𝒜`$;
2. $`_1=\mathrm{ran}(PQ)`$ is separable with orthonormal basis $`\{\xi _n\}`$;
3. The one-dimensional subprojection of $`PQ`$ with range $`\xi _n`$ lies in $`𝒜`$ for all $`n`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`_1`$ be a separable Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $`\{\xi _n\}`$, $`_2`$ be a separable Hilbert space with orthonormal basis $`\{\eta _n\}`$, and $`=_1_2`$. Define

$$_3=\overline{\mathrm{span}(\{\eta _{2n1}:n\})}_2\text{ and }_4=\overline{\mathrm{span}(\{\eta _{2n1}+\frac{1}{n}\eta _{2n}:n\})}_2$$

and set

$$_5=_1_3\text{ and }_6=_1_4.$$

Let $`P,QB()`$ be the projections onto $`_5`$ and $`_6`$, respectively, and let $`E_nB()`$ be the projection onto $`\xi _n`$ for all $`n`$. Denote by $`𝒜`$ the unital $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $`B()`$ generated by $`P`$, $`Q`$, and the family $`\{E_n:n\}`$. We claim that $`PQ`$, the projection onto $`_1=_5_6`$, is not an element of $`𝒜`$. Suppose, to the contrary, that $`PQ𝒜`$. Pick $`ϵ>0`$ arbitrarily. Then there exists an operator

$$T=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _kQ^{r_k}(PQ)^{s_k}P^{t_k}+\underset{l=1}{\overset{N}{}}\beta _lE_l,$$

where $`r_k,t_k\{0,1\}`$ and $`s_k_0`$ for all $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},M`$, such that $`PQT<ϵ`$. It follows that for any $`x_1\{\xi _1,\xi _2,\mathrm{},\xi _N\}^{}`$,

$$\left|1\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _k\right|x=x\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _kx=(PQT)xϵx.$$

Thus

$$\left|1\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _k\right|ϵ.$$

On the other hand, it is easy to check that

$$Q^{r_k}(PQ)^{s_k}P^{t_k}\eta _{2n1}=\left(\frac{n^2}{n^2+1}\right)^{s_k+r_k}\left[\eta _{2n1}+\frac{r_k}{n}\eta _{2n}\right]$$

$``$

$$T\eta _{2n1}=\underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}\alpha _k\left(\frac{n^2}{n^2+1}\right)^{s_k+r_k}\left[\eta _{2n1}+\frac{r_k}{n}\eta _{2n}\right].$$

But then

$`ϵ`$ $``$ $`(PQT)\eta _{2n1}=T\eta _{2n1}`$
$`=`$ $`\sqrt{\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\alpha _k\left({\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{n^2+1}}\right)^{s_k+r_k}\right|^2+\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\alpha _k\left({\displaystyle \frac{n^2}{n^2+1}}\right)^{n_k+r_k}{\displaystyle \frac{r_k}{n}}\right|^2}`$
$``$ $`\left|{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{M}{}}}\alpha _k\right|1ϵ`$
as $`n\mathrm{}`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Example 7.2.

There exists a unital $`C^{}`$-algebra $`𝒜`$, and projections $`p,q𝒜`$, such that $`(p𝒜)(q𝒜)r𝒜`$ for any projection $`r𝒜`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒜`$ be the $`C^{}`$-algebra from Example 7.1, $`J_1=P𝒜`$, and $`J_2=Q𝒜`$. If $`J_1J_2=R𝒜`$ for some projection $`RB(`$), then necessarily $`R𝒜`$ (since $`𝒜`$ is unital). Since $`PR=QR=R`$, we have $`RPQ`$. By construction, $`E_n𝒜`$. Since $`E_nPQ`$, we have that $`PE_n=E_n`$ and $`QE_n=E_n`$, so that $`E_nJ_1J_2=R𝒜`$. It follows that $`E_nR`$. Since $`n`$ was arbitrary, we obtain the contradiction that $`R=PQ`$. ∎


format: text

text:
# Strong disorder fixed point in absorbing state phase transitions

\[

## Abstract

The effect of quenched disorder on non-equilibrium phase transitions in the directed percolation universality class is studied by a strong disorder renormalization group approach and by density matrix renormalization group calculations. We show that for sufficiently strong disorder the critical behavior is controlled by a strong disorder fixed point and in one dimension the critical exponents are conjectured to be exact: $`\beta =(3\sqrt{5})/2`$ and $`\nu _{}=2`$. For disorder strengths outside the attractive region of this fixed point, disorder dependent critical exponents are detected. Existing numerical results in two dimensions can be interpreted within a similar scenario.
PACS number(s): 05.70.Ln, 05.70.Jk, 64.60.Ak

\]

Stochastic many particle systems with a phase transition into an absorbing state are of wide interest in physics, chemistry and even biology . Much recent work has focused on establishing a classification of possible universality classes for systems having this type of transition . For models with a scalar order parameter, absence of conservation laws, and short range interactions, the critical behavior is conjectured to be that of directed percolation . Well known models with a phase transition in this universality class are the contact process  and the Ziff-Gulari-Barshad model of catalytic reactions . When there is a conservation law present, other universality classes can appear, the best known of which is the parity conserving class .

In this Letter we study the effect of spatially quenched disorder on the directed percolation universality class and show that for strong enough disorder a new universality class of absorbing state phase transitions appears.

There are two main reasons for performing such a study. Firstly, directed percolation has been linked to several experimental situations such as catalytic reactions , depinning transitions , and the flow of granular matter  (for a review, see ). So far however, the directed percolation exponents have not shown up in any of these experimental realisations. It has been suggested  that the presence of some form of quenched disorder is responsible for this discrepancy. Secondly, while several studies have been performed on the effect of spatially quenched disorder , no coherent picture of these effects has been presented. Here, we present such a scenario by relating the critical behaviour of the strongly disordered contact process to that of a class of random quantum spin chains, such as the random transverse Ising model. Our results mostly concern the one-dimensional case, but we will argue that a similar picture also holds in $`d=2`$.

We consider the contact process, in which each site of a lattice can either be vacant ($`\mathrm{}`$) or be occupied by one particle ($`A`$). The dynamics of the model is a continuous time Markov process in which particles at site $`k`$ can disappear ($`A\mathrm{}`$) with a rate $`\mu _k`$, while new particles can be produced on empty sites ($`\mathrm{}A`$), with a rate $`p\lambda _k/2`$ where $`p`$ is the number of occupied neighbors. Here both $`\mu _k`$ and $`\lambda _k`$ are independently and identically distributed random variables with distributions $`\pi _0(\mu )`$ and $`P_0(\lambda )`$, respectively. Earlier work on random versions of the contact process and of directed percolation focused mainly on dynamical aspects, by studying the properties of growth starting from a single seed particle. At criticality, a breakdown of dynamical scaling was observed , consistent with indications from a field theoretical study . The absorbing phase was found to have properties similar to that of a Griffiths phase and shows power law behaviour with non-universal exponents . The static critical behaviour of the model has been explored less, but exponents in $`d=2`$ have been determined in .

In this Letter we apply for the first time the ‘Hamiltonian formalism’  to the contact process with disorder. This approach has the advantage that it is ideally suited to study the asymptotic time regime, which due to the slow relaxation properties of the model  cannot easily be studied with simulations. Since the contact process has the property of duality , late and early time behaviour can be related, provided suitable initial conditions are chosen. In this way, the Hamiltonian approach can also give insight in the spreading from a seed.

Consider the contact process on an open chain with $`L`$ sites. The generator of the Markov process is given by the ‘Hamiltonian’

$`H_{CP}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L}{}}}\mu _kM_k+{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{L1}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\lambda _k}{2}}(n_kR_{k+1}+R_kn_{k+1})`$ (1)
in terms of the matrices

$`M=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 1\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),n=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 0& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 0& \hfill 1\end{array}\right),R=\left(\begin{array}{cc}\hfill 1& \hfill 0\\ \hfill 1& \hfill 0\end{array}\right)`$
It is well known that the steady state probability distribution of a stochastic process coincides with the ground state of its ‘Hamiltonian’ and relaxation properties can be determined from its low lying spectrum. Although many of the Hamiltonians associated with stochastic systems are non-hermitian, techniques developed in the study of quantum spin chains can often be successfully applied to their stochastic counterparts.

Here we apply a strong disorder renormalization group (RG) approach to the random contact process and the results are compared with numerical estimates calculated using exact and density matrix renormalization (DMRG) based diagonalisations. We first announce our basic results which are summarized in the schematic phase diagram in Fig. 1 as a function of the control parameter $`A=[\mathrm{ln}\lambda ]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ and the strength of disorder, $`R=[(\mathrm{ln}\lambda )^2]_{\mathrm{av}}[\mathrm{ln}\lambda ]_{\mathrm{av}}^2`$, where, for the sake of simplicity we put $`\mu _k=1`$ (here we use $`[]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ to denote averaging over quenched disorder, while $``$ stands for the average in the steady state). In the inactive phase, for $`A<A_c(R)`$ the particle density $`\rho lim_L\mathrm{}\frac{1}{L}_k[n_k]_{\mathrm{av}}`$ is zero, whereas in the active phase, for $`A>A_c(R)`$, $`\rho >0`$. Close to the transition point, for $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(AA_c)/A_c0`$, the particle density is singular, $`\rho \mathrm{\Delta }^\beta `$ and the correlation length $`\xi `$ and relaxation time $`\tau `$ diverge as $`\xi |\mathrm{\Delta }|^\nu _{},\tau |\mathrm{\Delta }|^\nu _{}`$. The anisotropy exponent is defined as $`z=\nu _{}/\nu _{}`$. For a semi-infinite system an exponent $`\beta _s`$, that describes the singular behavior of the particle density at the surface, can be introduced .

We found that, in one dimension, the universality class of the phase transition depends on the strength of disorder, $`R`$, and as indicated in Fig. 1 there are two different regions of critical behavior. For $`R>R_c`$, the critical properties of the system are controlled by a strong disorder fixed point, which is situated at $`R=\mathrm{}`$, and in which the critical exponents are conjecturedly exact:

$$\beta ^{(\mathrm{})}=\frac{3\sqrt{5}}{2},\beta _s^{(\mathrm{})}=1,\nu _{}^{(\mathrm{})}=2.$$
(3)
This fixed point is characterised by strongly anisotropic scaling

$`\mathrm{ln}\tau \xi ^\psi ,\psi ={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}`$ (4)
Thus the anisotropy exponent, $`z^{(\mathrm{})}`$ is formally infinity.

For $`RR_c`$, as shown in Fig. 1, there is a line of disorder dependent random fixed points (with finite $`z`$), in which the critical exponents vary continuously with $`R`$. This behavior is consistent with an extension of the Harris criterion for stochastic systems, which predicts a cross-over exponent in the non-random system fixed point as $`y_{dis}(0)=2/\nu _{}(0)1>0`$ . Indeed, applying a real space RG method  we have calculated $`y_{dis}(0)`$ in good agreement with the Harris criterion.

In the strong disorder RG, which was introduced  for random antiferromagnetic spin chains and which was later also applied to other one- and higher-dimensional systems, one puts the strength of the couplings and fields in the Hamiltonian (i.e. the rates in the stochastic problem) in descending order. The strongest one, denoted by $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, sets the energy scale in the system and is decimated out and the neighboring rates are replaced by (generally) weaker ones, obtained by a perturbation calculation.

In the random contact process, if the fastest rate is $`\lambda _i=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, then the sites $`i`$ and $`i+1`$ will either be both occupied or both empty almost always, and can thus be interpreted as an effective two-site cell state. The effective decay rate, $`\mu ^{}`$, to go from $`AA`$ to $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}`$ can then be determined by applying perturbation theory to the Hamiltonian (1). At the same time the effective moment of the cell state, $`n^{}`$, is given by $`n^{}=n_i+n_{i+1}`$, where in the starting situation $`n_k=1,k`$. Conversely, if the fastest rate is $`\mu _i=\mathrm{\Omega }`$, site $`i`$ will almost always be empty, and in a perturbative treatment can be eliminated from the system. This allows the determination of an effective coupling $`\lambda ^{}`$ between the occupied site $`i1`$ and the empty site $`i+1`$. In terms of $`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }=\lambda /\sqrt{8}`$ we obtain the decimation equations ($`\kappa =\sqrt{2}`$):

$`\mu ^{}=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i\mu _{i+1}}{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i}},n^{}=n_i+n_{i+1},\stackrel{~}{\lambda }^{}=\kappa {\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_{i1}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }_i}{\mu _i}}.`$ (5)
This decimation procedure is repeated and for strong enough disorder, when the probability of generating a new rate larger than $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is negligible, the energy scale is continuously lowered and at the same time the probability distributions, $`\pi (\mu ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`P(\lambda ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ approach their fixed point forms. This RG procedure is easy to implement numerically. However, in the 1d case the fixed point distributions can be calculated analytically, using the results of a similar analysis for 1d random quantum spin chains. Here we mention that according to Eq.(5) the renormalised log-$`\mu `$ rates after large $`L`$ decimation steps are expressed as the sum of $`L+1`$ original random log-$`\mu `$ rates minus the sum of $`L`$ original random log-$`\stackrel{~}{\lambda }`$ rates (plus a negligible constant proportional to $`\mathrm{ln}\kappa `$). Consequently the fixed point, where the distributions $`\pi (\mu ,\mathrm{\Omega })`$ and $`P(\stackrel{~}{\lambda },\mathrm{\Omega })`$ are identical, is located at $`[\mathrm{ln}\mu ]_{\mathrm{av}}=[\mathrm{ln}\stackrel{~}{\lambda }]_{\mathrm{av}}`$. Furthermore, at the fixed point the central limit theorem implies for the log-energy scale $`\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Omega }L^{1/2}`$, which is equivalent to (4). As a consequence the probability distributions of the rates are broadened without limit during renormalization. Thus the ratio of typical neighboring rates goes to either zero or infinity. Therefore, in the strong disorder fixed point the decimation equations in Eq.(5) become asymptotically exact. Thus the critical exponents in this fixed point (see (3)), which can be deduced from the analysis of the RG equations along similar lines as for the random transverse Ising model , are presumably exact, too.

In the following we check these predictions by numerical calculations on lattices with $`L`$ up to $`32`$ with the DMRG method. For the disorder we used a bimodal distribution with $`\mu _k=1`$ and $`P(\lambda )=[\delta (\lambda \lambda _+)+\delta (\lambda \lambda _{})]/2`$, where $`\lambda _\pm =\mathrm{exp}(A\pm \sqrt{R})`$, so that $`A`$ and $`R`$ are the parameters used in Fig. 1. For smaller sizes, $`L14`$, we performed exact disorder averages, whereas for larger $`L`$-s we considered at least 10000 samples for each size.

In the actual calculation we set $`\mu _L=0`$ and determine the average particle density profile, $`\rho _k=[n_k]_{\mathrm{av}}`$, so that the order-parameter in the bulk (at the surface) is defined as $`\rho =\rho _{L/2}`$ ($`\rho _s=\rho _1`$). Close to the critical point, the densities obey scaling laws, such as $`\rho (L,\mathrm{\Delta })=L^x\stackrel{~}{\rho }(\mathrm{\Delta }L^{1/\nu _{}})`$, where $`x=\beta /\nu _{}`$. A similar relation holds for $`\rho _s`$, with the surface exponent $`x_s=\beta _s/\nu _{}`$. From an optimal data collapse, as illustrated in Fig. 2, the position of the transition point, $`A_c`$, and the critical exponents are calculated.

For varying disorder strength, $`R`$, the estimated critical exponents, $`x`$ and $`x_s`$, are plotted in Fig. 3, where one can observe the two regions announced in Fig. 1. The crossover occurs near $`R_c1.5`$. For higher disorder strenghts the critical exponents seem to saturate at the values given in (3). The estimate for $`\nu _{}=1.7\pm .3`$ at $`R=1.5`$ is also consistent with $`\nu _{}^{(\mathrm{})}`$. The error on this exponent is larger because of stronger finite size corrections.

We note that the same type of weak-to-strong disorder cross-over scenario has been observed in a class of random quantum spin chains. For these models, the strong disorder RG analysis leads to decimation equations of the same form as Eq.(5), with also $`\kappa >1`$. For these $`\kappa `$-values, some of the generated couplings (rates) can be larger than the decimated one. For weak enough disorder, this happens so often that the RG approach does not work. For stronger, but still finite disorder, however, such type of decimation steps are rare so that during renormalization the system flows into the strong disorder fixed point .

We have also studied the dynamical scaling of the model by calculating the probability distribution of the gap $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ between the groundstate and the first excited state of $`H_{CP}`$. In the small $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ limit this distribution behaves as $`P(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma }^{1/z^{}}`$. Here $`z^{}`$ is the disorder induced dynamical exponent, and the true dynamical exponent of the system is given by $`z=\mathrm{max}(z^{},z(0))`$. In the strong disorder fixed point $`z^{}`$ is formally infinity and the scaling behavior of the gap distribution is given by $`P(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma })=\stackrel{~}{P}\left(\mathrm{ln}\mathrm{\Gamma }/\sqrt{L}\right)/\sqrt{L}`$. As shown in Fig. 4 the above scaling form is indeed satisfied in the strong disorder region at $`R=1.5`$.

Based on the decimation rules in Eq.(5), which are very similar to that of the random transverse Ising model, we expect that even in higher dimensions these random stochastic models will renormalize into the strong disorder fixed point for the higher dimensional random transverse Ising model . Indeed from  we obtain $`\nu _{}=1.07\pm .15`$ and $`\beta =1.07\pm .12`$, consistent with the values obtained for a contact process with sufficiently strong dilution . For smaller values of the dilution, $`\beta `$ seems to vary continuously , indicating that a scenario similar to that in $`d=1`$ is valid. Moreover, the breakdown of dynamical scaling observed in  can be related to the strongly anisotropic scaling (4). Using $`\psi =.42\pm .06`$ , it is even possible to predict  the values of some of the dynamic exponents introduced in .

In conclusion, we have found that the critical properties of absorbing states models in the directed percolation universality class in the presence of random transition rates are controlled by a strong disorder fixed point, if the disorder is sufficiently strong. The exponents associated with this transition, are conjectured exact. This is the first example of an absorbing state phase transition with quenched disorder for which exact information becomes available. A more extensive paper on our results will be published elsewhere .

F.I. is grateful to P. Grassberger, J.D. Noh and F. van Wijland for stimulating discussions and to L. Gránásy for his help in the numerical calculations. F.I.’s work has been supported by the Hungarian National Research Fund under grant No OTKA TO34183, TO37323, MO28418 and M36803, by the Ministry of Education under grant No FKFP 87/2001, by the EC Centre of Excellence (No. ICA1-CT-2000-70029) and the numerical calculations by NIIF 1030. J.H. is a research ‘aspirant’ of the FWO-Vlaanderen.