text:
# Quantum Markov Processes (Correspondences and Dilations)

## 1 Introduction

A *quantum Markov process* is a pair, $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$, consisting of a von Neumann algebra $``$ and a semigroup $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ of unital, completely positive, normal linear maps on $``$ such that $`P_0`$ is the identity mapping on $``$ and such that the map $`tP_t(a)`$ from $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ to $``$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $``$ for each $`a`$. Over the years, there have been numerous studies wherein the authors “dilate” the Markov semigroup $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ to an $`E_0`$-semigroup, in the sense of Arveson  and Powers , of *endomorphisms* $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ of a larger von Neumann algebra $``$. Depending on context, the process of dilation has taken different meanings. Here we mean the following: Suppose $``$ acts on a Hilbert space $`H`$, then a quadruple $`(K,,\{\alpha _t\}_{t0},u_0)`$, consisting of a Hilbert space $`K`$, a von Neumann algebra $``$, an $`E_0`$-semigroup $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ of $``$-endomorphisms of $``$ and an isometric embedding $`u_0:HK`$, will be called an *E*0-*dilation* of the quantum Markov process $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$ (or, simply, of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$) in case for all $`T`$, all $`S`$ and all $`t0`$ the following equations hold

$$P_t(T)=u_0^{}\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0$$

and

$$P_t(u_0^{}Su_0)=u_0^{}\alpha _t(S)u_0\text{.}$$

Our objective in this paper is to prove that if the Hilbert space $`H`$ on which $``$ acts is separable, then such a dilation always exists.

What is novel in our approach is that we recognize the space of the Stinespring dilation of each $`P_t`$ as a correspondence $`_t`$ over the *commutant* of $``$, $`^{}`$. (All relevant terms will be defined below.) These correspondences are then assembled and “dilated” to a product system $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ of correspondences over $`^{}`$, very similar to the product systems that Arveson defined in . Then we describe $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ explicitly in terms of what we call a “fully coisometric, completely contractive covariant representation” of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$, denoted $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$, in a fashion that derives immediately from our work in . A bit more explicitly, but still incompletely, we find that $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ may be expressed in terms of $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ via the formula

$$P_t(a)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(I_{E(t)}a)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}\text{,}$$

$`a`$ and $`t0`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t`$ is the operator from $`E(t)H`$ to $`H`$ defined by the equation $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t(\xi h)=T_t(\xi )h`$. Then we dilate $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ to what is called an isometric representation $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on a Hilbert space $`K`$. If $`u_0:HK`$ is the embedding that goes along with $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$, the we find that $`T_t(\xi )=u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0`$ for all $`\xi E(t)`$ and that the $`E_0`$-semigroup of endomorphisms $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ that we want is given by the formula

$$\alpha _t(R)=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I_{E(t)}R)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}\text{,}$$

where $`R`$ runs over the von Neumann algebra $``$ generated by $`\{\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})\}_{t0}`$. That is, $`(K,,\{\alpha _t\}_{t0},u_0)`$ is the dilation of $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$.

An important part of our analysis was inspired by Bhat’s paper . Recently, Bhat and Skeide  have dilated a quantum Markov process $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$ using a product system over the von Neumann algebra $``$ (ours is over $`^{}`$). The precise connection between their work and ours has still to be determined. However, what we find attractive about our approach is the close explicit connection between dilations of quantum Markov processes and the classical dilation theory of contraction operators on Hilbert space pioneered by B. Sz-Nagy (see ).

In the next section we develop the theory of correspondences over von Neumann algebras sufficiently so that we can link up with theory developed in  in which representations and dilations of $`C^{}`$-correspondences are considered. We also show how what we call the Arveson correspondence $`_P`$ associated with the Stinespring dilation of a completely positive map $`P`$ can be dilated to a bigger correspondence $`E`$ in such a way that a certain completely contractive covariant representation of $`E`$ that gives $`P`$ is dilated to a fully coisometric, isometric representation of $`E`$. This representation of $`E`$ gives a “power” dilation of $`P`$.

Then, in Section 3, we construct a “discrete” dilation $`(K,,\{\alpha _t\}_{t0},u_0)`$ of the quantum Markov process $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$. It is here, following ideas developed in Section 2, that we dilate the family $`\{_{P_t}\}_{t0}`$ to a product system of correspondences $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ over $`^{}`$. In Section 4, we show that if the Hilbert space on which $``$ acts is separable, then the dilation $`(K,,\{\alpha _t\}_{t0},u_0)`$ we construct in Section 2 is, in fact, an $`E_0`$-dilation.

We adopt the standard notation that if $`A`$ is a subset of a Hilbert space $`H`$, then $`[A]`$ will denote the closed linear span of $`A`$.

## 2 Dilations of Completely Positive Maps

Throughout, $``$ will denote a von Neumann algebra. While much of what we will have to say about von Neumann algebras can be formulated in a space-free fashion, it will be convenient to view $``$ as acting on a fixed Hilbert space $`H`$. Thus, we will work inside $`(H)`$, the bounded operators on $`H`$. Also, throughout, $`P`$ will denote a fixed completely positive, unital and normal map from $``$ to $``$. We need to call attention to specific features of the minimal Stinespring dilation of $`P`$ .

Form the algebraic tensor product, $`H`$ and define the sesquilinear form $`,`$ on this space by the formula

$$T_1h_1,T_2h_2=h_1,P(T_2^{}T_1)h_2\text{,}$$

$`T_ih_iH`$. The complete positivity of $`P`$ guarantees that this form is positive semidefinite. Therefore, the Hausdorff completion of $`H`$ is a Hilbert space, which we shall denote by $`_PH`$. We shall not distinguish between an element in $`H`$ and its image in $`_PH`$. The formula

$$\pi _P(S)(Th):=STh\text{,}$$

$`S`$, $`Th_PH`$ defines a representation of $``$ on $`_PH`$ that is normal because $`P`$ is normal. Also, the formula

$$W_P(h):=Ih,$$

$`hH`$, defines an isometric imbedding of $`H`$ in $`_PH`$, and there results the fundamental equation

$$P(T)=W_P^{}\pi _P(T)W_P\text{,}$$

$`T`$. It is an easy matter to check that $`_PH`$ is minimal in the sense that the smallest subspace of $`_PH`$ containing $`W_PH`$ and reducing $`\pi _P`$ is all of $`_PH`$. Consequently, the triple $`(\pi _P,_PH,W_P)`$ is the unique minimal triple, $`(\pi ,K,W)`$, up to unitary equivalence, such that

$$P(T)=W^{}\pi (T)W\text{,}$$

$`T`$. We therefore refer to $`(\pi _P,_PH,W_P)`$ as *the* *Stinespring dilation* of $`P`$.

The adjoint $`W_P^{}`$ of the isometric embedding $`W_P`$ of $`H`$ in $`_PH`$ has an explicit form that we will need throughout our analysis:

$$W_P^{}(Xh)=P(X)h\text{}XhH\text{.}$$
(1)
This is easy to see because

$$W_P^{}(Xh),k=Xh,W_Pk=Xh,Ik=h,P(X^{})k=P(X)h,k.$$

A space of critical importance for us will be the intertwining space,

$$_{}(H,_PH):=\{X:H_PHXT=\pi _P(T)X,TM\}\text{.}$$

That is, $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is the space of operators that intertwine the identity representation of $``$ on $`H`$ and $`\pi _P`$. This space turns out to be a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over the *commutant* $`^{}`$ of $``$. The notion of a $`W^{}`$-correspondence is fundamental in this study, and therefore we pause to develop the terminology and to cite some important facts.

We follow Lance  for the general theory of Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules that we shall use. In particular, unless indicated to the contrary, a Hilbert module $`𝒳`$ over a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$, will be a *right* Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module. We write $`(𝒳)`$ for the space of continuous, adjointable $`A`$-module maps on $`𝒳`$ (which we shall write on the left of $`𝒳`$) and we shall write $`𝒦(𝒳)`$ for the space of (generalized) compact operators on $`𝒳`$, i.e., $`𝒦(𝒳)`$ is the span of the the rank one operators $`\xi \eta ^{}`$, $`\xi ,\eta 𝒳`$, where $`\xi \eta ^{}(\zeta )=\xi \eta ,\zeta `$.

###### Definition 2.1

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be $`C^{}`$-algebras. A $`C^{}`$-*correspondence* *from* $`A`$ *to* $`B`$ is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module $`𝒳`$ *over* $`B`$ endowed with the structure of a left module over $`A`$ via a $``$-homomorphism $`\phi :A(𝒳)`$. A $`C^{}`$-*correspondence over* $`A`$ is simply a $`C^{}`$-correspondence from $`A`$ to $`A`$.

When dealing with specific $`C^{}`$-correspondences, $`𝒳`$ from a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`A`$ to a $`C^{}`$-algebra $`B`$, it will be convenient to suppress the $`\phi `$ in formulas involving the left action and simply write $`a\xi `$ or $`a\xi `$ for $`\phi (a)\xi `$. This should cause no confusion in context.

$`C^{}`$-correspondences should be viewed as generalized $`C^{}`$-homomorphisms. Indeed, the collection of $`C^{}`$-algebras together with (isomorphism classes of) $`C^{}`$-correspondences is a category that contains (contravariantly) the category of $`C^{}`$-algebras and (conjugacy classes of) $`C^{}`$-homomorphisms. Of course, for this to make sense, one has to have a notion of composition of correspondences and a precise notion of isomorphism. The notion of isomorphism is the obvious one: a bijective, bimodule map that preserves inner products. Composition is “tensoring”: If $`𝒳`$ is a $`C^{}`$-correspondence from $`A`$ to $`B`$ and if $`𝒴`$ is a correspondence from $`B`$ to $`C`$, then the balanced tensor product, $`𝒳_B𝒴`$ is an $`A,C`$-bimodule that carries the inner product defined by the formula

$$\xi _1\eta _1,\xi _2\eta _2_{𝒳_B𝒴}:=\eta _1,\phi (\xi _1,\xi _2_𝒳)\eta _2_𝒴\text{.}$$

The Hausdorff completion of this bimodule is again denoted by $`𝒳_B𝒴`$ and is called the *composition* of $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒴`$. At the level of correspondences, composition is not associative. However, if we pass to isomorphism classes, it is. That is, we only have an isomorphism $`(𝒳𝒴)𝒵𝒳(𝒴𝒵)`$. It is worthwhile to emphasize here that while it often is safe to ignore the distinction between correspondences and their isomorphism classes, at times, as we shall see, the distinction is of critical importance.

If $`𝒩`$ is a von Neumann algebra and if $`𝒳`$ is a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`𝒩`$, then $`𝒳`$ is called *self-dual* in case every continuous $`𝒩`$-module map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from $`𝒳`$ to $`𝒩`$ is implemented by an element of $`𝒳`$, i.e., in case there is an $`\xi _\mathrm{\Phi }𝒳`$ so that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\xi )=\xi _\mathrm{\Phi },\xi `$, $`\xi 𝒳`$. There is a topological characterization of self-dual Hilbert $`C^{}`$-modules over von Neumann algebras given in  that will be useful for us. To state it, recall that their $`\sigma `$-topology on a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module $`𝒳`$ over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ is the topology defined by the functionals

$$f():=\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}w_n(\eta _n,)$$

where the $`\eta _n`$ lie in $`𝒳`$, the $`w_n`$ lie in $`𝒩_{}`$, and $`w_n\eta _n<\mathrm{}`$. Baillet, Denizeau, and Havet proved that a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module $`𝒳`$ over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ is self-dual if and only if the unit ball in $`𝒳`$ is compact in the $`\sigma `$-topology \[6, Proposition 1.7\]. In , Paschke proved that if $`𝒳`$ is a self-dual Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$, then $`(𝒳)`$ is a von Neumann algebra, i.e., $`(𝒳)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra which is also a dual space and which, therefore, may be represented faithfully on Hilbert space in such a way that the weak-$``$ topology on $`(𝒳)`$ coincides with the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on the image.

###### Definition 2.2

Let $``$ and $`𝒩`$ be von Neumann algebras and let $`𝒳`$ be a Hilbert $`C^{}`$-module over $`𝒩`$. Then $`𝒳`$ is called a *Hilbert* $`W^{}`$*-module* over $`𝒩`$ in case $`𝒳`$ is self-dual. The module $`𝒳`$ is called a $`W^{}`$*-correspondence from* $``$ *to* $`𝒩`$in case $`𝒳`$ is a self-dual $`C^{}`$-correspondence from $``$ to $`𝒩`$ such that the $``$-homomorphism $`\phi :(𝒳)`$ giving the left module structure on $`𝒳`$ is normal.

It is evident that the composition of $`W^{}`$-correspondences is again a $`W^{}`$-correspondence. The following proposition shows one way to construct $`W^{}`$-correspondences.

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`H`$ and $`K`$ be Hilbert spaces. Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra on $`K`$, let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra on $`H`$, and let $`𝒴B(H,K)`$ be a $`\sigma `$-weakly closed linear space of operators. Suppose that $`𝒴𝒩𝒴`$ and that $`𝒴^{}𝒴:=\{Y^{}YY𝒴\}`$ is contained in $`𝒩`$. Then $`𝒴`$ is a self-dual Hilbert $`W^{}`$-module over $`𝒩`$ that has the structure of a $`W^{}`$-correspondence from $``$ to $`𝒩`$. Further, the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`𝒴`$ coincides with the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`𝒴`$ as a subspace of $`B(H,K)`$.

Proof. It is evident that $`𝒴`$ has the structure of a $`C^{}`$-correspondence from $``$ to $`𝒩`$. The main point of the proposition is the assertion about self-duality and the topologies. The functionals $`f`$ defining the $`\sigma `$-topology are of the form $`f():=_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}w_n(\eta _n,)`$ where the $`\eta _n`$ lie in $`𝒴`$, the $`w_n`$ lie in $`𝒩_{}`$, and $`w_n\eta _n<\mathrm{}`$. Evidently, each of these is $`\sigma `$-weakly continuous. Conversely, given a functional on $`𝒴`$ of the form $`g(Y)=Yh,k`$, we may assume that $`k`$ is in the closed span of $`\{YhY𝒴`$, $`hH\}`$ and approximate $`g`$ in norm by functionals of the form

$$\stackrel{~}{g}(Y)=\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}Yh,Y_mh_m^{}=\underset{m=1}{\overset{r}{}}Y^{}Yh_m,h_m^{}.$$

Each of these functionals is continuous in the $`\sigma `$-topology. Since the space of $`\sigma `$-continuous functionals is a Banach space \[6, 1.2\], the functional $`YYh,k`$ is in this space, and so is every $`\sigma `$-weakly continuous functional on $`𝒴`$. It follows that the two topologies coincide on $`𝒴`$. Since the closed unit ball in $`𝒴`$ is $`\sigma `$-weakly compact, it must be compact in the $`\sigma `$-topology. By \[6, Proposition 1.7\], $`𝒴`$ is self-dual.

###### Remark 2.4

(i) The theory developed in  can be used to prove a converse to this result: Given a $`W^{}`$-correspondence $`𝒴`$ from $``$ to $`𝒩`$, then there are faithful normal representations $`\pi :B(K)`$ and $`\rho :𝒩B(H)`$ and there is a linear map $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒴B(H,K)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\phi (T)YS)=\pi (T)\mathrm{\Phi }(Y)\rho (S)`$ and $`\rho (X,Y_𝒴)=\mathrm{\Phi }(X)^{}\mathrm{\Phi }(Y)`$ for all $`X,Y𝒴`$, $`T`$, and $`S𝒩`$, and such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a homeomorphism with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`𝒴`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`\mathrm{\Phi }(𝒴)`$. Thus, in a sense, the construction in Proposition 2.3 is universal.

(ii) Suppose $`𝒳`$ is a self-dual Hilbert $`W^{}`$-module over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and that $`\pi :(𝒳)`$ is a $`C^{}`$-homomorphism on the von Neumann algebra $``$. Then $`\pi `$ is normal if for every bounded net $`\{A_\alpha \}𝒩`$, with $`A_\alpha A`$ weakly, every $`g𝒩_{}`$, and every $`X,Y𝒳`$, we have $`g(\pi (A_\alpha )X,Y)g(\pi (A)X,Y)`$. This follows from the fact that $`(𝒳)`$ is the dual space of the tensor product $`𝒳𝒳^{}𝒩_{}`$ equipped with the greatest cross norm \[16, Proposition 3.10\].

###### Proposition 2.5

Let $`(\pi _P,_PH,W_P)`$ be the Stinespring dilation of a completely positive map $`P`$ on the von Neumann algebra $``$. Then $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is a $`\sigma `$-weakly closed subspace of $`B(H,_PH)`$ that is closed under left multiplication by $`I^{}`$ and right multiplication by $`^{}`$ and has the property that $`_{}(H,_PH)^{}_{}(H,_PH)^{}`$. Thus $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ has the structure of a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over $`^{}`$.

Proof. Evidently, if $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$ and $`T^{}`$, then $`XT_{}(H,_PH)`$. Indeed, if $`S`$, then $`XTS=XST=\pi _P(S)XT`$, showing that $`XT_{}(H,_PH)`$. Also, if $`X,Y_{}(H,_PH)`$, then $`X^{}Y^{}`$ because for all $`T`$, $`X^{}YT=X^{}\pi _P(T)Y=TX^{}Y`$. Thus, by Proposition 2.3, it remains to give the left action of $`^{}`$. On the face of it, this is evidently given by the formula $`\phi (T)=IT`$, $`T^{}`$. However, the meaning of $`IT`$, $`T^{}`$, and the expression $`I^{}`$, need a little development. For $`T^{}`$, we prove that the algebraic tensor product $`IT`$ is bounded as follows: Observe that for $`_{i=1}^nS_ih_iMH`$, we have

$`(IT)({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_ih_i)^2`$ $`=IT({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_ih_i),IT({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_ih_i)`$
$`=({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_iTh_i),({\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}S_iTh_i)`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}Th_i,P(S_i^{}S_j)Th_j`$
$`={\displaystyle \underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}}h_i,T^{}P(S_i^{}S_j)Th_j\text{.}`$
However, since $`P`$ is completely positive the operator matrix $`\left(P(S_i^{}S_j)\right)`$ is a positive element in $`M_n(^{})`$ and so can be written as $`C^{}C`$, for an element $`CM_n(^{})`$. Therefore, $`\left(T^{}P(S_i^{}S_j)T\right)=\widehat{T}^{}C^{}C\widehat{T}=C^{}\widehat{T}^{}\widehat{T}CT^2C^{}C`$, where $`\widehat{T}`$ is the $`n`$-fold inflation of $`T`$. Consequently, the last term in the displayed equation is dominated by

$$T^2\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{n}{}}h_i,T^{}P(S_i^{}S_j)Th_j=T^2(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}S_ih_i)^2\text{.}$$

Thus $`IT`$ extends to an element in $`\pi _P()^{}`$, which we continue to denote by $`IT`$. The collection of all these operators on $`M_PH`$ is denoted by $`I^{}`$. Evidently, the map $`TIT`$ is a (not-necessarily-injective) normal $``$-homomorphism of $`^{}`$ onto its range. Nevertheless, we denote the range by $`I^{}`$ and note that $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is a left $`^{}`$ module through this homomorphism. Since $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is manifestly $`\sigma `$-weakly closed, the proof is completed by appeal to Proposition 2.3.

For our purposes, a drawback of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is that it is a space of operators acting between two *different* Hilbert spaces. We want to “pull $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ back” to $`H`$ using $`W_P`$ and the following device that is due to Arveson . Given $`YB(H)`$, and $`Sh`$ in the algebraic tensor product $`H`$, we set

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(Sh):=SY^{}h\text{,}$$

and extend $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$ by linearity to a densely defined linear map from $`_PH`$ to $`H`$ with domain $`H`$. We write $`_P`$ for the space of all operators $`YB(H)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$ is continuous. (In this case, of course, we continue to write $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$ for the unique continuous extension to all of $`_PH`$.)

###### Proposition 2.6

The space $`_P`$ is a linear space that is stable under left and right multiplication by elements from $`^{}`$, and the pairing $`Y,Z:=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{}`$ converts $`_P`$ into a $`W^{}`$-correspondence that is isomorphic to $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ under the map $`Y\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}`$.

The advantage of $`_P`$ over $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is not only that $`_PB(H)`$, but also, as we shall see shortly, given two completely positive maps $`P`$ and $`Q`$ on $``$, the relations among $`_P`$, $`_Q`$, and $`_{PQ}`$ are easier to work with than those among $`_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`_{}(H,_QH)`$, and $`_{}(H,_{PQ}H)`$.

Proof. Evidently, $`_P`$ is a linear space. For $`R^{}`$ and $`Y_P`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YR}=R^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$, and so $`_P^{}_P`$. For the other side, fix $`Y_P`$ and $`T^{}`$. Then for $`(_{i=1}^nS_ih_i)H`$, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TY}(_{i=1}^nS_ih_i)=_{i=1}^nS_iY^{}T^{}h_i=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(_{i=1}^nS_iT^{}h_i)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TY}=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(IT^{})`$ on $`H`$, showing that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TY}`$ is bounded; i.e., $`^{}_P_P`$.

Next note that for $`Y_P`$, $`S,T`$, and $`hH`$,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(\pi _P(T)(Sh))=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(TSh)=TSY^{}h=T\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(Sh)\text{}$$

i.e., $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y\pi _P(T)=T\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$. Taking adjoints, we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}_{}(H,_PH)`$. Thus, from the properties of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$, we know that the formula $`Z,Y:=\mathrm{\Phi }_Z\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}`$, defines an $`^{}`$-valued function on $`_P`$. In fact, it is clearly an $`^{}`$-valued sesquilinear form, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YR}=R^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{TY}=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(IT^{})`$, $`R,T^{}`$, and it is clearly positive semidefinite. It is definite because if $`Y,Y=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}=0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y=0,`$ and so $`TY^{}h=0`$ for all $`T`$ and $`hH`$. Taking $`T=I`$ we conclude that $`Y=0`$.

The map $`Y\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}`$ preserves inner products by definition. Further, it is a bimodule map since $`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{YR}\right)^{}=(R^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Y)^{}=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}R`$ and $`\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{RY}\right)^{}=\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_Y(IR^{})\right)^{}=(IR)\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}`$, for all $`R^{}`$. Thus, to show that $`_P`$ is isomorphic to $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ under this map, we need only show that it is onto. However, we assert that for all $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`X=\mathrm{\Phi }_{(W_P^{}X)}^{}`$. Indeed, for $`h,h^{}H`$, and $`S`$, the fact that $`(IS)X=XS`$ implies that

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{(W_P^{}X)}(Sh)=SX^{}W_Ph=SX^{}(Ih)`$
$`=X^{}(SI)(Ih)=X^{}(Sh)\text{.}`$
This shows that $`(W_P^{}X)`$ is in $`_P`$ and that $`X=\mathrm{\Phi }_{(W_P^{}X)}^{}`$. The facts that $`_P`$ and $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ are isomorphic and that $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ is self-dual imply that $`_P`$ is self-dual.

###### Definition 2.7

The $`W^{}`$-correspondence $`_P`$ over $`^{}`$ associated with a normal, unital completely positive map $`P`$ on a von Neumann algebra $``$ will be called the *Arveson correspondence* associated with $`P`$.

The following corollary is immediate from the self-duality of the spaces involved. We call attention to it because it will be used several times in the sequel.

###### Corollary 2.8

If a subspace $`𝒴`$ of $`_P`$ or of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ has zero annihilator, i.e., if $`𝒴^{}=0`$, then $`𝒴`$ is dense.

A special case of our analysis so far needs to be singled out. Suppose that $`P=\alpha `$ is a unital, normal, $``$-*endomorphism* of $``$. (All endomorphisms will be unital, normal, and preserve adjoints.) Then $`_\alpha H`$ is isomorphic to $`H`$ under the map $`Th\alpha (T)h`$, which is $`W_\alpha ^1=W_\alpha ^{}`$. Further, $`\pi _\alpha `$ is unitarily equivalent to $`\alpha `$. Thus, we may identify $`_P=_\alpha `$ directly with $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ as in the following corollary of Proposition 2.6.

###### Corollary 2.9

If $`\alpha `$ is a unital, normal, $``$-endomorphism of $``$, then $`_\alpha =\{XB(H)XT=\alpha (T)X,T\}`$ with the inner product $`X_1,X_2=X_1^{}X_2`$.

The next lemma may seem like a technicality, but among other things, it establishes that the modules $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ and $`_P`$ are nonzero. It plays other useful roles in the sequel.

###### Lemma 2.10

In the setting of a normal, unital completely positive map $`P`$ on $``$ that we have been studying,

$$_PH=\{\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}(H)Y_P\}=\{X(H)X_{}(H,_PH)\}\text{.}$$

Proof. Since $`\pi _P`$ is a normal $``$-representation, its kernel is of the form $`q`$ for a central projection $`q`$. Write $`\pi ^{}`$ for the representation of $``$ that is reduction by $`Iq`$, i.e., $`\pi ^{}(S)=S(Iq)`$. Then for $`S`$, $`\pi ^{}(S)=\pi _P(S)`$, so that $`\pi ^{}`$ and $`\pi _P`$ are quasiequivalent. If $`Q`$ is the projection of $`_PH`$ onto $`\{X(H)X_{}(H,_PH)\}`$, then for every $`L_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`L(H)`$ is $`\pi _P()`$-invariant. Hence $`Q\pi _P()^{}`$. If $`\pi _0`$ is the reduction of $`\pi _P`$ to the range of $`IQ`$, then, on the one hand, $`\pi _0\pi _P`$ and on the other, $`\pi _0`$ is disjoint from $`\pi ^{}`$. Since $`\pi ^{}`$ is quasiequivalent to $`\pi _P`$ we conclude that $`\pi _0=0`$, i.e., that $`Q=I`$.

We next want to illuminate the relation between the composition of two completely positive maps on $``$ and the composition of their Arveson correspondences. This was worked out in the case when $`=B(H)`$ by Arveson in \[4, Theorem 1.12\]. Given two normal, unital completely positive maps $`P,Q:`$, we shall write $`m`$ for the multiplication map from $`_P_{^{}}_Q`$ to $`B(H)`$. That is, $`m(YZ)=YZ`$.

###### Lemma 2.11

The range of $`m`$ is contained in $`_{PQ}`$.

Proof. First observe that if $`Y_P`$, if $`A=(a_{ij})`$ is a positive semidefinite element in $`M_n()`$, and if $`𝐡=(h_1,h_2,\mathrm{},h_n)`$ is an $`n`$-tuple of elements from $`H`$, then

$$A^{1/2}(Y^{}I)𝐡^2\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^2h_i,P(a_{ij})h_j\text{.}$$
(2)
To see this, note that if $`A`$ is a diad, i.e., if $`A`$ has the form

$$A=(S_1,S_2,\mathrm{},S_n)^{}(S_1,S_2,\mathrm{},S_n),S_i\text{,}$$

then the left hand side of the inequality is simply $`S_iY^{}h_i^2`$, while the right hand side is $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^2S_ih_i^2`$. So, the inequality is valid by definition. However, every non-negative $`AM_n()`$ is a sum of diads. (See \[18, Lemma 3.11\].) So the inequality is valid as claimed.

Now fix $`Y_P`$, $`Z_Q`$, $`S_ih_iH`$. Then

$`{\displaystyle S_i(YZ)^{}h_i}^2`$ $`={\displaystyle S_iZ^{}(Y^{}h_i)}^2\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^2{\displaystyle S_i_QY^{}h_i}^2`$
$`=\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^2{\displaystyle Y^{}h_i},Q(S_i^{}S_j)Y^{}h_j`$
$`=\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^2(Q(S_i^{}S_j))^{1/2}(Y^{}I)𝐡^2`$
$`\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^2\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^2{\displaystyle h_i},P(Q(S_i^{}S_j))Y^{}h_j`$
$`=\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^2\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^2S_{PQ}h^2\text{.}`$
This shows that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YZ}`$ is bounded, and that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YZ}\mathrm{\Phi }_Z\mathrm{\Phi }_Y`$. Thus $`YZ_{PQ}`$.

We also want to express $`m`$ in terms of the space $`_{}(H,_PH)`$. For this purpose, fix two normal, unital, completely positive maps $`P,Q:`$. We define a map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:_{}(H,_PH)_{^{}}_{}(H,_QH)_{}(H,_Q_PH)`$ by the formula $`\mathrm{\Psi }(XY)=(IX)Y`$, where $`IX`$ is the map from $`_QH`$ to $`_Q_PH`$ given by the equation $`IX(Sh)=SXh`$. We also define a map $`V_0:_{PQ}H_Q_PH`$ via the equation $`V_0(Sh)=SIh`$, and we define $`V:_{}(H,_PH)_{}(H,_Q_PH)`$ by the formula $`V(X)=V_0X`$.

###### Proposition 2.12

In the notation just established, $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is an isomorphism of correspondences and $`V`$ is an isometry whose range is $`\{X_{}(H,_Q_PH)X(H)_QI_PH\}`$. Further, if we write $`U_P:_P_{}(H,_PH)`$ for the isomorphism defined above, and similarly write $`U_Q`$ and $`U_{PQ}`$, then

$$U_{PQ}m(U_P^1U_Q^1)=V^{}\mathrm{\Psi }\text{,}$$
(3)
showing that $`m`$ is coisometric and $`m^{}`$ is isometric.

Proof. On the one hand, $`\mathrm{\Psi }(XY)^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(X^{}Y^{})=Y^{}(IX^{})(IX^{})Y^{}=Y^{}(IX^{}X^{})Y^{}`$ \- the inner product in $`_{}(H,_Q_PH)`$. On the other hand, recall that the left action of $`Z^{}`$ on $`_{}(H,_QH)`$ is given by the equation $`(IZ)Y`$, $`Y_{}(H,_QH)`$. Consequently, in $`_{}(H,_PH)_{^{}}_{}(H,_QH)`$,

$`XY,X^{}Y^{}`$ $`=Y,X,X^{}_{_{}(H,_PH)}Y^{}_{_{}(H,_QH)}`$
$`=Y,(IX^{}X^{})Y^{}_{_{}(H,_QH)}=Y^{}(IX^{}X^{})Y^{}\text{.}`$
Thus $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ preserves the inner products.

To see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a bimodule map, let $`S^{}`$, $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$, and $`Y_{}(H,_QH)`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\Psi }(S(XY))`$ $`=\mathrm{\Psi }((IS)XY)`$
$`=(I(IS)X)Y`$
$`=(IIS)(IX)Y`$
$`=S\mathrm{\Psi }(XY)\text{,}`$
while

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(XYS)=(IX)(YS)=((IX)Y)S=\mathrm{\Psi }(XY)S\text{.}$$

To see that $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is surjective, we use the fact that $`_{}(H,_Q_PH)`$ is self-dual (see Proposition 2.3) and show that $`(\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Psi })^{}=\{0\}`$. Corollary 2.8, then, will yield the result. If $`Z`$ annihilates $`\mathrm{Im}\mathrm{\Psi }`$, then for every $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$ and for every $`Y_{}(H,_QH)`$, $`Y^{}(IX^{})Z=0`$. Observe that $`(IX^{})Z`$ is a map from $`H`$ to $`_QH`$. By Lemma 2.10, $`_QH`$ is the span of $`Y(H)`$, $`Y_{}(H,_QH)`$. Consequently, $`\{\mathrm{ker}Y^{}Y_{}(H,_QH)\}=\{0\}`$. Since $`Y^{}(IX^{})Z=0`$ for all such $`Y`$, we conclude that $`(IX^{})Z=0`$ for all $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$. By Lemma 2.10 again, $`\{\mathrm{ker}X^{}X_{}(H,_PH)\}=\{0\}`$, and so $`Z=0`$.

Turning now to $`V`$, note that it is an easy matter to check that $`V_0`$ is an isometry. Consequently, for $`X_{}(H,_{PQ}H)`$, $`V(X)^{}V(X)=X^{}V_0^{}V_0X=X^{}X`$. So $`V`$ is isometric. Also, it is evident from the definitions that $`V`$ is a bimodule map and that its image is $`\{X_{}(H,_Q_PH)X(H)_QI_PH\}`$. Thus, we are left to prove equation (3). To this end, let $`Y_P`$ and let $`Z_Q`$. As an equation between maps from $`_{PQ}H`$ to $`H`$, the relation $`\mathrm{\Phi }_Z(I\mathrm{\Phi }_Y)V_0=\mathrm{\Phi }_{YZ}`$ is immediate. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{YZ}^{}=V_0^{}(I\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{})\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{}`$. Since $`U_P(Y)=\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{},U_Q(Z)=\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{}`$and $`m(YZ)=YZ`$, we find that

$`U_{PQ}m(U_P^1U_Q^1)(\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{})`$ $`=U_{PQ}(YZ)=\mathrm{\Phi }_{YZ}^{}`$
$`=V_0^{}\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{})=V^{}(\mathrm{\Psi }(\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Z^{}))\text{.}`$
###### Corollary 2.13

Under the hypotheses of Proposition 2.12,

$$\{T(H)T_{}(H,_Q_PH)\}=_Q_PH.$$

Proof. The span $`\{T(H)T_{}(H,_Q_PH)\}`$ contains the span $`\{(IX)Y(H)X_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`Y_{}(H,_QH)\}`$. But using Lemma 2.10 twice, we see that this space is $`\{(IX)(M_QH)X_{}(H,_PH)\}=_Q_PH`$.

Although the product of two correspondences associated with completely positive maps does not coincide with the correspondence of the product of the maps, there are important special situations when they do. This, and more, is spelled out in the following proposition. (For a related result, see \[6, Theorem 2.12\].)

###### Proposition 2.14

(1) If $`\alpha Aut()`$, then $`_{\alpha ^1}=_\alpha ^{}`$, and $`_\alpha _\alpha ^{}`$ and $`_\alpha ^{}_\alpha `$ are $`\sigma `$-weakly dense in $`^{}`$. In particular, $`_\alpha `$ is an $`^{}^{}`$ equivalence bimodule.

(2) If $`\alpha `$ is an *endomorphism* of $``$ and if $`Q`$ is a normal, unital, completely positive map of $``$, then the multiplication map $`m:_\alpha _{^{}}_Q_{\alpha Q}`$, defined above, is an isomorphism.

(3) If $`\alpha Aut()`$ and if $`P`$ is a normal, unital completely positive map, then the map $`m:_P_{^{}}_\alpha _{P\alpha }`$ is an isomorphism.

(4) If $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are conjugate normal, unital completely positive maps (i.e., if there is an automorphism $`\alpha `$ of $``$ such that $`P=\alpha Q\alpha ^1`$, then

$$_P_\alpha _{^{}}_Q_{^{}}_\alpha ^{}\text{.}$$
(4)
In particular, $`(^{},_P)`$ and $`(^{},_Q)`$ are strongly Morita equivalent in the sense of .

We note for the sake of emphasis, that the tensor products described in equation (4) are realized through operator multiplication and adjunction. That is, if $`R`$ and $`T_\alpha `$ and $`S_Q`$, then $`T^{}_\alpha ^{}`$ and $`RST^{}=RST^{}`$.

Proof. (1) By Corollary 2.9, $`_\alpha =\{XB(H)XT=\alpha (T)X,T\}`$. The inner product is given by the formula $`X_1,X_2=X_1^{}X_2`$. It follows easily that $`_{\alpha ^1}=_\alpha ^{}`$ and that $`_\alpha ^{}_\alpha ^{}`$. In fact, the $`\sigma `$-weak closure of $`_\alpha ^{}_\alpha `$ is a $`2`$-sided ideal in $`^{}`$, and therefore is of the form $`q^{}`$, for some central projection in $`^{}`$. However, given $`X_{\alpha ^1}`$, with polar decomposition $`X=V|X|`$, we see that $`V_{\alpha ^1}`$ and $`VV^{}`$ is the projection onto the closure of the range of $`X`$. Since $`VV^{}_{\alpha ^1}_{\alpha ^1}^{}=_\alpha ^{}_\alpha q^{}`$, the range of $`X`$ is contained in the range of $`q`$. However, Lemma 2.10 implies, now, that $`q=I`$; i.e., that $`_\alpha ^{}_\alpha `$ is $`\sigma `$-weakly dense in $`^{}`$. Hence, $`_\alpha `$ is a normal equivalence bimodule.

(2) From Proposition 2.12, we know in general that $`m`$ is an isomorphism if $`_QI_PH=_Q_PH`$. If $`P=\alpha `$ is an endomorphism of $``$, then for every $`T,S`$ and $`h,kH`$, we have

$`ThI\alpha (T)h,Sk_{_\alpha H}`$ $`=Th,SkI\alpha (T)h,Sk`$
$`=h,\alpha (T^{}S)k\alpha (T)h,\alpha (S)k=0.`$
Hence $`Th=I\alpha (T)h`$ and so $`_\alpha H=IH=H`$. Thus, $`_Q_\alpha H=_QI_\alpha H`$, as required.

(3) As in (2), we need to show that $`_\alpha I_QH`$ coincides with $`_\alpha _QH`$. This is obvious, since for all $`S,T`$, and $`hH`$, $`STh=S\alpha ^1(T)Ih`$.

(4) From (2) and (3), we know that $`_P_\alpha _Q_\alpha ^{}`$, and (1) implies then that $`_P_\alpha _\alpha _Q`$. Part (1) also asserts that $`_Q`$ is an $`^{}`$-$`^{}`$-equivalence bimodule and so $`_P`$ are strongly Morita equivalent in the sense of .

Although $`_P_Q_{PQ}`$, and especially, $`_P^n_{P^n}`$ in general, we shall soon see that it is possible to “dilate” $`_P`$ to a correspondence $`_\alpha `$ where $`\alpha `$ is an endomorphism of the commutant an isomorphic copy of $`^{}`$. We then have $`_\alpha ^n_{\alpha ^n}`$, by part (2) of Proposition 2.14. This $`\alpha `$, then, will turn out to be a “dilation” of $`P`$. To effect this program, we require some of the technology from . We generally adopt the terminology and notation of , but with some minor modifications because we are working in the category of von Neumann algebras and *normal* maps - representations, and completely positive maps.

###### Definition 2.15

Let $``$ be a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and let $`H_0`$ be a Hilbert space.

1. A *completely contractive covariant representation* of $``$ in $`B(H_0)`$ is a pair $`(T,\sigma )`$, where

1. $`\sigma `$ is a normal $``$-representation of $`𝒩`$ in $`B(H_0)`$.
    2. $`T`$ is a linear, completely contractive map from $``$ to $`B(H_0)`$ that is continuous in the $`\sigma `$-topology of  on $``$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`B(H_0).`$
    3. $`T`$ is a bimodule map in the sense that $`T(S\xi R)=\sigma (S)T(\xi )\sigma (R)`$, $`\xi `$, and $`S,R𝒩`$.
2. A completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $``$ in $`B(H_0)`$ is called *isometric* in case

$$T(\xi )^{}T(\eta )=\sigma (\xi ,\eta )\text{,}$$
(5)
for all $`\xi ,\eta `$.

To lighten the terminology, we shall refer to an isometric, completely contractive, covariant representation simply as an isometric covariant representation. There is no problem doing this because it is easy to see that if one has a pair $`(T,\sigma )`$ satisfying all the conditions of part 1 of Definition 2.15, except possibly the complete contractivity assumption, but which is isometric in the sense of equation (5), then necessarily $`T`$ is completely contractive.

The theory developed in  applies here to prove that if a completely contractive covariant representation, $`(T,\sigma )`$, of $``$ in $`B(H)`$ is given, then it determines a contraction $`\stackrel{~}{T}:_\sigma HH`$ defined by the formula $`\stackrel{~}{T}(\eta h):=T(\eta )h`$, $`\eta h_\sigma H`$. Here, $`_\sigma H`$ denotes the Hausdorff completion of the algebraic tensor product $`H`$ in the pre-inner product given by the formula $`\xi h,\eta k:=h,\sigma (\xi ,\eta )k`$. (See \[13, Lemma 3.5\].) Also, there is an *induced* representation $`\sigma ^{}:()B(_\sigma H)`$ defined by the formula $`\sigma ^{}(S):=SI`$ \[13, Lemma 3.4\]. Recalling that $`()`$ is a von Neumann algebra, it is not hard to see that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a normal representation. The operator $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ and $`\sigma ^{}`$ are related by the equation

$$\stackrel{~}{T}\sigma ^{}\phi =\sigma \stackrel{~}{T}.$$
(6)
In fact we have the following lemma that is immediate from  and . See, in particular, \[13, Lemmas 3.4-3.6\] and \[14, Lemma 2.1\].

###### Lemma 2.16

The map $`(T,\sigma )\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a bijection between all completely contractive covariant representations $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $``$ on the Hilbert space $`H`$ and contractive operators $`\stackrel{~}{T}:_\sigma HH`$ that satisfy equation (6). Given such a $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ satisfying this equation, $`T`$, defined by the formula $`T(\xi )h:=\stackrel{~}{T}(\xi h)`$, together with $`\sigma `$ is a completely contractive covariant representation of $``$ on $`H`$. Further, $`(T,\sigma )`$ is isometric if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is an isometry.

We note in passing that this lemma shows that the $`\sigma `$-weak continuity of $`T`$ really depends only on the fact that $`\sigma `$ is normal.

The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:()B(H)`$ defined, then, by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Psi }(S):=\stackrel{~}{T}\sigma ^{}(S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\text{,}$$

$`S()`$, evidently is completely positive, normal, and contractive.

###### Definition 2.17

Given a completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $``$ in $`B(H),`$ the map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is called the *completely positive extension* of $`(T,\sigma )`$, and the representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ is called *fully coisometric* in case $`\mathrm{\Psi }(I_{})=I_H`$.

The terminology is reminiscent of the theory of a single contraction. A completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ is isometric precisely when $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is an isometry. Likewise, it is fully coisometric precisely when $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a coisometry. The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is a normal $``$-representation precisely when $`(T,\sigma )`$ is isometric and it is a unital $``$-representation precisely when $`(T,\sigma )`$ is both isometric and fully coisometric. (We have, however, resisted the temptation to call $`(T,\sigma )`$ unitary in this case.) Our next result, which is a variant of \[13, Corollary 5.21\], shows that a completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ can be dilated to an isometric covariant representation in the following sense.

###### Theorem and Definition 2.18

Let $``$ be a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and let $`(T,\sigma )`$ be a completely contractive covariant representation of $``$ on the Hilbert space $`H`$. Then there is a Hilbert space $`K`$ containing $`H`$ and an isometric covariant representation $`(V,\rho )`$ of $``$ on $`K`$ such that if $`P`$ is the projection of $`K`$ onto $`H`$, then

1. $`P`$ commutes with $`\rho (𝒩)`$ and $`\rho (A)P=\sigma (A)P,`$ $`A𝒩`$; and
2. for all $`\eta `$, $`V(\eta )^{}`$ leaves $`H`$ invariant and $`PV(\eta )P=T(\eta )P`$.

The representation $`(V,\rho )`$ may be chosen so that the smallest subspace $`K`$ containing $`H`$ that reduces $`(V,\rho )`$ is $`K`$. When this is done, $`(V,\rho )`$ is unique up to unitary equivalence and is called *the minimal isometric dilation of* $`(T,\sigma )`$.

Further, if $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric, the (unique minimal) isometric dilation $`(V,\rho )`$ is fully coisometric, too.

Proof. One can construct a proof following the steps leading to Theorem 3.3 and Corollary 5.21 in . However, continuity issues must be dealt with along the way and one needs to observe that the ideal $`J`$ discussed there plays no role here. Rather than doing this, it is easier and it may be more revealing to appeal to Lemma 2.16 and simply write down the operator $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ and representation $`\rho `$ that lead to the dilation $`(V,\rho )`$ of $`(T,\sigma )`$. The remaining details will be very easy to verify.

To this end, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }=(I\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\stackrel{~}{T})^{1/2}`$ and let $`𝒟`$ be its range. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an operator on $`_\sigma H`$ and commutes with the representation $`\sigma ^{}\phi `$ of $`𝒩`$, by equation (6). Write $`\sigma _1`$ for the restriction of $`\sigma ^{}\phi `$ to $`𝒟`$. Let $`\sigma _2=\sigma _1^{}\phi `$ on $`_{\sigma _1}𝒟`$, and let $`\sigma _3=\sigma _2^{}\phi `$ on $`_{\sigma _2}(_{\sigma _1}𝒟)`$. It is easy to see that $`\sigma _3`$ is naturally unitarily equivalent to $`\sigma _1^^2\phi _2`$ on $`^2_{\sigma _1}𝒟`$, where $`\phi _2`$ is the representation of $`𝒩`$ in $`(^2)`$ defined by the formula $`\phi _2(a)(\xi \eta )=(\phi (a)\xi )\eta `$. We shall identify them henceforth and in general, we write $`\sigma _{n+1}`$for $`\sigma _1^^n\phi _n`$ on $`^n_{\sigma _1}𝒟`$, where $`\phi _n`$ has its obvious meaning. It is evident that all the $`\sigma _n`$ are normal. We let

$$K=H𝒟\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}^n_{\sigma _1}𝒟$$

and we let $`\rho =\sigma \sigma _1_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\sigma _{n+1}`$, i.e., thinking matricially, $`\rho =diag(\sigma ,\sigma _1,\sigma _2,\mathrm{})`$. Then a moment’s reflection reveals that $`\rho `$ is a normal representation of $`𝒩`$ on $`K`$ whose restriction to $`H`$ is $`\sigma `$, of course. Form $`_\rho K`$ and define $`\stackrel{~}{V}:_\rho KK`$ matricially as

$$\left[\begin{array}{cccccc}\stackrel{~}{T}& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& & \\ \mathrm{\Delta }& 0& 0& & \mathrm{}& \\ 0& I& 0& \mathrm{}& & \\ 0& 0& I& 0& \mathrm{}& \\ \mathrm{}& 0& 0& I& \mathrm{}& \\ & & & & \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}\right].$$

Of course the identity operators in this matrix really must be interpreted as the operators that identify $`_{\sigma _{n+1}}(^n_{\sigma _1}𝒟)`$ with $`^{(n+1)}_{\sigma _1}𝒟`$.

It is easily checked that $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is an isometry and that the associated covariant representation $`(V,\rho )`$ is an isometric dilation $`(T,\sigma )`$. Moreover, it is easily checked that $`(V,\rho )`$ is minimal, i.e., that the smallest subspace of $`K`$ containing $`H`$ and reducing $`(V,\rho )`$ is $`K`$. Further, if $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric, so that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a coisometry, then so is $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ a coisometry and $`(V,\rho )`$ is fully coisometric.

The proof of the uniqueness of $`(V,\rho )`$ is the same as in the $`C^{}`$-setting and is given in \[13, Proposition 3.2\].

Finally, to see that $`V`$ is fully coisometric if $`T`$ is, observe that if $`T`$ is fully coisometric, then $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a coisometry as we noted earlier. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{\Delta }^2=0`$. This implies that $`\stackrel{~}{T}\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$. Therefore, from the form of $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$, we see that $`\stackrel{~}{V}\stackrel{~}{V}^{}=I`$, which proves that $`V`$ is fully coisometric.

We shall use Theorem 2.18 only for the module $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ associated to a completely positive map $`P`$ on a von Neumann algebra $``$ and only for the special covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ which identifies $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ with $`_P`$. However, we shall employ a picture of the dilation $`(V,\rho )`$ that is different from the one constructed in Theorem 2.18. It will play a critical role in our analysis of semigroups of completely positive maps.

The definition of $`(T,\sigma )`$ is simple: $`T`$ maps $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ to $`B(H)`$ via the formula:

$$T(X):=W_P^{}X\text{}X_{}(H,_PH)\text{,}$$
(7)
and $`\sigma `$ is the identity representation,

$$\sigma (S)=S\text{}S^{}\text{.}$$

Of course, $`\sigma `$ is $`\sigma `$-weakly continuous. Also, a straightforward calculation shows that $`T`$ is a bimodule map. To see that $`T`$ is completely contractive, we appeal to \[13, Lemma 3.5\] and show that the linear transformation $`\stackrel{~}{T}:_{}(H,_PH)_\sigma HH`$ defined by the formula

$$\stackrel{~}{T}(X_jh_j)=W_P^{}X_jh_j$$

is contractive. However, this is immediate:

$`{\displaystyle W_P^{}X_jh_j}^2`$ $`{\displaystyle X_jh_j}^2`$
$`={\displaystyle h_k,X_k^{}X_jh_j}={\displaystyle X_jh_j}^2\text{.}`$
As we remarked after Lemma 2.16, $`T`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`B(H),`$ and so $`(T,\sigma )`$ is a completely contractive representation of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ on $`H`$.

Evidently, $`T`$ is really the inverse of the map $`X\mathrm{\Phi }_X^{}`$ that we used to identify $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ with $`_P`$ in Proposition 2.6. Indeed, using the notation of that proposition, we see that for $`Y_P`$, $`T(\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{})=W_P^{}\mathrm{\Phi }_Y^{}=(\mathrm{\Phi }_YW_P)^{}=Y`$. Now all this may look trivial. It appears that after identifying $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ with $`_P`$ we are simply studying the identity covariant representation of $`_P`$. However, we need to emphasize that the heart of the matter lies in the fact that the inner product on $`_P`$ is *not* the one coming from operator multiplication in $`B(H)`$ (unless $`P`$ is an endomorphism - see Corollary 2.9). Rather, it is defined through the map $`X\mathrm{\Phi }_X^{}`$ (or through its inverse $`T`$) which identifies $`_P`$ with $`_{}(H,_PH)`$.

###### Definition 2.19

The completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$, where $`T`$ is defined by (7) and where $`\sigma `$ is the identity representation, will be called the *identity covariant representation* of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$.

As we noted above, and as we shall use to good effect, $`(T,\sigma )`$ really identifies $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ with $`_P`$ and when this identification is made, the maps $`T`$ and $`\sigma `$ are both the identity maps.

To present the model for the minimal isometric dilation $`(V,\rho )`$ of $`(T,\sigma )`$ with which we will work, we define, for $`0k<\mathrm{}`$, maps

$$\iota _k:\underset{k\text{times}}{\underset{}{_P_P\mathrm{}_P}}_PH\underset{k+1\text{times}}{\underset{}{_P_P\mathrm{}_P}}_PH$$

by the formula $`\iota _k(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kh)=IT_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kh`$. Of course, $`\iota _0=W_P`$. Since $`P`$ is unital, this map is a well defined isometry of $`H_k:=\underset{k\text{times}}{\underset{}{_P_P\mathrm{}_P}}_PH`$ into $`H_{k+1}:=\underset{k+1\text{times}}{\underset{}{_P_P\mathrm{}_P}}_PH`$. We write $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ for the Hilbert space inductive limit, $`\underset{}{lim}(H_k,\iota _k)`$, and we write $`W_k`$ for the canonical (isometric) embeddings of $`H_k`$ into $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. Given $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$, we define $`X_k:H_kH_{k+1}`$ by the formula $`X_k(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kh)=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kXh`$. A straight forward calculation using the fact that $`X`$ intertwines the actions of $``$ on $`H`$ and on $`_PH`$ shows that $`X_k`$ is bounded with $`X_kX`$. Further, the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccccccc}H& \stackrel{\iota _0}{}& H_1& \stackrel{\iota _1}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\iota _{k1}}{}& H_k& \stackrel{\iota _k}{}& H_{k+1}& & \mathrm{}& & H_{\mathrm{}}\\ & \underset{𝑋}{}& & \underset{𝑋}{}_1& & \underset{𝑋}{}_{k1}& & \underset{𝑋}{}_k& & \underset{𝑋}{}_{k+1}& & & \\ H& \stackrel{\iota _0}{}& H_1& \stackrel{\iota _1}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\iota _{k1}}{}& H_k& \stackrel{\iota _k}{}& H_{k+1}& & \mathrm{}& & H_{\mathrm{}}\end{array}$$
(8)
commutes and so defines an operator $`X_{\mathrm{}}B(H_{\mathrm{}})`$. We shall see in a moment that the map $`XX_{\mathrm{}}`$, which we shall call $`V`$, is part of an isometric covariant representation of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`(V,\rho )`$.

To this end, we must first define $`\rho `$ through the following diagram, where $`S^{}`$. The diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}H& \stackrel{\iota _0}{}& H_1& \stackrel{\iota _1}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\iota _{k1}}{}& H_k& \stackrel{\iota _k}{}& \mathrm{}\\ & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill S& \end{array}& & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill IS& \end{array}& & & & \begin{array}{cc}\hfill \underset{}{I\mathrm{}I}S& \end{array}& \\ H& \stackrel{\iota _0}{}& H_1& \stackrel{\iota _1}{}& \mathrm{}& \stackrel{\iota _{k1}}{}& H_k& \stackrel{\iota _k}{}& \mathrm{}\end{array}$$
(9)
commutes and, therefore, defines an operator $`\rho (S)`$ on $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. Note that

$$W_k^{}\rho (S)W_k=\underset{k\text{times}}{\underset{}{I\mathrm{}I}}S,$$

where, recall, $`W_k`$ is the canonical embedding of $`H_k`$ in $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. ¿From this it is obvious that $`\rho `$ is a normal representation of $`^{}`$ on $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ that is reduced by each of the spaces $`W_kH_k`$. In particular, note that $`W_0^{}\rho ()W_0=\sigma `$.

If the diagrams that define $`V`$ and $`\rho `$, (8) and (9), resp., are combined in the obvious way, it becomes clear that for $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$ and $`S^{}`$,

$$V(XS)=(XS)_{\mathrm{}}=X_{\mathrm{}}\rho (S)=V(X)\rho (S)$$

while

$$V(SX)=V((IS)X)=\rho (S)V(X)$$

so that $`(V,\rho )`$ is covariant.

Next we show that $`(V,\rho )`$ is isometric. To this end, fix $`X`$ and $`Y`$ in $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ and recall that $`X_k:H_kH_{k+1}`$ is defined by the formula $`X_k(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kh)=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kXh`$ and similarly for $`Y_k`$. Consequently, we find that

$$X_k^{}(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_{k+1}h)=T_1T_2\mathrm{}X^{}(T_{k+1}h)$$

because

$`T_1T_2\mathrm{}X^{}(T_{k+1}h),S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_kk`$
$`=X^{}(T_{k+1}h),P(T_k^{}P(\mathrm{})S_k)k`$
$`=T_{k+1}h,XP(T_k^{}P(\mathrm{})S_k)k`$
$`=T_{k+1}h,(P(T_k^{}P(\mathrm{})S_k)I)Xk\text{(because }X_{}(H,_PH)\text{)}`$
$`=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_{k+1}h,S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_kXk`$
$`=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_{k+1}h,X_k(S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_kk)\text{.}`$
Therefore,

$`X_k^{}Y_k(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kh)`$ $`=X_k^{}(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kYh)`$
$`=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_kX^{}Yh`$
$`=W_k^{}\rho (X^{}Y)W_k(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_{k+1}h).`$
Thus $`W_k^{}\rho (X^{}Y)W_k=X_k^{}Y_k=W_k^{}V(X)^{}W_{k+1}W_{k+1}^{}V(Y)W_k`$ for all $`k`$ , from which it follows that $`V(X)^{}V(Y)=\rho (X,Y)`$, i.e., that $`(V,\rho )`$ is isometric.

We now show that $`(V,\rho )`$ dilates $`(T,\sigma )`$ in the sense described in Theorem 2.18. Of course to do this, we must, strictly speaking, identify $`H`$ with the subspace $`W_0H`$ of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$. When this is done, the projection $`P`$ of $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`H`$ is $`W_0W_0^{}`$. We already have seen that $`H=W_0H`$ reduces $`\rho `$ and that $`\rho |H=\sigma `$ as is required in part 1. of Theorem 2.18. Also note that for $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$,

$$W_0^{}X_{\mathrm{}}W_0=\iota _0^{}X=T(X)\text{,}$$

which is an evident consequence of the properties of inductive limits: For $`hH`$, $`X_{\mathrm{}}W_0h=W_1Xh`$, and $`W_0^{}W_1=\iota _0^{}`$. This of course means that $`T(X)=W_0^{}V(X)W_0`$, so that after identifying $`H`$ with $`W_0H`$, through $`W_0`$, we see that $`T(X)=PV(X)|H`$, $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$, as required in part 2. of Theorem 2.18. But we also need to check that $`V(X)^{}`$ maps $`H`$ into itself. Equivalently, we need to show that $`V(X)`$ maps $`H_{\mathrm{}}H`$ into itself.

For this purpose, it suffices to show that for each $`k1`$, $`V(X)`$ maps $`W_kH_kH`$ into $`H_{\mathrm{}}H`$. To show how this is done, but to keep the matters simple, we show that $`V(X)`$ maps $`W_2H_2H`$ into $`H_{\mathrm{}}H`$. So let $`W_2T_iS_ih_i`$ be an element of $`W_2H_2.`$ To say this is orthogonal to $`H`$ means that for all $`hH`$,

$`0`$ $`=W_2{\displaystyle T_iS_ih_i},W_0h`$
$`={\displaystyle T_iS_ih_i},IIh`$
$`={\displaystyle P(P(T_i)S_i)h_i},h\text{;}`$
i.e., $`W_2T_iS_ih_iW_2H_2H`$ if and only if $`P(P(T_i)S_i)h_i=0`$. Now assume that $`W_2T_iS_ih_iW_2H_2H`$, let $`h`$ be an element in $`H`$, and compute:

$`V(X)W_2{\displaystyle T_iS_ih_i},W_0h`$
$`={\displaystyle T_iS_iXh_i},IIIh_{H_3}`$
$`={\displaystyle Xh_i,P(S_i^{}P(T_i^{}))h_{H_1}}`$
$`={\displaystyle (P(P(T_i)S_i)I)Xh_i,Ih_{H_1}}`$
$`={\displaystyle X(P(P(T_i)S_i))h_i,Ih_{H_1}}`$
$`=X({\displaystyle }P(P(T_i)S_i))h_i),Ih_{H_1}`$
$`=0\text{,}`$
since $`P(P(T_i)S_i))h_i=0`$. Thus $`(V,\rho )`$ satisfies condition 2. in Theorem 2.18.

To show that this $`(V,\rho )`$ is unitarily equivalent to the dilation of $`(T,\sigma )`$ that is provided by Theorem 2.18, we appeal to Proposition 3.2 of  (which we stated as part of Theorem 2.18) and show that $`(V,\rho )`$ is minimal; i.e., that there are no closed subspaces $`K`$ properly contained between $`H`$ and $`H_{\mathrm{}}`$ that are invariant under the images of $`V`$ and $`\rho `$. So, suppose $`K`$ is such a subspace, then for every $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`X_{\mathrm{}}(H)=V(X)(H)`$ is contained in $`K`$. Hence, in particular, $`X_{\mathrm{}}(H)=X_{\mathrm{}}(W_0H)=X(H)K`$. However, the span of $`\{X(H)X_{}(H,_PH)\}`$ is $`M_PH`$, by Lemma 2.10, and so we conclude that $`W_1H_1=W_1(_PH)K.`$ This, in turn, implies that $`X_{\mathrm{}}(_PH)K`$; i.e., that $`(IX)(_PH)K`$. Applying Lemma 2.10 again, we see that $`W_2H_2=W_2(_P_PH)`$ is contained in $`K`$. Continuing in this manner, we find that $`W_kH_k`$ is contained in $`K`$ for every $`k`$. Hence $`K=H_{\mathrm{}}`$.

Since our special $`(V,\rho )`$ is unitarily equivalent to the one provided by Theorem 2.18, we may infer that $`V`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`B(H)`$.

We summarize our discussion of the identity representation of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ in the following theorem.

###### Theorem 2.20

The maps $`V`$ and $`\rho `$ defined by the diagrams, (8) and (9) together form an isometric covariant representation of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ that dilates the identity representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$. Moreover, $`(T,\sigma )`$ and $`(V,\rho )`$ are fully coisometric.

Proof. The only thing that remains to be proved is the last statement about $`(T,\sigma )`$ and $`(V,\rho )`$ being fully coisometric. However, for this purpose, it suffices to show that $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric, by Theorem 2.18. Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ maps $`_{}(H,_PH)_\sigma H`$ to $`H`$ by the formula $`\stackrel{~}{T}(Xh)=W_P^{}Xh`$. To calculate $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}`$, simply observe that for $`X_{}(H,_PH)`$ and $`hH`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}k,Xh=k,\stackrel{~}{T}(Xh)=k,W_P^{}Xh=W_Pk,Xh.`$ However, by Lemma 2.10, $`\{XhX_{}(H,_PH),hH\}`$ spans $`_PH`$. So, if we let $`u:_{}(H,_PH)H_PH`$ be defined by the formula $`u(Xh)=Xh`$, the $`u`$ is a Hilbert space isomorphism such that $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}k,Xh=W_Pk,Xh=W_Pk,u(Xh)=u^{}W_Pk,Xh`$ for all $`k`$ and all $`Xh`$. Thus $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}`$ is the *isometry* $`u^{}W_P`$, proving that $`\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a coisometry and, therefore, that $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric.

If $`𝒩`$ is a von Neumann algebra and if $``$ is a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over $`𝒩`$, then we have seen how a completely contractive covariant representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $``$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$ gives rise to a completely positive map $`\mathrm{\Psi }=\mathrm{\Psi }_T`$ of $`()`$ on $`H`$. (See Definition 2.17.) However, equally important for our purposes is the related completely positive map $`\mathrm{\Theta }=\mathrm{\Theta }_T`$ on the *commutant* of $`\sigma (𝒩)`$, $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$, that is described in the next proposition.

###### Proposition 2.21

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra, let $``$ be a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over $`𝒩`$, and let $`(T,\sigma )`$ be a completely contractive covariant representation of $``$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$. For $`S\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$, set

$$\mathrm{\Theta }(S)=\mathrm{\Theta }_T(S):=\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\text{.}$$
(10)
Then $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is normal completely positive map from $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$ into itself that is unital if and only if $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric. Further, if $`(T,\sigma )`$ is isometric, then $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is multiplicative, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is an endomorphism of $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$, and, conversely, if $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is multiplicative, then the correspondence $``$ decomposes as the direct sum of two subcorrespondences, $`=_1_2`$, so that $`(T|_1,\sigma )`$ is isometric and $`T|_2=0`$.

Proof. Much of the proof may be dug out of . See Lemma 2.3 there, in particular. Here are the particulars. First, recall the induced representation $`\sigma ^{}:()B(_\sigma H)`$, $`\sigma ^{}(X)=XI_H`$. As Rieffel shows in Theorem 6.23 of , the commutant of $`\sigma ^{}(())`$ is $`1_{}\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$, and of course the map $`S1_{}S`$ is a normal representation of $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$ onto $`1_{}\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is a normal completely positive map from $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$ into $`B(H)`$. The problem is to locate its range. This, however, is easy on the basis of equation (6): Given $`R𝒩`$ and $`S\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$, that equation implies that

$`\sigma (R)\mathrm{\Theta }(S)=\sigma (R)\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}=\stackrel{~}{T}\sigma ^{}\phi (R)(1_{}S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)\sigma ^{}\phi (R)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}=\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\sigma (R)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Theta }(S)\sigma (R),`$
so $`\mathrm{\Theta }(S)\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$.

Of course $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is unital if and only if $`(T,\sigma )`$ is fully coisometric.

As for the last assertion, the direct statement is proved as Lemma 2.3 of . For the converse, suppose that $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is multiplicative. Then $`\stackrel{~}{T}\stackrel{~}{T}^{}=\mathrm{\Theta }(I)`$ is a projection. Therefore, $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}\stackrel{~}{T}`$ is a projection on $`_\sigma H`$, call it $`q`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is multiplicative, we infer that $`q(1_{}S_1)q(1_{}S_2)q=q(1_{}S_1S_2)q`$ for all $`S_1,S_2\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$. This implies that $`q(1_{}\sigma (𝒩)^{})^{}=\sigma ^{}(())`$, by Rieffel’s theorem \[20, Theorem 6.23\] and the fact that $`\sigma ^{}`$ is a normal representation of the von Neumann algebra $`()`$. Thus, $`q=\sigma ^{}(Q)`$ for a projection $`Q()`$. If $`_1:=Q`$ and $`_2:=(1_{}Q)`$, then it is easy to see that $`(T|_1,\sigma )`$ is isometric, while $`T|_2=0`$. We omit the details.

###### Definition 2.22

Let $``$ be a $`W^{}`$-correspondence over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and let $`(T,\sigma )`$ be a completely contractive covariant representation of $``$ on the Hilbert space $`H`$, the normal, completely positive map

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_T:\sigma (𝒩)^{}\sigma (𝒩)^{}$$

defined by equation (10) will be called the *induced (completely positive) map* on $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$. If $`T`$ is isometric, then $`\mathrm{\Theta }_T`$ will be called the *induced endomorphism* of $`\sigma (𝒩)^{}`$.

If we apply Proposition 2.21 to the identity representation $`(T,\sigma )`$ of $`_{}(H,_PH)`$ or of $`_P`$, for a completely positive map $`P`$ on a von Neumann algebra $``$, we recapture $`P`$. Specifically, we have

###### Corollary 2.23

Let $`P`$ be a normal, unital, completely positive map on the von Neumann algebra $``$, and let $`(T,\sigma )`$ be the identity representation of the Arveson correspondence $`_P_{}(H,_PH)`$ on $`H`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Theta }_T=P`$.

Proof. We will apply Proposition 2.21, with the von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ identified with $`^{}`$. So, for $`S`$ and $`hH`$, we have from the computations in the proof of Proposition 2.21 (the fact that $`\stackrel{~}{T}^{}=u^{}W_P`$, so $`\stackrel{~}{T}=W_P^{}u`$

$`\mathrm{\Theta }(S)h`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}h`$
$`=\stackrel{~}{T}(1_{}S)W_Ph`$
$`=W_P^{}u(I_{}S)u^{}W_Ph=P(S)h\text{.}`$
We conclude this section with our principal dilation result for single completely positive maps. It is the key to our analysis of semigroups.

###### Theorem 2.24

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra acting on a Hilbert space $`H`$ and let $`P:`$ be a normal, unital, completely positive map of $``$. Let $`(T,\sigma )`$ be the identity representation on $`H`$ of the Arveson correspondence $`_P`$, let $`(V,\rho )`$ be the minimal isometric dilation of $`(T,\sigma )`$ on the Hilbert space $`K`$, and let $`W:HK`$ be the associated imbedding. If $`:=\rho (^{})^{}`$, then

1. $`W^{}W=`$, so that $``$ is a *corner* of $``$ (and $`^{}`$ is a normal homomorphic image of $`^{}`$),
2. $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ is a unital, normal $``$-endomorphism of $``$, and
3. for every non-negative integer $`n`$,

$$P^n(T)=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WTW^{})W$$

and

$$P^n(W^{}SW)=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(S)W$$

for all $`S`$, and $`T`$.

Thus, the induced endomorphism $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ of $``$ is a *power dilation* of $`P`$.

Proof. ¿From Corollary 2.23, we know that $`P`$ is the induced completely positive map $`\mathrm{\Theta }_T`$ on $``$. Also, since $`(V,\rho )`$ is the minimal isometric dilation of $`(T,\sigma )`$ and $`W`$ is the embedding map, we know that $`WH`$ is invariant under $`V(Y)^{}`$ for all $`Y`$ and $`W^{}V(Y)W=T(Y)`$. Since $`W^{}\rho (S)W=\sigma (S)`$ for all $`S^{}`$ by definition of $`(V,\rho )`$, and since $`\sigma (S)=S`$, $`S^{^{}}`$, by definition of the identity representation, we see that

$$W^{}W=W^{}\rho (^{})^{}W=(W^{}\rho (^{})W)^{}=(^{})^{}=\text{.}$$
(11)
By Theorem 2.20, $`(T,\sigma )`$ and $`(V,\rho )`$ are fully coisometric, and so, by Proposition 2.21, $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V`$ is a normal, unital, $``$-endomorphism of $`=\rho (^{})^{}`$. Since $`WH`$ is invariant under $`V(Y)^{}`$, $`Y`$, we see that for $`Y`$ and $`kK`$,

$$WW^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(Y(IWW^{})k)=WW^{}V(Y)(IWW^{})k=0$$

so that $`WW^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(I(IWW^{}))=0`$. Therefore, $`WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V((IWW^{}))=WW^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(I(IWW^{}))\stackrel{~}{V}^{}=0`$; i.e. $`WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})=WW^{}`$. Multiplying this equation on the left by $`W^{}`$, we see that

$$W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})=W^{}.$$
(12)
Since $`T()=W^{}V()W`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{T}=W^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(IW)`$. Consequently, for $`L`$,

$`P(L)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{T}(IL)\stackrel{~}{T}^{}`$ (13)
$`=W^{}\stackrel{~}{V}(IW)(IL)(IW^{})\stackrel{~}{V}^{}W=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WLW^{})W\text{.}`$ (14)
On the other hand, for $`S`$, we find from this equation and the fact that $`W^{}SW`$ (by (11)) that

$`P(W^{}SW)`$ $`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{}SWW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{}SWW^{})W=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V(S)\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(S)W\text{,}`$
using equation (12).

To relate $`P^2`$ to $`\mathrm{\Theta }_V^2`$, let $`L`$. Then, using equation (12) again, we find that

$`P^2(L)`$ $`=P(P(L))=P(W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WLW^{})W)`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WLW^{})WW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V^2(WLW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^2(WLW^{})W\text{.}`$
Continuing in this manner, we find that $`P^n(L)=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WLW^{})W`$ for all $`L`$.

To show that $`P^n(W^{}SW)=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(S)W`$ for all $`S`$, and all $`n`$, we need to generalize equation (12) to $`W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})=W^{}`$, for all $`n`$. However, this is an easy induction, the general step of which is:

$`WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^{n+1}(WW^{})`$ $`=WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{}))`$
$`=WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{}))`$
$`+WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V((IWW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{}))`$
$`=WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})+WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V(IWW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})`$
$`=WW^{}\text{.}`$
Thus $`WW^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})=WW^{}`$ for all $`n`$. Multiplying through on the left by $`W^{}`$ gives the desired formula.

Using this, we see that since $`W^{}SW`$ for all $`S`$, our earlier calculation gives

$`P^n(W^{}SW)`$ $`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{}SWW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(S)\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(WW^{})W`$
$`=W^{}\mathrm{\Theta }_V^n(S)W.`$
## 3 Semigroups of Completely Positive Maps

In this section, we focus on semigroups $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ of unital, normal, completely positive maps on our basic von Neumann algebra $``$ acting on a Hilbert space $`H`$. That is, we assume that $`P_{t+s}=P_tP_s`$, $`s,t0`$, and $`P_0`$ is the identity map on $``$. We call $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ a *completely positive semigroup* on $``$, or simply a *cp semigroup*, for short. We make no continuity assumptions on $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in this section and, in fact, everything we say is true if the additive semigroup of non-negative real numbers is replaced by any totally ordered semigroup. Our goal is to dilate $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ to a semigroup of endomorphisms in much the same fashion that we did for a single completely positive map in Section 2. However, there is a complication that must be addressed.

Let $`_t`$ be the Arveson correspondence over $`^{}`$ associated with $`P_t`$, $`t0`$. As in Section 2, we shall view $`_t`$ as either a space of operators on $`H`$ or as the space $`_{}(H,_{P_t}H)`$. As we noted, the spaces $`_t`$ need not “multiply”, i.e., $`_t_s`$ need not be isomorphic to $`_{t+s}`$. So, we will have to “dilate” these to a family $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ of $`^{}`$ correspondences such that $`E(t)E(s)E(t+s)`$. That is, we need to dilate these to a (discrete) product system over $`^{}`$ \- a notion that is inspired by Arveson’s product systems in . This we do following in outline arguments of Bhat in . There are similarities also between our arguments and arguments in , but our correspondences are over $`^{}`$ as opposed to being over $``$ and we cannot tap directly into their arguments. Once $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ is constructed, we promote the identity representations of the $`_t`$’s to completely contractive representations of the $`E(t)`$’s and then dilate these to isometric representations of the $`E(t)`$’s. These last representations will implement a semigroup of endomorphisms of a bigger von Neumann algebra in which $``$ sits as a corner. The semigroup of endomorphisms will be the desired dilation of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$.

Let $`𝔓(t)`$ denote the collection of partitions of the closed interval $`[0,t]`$ and order these by refinement. For a $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, we shall write $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$. For such a $`𝔭`$, we shall write

$$H_{𝔭,t}:=_{P_{t_1}}_{P_{t_2t_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{tt_{n1}}}H\text{.}$$

Then it is easy to see that $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is a left $``$-module via the formula $`S(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh):=(ST_1)T_2\mathrm{}T_nh`$, $`S`$, $`(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh)H_{𝔭,t}`$. Also, it is easy to see that $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ becomes an $`^{}`$-correspondence via the actions

$$(XR)h:=X(Rh)$$

and

$$(RX)h:=(IR)Xh\text{,}$$

$`R^{}`$, $`X_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ and $`hH`$, where $`I`$ is the identity operator on $`H_{𝔭,t}`$. The inner product is given by the formula $`X_1,X_2:=X_1^{}X_2`$. Note that the map $`RX_1,RX_2=X_1^{}(IR)X_2`$ is $`\sigma `$-weakly continuous, so that $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ is, indeed, an $`^{}`$-correspondence.

We shall write $`_t`$ for the $`^{}`$-correspondence $`_{}(H,_{P_t}H)`$. Then Proposition 2.12 shows that $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ is isomorphic to $`_{tt_{n1}}_{^{}}_{t_{n1}t_{n2}}\mathrm{}_{^{}}_{t_1}`$ as $`^{}`$-correspondences.

We next want to show that the Hilbert spaces $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ and $`^{}`$-correspondences $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ form inductive systems so that we can take their direct limits. For this purpose, consider first the case when $`𝔭^{}:=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_k<\tau <t_{k+1}<\mathrm{}t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$, a one point refinement of $`𝔭`$. Then we obtain a Hilbert space isometry $`v_0:H_{𝔭,t}H_{𝔭^{},t}`$ defined by the formula $`v_0(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh)=T_1\mathrm{}T_kIT_{k+1}\mathrm{}T_nh`$ and an $`^{}`$-correspondence isometry $`v:_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t})`$ defined by the formula $`v(X):=v_0X.`$ The proof of these facts is a minor modification of the proof of Proposition 2.12 and so will be omitted.

Since every refinement of a partition can be obtained by a sequence of one-point refinements, it is clear that for every pair of partitions $`(𝔭,𝔭^{})`$, with $`𝔭^{}`$ refining $`𝔭`$, we have Hilbert space isometries $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}:H_{𝔭,t}H_{𝔭^{},t}`$ and $`^{}`$-correspondence isometries $`v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}:_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t})`$ so that $`v_{0,𝔭^{},𝔭^{\prime \prime }}v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}=v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{\prime \prime }}`$ and $`v_{𝔭^{},𝔭^{\prime \prime }}v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}=v_{𝔭,𝔭^{\prime \prime }}`$, when $`𝔭^{\prime \prime }`$ refines $`𝔭^{}`$ and $`𝔭^{}`$ refines $`𝔭`$. The Hilbert space isometry $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ simply sends a decomposable tensor $`T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nhH_{𝔭,t}`$ to the decomposable tensor in $`H_{𝔭^{},t}`$ obtained from $`T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh`$ by inserting identity operators in those positions where new indices have been added to $`𝔭`$ to obtain $`𝔭^{}`$. The $`^{}`$-correspondence isometry $`v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ is defined by the formula $`v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}(X):=v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}X`$, $`X_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$.

We may thus form the direct limits

$$H_t:=\underset{}{lim}(H_{𝔭,t},v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}})$$

and

$$E(t):=\underset{}{lim}(_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t}),v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}})\text{.}$$

Note that $`H_t`$ is a left $``$ module since each $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is and the maps $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ respect the action of $``$. It is also a left $`^{}`$-module, since $`^{}`$ acts on each $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ via the formula $`R(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh)=(IR)(T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nh)=T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nRh`$, $`T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nhH_{𝔭,t}`$, $`R^{}`$ and the maps $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ respect this action. It is now easy to see that $`_M(H,H_t)`$ has the structure of an $`^{}`$-correspondence. Indeed, the bimodule structure has just been indicated. One passes to the limit when writing $`H_t=\underset{}{lim}(H_{𝔭,t},v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}})`$ in $`_M(H,H_t)`$. Since each $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$ is an $`^{}`$-correspondence in an obvious way, so is $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ via the limit of the inner products on the $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$.

###### Lemma 3.1

Each $`E(t)`$ is isomorphic, as an $`^{}`$-correspondence, to $`_{}(H,H_t)`$.

Proof. For each $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, we write $`v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}`$ for the canonical isometric embedding of $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ in $`H_t`$. Since the $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ are $``$-module maps, so is $`v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}`$. Hence we obtain $`^{}`$-correspondence isometries $`v_{𝔭,\mathrm{}}:_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})_{}(H,H_t)`$ by setting $`v_{𝔭,\mathrm{}}(X)=v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}X.`$ However, for $`𝔭^{}`$ finer than $`𝔭`$, we have $`v_{0,𝔭^{},\mathrm{}}v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}=v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}`$. Hence $`v_{𝔭^{},\mathrm{}}v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}=v_{𝔭,\mathrm{}}`$. Thus, by the universal properties of inductive limits, we obtain an $`^{}`$-correspondence isometry $`v:E(t)_{}(H,H_t)`$. We need to show that $`v`$ is surjective. To this end, observe that if $`P`$ and $`Q`$ are two normal, unital, completely positive maps on $``$, then using Proposition 2.12 (and applying Lemma 2.10), we find that $`\{X(H)X_{}(H,_Q_𝒫H)\}\{(IX)Y(H)X_{}(H,_PH)`$, $`Y_{}(H,_QH)\}=\{(IX)(_QH)X_{}(H,_PH)\}=_P_QH`$. The same argument, applied to more than two maps shows that for any partition $`𝔭`$ in $`𝔓(t)`$, $`\{X(H)X_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})\}=H_{𝔭,t}`$ and $`\{v_{𝔭,\mathrm{}}(X)(H)X_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})\}=v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}(H_{𝔭,t})H_t`$. Hence, $`\{Y(H)Yv(E(t))\}=H_t`$. Consequently, given any $`X_{}(H,H_t)`$ satisfying $`X^{}Y=0`$ for all $`Yv(E(t)),`$ we have $`X=0`$. That is, the orthogonal complement of $`v(E(t))`$ in $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ is zero. Since $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ is self-dual, by Proposition 2.3, we conclude that $`v(E(t))=_{}(H,H_t)`$.

If $`𝔭_1𝔓(t)`$ and $`𝔭_2𝔓(s)`$, then we shall write $`𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$ for the following partition in $`𝔓(t+s)`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}\{0=s_0<s_1<\mathrm{}<s_{m1}<s_m(=s=t_0+s)<t_1+s<\hfill \\ \hfill t_2+s\mathrm{}<t_{n1}+s<t_n+s=t+s\}\text{,}\end{array}$$

where $`𝔭_1=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$ and $`𝔭_2=\{0=s_0<s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_{n1}<s_m=s\}`$. Note the order in the definition of $`𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$. The “concatination” of partitions is *not* commutative. It is designed to support the isomorphism of $`E(s)E(t)`$ with $`E(t+s)`$ that we are about to describe.

###### Lemma 3.2

Let $`𝔭_1𝔓(t)`$ and $`𝔭_2𝔓(s)`$ and write $`𝔭`$ for $`𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$. Then the map that sends $`XY_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})`$ to $`(I_sX)Y`$ in $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$ extends to an isomorphism of $`^{}`$-correspondences, where $`I_s`$ denotes the identity map on $`_{P_{s_1}}_{P_{s_2s_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{ss_{m1}}}`$ and where $`𝔭_2=\{0=s_0<s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_{n1}<s_m=s\}`$. Further, this isomorphism induces a natural isomorphism of $`^{}`$-correspondences from $`E(t)E(s)`$ onto $`E(t+s)`$.

Proof. That the map $`XY(I_sX)Y`$ induces an isomorphism of $`^{}`$-correspondences from $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})`$ into $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$ is essentially proved in Proposition 2.12. To see that the isomorphism is surjective, simply apply Corollary 2.13 (several times).

To get the isomorphism from $`E(t)E(s)`$ onto $`E(t+s)`$, we appeal to universal properties of inductive limits. Let $`𝔭_1`$ and $`𝔭_1^{}`$ be partitions in $`𝔓(t)`$, with $`𝔭_1^{}`$ finer than $`𝔭_1`$, and let $`𝔭_2`$ be a partition in $`𝔓(s)`$. Write $`𝔭=𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$ and $`𝔭^{}=𝔭_2𝔭_1^{}+s`$. Also let $`\alpha _{𝔭_1,𝔭_2}`$ be the isomorphism from $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})`$ onto $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$ that sends $`XY`$ to $`(I_sX)Y`$, and let $`\alpha _{𝔭_1^{},𝔭_2}`$ be the similarly defined isomorphism from $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1^{},t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})`$ onto $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t+s})`$. Then we have the following diagram, which is easily seen to be commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})& \stackrel{\alpha _{𝔭_1,𝔭_2}}{}& _{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})\\ \begin{array}{ccc}v_{𝔭_1,𝔭_1^{}}I& & \end{array}& & \begin{array}{ccc}& & v_{𝔭,𝔭^{}}\end{array}\\ _{}(H,H_{𝔭_1^{},t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})& \stackrel{\alpha _{𝔭_1^{},𝔭_2}}{}& _{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t+s})\end{array}$$

In the limit, we obtain an isometry from $`E(t)_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})`$ into $`E(t+s)`$. A similar argument yields an isometry from $`E(t)E(s)`$ into $`E(t+s)`$. It is clear from the definition of this map that its image contains all the $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$, where $`𝔭`$ is constructed as $`𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$. (We shall view these spaces as contained in $`E(t+s)`$ without reference to the isomorphic embeddings.) For a given partition $`𝔭𝔓(s+t)`$, we can refine it by adding $`s`$ to get $`𝔭^{}`$, say. Then $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t+s})`$ is contained in $`E(t+s)`$ and contains (a copy of) $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$. Hence the image contains all the $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$ and so must be all of $`E(t+s)`$.

###### Remark 3.3

Given $`t,s,r(0,\mathrm{})`$ and partitions $`𝔭_1𝔓(t)`$, $`𝔭_2𝔓(s)`$, and $`𝔭_3𝔓(r)`$, one can define an isomorphism of $`^{}`$-correspondences between $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_3,r})`$ and $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s+r})`$ in two different, but natural, ways, where $`𝔭=𝔭_3(𝔭_2+r)(𝔭_1+s+r)`$: In the first, we map the left hand side, $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_3,r})`$, to $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{},t})`$, where $`𝔭^{}=𝔭_3(𝔭_2+r)`$, and then to $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s+r})`$, while in the second, we map $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_3,r})`$ to $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭^{\prime \prime },t+s})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_3,r})`$, where $`𝔭^{\prime \prime }=𝔭_2(𝔭_1+s)`$ and then to $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s+r})`$. These two ways of identifying $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,s})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_3,r})`$ and $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s+r})`$ amount to nothing more than identifying $`X_1X_2X_3`$ with $`(I_{s+r}X_1)(I_rX_2)X_3`$, as we may. Passing to the limit yields the natural isomorphisms

$$(E(t)E(s))E(r)E(t)(E(s)E(r))E(t+s+r)\text{.}$$

Our analysis to this point shows that if we set $`E(0)=^{}`$, then $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ is a discrete product system in the sense of

###### Definition 3.4

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra. A *discrete product system* over $`𝒩`$ is simply a family $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ of $`W^{}`$-correspondences over $`𝒩`$ such that $`E(0)=𝒩`$ and such that $`E(t+s)E(t)E(s)`$ for all $`t,s[0,\mathrm{})`$.

The particular product system that we associated with the semigroup $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in the preceding paragraphs will be called *the* *(discrete) product system of* $`M^{}`$*-correspondences* associated with $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$.

A (completely contractive) *covariant representation* of a discrete product system $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$ is simply a family $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ of completely contractive linear maps, where $`T_t`$ maps from $`E(t)`$ to $`(H)`$ such that each $`T_t`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`E(t)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`(H)`$, $`T_0`$ is a $``$-representation of $`E(0)=𝒩`$ on $`H`$, and such that $`T_tT_s=T_{t+s}`$ (after identifying $`E(t+s)E(t)E(s)`$.)

###### Remark 3.5

It is useful to think of product systems as semigroups and then to view covariant representations as representations of such a semigroup. However, when working with any particular product system and representation, it frequently becomes necessary to make explicit the isomorphisms between $`E(t)E(s)`$ and $`E(t+s)`$ and then, of course, the formulas involving $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ become correspondingly more complicated.

Note, too, that the definition of a covariant representation implies that $`T_t(a\xi b)=T_0(a)T_t(\xi )T_0(b)`$ for all $`t0`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, $`a,b𝒩`$. Thus if $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is a covariant representation of the product system then for each $`t`$, $`(T_t,T_0)`$ is a completely contractive covariant representation of $`E(t)`$ in the sense of Definition 2.15.

###### Definition 3.6

A covariant representation $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ of a product system $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ is called *isometric* in case for each $`t`$, $`(T_t,T_0)`$ is isometric in the sense of Definition 2.15. It is called *fully coisometric* in case for each $`t`$, $`(T_t,T_0)`$is fully coisometric in the sense of Definition 2.17.

Our next objective is to show how a fully coisometric covariant representation of a product system $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ can be dilated to a fully coisometric and isometric representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$.

###### Theorem and Definition 3.7

Let $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ be a discrete product system over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ and let $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ be a *fully coisometric* covariant representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on a Hilbert space $`H`$. Then there is another Hilbert space $`K`$, an isometry $`u_0`$ mapping $`H`$ into $`K`$, and fully coisometric, isometric covariant representation $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ of $`E`$ on $`K`$ so that

1. $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0=T_t(\xi )`$ for all $`\xi E(t)`$, $`t0;`$ and
2. For $`\xi E(t)`$, $`t0`$, $`V_t(\xi )^{}`$ leaves $`u_0(H)`$ invariant.

The smallest subspace of $`K`$ containing $`u_0(H)`$ and reducing $`V_t(\xi )`$ for every $`\xi E(t)`$, $`t0`$, is all of $`K`$. If $`(\{V_t^{}\}_{t0},u_0^{},K^{})`$ is another triple with same properties as $`(\{V_t\}_{t0},u_0,K)`$, then there is a Hilbert space isomorphism $`W`$ from $`K`$ to $`K^{}`$ such that $`WV_t(\xi )W^1=V_t^{^{}}(\xi )`$ for all $`\xi E(t)`$ and $`t0`$, and $`Wu_0=u_0^{}`$. We therefore call the triple, $`(\{V_t\}_{t0},u_0,K)`$, *the* *minimal isometric dilation of* $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$.

Proof. For $`0t<s`$, we write $`U_{t,s}`$ for the isomorphism from $`E(t)E(st)`$ to $`E(s).`$ Then the associativity of tensor products implemented through these isomorphisms coupled with the identification of $`E(t)E(s)E(r)`$ with $`E(t+s+r)`$ imply that $`U_{s,r}(U_{t,s}I_{rs})=U_{t,r}`$. Further, for any $`t`$, we write $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t`$ for the operator from $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ to $`H`$ defined by the formula $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t(\xi h)=T_t(\xi )h`$. (See Lemma 2.16 and the discussion surrounding it.) For $`0t<s`$, we define $`u_{t,s}`$ from $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ to $`E(s)_{T_0}H`$ by the formula

$$u_{t,s}:=(U_{t,s}I_H)(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st}^{})\text{.}$$

Observe that each space $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ is a left $`𝒩`$-module and that the $`u_{t,s}`$ are $`𝒩`$-module maps.

We claim that each $`u_{t,s}`$ is an isometry. Indeed, since $`U_{t,s}`$ is a Hilbert module isomorphism, $`U_{t,s}I_H`$ is a Hilbert space isomorphism, i.e., a unitary, and so

$`u_{t,s}^{}u_{t,s}`$ $`=(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st})(U_{ts}I_H)^{}(U_{ts}I_H)(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st}^{})`$
$`=(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st})(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st}^{})`$
$`=I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st}\stackrel{~}{T}_{st}^{}\text{.}`$
However, this last term is the identity on $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ because $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is assumed to be fully coisometric.

Further observe that the composition properties of the $`U_{t,s}`$ coupled with the fact that $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is a covariant representation imply that for $`0t<s<r`$, $`u_{t,s}u_{s,r}=u_{t,r}`$. Hence, if we agree to set $`u_{t,t}`$ equal to the identity on $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ for each $`t`$, then $`\{\{E(t)_{T_0}H\}_{t0},\{u_{t,s}\}_{0ts}\}`$ is an inductive system of Hilbert spaces - in fact, it is an inductive system of $`𝒩`$-modules and module maps. We set $`K=\underset{}{lim}(E(t)_{T_0}H,u_{t,s})`$ and we write $`u_t:E(t)_{T_0}HK`$ for the canonical embeddings. Note that the $`u_t`$’s are isometries and $`𝒩`$-module maps.

To construct the dilation $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$, we begin by defining $`V_t`$ on the range of each $`u_s`$ by the formula

$$V_t(\xi )u_s(\eta h):=u_{t+s}(U_{t,t+s}(\xi \eta )h)\text{,}$$

where $`t,s0`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, $`\eta E(s)`$, and $`hH`$. To see that $`V_t(\xi )`$ is well-defined on the union of the ranges of the $`u_s`$, simply note that for $`s_1>s_20`$, $`t0`$, $`\eta E(s_2)`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, and $`hH`$, we have

$$V_t(\xi )u_{s_1}u_{s_2,s_1}(\eta h)=V_t(\xi )u_{s_2}(\eta h)\text{.}$$

The $`𝒩`$-module structure on $`K`$ is just that afforded by $`V_0`$. That is, for $`a𝒩`$, $`V_0(a)u_s(\eta h)=u_s(a\eta h),\eta hE(s)_{T_0}H`$. So, to show that every other $`V_t`$ extends to all of $`K`$, and yields an isometric representation of the $`𝒩`$-correspondence $`E(t)`$, we first simply compute to see that for $`\xi _1,\xi _2E(t)`$, and $`\eta h,\zeta kE(s)_{T_0}H`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}V_t^{}(\xi _1)V_t(\xi _2)u_s(\eta h),u_s(\zeta k)=u_{t+s}(\xi _2\eta h),u_{t+s}(\xi _1\eta k)\hfill \\ \hfill =\xi _2\eta h,\xi _1\eta k=\eta h,\xi _2,\xi _1\eta k=u_s(\eta h),V_0(\xi _2,\xi _1)u_s(\eta k)\text{.}\end{array}$$

This shows that on the range of each $`u_s`$ $`(V_t,V_0)`$ is an isometric covariant representation of $`E(t)`$. Thus on the range of each $`u_s`$, $`V_t(\xi )`$ is a bounded operator with norm bounded by $`\xi `$. Hence, $`V_t(\xi )`$ extends to all of $`K`$ as a bounded operator. Further, this equation shows that if we denote the projection of $`K`$ onto the range of $`u_s`$ by $`Q_s`$, i.e., if we let $`Q_s=u_su_s^{}`$, then

$$Q_s(V_t(\xi _2)^{}V_t(\xi _1))Q_s=Q_sV_0(\xi _2,\xi _1)Q_s\text{.}$$

Since this so for all $`s`$, it follows that $`V_t(\xi _2)^{}V_t(\xi _1)=V_0(\xi _2,\xi _1)`$ on all of $`K`$. Thus, for each $`t`$, $`(V_t,V_0)`$ is an isometric covariant representation of $`E(t)`$.

To show that $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ satisfies the semi-group property, let $`t=t_1+t_2`$, let $`\xi _1E(t_1)`$, $`\xi _2E(t_2)`$, and let $`\eta hE(s)_{T_0}H`$. Then on the one hand we have

$$V_t(U_{t_1,t}(\xi _1\xi _2))u_s(\eta h)=u_{t+s}(U_{t,t+s}(U_{t_1,t}(\xi _1\xi _2)\eta )h)\text{,}$$

while on the other we have

$`V_{t_1}(\xi _1)V_{t_2}(\xi _2)u_s(\eta h)`$ $`=V_{t_1}(\xi _1)u_{t_2+s}U_{t_2,t_2+s}(\xi _2\eta )h)`$
$`=u_{t+s}(U_{t_1,t+s}(\xi _1U_{t_2,t_2+s}(\xi _2\eta ))h)\text{.}`$
By Remark 3.3, we conclude that $`V_t(U_{t_1,t}(\xi _1\xi _2))=V_{t_1}(\xi _1)V_{t_2}(\xi _2)`$. Ignoring the $`U_{t,t+s}`$ when identifying $`E(t)E(s)`$ with $`E(t+s)`$, we obtain the desired result: $`V_t(\xi _1\xi _2)=V_{t_1}(\xi _1)V_{t_2}(\xi _2)`$.

Next, we show that each $`V_t`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`E(t)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`(K)`$. For this, observe that for $`\xi ,\xi _1E(t)`$, $`\eta ,\xi _2E(s)`$, and $`h,kH`$, we have $`V_t(\xi )u_s(\eta h),u_{t+s}(\xi _1\xi _2k)=u_{t+s}(\xi \eta h),u_{t+s}(\xi _1\xi _2k)=h,T_0(\xi \eta ,\xi _1\xi _2)k=h,T_0(\eta ,\xi ,\xi _1\xi _2)k`$. Thus, for each $`s0`$, the map $`\xi V_t(\xi )|u_s(E(s)_{T_0}H)`$ has the desired continuity properties. Since the union of the ranges of the $`u_s`$ is dense and since $`V_t(\xi )\xi `$, we conclude that $`V_t`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`E(t)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`(K)`$.

To see that $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0=T_t(\xi )`$, i.e., to see that $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ dilates $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$, simply note that for $`h,h^{}H,t>0`$ and $`\xi E(t)`$, we have $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0(h),h^{}=u_t(\xi h),u_0(h^{})=u_t(\xi h),u_t(u_{0,t}(h^{}))=\xi h,\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}h^{}_{E(t)H}=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(\xi h),h^{}=T_t(\xi )h,h^{}`$.

To check that $`V_t(\xi )^{}`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, leaves $`u_0(H)`$ invariant, first note that the computation just completed shows that for $`\zeta E(r)`$, $`r0`$, and $`hH`$, $`u_0^{}u_r(\zeta h)=T_r(\zeta )h`$. Hence, for $`\xi E(t)`$, $`\eta E(s)`$, and $`hH`$, $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_s(\eta h)=u_0^{}u_{t+s}(\xi \eta h)=T_{t+s}(\xi \eta )h=T_t(\xi )T_t(\eta )h=u_0^{}u_t(\xi T_s(\eta )h)=u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0u_0^{}u_s(\eta h).`$ Since this holds for all $`s0,`$ we see that $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )=u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0u_0^{}.`$ Taking adjoints and multiplying the resulting equation on the right by $`u_0`$, we conclude that $`V_t(\xi )^{}u_0u_0^{}=u_0u_0^{}V_t(\xi )^{}u_0u_0^{}`$ for all $`\xi E(t)`$, and $`t0`$, which shows that $`V_t(\xi )^{}`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, leaves $`u_0(H)`$ invariant.

To see that $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ is fully coisometric because $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is, we need to show that $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$ is a coisometry for each $`t`$. Since $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ is isometric, each $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$ is an isometry. Hence, all we need to do is to show that the range of each $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$ is dense. For this, it suffices to show that for every $`s0`$ the span of $`\{V_t(\xi )u_s(\eta h)\eta E(s)`$, $`\xi E(t)`$, $`hH\}`$ equals $`u_{t+s}(E(t+s)H)`$. However, $`V_t(\xi )u_s(\eta h)=u_{t+s}(\xi \eta h)`$ and, since $`E(t)E(s)`$ is isomorphic to $`E(t+s)`$, we see that the range of $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$ is, indeed, dense.

¿From what we have shown so far, it is clear that the smallest subspace of $`K`$ that contains $`u_0(H)`$ and reduces every $`V_t(\xi )`$ is all of $`K`$. The uniqueness of $`(\{V_t\}_{t0},u_0,K)`$ up to unitary equivalence is proved just as in Proposition 3.2 of , and so will be omitted here.

###### Remark 3.8

It is worthwhile pointing out that the relation $`u_0^{}V_t(\xi )u_0=T_t(\xi )`$ in the preceding theorem is equivalent to the relation

$$u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iu_0)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t\text{.}$$

Further, the invariance of $`u_0(H)`$ under $`V_t(\xi )^{}`$ is equivalent to the equation $`u_0u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iu_0u_0^{})=u_0u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$. These assertions are immediate from the proof.

We return to our semigroup, $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$, of completely positive maps on the von Neumann algebra $``$ and to the associated product system $`^{}`$-correspondences $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ that we constructed at the outset of this section. Our next objective, Theorem 3.9, is to show that there is a fully coisometric, completely contractive covariant representation $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on $`H`$ (the Hilbert space of $``$) so that $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ can be represented by the formula

$$P_t(S)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(I_{E(t)}S)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}\text{,}$$

$`S`$, $`t0`$.

For this purpose, recall that for a partition $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, the Hilbert space $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is $`H_{𝔭,t}:=_{P_{t_1}}_{P_{t_2t_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{tt_{n1}}}H`$ where $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$. The map $`\iota _𝔭:HH_{𝔭,t}`$, defined by the formula $`\iota _𝔭(h)=II\mathrm{}Ih`$ is easily seen to be an isometry, with adjoint $`\iota _𝔭^{}`$ given by the formula

$$\iota _𝔭^{}(X_1X_2\mathrm{}X_nh)=P_{tt_{n1}}(P_{t_{n1}t_{n2}}(\mathrm{}(P_{t_1}(X_1)X_2)\mathrm{})X_{n1})X_n)h\text{.}$$

Indeed, $`\iota _𝔭`$ is just a generalization of the Stinespring embedding $`W_P`$ for a single completely positive map and the the formula for $`\iota _𝔭^{}`$ is an obvious extension of formula (1). Further, it is easy to check that if $`𝔭^{}`$ is a refinement of $`𝔭`$ in $`𝔓(t)`$, then $`\iota _𝔭^{}=\iota _𝔭^{}^{}v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$. Hence, by the universal properties of inductive limits, there is a (unique) map $`\iota _t^{}:H_t(=\underset{}{lim}(H_{𝔭,t},v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}))H`$ so that $`\iota _t^{}v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}=\iota _𝔭^{}`$, where, recall, $`v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}:H_{𝔭,t}H_t`$ is the canonical isometric embedding associated with the directed system $`(H_{𝔭,t},v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}})`$ and its limit, $`H_t`$. It is easy to check that $`\iota _t^{}`$ is a coisometry.

To define the covariant representation $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ that we want, we recall that $`E(t)`$ is isomorphic to $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ and we set

$$T_t(X)=\iota _t^{}X\text{,}$$
(15)
for $`X_{}(H,H_t)`$.

###### Theorem and Definition 3.9

Let $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ be the discrete product system of $`^{}`$-correspondences constructed from $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ as above, and let $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ be defined by equation (15). Then $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is a fully coisometric, completely contractive covariant representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ such that

$$P_t(S)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(I_{E(t)}S)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}\text{,}$$
(16)
for all $`t0`$ and all $`S`$. We call $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ *the identity representation of* $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$.

Proof. Since $`T_t`$ is given by left multiplication by an operator between Hilbert spaces of norm at most one, viz. $`\iota _t^{}`$, $`T_t`$ is completely contractive. To check that $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is multiplicative, we identify $`E(t+s)`$ with $`E(t)E(s)`$ as above and proceed to show that under this identification, $`T_{t+s}=T_tT_s`$. For this purpose, let $`𝔭_1`$ be a partition in $`𝔓(t)`$ and let $`𝔭_2`$ be a partition in $`𝔓(s)`$. Also, fix $`X_1_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})`$ and $`X_2_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,t})`$. Then the map that sends $`X_1X_2`$ to $`(I_sX_1)X_2`$ (where $`I_s`$ denotes the identity map on $`_{P_{s_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{ss_{j1}}}`$, with $`𝔭_2=\{0=s_0<s_1<s_2<\mathrm{}<s_{j1}<s_j=s\}`$) carries $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭_1,t})_{}(H,H_{𝔭_2,t})`$ to $`_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t+s})`$, where $`𝔭=𝔭_2𝔭_1+s`$. To show that $`T_{t+s}=T_tT_s`$, it follows from equation (15) and the properties of direct limits that we need only check that $`\iota _𝔭^{}(I_sX_1)X_2=\iota _{𝔭_1}^{}X_1\iota _{𝔭_2}^{}X_2`$. For this purpose, consider the element $`S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_jT_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nk`$ in $`H_{𝔭,t+s}`$ (where $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔭_2`$ have just been defined and $`𝔭_1=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$). Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\iota _𝔭^{}(S_1S_2\mathrm{}T_nk)\hfill \\ \hfill =P_{tt_{n1}}(P_{t_{n1}t_{n2}}(\mathrm{}(P_{ss_{j1}}(\mathrm{}(P_{s_1}(S_1)S_2)\mathrm{}T_n)k\\ \hfill =\iota _{𝔭_1}^{}((P_{ss_{j1}}(\mathrm{}(P_{s_1}(S_1)S_2)\mathrm{}(S_j)T_1T_2\mathrm{}T_nk).\end{array}$$

Hence, for $`X_1(h)H_{𝔭_1,t}`$, and $`S_1`$, $`S_2`$, …, $`S_j`$ in $``$,

$$\iota _𝔭^{}(S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_jX_1(h))=\iota _{𝔭_1}^{}(P_{ss_{j1}}(\mathrm{}(P_{s_1}(S_1)S_2)\mathrm{}S_j)X_1(h)).$$

Since $`X_1`$ is an $``$-module map, this equation can be rewritten as

$`\iota _𝔭^{}(S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_jX_1(h))`$ $`=\iota _{𝔭_1}^{}X_1(P_{ss_{j1}}(\mathrm{}(P_{s_1}(S_1)S_2)\mathrm{}S_j)h)`$
$`=\iota _{𝔭_1}^{}X_1\iota _{𝔭_2}^{}(S_1S_2\mathrm{}S_jh),`$
as was required.

To see that each $`T_t`$ is continuous with respect to the $`\sigma `$-topology on $`E(t)`$ and the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`(H)`$, take $`X_{}(H,H_t)(E(t))`$ and $`h,h^{}E(t)`$ and note that $`T_t(X)h,h^{}=\iota _t^{}(X(h)),h^{}=X(h),\iota _t(h^{})`$. Since $`\iota _t(h^{})H_t=\{Y(h)Y_{}(H,H_t),hH\}`$, and since for $`Y_{}(H,H_t)`$ and $`kH`$, $`X(h),Y(k)=h,X,Yk`$, the desired continuity is evident.

Finally, we must verify equation (16). For $`t=0`$, the equation is clear, so we always work with a fixed $`t>0`$. For $`kH`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}k_{}(H,H_t)_{^{}}H`$ and so we may write $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}k=X_ih_i,X_j_{}(H,H_t)`$, and $`h_jH`$. Then, for $`Y_{}(H,H_t)`$ and $`hH`$, $`X_i(h_i),Y(h)=Y^{}X_ih_i,h=X_ih_i,Yh=\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}k,Yh=k,\iota _t^{}(Y(h))=\iota _t(k),Y(h)`$. Since $`\{Y(h)Y_{}(H,H_t),hH\}=H_t`$, this equation implies that $`X_i(h_i)=\iota _t(k)`$. Consequently, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_t(IS)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}k=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(IS)X_ih_i=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(X_iSh_i)=\iota _t^{}(X_i(Sh_i))`$. Since the $`X_i`$ are $``$-module maps, this last expression equals $`\iota _t^{}(SX_i(h_i))=\iota _t^{}S\iota _t(k)`$. To evaluate $`\iota _t^{}S\iota _t(k)`$, recall that $`\iota _t`$ is the natural embedding of $`H`$ into $`H_t`$, when $`H_t`$ is viewed as the inductive limit of the $`H_{𝔭,t}`$. Using the relations among $`\iota _t`$, the $`v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}}`$ and the $`v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}`$ established above, it suffices choose a partition $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, and evaluate $`\iota _𝔭^{}S\iota _𝔭(k)`$. Suppose, then that $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$. Then $`S\iota _𝔭(k)=S(II\mathrm{}Ik)=SI\mathrm{}Ik`$ and $`\iota _𝔭^{}S\iota _𝔭(k)=P_{tt_{n1}}(P_{t_{n1}t_{n2}}(\mathrm{}(P_{t_1}(S)I)\mathrm{})I)k=P_t(S)k`$, by the semigroup property of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$. Thus $`\iota _𝔭^{}S\iota _𝔭(k)=P_t(S)k`$ for all $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, and so, in the limit, $`\iota _t^{}S\iota _t(k)=P_t(S)k`$.

Of course, setting $`S=I`$ in equation (16) shows that $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is fully coisometric.

This result is really not special to our given Markov semigroup $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$; the next result is a converse which shows that completely contractive representations of product systems of correspondences over a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ always define completely positive semigroups on $`𝒩^{}`$.

###### Theorem 3.10

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra acting on a Hilbert space $`H`$, let $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ be a discrete product system of $`𝒩`$-correspondences, and let $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ be a completely contractive representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on $`H`$. For $`S𝒩^{}`$ and $`t0`$, define

$$\mathrm{\Theta }_t(S)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(1_{E(t)}S)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}\text{.}$$

Then $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup of normal, contractive, completely positive maps on $`𝒩^{}`$. Further, $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_t\}_{t0}`$ is unital if and only if $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is fully coisometric, and $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup of $``$-endomorphisms if $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ is isometric.

Proof. Most of the result is proved in Proposition 2.21. We simply need to note that $`T_0`$ is a normal $``$-representation of $`𝒩`$ on $`H`$ and that for each $`t0`$, $`(T_t,T_0)`$ is a completely contractive covariant representation of $`E(t)`$ on $`H`$. All that really requires attention is the fact that $`\{\mathrm{\Theta }_t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup, i.e., that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{t+s}=\mathrm{\Theta }_t\mathrm{\Theta }_s`$. However, the multiplicativity of $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ implies that for $`s,t0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{T}_{t+s}=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(I_{E(t)}\stackrel{~}{T}_s)`$ and from this we see immediately that $`\mathrm{\Theta }_{t+s}=\mathrm{\Theta }_t\mathrm{\Theta }_s`$.

We note in passing that if the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_t`$ are multiplicative, then by Proposition 2.21, the $`E(t)`$ decompose into the direct sum $`E(t)=E(t)^{}E(t)^{\prime \prime }`$ so that $`T_t|E(t)^{}`$ is isometric, while $`T_t|E(t)^{\prime \prime }`$ is zero. The multiplicativity of the $`\mathrm{\Theta }_t`$ forces relations among the $`q_t`$, where $`q_t`$ is the projection of $`E(t)`$ onto $`E(t)^{}`$, but we shall not dwell on these here.

In the presence of Theorems 3.7 and 3.9, we are able to state and prove our dilation result, which is a semigroup analogue of Theorem 2.24.

###### Theorem 3.11

Let $``$ be a von Neumann algebra acting on the Hilbert space $`H`$ and let $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ be a semigroup of normal, unital, completely positive maps on $``$ such that $`P_0`$ is the identity mapping on $``$. Further, let $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ be the product system of $`^{}`$-correspondences associated with $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$, let $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$ be the identity representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on $`H`$ and let $`(\{V_t\}_{t0},u_0,K)`$ be the minimal isometric dilation of $`\{T_t\}_{t0}`$. We write $`\rho `$ for $`V_0`$, thereby obtaining a normal $``$-homomorphism of $`^{}`$ into $`(K)`$ and we set $``$ equal to $`\rho (^{})^{}`$. Then $`u_0^{}u_0=`$, and if we define $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ by the formula

$$\alpha _t(S)=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I_{E(t)}S)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}\text{,}$$

$`S`$, $`t0`$, then $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup of unital, normal, $``$-endomorphisms of $``$ such that for $`t0`$, $`S`$, and $`T`$,

$$P_t(u_0^{}Su_0)=u_0^{}\alpha _t(S)u_0$$
(17)
and

$$P_t(T)=u_0^{}\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0\text{.}$$
(18)
Proof. Since $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ is a completely contractive covariant representation of $`\{E(t)\}_{t0}`$ on $`K`$, we know that $`V_0=\rho `$ is a normal $``$-homomorphism of $`^{}`$ on $`K`$. Further, from Theorem 3.10, with $`𝒩=^{}`$, we see that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup of normal $``$-endomorphisms of $``$ ($`=\rho (^{})^{}`$) that are unital because $`\{V_t\}_{t0}`$ is fully coisometric.

By the definition of $`V_0`$ in the proof of Theorem 3.7 we see that $`\rho (a)u_s(\eta h)=V_0(a)u_s(\eta h)=u_s(a\eta h)`$, for all $`a^{}`$, $`s0`$, and $`\eta hE(s)H`$. This implies that the range of each $`u_s`$ reduces $`\rho (^{})`$ and, in particular that the restriction of $`\rho (^{})`$ to $`u_0(H)`$ is unitarily equivalent to the identity representation of $`^{}`$. Specifically, since $`\rho (a)u_0(h)=u_0(ah)`$, for all $`a^{}`$, $`hH`$, $`a=u_0^{}\rho (a)u_0`$, $`a^{}`$. Thus, $`^{}=u_0^{}\rho (^{})u_0`$, so by the double commutant theorem, $`=u_0^{}\rho (^{})^{}u_0=u_0^{}u_0`$. Moreover, from Theorem 3.9 and equation (16), we see that for all $`S`$,

$`P_t(u_0^{}Su_0)`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{T}_t(I_{E(t)}u_0^{}Su_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}`$
$`=u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I_{E(t)}u_0)(I_{E(t)}u_0^{}Su_0)(I_{E(t)}u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0`$
$`=u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I_{E(t)}u_0u_0^{}Su_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0`$
$`=u_0^{}u_0u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I_{E(t)}u_0u_0^{})(IS)(I_{E(t)}u_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0u_0^{}u_0`$
$`=u_0^{}u_0u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(IS)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0u_0^{}u_0`$
$`=u_0^{}u_0u_0^{}\alpha _t(S)u_0u_0^{}u_0`$
$`=u_0^{}\alpha _t(S)u_0`$
where the second and fifth equations are justified by Remark 3.8 and where the fourth and sixth equations are justified by the fact that the final projection of $`u_0`$ is $`u_0u_0^{}`$. Equation (18) can be verified similarly, or directly from equation (17).

## 4 Minimality and Continuity

Our goal in this section is to show that under the hypothesis of separability on the Hilbert space $`H`$ and the hypothesis of weak continuity on $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in Theorem 3.11, the Hilbert space $`K`$ that is produced there is separable and the semigroup $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous. That is, $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ will be an $`E_0`$-semigroup. Therefore, throughout this section, we make the blanket assumption that our underlying Hilbert space $`H`$ is *separable* and that our semigroup of normal, unital, completely positive maps $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ on $``$ is (weakly) continuous in the sense that for all $`T`$ and vectors $`h_1,h_2H`$, the function $`tP_t(T)h_1,h_2`$ is continuous. Note that since the $`\sigma `$-weak topology coincides with the weak topology on bounded subsets of a von Neumann algebra, our continuity assumption on $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ is tantamount to assuming that $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$ is a quantum Markov process. Our arguments will be broken into a series of (somewhat technical) lemmas and propositions. Basically, we will distill for our use salient features of  and . The first proposition is a generalization of some observations due to D. SeLegue in \[21, Section 2.7\] when $`=(H)`$. We offer somewhat different proofs.

###### Proposition 4.1

()Under our standing assumptions on $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$, the following assertions are valid:

1. The map $`tP_t(X)`$ is strongly continuous for all $`X`$; i.e., for all $`hH`$, $`tP_t(X)h`$ is continuous from $`[0,\mathrm{})`$ to $`H`$.
2. Given a sequence $`\{X_n\}`$ that converges in the weak operator topology to $`X`$, and given a sequence $`\{t_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}[0,\mathrm{})`$ converging to $`t`$, the sequence of operators $`\{P_{t_n}(X_n)\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ converges to $`P_t(X)`$ in the weak operator topology, i.e., $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ is jointly continuous in the weak operator topology.

Proof. For 1., first note that it suffices to prove the assertion when $`X=U`$ is unitary and it suffices to show that $`P_t(U)hUh`$ for every $`hH`$ as $`t0`$. Then observe that for any vector $`hH`$, $`lim_{t0}P_t(U)h=h`$. For if not, then the $`liminfP_t(U)h`$ is strictly less than $`h`$. Since $`|P_t(U)h,Uh|P_t(U)h`$, the $`liminf|P_t(U)h,Uh|`$ is strictly less than $`h`$, also. However, by our hypothesis on $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$, $`P_t(U)h,UhUh,Uh=h`$. Thus $`lim_{t0}P_t(U)h`$ must be $`h`$. But then we see that for all $`hH`$, $`P_t(U)hUh^2=P_t(U)hUh,P_t(U)hUh=P_t(U)h^22\mathrm{Re}Uh,P_t(U)h+Uh^2`$ tends to zero, as $`t0`$, as required.

For 2., observe that the normality of $`P_t`$ means that there is a unique bounded map $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ such that $`P_t=\mathrm{\Psi }_t^{}`$. The uniqueness and the fact that $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup imply the same is true for $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t\}_{t0}`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_{t+s}=\mathrm{\Psi }_t\mathrm{\Psi }_s`$. The continuity of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in the weak operator topology and the fact that $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ is uniformly bounded imply that $`\omega P_t(X)`$ is continuous in $`t`$ for all $`X`$, and all $`\omega _{}`$. If we write the pairing between $`_{}`$ and $``$ by $`,`$ as we shall, then this means that $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega ),X`$ is continuous in $`t`$ for all $`X`$; i.e., $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous on $`_{}`$. But $`_{}`$ is separable and so by \[10, Corollary 3.1.8\], the semigroup $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t\}_{t0}`$ is strongly continuous on $`_{}`$, i.e., for all $`\omega _{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega )\mathrm{\Psi }_s(\omega )0`$, as $`ts`$. This means, in particular, that if $`\omega _h`$ is the vector state associated with the vector $`hH`$, then $`\omega _hP_t\omega _hP_s0`$ as $`ts`$. So, if $`\{X_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a sequence in $``$ that converges weakly to $`X`$, and if $`t_nt`$, then

$$\begin{array}{c}|P_{t_n}(X_n)h,hP_t(X)h,h|=|\omega _hP_{t_n}(X_n)\omega _hP_t(X)|\hfill \\ \hfill |\omega _hP_{t_n}(X_n)\omega _hP_t(X_n)|+|\omega _hP_t(X_n)\omega _hP_t(X)|\\ \hfill \omega _hP_{t_n}\omega _hP_tX_n+|P_t(X_nX)h,h|\text{.}\end{array}$$

Since the norms of the $`X_n`$ are uniformly bounded by the uniform boundedness principle, this inequality shows that $`P_{t_n}(X_n)P_t(X)`$ in the weak operator topology, as required.

###### Proposition 4.2

Under our standing separability and continuity assumptions, the Hilbert space $`K`$ in Theorem 3.11 is separable.

Proof. Recall from the proof of Theorem 3.7 that $`K`$ is defined to be the inductive limit $`\underset{}{lim}(E(t)_{T_0}H,u_{t,s})`$. Since the sequence of spaces, $`\{E(n)_{T_0}H\}_{n0}`$, is cofinal in $`\{E(t)_{T_0}H\}_{t0}`$, it suffices to show each space $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ is separable. However, each space $`E(t)`$ is isomorphic to $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ by Lemma 3.1. So, if we can show that $`H_t`$ is separable, then $`E(t)`$ will be separable in the $`\sigma `$-topology (which is the same as the $`\sigma `$-weak topology by Proposition 2.3.) But then, of course, $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ will be spanned by a sequence $`\{X_nh_m\}_{m,n0}`$, where the $`X_n`$ run through a countable set that is dense in $`E(t)`$ in the $`\sigma `$-topology and the $`h_m`$ run through a countable dense set of $`H`$, and so $`E(t)_{T_0}H`$ will be separable. Thus we need to show $`H_t`$ is separable.

Now $`H_t`$ is, itself, an inductive limit $`\underset{}{lim}(H_{𝔭,t},v_{0,𝔭,𝔭^{}})`$ where $`𝔭`$ and $`𝔭^{}`$ range over $`𝔓(t)`$, and $`𝔭^{}`$ refines $`𝔭`$. The normality of the $`P_t`$ enables one to see that each $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is separable and the weak continuity of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ enables one to replace $`𝔓(t)`$ with a countable (but not, strictly speaking, cofinal) subset. From these two observations the separability of $`H_t`$ follows. Here are the details.

To see that $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is separable, first observe that $`_{P_t}H`$ is separable for any $`t`$. For this, it suffices to show that if $`\{T_n\}_{n0}`$ is any sequence that is strongly dense in the unit ball of $``$ and if $`\{h_n\}_{n0}`$ is any dense sequence of vectors in $`H`$, then any decomposible tensor, $`Th`$, with $`T`$ in the unit ball of $``$, is in the closure of $`\{T_nh_n\}_{n0}`$. So, passing to subsequences, if necessary, assume that $`T_nT`$ strongly and that $`h_nh`$. Then $`T_nh_nTh=(T_nT)h+T(h_nh)+(TT_n)(h_nh)`$. However, $`(T_nT)h^2=h,P_t((T_nT)^{}(T_nT))h0`$ because $`T_nT`$ strongly and $`P_t`$ is normal. On the other hand, $`T(h_nh)^2=h_nh,P_t(T^{}T)(h_nh)0`$ because $`h_nh`$ in $`H`$. Finally, since $`h_nh`$ in $`H`$ and since $`T_n`$, $`T`$, and their images under $`P_t`$ are all bounded in norm by $`1`$, we see that $`(TT_n)(hh_n)^2=hh_n,P_t((T_nT)^{}(T_nT))(hh_n)4hh_n^20`$. This shows that $`T_nh_nTh`$ as required. Now the proof that each $`H_{𝔭,t}`$ is separable is proved by iterating this argument.

Let $`𝔓_0(t)`$ be the collection of those partitions $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$ whose points lie in $`t[0,t]`$. Observe that $`𝔓_0(t)`$ is countable and write $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t`$ for the union $`\{v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}(H_{𝔭,t})𝔭𝔓_0(t)\}`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t`$ is the countable union of separable Hilbert spaces and so its closure is separable. We will show that its closure is all of $`H_t`$. For this purpose, it suffices to show that if $`𝔭`$ is an arbitrary partition in $`𝔓(t)`$, then $`v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}(H_{𝔭,t})`$ is in the closure of $`\stackrel{~}{H}_t`$. This, in turn, will be clear if we can show that if $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$ and if $`\{𝔭_m\}_{m0}=\{\{0=s(m)_0<s(m)_1<s(m)_2<\mathrm{}<s(m)_{n1}<s(m)_n=t\}\}_{m0}`$ is a sequence of partitions in $`𝔓_0(t)`$ such that $`lim_m\mathrm{}s(m)_k=t_k`$ for every $`k`$, then for every $`n`$-tuple $`T_1,T_2,\mathrm{},T_n`$ and every $`hH`$,

$$\underset{m\mathrm{}}{lim}v_{0,𝔭_m,\mathrm{}}T_1_{P_{s(m)_1}}T_2_{P_{s(m)_2s(m)_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{ts(m)_{n1}}}h=$$

$$v_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}T_1_{P_{t_1}}T_2_{P_{t_2t_1}}\mathrm{}_{P_{tt_{n1}}}h\text{.}$$

To verify this equation, it suffices to assume that $`s(m)_k=t_k`$ for all $`m`$ and for all $`k`$ but one. So, in fact, it is enough to verify the desired limit when $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2=t\}`$ and when each $`𝔭_m`$ is of the form $`\{0=s(m)_0<s(m)_1<s(m)_2=t\}`$, where $`s(m)_1<t_1`$. In this event, we have

$`v_{0,𝔭_m,\mathrm{}}T_1_{P_{s(m)_1}}T_2_{P_{ts(m)_1}}hv_{0,𝔭,\mathrm{}}T_1_{P_{t_1}}T_2_{P_{tt_1}}h^2`$
$`=h,P_{ts(m)_1}(T_2^{}P_{s(m)_1}(T_1^{}T_1)T_2)h`$
$`h,P_{tt_1}(P_{t_1s(m)_1}(T_2^{}P_{s(m)_1}(T_1^{}T_1)T_2)h`$
$`h,P_{tt_1}(T_2^{}P_{t_1s(m)_1}(P_{s(m)_1}(T_1^{}T_1)T_2))h`$
$`+h,P_{tt_1}(T_2^{}P_{t_1}(T_1^{}T_1)T_2)h\text{.}`$
A moment’s reflection reveals that assertion (2) in Proposition 4.1 shows that this expression tends to zero as $`m\mathrm{}`$.

Our next goal is to show that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is a minimal dilation of $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in the sense of . To explain this, recall that a projection $`q`$ is *increasing* relative to $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ in case $`\alpha _t(q)q`$ for all $`t0`$, i.e., the family $`\{\alpha _t(q)\}_{t0}`$ is an increasing family of projections. We will show that $`u_0u_0^{}`$ is increasing. (Recall that from the proof of Theorem 3.11, $`u_0u_0^{}`$.) A projection $`q`$ is called *multiplicative* in case the map $`Xq\alpha _t(X)q`$ is multiplicative on $``$ for each $`t`$, i.e., $`q\alpha _t()q`$ is a (non-unital) endomorphism of $``$. To say, then, that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is *minimal* is to say that there is no multiplicative, increasing projection $`q`$ that dominates $`u_0u_0^{}`$, i.e., such that $`qu_0u_0^{}`$.

We note in passing that in  Arveson assumes that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous. However, this is not necessary for the definition of minimality. That is, minimality makes sense without assuming that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous. Here, minimality will be used to show that the $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ we constructed in Theorem 3.11 is weakly continuous.

###### Lemma 4.3

With the notation of Section 2, we have, for all $`t0`$,

1. $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0=(I_tu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}`$, where $`I_t`$ denotes the identity operator on $`E(t)`$.
2. $`\{(I_tX)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}hX`$, $`hH\}=_t_{^{}}H`$.
3. $`\{(I_tY)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}hY`$, $`hH\}=_t_{^{}}K`$.
4. $`\{\alpha _t(Y)u_0hY`$, $`hH\}=\{V_t(X)kX_t`$, $`kK\}`$

Proof. (1) This is an easy consequence of Remark 3.8. Indeed, from the first part of that remark, we know that $`u_0^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iu_0)=\stackrel{~}{T}_t`$. So, $`(Iu_0)^{}\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0=\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}`$. Therefore, $`(Iu_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0=(Iu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}`$. On the other hand, the second part of the remark shows that $`(Iu_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0=(Iu_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}(u_0u_0^{})u_0=\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}(u_0u_0^{})u_0=\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0`$, so that $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0=(I_tu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}`$.

(2) Here, $`_t`$ is embedded as a subspace of $`E(t)`$ and so $`_tH`$ is contained in $`E(t)H`$. To show the desired equality, first note that if $`hH`$ and if $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, then $`\iota _𝔭(h)=II\mathrm{}Ih`$. (See the discussion after Remark 3.8.) If we let $`𝔭_0=\{0=t_0<t_1=t\}`$, then in the notation developed between Remark 3.8 and Theorem 3.9, we have $`v_{0,𝔭_0,𝔭}(Ih)=\iota _𝔭(h)`$. So, for $`S`$, $`S\iota _𝔭(h)=SI\mathrm{}Ih=v_{0,𝔭_0,𝔭}(Sh)`$. By identifying $`_{P_t}H`$ with a subspace of $`H_{𝔭,t}`$, we write $`S\iota _𝔭(h)_{P_t}H`$, $`S`$. Since this holds for all partitions $`𝔭𝔓(t)`$, we have

$$S\iota _t(h)_{P_t}H,$$
(19)
for all $`S`$ and $`t0`$. Now fix an element of $`E(t)H`$ that is orthogonal to $`_tH`$ and write it as $`X_ih_i`$, $`X_iE(t)`$, $`h_iH`$. Then for every $`X_t`$ and $`kH`$, $`0=Xk,X_ih_i=k,X^{}X_ih_i=X(k),X_i(h_i)`$. Since $`\{X(h)X_{}(H,_{P_t}H)=_t`$, $`hH\}=_{P_t}H`$, by Lemma 2.10, we see that

$$X_i(h_i)(_{P_t}H)^{}\text{.}$$
(20)
However, we have just shown above that $`\iota _t(H)_{P_t}H`$. Hence, for $`S`$ and $`hH`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}(IS)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}h,X_ih_i=\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}h,X_iS^{}h_i\hfill \\ \hfill =h,\iota _t^{}(X_i(S^{}h_i))=h,\iota _t^{}(S^{}X_i(h_i))\\ \hfill =S\iota _t(h),X_i(h_i)=0\text{,}\end{array}$$

where the last equation follows from (19) and (20), and the preceding one follows from the fact that the $`X_i`$ are $``$-module maps, i.e., they commute with elements of $``$. This equation thus shows that $`[(I)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}H]`$ is contained in $`_tH`$. For the reverse containment, fix an element $`X_ih_i`$, $`X_i_t`$, $`h_iH`$, that is in $`_tH`$ but orthogonal to $`[(I)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}H]`$. Then for every $`S`$ and $`hH`$, the last equation shows that $`0=(IS)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}h,X_ih=S\iota _t(h),X_i(h)`$. This shows that $`X_i(h)`$ is orthogonal to $`_{P_t}H`$. Since $`X_i_t`$, $`X_i(h_i)_{P_t}H`$ for all $`i`$ and, so, $`X_i(h)=0`$. However, $`X_ih_i,X_jh_j=_{i,j}h_i,X_i^{}X_jh_j=_{i,j}X_i(h_i),X_j(h_j)=X_i(h)^2=0`$, and so $`X_ih_i=0`$ as was to be proved.

(3) From (1) we may write

$$(I)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0H=(I)(Iu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}H=(Iu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}H\text{.}$$

As we noted in the proof of Theorem 3.11, $`u_0u_0^{}`$ lies in $``$. Consequently, $`u_0=u_0u_0^{}u_0=u_0`$. So, using (2), we conclude that

$`[(I)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0H]`$ $`=[(Iu_0)(I)(Iu_0)\stackrel{~}{T}_t^{}H]`$
$`=[(Iu_0)(_tH)]=_t[u_0H]\text{.}`$
Now let $`p`$ be the projection of $`K`$ onto $`[u_0]`$. Then $`p^{}=\rho (^{})^{\prime \prime }=\rho (^{})`$; i.e. $`p=\rho (p_0)`$ for some projection $`p_0^{}`$. However, $`pK`$ contains $`u_0H`$ and $`\rho (p_0)`$ acts on $`u_0H`$ by $`\rho (p_0)u_0h=u_0p_0h`$. Hence $`p_0=I`$ and so $`p=I`$. Thus $`[u_0H]=K`$ and so $`[(I)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0H]=_tK`$.

(4) The last assertion follows from the previous one and the definition of $`\alpha _t`$:

$$[\alpha _t()u_0H]=[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(I)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}u_0H]=[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(_tK)]=[V_t(_t)K]\text{.}$$

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`q_t`$ be the projection from $`K`$ onto $`[\alpha _t()u_0H]`$. Then $`q_t`$ lies in $``$ and $`q_t\alpha _t(q_s)`$ is the projection onto $`[V_{t+s}(_t_s)K]`$.

Proof. The previous lemma shows that $`q_t`$ is the projection of $`K`$ onto $`[V_t(_t)K]`$. Thus $`q_t`$ lies in $`=\rho (^{})^{}`$. Also, the range of $`q_t`$, which is $`[\alpha _t()u_0H]`$ is clearly invariant under $`\alpha _t()`$; i.e., $`q_t\alpha _t()^{}`$. Thus, in particular, $`q_t`$ commutes with $`\alpha _t(q_s)`$; so we see that $`q_t\alpha _t(q_s)`$ is a projection. We need to show that $`q_t\alpha _t(q_s)`$ has range $`[V_{t+s}(_t_s)K]`$. For this purpose, observe that the range of $`\alpha _t(q_s)`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iq_s)\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}K=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iq_s)(E(t)K)=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(E(t)q_s(K))=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(E(t)[V_s(_s)K])=[V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K]`$. Clearly, $`[V_t(_t)V_s(_s)K][V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K][V_t(_t)K]`$. We claim that, in fact, the two subspaces coincide. To see this, let $`w`$ be the isometric embedding of $`_{P_t}H`$ into $`H_t`$, view $`_{P_t}H`$ as a subspace of $`H_t`$ and view $`_t`$ as a subspace of $`E(t)`$ (i.e. omit reference to the canonical embeddings.) Also, identify $`_{}(H,H_t)`$ with $`E(t)`$ and $`_{}(H,_{P_t}H)`$ with $`_t`$, as we have throughout this paper. Then the map $`p`$ on $`E(t)=_{}(H,H_t)`$ defined by the formula $`p(X)=ww^{}X`$, $`XE(t)`$, is a projection in $`(E(t))`$ with range $`_t`$. For elements $`V_t(X_i)V_s(Y_i)k_i`$, $`i=1,2`$, in $`[V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K]`$, we have

$`V_t(X_1)V_s(Y_1)k_1,V_t(pX_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2`$ $`=\stackrel{~}{V}_t(X_1V_s(Y_1)k_1),\stackrel{~}{V}_t(p(X_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2)`$
$`=X_1V_s(Y_1)k_1,p(X_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2`$
$`=V_s(Y_1)k_1,\rho (X_1^{}ww^{}X_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2`$
$`=V_s(Y_1)k_1,\rho (p(X_1)^{}X_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2`$
$`=p(X_1)V_s(Y_1)k_1,X_2V_s(Y_2)k_2`$
$`=V_t(p(X_1))V_s(Y_1)k_1,V_t(X_2)V_s(Y_2)k_2\text{.}`$
Thus, the map $`V_t(X)V_s(Y)kV_t(p(X))V_s(Y)k`$ is selfadjoint and, therefore, is the orthogonal projection from $`[V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K]`$ onto $`[V_t(_t)V_s(_s)K]`$. Write $`q`$ for this projection. A similar computation shows that the projection from $`[V_t(E(t))K]`$ onto $`[V_t(_t)K]`$ is given by the formula $`V_t(X)kV_t(p(X))k`$. However, this projection is just the restriction of $`q_t`$ to $`[V_t(E(t))K]`$. We can then restrict $`q_t`$ further to $`[V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K]`$ and then the restricted image will clearly be $`[V_t(E(t))V_s(_s)K][V_t(_t)K]`$ (because $`\alpha _t(q_s)`$ commutes with $`q_t`$). Also, by the definition of $`q`$, this restriction of $`q_t`$ is just $`q`$ and so its image is $`[V_t(_t)V_s(_s)K]`$. Thus the range of $`q_t\alpha _t(q_s)`$ is $`[V_t(_t)V_s(_s)K]=[V_{t+s}(_t_s)K]`$.

Now let $`𝔭=\{0=t_0<t_1<t_2<\mathrm{}<t_{n1}<t_n=t\}`$ be a partition in $`𝔓(t)`$, write $`q_s`$ for the projection onto $`[\alpha _s()u_0H]`$, as in the last lemma, and set

$$q_{𝔭,t}:=q_{tt_{n1}}\alpha _{tt_{n1}}(q_{t_{n1}t_{n2}})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_2t_1}(q_{t_1})\text{.}$$

Repeated use of the last lemma shows that $`q_{𝔭,t}(K)=[V_t(_{tt_{n1}}_{t_{n1}t_{n2}}\mathrm{}_{t_1})K]=[V_t(_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t}))K]`$. Thus, it is clear that the $`q_{𝔭,t}`$ increase as the partitions $`𝔭`$ are refined and since $`E(t)=lim_{}(H,H_{𝔭,t})`$, we see that they converge strongly to the projection onto $`[V_t(E(t))K]`$; call it $`\overline{q}_t`$. However, since $`\stackrel{~}{V}_t`$ is a coisometry, we see that $`K=[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(E(t)K)]=[V_t(E(t))K]`$. Thus, $`\overline{q}_t=I`$, $`t0`$.

Observe that $`\overline{q}_t`$ is the same projection defined by Arveson in Section 3 of . He uses a slightly different indexing scheme for the partitions that enter into his $`q_{𝔭,t}`$, but a moment’s reflection reveals that his $`q_{𝔭,t}`$ are the same as ours.

###### Proposition 4.5

The semigroup of endomorphisms, $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$, of $``$ is minimal.

Proof. As Arveson indicates in §3 of  (see page 575, in particular), since we have shown that the projections $`\overline{q}_t`$ are all equal to $`I`$, it remains to show that $`\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})I`$, as $`t\mathrm{}`$. However, for each $`t0`$, $`\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})`$ is the projection onto $`[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iu_0u_0^{})\stackrel{~}{V}_t^{}K]=[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(Iu_0u_0^{})E(t)K]=[\stackrel{~}{V}_t(E(t)u_0u_0^{}K)]=[V_t(E(t))u_0H]=u_t(E(t)H)`$, where, recall, $`u_t`$ is the embedding of $`E(t)H`$ into $`K`$. Since the spaces $`u_t(E(t)H)`$ are nested and have span equal to $`K`$, we conclude that the projections $`\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})`$ increase to $`I`$.

Let $`p_+`$ be the projection of $`K`$ onto the span

$$\{\alpha _{t_1}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_2}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0ha_i,hH,\text{and }t_i0\}$$

and let $`_+`$ be the von Neumann algebra generated by $`\{\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{}u_0u_0^{})t0\}`$. Then, as Arveson shows in Proposition 3.14 of , $`p_+`$ is the largest projection in the center of $`_+`$ that dominates $`u_0u_0^{}`$ and, as he shows in Theorem B of , because $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is minimal, $`p_+=I`$. (Note: In the proof of \[5, Theorem B\], Arveson assumes that $``$ is a factor. However, this assumption is not necessary for the implications spelled out there that we have used.) Thus we have

###### Corollary 4.6

The von Neumann algebra $``$ is generated by $`\{\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{}u_0u_0^{})t0\}`$ and $`K`$ is the span $`\{\alpha _{t_1}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_2}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0ha_i`$, $`hH`$, and $`t_i0\}`$.

We let $`𝒜`$ denote the $`C^{}`$-algebra generated by $`\{\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{}u_0u_0^{})t0\}`$. Then $`𝒜`$ is a translation invariant $`C^{}`$-subalgebra of $``$ that generates $``$ as a von Neumann algebra. To show that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous on $``$ we show first that it is weakly continuous on $`𝒜`$ and then promote the weak continuity there to all of $``$. For this purpose, we begin with the following result proved by SeLegue  in the context when $`=(H)`$. Our proof is somewhat different.

###### Proposition 4.7

(\[21, Proposition 2.27\]) For every $`T`$, $`\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{}`$ in the strong operator topology as $`t0+`$.

Proof. Fix $`T`$ and $`kK`$ and then

$`(\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{})k^2`$ $`=(\alpha _t(u_0T^{}u_0^{})u_0T^{}u_0^{})(\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{})k,k`$
$`=\alpha _t(u_0T^{}Tu_0^{})k,k\alpha _t(u_0T^{}u_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{}k,k`$
$`\alpha _t(u_0T^{}u_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{}k,k+u_0T^{}Tu_0^{}k,k`$
to realize that it suffices to show that $`\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{}`$ in the weak operator topology as $`t0+`$ for every $`T`$. However, since we have shown that $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is minimal and since $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is uniformly bounded, we may apply Corollary 4.6 to assert that it suffices to show that

$$\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})k_1,k_2u_0Tu_0^{}k_1,k_2$$

for all $`T`$ and all vectors $`k_i`$ of the form $`\alpha _{t_1}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_2}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0h`$, $`hH`$, $`a_i`$, and $`t_i0`$. Note, too, that if any $`t_j=0`$, then $`\alpha _{t_j}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_{j+1}}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0h`$ lies in $`H`$ and so we may assume for the discussion that every $`t_i>0`$. Also, let $`t`$ be the minimal number among the $`t_i`$’s. Then we may write $`\alpha _{t_1}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_2}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0h`$ as $`\alpha _t(\mathrm{})u_0h`$. That is, $`\alpha _{t_1}(u_0a_1u_0^{})\alpha _{t_2}(u_0a_2u_0^{})\mathrm{}\alpha _{t_n}(u_0a_nu_0^{})u_0h`$ is in the cyclic subspace $`[\alpha _t()u_0h]`$. Thus, we may assume that $`k_1=\alpha _r(R)u_0h_1`$ and that $`k_2=\alpha _s(L)u_0h_2`$, where $`R`$ and $`L`$ are in $``$, the $`h_i`$ are in $`H`$ and $`r,s>0`$. We need to show that for $`T`$,

$$\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})\alpha _r(R)u_0h_1,\alpha _s(L)u_0h_2u_0Tu_0^{}\alpha _r(R)u_0h_1,\alpha _s(L)u_0h_2$$

as $`t0+`$. For this, we may assume at the outset that the $`t`$’s under consideration are all less than $`r`$ and $`s`$. Further, since $`\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})u_0u_0^{}`$ as we saw in the proof of Theorem 3.11, we find that

$$\begin{array}{c}\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})\alpha _r(R)u_0h_1,\alpha _s(L)u_0h_2=\alpha _t(\alpha _{st}(L^{})u_0Tu_0^{}\alpha _{rt}(R))u_0h_1,u_0h_2\hfill \\ \hfill =\alpha _t(\alpha _{st}(L^{})u_0Tu_0^{}\alpha _{rt}(R))\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})u_0h_1,\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{})u_0h_2\\ \hfill =\alpha _t(u_0u_0^{}\alpha _{st}(L^{})u_0Tu_0^{}\alpha _{rt}(R))u_0u_0^{})u_0h_1,u_0h_2\\ \hfill =\alpha _t(u_0P_{st}(u_0^{}L^{}u_0)u_0^{}u_0Tu_0^{}u_0P_{rt}(u_0^{}Ru_0)u_0^{})u_0h_1,u_0h_2\\ \hfill =P_t(P_{st}(u_0^{}L^{}u_0)TP_{rt}(u_0^{}Ru_0))h_1,h_2\text{.}\end{array}$$

By the first assertion in Proposition 4.1, the functions $`tP_{st}(u_0^{}L^{}u_0)`$ and $`tP_{rt}(u_0^{}Ru_0)`$ are strongly continuous. Consequently, the function $`tP_{st}(u_0^{}L^{}u_0)TP_{rt}(u_0^{}Ru_0)`$ is weakly continuous. Therefore, applying the second assertion in Proposition 4.1, we see that

$$P_t(P_{st}(u_0^{}L^{}u_0)TP_{rt}(u_0^{}Ru_0))h_1,h_2u_0Tu_0^{}\alpha _r(R)u_0h_1,\alpha _s(L)u_0h_2,$$

completing the proof.

Let $`_0:=\{Rlim_{t0+}\alpha _t(R)=R`$ in the strong operator topology$`\}`$. Then, since $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is a semigroup of $``$-endomorphisms of $``$, $`_0`$ is easily seen to be a $``$-subalgebra of $``$. In fact, since $`\alpha _t(R)kRk\alpha _t(S)kSk+\alpha _t(RS)k(RS)k2RSk+\alpha _t(S)kSk`$, we see that any $`R`$ in the norm closure of $`_0`$ already is in $`_0`$. Thus, $`_0`$ is a $`C^{}`$-algebra. This $`C^{}`$-algebra contains $`u_0u_0^{}`$ by the preceding proposition. But also, since each $`\alpha _r`$ is a normal $``$-endomorphism of $``$, we see that $`_0`$ contains $`\alpha _r(u_0u_0^{})`$ for all $`r0`$. Indeed, the proposition shows that for each $`T`$, $`\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{})u_0Tu_0^{}`$ strongly as $`t0+`$. Therefore, since $`\alpha _r`$ is normal, $`\alpha _r(\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{}))\alpha _r(u_0Tu_0^{})`$ strongly, as $`t0+`$. Since $`\alpha _r(\alpha _t(u_0Tu_0^{}))=\alpha _t(\alpha _r(u_0Tu_0^{}))`$, we see that $`\alpha _t(\alpha _r(u_0Tu_0^{}))\alpha _r(u_0Tu_0^{})`$ strongly, as $`t0+`$. Thus, $`_0𝒜`$ and so $`_0`$ is weakly dense in $``$ by Corollary 4.6. We are therefore well on our way to showing that $`_0=`$. For this, we need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.8

The $`\alpha _t`$, for *strictly positive* $`t`$, are jointly faithful on $``$, i.e.,

$$\{\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _t)t>0\}=\{0\}.$$

Proof. The kernel of each $`\alpha _t`$ is a $`2`$-sided, $`\sigma `$-weakly closed ideal in $``$. Thus so is $`\{\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _t)t>0\}`$. Hence, we may write $`\{\mathrm{ker}(\alpha _t)t>0\}=q`$ for some central projection $`q`$ in $``$. Since for $`R𝒜`$ we have $`\alpha _t(R)R`$ strongly as $`t0+`$, we conclude that $`𝒜q=\{0\}`$. Since $`𝒜`$ generates $``$ as a von Neumann algebra by Corollary 4.6, we conclude that $`q=0`$.

We have arrived at the main theorem of the paper.

###### Theorem 4.9

Let $`(,\{P_t\}_{t0})`$ be a quantum Markov process and assume that $``$ acts on a separable Hilbert space $`H`$. Then the discrete dilation $`(K,,\{\alpha _t\}_{t0},u_0)`$ constructed from $`\{P_t\}_{t0}`$ in Theorem 3.11 is an $`E_0`$-dilation; i.e., $`\{\alpha _t\}_{t0}`$ is weakly continuous.

Proof. By Proposition 4.2, $`K`$ is separable and so the predual of $``$, $`_{}`$, is separable as a Banach space. We will write the pairing between $``$ and $`_{}`$ as $`,`$, i.e., $`\omega ,R=\omega (R)`$, $`\omega _{}`$, $`R`$, as we did in Proposition 4.1. However, here we write $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ for the pre-adjoint of $`\alpha _t`$, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega )=\omega \alpha _t`$ for all $`\omega _{}`$; so $`\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega ),R=\omega ,\alpha _t(R)`$. Since the $`\sigma `$-weak topology on $`(K)`$ agrees with the weak operator topology on bounded subsets, we see from the discussion following Proposition 4.7 that for all $`\omega _{}`$ and all $`R_0`$ the function $`t\omega ,\alpha _t(R)`$ is continuous. However, if $`R`$ we may find a sequence $`\{R_n\}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`_0`$ that converges weakly to $`R`$. Consequently, the function $`t\omega ,\alpha _t(R)`$ is the pointwise limit of the sequence of continuous functions $`t\omega ,\alpha _t(R_n)`$. Therefore $`t\omega ,\alpha _t(R)`$ is measurable for each $`\omega _{}`$ and each $`R`$. That is, the semigroup of linear maps $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t\}_{t0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ on $`_{}`$ is weakly measurable with respect to the duality between $`_{}`$ and $``$ (See \[11, Definition 3.5.4\].) Since $`_{}`$ is separable, Theorem 3.5.3 of  implies that $`t\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega )`$ is strongly measurable as an $`_{}`$-valued function. Thus, in the terminology of \[11, Chapter 10\], $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t\}_{t0}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a strongly measurable semigroup of linear maps on $`_{}`$. But then, Theorem 10.2.3 of  shows that at least for $`t`$ strictly larger than zero, the function $`t\mathrm{\Psi }_t`$ is strongly continuous; i.e., for each $`\omega _{}`$ the $`_{}`$-valued function on $`(0,\mathrm{})`$, $`t\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega )`$, is continuous with respect to the norm topology on $`_{}`$. To extend the continuity to all of $`[0,\mathrm{})`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ be the closed linear span $`\{\mathrm{\Psi }_t(_{})t>0\}`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ is not all of $`_{}`$, then there is an $`R`$ such that $`\omega ,R=0`$ for all $`\omega \stackrel{~}{}_{}`$. This means that for all $`t>0`$ and all $`\omega _{}`$, $`\omega ,\alpha _t(R)=\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega ),R=0`$. Thus, $`R`$ is in the kernels of all the $`\alpha _t`$. However, Lemma 4.8 implies that $`R=0`$. Thus, $`\stackrel{~}{}_{}`$ is all of $`_{}`$. Now we can appeal to Theorem 10.5.5 of  to conclude that $`lim_{0+}\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega )\omega =0`$. Consequently, for all $`\omega _{}`$ and $`R`$ we see that $`\omega ,\alpha _t(R)=\mathrm{\Psi }_t(\omega ),R\omega ,R`$ as $`t0+`$, which is what we wanted to prove.