arXiv:1711.04724v3 [math.OA] 27 Apr 2021 ( ouu n uhthat such one modulus C [ [ Chevalier by operators survey bijective the unknown to two readers of the refer we under extensions spaces and Hilbert two-dimensional [ see for dimen assumptions; statement for counterexample similar a a gave found Uhlhorn therein. references the [ Uhlhorn K fdmnina es a rae yMoln´ar [ by treated was 3 least at of ietv bijective a nHletsae a inrsterm[ theorem Wigner’s was spaces Hilbert on T RHGNLT RSRIGPOET O AR OF PAIRS FOR PROPERTY PRESERVING H ∗ ( e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 h trigpito osdrtosaotorthogonality-preser about considerations of point starting The -; x ihtepoet ht[ that property the with , ) [ S , · , IHE FRANK MICHAEL ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject ne rdc tutr faHilbert a of structure product inner eoti htif that o obtain pairs We not structure, investigated, orthogonality are operators the orthogonality-preserving by local and structure module the h prtr ninrproduct inner on operators Abstract. A center γ banfrhraraierslsfrlcloeaosadfrpair for unbounded and an operators and local for results affirmative further obtain · T )ad( and ]) ( h y ,y x, lna prtr ewe ulHilbert full between operators -linear ( 36 x ]=[ = )] C ) S , em .,Term . n .] o w ope ibr spaces Hilbert complex two For 4.2]: and 4.1 Theorems 3.4, Lemma , i ∗ Z -. o all for PRTR NHILBERT ON OPERATORS ( ( y M K ,y x, ) i ( A 36 o all for 0 = eivsiaeteotooaiypeevn rpryfrpisof pairs for property preserving orthogonality the investigate We , o each for ] [ ,y x, )o h utpiralgebra multiplier the of )) · hoe .] o itrclacuto ute variations further on account historical a For 5.1]. Theorem , , U · )wt dim( with ]) ∈ A : A 1 rhgnlt rsrigpoet;lcloeao;inrprodu inner operator; local property; preserving Orthogonality T OAMDSLMOSLEHIAN SAL MOHAMMAD , E H lna prtrwt one inverse. bounded with operator -linear ( sa is ayn h odtoso h operators the on conditions the Varying . x ,y x, = ) T → ,y x, C ( C ∈ 1. x ∗ ∗ K ) mdls mlyn h atta the that fact the Employing -modules. φ E agbaand -algebra T , ∈ Introduction ( H x fadol fteeeit nelement an exists there if only and if ( n clrvle function -valued a and H ,S T, ) y U ) ]=0i n nyi [ if only and if 0 = )] 60,4L5 74,39B52. 47B49, 46L05, 46L08, ( ≥ C x 1 hr r one netbeete both either invertible bounded are there : ∗ o each for ) n o ietv operator bijective a for and 3 mdl sdtrie setal by essentially determined is -module H A M 37 mdls then -modules, ( ,S T, A → ihisfis opeepofby proof complete first its with ] 27 of ) H : hoe ] ntecs when case the In 1]: Theorem , C A E ∗ x -MODULES nagvnHletspace Hilbert given a on uhthat such → ∈ 2 F H n L ZAMANI ALI and h r w bounded two are ,y x, roibounded. priori a e [ see ; ,y x, h fabounded a of s i T ,teeexist there 0, = ] T ( implies 0 = ierand linear f 8 x .Tesituation The ]. C ) 20 φ and S , igoperators ving in2 n he and 2, sion ∗ γ -valued : , ( fthe of y H 26 S ) additional i T we , = → 32 3 : H and ] C H → of ct 2 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI linear or both conjugate-linear operators U, V : H H such that V = U ∗−1, → T = U, and S = V . Varying the conditions on S and T , Chmieli´nski [10] obtained a number of exceptional vs. further affirmative results. In [22, Theorem 4]Lukasik and W´ojcik were able to classify the Hilbert situations in which [T (x),S(y)] = [x, y] for every x, y H and some functions ∈ T,S : H K : This takes place if and only if there exist three suitable closed → subspaces M1, M2, M3 K such that K = M1 + M2 + M3 with M M for ⊆ j⊥ k j = k, and T,S can be written as the following decompositions 6 T = A + φ, S =(A∗)−1 + ψ for an invertible operator A : H M1 and for some operators φ : H M2 → → and ψ : H M3. See [10, 21, 23] for more results. → A first generalization of Wigner’s theorem to Hilbert C∗-modules over stan- dard C∗- was found by Iliˇsevi´cand Turnˇsek [15, Theorem 3.1]. They also considered the case of approximate orthogonality-preservation. In parallel, a generalization of Wigner’s theorem to (full) Hilbert A -modules (E , , ) was h· ·i found by Frank et al. [14, Theorem 4] and by Leung et al. [17, Theorem 3.2, Corollary 3.3, and Theorem 3.4] characterizing bounded/unbounded A -linear op- erators T : E E with the property that T (x), T (y) = 0 whenever x, y =0 → h i h i for x, y E , by the equality T (x), T (y) = u x, y for a so-called T -specific ∈ h i h i positive central element u of the multiplier algebra of the C∗-algebra of coeffi- cients and for all x, y E . The operator T turns out to be bounded, and hence ∈ continuous. Further, Leung et al. [17] gave a characterization of such opera- tors T as T (x) = W (wx) = wW (x), (x E ), for a T -specific positive central ∈ element w of the multiplier algebra of the C∗-algebra of coefficients and for a (not necessarily bijective) Hilbert C∗-module isomorphism W : wE T (E ). So, → the orthogonality structure and the C∗-module structure of a Hilbert C∗-module determine the Hilbert C∗-module, without further topological characterizations beyond the definition. Also, non-trivial orthogonality-preserving A -linear oper- ators on Hilbert A -modules with an injective T -specific positive central element w (considered as a multiplication on the multiplier algebra) are always injective, and hence, strongly orthogonality-preserving. Further conditions equivalent to the orthogonality-preserving property of (bounded) A -linear operators on Hilbert A -modules have been investigated by several authors, cf. [2, 3, 16, 18, 28] and others. In the present paper, we investigate several conditions on (not necessarily bi- jective) A -linear operators T and S acting on Hilbert A -modules and preserving ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 3 the orthogonality of elements as a pair in one direction, that is, we do not re- quire the bijectivity of the operators, in general. Also, we change orthogonality- preservation to approximate orthogonality preservation in some situations, or we consider merely local operators. The exceptional cases for situa- tions indicate more complicated situations to appear for the more general Hilbert C∗-module settings. We give some examples. Our focus is on affirmative results of wide generality which can be obtained and on some proving techniques to get more information on the background of the phenomena.

2. Preliminaries

Let H , [ , ] be an . Recall that vectors η,ζ H are · · ∈ said to be orthogonal, written as η ζ, if [η,ζ] = 0. For inner product spaces ⊥ H , K and two functions T,S : H K , the orthogonality preserving property → η ζ = T (η) S(ζ) (η,ζ H ) ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ was introduced in [10]. The following characterization was proved.

Theorem 2.1. [10, Theorem 3.9] Let H and K be inner product spaces, and let T,S : H K be linear operators. The following conditions are equivalent: → (i) η ζ = T (η) S(ζ) for all η,ζ H . ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ (ii) There exists γ C such that [T (η),S(ζ)] = γ[η,ζ] for all η,ζ H . ∈ ∈ Some results in [10] have been generalized in various ways byLukasik and W´ojcik in [22, 23]. Other related topics can be found in [21, 33]. Notice that orthogonality preserving functions may be nonlinear and discon- tinuous, i.e. far from linear; see [9, Example 2]. The theorem describes e.g. two situations: Either the operators S and T may have orthogonal ranges and so γ = 0 (and they may have non-trivial kernels), or in other situations ker(S) = ker(T )= 0 for both kernels and ran(S)⊥⊥ = ran(T )⊥⊥ for the ranges of both S { } and T . We will see later that in fact ran(S) = ran(T ), by Corollary 3.9. However, for Hilbert C∗-modules over C∗-algebras of coefficients with non-trivial centers the latter assumption may fail, cf. Example 4.2 below. For a given θ [0, 1) two vectors η,ζ H are approximately orthogonal or θ- ∈ ∈ orthogonal, denoted by η θ ζ, if [η,ζ] θ η ζ . Two operators S, T : H ⊥ ≤ k kk k → K are approximately orthogonality preserving operators if for given δ, ε [0, 1) ∈ one has η δ ζ = T (η) ε S(ζ) (η,ζ H ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ 4 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI

Often δ = 0 has been considered. The approximate orthogonality preserving operators and the orthogonality equations have been investigated recently in [24, 29, 38, 39, 40]. Chmieli´nski [9] and Turnˇsek [35] studied the approximate orthogonality preserving property for one linear operator with δ = 0. In addi- tion, Chmieli´nski et al. [11] verified the approximate orthogonality preserving property for two linear operators. An inner product module over a C∗-algebra A is a (left) A -module E equipped with an A -valued inner product , , which is linear and A -linear in the first h· ·i variable and has the properties x, y ∗ = y, x as well as x, x 0 with equality h i h i h i ≥ if and only if x = 0. The space E is called a Hilbert A -module if it is complete 1 with respect to the x = x, x 2 . An inner product A -module E has k k kh ik 1 an “A -valued norm” , defined by x = x, x 2 . By E , E we denote the |·| | | h i h i of the span of x, y : x, y E . We say that a Hilbert A -module E is {h i ∈ } full if E , E = A . An isometry between inner product A -modules E and F is h i an operator U : E F which preserves inner products, i.e. Ux,Uy = x, y → h i h i for all x, y E . An operator T : E F is called A -linear if it is linear and ∈ → T (ax)= aT (x) for all x E , a A . Further, T is called local if it is linear and ∈ ∈

ax =0 = aT (x)=0 (a A , x E ). ⇒ ∈ ∈

Examples of local operators include multiplication and differential operators. Note, that every A -linear operator is local, but the converse is not true, in general (take linear differential operators into account). However, every bounded local operator between inner product modules is A -linear; see [18]. An operator T : E F between Hilbert A -modules E and F is called → adjointable if there exists an operator T ∗ : F E such that Tx,y = x, T ∗y → h i h i for all x E and y F . It is easy to see that every adjointable operator T is a ∈ ∈ bounded A -linear operator; see [25]. Although inner product C∗-modules generalize inner product spaces by allow- ing inner products to take values in a certain C∗-algebra instead of the C∗-algebra of complex numbers, some fundamental properties of inner product spaces are no longer valid in inner product C∗-modules in their full generality. For instance, they may not possess orthonormal bases or even (normalized tight) frames, cf. [19], and norm-closed or even orthogonally closed submodules may not be or- thogonal summands, cf. [25]. Therefore, when we are studying inner product C∗-modules, it is always of interest under which conditions the results analogous to those for inner product spaces can be reobtained, as well as which more general ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 5 situations might appear. We refer the reader to [25] for more information on the basic theory of Hilbert C∗-modules. It is natural to explore the (approximate) orthogonality preserving property between inner product C∗-modules. Elements x and y in an inner product C∗- module E are said to be orthogonal, written as x y, if x, y = 0. Analogously to ⊥ h i the Hilbert space situation, for a given θ [0, 1) two elements x, y E are approx- ∈ ∈ imately orthogonal or θ-orthogonal, denoted by x θ y, if x, y θ x y . ⊥ kh ik ≤ k kk k An operator T : E F between inner product C∗-modules is approximately → orthogonality preserving if for given δ, ε [0, 1) one has ∈ x δ y = T (x) ε T (y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ This definition was introduced and investigated in [15, 28]. Two natural problems are to describe such a class of approximately orthog- onality preserving operators and to determine the stability of the orthogonality preserving property. Let K(H ) and B(H ) be the C∗-algebras of all compact linear operators and of all bounded linear operators on a Hilbert space H , re- spectively. Recall that A is a standard C∗-algebra on a Hilbert space H if K(H ) A B(H ). ⊆ ⊆ In the case when A is a standard C∗-algebra and δ = 0, Iliˇsevi´cand Turnˇsek [15] studied the approximate orthogonality preserving property on A -modules. In [28], the authors gave some sufficient conditions for a linear operator between Hilbert C∗-modules to be approximately orthogonality preserving. Moreover, it was obtained in [28, Theorem 3.9], that if A is a standard C∗-algebra and T : E F is a nonzero A -linear (δ, ε)-orthogonality preserving operator between → A -modules, then 4(ε δ) T (x), T (y) T 2 x, y − T (x) T (y) (x, y E ). h i−k k h i ≤ (1 δ)(1 + ε)k kk k ∈

− Now, we will concentrate our investigations on the following condition,

x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ), ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ which we call the orthogonality preserving property for two linear operators T,S : E F . → In the case when S = T , the orthogonality preserving property has been treated by Frank et al. [14], by Leung et al. [17], and others. In the present paper, we show (Theorem 3.8) that if A is a standard C∗-algebra and T,S : E F are two nonzero local operators between inner product A - → modules, then x y = T (x) S(y) for all x, y E if and only if there ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ 6 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI exists γ C such that T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for all x, y E . In particular, T ∈ h i h i ∈ and S are A -linear. In fact, this result can be considered as a generalization of Theorem 2.1. We then apply it in Theorem 4.1 to prove that if A is a C∗-algebra and T,S : E F are two nonzero bounded A -linear operators between full → Hilbert A -modules such that x y = T (x) S(y) for all x, y E , then there ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ exists an element γ of the center Z(M(A )) of the multiplier algebra M(A ) of A such that T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for all x, y E . In the case of pairs of merely h i h i ∈ bounded linear operators S and T , the invertibility of S implies the A - and adjointability of these operators, and T =(S∗)−1.

3. Linear and local orthogonality-preserving operators

The aim of this section is to prove an analogue of Theorem 2.1 for two unknown linear operators in inner product C∗-modules, and subsequently, a generalization of Theorem 2.1 for A -linear operators between Hilbert A -modules. Let us start with some observations. The following result is a consequence of [2, Theorem 3.1] and [40, Lemma 4.1].

Proposition 3.1. Let E and F be two inner product A -modules and x, y E . ∈ Let T,S : E F be two nonzero operators. The following statements are → mutually equivalent: (i) x y = T (x) S(y). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ (ii) x λy = x + λy = T (x) λS(y) = T (x)+ λS(y) for all λ C. | − | | | ⇒ | − | | | ∈ (iii) x ay = x + ay = T (x) aS(y) = T (x)+ aS(y) for all a A . | − | | | ⇒ | − | | | ∈ (iv) x 2 x + λy 2 = T (x) 2 T (x)+ λS(y) 2 for all λ C. | | ≤| | ⇒ | | ≤| | ∈ (v) x 2 x + ay 2 = T (x) 2 T (x)+ aS(y) 2 for all a A . | | ≤| | ⇒ | | ≤| | ∈ (vi) x x + ay = T (x) T (x)+ aS(y) for all a A . | |≤| | ⇒ | |≤| | ∈ Remark 3.2. For inner product A -modules E and F and nonzero operators T,S : E F , we do not know whether the following statements for x, y E are → ∈ mutually equivalent: (i) x y = T (x) S(y). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ (ii) x x + λy = T (x) T (x)+ λS(y) for all λ C. | |≤| | ⇒ | |≤| | ∈ ∗ Now, we consider the C -algebra M2(C) of all complex 2 2 matrices, as an inner ∗ × product C -module over itself. Let A, B M2(C) and let T,S : M2(C) M2(C) ∈ → be two nonzero operators. Then, by [2, Proposition 3.6], the following statements are mutually equivalent: (i) A B = T (A) S(B). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 7

(ii) A A + λB = T (A) T (A)+ λS(B) for all λ C. | |≤| | ⇒ | |≤| | ∈ Employing the identity, we obtain the next result.

Proposition 3.3. Let E and F be two inner product A -modules. Let T,S : E F be two nonzero linear operators such that T (x),S(x) = γ x 2 for all → h i | | x E and for some γ Z(M(A )). Then ∈ ∈ x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Notice that the converse of the above proposition is not true, even in the case T = S; see [28, Example 3.14]. In the next theorem, we prove that the converse of the above proposition is true if A is a standard C∗-algebra, in particular, whenever Z(M(A )) = C. To achieve the next theorem we state some prerequisites. Given two vectors η and ζ in a Hilbert space H , we shall denote the one- operator defined by (η ζ)(ξ) = [ξ,ζ]η by η ζ K(H ). Observe that η η is a minimal projection. ⊗ ⊗ ∈ ⊗ Recall that a projection e in a C∗-algebra A is called minimal if eA e = Ce. Now let A be a standard C∗-algebra on a Hilbert space H and let E be an inner product (respectively, Hilbert) A -module. Let e = η η for some unit ⊗ vector η H be a minimal projection. Then E = ex : x E is a complex ∈ e { ∈ } inner product (respectively, Hilbert) space contained in E with respect to the inner product [x, y] = tr( x, y ), x, y E ; see [5]. Note that if x, y E , then h i ∈ e ∈ e x, y = [x, y]e and x = x , where the norm . comes from the inner h i k kEe k kE k kEe product [ , ]. This enables us to apply Hilbert space theory by lifting results from · · the Hilbert space Ee to the whole A -module E .

Theorem 3.4. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra on a Hilbert space H and let E and F be two inner product A -modules. Suppose, T,S : E F are two nonzero → A -linear operators such that

x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Then there exists γ C such that ∈ T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ Proof. The following proof is a modification of the one given by Iliˇsevi´cand Turnˇsek [15, Theorem 3.1]. Let e = ζ ζ and f = η η be minimal projections ⊗ ⊗ in A and let u = ζ η. Also, let T = T and S = S . For linear operators ⊗ e |Ee e |Ee T ,S : E F we have [x, y]=0 = [T (x),S (y)] = 0 for all x, y E . e e e → e ⇒ e e ∈ e 8 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI

Hence, by Theorem 2.1, there exists γ C such that e ∈ [T (ex),S(ex)] = γ ex 2 = γ [ex, ex] (x E ). ek k e ∈ e

This yields [T (ex),S(ex)]e = γe[ex, ex]e, thus

T (ex),S(ex) = γ ex, ex = γ ex 2, h i eh i e| | or equivalently,

e T (x),S(x) e = γ e x 2e (x E ). (3.1) h i e | | ∈ Similarly, there exists γ C such that f ∈ f T (x),S(x) f = γ f x 2f (x E ). (3.2) h i f | | ∈ Since ufu∗ = e, it follows from (3.1) and (3.2) that

γ [ex, ex]e = γ ex, ex = γ e x, x e e eh i e h i = e T (x),S(x) e = ufu∗ T (x),S(x) ufu∗ h i h i = uf T (u∗x),S(u∗x) fu∗ = uγ f u∗x 2fu∗ h i f | | = γ ufu∗ x 2ufu∗ = γ e x, x e f | | f h i = γ ex, ex = γ [ex, ex]e. f h i f Thus γ [ex, ex]= γ [ex, ex] (x E ). e f ∈ x Replacing x with kexk , we conclude γe = γf = γ. Hence, by (3.1), we get e T (x),S(x) e = eγ x 2e (x E ) h i | | ∈ for all minimal projections e A . Having in mind that A is a standard C∗- ∈ algebra, we deduce that

T (x),S(x) = γ x 2 (x E ). h i | | ∈ Now, by the , we arrive at

T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ 

Corollary 3.5. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra and let E , , be an inner { h· ·i1} product A -module. Suppose that , is a second A -valued inner product on E . h· ·i2 If x, y = 0 implies x, y = 0 for every x, y E , then there exists a positive h i1 h i2 ∈ constant γ C such that x, y = γ x, y for each x, y E . ∈ h i2 h i1 ∈ ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 9

Proof. Take E = F as A -modules and set T = S = I : (E , , ) (E , ., . ), h· ·i1 → h i2 where I denotes the identity operator. Applying Theorem 3.4 the assertion fol- lows. 

Remark 3.6. According to [28, Example 3.15], the assumption of A -linearity, even in the case T = S, is necessary in Theorem 3.4. If either S or T is adjointable and γ = 0, then ran(S) = ran(T) = E , because e.g. S∗T = γI for a 6 γ > 0.

In the following result, we employ some ideas of [17] to consider local operators between inner product A -modules, i.e. linear operators T : E F such that → ax = 0 for x E and a A forces aT (x) = 0 in F . We are interested in ∈ ∈ operators which preserve orthogonality. Since we do not suppose that the local operators under consideration are bounded, the A -linearity should be obtained separately.

Theorem 3.7. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra on a Hilbert space H and let E and F be two inner product A -modules. Suppose that T,S : E F are two → nonzero local operators such that

x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Then there exists γ C 0 such that ∈ \{ } T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ Moreover, the operators T and S are A -linear.

Proof. Let (fj)j∈J be an approximate unit in K(H ) consisting of finite rank positive operators. Suppose that p K(H ) is a projection. Since T is local, ∈ the known equality p(1 p)x = 0 ensures pT ((1 p)x) = 0, and analogously, we − − get (1 p)T (px) = 0. From the complex linearity of the operator T we derive − pT (x) = T (px) from these two equalities. Consequently, T (ax) = aT (x) for all finite rank operators a A and all x E . Now, for each x K(H ) E , there ∈ ∈ ∈ · exist c K(H ) and z E such that x = cz. Hence ∈ ∈

lim fjT (x) cT (z) = lim fjcT (z) cT (z) =0. j − j −

Define T : K(H ) E K(H ) F by setting T (x) to be the norm limit of f T (x). · → · j Notice that lim fjT (x) cT (z) = 0 shows that T (x) depend on neither the e j − e choice of (fj)j∈J nor the decomposition x = cz. Also,e T is K(H )-linear since, T (ax)= T (acz)= acT (z)= aTe(x) e e e 10 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI for all x E and all a K(H ). Similarly, define S : K(H ) E K(H ) F ∈ ∈ · → · by setting S(y) to be the norm limit of f S(y). Now, if x, y K(H ) E with j e ∈ · x, y = 0, then T (x),S(y) = 0, which secures f T (x), f S(y) = 0 for all h i e h i h j k i j, k J. Thus T (x), S(y) = 0. Hence for K(H )-linear operators T and S we ∈ h i have e e e e x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y K(H ) E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ · So, by Theorem 3.4, there existse γ e C such that T (x), S(x) = γ x 2 for all ∈ h i | | x K(H ) E . Thus ∈ · e e f T (x),S(x) f = T (f x), S(f x) = γ f x 2 = f γ x 2f jh i j h j j i | j | j | | j for all x E and all j J. Consequently,e e if T (x),S(x) γ x 2 A , then ∈ ∈ h i − | | ∈ always f T (x),S(x) γ x 2 f = 0, which yields T (x),S(x) γ x 2 = 0. j h i − | | j h i − | | Hence, T(x),S(x) = γ x 2 for all x E . Utilizing the polarization identity, we h i | | ∈ obtain T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ 

Combining Proposition 3.3 and Theorem 3.7, we reach the next result. In fact, this result is a generalization of [15, Theorem 3.1] and [40, Theorem 4.10]. The result also generalizes [17, Corollary 3.2].

Theorem 3.8. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra and let E and F be two inner product A -modules. Suppose that T,S : E F are two nonzero local operators. → The following statements are mutually equivalent: (i) x y = T (x) S(y) for all x, y E . ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ (ii) There exists γ C 0 such that T (x),S(x) = γ x 2 for all x E . ∈ \{ } h i | | ∈ (iii) There exists γ C 0 such that T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for all x, y E . ∈ \{ } h i h i ∈ Under these conditions the operators T and S are A -linear.

Corollary 3.9. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra and let E be an inner product A -module. Suppose that T : E E is a nonzero local operator such that → x y = T (x) y (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Then there exists γ C 0 such that T (x)= γx for all x E . ∈ \{ } ∈ Proof. Applying Theorem 3.8 to T and S = I we obtain, with some γ C, ∈ T (x),y = γ x, y for all x, y E . Hence, T (x) γx,y = 0 for all x, y E . h i h i ∈ h − i ∈ Thus T (x)= γx for all x E .  ∈ ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 11

Corollary 3.10. Let A be a standard C∗-algebra and let E and F be two inner product A -modules. Let T0,S0 : E F be two nonzero local operators such that → x y = T0(x) S0(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Suppose, the linear operators T,S : E F are sufficiently close to T0 and S0, → respectively, namely that for θ1, θ2 [0, 1) and for all x, y E ∈ ∈ T (x) T0(x) θ1 T (x) and S(y) S0(y) θ2 S(y) . k − k ≤ k k k − k ≤ k k Then x y = T (x) ε S(y) (x, y E ), ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ where ε = θ1θ2 + θ1(θ2 +1)+(θ1 + 1)θ2.

Proof. From the assumption, we obtain

T0(x) (θ1 + 1) T (x) and S0(y) (θ2 + 1) S(y) (x, y E ). k k ≤ k k k k ≤ k k ∈ (3.3)

Also, by Theorem 3.8, there exists γ0 C such that ∈ T0(x),S0(y) = γ0 x, y (x, y E ). (3.4) h i h i ∈ Now let x, y E and x y. From (3.3) and (3.4) we get ∈ ⊥ T (x),S(y) = T (x),S(y) T0(x),S0(y) kh ik kh i−h ik = T (x) T0(x),S(y) S0(y) + T (x) T0(x),S0(y) h − − i h − i

+ T0(x),S(y) S0(y) h − i

T (x) T0(x) S(y) S 0(y) + T (x) T0(x) S0(y) ≤k − kk − k k − kk k + T0(x) S(y) S0(y) k kk − k

θ1θ2 + θ1(θ2 +1)+(θ1 + 1)θ2 T (x) S(y) ≤  k kk k = ε T (x) S(y) . k kk k Thus T (x),S(y) ε T (x) S(y) , and hence T (x) ε S(y).  kh ik ≤ k kk k ⊥ 4. C∗-linear orthogonality preserving operators

In this section, we intend to show the properties of pairs of bounded C∗-linear operators T,S for which the orthogonality of two elements x and y of the { } domain ensures the orthogonality of their respective images T (x) and S(y). To get reasonable results we have either to suppose or to derive the C∗-linearity of the operators. The proof of the key equality relies, e.g., on the theory of the universal -representation of the C∗-algebra of coefficients, in which the bicommutant of ∗ 12 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI the faithfully represented C∗-algebra is -isomorphic to its bidual . ∗ Also, we make use of the existence of predual spaces of von Neumann algebras and for self-dual Hilbert C∗-modules over them. For a concise explanation we refer the reader to [34, Ch. II, 2+3; Ch. V, 1] and to [30, §§ 3+4]. We need some prerequisites for the next theorem; see [12, 14]. For a Hilbert A -module E over a C∗-algebra A , one can extend E canonically to a Hilbert A ∗∗-module E # over the bidual Banach space and A ∗∗ of A [30, Theorem 3.2, Proposition 3.8, and §4]. For this the A ∗∗-valued pre-inner product can be defined by the formula

[a x, b y]= a∗ x, y b, ⊗ ⊗ h i for elementary of A ∗∗ E , where a, b A ∗∗, x, y E . The quotient ⊗ ∈ ∈ module of A ∗∗ E by the set of all isotropic vectors is denoted by E #. Denote ⊗ the canonical isometric module of into # described in [30] by π′. E E The quotient module can be canonically completed to a self-dual Hilbert A ∗∗- module G which is isometrically algebraically isomorphic to the A ∗∗-dual A ∗∗- module of E #. In addition, G is a dual Banach space itself; cf. [30, Theorem 3.2, Proposition 3.8, and §4]. Every A -linear T : E E → can be continued to a unique A ∗∗-linear operator T : E # E # preserving → the and obeying the canonical embedding π′(E ) of E into E #. Similarly, T can be further extended to the self-dual Hilbert A ∗∗-module G . The extension is such that the isometrically algebraically embedded copy π′(E ) of E in G is a w∗-dense A -submodule of G , and that A -valued inner product values of elements of E embedded in G are preserved with respect to the A ∗∗- valued inner product on G and to the canonical isometric embedding π of A into its bidual Banach space A ∗∗. Every bounded A -linear operator T on E can be extended to a unique bounded A ∗∗-linear operator on G preserving the operator norm, cf. [30, Proposition 3.6, Corollary 3.7, and §4]. The extension of bounded A -linear operators from E to G is continuous with respect to the w∗-topology on G . A Hilbert C∗-module K over a W ∗-algebra B is self-dual, if and only if its unit ball is complete with respect to the topology induced by the semi-norms f( x, ) : x K , f B∗, x 1, f 1 , if and only {| h ·i | ∈ ∈ k k ≤ k k ≤ } if its unit ball is complete with respect to the topology induced by the semi- norms f( , )1/2 : f B∗, f 1 . The first topology coincides with the { h· ·i ∈ k k ≤ } w∗-topology on K in that case, see [12, § 4]. ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 13

Note, that in the construction above E is always w∗-dense in G , as well as for each subset of E the respective construction is w∗-dense in its biorthogonal com- plement with respect to G . However, starting with a subset of G , its biorthogonal complement with respect to G might not have a w∗-dense intersection with the embedding of E into G ; cf. [31, Proposition 3.11.9]. Further, we want to consider only discrete W ∗-algebras, i.e. W ∗-algebras for which the supremum of all minimal projections contained in them equals their identity. (We prefer to use the word discrete instead of atomic.) To connect to the general C∗-case we make use of a theorem of Akemann [1, p. 278] stating that the -homomorphism of a C∗-algebra A into the discrete part of its bidual von ∗ Neumann algebra A ∗∗ which arises as the composition of the canonical embedding π of A into A ∗∗ followed by the projection to the discrete part of A ∗∗ is an injective -homomorphism ρ. This injective -homomorphism ρ is implemented ∗ ∗ by a central projection p Z(A ∗∗) in such a way that A ∗∗ multiplied by p gives ∈ the discrete part of A ∗∗. For topological characterizations of self- of Hilbert C∗-modules over W ∗- algebras and the properties of the modules and operators we refer the reader to [30]. Now, we are in a position to state one of the main results of this section that generalizes [10, Theorem 3.2].

Theorem 4.1. Let A be a C∗-algebra and let E and F be two full Hilbert A - modules. Suppose that T,S : E F are two nonzero bounded A -linear operators → such that x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Then there exists an element γ of the center Z(M(A )) of the multiplier algebra M(A ) of A such that

T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ In the complementary case, if γ = 0, the ranges of the operators T and S are orthogonal to each other, and no further information on them can be derived.

Proof. First, we make use of the existing canonical non-degenerate isometric - ∗ representation π of a C∗-algebra A in its bidual Banach space and von Neumann algebra A ∗∗ of A , as well as of its extension π′ : E E # G , π′ : F F # → → → → H and of the unique w∗-continuous A ∗∗-linear bounded operator extensions T,S : G H . In other words, we extend the set A , E , F ,T,S to the set → { } A ∗∗, G , H ,T,S . The Hilbert A ∗∗-modules G and H are self-dual and admit { } 14 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI a predual Banach space, hence, a w∗-topology. The extended operators T and S are w∗-continuous, A ∗∗-linear and bounded by the same constants as the original operators T and S. Secondly, we have to demonstrate that for each pair of elements x y with ⊥ x, y G the property T (x) S(y) still holds for the extended operators. In ∈ ⊥ the sequel, we identify E with its image π′(E ) G . Note, that π′(E ) is w∗- ⊆ dense in G . Applying techniques developed in [30], let us fix a non-trivial normal state f A ∗ and form the inner product spaces E = E , f( , ) /ker(f( , )) ∈ f { h· ·i } h· ·i and G = cl( G , f( , ) /ker(f( , ))), where E is norm-dense in G . The f { h· ·i } h· ·i f f operators T and S can be restricted to this pre-Hilbert space and are still linear and continuous. Now, form the biorthogonal complements of the two remainder classes [x] and [y] of x, y G . Their intersection with E is not empty, and f f ∈ f f these intersections form norm-dense subsets in them, respectively. For a pair of elements t [x] E and s [y] E we always have T (t) S(s). Since ∈ f ∩ f ∈ f ∩ f ⊥f inner products on pre-Hilbert spaces are separately weakly continuous in each of their two arguments the domain of T , for instance, can be extended to Gf preserving the orthogonality relation to S(Ef ). By symmetry, the same is true for S. Therefore, T ([x] ) S([y] ) for all x, y G because of the norm-density f ⊥f f ∈ f of the respective subsets and of the continuity of the operators. Since the normal state f on A was selected arbitrarily the relation T (x) S(y) follows. ⊥ Since the von Neumann algebra pA ∗∗ is discrete, its identity p can be repre- sented as the w∗-sum of a maximal set of pairwise orthogonal atomic projections A ∗∗ A ∗∗ ∗ qα : α J of the center Z(p ) of p . Note, that w - α∈J qα = p. Take { ∈ } ∗∗ a single atomic projection qα Z(pA ) of this collection andP consider the part ∗∗ ∈ qαpA , qαpE , qαpF , qαpT,qαpS of the problem. ∗∗ ∗  Since qαpA is a discrete (type I) W -factor (finite- or infinite-dimensional), the equality T (x),S(y) = λ α x, y = x, y λ α holds for specific T and S and h i q h i h i q λqα , cf. Theorem 3.4. Now, we can follow the decomposition process in reverse direction. Note, that the multiplier algebra of pA is -isometrically embedded in pA ∗∗. Since ∗ ∗ ∗∗ λ α S T for all α J, the sum λ α q is w -convergent in Z(pA ). | q |≤k kk k ∈ α∈J q α Moreover, since λ α q commutes with Pp x, y for each α, the sum λ α q q α h i α∈J q α commutes with p x, y . What is more, since p G , G is dense in pAP∗∗ and the ∗ h i h i ∗∗ C -valued inner product λ α q x, y = x, y λ αq belongs to pA α∈J q αh i α∈J h i q α for all x, y G , the elementP λ α q is in pZP(M(A )). Since E and F are full ∈ α∈J q α Hilbert A -modules, we arriveP at the equality p T (x),S(y) = λ α q x, y h i α∈J q αh i for all x, y G . P ∈ ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 15

The remaining step is to pull back this equality to the initial context along the two injective -homomorphisms used. ∗ Note, that γ = 0 forces only T (E ) S(E ) without further conditions on T ⊥ and S. 

∗ Example 4.2. Let A = C0((0, 1]) be the C -algebra of all continuous functions vanishing at zero, where (0, 1] is the unit interval with the usual topology. Set E = F = A with the usual A -valued inner product derived from the multiplication and the involution on A . Set 1 1 S(f(t)) = sin f(t) , T (f(t)) = cos f(t)  t  ·  t  · for all f A and t (0, 1]. Then ran(S) = ran(T ) and they are neither equal to ∈ ∈ 6 E , but ran(S)⊥⊥ = ran(T )⊥⊥ = E . Moreover, γ = sin 1 cos 1 M(A ) is not t t ∈ invertible. Both the operators are bounded, adjointable  (and  hence A -linear), injective and orthogonality-preserving, but they are not invertible.

Corollary 4.3. Let A be a C∗-algebra and E be a full Hilbert A -module. Let T : E E be a bounded A -linear operator such that x y implies T (x) y for → ⊥ ⊥ every suitable elements x, y E . Then there exists an element γ Z(M(A )) ∈ ∈ such that T (x)= γx for each x E . ∈ The proof is the same as for Corollary 3.9 changing the origin of γ and the theorem referred to.

Corollary 4.4. Let A be a C∗-algebra and E be a full Hilbert A -module. Let U, V : E E be with UU ∗ = VV ∗ = I. Then x y forces U(x) → ⊥ ⊥ V (y) for every suitable pair x, y E if and only if either U(E ) V (E ) or ∈ ⊥ U(x)= γV (x) for a fixed unitary element γ Z(M(A )) and every x E . ∈ ∈ Proof. Let x, y E be a pair of orthogonal elements. Then V ∗U(x),y = ∈ h i U(x),V (y) = 0 by the assumption. Applying Corollary 4.3 we obtain either h i V ∗U = 0 or V ∗U(x) = γx for a certain non-zero γ Z(M(A )), i.e. U = γV , ∈ and γ has to be unitary since we are treating co-isometries. 

Geometrically this means that two isometric copies of a Hilbert A -module E embedded into E as orthogonal direct summands additionally preserve orthogo- nality of the different images of each pair of initially orthogonal elements of E , if and only if either these two images of E are orthogonal to each other as A - submodules or these two isometric as orthogonal direct summands 16 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI only differ by multiplication by a unitary from Z(M(A )), i.e. coincide as A - modules. The next theorem generalizes [14, Theorem 3] and [17, Theorem 2.3], and gives a partial solution of [14, Problem 1]. It extends results of [10].

Theorem 4.5. Let A be a C∗-algebra and E be a full Hilbert A -module. Let T : E E be a linear operator and let S : E E be an invertible linear op- → → erator with bounded inverse operator. Suppose, T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for some h i h i invertible element γ Z(M(A )). Then T and S are bounded, A -linear, ad- ∈ jointable, invertible, and ST ∗(x)= γx and S∗T (x)= γ∗x for all x E , i.e. the ∈ pairs of operators S, T ∗ and S∗, T commute, and also S = γ−1(T ∗)−1 and { } { } T = γ∗(S∗)−1. In the special situation of T = S the element γ is positive and T = √γU for some unitary A -linear operator U on E .

Remark 4.6. In the case where the Hilbert A -module E admits some invertible bounded A -linear operator S that is not adjointable, it can not fulfil the equality T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for any bounded A -linear operator T on E and any γ h i h i ∈ Z(M(A )); see [7, Example 6.2] and [13, Example 7.3].

Proof. Since S is boundedly invertible, we derive the equality γ x, S−1(z) = h i T (x), z for every x, z E . By the boundedness of S−1, the operator T is h i ∈ adjointable, bounded and T ∗ = γS−1. Since adjointable linear operators on Hilbert A -modules are A -linear and bounded, both T and S have to be A - linear, bounded, invertible with bounded inverses and adjointable. This proves the last assertion. So T T −1 = γ∗ −1TS∗ = I and T −1T = γ∗ −1S∗T = I. We arrive at TS∗ = γ∗I and S∗T = γ∗I. We obtain the commutation result. If, in particular, T = S in our initial equality we derive T T ∗ = γI and T ∗T = γ∗I. Consequently, γ is positive and T = √γU for some A -linear U on E . This shows the last assertion. 

Remark 4.7. Checking the conditions on suitable bijective operators T on Hilbert C∗-modules fulfilling the conditions of Theorem 4.5 one recognizes that every bounded adjointable invertible operator T together with the operator S = γ−1(T ∗)−1 satisfies the equality T (x),S(y) = γ x, y for all elements x and y. The ad- h i h i jointability of T is necessary. In the particular case of T being unitary and γ = 1, the operator S has to be unitary, too, and T = S. Moreover, for a given operator T , the operator S is unique. Comparing these observations with the results in [10] in the setting of Hilbert spaces, the case of non-surjective operators T and ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 17 of non-injective elements γ have to be investigated in more details. The (norm- closure of the) range of T might not be an orthogonal summand, in particular. So more various situations will appear, see Section 6.

∗ Corollary 4.8. Let A be a C -algebra and let , 2 be another A -valued inner h· ·i product on a full Hilbert A -module E , , inducing an equivalent norm to the { h· ·i1} given one. Suppose, x, y = 0 implies x, y = 0 for every suitable x, y E . h i1 h i2 ∈ Then there exists an invertible γ Z(M(A )) such that x, y = ∈ h i1 γ x, y for all x, y E . h i2 ∈ Proof. Set F = E as an A -module, and add the alternative A -valued inner product , . Set T = S = I and note, that both of these operators are h· ·i2 bounded if considered as operators on E . Then Theorem 4.1 and Corollary 4.3 yield x, y = γ x, y for all x, y E .  h i1 h i2 ∈ 5. Results in C∗-algebra of real rank zero

Recall that a C∗-algebra A has real rank zero if every self-adjoint element in A can be approximated in norm by invertible self-adjoint elements. Note that if A has real rank zero, then the -algebra generated by all the idempotents in A ∗ is dense in A ; see, for example, [6]. The result extends [17, Theorem 2.3].

Theorem 5.1. Let A be a C∗-algebra of real rank zero and with identity e, and let E and F be Hilbert A -modules. Suppose that A -linear operators T,S : E F → satisfy the condition

x y = T (x) S(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Suppose that there is z E with z, z being invertible and T (z),S(z) is self- ∈ h i h i adjoint. Then, there exits a self-adjoint element γ in the center Z(A ) of A such that T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ Proof. By replacing z with z −1z, we assume z, z = e. For every symmetry (i.e. | | h i a self-adjoint unitary) u A , we have ∈ z + uz,z uz = z 2 + u z 2 u z 2 u z 2u =0 h − i | | | | − | | − | | whence, z + uz z uz. Hence our assumption yields T (z + uz) S(z uz), ⊥ − ⊥ − or equivalently

T (z),S(z) + u T (z),S(z) T (z),S(z) u u T (z),S(z) u =0. h i h i−h i − h i 18 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI

Now, let γ := T (z),S(z) . So, the above equality becomes γ+uγ γu uγu = 0. h i − − Since γ is self-adjoint, by taking adjoint γ+γu uγ uγu = 0. Thus uγ = γu. As − − A is generated by projections, and thus also by symmetries, we get γ Z(A ). ∈ On the other hand, for each x E we have z, x x, z z = z, x z 2 z, x = 0. ∈ −h i h i−| | h i Hence

z x x, z z and x x, z z z. (5.1) ⊥ −h i −h i ⊥

So, our assumption yields

T (z) S x x, z z and T x x, z z S(z). (5.2) ⊥ −h i −h i ⊥   Furthermore, from (5.1) we infer that

x x, z z + x x, z z z, x x, z z x x, z z z D − h i − h i − h i − − h i E 2 = x x, z z x x, z z,z x x, z z − h i − − h i − h i

+ x x, z z z, x x, z z x x, z z z,z x x, z z − h i − h i − − h i h i − h i 2 2 = x x, z z x x, z z =0 . − h i − − h i

Then x x, z z + x x, z z z is orthogonal to x x, z z x x, z z z and −h i −h i −h i − −h i hence T x x, z z+ x x, z z z is orthogonal to S x x, z z x x, z z z . −h i −h i −h i − −h i     Thus, it follows from (5.2) that

0= T x x, z z + x x, z z z ,S x x, z z x x, z z z − h i − h i − h i − − h i D    E = T x x, z z ,S x x, z z T x x, z z ,S(z) x x, z z − h i − h i − − h i − h i D  E D  E + x x, z z T (z),S x x, z z x x, z z T (z ),S(z) x x, z z − h i − h i − − h i h i − h i D E = T x x, z z ,S x x, z z x x, z z γ x x, z z . − h i − h i − − h i − h i D  E

Then T x x, z z ,S x x, z z = x x, z z γ x x, z z . Since γ −h i −h i −h i −h i ∈ A D  E Z( ), by (5.1), we obtain

2 T x x, z z ,S x x, z z = γ x x, z z −h i −h i −h i D  E = γ x x, z z, x γ x x, z z, x, z z D −h i E − D −h i h i E = γ x 2 γ x, z 2. (5.3) | | − |h i| ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 19

From (5.2) and (5.3) we infer that

T (x),S(x) = T x x, z z + x, z T (z),S x x, z z + x, z S(z) h i − h i h i − h i h i D   E = T x x, z z ,S x x, z z + x, z T (z),S x x, z z − h i − h i h i − h i D  E D E + T x x, z z ,S(z) z, x + x, z T (z),S(z) z, x D − h i Eh i h ih ih i 2 2 2 2 = γ x γ x, z + γ x, z = γ x . | | − |h i| |h i| | | Hence

T (x),S(x) = γ x 2 (x E ). (5.4) h i | | ∈ Now, by (5.4) and the polarization identity, we obtain

T (x),S(y) = γ x, y (x, y E ). h i h i ∈ 

Remark 5.2. Notice that orthogonality preserving functions may be very non- linear and discontinuous; see [9, Example 2] and [10]. Now, let E be a Hilbert K(H )-module and let F be a Hilbert A -module. Let g, h : E F be additive → functions such that

x y = g(x) h(y) (x, y E ). ⊥ ⇒ ⊥ ∈ Suppose that function f : E A defined by f(x) := g(x), h(x) is continuous. → h i Fix x, y E such that x y. Hence x, y = y, x = 0. Therefore g(x), h(y) = ∈ ⊥ h i h i h i g(y), h(x) = 0. Then h i f(x + y)= g(x + y), h(x + y) h i = g(x), h(x) + g(x), h(y) + g(y), h(x) + g(y), h(y) h i h i h i h i = g(x), h(x) + g(y), h(y) = f(x)+ f(y). h i h i Thus f is orthogonally additive. It follows from [16, Theorem 5.4 (ii)] that there are a unique continuous additive function A : E A and a unique operator → Φ: E , E A such that h i→ f(x)= A(x)+Φ( x, x ) (x E ). h i ∈ 6. Additional comments

Let us briefly discuss some obstacles in the theory of Hilbert C∗-modules which prevent a straightforward generalization of Hilbert space results on the subject of the present paper, cf. [10], [21, Theorem 11], [22, Theorem 4]. First of all, 20 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI biorthogonally closed Hilbert C∗-submodules very often cannot divided out as (any kind of) direct summand of the hosting Hilbert C∗-module.

Example 6.1. Let us take A = C([0, 2π]), regarded as a Hilbert C∗-module over itself in the natural way. Consider two multiplication operators

T (x)(t) = cos(t) x(t) for t [0,π/2] and T (x)(t)=0 for t [π/2, 2π] · ∈ ∈

S(x)(t)=0 for t [0, 3π/2] and S(x)(t) = cos(t) x(t) for t [3π/2, 2π]. ∈ · ∈ Then T (x),S(y) = x, y = 0 for every pairwise orthogonal elements x, y A . h i h i ∈ However, the intersection of the kernels of T and S is neither a direct orthogo- nal nor a direct topological summand of A , beside it is both norm-closed and biorthogonally complemented. And the operators T and S are bounded and self- adjoint, and hence A -linear and even positive. In fact, both they lack polar decomposition in A . Similarly, both the biorthogonally complemented images of T and S have analogous properties like the intersection of the two kernels. Finally, there does not exist any bounded invertible module operator on the in- tersection of the kernels of T and S such that it could be continuously extended to A in such a way that the of the intersection of the two kernels is contained in its . This situation is different from the Hilbert space situation. For an example involving unbounded module operators we refer to [4, Example 2.1].

A second obstacle to be considered is the existence of direct topological sum- mands in certain Hilbert C∗-modules which are not direct orthogonal summands. Here non-adjointable module operators come into play.

Example 6.2. Let A be a unital C∗-algebra with a non-trivial norm-closed two- sided ideal I . Consider the Hilbert A -module E = A I and its Hilbert ⊕ A -submodules E1 = (i, i): i I and E2 = A 0 . Their intersection is { ∈ } ⊕{ } the set 0 , E1 is not a direct orthogonal summand, however E1 coincides with { } its biorthogonal complement with respect to E . But, E1 is a direct topological summand of E , since (a, i)=(i, i)+(a i, 0) is the unique decomposition of any el- − ement of E into an element of E1 and an element of E2. So, there exists a bounded

A -linear idempotent operator P : E E1 such that P is non-adjointable. →⊥ Similarly, E3 = (i, i): i I = E and E2 are such a pair according to the { − ∈ } 1 decomposition (a, i)=( i, i)+(a + i, 0) for arbitrary elements of E . So, there is − a bounded, A -linear, non-adjointable, idempotent operator Q : E E3. → ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 21

Consequently, P (x), Q(y) = x, y = 0 for every pairwise orthogonal elements h i h i x, y E . And by definition, the pair of operators P and Q is orthogonality- ∈ preserving, but both these operators are non-adjointable. And their ranges are norm-closed, biorthogonally complemented Hilbert A -submodules that are not orthogonal summands, but they are topological direct summands. Moreover, P and Q are idempotents. Also, P Q = 0 and QP = 0. Such situations cannot 6 6 appear for Hilbert spaces, cf. [21, Theorem 11], [22, Theorem 4].

Acknowledgments. We would like to thank the referees for their careful reading of the manuscript and for their useful comments. The second author (corresponding author) was supported by a grant from Ferdowsi University of Mashhad No. 2/53798.

References

1. C. A. Akemann, The general Stone–Weierstrass problem, J. Funct. Anal. 4 (1969), 277–294. 2. Lj. Arambaˇsi´cand R. Raji´c, A strong version of the Birkhoff–James orthogonality in Hilbert C∗-modules, Ann. Funct. Anal. 5 (2014), no. 1, 109–120. 3. Lj. Arambaˇsi´cand R. Raji´c, On three concepts of orthogonality in Hilbert C*-modules, Linear 63 (2015), no. 7, 1485–1500. 4. M. B. Asadi and F. Olyaninezhad, Orthogonality preserving pairs of operators on Hilbert C0(Z)-modules, Linear Multilinear Algebra, doi: 10.1080/03081087.2020.1825610. 5. D. Baki´cand B. Guljaˇs, Hilbert C∗-modules over C∗-algebras of compact operators, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) 68 (2002) 249–269. 6. L. G. Brown and G. K. Pedersen, C∗-algebras of real rank zero, J. Funct. Anal. 99 (1991), 131–149. 7. L. G. Brown, Close hereditary C∗-subalgebras and the structure of quasi-multipliers, MSRI preprint # 11211-85, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA, 1985; Proceedings of the Royal Society of Edinburgh Section A: Mathematics 147 (2017), no. 2, 263–292. 8. G. Chevalier, Wigner’s theorem and its generalizations, in: Handbook of Quantum Logic and Quantum Structures, eds. K. Engesser, D. M. Gabbay, D. Lehmann, Elsevier, 2007, 429–475. 9. J. Chmieli´nski, Linear mappings approximately preserving orthogonality, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 304 (2005), 158–169. 10. J. Chmieli´nski, Orthogonality equation with two unknown functions, Aequationes Math. 90 (2016), 11–23. 11. J. Chmieli´nski, R.Lukasik, and P. W´ojcik, On the stability of the orthogonality equation and the orthogonality-preserving property with two unknown functions, Banach J. Math. Anal. 10 (2016), no. 4, 828–847. 12. M. Frank, Self-duality and C∗-reflexivity of Hilbert C∗-modules, Z. Anal. Anwend. 9 (1990), 165–176. 13. M. Frank, Geometrical aspects of Hilbert C∗-modules. Positivity 3 (1999), no. 3, 215–243. 22 M.FRANK,M.S.MOSLEHIANandA.ZAMANI

14. M. Frank, A. S. Mishchenko and A. A. Pavlov, Orthogonality-preserving, C∗-conformal and conformal module mappings on Hilbert C∗-modules, J. Funct. Anal. 260 (2011), 327–339. 15. D. Iliˇsevi´c and A. Turnˇsek, Approximately orthogonality preserving mappings on C∗- modules, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 341 (2008), 298–308. 16. D. Iliˇsevi´c, A. Turnˇsek and D. Yang, Orthogonally additive mappings on Hilbert modules, Studia Math. 221 (2014), 209–229. 17. C.-W. Leung, C.-K. Ng and N.-C. Wong, Linear orthogonality preservers of Hilbert C∗- modules over C∗-algebras with real rank zero, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 140 (2012), no. 9, 3151–3160. 18. C.-W. Leung, C.-K. Ng and N.-C. Wong, Automatic continuity and C0(Ω)-linearity of linear maps between C0(Ω)-modules, J. 67 (2012), no. 1, 3–20. 19. H. Li, A Hilbert C∗-module admitting no frames, Bull. London Math. Soc. 42 (2010), 388– 394. 20. Y. Li and D. Tan, Wigner’s theorem on the Tsirelson space T , Ann. Funct. Anal. 10 (2019), no. 4, 515–524. 21. R.Lukasik, A note on the orthogonality equation with two functions, Aequationes Math. 90 (2016), no. 5, 961–965. 22. R.Lukasik and P. W´ojcik, Decomposition of two functions in the orthogonality equation, Aequationes Math. 90 (2016), no. 3, 495–499. 23. R.Lukasik and P. W´ojcik, Functions preserving the biadditivity, Results Math. 75 82 (2020). 24. A. Mal, D. Sain and K. Paul, On some geometric properties of operator spaces, Banach J. Math. Anal. 13 (2019), no. 1, 174–191. 25. V. M. Manuilov and E. V. Troitsky, Hilbert C∗-modules, In: Translations of Mathematical Monographs. 226, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005. 26. L. Moln´ar, Orthogonality preserving transformations on indefinite inner product spaces: generalization of Uhlhorn’s version of Wigner’s theorem, J. Funct. Anal. 194 (2002), no. 2, 248–262. 27. L. Moln´ar, Generalizations of Wigner’s unitary-antiunitary theorem for indefinite inner product spaces, Comm. Math. Phys. 201 (2000), 785–791. 28. M. S. Moslehian and A. Zamani, Mappings preserving approximate orthogonality in Hilbert C∗-modules, Math Scand. 122 (2018), 257–276. 29. K. Paul, D. Sain, A. Mal and K. Mandal, Orthogonality of bounded linear operators on complex Banach spaces, Adv. Oper. Theory 3, (2018), no. 3, 699–709. 30. W. L. Paschke, Inner product modules over B∗-algebras, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 182 (1973), 443–468. 31. G. K. Pedersen, C∗-algebras and their groups, Academic Press, London–New York–San Francisco, 1979. 32. L. Rodman and P. Semrl,ˇ Orthogonality preserving bijective maps on finite dimensional projective spaces over division rings, Linear Multilinear Algebra 56 (2008), no. 6, 647–664. 33. M. M. Sadr, Decomposition of functions between Banach spaces in the orthogonality equa- tion, Aequationes Math. 91 (2017), no. 4, 739–743. 34. M. Takesaki, Theory of Operator Algebras I, Encyclopedia Math. Sciences v. 124, Springer, 1979 / 2002. ORTHOGONALITY PRESERVING PROPERTY FOR PAIRS OF OPERATORS 23

35. A. Turnˇsek, On mappings approximately preserving orthogonality, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 336 (1) (2007), 625–631. 36. U. Uhlhorn, Representation of symmetry transformations in , Ark. Fysik, 23 (1962), 307–340. 37. E. Wigner, Gruppentheorie und ihre Anwendung auf die Quantenmechanik der Atomspek- tren, Vieweg, Braunschweig, 1931. 38. P. W´ojcik, On certain connected with operator and its applications, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 423 (2) (2015), 1320–1329. 39. P. W´ojcik, On a equation characterizing linear similarities, Aequationes Math. 93 (2019), no. 3, 557–561. 40. A. Zamani, M. S. Moslehian and M. Frank, preserving mappings, Z. Anal. Anwend. 34 (2015), 485–500.

1 Hochschule fur¨ Technik, Wirtschaft und Kultur (HTWK) Leipzig, Fakultat¨ IM, PF 301166, 04251 Leipzig, Germany Email address: [email protected]

2 Department of Pure Mathematics, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Center of Excellence in Analysis on Algebraic Structures (CEAAS), P.O. Box 1159, Mashhad 91775, Iran Email address: [email protected], [email protected]

3 Department of Mathematics, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran Email address: [email protected]