Arxiv:2103.14126V1 [Math.OA] 25 Mar 2021 H Ubro Upt.Adw Akaotpoeto Audme Valued Projection About Talk the We All Addition and in If Outputs

arXiv:2103.14126v1 [math.OA] 25 Mar 2021 h ubro upt.Adw akaotPoeto audMe Valued Projection about talk the we all addition And in if outputs. (PVM) of number the hoit.W iluePV eea ti hre,adteinte the and shorter, is it as here POVM use will We theorists. nlsso rusadqatmgop ANR-19-CE40-0002-01 groups quantum and groups on analysis hoe 1.1. Theorem following. the is note this of oiieoeaoso ope ibr pc hc u oth to sum which space Hilbert complex a t on operators positive and rgtYe 4 ] h olo hsnt st xlr small dim a infinite explore stability. to to of is generalizations terms note possible in this its consequence of discuss Ji-Nat goal by and work The [4] recent the 5]. in [4, central Wright-Yuen also muc strategies are gr quantum recently games for every but non-local whether been phenomena of same has question The the It linear/sofic. clo by are motivated mainly properties. properties groups, certain these satisfy satisfying almost actly that objects ical let that 1 + hr xssa rhgnldecomposition orthogonal an exists There dSwsfne yteARgat GR N-6C4-02and ANR-16-CE40-0022 AGIRA grants ANR the by funded was MdlS Date h bet htw td nti oeaefiiefmle ( families finite are note this in study we that objects The when situation a describe to [2] in coined term a is Stability ξ 1 if (1) 2 vr operator every (2) · · · 1. oiieOeao audMeasures Valued Operator Positive RHGNLZTO FPSTV OPERATOR POSITIVE OF ORTHOGONALIZATION H ∈ + ac 9 2021. 29, March : rhnraiaino attoso nt ninfinite in unity of partitions of Orthonormalization n lgtysrntespeiu eut nmti algebr matrix Ji-Natarajan-Vidick-Wright-Yuen. in and results Vidick infinite previous to strengthens generalizes orthog This slightly an and algebra. to Neumann close von is same orthogonal the in almost is that space Hilbert Abstract. OM n iia aoat ffiiesbesi h rda o predual the in subsets finite of algebra. Neumann majorants von minimal and POVMs 9 each t ε n ξ , eaui etrand vector unit a be eas eeaiet nnt ieso ult eutbet result duality a dimension infinite to generalize also We 1 = i eoe h rhgnlpoeto on projection orthogonal the denotes H H i . hr r called are There . Let eso htapriino h nt o OM na on POVM) (or unity the of partition a that show We ( a 1 b a , . . . , iesoa ibr space Hilbert dimensional AUDMEASURES VALUED ∈ IALD ASALLE LA DE MIKAEL B t n ( i ε saepoetos( projections are ’s ) H ∈ eaPV nacmlxHletspace Hilbert complex a on POVM a be ) attoso unity of partitions [0 hc omtswt each with commutes which , 1 1] satisfying PV)b unu information quantum by (POVM) H = H t H P i 2 i 1 then , yoeao algebraists, operator by = i H ⊕ . k a t i i sb Kempe- by as .Temi result main The ). ξ 2 nlPOVM onal k et bet ex- objects to se ninadsome and ension P 2 H ⊕ · · · ⊕ dimension > arajan-Vidick- Noncommutative i o two-player for ger tde for studied h u shyper- is oup k t 1 a a 1 ween mathemat- i i t , . . . , − identity: e ξ oto of portion a f n preserves − ε scalled is . n ξ asures i n k such of ) 2 H < , 2 M. DE LA SALLE

In other words, the condition a ξ 2 > 1 ε implies that: (1) (a , . . . , a ) i k i k − 1 n is 9ε-close to a PVM (p1,...,pn) (2) which preserves the symmetries of the original POVM. P This theorem generalizes to infinite dimension and slightly strengthens a result from [4] (see also [7, Lemma 19]), which proves a form of this theorem with finite dimensional Hilbert spaces. More precisely, we can rephrase [4, Theorem 5.2] as follows: if = is a tensor product of finite dimen- H HA ⊗HB sional Hilbert spaces and the ai are of the form Ai idB, then the theorem holds, but with 9ε in (1) (which is essentially optimal,⊗ see Remark 1.3) 1 replaced by 100ε 4 . Formally, the conclusion (2) is replaced by a slightly weaker conclusion, as it only requires that the orthogonal projections on each factor in the orthogonal decomposition are of the same tensor product form P id , or equivalently that the decomposition is of the form i ⊗ B = ( ) ( ). H H1 ⊗HB ⊕···⊕ Hn ⊗HB But the contribution here is to deal with infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces. If one only requires the conclusion (1), Theorem 1.1 becomes a small exer- cise in euclidean geometry, and the dimension of is irrelevant as everything H happens in the space spanned by the n vectors aiξ. It is the conclusion (2) that makes the statement dependant on the dimension of and of the struc- H ture of the algebra of operators commuting with ai. So, although it stated in Hilbert-space vocabulary, Theorem 1.1 is a result about von Neumann algebras and states. This paper might be read by non-experts in von Neu- mann algebras, so we will try to recall basic definitions in section 2, and to give complete proofs or precise references for the statements we need. We refer to standard textbooks such as [10] for more background. The following is an equivalent reformulation of Theorem 1.1 in von Neu- mann algebraic language.

Theorem 1.2. Let be a von Neumann algebra with a normal state ϕ, and let a be a POVMM in such that ϕ( a2) > 1 ε. { i} M i i − Then there is a PVM pi (made of projections) such that ϕ( i ai 2 ∈ M P | − pi ) < 9ε. | P Remark 1.3. Conversely, it follows from the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality that for any PVM (pi),

ϕ( a2) (1 ϕ( a p 2))2. i ≥ − | i − i| Xi s Xi This could have suggested that the upper bound 9ε in Theorem 1.2 is not optimal and can be replaced by O(ε2). This is not the case, and the 9ε cannot be replaced by anything smaller than ε, as the following simple example illustrates. 2 2 1 1 Consider = ℓ∞ (C with the ℓ∞ norm), a1 = (1, 2 ) and a2 = (0, 2 ), and ϕ is theM state ϕ(x,y) = (1 c)x + cy, then we have − 1 ϕ(a2 + a2) = 1 c, 1 2 − 2 ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 3 and for every PVM (p1,p2) we have 1 ϕ( p a 2)+ ϕ( p a 2) c. | 1 − 1| | 2 − 2| ≥ 2 Before we prove the main Theorem 1.2, let us state one consequence, which says that almost commuting PVMs are close to commuting PVMs. Let us denote, for an element a in a von Neumann algebra and a normal state ϕ, a = ϕ(a∗a). k kϕ Theorem 1.4. Letp (pi)i and (qj)j be two PVMs in a von Neumann algebra and ϕ be a normal state on . If p q q p 2 < ε, then there is M M i,j k i j − j ikϕ another PVM (p′ ) in such that [p′ ,q ] = 0 for every i, j and i i M iPj p p′ 2 < 10ε. k i − ikϕ Xi By Fourier transform (Pontryagin duality), PVM’s with n outputs are in one-to-one correspondance with unitaries u of order n (un = 1): to n 2ikπ n (p1,...,pn) corresponds u = k=1 e pk. The inverse maps u to (p1,...,pn) − 2ijkπ 1 n k where pj = n k e u .P Therefore, the previous theorem is formally equivalent to the following. It is a new form of a statement asserting that almost commutingP unitaries are close to unitaries, that does not seem to be comparable with existing results, even when ϕ is a trace. Corollary 1.5. Let ( , ϕ) be a von Neumann algebra with a normal state, and u, v be unitariesM of finite order n,m. If 1 ∈ Mn m uivj vjui 2 < ε, then there is a unitary v′ that nm i=1 j=1 k − kϕ ∈ M commutes with u and satisfies P P 1 vi v′i 2 < 10ε. n k − kϕ Xi The proof of the main result is not very involved and follows the same general strategy as in [4], but it requires a bit of familiarity with von Neumann algebras and some adaptations to obtain the optimal order in the constants. We present the necessary background in Section 2, and then prove the The- orem by decomposing it into three different cases. We deduce Theorem 1.4 in Section 6. Finally, Section 7 generalizes to infinite dimensional von Neu- mann algebras a semidefinite program considered in [4]. Acknowledgements. I thank Thomas Vidick and Henry Yuen their pa- tience answering my questions, and for encouraging me to write down this note. Thanks also to Thomas Vidick for his comments and corrections on a preliminary version of this note. I also thank Amine Marrakchi for many interesting discussions.

2. Facts on von Neumann algebras A von Neumann algebra is a self-adjoint subalgebra of the algebra B( ) of bounded operators on a complex Hilbert space that is equal toH its bicommutant. Here the commutant of a subset F BH( ) is the algebra F ′ of operators that commute with all elements of F⊂, andH its bicommutant is the commutant of its commutant. The von Neumann bicommutant theorem 4 M. DE LA SALLE

[10, Theorem II.3.9] is a fundamental result of the theory, which asserts that the bicommutant of a subset F B( ) coincides with the weak-* closure of the self-adjoint unital algebra⊂ generatedH by F , where we see B( ) as the dual of the trace-class operators on . In particular, a von NeumannH algebra is a dual space. Another fundamentalH theorem [10, Corollary III.3.9] asserts that a von Neumann algebra admits a unique predual. This allows to talk about the weak-* topology on ; it coincides with the ultraweak operator topology, the smallest topologyM making continuous all linear maps of the form x k xξk, ηk for sequences ξk, ηk satisfying k ξk ηk < . A von Neumann7→ h algebrai is almost never∈H separable for the normk kk topology,k ∞ the relevantP notion is that of having a separable predual,P or equivalently being separable for the weak-* topology (or many other topologies that we do not need to discuss here). A normal state on a von Neumann algebra B( ) is a linear map ϕ: C that is positive (ϕ(x∗x) 0 for everyM ⊂x H ), normalized by ϕ(1)M = → 1 and weak-* continuous. The≥ typical example∈ of M a state is a vector state x aξ, ξ for a unit vector ξ . The Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction7→ h i asserts that (up to∈ changing H the Hilbert space), every normal state can be realized as a vector state. We will prove the theorem by a reduction to two main cases (finite and type III). To state the reduction we need to recall some basic definitions on the type of a von Neumann algebra (see [10, Chapter V]). Given a von Neumann algebra , we say that M is finite if for every u , u∗u = 1 implies uu∗ = 1. More • Mgenerally, a projection p ∈ Mis finite if the von Neumann algebra p p is finite. ∈ M M is of type II1 if it is finite and if 0 is the only projection p •such M that p p is commutative. ∈ M is semi-finiteM if every nonzero projection p majorizes a non- • Mzero finite projection. ∈ M has type III if it does not contain any nonzero finite projection. • M We know from general theory [10, Theorem V.1.19] that every von Neu- mann algebra can be written as a direct sum of a semifinite and a type III von NeumannM algebra. So it is enough to separately prove Theorem 1.2 when is semi-finite and when has type III. The semi-finite case can easilyM be reduced to the finite case,M which is the most interesting one. Replacing by the von Neumann algebra generated by the ai’s, we can and will assumeM that has separable predual. M

3. Proof of Theorem 1.2 when is finite M Let , ϕ, (ai) be as in Theorem 1.2, with finite and with separable predual.M By [10, Theorem V.2.6], the finitenessM assumption is equivalent to the existence of a normal center-valued trace, that is a normal conditional expectation E : Z( ) onto the center of such that E(ab)= E(ba) for every a, b M→. M M The first lemma∈ M contains all the difficulty in the proof of Theorem 1.2. ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 5

Lemma 3.1. There are projections qi commuting with ai such that n (3.1) E(qi) = 1, Xi=1 n (3.2) ϕ qiai 1 ε. ! ≥ − Xi=1 Before we prove the Lemma, let us observe that it is not possible to replace (3.1) by the stronger condition i qi = 1. Indeed, if = M2(C) and if the a′ s do not have any common eigenvector, then theM only families i P (qi) of projections commuting with ai satisfying i qi = 1 are when one of the qi’s is the identity and the other are 0, and so (3.2) would become max ϕ(a ) 1 ε. A concrete example is given byPn = 3, ϕ the normalized i i ≥ − trace on M2(C) and 1 1 + 4δ 0 a = , 1 1 + 6δ 0 0 1 δ √3δ a = , 2 1 + 6δ √3δ 1 + 3δ 1 δ √3δ a3 = − . 1 + 6δ √3δ 3δ − This example satisfies ϕ( a2) 1 5δ + o(δ), but max ϕ(a ) 1 . i i ≥ − i i ≤ 2 Proof. Consider the subset C n P ⊂ M C = (x ,...,x ) n i, 0 x 1,x a = a x , E(x ) = 1 . { 1 n ∈ M |∀ ≤ i ≤ i i i i i } Xi n C is a convex subset in the unit ball of , and contains (a1, . . . , an). It is clearly weak-* closed, and therefore compactM as the unit ball of n is weak- * compact. By the Krein-Milman theorem, C is the closure ofM the convex hull of its extreme points, and in particular the continuous affine map f : (x ,...,x ) C ϕ( x a ) 1 n ∈ 7→ i i Xi attains its maximum (which is f(a1, . . . , an) 1 ε) at an extreme point. So all we have to do is to show≥ that ≥ − (3.3) if (x1,...,xn) is an extreme point of C, then each xi is a projection. We know from general theory [10, Theorem V.1.19 and V.1.27] that there is a sequence (zd)d∈N of orthogonal projections in Z( ) such that zd is isomorphic to M (C) z Z( ) and (1 z ) isM of type II . If xMwas d ⊗ d M − d d M 1 i not a projection, then either there is d N such that zdxi is not a projection, or (1 z )x is not a projection.∈ SoP we are reduced to showing (3.3) − d d i when = Md(C) Z for an abelian von Neumann algebra Z, or when MP ⊗ M is of type II1. The latter case is easier, as the extremality of (x1,...,xn) in C in particular implies that, for each i, xi is extremal inside C := y 0 y 1,y a = a y , E(y )= E(x ) , i { i ∈ M | ≤ i ≤ i i i i i i } 6 M. DE LA SALLE and this weaker condition already implies that xi is a projection. Indeed, if xi was not a projection, there would exist ε> 0 such that the spectral projection p := χ[ε,1−ε](xi) is nonzero and commutes with ai. By the definition of being of type II1, we know that p p is not abelian. In particular, thereM is a self-adjoint element b p p whichM commutes with pa but does ∈ M i not belong to pZ( ) (we can take b = pai if pai / pZ( ) and an arbitrary selfadjoint elementM of p p pZ( ) otherwise).∈ We canM moreover assume that 0 b p. UsingM that\ theM center valued trace E : Z( ) is (completely)≤ ≤ positive, we obtain that 0 E(b) E(p), andM in → particularM there is z Z( ) such that E(b)= zE(p≤) and 0 ≤ z 1. Then b′ := b zp ∈ M ′ ≤ ≤ − is a nonzero selfadjoint element of ( pai p p) pZ( ), which moreover ′ { } ∩ M \ M satisfies E(b )= E(b) zE(p) = 0. It has norm 1. So we can write xi as − ′ ′ ≤ the midpoint between xi + εb and xi εb , which both belong to Ci. This contradicts the extremality of x in −and proves (3.3) when is of type i M M II1. In the first case, we can write equivalently = L∞(Ω,µ; Md(C)) for a standard measure space (Ω,µ). We will presentM the proof when = M (C), M d and leave to the reader the easy adaptation of the proof for L∞(Ω,µ; Md(C)). When = Md(C), (3.3) becomes that any extreme point in (x1,...,xn) M (C)M 0 x 1, [x , a ] = 1, Tr( x ) = d is made{ of projections.∈ d | ≤ i ≤ i i i i } Assume for a contradiction that this is not the case, and that (x1,...,xn) P is an extreme point not entirely made of projections. If, for some i, xi has at least two nonzero eigenvalues different from 0 and 1 (counting with multiplicities), then we can do as in the II1 case, choose orthogonal rank one projections p1,p2 corresponding to these eigenvalues of xi and commuting with ai, and for ε> 0 small enough the decomposition 1 x = ((x + εp εp ) + (x εp + εp )) i 2 i 1 − 2 i − 1 2 will contradict the extremality. Otherwise, using that k Tr(xk) is an in- teger, there are at least two indices i = j such that xi and xj both have exactly one eigenvalue not in 0, 1 , counting6 multiplicities.P In that case, { } if pi and pj are the corresponding rank one projections, they necessarily commute with a and a respectively, and we can define for ε [ 1, 1] i j ∈ − xi + εpi if k = i xk(ε)= x εp if k = j .  j − k xk if k / i, j. ∈ For ε small enough (x1(ε),...,x n(ε)) belongs to C, and the expression x =| 1|(x (ε)+ x ( ε)) also contradicts the extremality of (x ,...,x ). k 2 k k − 1 n We shall use the following elementary fact about finite von Neumann algebras. Lemma 3.2. Let be a finite von Neumann algebra with center-valued trace E, and x M. If p and q are projections such that E(p)= E(q) and ∈ M ∈ M xp = qx = x, then we can decompose x = u x where u∗u = p and uu∗ = q. | | ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 7

Proof. Denote by p0 the left support of x and q0 the right support of x (that is, if ∈B M( ), p and q are the smallest∈ M projection in B( ) M ⊂ H 0 0 H such that xp0 = x and q0x = x respectively). Write x = u0 x be the usual ∗ 1/2 | | polar decomposition of x, where x = (x x) , and u0 is a partial ∗ ∗ | | ∈ M isometry with u0u0 = p0 and u0u0 = q0 (see [1, Proposition 2.2.4]). By deﬁnition, we have p p and q q. Moreover, 0 ≤ 0 ≤ E(p p )= E(p) E(u∗u )= E(q) E(u u∗)= E(q q ). − 0 − 0 0 − 0 0 − 0

By [1, Proposition 9.1.8], we have that p p0 q q0. That is, there is a partial isometry v such that v∗v = p p− and∼vv∗−= q q . The lemma − 0 − 0 holds with u = v + u0.

We can now prove the main result.

Proof of Theorem 1.2 when is finite. Let q be given by Lemma 3.1. Con- M i sider the matrix x = e q a1/2, that we see in M ( ). What is im- i i,1 ⊗ i i n M portant for us is that Mn( ) is a finite von Neumann algebra. Specifically, its center is 1 Z( P) andM the corresponding central-valued trace is n ⊗ M 1 E : (a ) 1 ( E(a )). n i,j 7→ n ⊗ n i,i Xi 1 1 Let p = i ei,i qi and q = e1,1 1. Then En(p) = 1n i E(qi)= = ⊗ ⊗ ⊗∗ n n En(q), so by Lemma 3.2 we can write x = u x with uu = i ei,i qi and ∗ P | | P ⊗ u u = e1,1 1. In the following, we identify with e1,1 a a . If t = e q⊗, then u∗t u is a projection p inM (formally{ ⊗ itP is| of∈ the M} form i i,i ⊗ i i i M e1,1 pi, but we decided to identify this with pi) for projections pi which⊗ sum to 1. Moreover, we have ∈ M

x p x = x u∗t u x = x∗t x = q a . | | i| | | | i | | i i i Let us denote by the norm on n given by k · kϕ M n (B ) 2 = ϕ(B∗B ). k i ikϕ i i Xi=1 By the triangle inequality, decomposing ai pi = ai qiai + ( x 1)pi x )+ p ( x 1), we obtain − − | |− | | i | |− (a p ) (a q a ) + (1 x )p x ) + (p (1 x )) . k i − i ikϕ ≤ k i − i i ikϕ k − | | i| | ikϕ k i − | | ikϕ We shall bound each term. The ﬁrst term is easy:

(a q a ) 2 = ϕ((1 q )a2) ϕ(1 q )a ε. k i − i i ikϕ − i i ≤ − i i ≤ Xi Xi The third term is also easy:

(p (1 x )) 2 = ϕ((1 x )p (1 x )) = ϕ((1 x )2) ϕ(1 x 2) ε. k i −| | ikϕ −| | i −| | −| | ≤ −| | ≤ Xi 8 M. DE LA SALLE

We used that (1 x )2 1 x 2, which is true because 0 x 1. For the second term we− | proceed| ≤ similarly− | | but with more care: ≤ | | ≤ (1 x )p x ) 2 = ϕ( x p (1 x )2p x ) k − | | i| | ikϕ | | i − | | i| | Xi ϕ( x p (1 x 2)p x ) ≤ | | i − | | i| | Xi = ϕ( x p x ( x p x )2). | | i| |− | | i| | Xi

4. Proof of Theorem 1.2 when is semi-finite M We deduce easily the case when is semi-finite from the finite case, thanks to the following basic fact, toM which we provide a proof for conve- nience. Lemma 4.1. If ( , ϕ) is a von Neumann algebra with a normal state M and (pα) is a net of projections tending to 1, then for every finite family C ,...,C , we have 1 k ∈ M lim ϕ(pαC1pαC2 ...pαCkpα)= ϕ(C1C2 ...Ck). α Proof. We can prove the lemma by induction on k. When k = 0, the lemma says that limα ϕ(pα)= ϕ(1), which is the definition of being normal. Assume that the lemma is true for k 1. Let C ,...,CM . The − 1 k ∈ M map ψ( )= ϕ(C1 ) is weak-* continuous on , and therefore [3, Chapitre I, Theorem· 4.2.1] is· a linear combination of normalM states. So it follows from the induction hypothesis that

lim ϕ(C1pαC2 ...pαCkpα)= ϕ(C1 ...Ck). α

On the other had, if xα = C1pαC2 ...pαCkpα, we have ϕ(p C p C ...p C p )= ϕ((p 1)x )+ ϕ(x ). α 1 α 2 α k α α − α α By the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we can bound ϕ((p 1)x ) 2 ϕ( p 1 2)ϕ(x∗ x ) | α − α | ≤ | α − | α α The ﬁrst term is ϕ(1 pα) which goes to 0, and the other term is bounded above by x 2 −C 2. We deduce that k αk ≤ i k ik lim ϕ(pαC1pαC2 ...pαCkpα) = lim ϕ(xα)= ϕ(C1 ...Ck). α Q α ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 9

So let , ϕ, (a ) be as in Theorem 1.2, with semi-finite and with M i M separable predual. By [10, Theorem V.1.37]), there is an increasing net pα 1 of finite projections in such that limα pα = 1. Let ϕα be the state ϕ M ϕ(pα) on α := pα pα, and define a POVM ai,α = pαaipα in α. It follows M M 2 M from Lemma 4.1 that for every α large enough, ϕα( i ai,α) > ε, and the (already proven) finite case of Theorem 1.2 provides us with a PVM p in P i,α pα pα satisfying the conclusion of the theorem. Then for α large enough, theM PVM (1 p +p ,p ,...,p ) satisfies the conclusion of Theorem 1.2. − α 1,α 2,α n,α

5. Proof of Theorem 1.2 when is type III M The type III case will be proven with the same strategy as the finite case, but the details are simpler, and the constants are a bit better (the 9 can be replaced by 1 in that case). We shall need the following. Recall that the central support of an element x is the smallest projection z(x) in the center of such that z(x)x = ∈x. M We shall use the standard terminology on comparisionM of projections [10, Chapter V]: we say that two projections p,q are equivalent and write p q if there is u such that u∗u = p, uu∗ ∈= Mq. We write p q if there is a∼ projection p′ equivalent∈ M to p such that q p′ is positive. ≺ − Lemma 5.1. If is a type III von Neumann algebra with separable predual, M then there is an increasing sequence (qα) of projections in tending to 1 and such that 1 q 1 for every α. M − α ∼ Proof. The separability assumption implies that it admits a faithful normal state ϕ [10, Proposition II.3.19]. Faithful means that ϕ does not vanish on any nonzero positive element. We shall construct an increasing sequence −α (q ) ∈N of projections such that ϕ(q ) 1 2 and (1 q ) 1. This α α α ≥ − − α ∼ implies the lemma, because by normality of ϕ, the limit q∞ of qα satisfies ϕ(q∞) = limα ϕ(qα) = 1, so ϕ being faithful we have limα qα = q∞ = 1. The construction is by induction. Define q0 = 0. If qα is defined, then (1 qα) (1 qα) is of type III, so by [10, Proposition V.1.36], there is projection− Me − (1 q ) (1 q ) such that, if f = 1 q e , then α ∈ − α M − α α − α − α eα fα 1 qα. In particular, both fα and αn are equivalent to 1 in . ∼ ∼ − −α M Moreover, we have ϕ(eα)+ϕ(fα)= ϕ(1 qα) 2 , so min(ϕ(eα), ϕ(fα)) −α−1 − ≤ ≤ 2 . It remains to define qα+1 = 1 eα if ϕ(eα) ϕ(fα) and qα+1 = 1 fα otherwise. − ≤ −

So let , ϕ, (ai) be as in Theorem 1.2, with type III and separable, M M 1/2 and let qα as in the previous lemma. Consider vα = i ei,1 ai qα, that ∗ ⊗ we see in Mn( ). Observe that v vα = e1,1 qαaiqα = e1,1 qα, so M α i ⊗ P ⊗ vα is a partial isometry. It is well-known that the projections e1,1 1 and P ⊗ 1n 1 are equivalent in Mn( ). Indeed, it follows from a repeated use of [10, ⊗ M ∗ Proposition V.1.36] that there are isometries ui (that is ui ui = 1) such n ∗ ∈ M that 1 = i=1 uiui . Then u := i e1,i ui realizes the equivalence ∗ ∗ ⊗ ∈ M between u u = 1n 1 and uu = e1,1 1. So by the properties of qα given in LemmaP 5.1, we⊗ have P ⊗ e 1 v∗ v = e (1 q ) e 1 1 in M ( ). 1,1 ⊗ − α α 1,1 ⊗ − α ∼ 1,1 ⊗ ∼ n M 10 M. DE LA SALLE

In particular, we have 1 1 v v∗ e 1 v∗ v , n ⊗ − α α ≺ 1,1 ⊗ − α α ∗ ∗ ∗ and there is wα Mn( ) such that wαwα = 1n 1 vαvα and wαwα e 1 v∗ v . Letting∈ Mu = v + w , we therefore⊗ have− ≤ 1,1 ⊗ − α α α α α u∗ u e 1, u u∗ = 1 1. α α ≤ 1,1 ⊗ α α n ⊗ ∗ We can therefore deﬁne pi,α by uα(ei,i 1)uα = e1,1 pi,α. The fact ∗ ∈ M ⊗ ⊗ that uαuα = 1 implies that pi,α are pairwise orthogonal projections, but a priori we only have p 1. However, the sum is close to 1 as i i,α ≤ (5.1) e P( p )= u∗ u v∗ v = e q . 1,1 ⊗ i,α α α ≥ α α 1,1 ⊗ α Xi Moreover, by the deﬁnition of pi,α, we have e q p q = v∗ v u∗ (e 1)u v∗ v 1,1 ⊗ α i,α α α α α i,i ⊗ α α α = v∗ (e 1)v α i,i ⊗ α = e q a q . 1,1 ⊗ α i α That is,

(5.2) qαpi,αqα = qαaiqα. As in the ﬁnite case, let us denote by the norm on n given by k · kϕ M n (b ) 2 = ϕ(b∗b ). k i ikϕ i i Xi=1 Remembering (5.2), we can decompose ai pi,α = ai qαaiqα (1 qα)pi,αqα p (1 q ) and obtain by the triangle inequality− − − − − i,α − α (a p ) (a q a q ) + ((1 q )p q ) + (p (1 q )) . k i − i,α ikϕ ≤ k i − α i α ikϕ k − α i,α α ikϕ k i,α − α ikϕ It follows from Lemma 4.1 that the ﬁrst term goes to 0 as α . The last term is straightforward to bound: →∞ (p (1 q )) 2 = ϕ((1 q )( p )(1 q )) ϕ(1 q ) 0. k i,α − α ikϕ − α i,α − α ≤ − α → Xi The middle term is bounded as follows ((1 q )p q ) 2 = ϕ(q p (1 q )p q ) k − α i,α α ikϕ α i,α − α i,α α Xi = ϕ(q a q (q a q )2), α i α − α i α Xi which goes to ϕ(a a2) < ε. All in all, this implies that i i − i P lim sup (ai pi,α)i ϕ < √ε. α k − k

We are not completely done yet, as pi,α do not sum to 1. But almost. Indeed, by (5.1), we have i pi,α converges to 1 and in particular

P lim ϕ( pi,α) = 1. α Xi ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 11

This implies that if we replace p1,α by p1,α + (1 i pi,α), we obtain a PVM in which still satisﬁes − M P lim sup (ai pi,α)i ϕ < √ε. α k − k This concludes the proof of the Theorem in the type III case.

6. Almost commuting PVMs are close to commuting PVMS This short section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 1.4. Denote by ai the POVM ai = j qjpiqj. We can compute ε> p q q Pp 2 k i j − j ikϕ Xi,j = ϕ( p q p + q p q (p q )2 (q p )2) i j i j i j − i j − j i Xi,j = 2 2 ( ϕ(a p )) − ℜ i i Xi = p a 2 + (1 ϕ( a2)). k i − ikϕ − i Xi Xi We can apply Theorem 1.2 to the ai in the von Neumann algebra generated by the a ’s, and obtain a PVM p′ belonging to such that N i i N a p′ 2 < 9(ε p a 2 ). k i − ikϕ − k i − ikϕ Xi Xi But since ai belongs to the commutant of qj , the same is true for , so ′ { } N [pi,qj] = 0 for all i, j. Using the triangle inequality and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we conclude as follows 1 1 1 2 2 2 p p′ 2 p a 2 + a p′ 2 k i − ikϕ ≤ k i − ikϕ k i − ikϕ i ! i ! i ! X X X 1 2 2 1 ′ 2 √10 pi ai ϕ + ai pi ϕ ≤ k − k 9k − k ! Xi < √10ε.

7. Hahn-Banach We conclude this note with a quite unrelated subject, except that it is also an infinite dimensional generalization of a key result in [4]. Lemma 9.2 in [4] states that for any finite collection a1, . . . , an of positive matrices, (7.1) min tr(z) z a i = max tr(a t ) 0 t 1, t = 1 , { | ≥ i∀ } { i i | ≤ i ≤ i } Xi Xi and that moreover any pair of minimizer z and maximizer (t1,...,tn) satisfies

(7.2) z = tiai. Xi 12 M. DE LA SALLE

The equality in (7.1) is known to be true more generally in any semifinite von Neumann algebra, as a particular case of a duality for Pisier’s operator-space valued non-commutative L spaces L ( ; ℓ∞) [8]. Formula p p M (7.1) corresponds to the case p = 1 and = Mn(C) in [6, Proposition 2.1 (iii)]. To the author’s knowledge, (7.2) hasM not been observed or used earlier in operator space theory. It turns out that the preceding is true more generally in arbitrary von Neumann algebras, as follows. Proposition 7.1. Let be a von Neumann algebra, and ϕ ,...,ϕ M 1 n ∈ ( ∗) be normal positive linear forms. Then M + (7.3) inf ψ(1) ψ ∗, ψ ϕ i = sup ϕ (t ) (t )POVM in . { | ∈ M ≥ i∀ } { i i | i M} Xi Moreover, the infimum and the supremum are both attained, and any pair of a minimizer ψ and a maximizer (t1,...,tn) satisfies ψ = i tiϕi. Corollary 7.2. For every ϕ ,...,ϕ ( ∗) , there is a unique element 1 n ∈ M + P of ∗ of minimal norm such that ψ ϕi for all i. Moreover,M there is a POVM t ,...,t≥ such that ψ = t ϕ . 1 n ∈ M i i i Proof of Proposition 7.1. The inequality in (7.3) is clear: if tP1,...,tn is any POVM and ψ ϕ for all i, then ≥ ∈ M ≥ i ϕ (t ) ψ(t )= ψ(1). i i ≤ i Xi Xi The converse relies on Hahn-Banach. We rather use the variant given in [9, Lemma A.16]. Define

m := inf ψ(1) ψ ∗, ψ ϕ i . { | ∈ M ≥ i∀ } Denote by S = (t ,...,t ) n 0 t 1 i , { 0 n ∈ M | ≤ i ≤ ∀ } and for every self-adjoint ψ ∗, define f ℓ∞(S) by ∈ M ψ ∈ n f (t ,...,t )= ψ(t ) m + (ϕ ψ)(t ). ψ 0 n 0 − i − i Xi=1 n Observe that S is a weak-* closed convex subset of and the map fψ are all affine weak-* continuous maps. If ψ ϕ for allMi, then f (1, 0,..., 0) = ≥ i ψ ψ(1) m 0 by definition of m. Otherwise, there is i and 0 ti 1 such that (−ϕ ≥ψ)(t ) 0, so f (0,..., 0,t ,..., 0) 0. So in each≤ case≤ we have i − i ≥ ψ i ≥ supS fψ 0. By [9,≥ Lemma A.16], there is (t ,...,t ) S such that f (t ,...,t ) 0 0 n ∈ ψ 0 n ≥ for every self-adjoint ψ ∗. Equivalently, ∈ M n n ψ(t t )+ ϕ (t ) m. 0 − i i i ≥ 1 1 X X This implies that t = n t , and that n ϕ(t ) m. In other words, we 0 1 i 1 i ≥ have obtained positive elements (t1,...,tn) such that i ti 1 and P P ∈ M n ≤ ϕi(ti) m. A fortiori (say replacing tn by tn + (1 ti)), there are i ≥ − 1 P positive ti with i ti = 1 and i ϕi(ti) m. This proves at the same time theP inequality in (7.3) and that the supremum≥ in (7.3)P is attained. ≤P P ORTHOGONALIZATION OF POVMS 13

Let us justify that the compactness is attained in the infimum also. By the weak-* compactness of the unit ball of ∗, we have that the infimum of ∗ M ∗ ψ(1) over all ψ such that ψ ϕi for all i is attained at some ψ . ∈ M ≥ ∗ ∈ M But using that ∗ is L-embedded in [10, Theorem III.2.14], we obtain M M that ψ necessarily belongs to ∗. M Consider now ψ attaining the infimum, and (t1,...,tn) attaining the supremum in (7.3). We then have (ψ ϕ )(t ) = 0. − i i Xi This implies (since (ψ ϕi)(ti) 0 is clear) that (ψ ϕi)(ti) = 0 for all i. So − 1 ≥ 1 − 2 2 the positive linear form ti (ψ ϕi)ti takes the value 0 at 1, so is identically 1 − 1 2 2 0. This implies that ti (ψ ϕi) =0 in L2( ), and hence ti(ψ ϕi) = 0. − M − In particular, we have i tiϕi = i tiψ = ψ. P ReferencesP

[1] Claire Anantharaman and Sorin Popa An introduction to II1 factors, Book avail- able https://www.idpoisson.fr/anantharaman/publications/IIun.pdf. [2] Marcus De Chiffre, Lev Glebsky, Alexander Lubotzky and Andreas Thom Sta- bility, cohomology vanishing, and nonapproximable groups, Forum Math. Sigma 8, Paper No. e18, 37 p. (2020). [3] Jacques Dixmier Les algèbres d’opérateurs dans l’espace hilbertien (algèbres de von Neumann) (Cahiers scientifiques. Fasc. XXV.) 2e ed. revue et augmentee. Paris: Gauthier-Villars Editeur (1969). [4] Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright and Henry Yuen Quantum soundness of the classical low individual degree test , arXiv:2009.12982. [5] Zhengfeng Ji, Anand Natarajan, Thomas Vidick, John Wright and Henry Yuen MIP*=RE, arXiv:2001.04383. [6] Marius Junge and Quanhua Xu Noncommutative maximal ergodic theorems , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 20 (2007) 2 385–439. [7] Julia Kempe and Thomas Vidick Parallel repetition of entangled games, In Pro- ceedings of the 43rd annual ACM symposium on theory of computing, STOC ’11 (2011) 353–362. [8] Gilles Pisier Non-commutative vector valued Lp-spaces and completely p-summing mapsNoncommutative maximal ergodic theorems , Astérisque 247 (1998). [9] Gilles Pisier Tensor Products of C*-Algebras and Operator Spaces – The Connes- Kirchberg Problem, Cambridge University Press, 2020. [10] Masamichi Takesaki Theory of operator algebras. I, Springer-Verlag, New York- Heidelberg (1979).

Universite´ de Lyon, ENSL, CNRS, France Email address: [email protected]