Arxiv:2006.00307V1 [Math.OA] 30 May 2020 Tn-O Emn Nqeestermi Bandb Aigueo Ge Use Isometries Making by an F Obtained Also, Arising Is of Theorem Algebras Perturbations

Home , Noncommutative geometry

arXiv:2006.00307v1 [math.OA] 30 May 2020 tn-o emn nqeestermi bandb aigueo ge use isometries making by an f obtained Also, arising is of theorem algebras perturbations. uniqueness operator Neumann compact associated Stone-von from examine and we isometries and lattice space exist. divisors zero clos unanswered whether a remain and to questions ideals homeomorphic closed algebraic naturally of basic subspaces progress invariant this of despite set the with utpe fteiett,adn ozr nt akoeaos Mor operators. rank finite nonzero ope no self-adjoint and the no identity, algebra, containing subalgebra, the proper of a multiples be to it showed 2] o xml.O h te adKtvlsadPwr[0 cons [10] fo Power semigroups, and unitary Katavolos the hand by other generated the algebra On operator closed example. for [23], { (WCR), hygnrt stevnNuanalgebra Neumann von the is generate they where hswr a upre yteEgneigadPyia cecsR Sciences Physical and Engineering the by supported isometr was work of This semigroups algebra, operator perturbations. phrases: and words Key M nwa olw ervstteprblcagbaadisnoncommutativ its and algebra parabolic the revisit we follows what In Let 2010 Lat λ λ , A M ,λ µ, ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics opc etrain r endaddetermined. and defined are perturbations compact of h ntr eiru frgttasain n h ntr semigro functions unitary exponential the analytic and translations the right of semigroup unitary the usaelattice, subspace ersnain fteprilWy omtto eain.Ten The irr noncommutative strongly to relations. commutative that classify from commutation extended to Weyl is here lattice partial subspace used the is of identification representations This 1997). Power, Abstract. ∈ p λ M . A and R λ p r el si elkon h -aaee ntr groups unitary 1-parameter the well-known, is As real. are Lat lo prtragba eie rmioercrepresentations isometric from derived algebras operator Also, . D } aaoi algebra parabolic µ rvd nirdcberpeetto fteWy omtto rela commutation Weyl the of representation irreducible an provide A D = p µ snnytei eaiet h aia bla utpiainsubalgebr multiplication abelian maximal the to relative nonsynthetic is h aaoi algebra parabolic The e H AAOI LER REVISITED ALGEBRA PARABOLIC THE eteuiayoeaoso h ibr space Hilbert the on operators unitary the be iλµ Lat D µ M A M p λ hc sntrlyhmoopi oteui ic(aaoo and (Katavolos disc unit the to homeomorphic naturally is which , λ f n h ekoeao oooycoe prtragbathat algebra operator closed topology operator weak the and , ( x A .KSI N .C POWER C. S. AND KASTIS E. = ) p a hw ob eeie ntesense the in reflexive, be to shown was , e 1. iλx e A iλx 77,47L35 47L75, Introduction f p ( stewal lsdagbaon algebra closed weakly the is λ , x ) ≥ B D , 1 .Ti ler srflxv iha invariant an with reflexive is algebra This 0. ( L 2 ( µ R f )o l one prtr.SeTaylor See operators. bounded all of )) ( x = ) e,snhtcsbpc atc,compact lattice, subspace synthetic ies, f ( x sac oni [EP/P01108X/1]. Council esearch − µ po utpiainby multiplication of up atcsadi sshown is it and lattices ) r L to fasynthetic a of otion L uha h structure the as such , µ 2 dcbeisometric educible aos te hnreal than other rators, 2 ( ( R of R ≥ oe hsoperator this eover ie by given ) o eirusof semigroups rom eeae by generated ) eaiaino the of neralisation h identification the f dds.However, disc. ed A drdteweakly the idered and 0 { p A D nain sub- invariant e n from and p µ = µ , λ AlgLat ∈ ≥ a R ,and 0, } tions and A p , 2 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

Recall that the Stone-von Neumann theorem provides a complete classification of the pairs of strongly continuous unitary groups acting on a separable Hilbert space which satisfy the Weyl commutation relations [22], [14]. Specifically, there is one irreducible class, modelled by translation and multiplication operators on L2(R), and the finite and count- able direct sums of this representation determine the other unitary equivalence classes. Rosenberg [19] has given an interesting historical perspective on the origins of this result, whose strict proof was completed by von Neumann [14] in 1931. It is possibly well-known that a strongly continuous isometric representation of the (partial) Weyl commutations relations for two semigroups of isometries may be dilated to a unique minimal strongly continuous unitary representation of the (full) Weyl commutation relations. A simple proof is given in Theorem 4.2. However we are not aware of a unitary equivalence class classification for such pairs of semigroups and we obtain partial results here. We show that the classes which are strongly irreducible, in the sense that their unique minimal unitary dilations are irreducible, are parametrised by the closed unit disc with a boundary point removed. Recall also, that an invariant subspace lattice L of an operator algebra is a commutative subspace lattice (CSL) if its associated projections form a commuting family. Arveson [1] has defined such a lattice to be synthetic if AlgL coincides with a certain minimal ∗ weak -closed algebra Amin constructed directly from pseudo-integral operators associated with L. Less technical is the equivalent property that AlgL is the unique weak∗-closed algebra A such that LatA = L and A contains a maximal abelian self-adjoint algebra associated with L. It was shown moreover that this notion of synthesis is related to sets of spectral synthesis in harmonic analysis, and that CSLs failing to be synthetic could be constructed in terms of sets failing spectral synthesis. See also Davidson [3] and Shulman 2 and Turowska [21]. On the other hand the continuous projection nest Nv, for L (R), and indeed any complete projection nest is synthetic. In Section 3 we introduce an analogous notion of synthesis for a noncommutative reflexive subspace lattice L, namely synthesis relative to a maximal abelian subalgebra of AlgL, and we show that LatAp is not synthetic relative to the maximal abelian subalgebra MH∞(R) of Ap. In the final two sections we examine, respectively, the weakly closed operator algebras determined by the restrictions of Ap to an invariant subspace, and the quasicompact algebra of Ap, which is the algebra

QA =(A + K) (A∗ + K). p p ∩ p A A∗ K C K This is shown to be a C*-algebra which strictly contains ( p p)+ = I + . Understanding the algebraic and geometric structure of the∩ parabolic algebra presents some interesting challenges and in Section 6.1 we indicate 4 natural open problems.

2. The parabolic algebra We start by recalling basic facts and notation concerning the parabolic algebra, its subspace of Hilbert-Schmidt operators and its invariant subspaces. 2 The Volterra nest Nv is the nest of subspaces L ([λ, + )), for λ R, together with the trivial subspaces 0 , L2(R). The analytic nest N is the∞ unitarily∈ equivalent nest F ∗N , { } a v THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 3 where F is Fourier-Plancherel transform with 1 F f(x)= f(t)e−itxdt. √2π R Z By the Paley-Wiener theorem the analytic nest consists of the chain of subspaces eisxH2(R), s R, ∈ together with the trivial subspaces. These nests determine the Volterra nest algebra Av = AlgNv and the analytic nest algebra Aa = AlgNa, both of which are reflexive operator algebras since they have the form Alg(S), with S a set of subspaces. Define also the reflexive Fourier binest algebra A = Alg(N N ) = A A . The F B a ∪ v a ∩ v subspace lattice Na Nv, which is a continuous complete lattice with noncommuting subspace projections,∪ is known as the Fourier binest, A A∗ C A ∗ The antisymmetry property F B F B = I follows readily, since v Av is the ∩ ∞ ∩ algebra of multiplication operators Mφ with φ L (R) real-valued, and these operators 2 ∈ must leave H (R) invariant. Also AF B contains no non-zero finite rank operators. This follows from the structure of such operators in a nest algebra (see Davidson [3]) and the fact that a pair of proper subspaces from Na and Nv have trivial intersection. Consider now the parabolic algebra Ap. This is the weak operator topology closed operator algebra generated by the unitary semigroups of operators M ,λ 0 and { λ ≥ } Dµ, µ 0 . Since the generators of Ap leave the binest invariant, we have Ap AF B. {That these≥ } two algebras are equal was shown in Katavolos and Power [10]. We show⊆ this here by repeating the argument of Levene [12]. 2 Write C2 for the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators on L (R) and recall that every such operator has the form Intk for some square-summable function k(x, y) in L2(R2) where Intk denotes the Hilbert-Schmidt operator acting on L2(R) given by

(Intk f)(x)= k(x, y)f(y)dy. R Z The following identiﬁcation of the Hilbert-Schmidt operators in the Fourier binest algebra is a straightforward argument using the Fourier-Plancherel transform. The space H2(R) 2 ⊗ L (R+) is the Hilbert space tensor product. Proposition 2.1. For k L2(R2) let Θ (k)(x, t)= k(x, x t). Then ∈ p − A C Intk Θ (k) H2(R) L2(R ) F B ∩ 2 ⊆{ | p ∈ ⊗ + } ∞ 2 1 2 Now, given h H (R) H (R),φ L L (R+), let h φ denote the function (x, y) h(x)φ(y). The integral∈ operator∩ Intk∈, that∩ is induced by⊗ the function k = Θ−1(h φ7→), p ⊗ lies in the parabolic algebra. Indeed, we have Intk = Mh∆φ, where ∆φ is the bounded operator deﬁned by the sesquilinear form

2 ∆φf,g = φ(t)Dtf(x)g(x)dxdt, where f,g L (R). h i R R ∈ Z Z 2 2 Since the linear span of these separated variable functions k is dense in H (R) L (R+), it follows from Proposition 2.1 that ⊗ A C Intk Θ (k) H2(R) L2(R ) A C A C F B ∩ 2 ⊆{ | p ∈ ⊗ + } ⊆ p ∩ 2 ⊆ F B ∩ 2 and so A C = A C . F B ∩ 2 F B ∩ 2 4 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

Theorem 2.2. The parabolic algebra coincides with the Fourier binest algebra and is a reﬂexive operator algebra.

Proof. By considering an appropriate sequence of operators of the form Mh∆φ it can be shown that Ap has a bounded approximate identity of Hilbert-Schmidt operators for the strong operator topology. Since Ap and AF B have the same Hilbert-Schmidt operators a simple density argument completes the proof.

Let us now consider the invariant subspace lattice LatAp. In [10] a cocycle argument with inner functions and unimodular functions on the line is used to obtain the following identiﬁcation:

LatA = K λ R,s 0 N p { λ,s| ∈ ≥ } ∪ v 2 R −isx2/2 where Kλ,s = MλMφs H ( ) and φs(x) = e . (A similar argument is used in the Section 3.) Thus for s> 0 we have the nest N = M N , and for distinct values of s 0 s φs a ≥ these are disjoint, except for the trivial subspaces. If we view LatAp as a set of projections endowed with the strong operator topology, then it is homeomorphic to the closed unit disc and the topological boundary is the Fourier binest.

L2(R)

Na Ns Nv

H2(R) M H2(R) s + L2(R ) φs → ∞ +

2 R 2 R 2 R MλH ( ) Mφs MλH ( ) DµL ( +)

0 { }

Figure 1. Parametrising LatAp by the unit disc.

It follows in particular that the Fourier binest lattice is not reﬂexive. That is, the lattice LatAlg(Na Nb) strictly contains Na Nb. We note∪ that similar results have been∪ obtained by Kastis [7] for the strong operator topology closed operator algebras on Lq(R) generated by the corresponding shift isometries and multiplication isometries of Lq(R), for 1

2.1. The operator algebras of (λ,µ)-cones. We next consider the operator algebra 2 analogues of Ap associated with cones in R in place of the first quadrant cone of the parameters λ,µ. Let S be a cone in R2, that is, an additive semigroup containing 0 with the additional ∗ property that r(λ,µ) S, for all r > 0 and (λ,µ) S. Define AS to be the w -closed ∈ ∈ linear span of the unitaries UλVµ, for (λ,µ) S. This is an operator algebra and is equal A S R2 ∈ S to p if = +. We now show that for any simple cone , that is, one determined by an acute or obtuse angle, we have a unitary equivalence between AS and Ap. The following parametrisation will be convenient. With s ,s R let S be the additive cone for 1 2 ∈ s1,s2 A AS distinct rays, (x, s1x), x 0, and (x, s2x), x 0, and let s1,s2 = s1,s2 . Also we write ≥ ∗ ≥ AdZ for the map X ZXZ determined by a unitary operator Z and an associated domain of operators. → 2 Theorem 2.3. Let S be a simple cone in R . Then AS is unitarily equivalent to the parabolic algebra. S S Proof. Since AdF Dµ = M−µ, without loss of generality we consider cones 0,s and s1,s2 , with s,s1 > 0. In particular, it suffices to prove that the corresponding algebras As and A s1,s2 (see Figure 2) are unitarily equivalent to the parabolic algebra.

D D D µ A µ A µ p s1,s2 Ds1

Ds2 Ds As

M1 M−1 M1 Mλ Mλ Mλ

Figure 2. From the left to the right : The parabolic algebra Ap, the algebra A A s and the algebra s1,s2 Let s R. Given µ R and f L2(R), compute ∈ ∈ ∈ −is(x−µ)2/2 (DµMφs f)(x)=(Mφs f)(x µ)= e f(x µ) 2 −2 − 2 = e−isµ /2e−isx /2eisµxf(x µ)= e−isµ /2(M M D f)(x), − φs sµ µ which implies −isµ2/2 (2.1) AdMφs (MsµDµ)= e Dµ.

Also, applying AdF , we get −isµ2/2 AdDφs (DsµM−µ)= e M−µ or equivalently 2 ∗ −isµ /2 (2.2) AdDφ (DµMsµ)= e Msµ. s−1

Thus, As is unitarily equivalent to the parabolic algebra, since, by equation (2.1), the A A map AdMφs sends s onto p. In the general case, let s1 > s2. Then, applying the ∗ A formula (2.2), the restriction of the map AdZ, with Z = Dφ −1 , to the domain s1,s2 , is an s A 2 isomorphism onto s1−s2 , and so the theorem follows. 6 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

3. Synthetic lattices and LatAp. Let L be a reflexive subspace lattice in the usual sense of Halmos, so that L = LatAlgL, and let B be a maximal abelian subalgebra of AlgL. Then we define L to be synthetic relative to B if AlgL is the unique weak∗-closed operator algebra A with LatA = L and B A. As⊆ we have remarked in the introduction, in the case of a commutative subspace lattice L being synthetic relative to a maximal abelian self-adjoint subalgebra of AlgL is equivalent to Arveson’s more technical definition of a synthetic CSL lattice. In this formulation AlgL must coincide with a certain minimal algebra determined by so-called pseudo-integral operators constructed with the help of a coordinatisation of L. These generating operators play a role analogous to the Hilbert-Schmidt operators in a nest algebra. The parabolic algebra is known to be the weak∗-closure of its Hilbert-Schmidt integral operators [10]. Despite this regularity property we now show that its invariant subspace lattice fails to be synthetic relative to the maximal abelian algebra of analytic multiplication operators.

Theorem 3.1. The subspace lattice LatAp is not synthetic relative to MH∞(R).

Proof. Let A0 be the subalgebra of Ap generated by the operators Mλ, for λ 0, and the products M D where λ 2 (and µ 0) or µ 2 (and λ 0), and let A ≥be the weak λ µ ≥ ≥ ≥ ≥ operator topology closure of A0. In the ﬁrst part of the proof we show that LatA = LatAp by means of the inner function cocyle argument similar to that used for the determination of LatA in [10]. In the second part of the proof we show that A = A . p 6 p Let K LatA. Since MλK K for all λ 0, it follows from Beurling’s theorem that K = uH2∈(R), for some unimodular⊆ function ≥u, or K = L2(E), where E is a Borel set in 2 R. If K = L (E) then, since it is an invariant subspace for DµMλ, for µ 0,λ 2, it follows that E = [t, ), for some t R. ≥ ≥ ∞ 2 ∈ Suppose now that K = uH (R). Fix λ > 2. Then MλDµ is in A0, for all λ 0, ′ ≥ and MλDµK K. Also MλDµK is invariant under Mλ′ , for all λ 0, and so, by ⊆ 2 ≥ Beurling’s theorem, DµMλK = ωµuH (R), for some unimodular function ωµ. Note that

ωµ2 divides ωµ1 for all 0 < µ2 < µ1. Moreover, calculating directly we have DµMλK = u(x µ)eiλxH2(R). Hence we obtain u(x µ)eiλx = c ω u(x), for some unimodular − − µ µ constant. Redeﬁning ωµ we may assume that cµ = 1. Thus

u(x µ) ω = − eiλx. µ u(x)

Therefore, we get the cocycle equation

u(x µ µ ) u(x µ ) ω = − 1 − 2 − 1 eiλx = ω (x µ )ω (x)e−iλ(x−µ1). µ1+µ2 u(x µ ) u(x) µ2 − 1 µ2 − 1 Thus ω (x r) divides ω for all 0

Hence ωµ2 can be writen in the form

iβz sz +1 1 ωµ2 (z)= α e exp i 2 dµ(s) , Im z > 0, R s z s +1 Z − for some unimodular α, some real β and some singular measure µ. Let ωµ1 be associated with the triple α′, β′ and ν. Again, ω (x r) divides ω , which yields that all the µ2 − µ1 translates of µ by r, with 0

iβ(µ2)x ωµ2 (x)= αµ2 e , where α is unimodular and β is strictly increasing. By the cocycle equation, we have

iβ(µ1+µ2)x iβ(µ2)(x−µ1) iβ(µ2)x −iλ(x−µ1) α(µ1 + µ2)e = α(µ2)e α(µ2)e e ,

−iβ(µ2)µ1 iλµ1 which implies that α(µ1 +µ2)= α(µ1)α(µ2)e e and β(µ1 +µ2)= β(µ1)+β(µ2) 2 iσµ2 −iρµ /2 − λ. Thus β(µ2)= ρµ2 + λ, for some ρ> 0. Therefore, α(µ2)= e e 2 . Hence

2 u(x µ2) ω = eiσµ2 e−iρµ2/2ei(ρµ2+λ)x = − eiλx. µ2 u(x)

Therefore, ﬁxing x = x0 we have

2 u(x µ )= u(x )ei(−ρµ2/2+σµ2+ρµ2x0). 0 − 2 0 Thus 2 u(y)= cei(−ρy /2+σµ2) and the ﬁrst part of the proof is complete. Note that A is also the closure of the subalgebra MH∞(R) + M2Ap + D2Ap and this is contained in Av, the Volterra nest algebra of operators with “lower triangular support”. The following rough argument based on support sets shows that A = Ap and provides insight for the more explicit separation argument below, showing tha6 t D / A . The 1 ∈ p support of Dµ, with 0 <µ< 2, is a line parallel to the main diagonal. This main diagonal is the support set for MH∞(R) and the support set for D2Ap is empty ”above” the support for D2. It follows from this that if Dµ is in A then it must be in the weak operator topology closure of M2Ap. Since M2Ap is closed in this topology it follows that Dµ M2Ap. However, this cannot be true for all such µ since this implies that I M2Ap, a contradiction.∈ ∈ 2 Let fn,gn L [0, 2], with fn 2 = gn 2 = 1, let (αn) be a summable sequence, and deﬁne the associated∈ w∗-continuousk k functionalk k ω on B(L2(R)) with

−1 −1 ω(T )= αn T Mφ1 F fn, Mφ1 F gn . N h i Xn∈ A Consider now a ﬁnite sum m cmMλm Dµm in 0, with λm + µm 2 for every m, and h H∞(R). We have ≥ ∈ P ω(M + c M D + D )= α (M + c M D + D )M F −1f , M F −1g h m λm µm 1 nh h m λm µm 1 φ1 n φ1 ni m n∈N m X X X 8 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

2 xxxxxx = α M F −1(D + c e−m /2D D M + ei/2D M )f , M F −1g nh φ1 h m λm µm −µm 1 −1 n φ1 ni n∈N m X X 2 = α M F −1(D + c e−m /2D M + ei/2D M )f , M F −1g nh φ1 h m λm+µm −µm 1 −1 n φ1 ni N m Xn∈ X −i/2 = αn (Dh + e D1M−1)fn,gn , N h i Xn∈ 2 The last equality follows from the fact that for all f,g L [0, 2] we have Dλf,g = 0, when λ 2. ∈ h i We may≥ write the previous equality as −i/2 ω(Mh + cmMλm Dµn + D1)= ω[0,2](Dh + e D1M−1) m X∗ 2 where ω[0,2] denotes the w -continuous functional on B(L [0, 2]) determined by the se- ∗ 2 quences (fn) and (gn), and we note that every w -continuous functional on B(L [0, 2]) is of this form. ∗ Now the operator D1M−1 does not lie in the w -closure of the compression of Dh : h H∞(R) to L2[0, 2]. Indeed, the latter algebra is commutative while the compression{ ∈ } of D1M−1 does not commute with the compression of D1/2. Thus, by the topological ∗ 2 Hahn-Banach theorem, there exists a w -continuous functional ω[0,2] on B(L [0, 2]), such −i/2 ∞ that ω[0,2](e D1M−1) = 1, while ω[0,2](Dh) = 0 for every h H (R). However, from the calculations| above,| this implies that there exists a w∗-continuous∈ functional ω on 2 R A B(L ( )), such that ω(Mh + m amMλm Dµn ) = 0 and ω(D1) = 1. Thus D1 / and the proof is complete. | | ∈ P Remark 3.2. While synthesis relative to a maximal abelian algebra generalises the CSL notion of synthetic we note that for a noncommutative lattice L there may be no coun- terpart to the notion of a minimal weak∗-closed subalgebra. To see this consider the subalgebras At = MH∞(R) + MtAp + DtAp, for t > 0, which form a decreasing chain of ∗ weak -closed subalgebras with intersection equal to MH∞(R). The proof above shows that LatAt = LatAp, for all t, and yet LatMH∞(R) = LatAp. We remark that the stronger synthesis property6 for a reflexive lattice L, which requires that A = AlgL for every weak∗-closed unital subalgebra A with LatA = AlgL is a distinctly stronger notion. Indeed, the discrete nest and the Volterra nest fail to have this uniqueness property since these lattices can be attained by a single operator, and hence by an abelian weak∗-closed unital subalgebra. See [3], [17] for such unicellular operators. On the other hand we remark that H∞(R), as an operator algebra on L2(R), or even as the Toeplitz operator algebra on H2(R), does have this property by virtue of being hereditarily reflexive. This in turn is a consequence of the fact that dual space functionals are implementable by rank one operators. See, for example, Davidson [2] and Hadwin [6]. 4. Isometric Representations of the WCR Let us define an isometric representation of the Weyl commutation relations to be a pair of strongly continuous semigroups of isometries Uλ,Vµ,λ,µ 0, acting on a separable Hilbert space K, with ≥ U V = eiλµV U , λ,µ 0. λ µ µ λ ≥ THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 9

An isometric representation is irreducible if there is no proper reducing closed subspace for the representation, and we say that it is strongly irreducible if it has a minimal unitary dilation on a separable Hilbert space which is irreducible. Let ρλ,s be the isometric representation arising from the restriction of the multiplication operators Mλ and translation operators Dµ, for λ,µ 0, to the closed subspace Kλ,s, for ≥ 2 λ R,s> 0. Also, for λ R, let ρλ be given by restriction to MλH (R), and for µ R ∈ µ ∈ 2 ∈ let ρ be given by restriction to DµL (R+). Finally, let ρid be the identity representation. Recall that a semigroup of isometries is said to be pure if the intersection of the ranges of the isometries is the zero subspace. We say that the isometric representation ρ is of type uu, up, pu, or pp if the semigroups of isometries Uλ , Vµ are, respectively, (i) unitary semigroups, (ii) a unitary semigroup and a pure semigroup,{ } { } (iii) a pure semigroup and unitary semigroup, and (iv) pure semigroups. In particular ρ is of type pp if the intersection of the spaces U K for λ 0 is the zero subspace, and the intersection of the λ ≥ spaces VµK for µ 0 is the zero subspace. The Stone-von≥ Neumann uniqueness theorem for unitary groups satisfying the Weyl commutation relations ensures that the strongly irreducible isometric representations ρ of type uu are unitarily equivalent to ρid. More generally we obtain the following classiﬁca- tion. Theorem 4.1. Let ρ be an isometric representation of the Weyl commutation relations which is strongly irreducible and which is not of type uu. Then ρ satisﬁes one of the following 3 equivalences.

(i) ρ is of type pu and is unitarily equivalent to ρλ for some λ R, (ii) ρ is of type up and is unitarily equivalent to ρµ for some µ∈ R, (iii) ρ is of type pp and is unitarily equivalent to ρ for some λ∈ R,s> 0. λ,s ∈ Moreover, any pair of representations of the same type are not unitarily equivalent. The proof has 3 ingredients, namely, the unitary dilation of isometric representations of the Weyl commutation relations, the Stone-von Neumann theorem, and the nature of the closed invariant subspaces for the model representation ρid. The following dilation theorem, for the ﬁrst step here, is perhaps well-known. The proof we give is a simple variation of the proof of the dilation of commuting isometries given in Paulsen [15].

Theorem 4.2. Let Sλ : λ 0 , Tµ : µ 0 be an isometric representation of the Weyl commutation relations{ on≥ the} Hilbert{ space≥ }H. Then there is a Hilbert space K and unitary representations U : λ R , V : µ R , acting on K, with PHU = S and { λ ∈ } { µ ∈ } λ H λ PHV = T , for λ,µ 0. µ H µ ≥ K Proof. By Naimark’s theorem ([15] Theorems 4.8 and 5.4), there is a Hilbert space 1 containing H and a strong operator topology continuous (SOT-continuous) unitary group S˜ : λ R such that PHS˜ = S for every λ 0. We may assume that this is a { λ ∈ } λ H λ ≥ minimal dilation of S : λ 0 , that is, the linear span of S˜ h : λ R, h H is dense { λ ≥ } { λ ∈ ∈ } in K1. Fix some µ 0 and deﬁne : ≥ N N ˜ ˜ iλnµ ˜ Tµ Sλn hn = e Sλn Tµhn. n=1 ! n=1 X X 10 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

N ˜ ˜ We claim that Tµ is well-deﬁned and isometric. To see this note that given h = Sλn hn n=1 we have P N N T˜ h 2 = T˜ S˜ h , T˜ S˜ h k µ k µ λn n µ λm m * n=1 ! m=1 !+ X X N N iλnµ ˜ iλmµ ˜ = e Sλn Tµhn, e Sλm Tµhm *n=1 m=1 + X X iλnµ ˜ iλmµ ˜ iλnµ ˜ iλmµ ˜ = e Sλn Tµhn, e Sλm Tµhm + e Sλn Tµhn, e Sλm Tµhm λnX≥λm D E λmX>λn D E i(λn−λm)µ ˜ i(λm−λn)µ ˜ = e Sλn−λm Tµhn, Tµhm + Tµhn, e Sλm−λn)Tµhm λnX≥λm D E λmX>λn D E i(λn−λm)µ i(λm−λn)µ = e Sλn−λmTµhn, Tµhm + Tµhn, e Sλm−λn Tµhm

λn≥λm λm>λn X X = T S h , T h + T h , T S h h µ λn−λm n µ mi h µ n µ λm−λn mi λnX≥λm λmX>λn = S h , h + h ,S h h λn−λm n mi h n λm−λn mi λnX≥λm λmX>λn = S h , h + h ,S h h λn−λm n mi h n λm−λn mi λnX≥λm λmX>λn N N = S˜ h , S˜ h = h 2. λn n λm m k k *n=1 m=1 + X X Also, it follows that T˜ : µ 0 is a SOT-continuous semigroup of isometries and that { µ ≥ } the unitary operators S˜λ and the isometries T˜µ satisfy the WCR for all real λ and for µ 0. ≥ Now consider the minimal unitary dilation Vµ of the semigroup of isometries T˜µ on a Hilbert space K containing K , so that PK V = T˜ for µ 0. We have K = 1 1 µ K1 µ k·k ≥ span Vµk : µ R,k K1 and we may deﬁne the unitary group Uλ : λ R by { ∈ ∈ } { ∈ } N N iλµn ˜ Uλ Vµn hn = e Tµn Sλhn. n=1 ! n=1 X X That the operators Uλ are unitary follows from the argument above and it follows that U and V give the required unitary dilation { λ} { µ} Proof of Theorem 4.1. By the previous theorem and the Stone von Neumann theorem every strongly irreducible isometric representation ρ is unitarily equivalent to a representation ρH obtained from the restriction of M : λ 0 and D : µ 0 to an invariant { λ ≥ } { µ ≥ } subspace H. In particular H is a nonzero subspace in LatAp and by the description of 2 2 this lattice in Section 2 the subspace H takes one of the 4 types, (i) L (R), (ii) MλH (R), (iii) D L2(R ), (iv) K , for some λ R and s> 0. µ + λ,s ∈ THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 11

Let ρH1 , ρH2 be any two such representations which are unitarily equivalent. Then there ∗ is a unitary Z : H H such that Z ρH Z = ρH . In particular 1 → 2 ◦ 1 ◦ 2 ZM H = M H Z, for λ 0. λ| 1 λ| 2 ≥ By the intertwining form of the lifting theorem for the commutant of a continuous semi- ˜ ˜ group of isometries it follows that Z = PH1 Z H2 where Z is an operator in the commutant of M : λ 0 . (The single isometry variant| of this, from which this semigroup lifting { λ ≥ } theorem may be deduced, is due to Sarason [20].) Thus Z = Mh for some unimodular function h(z). It now follows that M D H = D M H , for µ 0, h µ| 1 µ h| 1 ≥ from which it follows that Dµh = h for all µ. Thus h is a constant function and H1 is equal to H2. Remark 4.3. We note that the assumption of strong irreducibility is necessary in Theorem 4.1. Let H be the subspace of L2(R2) given by H = f L2(R2): f(x, y)=0, for a.e. (x, y) R2 { ∈ ∈ −} and consider the strongly continuous isometric semigroups with U = M D and V = λ λ ⊗ λ µ Dµ I. This gives an isometric representation of the partial Weyl commutation relations which⊗ is irreducible. However, their joint minimal unitary dilation is given by the pair of 2 2 semigroups Mλ Dλ and Dµ I, acting on L (R ). This representation is not irreducible, since the space L⊗2(R) H2(R⊗) reduces both unitary groups, and in fact is a representation with inﬁnite multiplicity.⊗

5. Restriction algebras

Let us refer to an operator algebra of the form A K, with K in LatA, as a restriction ∗ −|w∗ algebra for A, and refer to the weak -closure, (A K) , asa closed restriction algebra. In Theorem 4.1 we showed that the strongly isometric| representations of the partial Weyl commutation relations were in bijective correspondence with the restriction representations, ρK say, for nonzero subspaces K in LatAp. We now show that nevertheless, the closed restriction algebras of Ap, for K a proper subspace, are all unitarily equivalent, and in fact are unitary equivalent to the Volterra nest algebra for the half-line. We ﬁrst note the following elementary unitary equivalences.

Lemma 5.1. Let K1,K2 be proper closed subspaces which belong to one of the the following three subsets of LatA : (i) N , (ii) N , (iii) the subspaces K , for λ R,s > 0. Then p v a λ,s ∈ the restriction algebras for K1 and K2 are unitarily equivalent. Proof. It is straightforward to check that the restriction algebras of (i) (resp. (ii)) are unitarily equivalent to the restriction algebra A 2 R (resp. A 2 R ) by means of a p|L ( +) p|H ( ) unitary of the form Dµ (resp. Mλ). For the algebras in (iii) we ﬁrst introduce the dilation unitaries V , t 0, deﬁned by (V f)(x) = et/2f(etx). (This abuses earlier notation for t ≥ t WCR isometries but is consistent with the Mλ,Dµ,Vt notation of [9], [10], [11].) We have the commutation relations

VtMλ = Mλet Vt, VtDµ = Dµe−tVt. 12 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

2 R In particular the unitary automorphism AdVt of B(L ( )) restricts to a unitary automorphism of A . Also, for s ,s > 0 and t = 1 log s1 , we have V M H2(R)= M H2(R). It p 1 2 2 s2 t φs2 φs1 follows routinely from this that the algebras of (iii) are unitarily equivalent to the algebra A 2 R by means of unitaries of the form M D V . p|φ1H ( ) λ µ t The next lemma is well-known and is a consequence of the weak∗-density of the algebra ∞ of analytic trigonometric polynomials in the L (R+). For completeness we give a proof which is also a prelude to the separation argument for the proof of Lemma 5.5. 2 Lemma 5.2. Let P+ be the orthogonal projection on L (R+). Then the operator algebra ∗ P M ∞ 2 R is w -dense in the maximal abelian von Neumann algebra M ∞ R . + H |L ( +) L ( +) ∞ ∞ Proof. If P+MH P+ is not dense in ML (R+), then there exists an essentially bounded function φ supported on R and a w∗-continuous functional ω : B(L2(R)) C, such that + → ω(P+Mf P+) = 0, for every bounded analytic function f, and ω(Mφ) = 1. On the other ∗ hand, the restriction of ω to the multiplication algebra ML∞(R) induces a w -continuous functional on L∞(R), which we also denote by ω. Hence there exist h L1(R), such that ∈ ω(f)= f(x)h(x)dx. R Z Take f(x)= eiλx. Then

iλx ω(P+Mf P+)=0 e χR+ (x)h(x)dx =0. ⇔ R Z Since this is true for all λ 0 it follows that χ h lies in H1(R) and so is equal to the ≥ R+ zero function. Therefore the essential support of the function h is contained in R−. Hence, given any function φ L∞(R ) ∈ +

ω(Mφ)= φ(x)h(x)dx =0, R Z which is the desired contradiction. 2 The Volterra nest algebra Av+ on L (R+) is deﬁned as the algebra of operators on this space which leaves invariant each of the subspaces L2[t, ), for t 0. ∞ ≥ ∗ Lemma 5.3. The restriction algebra A 2 R is w -dense in A . p|L ( +) v+ Proof. By the previous lemma the weak∗-closure of the restriction algebra contains the operators Mλ,Dµ : λ R,µ 0 . It is well-known that these unitaries generate Av+ as a the weak{ ∗-closed operator∈ ≥ algebra.} Also, this can be deduced from the w*-density in B(L2(R)) of the linear span of the products M D , for λ,µ R. λ µ ∈ ∗ Proposition 5.4. The restriction algebra A 2 R is w -dense in the nest algebra AlgN p|H ( +) a+ on H2(R) for the nest N = eiλxH2(R): λ 0 0 , a+ { ≥ }∪{ } and is unitarily equivalent to Av+. 2 2 Proof. Let F : H (R) L (R+) be the restriction of the Fourier-Plancherel transform. Then, → ∗ ∗ ∗ F A F P = F AP 2 R F P : A A = F AF P : A A . p H2(R) + { H ( ) + ∈ p} { + ∈ p}

THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 13

∗ ∗ Also, F MλF = Dλ and FDµF = M−µ. As in the proof of Lemma 5.2 the algebra ∞ generated by the semigroup M−λP+ : λ 0 is dense in ML (R+). Therefore it follows ∗ ∗{ ≥ } that F A F 2 R is w -dense in A . Thus p H2(R) |L ( +) v+ ∗ A −w ∗ A N ( p H2(R)) = F ( v+)F H2(R) = Alg a H2(R), as required.

2 We now ﬁx s > 0 and consider the case K = Ks = φsH (R). Recall from the proof of ∗ −isµ2/2 ∗ Theorem 2.3 that Mφ MsµDµM = e Dµ. Applying Ad(M ) to Ap we have the s φs φs Ks following identiﬁcation of operator algebras on H2(R):

∗ ∗ M Ap Mφ = M APK Mφ : A Ap φs Ks s { φs s s ∈ } ∗ 2 R A = Mφs AMφs PH ( ) : A p { ∈ } = AP 2 R : A A { H ( ) ∈ sp} ∗ where Asp is the weak -closed algebra generated by Mλ, MsµDµ : λ,µ 0 . Applying the Fourier transform we obtain that the{ algebra ≥ } AF ∗A 2 := F F 2 sp L (R+) sp H (R) is generated as a weak∗-closed algebra by the set of isometries

Dλ 2 ,DsµM−µ 2 : λ,µ 0 . { L (R+) L (R+) ≥ } AF A Lemma 5.5. The algebra 2 is dense in the Volterra nest algebra . sp L (R+) v+ ∗ Proof. Fix some s,µ > 0. Let ω be a w -continuous functional ω : B(L2(R)) R : T T h ,g → 7→ h k ki Xk for some h ,g L2(R). Suppose that it annihilates P AF P , and therefore the operators k k ∈ + sp + P D M P for all λ [0,µ]. Then for these parameters we have + sµ −λ + ∈ ω(P+DsµM−λP+)=0. Deﬁne the bounded linear functional ω : B(L2(R)) R : T ω(P D TP ). µ → 7→ + sµ + ∗ Identify the restriction of ωµ on the multiplication algebra ML∞(R) with the w -continuous 1 R functional ωµ(f) = R f(x)hµ(x)dx, where hµ is an L ( ) function. Then it follows from the deﬁnition of ωµ that hµ is zero on R−. Thus R −iλx 0= ω(DsµM−λP+)= ωµ(M−λ)= e hµ(x)dx. R Z −iλx ˆ Since R e hµ(x)dx = 0, it follows that hµ vanishes on the interval (0,µ). On the other hand, hˆ H∞(R) C (R) and so h = 0. Thus for f L∞(R ) we have R µ ∈ ∪ 0 µ ∈ + ω(Mf ) = lim ω(P+DsµMf P+) = lim ωµ(Mf )=0. µ→0 µ→0 14 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

∞ It follows, by the usual separation principle, that the multiplication algebra for L (R+) must lie in the w∗-closure. Since the right shift operators also lie in the algebra it follows by standard arguments that Av+ is contained in the closure, completing the proof. Combining the results of this section, we have the following, Theorem 5.6. Let K be a proper invariant subspace of the parabolic algebra. Then ∗ (A )−w is unitarily equivalent to the Volterra nest algebra A . p|K v+ 6. Quasicompact algebras Let A be a weak∗-closed operator algebra on the Hilbert space H and K = K(H) the ideal of the compact operators. Define the quasicompact algebra of A to be the C*-algebra QA where QA =(A + K) (A∗ + K) . ∩ Analogous algebras have been studied systematically in the theory of function spaces, the principal example being the nonseparable algebra of quasicontinuous functions, QC(T)=(H∞(T)+ C(T)) H∞(T)+ C(T) , ∩ where C(T) is the algebra of continuous functions on the unit circle (see [5]). Determining the structure of QA and whether it differs from A A∗ + K seems to be a rather deep ∩ problem in general. However for A = Av the following is well-known. Theorem 6.1. The quasicompact algebra QA is not equal to A A∗ + K. v v ∩ v The proof of this theorem has two main ingredients. The first of these is that the triangular truncation operator with respect to the Volterra nest, P : C (L2(R)) A C (L2(R)). v 2 → v ∩ 2 2 is a contractive projection in the space C2(L (R)) of Hilbert-Schmidt operators which is an unbounded operator with respect to the operator norm (see [3]). The second ingredient is to use this fact to create unit norm finite rank operators Ak in Av, with orthogonal domains ∗ and ranges and with operator norms Ak Ak tending to zero. Then the infinite sum k − ∗ k A of the Ak is a compact perturbation of A which, furthermore, does not belong to ML∞(R) + K. In the proof of Theorem 6.3 we adopt a similar strategy. However, in Ap there are no finite rank operators and we must make use of compact operators for the Ak. Also the orthogonality of domains and ranges must be replaced by an approximate form of this. P Lemma 6.2. The restriction of the triangular truncation operator v A A∗ is unbounded. p+ p T Proof. Let pn be a real coefficient polynomial on with supremum norm 1, such that the polynomials f (z)= p (z) p (z) satisfy the property f 0. For example, take n n − n k nk∞ → n 1 p (z)= c zk. n n k Xk=1 for appropriate constants cn. Let Z be a unitary operator in Ap with full spectrum, such as M1. Take (Fn) to be a bounded approximate identity of Hilbert-Schmidt operators THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 15

A ∗ in the unit ball of p. Then Fn is also a bounded approximate identity on the space of A∗ Hilbert-Schmidt operators in p. By the functional calculus pn(Z) = pn = 1 and there exists a sequence (ξn) in the 2 k k k k unit sphere of L (R), such that pn(Z)ξn > 2/3, for every n N. Fix n N. Then p (ZF )ξ p (Z)ξ as m k . Choosek inductively a subsequence∈ (F ∈), denoted n m n → n n → ∞ mn (Fn), such that p (ZF )ξ > 1/2. k n n nk ∗ Since pn(ZFn) belongs to Ap, we have K,pn(ZFn) H−S = 0, for every Hilbert-Schmidt operator K A and n N. Thus h i ∈ v ∈ P (p (ZF ) p (ZF )∗) = P (p (ZF )) P (p (ZF )∗) = k v n n − n n k k v n n − v n n k = p (ZF ) p (ZF )ξ > 1/2. k n n k≥k n n nk On the other hand, since ZFn is a contraction for every n N, von Neumann’s inequality yields ∈ p(ZF )+ q(ZF )∗ p + q k n n k≤k k for all polynomials p, q in the disc algebra. Taking p = p and q = p , it follows n − n p (ZF ) p (ZF )∗ p p 0, k n n − n n k≤k n − nk→ which completes the proof.

Theorem 6.3. The quasicompact algebra QAp is strictly larger than the algebra A A∗ + K = CI + K. p ∩ p Proof. Recall the operators p (ZF ) from the proof of Lemma 6.2, where Z A is unitary n n ∈ p with spectrum the unit circle, (Fn) is the bounded approximate identity in Ap of Hilbert- Schmidt operators, and pn(z) are polynomials in C(T), of unit ∞-norm, with real parts converging uniformly to zero. Also we have 1/2 p (ZF ) k·k1. ≤k n n k ≤ Since these operators are compact, there exist compact intervals Kn such that for any f L2(R), ∈ 1 (6.1) p (ZF )f P f + f k n n k≤k Kn k 2n k k and 1 (6.2) PR p (ZF )f f , k \Kn n n k ≤ 2n k k 2 where PKn is the projection on L (Kn). We can also arrange that for all n, 1 (6.3) (p (ZF ) p (ZF )∗) f p (ZF ) p (ZF )∗ P f + f k n n − n n k≤k n n − n n k k Kn k 2n k k and

∗ 1 ∗ (6.4) PR (p (ZF ) p (ZF ) ) f p (ZF ) p (ZF ) f . k \Kn n n − n n k ≤ 2n k n n − n n kk k

We now choose (tn) to be an increasing sequence so that the translates Λn = Kn + tn are disjoint sets, with max Λ < min Λ for all n. We also write Λ = R ∞ Λ . Since n n+1 0 \ ∪n=1 n 16 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

the projection of triangular truncation with respect to the binest commutes with AdDt , it follows that the operators ∗ An = Dtn (pn(ZFn))Dtn lie in Ap. n 2 Claim 1: Given f L (R), the sequence ( Akf)n is convergent. ∈ k=1 To prove this claim, it suﬃces to show thatP the given sequence is a Cauchy sequence. Let C be the compact set N Λ . Then ∪m=n m N 2 N 2 N 2

Akf = Akf + Akf . R k=n Z \C k=n ZC k=n X X X Estimating the integrals we have

2 2 2 N 2 N 2 N N N 1 1 2 R R Akf = P \C Akf P \C Akf k f = k f . R ≤ k k ≤ 2 k k 2 k k Z \C k=n k=n k=n ! k=n ! k=n ! X X X X X Also,

N 2 N N 2 N 2 N N 2

Akf = PΛm Akf 2 PΛm Amf +2 PΛm Akf . R ≤ R R ZC k=n Z m=n k=n Z m=n Z m=n k=n X X X X X kX6=m

The ﬁrst term here gives

N 2 N N 2 1 2 PΛm Amf = PΛm Amf ( PΛm f + m f ) R k k ≤ k k 2 k k Z m=n m=n m=n X X X N 2 1 P f 2 + + f 2 ≤ k Λm k 2m 22m k k m=n X N 2 1 P f 2 + + f 2. ≤k C k 2m 22m k k m=n ! X Note that for every ǫ1 > 0, we can choose n0 big enough so that PAf ǫ1 f , where ∞ k k ≤ k k A = m=n0 Λm. For∪ the second term, it follows by relation (6.2) that N N 2 N N 2 N N 2

PΛm Akf = PΛm Akf = PΛm Akf R Z m=n k=n m=n k=n k=n m=n X kX6=m X kX6=m X mX6=k 2 N 2 N = P A f P A f C\Λk k ≤ k C\Λk k k k=n k=n ! X X N 2 N 2 1 1 2 k f = k f . ≤ 2 k k! 2 ! k k Xk=n Xk=n THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 17

Combining the above estimates we get

2 N 2 N 1 N 2 1 A f 3 +2 + +2ǫ2 f 2. k ≤  2k 2m 22m 1 k k k=n k=n ! m=n X X X   N 2 Hence, there exists n0 N such that Akf ǫ, for all n, N > n0, proving the ﬁrst ∈ k k=n k ≤ claim. n P Claim 2: The sequence Ak n is uniformly bounded. {k=1 } Let f L2(R). Then P ∈ n 2 M n 2

Akf = lim PΛm Akf . M→∞ k=1 m=0 k=1 X X X

Also M n 2 n 2 n M 2 P A f 2 P A f +2 P A f . Λm k ≤ Λk k Λm k m=0 k=1 k=1 k=1 m=0 X X X X mX6=k

Applying now the relation (6.1) we obtain

n 2 n 1 2 P A f P f + f Λk k ≤ k Λk k 2k k k k=1 k=1 X X n n 2 1 = P f 2 + + f 2 4 f 2. k Λk k 2k 22k k k ≤ k k Xk=1 Xk=1 Moreover 2 2 2 n M 2 n M n n 1 P A f P A f PR A f f Λm k ≤  Λm k  ≤ k \Λk k k ≤ 2k k k k=1 m=0 k=1 m=0 k=1 ! k=1 ! X mX6=k X mX6=k X X     n 2 1 2 2 = k f f . 2 ! k k ≤k k Xk=1 n Hence the norms Ak are indeed uniformly bounded, as required. k k=1 k n P 2 R Let M = supn Ak < and deﬁne the linear operator A acting on L ( ) by the k k=1 k ∞ formula P n

Af = lim Akf. n Xk=1 18 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

By the first claim A is well-defined and by the second claim, Af M f , for f L2(R). k k ≤ k kn ∈ Thus A is a bounded operator equal to the SOT-limit of the sequence Ak n, and so {k=1 } A lies in p. Note also that A is not a compact operator since Ak 1/2P for all k. Define now the Hilbert-Schmidt operators k k ≥ X = A A∗ = D (p (ZF ) p (ZF )∗)D∗ n n − n tn n n − n n tn and note that Xn 0. By the calculations above we see that the sequence of the k∞ k → partial sums of Xn is Cauchy with respect to the operator norm and so the norm limit n=1 ∞ P 2 X = Xn is a compact operator on L (R). Since involution is continuous in the weak n=1 ∗ A operatorP topology, we see that A A = X. Thus A lies in the quasicompact algebra Q p and it remains to show that A /−CI + K. Assume that this is not true.∈ Since the algebra CI + K is norm closed we have A = cI + K with c C and K K. Left multiply both sides by the projection P . Since ∈ ∈ Λ0 multiplication is separately SOT-continuous we see that PΛ0 A is the SOT-limit of the n operators PΛ0 Ak n. Moreover we have the estimates {k=1 } P 1 P A , for every k N, k Λ0 kk ≤ 2k ∈ so the above sequence converges uniformly to PΛ0 A. Therefore PΛ0 A is a compact operator, and so cPΛ0 is also compact. However, Λ0 is a union of nonempty intervals and so c = 0. But this implies that A is compact, which gives the desired contradiction.

Remark 6.4. We remark that QAp, like QC and also QAv, is a nonseparable C*-algebra. Indeed one can determine a well-separated uncountable set by considering operators of ∞ the form k=1 bkAk where (bk) is a 0-1 sequence and (Ak) is a suﬃciently approximately orthogonal sequence of unit norm operators in Ap as in the proof above. P Remark 6.5. As we noted in Section 2, the parabolic algebra Ap is equal to the intersection A A . It seems plausible, given the proof above, that the essential parabolic algebra v ∩ a Ap/K is a proper subalgebra of the intersection algebra (Av/K) (Aa/K) however we do not know if this is the case. This is equivalent to determining whether∩ (A +K) (A +K) v ∩ a is strictly larger than Ap + K. 6.1. Further directions. The parabolic algebra sits between the very well-understood ∞ algebra H (R) and the equally well-understood Volterra nest algebra Av. Determining further algebraic and geometric properties of Ap is likely to require methods from both commutative and noncommutative perspectives. In particular, the following 3 problems seem to be rather deep requiring both perspectives.

Question 1. How are the weakly closed ideals of Ap characterised ? The weakly closed ideals of a nest algebra A are determined by left-continuous order homomorphisms from LatA to LatA ([4], [3]). Similar such boundary functions, from LatAp to LatAp, are likely to play a role in resolving this question. THE PARABOLIC ALGEBRA REVISITED 19

Question 2. What is the Jacobson radical of Ap ? In particular is there some kind of analogue of Ringrose’s characterisation ([18], [3]) ?

Question 3. Is there a variant of Arveson’s distance formula for Ap ? Arveson’s distance formula ([3], [16]) for a nest algebra is closely related to distance formulae for H∞(R) so in some ways this is a natural problem for Ap. Also it would lead to the hyperreﬂexivity ∞ 2 of Ap, a property known for both Av and for H (R) as an operator algebra on H (R) (Davidson [2]).

Question 4. Does Ap have zero divisors ? We suspect that this intriguing question is less deep and indeed we believe that there are zero divisors even in the norm-closed algebra, Bp say, that is generated by the 2 semigroups. This algebra is analysable as a norm-closed semi-crossed product [8] and elements admit natural generalised Fourier series. First let us remark that the unclosed algebra has no divisors of zero simply because operators in the algebra have generalised ﬁnite Fourier series of the form

AkMλk R λXk∈ where each Ak is a finite linear combination of the Dµ for µ R. Thus a product of nonzero elements has a nonzero first Fourier coefficient and so is also∈ nonzero. On the other hand is it possible to construct, in some manner, 2 absolutely norm-convergent generalised Fourier series (with no first nonzero coefficient) such that the product is zero ?

References [1] W. B. Arveson, Operator algebras and invariant subspaces, Ann. of Math., 100 (1974), 433-532. [2] K. R. Davidson, The distance to the analytic Toeplitz operators, Illinois J. Math., 31 (1987), 265-273. [3] K. R. Davidson, Nest Algebras, Pitman Research Notes in Math., 191, Longman 1988. [4] J. A. Erdos and S. C. Power, Weakly closed ideals of nest algebras, J. Operator Th., 7 (1982), 219-235. [5] R. G. Douglas, Banach Algebra Techniques in Operator Theory, Springer, New York, (1998). [6] D. Hadwin, A general view of reﬂexivity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 344 (1994), 325-360. [7] E. Kastis, The parabolic algebra on Lp-spaces, J. Math. Anal. and Appl., 455 (2017), 698-713. [8] E. Kastis, The norm-closed triple semigroup algebra, Israel J. Math., 230 (2019), 855-894. [9] E. Kastis and S. C. Power, The operator algebra generated by the translation, dilation and multiplication semigroups, Journal of Funct. Anal. 269 (2015), 3316-3335. [10] A. Katavolos and S. C. Power, The Fourier binest algebra, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 122 (1997), 525–539. [11] A. Katavolos and S. C. Power, Translation and dilation invariant subspaces of L2(R), J. Reine Angew. Math., 552 (2002), 101–129. [12] R. H. Levene, Lie semigroup operator algebras, Ph.D. Thesis, Lancaster University, 2004. [13] R. H. Levene and S. C. Power, Reﬂexivity of the translation-dilation algebras on L2(R), International J. Math., 14 (2003), 1081–1090. [14] J. von Neumann, Die Eindentigkeit der Schrodingerschen Operatoren, Math. Ann. 104 (1931), 570- 578. [15] V. I. Paulsen, Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 78. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (2002). [16] S. C. Power, The distance to upper triangular operators, Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., 88 (1980), 327-329. [17] H. Radjavi and P. Rosenthal, Invariant subspaces, Dover, 2003. [18] J. R. Ringrose, On some algebras of operators. Proc. London Math. Soc., 15 (1965), 61-83. 20 E. KASTIS AND S. C. POWER

[19] J. A. Rosenberg, A selective history of the Stone-von Neumann theorem, Operator algebras, quantiza- tion, and noncommutative geometry, Contemp. Math., 365, p 331-353, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004. [20] D. Sarason, Generalized interpolation in H∞, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 127 (1967), 179-203. [21] V. Shulman and L. Turowska, Operator synthesis. I. Synthetic sets, bilattices and tensor algebras, Journal of Functional Analysis, 209 (2004), 293-331. [22] M. H. Stone, Linear transformations in Hilbert space. III. Operational methods and group theory, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 16 (1930), 172-175. [23] M. E. Taylor, Noncommutative Harmonic Analysis, Math. Surveys and Monographs, vol 22, Amer. Math. Soc., 1986.

Dept. Math. Stats., Lancaster University, Lancaster LA1 4YF, U.K. E-mail address: [email protected] E-mail address: [email protected]