DOCSLIB.ORG

Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras, 1998 59 Paul Howard and Jean E

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras, 1998 59 Paul Howard and Jean E http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/surv/060 Selected Titles in This Series 60 Iain Raeburn and Dana P. Williams, Morita equivalence and continuous-trace C*-algebras, 1998 59 Paul Howard and Jean E. Rubin, Consequences of the axiom of choice, 1998 58 Pavel I. Etingof, Igor B. Frenkel, and Alexander A. Kirillov, Jr., Lectures on representation theory and Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations, 1998 57 Marc Levine, Mixed motives, 1998 56 Leonid I. Korogodski and Yan S. Soibelman, Algebras of functions on quantum groups: Part I, 1998 55 J. Scott Carter and Masahico Saito, Knotted surfaces and their diagrams, 1998 54 Casper Goffman, Togo Nishiura, and Daniel Waterman, Homeomorphisms in analysis, 1997 53 Andreas Kriegl and Peter W. Michor, The convenient setting of global analysis, 1997 52 V. A. Kozlov, V. G. Maz'ya> and J. Rossmann, Elliptic boundary value problems in domains with point singularities, 1997 51 Jan Maly and William P. Ziemer, Fine regularity of solutions of elliptic partial differential equations, 1997 50 Jon Aaronson, An introduction to infinite ergodic theory, 1997 49 R. E. Showalter, Monotone operators in Banach space and nonlinear partial differential equations, 1997 48 Paul-Jean Cahen and Jean-Luc Chabert, Integer-valued polynomials, 1997 47 A. D. Elmendorf, I. Kriz, M. A. Mandell, and J. P. May (with an appendix by M. Cole), Rings, modules, and algebras in stable homotopy theory, 1997 46 Stephen Lipscomb, Symmetric inverse semigroups, 1996 45 George M. Bergman and Adam O. Hausknecht, Cogroups and co-rings in categories of associative rings, 1996 44 J. Amoros, M. Burger, K. Corlette, D. Kotschick, and D. Toledo, Fundamental groups of compact Kahler manifolds, 1996 43 James E. Humphreys, Conjugacy classes in semisimple algebraic groups, 1995 42 Ralph Freese, Jaroslav Jezek, and J. B. Nation, Free lattices, 1995 41 Hal L. Smith, Monotone dynamical systems: an introduction to the theory of competitive and cooperative systems, 1995 40.3 Daniel Gorenstein, Richard Lyons, and Ronald Solomon, The classification of the finite simple groups, number 3, 1998 40.2 Daniel Gorenstein, Richard Lyons, and Ronald Solomon, The classification of the finite simple groups, number 2, 1995 40.1 Daniel Gorenstein, Richard Lyons, and Ronald Solomon, The classification of the finite simple groups, number 1, 1994 39 Sigurdur Helgason, Geometric analysis on symmetric spaces, 1994 38 Guy David and Stephen Semmes, Analysis of and on uniformly rectifiable sets, 1993 37 Leonard Lewin, Editor, Structural properties of polylogarithms, 1991 36 John B. Conway, The theory of subnormal operators, 1991 35 Shreeram S. Abhyankar, Algebraic geometry for scientists and engineers, 1990 34 Victor Isakov, Inverse source problems, 1990 33 Vladimir G. Berkovich, Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields, 1990 32 Howard Jacobowitz, An introduction to CR structures, 1990 31 Paul J. Sally, Jr. and David A. Vogan, Jr., Editors, Representation theory and harmonic analysis on semisimple Lie groups, 1989 30 Thomas W. Cusick and Mary E. Flahive, The Markoff and Lagrange spectra, 1989 (Continued in the back of this publication) Mathematical Surveys and Monographs Volume 60 Morita Equivalence and Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras lain Raeburn Dana P. Williams American Mathematical Society ^DEO Editorial Board Georgia M. Benkart Tudor Stefan Ratiu, Chair Peter Landweber Michael Renardy 1991 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 46L05; Secondary 46L35, 46L40, 43A65. ABSTRACT. We give a modern treatment of the classification of continuous-trace C*-algebras up to Morita equivalence. This includes a detailed discussion of Morita equivalence of C*-algebras, a review of the necessary sheaf cohomology, and an overview of recent developments in the area. The book should be accessible to anyone familiar with the basics of C*-algebras up to the GNS- construction. The authors were supported by grants from the Australian Research Council, the Uni­ versity of Newcastle, and the Edward Shapiro Fund at Dartmouth College. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Raeburn, Iain, 1949- Morita equivalence and continuous-trace C*-algebras / Iain Raeburn, Dana P. Williams, p. cm. — (Mathematical surveys and monographs, ISSN 0076-5376 ; v. 60) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8218-0860-5 (alk. paper) 1. C*-algebras. I. Williams, Dana P., 1952- . II. Title. III. Series: Mathematical surveys and monographs ; no. 60. QA326.R34 1998 512/.55-dc21 98-25838 CIP Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy a chapter for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication (including abstracts) is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Requests for such permission should be addressed to the Assistant to the Publisher, American Mathematical Society, P. O. Box 6248, Providence, Rhode Island 02940-6248. Requests can also be made by e-mail to [email protected]. © 1998 by the American Mathematical Society. All rights reserved. The American Mathematical Society retains all rights except those granted to the United States Government. Printed in the United States of America. @ The paper used in this book is acid-free and falls within the guidelines established to ensure permanence and durability. Visit the AMS home page at URL: http://www.ams.org/ 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 03 02 01 00 99 98 To our parents: Margaret and Fraser Raeburn on their golden wedding anniversary, and in memory of Ruth and James Williams Contents Introduction ix 1 The Algebra of Compact Operators 1 2 Hilbert C*-Modules 7 2.1 Hilbert Modules 8 2.2 Bounded Maps on Hilbert Modules 16 2.3 Multiplier Algebras 23 2.4 Induced Representations 30 3 Morita Equivalence 41 3.1 Imprimitivity Bimodules 42 3.2 Morita Equivalence 47 3.3 The Rieffel Correspondence 52 3.4 The External Tensor Product 62 4 Sheaves, Cohomology, and Bundles 67 4.1 Sheaf Cohomology 68 4.2 Fibre Bundles 92 4.3 The Dixmier-Douady Classification of Locally Trivial Bundles .... 102 5 Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras 115 5.1 C*-Algebras with Hausdorff Spectrum 116 5.2 Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras 121 5.3 The Dixmier-Douady Classification of Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras 126 5.4 Automorphisms of Continuous-Trace C*-Algebras 140 5.5 Classification up to Stable Isomorphism 143 6 Applications 155 6.1 The Brauer Group 155 6.2 Pull-back C*-Algebras 160 6.3 Induced C*-Algebras 163 vii viii Contents 7 Epilogue: The Brauer Group and Group Actions 173 7.1 Dynamical Systems and Crossed Products 174 7.2 The Equivariant Brauer Group 177 7.3 The Brauer Group of a Point 181 7.4 Group Cohomology and Moore Cohomology 184 7.5 The Brauer Group for Trivial Actions 192 7.6 The Brauer Group for Free and Proper Actions 193 7.7 The Structure of the Brauer Group 196 A The Spectrum 201 A.l States and Representations 201 A.2 The Spectrum of a C*-Algebra 210 A.3 The Dauns-Hofmann Theorem 223 A.4 The State Space of a C*-Algebra 226 B Tensor Products of C*-Algebras 235 B.l The Spatial Tensor Product 236 B.2 Fundamental Examples 244 B.3 Other C*-Norms 246 B.4 C*-Algebras with Hausdorff Spectrum 254 B.5 Tensor Products of General C*-Algebras 257 C The Imprimitivity Theorem 269 C.l Haar Measure and Measures on Homogeneous Spaces 269 C.2 Vector-Valued Integration on Groups 274 C.3 The Group C*-Algebra 280 C.4 The Imprimitivity Theorem 285 C.5 Induced Representations of Groups 293 C.6 The Stone-von Neumann Theorem 298 D Miscellany 303 D.l Direct Limits 303 D.2 The Inductive Limit Topology 304 Index 309 Bibliography 317 Introduction The Gelfand-Naimark theorem says that a commutative C*-algebra A with identity is determined up to isomorphism by its spectrum T, in the very strong sense that A is isomorphic to the algebra C(T) of continuous functions on T. There are also non- commutative C*-algebras with spectrum T: for example, the algebra C(T, Mn(C)) of continuous functions from T into the matrix algebra Mn(C). In this book we study theorems which classify algebras with spectrum T and automorphisms of these algebras in terms of topological invariants of the space T. One of the goals of algebraic topology is to associate to a space T algebraic objects whose properties reflect the topological structure of T. The ones of interest to us are cohomology groups Hn(T;7j): very roughly speaking, iJn(T;Z) counts n-dimensional holes in the space T by chalking up a copy of Z for each such hole. Our C*-algebras with spectrum T are classified by classes in the 3-dimensional cohomology group H3(T; Z), and their automorphisms by classes in H2(T; Z); these theorems were first proved, respectively, by Dixmier and Douady in 1963 and by J. Phillips and Raeburn in 1980. They have been used extensively in recent years: in the analysis of C*-dynamical systems and their crossed products, in the K-theory of C*-algebras [150], in differential geometry [14], and in mathematical physics [16]. We shall discuss all the background material needed to prove these classification theorems and apply them to C*-dynamical systems, including the definitions and properties of the cohomology groups themselves. There are several versions of the Dixmier-Douady Classification Theorem, in­ volving different families of C*-algebras and classifying up to different equivalence relations. The simplest concerns locally trivial bundles over T with fibres isomor­ phic to the algebra of compact operators on an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, and identifies them up to bundle isomorphism; we shall prove this one first.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Morita Equivalence and Generalized Kähler Geometry by Francis
    Morita Equivalence and Generalized Kahler¨ Geometry by Francis Bischoff A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Mathematics University of Toronto c Copyright 2019 by Francis Bischoff Abstract Morita Equivalence and Generalized K¨ahlerGeometry Francis Bischoff Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Mathematics University of Toronto 2019 Generalized K¨ahler(GK) geometry is a generalization of K¨ahlergeometry, which arises in the study of super-symmetric sigma models in physics. In this thesis, we solve the problem of determining the underlying degrees of freedom for the class of GK structures of symplectic type. This is achieved by giving a reformulation of the geometry whereby it is represented by a pair of holomorphic Poisson structures, a holomorphic symplectic Morita equivalence relating them, and a Lagrangian brane inside of the Morita equivalence. We apply this reformulation to solve the longstanding problem of representing the metric of a GK structure in terms of a real-valued potential function. This generalizes the situation in K¨ahlergeometry, where the metric can be expressed in terms of the partial derivatives of a function. This result relies on the fact that the metric of a GK structure corresponds to a Lagrangian brane, which can be represented via the method of generating functions. We then apply this result to give new constructions of GK structures, including examples on toric surfaces. Next, we study the Picard group of a holomorphic Poisson structure, and explore its relationship to GK geometry. We then apply our results to the deformation theory of GK structures, and explain how a GK metric can be deformed by flowing the Lagrangian brane along a Hamiltonian vector field.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0310146V1 [Math.AT] 10 Oct 2003 Usinis: Question Fr Most Aut the the of Algebra”
    MORITA THEORY IN ABELIAN, DERIVED AND STABLE MODEL CATEGORIES STEFAN SCHWEDE These notes are based on lectures given at the Workshop on Structured ring spectra and their applications. This workshop took place January 21-25, 2002, at the University of Glasgow and was organized by Andy Baker and Birgit Richter. Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Morita theory in abelian categories 2 3. Morita theory in derived categories 6 3.1. The derived category 6 3.2. Derived equivalences after Rickard and Keller 14 3.3. Examples 19 4. Morita theory in stable model categories 21 4.1. Stable model categories 22 4.2. Symmetric ring and module spectra 25 4.3. Characterizing module categories over ring spectra 32 4.4. Morita context for ring spectra 35 4.5. Examples 38 References 42 1. Introduction The paper [Mo58] by Kiiti Morita seems to be the first systematic study of equivalences between module categories. Morita treats both contravariant equivalences (which he calls arXiv:math/0310146v1 [math.AT] 10 Oct 2003 dualities of module categories) and covariant equivalences (which he calls isomorphisms of module categories) and shows that they always arise from suitable bimodules, either via contravariant hom functors (for ‘dualities’) or via covariant hom functors and tensor products (for ‘isomorphisms’). The term ‘Morita theory’ is now used for results concerning equivalences of various kinds of module categories. The authors of the obituary article [AGH] consider Morita’s theorem “probably one of the most frequently used single results in modern algebra”. In this survey article, we focus on the covariant form of Morita theory, so our basic question is: When do two ‘rings’ have ‘equivalent’ module categories ? We discuss this question in different contexts: • (Classical) When are the module categories of two rings equivalent as categories ? Date: February 1, 2008.
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:Math/0301347V1
    Contemporary Mathematics Morita Contexts, Idempotents, and Hochschild Cohomology — with Applications to Invariant Rings — Ragnar-Olaf Buchweitz Dedicated to the memory of Peter Slodowy Abstract. We investigate how to compare Hochschild cohomology of algebras related by a Morita context. Interpreting a Morita context as a ring with distinguished idempotent, the key ingredient for such a comparison is shown to be the grade of the Morita defect, the quotient of the ring modulo the ideal generated by the idempotent. Along the way, we show that the grade of the stable endomorphism ring as a module over the endomorphism ring controls vanishing of higher groups of selfextensions, and explain the relation to various forms of the Generalized Nakayama Conjecture for Noetherian algebras. As applications of our approach we explore to what extent Hochschild cohomology of an invariant ring coincides with the invariants of the Hochschild cohomology. Contents Introduction 1 1. Morita Contexts 3 2. The Grade of the Stable Endomorphism Ring 6 3. Equivalences to the Generalized Nakayama Conjecture 12 4. The Comparison Homomorphism for Hochschild Cohomology 14 5. Hochschild Cohomology of Auslander Contexts 17 6. Invariant Rings: The General Case 20 7. Invariant Rings: The Commutative Case 23 References 27 arXiv:math/0301347v1 [math.AC] 29 Jan 2003 Introduction One of the basic features of Hochschild (co-)homology is its invariance under derived equivalence, see [25], in particular, it is invariant under Morita equivalence, a result originally established by Dennis-Igusa [18], see also [26]. This raises the question how Hochschild cohomology compares in general for algebras that are just ingredients of a Morita context.
    [Show full text]
  • MORITA EQUIVALENCE of C*-CORRESPONDENCES PASSES to the RELATED OPERATOR ALGEBRAS 1. Introduction Introduced by Rieffel in the 19
    MORITA EQUIVALENCE OF C*-CORRESPONDENCES PASSES TO THE RELATED OPERATOR ALGEBRAS GEORGE K. ELEFTHERAKIS, EVGENIOS T.A. KAKARIADIS, AND ELIAS G. KATSOULIS Abstract. We revisit a central result of Muhly and Solel on operator algebras of C*-correspondences. We prove that (possibly non-injective) strongly Morita equivalent C*-correspondences have strongly Morita equivalent relative Cuntz-Pimsner C*-algebras. The same holds for strong Morita equivalence (in the sense of Blecher, Muhly and Paulsen) and strong ∆-equivalence (in the sense of Eleftherakis) for the related tensor algebras. In particular, we obtain stable isomorphism of the operator algebras when the equivalence is given by a σ-TRO. As an ap- plication we show that strong Morita equivalence coincides with strong ∆-equivalence for tensor algebras of aperiodic C*-correspondences. 1. Introduction Introduced by Rieffel in the 1970's [45, 46], Morita theory provides an important equivalence relation between C*-algebras. In the past 25 years there have been fruitful extensions to cover more general (possibly nonselfad- joint) spaces of operators. These directions cover (dual) operator algebras and (dual) operator spaces, e.g. [3, 4, 6, 7, 16{22, 34]. There are two main streams in this endeavour. Blecher, Muhly and Paulsen [6] introduced a SME strong Morita equivalence s , along with a Morita Theorem I, where the operator algebras A and B are symmetrically decomposed by two bimodules M and N, i.e. A' M ⊗B N and B' N ⊗A M: SME Morita Theorems II and III for s were provided by Blecher [3]. On the ∆ other hand Eleftherakis [16] introduced a strong ∆-equivalence s that is given by a generalized similarity under a TRO M, i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Morita Equivalence and Infinite Matrix Rings X
    proceedings of the american mathematical society Volume 90, Number 2. February 1984 MORITA EQUIVALENCEAND INFINITE MATRIX RINGS VICTOR CAMILLO Abstract. This paper contains the proof of a theorem conjectured by William Stephenson in his thesis [3], Two rings A and S are Morita equivalent if their categories of right A modules are isomorphic. A standard example of two Morita equivalent rings are A and A„, the n X n matrices over A. It is therefore true that if Rn and Sm are isomorphic for integers n and m then A and S are Morita equivalent. An easy example (below) shows that there are Morita equivalent rings A and S with A„ and Sm not isomorphic for any integers m and n. This means that category isomorphism cannot be reduced to a ring isomorphism in this way. Regard A„ as End A*"1, where A'"1 is a direct sum of n copies of A. Let R(N) be a direct sum of countably many copies of A. It follows from a result of Eilenberg (below) that if A and S are Morita equivalent, then End A(A° * End S(N). We prove the following Theorem. A and S are Morita equivalent if and only if End A(/v> « End S(N), where N is a countably infinite set. Note End R(N) — RN is just the ring of column finite matrices over A. The following example was suggested by Kent Fuller. I would also like to thank him for several helpful conversations. Example. Two Morita equivalent rings A and S with Rn not isomorphic to S„, for any integers n and m.
    [Show full text]
  • A Correspondence Between Maximal Abelian Sub-Algebras and Linear
    Under consideration for publication in Math. Struct. in Comp. Science A Correspondence between Maximal Abelian Sub-Algebras and Linear Logic Fragments THOMAS SEILLER† 1 † I.H.E.S., Le Bois-Marie, 35, Route de Chartres, 91440 Bures-sur-Yvette, France [email protected] Received December 15th, 2014; Revised September 23rd, 2015 We show a correspondence between a classification of maximal abelian sub-algebras (MASAs) proposed by Jacques Dixmier (Dix54) and fragments of linear logic. We expose for this purpose a modified construction of Girard’s hyperfinite geometry of interaction (Gir11). The expressivity of the logic soundly interpreted in this model is dependent on properties of a MASA which is a parameter of the interpretation. We also unveil the essential role played by MASAs in previous geometry of interaction constructions. Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 von Neumann Algebras and MASAs 4 3 Geometry of Interaction 14 4 Subjective Truth and Matricial GoI 29 5 Dixmier’s Classification and Linear Logic 46 6 Conclusion 58 References 59 arXiv:1408.2125v2 [math.LO] 23 Sep 2015 1. Introduction 1.1. Geometry of Interaction. Geometry of Interaction is a research program initiated by Girard (Gir89b) a year after his seminal paper on linear logic (Gir87a). Its aim is twofold: define a semantics of proofs that accounts for the dynamics of cut-elimination, and then construct realisability models for linear logic around this semantics of cut-elimination. The first step for defining a GoI model, i.e. a construction that fulfills the geometry of 1 This work was partly supported by the ANR-10-BLAN-0213 Logoi.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Morita Theory
    An Introduction to Morita Theory Matt Booth October 2015 Nov. 2017: made a few revisions. Thanks to Ning Shan for catching a typo. My main reference for these notes was Chapter II of Bass's book Algebraic K-Theory (1968); you can find a more detailed exposition there. 1 Motivation When we're doing representation theory we want to study the structure of the category Mod-A for some ring A. So we want to know if and when two different rings A and B give us the same category. With this in mind, two rings are said to be Morita equivalent when their module categories are equivalent. In many cases, we often only care about rings up to Morita equivalence. If this is the case, then given a ring A, we'd like to find some particularly nice representative of the Morita equivalence class of A. 2 Morita Equivalence First some notation: Let R be a ring. Write Mod-R for the catgeory of right R-modules and R-module homomorphisms. Write mod-R for the (full) subcategory of finitely generated R-modules. Write Proj-R for the subcategory of projective modules, and proj-R for the subcategory of finitely generated projective modules. Two rings R, S are defined to be Morita equivalent if the categories Mod-R and Mod-S are equivalent. In fact, any such equivalence will be additive: this is a general fact about equivalences between abelian categories, since the sum of two morphisms f; g : X ! Y can be recovered as the composition f⊕g f + g : X −!∆ X ⊕ X −−−! Y ⊕ Y −!r Y of f ⊕ g with the diagonal and fold maps.
    [Show full text]
  • Armand Borel 1923–2003
    Armand Borel 1923–2003 A Biographical Memoir by Mark Goresky ©2019 National Academy of Sciences. Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences. ARMAND BOREL May 21, 1923–August 11, 2003 Elected to the NAS, 1987 Armand Borel was a leading mathematician of the twen- tieth century. A native of Switzerland, he spent most of his professional life in Princeton, New Jersey, where he passed away after a short illness in 2003. Although he is primarily known as one of the chief archi- tects of the modern theory of linear algebraic groups and of arithmetic groups, Borel had an extraordinarily wide range of mathematical interests and influence. Perhaps more than any other mathematician in modern times, Borel elucidated and disseminated the work of others. family the Borel of Photo courtesy His books, conference proceedings, and journal publica- tions provide the document of record for many important mathematical developments during his lifetime. By Mark Goresky Mathematical objects and results bearing Borel’s name include Borel subgroups, Borel regulator, Borel construction, Borel equivariant cohomology, Borel-Serre compactification, Bailey- Borel compactification, Borel fixed point theorem, Borel-Moore homology, Borel-Weil theorem, Borel-de Siebenthal theorem, and Borel conjecture.1 Borel was awarded the Brouwer Medal (Dutch Mathematical Society), the Steele Prize (American Mathematical Society) and the Balzan Prize (Italian-Swiss International Balzan Foundation). He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences (USA), the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the American Philosophical Society, the Finnish Academy of Sciences and Letters, the Academia Europa, and the French Academy of Sciences.1 1 Borel enjoyed pointing out, with some amusement, that he was not related to the famous Borel of “Borel sets." 2 ARMAND BOREL Switzerland and France Armand Borel was born in 1923 in the French-speaking city of La Chaux-de-Fonds in Switzerland.
    [Show full text]
  • Diffeology, Groupoids & Morita Equivalence
    Diffeology, Groupoids & Morita Equivalence M.Sc. Thesis in Mathematics Nesta van der Schaaf 22nd June 2020 Supervisor: Prof. dr. N.P. Landsman Second reader: Dr. I.T. Mărcuț Abstract This thesis consists of two parts. The first (Chapters I and II) is a thorough introduction to the theory of diffeology. We provide a ground-up account of the theory from the viewpoint of plots (in contrast to the sheaf-theoretic treatments). This includes a proof that the category Diffeol of diffeological spaces and smooth maps is complete and cocomplete, (locally) Cartesian closed, and a quasitopos. In addition, we treat many examples, including a detailed recollection of the classification of irrational tori. The second part (Chapters III to VI) is a proposal for a framework of diffeological Morita equivalence. We give definitions of diffeological groupoid actions, -bundles, and -bibundles, general- ising the known theory of Lie groupoids and their corresponding notions. We obtain a bicategory DiffeolBiBund of diffeological groupoids and diffeological bibundles. This has no analogue inthe Lie theory, since we put no ‘principality’ restrictions on these bibundles. We then define a new notion of principality for diffeological (bi)bundles, and subsequently obtain a notion of Morita equivalence by declaring that two diffeological groupoids are equivalent if and only if there existsa biprincipal bibundle between them. Our main new result is the following: two diffeological groupoids are Morita equivalent if and only if they are weakly equivalent in the bicategory DiffeolBiBund. Equivalently, this means that a diffeological bibundle is weakly invertible if and only if it is biprincipal. This significantly generalises the original theorem in the Lie groupoid setting, where an analogous state- ment can only be made if we assume one-sided principality beforehand.
    [Show full text]
  • Categorical Quasivarieties Via Morita Equivalence 11
    CATEGORICAL QUASIVARIETIES VIA MORITA EQUIVALENCE KEITH A. KEARNES Abstract. We give a new proof of the classification of 0-categorical quasivarieties by using Morita equivalence to reduce to@term min- imal quasivarieties. 1. Introduction When T is a first–order theory and λ is a cardinal, we write SpecT (λ) to denote the number of isomorphism classes of models of T which have power λ. T , or the class of models of T , is said to be λ{categorical if SpecT (λ) = 1. Baldwin and Lachlan proved in [1] that for a universal Horn class the following conditions are equivalent: Q is λ{categorical for some infinite λ and has a finite member. • Q Q is 0{categorical. • Q is λ@{categorical for all infinite λ. • Q This raises the question of which quasivarieties of algebras satisfy these conditions. Independently and at about the same time, Givant ([3], [4]) and Palyutin ([15], [16]) answered this question. Later, in [11], McKenzie gave a new proof using the newly developed techniques of tame congruence theory. In this paper we give another proof. Our proof, which is shorter than previous proofs, is based on the easily proved but crucial fact established in Lemma 5.3. Therefore, it is worthwhile now to explain the significance of this lemma. Let A be an algebra and let e be a unary term in the language of A. If A = e(e(x)) = e(x), then we call e an idempotent of A. If e is an idempjotent of A, then we call its range, e(A), a neighborhood of A.
    [Show full text]
  • The American Mathematical Society
    THE AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY Edited by John W. Green and Gordon L. Walker CONTENTS MEETINGS Calendar of Meetings . • . • . • . • . • • • . • . 168 PRELIMINARY ANNOUNCEMENT OF MEETING...................... 169 DOCTORATES CONFERRED IN 1961 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 173 NEWS ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 189, 194, 195, 202 PERSONAL ITEMS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••• 191 NEW AMS PUBLICATIONS •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•• 195 LETTERS TO THE EDITOR •.•.•.•••••••••.•••••.••••••••••••••• 196 MEMORANDA TO MEMBERS The Employment Register . • . • . • . • • . • . • • . • . • . • 198 Dues of Reciprocity Members of the Mathematical Society of Japan • . • . • . 198 SUPPLEMENTARY PROGRAM -No. 11 ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 199 ABSTRACTS OF CONTRIBUTED PAPERS •.•••••••••••.••••••••••••• 203 ERRATA •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.• 231 INDEX TO ADVERTISERS • • • • • • • • • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • • • 243 RESERVATION FORM •••.•.•••••••••••.•••••••••••.••••••••••• 243 MEETINGS CALENDAR OF MEETINGS NOTE: This Calendar lists all of the meetings which have been approved by the Council up to the date a~ch this issue of the NOTICES was sent to press. The summer and annual meetings are joint meetings of the Mathematical Association of America and the American Mathematical Society. The meeting dates which fall rather far in the future are subject to change. This is particularly true of the meetings to which no numbers have yet been assigned. Meet-
    [Show full text]
  • Transcription of an Interview of Jacques Dixmier by Martin Raussen
    Transcription of an interview of Jacques Dixmier by Martin Raussen (Aalborg, Denmark) 1 Education Can we start with your early years ? You were born in 1924. Where did you grow up and what was school education like in the years between the two world wars ? I was born in Saint-Étienne, not far from Lyon. Since my parents were tea- chers, both of them, we travelled around France, so I am not from a particular place. I lived in Rouen then Lille and then in Versailles, from when I was nine years old. That was the most important place for me. Your school education was mostly in Versailles ? Yes, in Versailles from 6th degree to mathématiques spéciales (2 years after the baccalauréat 1) except, due to the war, one year in St.-Brieuc, which is a small town in Bretagne. Even there I had a very good teacher in mathematics. And that was probably important ? That was extremely important. I had very good teachers in mathematics for my whole period in school. Only during the 6th grade, the teacher was absolutely zero. But after that, during almost 10 years, each year I had a wonderful professor of mathematics. That is probably one of the main rea- sons for my vocation. Can you remember a particular instance that made you think : mathematics, that is something for me ? I always liked mathematics but originally I did not believe that I was able to do research. I realised that I liked teaching and I thought I would be a good professor of mathematics.
    [Show full text]