arXiv:1908.10200v3 [math.CT] 16 Sep 2019 colimits. 19-00902S. Ab n ietdclmt r lentv ae o h aenot same the for names alternative are colimits directed and h opeino h no.T slt h rbe tl ute,w n limits—or ne direct we one of further, concreteness spaces: still the problem Hilbert of the for terms isolate case in To this the abe rephrase union. not of can the is chain of this increasing completion but an the group, of abelian union an the is Indeed, homomorphisms. tive M 00SbetCasfiain rmr 83.Secondary: 18C35. Primary Classification: Subject 2010 AMS hr shwvra nutv es nwhich in sense intuitive an however is There eflfunctor getful ..clmt fdrce ytm,tetriooywihw mlyhere employ we which terminology the systems, directed of colimits i.e. neligsto h oii fadrce ytmo bla groups abelian of system directed a of colimit the of underlying fthe of hte h iuto a ersle yacee hieo naltern an of choice clever a by resolved be U can situation the whether if is, That sets. of the unde the in of colimit union the directed is their simplicity) for , the suppress aeudryn e titylre hnteuino h neligs underlying w the spaces of Hilbert union of the system than a larger that such strictly of set colimit underlying have directed the hand, other a,drce oiisin colimits directed way, umrz hsb aigthat saying by this summarize . 2 IBR PCSAND SPACES HILBERT h eodato sspotdb h rn gnyo h Czec the of agency Grant the by supported is author second The 1 2 e od n phrases. and words Key Date osdrtecategory the Consider ti aua oakwehrti sapolmitisct h categor the to intrinsic problem a is this whether ask to natural is It m esrs htdrc iis(hs neligsse sdir is system underlying (whose limits direct that stress We ent htacag of change a that note We U h aeoyo bla ruswt ooopim,wihi osay to is which monomorphisms, with groups abelian of category the , hti,w osdrwhether consider we is, That etme 8 2019 18, September : X : pt hneo agae eddc naaoosrsl o th for result analogous an deduce elementa We abstract unital an language. commutative form of of pres cannot change sets spaces to of Hilbert up category Thus the into imits. isometries linear with spaces Abstract. atclr htti aeoyi o xoaial yafirs a by Bankston. axiomatizable of conjecture not a is of category strengthening this that particular, Hilb i IHE IBRA,JI LIEBERMAN, MICHAEL in r Ab U → m : Set Hilb then , eso htn atflfntrfo h aeoyo Hilbert of category the from faithful no that show We osntpeev ietdclmt nti es.Ptanother Put sense. this in colimits directed preserve not does r Hilb → ibr space, Hilbert Hilb U U ( mut oacag ntesgaue e ..[R6 3.5] [LR16, e.g. see signature, the in change a to amounts C Set X ∗ r agba with -algebras stedrce oii fthe of colimit directed the is ) r U r o concrete. not are 1. fHletsae ihlna smtis h for- The isometries. linear with spaces Hilbert of gives : CONCRETE C Ab Introduction R ˇ ∗ ´ AGBA R O FINITELY NOT ARE -ALGEBRAS ROSICK I Hilb m Hilb C → 1 ∗ r agba atflfntrpeevn directed preserving functor faithful -algebra, Set ∗ r is hmmrhss hsipis in implies, This -homomorphisms. h tutr facnrt category. concrete a of structure the ,ADSBSINVASEY SEBASTIEN AND Y, ´ ntl concrete finitely Hilb rsre ietdcolimits directed preserves ion. r ce,a em o ob assumed) be to now seems as ected, 60,46M99. 46L05, s“escnrt”ta,say, than, concrete” “less is X re ietdcol- directed erves eulcudrtegrant the under republic h -re hoy a theory, t-order stedrce colimit directed the is ycas even , ry ntesnethat sense the in , U ( category e ietdcolimits directed X h i ligst,i.e. sets, rlying X in ) tv functor ative t,meaning ets, i l generally ill t htwe that ote y ingroups lian d otake to eds | i Hilb Set nthe On . ∈ . 1 I We . injec- i r The (we or , , 2 LIEBERMAN,ROSICKY,´ AND VASEY there exists some functor U that, like the usual , is faithful—for any linear isometries f,g, Uf = Ug only if f = g—and succeeds where the usual forgetful functor fails, i.e. it preserves directed colimits from Hilbr into Set. This is a subtle question, and some of the ideas we use to show that categories are not finitely concrete—as we proceed to do with Hilbr, Banach spaces, commutative unital C∗-algebras, the dual of the category of compact Hausdorff spaces, and so on—have only recently been developed [Hen]. Finite concreteness of a category is an essential first test in determining the extent to which it can be subjected to a model-theoretic analysis. That is, the paradigmatic examples of finitely concrete categories include any category K which is elementary, in the sense that there is a first-order theory T so that K is equivalent to the category Mod(T ) of T -models and homomorphisms. More generally, any category axiomatizable in the infinitary logic L∞,ω (i.e. (∞,ω)-elementary in the sense of [MP89, p. 58]) is finitely concrete. Still more generally, any abstract elementary category in the sense of [BR12, 5.3], including any abstract elementary class (AEC), cf. [She87], is finitely concrete. Thus we establish, in particular, that not only is Hilbr not an AEC with respect to the usual forgetful functor—which is obvious from the failure of the union of chains axiom—this problem is essential: Hilbr is not equivalent to an AEC, or an elementary category, answering [LRV19, 5.10]. By embedding Hilbr into various categories, we can deduce more examples of non-finite concreteness (Example 10). In particular, we show that the category CC∗Alg of commutative unital C∗-algebras with (unit-preserving) ∗-homomorphisms is not finitely concrete (Theorem 11), hence, in particular, not elementary. This solves a stronger version of a problem of Bankston [Ban82, Ban03] who had conjec- tured that the dual of the category of compact Hausdorff spaces KHop (equivalently CC∗Alg) was not P -elementary, i.e. not equivalent to the closure under products of a category of the form Mod(T ) (this weaker conjecture was solved indepen- dently by Banaschewski [Ban84] and the second author [Ros89]). The question as to whether CC∗Alg is elementary was posed in [Ros89], and more recently in [MR17, 1.5]. We note in passing that our nonelementarity result also passes to the op category of compact ordered spaces, KH≤ , considered in, e.g. [AR]. These results should be measured against the various (partial) positive axioma- op tizability results in the literature: [Abb] and [AR] realize KH≤ as ℵ1-ary varieties, and [Bon17, Ack] each give near-equivalences between continuous classes such as Hilbr and AECs.

2. Hilbert spaces Throughout, we assume a basic familiarity with (as exposed for example in [AHS04]) and with accessible categories (see [AR94] or the recent tuto- rial [Vas]). Let Set denote the category of sets (with functions as ), and let Hilb be the category whose objects are (complex) Hilbert spaces and whose morphisms are linear contractions. Note that linear isometries (equivalently or- thogonal operators) are exactly the regular monomorphisms in Hilb (see [AHS04, 7.58(3)]). Thus we let Hilbr be the of Hilb with the same objects but with linear isometries as morphisms. We observe in passing that Hilbr is an ℵ1- with directed colimits. From now on we assume: HILBERT SPACES AND C∗-ALGEBRAS ARE NOT FINITELY CONCRETE 3

Hypothesis 1. U : Hilbr → Set is a fixed faithful functor preserving directed colimits. Our goal is to show that such a U cannot exist. The following definition follows [Hen, 4.3]. Definition 2. Let A be a Hilbert space, and let x ∈ UA. We say that x is supported on a subspace A0 of A if whenever f,g : A → B are such that fiA0,A = giA0,A

(where iA0,A denotes the inclusion map A0 → A), then f(x) = g(x). When A is clear from context, we omit it. Note that, as is standard, we have abused notation and written f(x) instead of (Uf)(x). The next observation will be used repeatedly:

Remark 3. If A0 is a subspace of a Hilbert space A and x0 ∈ UA0, then iA0,A(x0) is supported on A0. Lemma 4. Let A be a Hilbert space, and let x ∈ UA. Then x is supported on some finite dimensional subspace of A. Proof. A is a directed colimit of its finite-dimensional subspaces. Since U preserves directed colimits, UA is a directed colimits of sets of the form UA0, for A0 a finite- dimensional subspace of A. Directed colimits in Set are unions, so x = iA0,A(x0) for some finite-dimensional A0 and some x0 ∈ UA0. Now use Remark 3. 

The next result says that finite-dimensional supports are closed under intersec- tions. This is crucial and not so obvious, since there is no assumption that the concrete functor preserves pullbacks (which are intersections here). The proof fol- lows [Hen, 4.7]. Lemma 5. Let A be an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space, let x ∈ UA and let A0, A1 be finite-dimensional subspaces of A. If x is supported on both A0 and A1, then x is supported on A0 ∩ A1. Proof. Fix a Hilbert space B. For functions f,g : A → B, we write f ∼∗ g if either fiA0,A = giA0,A or fiA1,A = giA1,A. This is usually not an equivalence relation, so let ∼ be its transitive closure. Observe that since x is supported on both A0 and ∗ A1, we have that f ∼ g implies f(x)= g(x), hence also f ∼ g implies f(x)= g(x).

Let f,g : A → B be given so that fiA0∩A1,A = giA0∩A1,A. We will find h : A → B so that f ∼ h and g ∼ h, which will imply that f ∼ g, and hence that f(x)= g(x). We first fix an infinite-dimensional subspace S of B that is disjoint from the space generated by f[A0]∪f[A1]. This is possible as A0 and A1 are finite-dimensional, and B is necessarily infinite-dimensional: A is infinite-dimensional, and f is injective. Fix bases B0 and B1 for A0, A1 respectively so that B0 ∩B1 is a basis for A0 ∩ A1. ′ Fix a basis C extending f[B0 ∩B1] for the space S generated by S ∪ f[B0 ∩B1], and fix injections γℓ : Bℓ → C, ℓ = 0, 1, so that γℓ(v) = f(v)(= g(v)) whenever ′ v ∈ B0 ∩B1. Extend γℓ to a hℓ : Aℓ → S , and let h : A → B be a morphism extending both h0 and h1. We claim that f ∼ h ∼ g. We prove that ′ f ∼ h, and a symmetric argument will prove g ∼ h. First, let hℓ : A → B be an ′ extension of hℓ so that hℓiA1−ℓ,A = fiA1−ℓ,A. This is possible by the assumption ′ ∗ ′ ∗ on S. Observe that f ∼ hℓ by definition, but also hℓ ∼ hℓ for any extension hℓ of ′  hℓ to A. In particular, h ∼ hℓ, hence f ∼ h, as desired. 4 LIEBERMAN,ROSICKY,´ AND VASEY

Lemma 6. For every infinite-dimensional Hilbert space A and any x ∈ UA, there is a unique minimal finite-dimensional subspace A0 of A on which x is supported. Proof. Combine Lemmas 4 and 5 with the fact that a nontrivial intersection of two finite-dimensional subspaces must have lower dimension.  Definition 7. For an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space A and x ∈ UA, we call the minimal subspace of A on which x is supported (given by Lemma 6) the support of x (in A). We say that this support is trivial if it is the zero space, nontrivial otherwise.

Lemma 8. For any nonzero subspace A0 of an infinite-dimensional Hilbert space

A, there is x0 ∈ UA0 such that iA0,A(x0) has nontrivial support in A.

Proof. Suppose not. Let f,g : A → B be any two morphisms such that fiA0,A 6= giA0,A (these are easy to construct: for example, take B to be the direct sum of A with itself, have f send A0 to its copy in the left component and have g send A0 to its copy in the right component). We know that f and g agree on the zero space, hence by definition of the support for any x0 ∈ UA0, f(iA0,A(x0)) = g(iA0,A(x0)). Thus U(fiA0,A)= U(giA0,A) and so fiA0,A = giA0,A by faithfulness of U, a contradiction. 

Theorem 9. No faithful functor from Hilbr to Set preserves directed colimits.

Proof. Suppose for a contradiction that U is a faithful functor from Hilbr to Set preserving directed colimits. By the uniformization theorem [AR94, 2.19] (and see [BR12, 4.3]), there is a cardinal µ0 such that for all regular cardinals µ ≥ µ0, U ℵ0 preserves µ-presentable objects. Fix a cardinal λ>µ0 +2 of countable cofinality. Let A be the Hilbert space of dimension λ, hence of cardinality λℵ0 > λ. Note that + + A is λ -presentable, so by definition of µ0 we also have that UA is λ -presentable, hence has cardinality at most λ. Each nonzero element of A spans a line (i.e. a one-dimensional subspace of A), and each line contains only |C| = 2ℵ0 -many elements. This implies that there are ℵ0 ℵ0 λ -many distinct lines. Since |UA|≤ λ < λ , there must be a line A0 that is not the support of any x ∈ UA. However, for each x0 ∈ UA0, iA0,A(x0) is supported on A0 (Remark 3). By minimality of the support, the support of every element of iA0,A[UA0] must be a strict subspace of A0, i.e. the zero space. In other words,  every element of iA0,A[UA0] has trivial support. This contradicts Lemma 8.

3. C∗-algebras and other examples From now on, let us call a category finitely concrete if it admits a faithful functor into Set preserving directed colimits. We have just shown that Hilbr is not finitely concrete. Note moreover that if F : K → K∗ is faithful and preserves directed colimits and K∗ is finitely concrete, then so is K. Contrapositively, if K is not finitely concrete and there is a faithful directed-colimit preserving functor into K∗, then K∗ is not finitely concrete either. Using this, we can give more examples of non-finitely concrete categories: Example 10.

(1) The category Metr of complete metric spaces with isometries and the cate- gory Banr of Banach spaces with linear isometries, are not finitely concrete. This can be shown via the natural embedding of Hilbr into these categories. HILBERT SPACES AND C∗-ALGEBRAS ARE NOT FINITELY CONCRETE 5

(2) The category Hilb of Hilbert spaces with linear contractions is not finitely concrete. Indeed, the inclusion Hilbr → Hilb is faithful and preserves di- rected colimits. This applies more generally, any time we have a non-finitely concrete subcategory K of a category K∗ that is closed under directed col- imits (i.e. where the inclusion preserves directed colimits – naturally, in- clusions are always faithful). In particular, we also get that the category Met of complete metric spaces with contractions and the category Ban of Banach spaces with linear contractions are not finitely concrete. Let CC∗Alg be the category of commutative unital C∗-algebras and unit-preserving ∗-homomorphisms. Theorem 11. The category CC∗Alg is not finitely concrete. Proof. Let V : CC∗Alg → Ban be the forgetful functor (recall that ∗-homomorphisms are, in particular, contractions). It is folklore (see for example [Pes93, §12]) that V has a left adjoint F : Ban → CC∗Alg. We note that this also follows from the adjoint functor theorem for locally presentable categories ([AR94, 1.66]) because V ∗ preserves limits and ℵ1-directed colimits and both Ban and CC Alg are locally presentable (see, respectively, [AR94, 1.48], and [AR94, 3.28]—in the second case ∗ we need the result of Isbell [Isb82] that CC Alg is a variety of algebras with ℵ0-ary operations). Moreover, the components of the unit of the adjunction, ηB : B → VFB, are linear isometries hence, in particular, monomorphisms. This follows from the fact that any Banach space B can be isometrically embedded into a commutative unital C∗-algebra. Indeed, this algebra can be taken to be the C∗-algebra C(X) of con- tinuous complex-valued functions on the closed unit ball X of the dual space B∗ with the weak* topology. Since X is compact (by the Banach-Alaoglu theorem), C(X) is commutative and unital. Thus F is faithful by a general result about adjoints (see [AHS04, 19.14(1)]). Since F is a left adjoint, it preserves arbitrary colimits. By Example 10(2), then, CC∗Alg is not finitely concrete. 

As mentioned in the introduction, a category K is called elementary if there is a first-order theory T such that K is equivalent to the category Mod(T ) of T - models and homomorphisms. Following [Ric71] (see also [AR94, 5.23]), the forgetful functor Mod(T ) → Set preserves directed colimits. Thus we obtain as a corollary that CC∗Alg cannot be elementary. As CC∗Alg is equivalent to the dual of the category of compact Hausdorff spaces, KHop, moreover, we obtain the following immediate corollary: Corollary 12. The category KHop is not elementary. As noted in the introduction, this strengthens existing results of [Ban84] and [Ros89]—that KHop is not P -elementary. By an argument in the final section of op [AR], the corollary also holds with KH≤ , the dual of the category of compact ordered spaces, in place of KHop.

References

[Abb] Marco Abbadini, The dual of compact partially ordered spaces is a variety, Preprint. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07162. 6 LIEBERMAN,ROSICKY,´ AND VASEY

[Ack] Nathanael Ackerman, Encoding complete metric structures by classical structures, In preparation. [AHS04] Jiˇr´ıAd´amek, Horst Herrlich, and George E. Strecker, Abstract and concrete categories, online edition ed., 2004, Available from http://katmat.math.uni-bremen.de/acc/. [AR] Marco Abbadini and Luca Reggio, On the axiomatisability of the dual of compact ordered spaces, Preprint. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1909.01631. [AR94] Jiˇr´ı Ad´amek and Jiˇr´ı Rosick´y, Locally presentable and accessible categories, London Math. Society Lecture Notes, Cambridge University Press, 1994. [Ban82] Paul Bankston, Some obstacles to duality in topological algebra, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 34 (1982), no. 1, 80–90. [Ban84] B. Banaschewski, More on compact Hausdorff spaces and finitary duality, Canadian Journal of Mathematics 36 (1984), no. 6, 1113–1118. [Ban03] Paul Bankston, A survey of ultraproduct constructions in general topology, Topology Atlas Invited Contributions 8 (2003), no. 2, 1–32. [Bon17] Will Boney, A presentation theorem for continuous logic and metric abstract elementary classes, Quarterly 63 (2017), no. 5, 397–414. [BR12] Tibor Beke and Jiˇr´ıRosick´y, Abstract elementary classes and accessible categories, An- nals of Pure and Applied Logic 163 (2012), 2008–2017. L [Hen] Simon Henry, An abstract elementary class non-axiomatizable in (∞,κ), To appear in Journal of Symbolic Logic. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1812.00652v1. [Isb82] John Isbell, Generating the algebraic theory of C(X), Algebra Universalis 15 (1982), 153–155. [LR16] Michael J. Lieberman and Jiˇr´ıRosick´y, Classification theory for accessible categories, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 81 (2016), no. 1, 151–165. [LRV19] Michael J. Lieberman, Jiˇr´ıRosick´y, and Sebastien Vasey, Universal abstract elementary classes and locally multipresentable categories, Proceedings of the American Mathemat- ical Society 147 (2019), no. 3, 1283–1298. [MP89] Michael Makkai and Robert Par´e, Accessible categories: The foundations of categorical , Contemporary Mathematics, vol. 104, American Mathematical Society, 1989. [MR17] Vincenzo Marra and Luca Reggio, Stone duality above dimension zero: Axiomatising the algebraic theory of C(X), Advances in Mathematics 307 (2017), 253–287. [Pes93] Vladimir G. Pestov, Universal arrows to forgetful from categories of topological algebra, Bulletin of the Australian Mathematical Society 48 (1993), 209–249. [Ric71] Michael Richter, Limites in Kategorien von Relationalsystemen, Zeitschrift f¨ur mathe- matische Logik und Grundlagen der Mathematik 17 (1971), 75–90. [Ros89] Jiˇr´ıRosick´y, Elementary categories, Archiv der Mathematik 52 (1989), 284–288. [She87] Saharon Shelah, Classification of non elementary classes II. Abstract elementary classes, Classification Theory (Chicago, IL, 1985) (John T. Baldwin, ed.), Lecture Notes in Mathematics, vol. 1292, Springer-Verlag, 1987, pp. 419–497. [Vas] Sebastien Vasey, Accessible categories, , and model theory: an invitation, Preprint. URL: https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.11307v1. E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.muni.cz/~lieberman/

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Institute of Mathematics, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Brno University of Technology, Brno, Czech Republic

E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://www.math.muni.cz/~rosicky/

Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Faculty of Science, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

E-mail address: [email protected] URL: http://math.harvard.edu/~sebv/ HILBERT SPACES AND C∗-ALGEBRAS ARE NOT FINITELY CONCRETE 7

Department of Mathematics, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA