Pureness of Certain Crossed Product C*-Algebras

The discussion before (1) on page 61 of [AkmnShlz] shows that A is not scattered in the sense of [AkmnShlz]. The conclusion therefore follows from the argument in (4) on page 61 of [AkmnShlz].

Choose a \in (A \otimes K)_{+} \setminus \{ 0 \} such that \langle a \rangle_A = \xi. Use Lemma 2.4 of [Phl40] to choose orthogonal nonzero positive elements b_0, b_1, b_2, \ldots, b_N \in p (A \otimes K) p such that b_0 \sim_A b_1 \sim_A b_2 \sim_A \cdots \sim_A b_N and orthogonal nonzero positive elements c_1, c_2, c_3 \ldots, c_N \in {\overline{a (A \otimes K) a}} such that c_1 \sim_A c_2 \sim_A \cdots \sim_A c_N. By Lemma 2.6 of [Phl40], there is d \in \bigl( {\overline{b_0 (A \otimes K) b_0}} \bigr)_{+} \setminus \left\{ 0 \right\} such that d \precsim_A c_1. Use Lemma 2.12 to choose y \in \bigl( {\overline{d (A \otimes K) d}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (y) = [0, 1]. Define x = p - y and \varepsilon = \frac{1}{3}. We show that these choices satisfy the conclusion of the lemma.

Part (?) is clear. For (?), we in fact have x \leq p. For (?), we have

We prove (?). Set r = (x - \varepsilon)_{+} + (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \in p (A \otimes K) p. Then

Therefore r is invertible in p (A \otimes K) p. So

as desired.

Finally, we prove (?). Define a continuous function f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] by

Then (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \sim f (x). Since

we have x b_j = b_j for j = 1, 2, \ldots, N. Therefore also f (x) b_j = b_j for j = 1, 2, \ldots, N. Now

Since y \in {\overline{b_0 (A \otimes K) b_0}}, we have y \precsim_A b_0, and (?) follows.

Let us first assume that {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) has n-comparison. Let a, a_0, a_1, \hdots, a_n \in M_{\infty}(A)_+ satisfy [a]_A <_{\operatorname{s}} [a_j] in {\operatorname{W}} (A) for j = 0, 1, \hdots, n. Thus, there are k_0, k_1, \hdots, k_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} such that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

For j = 0, 1, \hdots, n, we have (k_j + 1) \langle a \rangle_A \leq k_j \langle a_j \rangle_A in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A). By n-comparison for {\operatorname{Cu}} (A),

By Remark 2.2, it follows that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

showing n-comparison for {\operatorname{W}} (A).

Let us now assume that {\operatorname{W}} (A) has n-comparison. Let a, a_0, a_1, \hdots, a_n \in (A \otimes K)_+, and suppose that there are k_0, k_1, \hdots, k_n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} such that

for j = 0, 1, \hdots, n. Let \varepsilon > 0. Choose \delta_j > 0 such that in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) we have

By Lemma 1.9 of [Phl40], there exist c, c_0, c_1, \hdots, c_n \in M_{\infty}(A)_+ such that

and for j = 0, 1, \hdots, n we have

Thus, in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) we have

and hence, by Remark 2.2, in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

By n-comparison for {\operatorname{W}} (A), we see that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

Using (?) at the first step, (?) and Remark 2.2 at the second step, and (?) at the third step, we get the following inequalities in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A):

As \varepsilon > 0 is arbitrary, we have \langle a \rangle_A \leq \sum_{j = 0}^n \langle a_j \rangle_A, proving n-comparison for {\operatorname{Cu}} (A).

Let {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) be m-almost divisible. Let a \in M_{\infty}(A)_+ and let k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}. Let \varepsilon > 0 be arbitrary. Since

\left\langle \left( a - \frac{2 \varepsilon}{3} \right)_+ \right\rangle_A \ll \left\langle \left(a - \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \right)_+ \right\rangle_A,

and {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) is m-almost divisible, there exists b \in (A \otimes K)_+ such that

Choose \delta > 0 such that

By Lemma 1.9 of [Phl40], there exists c\in M_{\infty}(A)_+ such that

Hence, by (Proof) and (?), we see that

Finally, by Remark 2.2, it follows that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

This is the desired relation.

Conversely, assume that for all \varepsilon > 0, k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, and a \in M_{\infty}(A)_+, there exists b \in M_{\infty}(A)_+ such that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

Let k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} and let \xi, \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) satisfy \xi \ll \eta. Choose a \in (A \otimes K)_+ such that

By Lemma 2.16, there is \varepsilon > 0 such that

By Lemma 1.9 of [Phl40], there exists c\in M_{\infty}(A)_+ such that

Choose \delta > 0 such that

By hypothesis, there exists b \in M_{\infty}(A)_+ such that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

In {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) we now get, using Remark 2.2 and (?),

and using (?), (?), and Remark 2.2,

This proves m-almost divisibility for {\operatorname{Cu}} (A).

The algebra B is simple by Proposition 5.2 of [Phl40], infinite dimensional by Proposition 5.5 of [Phl40], and unital. Therefore B is not of Type I, so C is also is not of Type I. Thus Lemma 2.12 applies.

We begin by showing that m-comparison for {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) implies m-comparison for {\operatorname{Cu}} (A). Let x, a_{0}, a_{1}, \ldots, a_{m} \in (A \otimes K)_{+} satisfy \langle x \rangle_A <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_{j} \rangle_A for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. We must show that

If \langle x \rangle_A = 0, this is immediate, so we assume that \langle x \rangle_A \neq 0. By the definition of <_{\operatorname{s}} (Definition 2.3), for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m there is k_j \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} such that

First assume \langle x \rangle_A is not the class of a projection. Use Corollary 3.3 to choose y \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that \langle y \rangle_A = \langle x \rangle_A and 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (y). Let \varepsilon > 0 be arbitrary. For j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, we will find b_j \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that

Since 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (y), there is \rho \in (0, \varepsilon) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon) \neq \varnothing. Choose \lambda \in {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon). Choose a continuous function f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] such that {\operatorname{supp}} (f) \subseteq (\rho, \varepsilon) and f (\lambda) \neq 0.

Define

For j \not\in I, Corollary 3.3 provides b_j \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that \langle b_j \rangle_A = \langle a_j \rangle_A in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A). Use Lemma 3.4 to choose c \in \bigl( {\overline{f (y) (B \otimes K) f (y)}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (c) = [0, 1]. Set z_j = (y - \varepsilon)_{+} + c. Then (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \precsim_B z_j \precsim_B y. We have

Since 0 is a limit point of both {\operatorname{sp}} (z_j) and {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j), Theorem 3.2 gives the second step in the calculation

It follows that \langle (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \rangle_B <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_B, and we already have \langle b_j \rangle_A = \langle a_j \rangle_A. So (?) holds.

Now suppose j \in I. We may as well assume that a_j is a projection. Use Lemma 2.14 to choose r_j, s_j \in (a_j (A \otimes K) a_j)_{+} and \delta \in (0, 1) such that

Corollary 3.3 yields b_j \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j) and \langle b_j \rangle_A = \langle r_j \rangle_A. Use Lemma 2.6 of [Phl40] to choose d_j \in \bigl( {\overline{f (y) (A \otimes K) f (y)}} \bigr)_{+} \setminus \{ 0 \} such that d_j \precsim_A s_j. Use Lemma 3.4 to choose g_j \in \bigl( {\overline{d_j (A \otimes K) d_j}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (g_j) = [0, 1]. Corollary 3.3 yields c_j \in (K \otimes B)_{+} such that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (c_j) and \langle c_j \rangle_A = \langle g_j \rangle_A. Set z_j = (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \oplus c_j. We have c_j \precsim_A f (y), so

Since 0 is a limit point of both {\operatorname{sp}} (z_j) and {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j), Theorem 3.2 gives the second step in the calculation

It follows that \langle (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \rangle_B <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_B. We already have \langle b_j \rangle_A = \langle r_j \rangle_A \leq \langle a_j \rangle_A. So (?) holds in this case too.

Since (?) holds for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m and B has m-comparison, it follows that

Using the second part of (?), we get

Since \varepsilon > 0 is arbitrary, we get

Combining this with \langle x \rangle_A = \langle y \rangle_A gives (Proof) and completes the proof of this direction in the case that \langle x \rangle_A is not the class of a projection.

Now assume that \langle x \rangle_A is the class of a nonzero projection in A \otimes K. Since x \neq 0, we have a_j \neq 0 for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. Use Lemma 2.6 of [Phl40] to choose a \in (A \otimes K)_{+} \setminus \{0\} such that \langle a \rangle_A \leq \langle a_j \rangle_A for j = 1, 2, \hdots, m. Set k = \max ( k_0, k_1, \ldots, k_m ). By Lemma 2.13, there exist \mu, \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (A) such that

For j = 0, 1, \hdots, m, we then have, also using (?) at the second step,

Hence \mu + \eta <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_A. Since \mu + \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (A), the previous case yields the second step in the calculation

which is (Proof). This completes the proof that if {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) has m-comparison, then so does {\operatorname{Cu}} (A).

The reverse implication uses the same pieces, but arranged differently. Assume that {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) has m-comparison; we show that {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) has m-comparison as well. To this end, let y, b_0, b_1, \ldots, b_m \in (B \otimes K)_{+} satisfy \langle y \rangle_B <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_B for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. Without loss of generality y \neq 0. By the definition of <_{\operatorname{s}} (Definition 2.3), for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m there is k_j \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} such that (k_j + 1) \langle y \rangle_B \leq k_j \langle b_j \rangle_B. In particular, b_j \neq 0 for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m.

First assume \langle y \rangle_B is not the class of a projection. Let \varepsilon > 0 be arbitrary. We will find z \in (B \otimes K)_{+} and for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, we will find a_j \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z), (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \precsim_B z, and, for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, \langle z \rangle_A <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_A, 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a_j), and \langle a_j \rangle_B \leq \langle b_j \rangle_B.

Since 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (y), there is \rho \in (0, \varepsilon) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon) \neq \varnothing. Choose \lambda \in {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon). Choose a continuous function f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] such that {\operatorname{supp}} (f) \subseteq (\rho, \varepsilon) and f (\lambda) \neq 0. Use Lemma 3.4 to choose c \in \bigl( {\overline{f (y) (B \otimes K) f (y)}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (c) = [0, 1]. Set z = (y - \varepsilon)_{+} + c. Then 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z) and (y - \varepsilon)_{+} \precsim_B z \precsim_B y.

Define

For j \not\in I, set a_j = b_j. Then 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a_j). Also,

The second says that \langle z \rangle_B <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_B.

Now suppose j \in I. We may as well assume that b_j is a projection. Use Lemma 2.14 to choose a_j, s_j \in (b_j (B \otimes K) b_j)_{+} and \delta \in (0, 1) such that

Then

Thus, here too \langle z \rangle_B <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_B, 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a_j), and \langle a_j \rangle_A \leq \langle b_j \rangle_A because \langle a_j \rangle_B \leq \langle b_j \rangle_B.

Passing to A, we have \langle z \rangle_A <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_A for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. Since A has m-comparison, it follows that

Since 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z) and of {\operatorname{sp}} (a_j) for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, Theorem 3.2 implies that

Therefore

We have proved that for all \varepsilon > 0 we have

So \langle y \rangle_B \leq \sum_{j = 0}^m \langle b_j \rangle_B. This completes the case where \langle y \rangle_B is not the class of a projection.

Now assume that \langle y \rangle_B is the class of a nonzero projection in B \otimes K. Use Lemma 2.6 of [Phl40] to choose b \in (B \otimes K)_{+} \setminus \{0\} such that \langle b \rangle_B \leq \langle b_j \rangle_B for j = 0, 1, \hdots, m. Set k = \max ( k_0, k_1, \ldots, k_m ). By Lemma 2.13, there exist \mu, \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (B) such that

For j = 0, 1, \hdots, m, we then have

Hence \mu + \eta <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_B. Since \mu + \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (B), the previous case yields the second step in the calculation

This completes the proof that if {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) has m-comparison, then so does {\operatorname{Cu}} (B).

Choose x, y \in B \otimes K such that such that \langle x \rangle_B = \xi and \langle y \rangle_B = \eta. If there is a projection p \in B such that \xi = \langle p \rangle_B, then

which is the desired conclusion. The conclusion follows the same way if \eta is the class of a projection. Therefore we may assume that 0 is a limit point of both {\operatorname{sp}} (x) and {\operatorname{sp}} (y).

Since \langle x \rangle_A \ll \langle y \rangle_A, Lemma 2.16 provides \varepsilon > 0 such that x \precsim_A (y - \varepsilon)_{+}. Since 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (y), there is \rho \in (0, \varepsilon) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon) \neq \varnothing. Choose \lambda \in {\operatorname{sp}} (y) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon). Choose a continuous function f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] such that {\operatorname{supp}} (f) \subseteq (\rho, \varepsilon) and f (\lambda) \neq 0. Use Lemma 3.4 to choose c \in \bigl( {\overline{f (y) (B \otimes K) f (y)}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (c) = [0, 1]. Then

It follows that

Since 0 is a limit point of both {\operatorname{sp}} (x) and {\operatorname{sp}} \bigl( (y - \varepsilon)_{+} + c \bigr), Theorem 3.2 implies that x \precsim_B (y - \varepsilon)_{+} + c. Combining this with (y - \varepsilon)_{+} + c \precsim_B (y - \rho)_{+}, we get x \precsim_B (y - \rho)_{+}. So \langle x \rangle_B \ll \langle y \rangle_B by Lemma 2.16.

Let \iota \colon B \to A be the inclusion map. Let k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0}. Let \xi, \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) satisfy \xi \ll \eta. Choose a, b \in (A \otimes K)_{+} such that \langle a \rangle_A = \xi and \langle b \rangle_A = \eta.

First suppose that a = 0 or 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a), and that b = 0 or 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b). We claim that in this case, we actually get \gamma \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) such that

This claim certainly implies the desired conclusion for this case, which has merely k \gamma \leq \eta and \xi \leq (k + 1) (2 m + 2) \gamma.

To prove the claim, use Corollary 3.3 to find \xi_0, \eta_0 \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) such that \iota_* (\xi_0) = \xi and \iota_* (\eta_0) = \eta. Then \xi_0 \ll \eta_0 by Lemma 3.6. So the hypothesis provides \gamma_0 \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) such that k \gamma_0 \leq \eta_0 and \xi_0 \leq (k + 1) (m + 1) \gamma_0. Set \gamma = \iota_* (\gamma_0). Then (?) holds, as claimed.

Otherwise, one or both of a and b is nonzero but its spectrum does not have 0 as a limit point. Therefore there is a nonzero projection p \in A \otimes K such that \langle p \rangle_A = \langle a \rangle_A or there is a nonzero projection p \in A \otimes K such that \langle p \rangle_A = \langle b \rangle_A. In either case, it suffices to prove the desired conclusion when a = b = p.

The case N = 1 of Lemma 2.14 provides x, y \in (p (A \otimes K) p)_{+} and \varepsilon \in (0, 1) such that

Lemma 2.16 tells us that \langle (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \rangle_A \ll \langle x \rangle_A. Since \varepsilon < 1, it follows that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} ((x - \varepsilon)_{+}) as well as of {\operatorname{sp}} (x). By the claim above (see (?)), there is \gamma \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A) such that

Now

and, using y \precsim_A (x - \varepsilon)_{+} at the second step and the second part of (?) at the third step,

This completes the proof of the proposition.

The proof of this proposition is similar to that of Proposition 3.7. Let k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} and let \xi, \eta \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) satisfy \xi \ll \eta. Choose a, b \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that \langle a \rangle_B = \xi and \langle b \rangle_B = \eta.

First suppose that a = 0 or 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a), and that b = 0 or 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b). In this case, we will prove the following stronger conclusion: for every k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} there is \gamma \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) such that

Since \langle a \rangle_B \ll \langle b \rangle_B and homomorphisms preserve the relation \ll (this is obvious from Lemma 2.16), we have \langle a \rangle_A \ll \langle b \rangle_A in {\operatorname{Cu}} (A). Using m-almost divisibility of A, we obtain c\in (A \otimes K)_{+} such that

Suppose that \langle c \rangle_A \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+}(A) \cup \left\{ 0 \right\}, so that 2 \langle c \rangle_A \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (A) \cup \left\{ 0 \right\}. By Corollary 3.3, there is d \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that \langle d \rangle_A = \langle c \rangle_A and 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (d). Using (?), we have

and

By Theorem 3.2, these relations also hold for the classes in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B). This is (?) with \gamma = \langle d \rangle_B.

Let us now suppose that \langle c \rangle_A is a class of nonzero projection. By Lemma 2.13, there exist \mu, \kappa \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (A) such that

Then \mu + \kappa \in {\operatorname{Cu}}_{+} (A), and from (?) we see that

Corollary 3.3 provides d \in (B \otimes K)_{+} such that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}}(d) and \langle d \rangle_A = \mu + \kappa, and Theorem 3.2 implies that

This is (?) with \gamma = \langle d \rangle_B.

It remains to consider the case in which one or both of a and b is nonzero but its spectrum does not have 0 as a limit point. In this case, there is a nonzero projection p \in B \otimes K such that \langle p \rangle_B = \langle a \rangle_B or there is a nonzero projection p \in B \otimes K such that \langle p \rangle_B = \langle b \rangle_B. In either case, \langle a \rangle_B \leq \langle p \rangle_B \ll \langle p \rangle_B \leq \langle b \rangle_B, and it suffices to prove the desired conclusion when a = b = p. By Lemma 2.14, there exist x, y \in (p (B \otimes K) p)_{+} and \varepsilon \in (0, 1) such that

Since \langle (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \rangle_B \ll \langle x \rangle_B and 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} ((x - \varepsilon)_{+}) as well as of {\operatorname{sp}} (x), by the previous case (see (?)), we obtain \gamma \in {\operatorname{Cu}} (B) such that

Now

Thus B is (4m + 3)-almost divisible.

If B is pure, then B has 0-comparison and is 0-almost divisible. So A has 0-comparison by Theorem 3.5 and is 1-divisible by Proposition 3.7. Together, these imply A is pure by Theorem 2.11.

Conversely, suppose that A is pure. Then A has 0-comparison and is 0-almost divisible. So B has 0-comparison by Theorem 3.5 and is 3-almost divisible by Proposition 3.8. Together, these imply B is pure by Theorem 2.11.

By Theorem 3.17 of [ArBcPh2], the algebra C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr)_{Y} is a recursive subhomogeneous algebra over D in the sense of Definition 3.2 of [ArBcPh2], and so is pure by Proposition 6.5 of [SethVil].

For such a choice of Y, the algebra C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr)_{Y} is a direct limit (with injective maps) of recursive subhomogeneous algebras over D (of the form given in Lemma 4.4) by Proposition 4.2 of [ArBcPh2]. Pureness follows by Theorem 3.8 of [PerThiVil].

Choose any point x \in X and set Y = \left\{ x \right\}. Then the minimality of h implies that h^{n}(Y) \cap Y = \varnothing for n \in {\mathbb{Z}} \setminus \left\{ 0 \right\}, and so C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr)_{Y} is pure by Proposition 4.5.

Since D is simple and pure, it has strict comparison of positive elements, and so Corollary 2.12(2) of [ArBcPh2] implies that C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr)_{Y} is a centrally large subalgebra of C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr). Pureness now follows from Theorem 3.9.

This follows immediately from Theorem 4.6 and Corollary 1.3 of [HLin].

Theorem 4.6 implies that A is pure. It follows that A has stable rank one by Corollary 4.7, and that {\operatorname{W}} (A) is almost unperforated by Proposition 2.15. The exactness of D implies that A is also exact. Now apply Proposition 7.1 of [Rord2004] to obtain the given conclusion.

Let \tau be a tracial state on A \otimes_{\min} B. For fixed a \in A_{+}, define a map \omega_{a} on B by \omega_{a} (b) = \tau (a \otimes b). Then \omega_{a} is a bounded linear functional on B, and is positive. For any b,c \in B, we have

and so \omega_{a} has the trace property. Therefore, it is a nonnegative multiple of \sigma, say \omega_{a} (b) = \rho (a) \sigma (b). Writing a \in A as a linear combination of positive elements allows the extension of \rho to a map A \to {\mathbb{C}}. Positivity and the condition that \rho (1) = 1 are immediate. The trace property of \rho is easily verified via the calculation

Additivity of \rho on A_{+} follows from the observation (using the linearity of \tau) that

for any a_{1}, a_{2} \in A_{+}, and linearity of \rho follows. Hence \rho is a tracial state on A. That \rho \otimes \sigma = \tau follows from density of the linear span of the elementary tensors. This gives surjectivity of the map \rho \mapsto \rho \otimes \sigma, and injectivity follows easily by evaluation on a \otimes 1_{B}.

Choose N \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} and f_k \in C (X,D) for -N \leq k \leq N such that b = \sum_{k = -N}^{N} f_k u^k satisfies \lVert a - b \rVert < \varepsilon/2. Set F = \left\{ -N, \ldots,N \right\}. By Proposition 11.1.19 of [GKPT], there exist n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} and t_1 , \ldots , t_n \in C (X) such that,, for 1 \leq k \leq n, \vert t_k (x) \vert = 1 for all x \in X and such that, for all x \in X and j \in F \setminus {0}, we have

Set s_k = t_k \otimes 1_D. Define P \colon C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr) \to C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr) by

We first compute

It is easy to show that, for j \neq 0 and any x \in X, we have

and hence, for any x \in X,

It follows that, for any j \in F \setminus \left\{ 0 \right\},

This implies that P(b) = E(b), and observing that \lVert s_k \rVert = 1 for 1 \leq k \leq n, we obtain \lVert P \rVert \leq 1. Now,

This is the desired result.

For an invariant probability measure \mu, define a tracial state \rho_{\mu} on C (X, D) by the formula

Obviously \rho_{\mu} is a tracial state, and it is \alpha-invariant because \sigma is invariant under all automorphisms of D. Lemma 4.9 implies that these are all the \alpha-invariant tracial states on C (X, D).

Let E \colon C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr) \to C (X, D) be the standard conditional expectation. Then for any \alpha-invariant tracial state \rho_{\mu} defined above, \tau_{\mu} = \rho_{\mu} \circ E defines a tracial state on C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr). Now let \tau be any tracial state on C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr). Restricting \tau to C (X, D) gives an \alpha-invariant tracial state on C (X, D), and so there is an invariant measure \mu such that \tau \vert_{C (X,D)} = \rho_{\mu}. We want to show that \tau = \tau_{\mu}. Since \tau (f) = \tau \vert_{C (X,D)} (f) = \rho_{\mu} (f) for every f \in C (X,D), it suffices to prove that, for every \varepsilon> 0 and every a \in C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr), we have \vert \tau (a) - \tau (E(a)) \vert < \varepsilon. Apply Lemma 4.10 to obtain n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} and s_1 , \ldots , s_n \in C (X,D) such that \lVert s_k \rVert = 1 for all k and

For each k, the trace property gives \tau (a) = \tau (a s_k^* s_k ) = \tau (s_k a s_k^* ), and hence {\displaystyle{ \tau (a) = \tau \Big( \tfrac{1}{n} \sum_{k=1}^{n} s_k a s_k^* \Big) }}. It follows that

as required.

Since D has a unique tracial state, Proposition 4.11 implies that

Since C^* ( {\mathbb{Z}}, X, h ) is a subalgebra of C^* \bigl( {\mathbb{Z}}, \, C (X, D), \, \alpha \bigr), the result follows.

Combine Corollary 4.12 with Corollary 4.8.

First observe that if \varphi \colon A \to B is a sequentially split homomorphism, then the induced (amplified) homomorphism

is again sequentially split. By a mild abuse of notation, we continue to denote this amplified map by \varphi. We thus obtain a commutative diagram

where \iota denotes the canonical inclusion of A \otimes K into (A \otimes K)_\infty as constant sequences.

Since B is pure, {\operatorname{Cu}}(B) has 0-almost comparison and is 0-almost divisible. Moreover, {\operatorname{Cu}}(A) has 0-almost comparison by Theorem 2.9 of [barlak]. It remains to show that {\operatorname{Cu}}(A) is 0-almost divisible. For this, let \varepsilon > 0, k\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, and a\in (A \otimes K)_+. Fix \left( a_n\right)_{n=1}^\infty to be a representative sequence of (\psi \circ \varphi) (a). Since (\psi \circ \varphi) (a) = \iota (a), we can choose N_1, such that for all n \geq N_1,

Thus, for all n \geq N_1, we get the following subequivalences

Furthermore, since {\operatorname{Cu}}(B) is 0-almost divisible, there exists b \in (B \otimes K)_+ such that

From the second inequality in the above equation, we obtain

and hence

Let e \in (A \otimes K)_\infty be such that

Fix representative sequences (e_n)_{n=1}^\infty and (b_n)_{n=1}^\infty for e and \psi(b), respectively, and choose N_2 \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} such that, for all n \geq N_2,

It follows that, for all n \geq N_2,

Let M\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} be such that \|e_n\|^2 \leq M for all n. By Lemma 1.4(8) of [Phl40],

and, by Lemma 1.4(6) of [Phl40] at the second step and Lemma 1.7 of [Phl40] at the third step, we obtain

From (?), (?), and (?), we see that

Moreover, the first inequality in (?) implies that

Choose c\in (A\otimes K)_\infty such that

Let (c_n)_{n=1}^\infty be a representative sequence for c, and let N_3\in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0} be such that, for all n\geq N_3,

Then, for all n\geq N_3,

Finally, let l:= \max \{N_1, N_2, N_3\}. Using the first part of (?) together with (?), we obtain

and by second part of (?) together with (?), we obtain

which gives 0-almost divisibility of {\operatorname{Cu}}(A).

Since A is the section algebra of a locally trivial continuous field over X with fiber D, repeated application of Lemma 2.4 of [Dad2009] shows that A admits the structure of a recursive subhomogeneous algebra over D. The usual definition of recursive subhomogeneous algebras over D (Definition 3.2 of [ArBcPh2]) assumes that D is unital; however, it extends in a straightforward way to the nonunital case, and the resulting algebra still admits an iterated pullback structure of the same form. Moreover, the same argument as in Proposition 6.5 of [SethVil] shows that A is pure.

Let X be the compact metric space obtained from Theorem 5.5. By Proposition 5.3, C^* \bigl( G, \, C(X,A), \, \gamma \bigr) is a locally trivial continuous C (X/G)-algebra, each of whose fibers is isomorphic to A \otimes K(L^2 (G)), and hence is pure by Lemma 5.7. C^* \bigl( G, \, A, \, \alpha \bigr) is thus pure by Proposition 5.6.

The proof is similar to the proof that m-comparison passes from a simple C*-algebra to a large subalgebra, part of Theorem 3.5. By Proposition 2.15, it suffices to prove m-comparison in {\operatorname{W}} (A^{\alpha}).

Let x, a_0, a_1, \ldots, a_m \in (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}))_{+} satisfy \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. Without loss of generality x \neq 0. By the definition of <_{\operatorname{s}} (Definition 2.3), for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m there is k_j \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} such that (k_j + 1) \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq k_j \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}. In particular, a_j \neq 0 for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m.

First assume \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} is not the class of a projection. Let \varepsilon > 0 be arbitrary. We will find z \in (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}))_{+} and, for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, we will find b_j \in (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}))_{+} such that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z), (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} z, and, for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, \langle z \rangle_A <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_A, 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j), and \langle b_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}.

Choose \rho \in (0, \varepsilon) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (x) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon) \neq \varnothing. Choose \lambda \in {\operatorname{sp}} (x) \cap (\rho, \varepsilon). Choose a continuous function f \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] such that {\operatorname{supp}} (f) \subseteq (\rho, \varepsilon) and f (\lambda) \neq 0. The algebra A^{\alpha} is simple by Theorem 3.1 of [MohPhil2021TRP] and not of Type I by Proposition 3.2 of [MohPhil2021TRP]. Therefore Lemma 2.12 provides c \in \bigl( {\overline{f (x) (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha})) f (x)}} \bigr)_{+} such that {\operatorname{sp}} (c) = [0, 1]. Set z = (x - \varepsilon)_{+} + c. Then 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z) and (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} z \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} x.

Define

For j \not\in I, set b_j = a_j. Then 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j). Also,

The second part says that \langle z \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}.

Now suppose j \in I. We may as well assume that a_j is a projection. Use Lemma 2.14 to choose b_j, s_j \in (a_j (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha})) a_j)_{+} and \delta \in (0, 1) such that

Then

Thus, here too \langle z \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}, 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j), and \langle b_j \rangle_A \leq \langle a_j \rangle_A because \langle b_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}.

Passing to A, we have \langle z \rangle_A <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle b_j \rangle_A for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m. Since A has m-comparison, it follows that \langle z \rangle_A \leq \sum_{j = 0}^m \langle b_j \rangle_A. Since 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (z) and of {\operatorname{sp}} (b_j) for j = 0, 1, \ldots, m, Proposition 4.10 of [MohPhil2021TRP] implies that \langle z \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq \sum_{j = 0}^m \langle b_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}. Therefore

We have proved that for all \varepsilon > 0 we have

So \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq \sum_{j = 0}^m \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}. This completes the case that \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} is not the class of a projection.

Now assume that \langle x \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} is the class of a nonzero projection in M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}). By Theorem 3.1 of [MohPhil2021TRP], A^{\alpha} is simple. Now, use Lemma 2.6 of [Phl40] to choose b \in (M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}))_{+} \setminus \{0\} such that \langle b \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} \leq \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}} for j = 0, 1, \hdots, m. Set k = \max ( k_0, k_1, \ldots, k_m ). By Lemma 2.13, there exist \mu, \eta \in {\operatorname{W}} (A^{\alpha}), both not the classes of projections, such that

For j = 0, 1, \hdots, m, we then have

Hence \mu + \eta <_{\operatorname{s}} \langle a_j \rangle_{A^{\alpha}}. Since \mu + \eta is not the class of a projection, the previous case yields the second step in the calculation

This completes the proof that if A has m-comparison, then so does A^{\alpha}.

We will systematically write elements b \in M_n (A) as matrices b = (b_{j, k})_{j, k = 1}^N. We also use standard matrix unit notation, so that (b_{j, k})_{j, k = 1}^N = \sum_{j, k = 1}^N e_{j, k} \otimes b_{j, k}. Define compact subsets S_1 \subseteq A and S_2 \subseteq A^{\alpha} by

for \nu = 1, 2. Following the argument in the proof of Proposition 4.19 of [MohPhil2021TRP], use Lemma 3.8 of [PhlT1], then Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 of [MohPhil2021TRP] and Lemma 2.4 of [Phl40], to get x_0 \in A_{+} \setminus \{ 0 \} and y_0 \in (A^{\alpha})_{+} \setminus \{ 0 \} such that

Further set

Apply Theorem 2.14 of [MohPhil2021TRP] with \varepsilon_0 in place of \varepsilon, with n as given, with S_1 and S_2 in place of F_1 and F_2, and with x_0 and y_0 in place of x and y. Let p_0 \in A^{\alpha} and \psi_0 \colon A \to p_0 A^{\alpha} p_0 be the resulting projection and (n, S_1 \cup S_2, \varepsilon_0)-approximately multiplicative unital completely positive contractive map. Define p = 1_{M_N} \otimes p_0 and \psi = {\operatorname{id}}_{M_N} \otimes \psi_0.

We verify the conclusions of the lemma. We start with (?). An argument by induction on m shows that every product b = a_1 a_2 \cdots a_m with a_1, a_2, \ldots, a_m \in F_1 \cup F_2 has the form (b_{j, k})_{j, k = 1}^N in which, for j, k = 1, 2, \ldots, N, the element b_{j, k} is a sum of N^{m - 1} products of length m of elements of S_1 \cup S_2. The matrix entries of c = \psi (a_1) \psi (a_2) \cdots \psi (a_m) are sums of the same products, except that each element z \in S_1 \cup S_2 is replaced with \psi_0 (z). When m \in \{ 1, 2, \ldots, n \}, the approximate multiplicativity condition on \psi_0, used at the second step, implies that

Therefore

This proves (?).

For (?), let a = (a_{j, k})_{j, k = 1}^N \in F_1 \cup F_2. Then a_{j, k} \in S_1 \cup S_2 for j, k = 1, 2, \ldots, N. So p a - a p = \bigl( p_0 a_{j, k} - a_{j, k} p_0 \bigr)_{j, k = 1}^N, whence

Part (?) is similar: if a = (a_{j, k})_{j, k = 1}^N \in F_2, then a_{j, k} \in S_2 for all j, k, so

For (?), we have, using (?) at the last step,

and (?) is proved similarly. Condition (?) is immediate from 1 - p_0 \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} p_0.

We verify the criterion of Proposition 2.17. Thus, let n \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0}, let a \in M_{n} (A^{\alpha})_+, let k \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{\geq 0}, and let \varepsilon > 0. Using the notation of Proposition 2.17, we must find b \in M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha})_+ such that in {\operatorname{W}} (A^{\alpha}) we have

By Proposition 4.19 of [MohPhil2021TRP], the action g \mapsto {\operatorname{id}}_{M_n} \otimes \alpha_g of G on M_{n} \otimes A also has the restricted tracial Rokhlin property with comparison. Therefore we may assume n = 1. We may also clearly assume that (a - \varepsilon)_+ \neq 0.

First assume that 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a). In this case we will prove (Proof) with m + 1 in place of 2 m + 2 in the second inequality. Choose \rho \in (0, \frac{\varepsilon}{3}) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (x) \cap \bigl( \rho, \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \bigr) \neq \varnothing. Choose \lambda \in {\operatorname{sp}} (x) \cap \bigl( \rho, \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \bigr). Choose a continuous function h \colon [0, \infty) \to [0, 1] such that {\operatorname{supp}} (h) \subseteq \bigl( \rho, \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \bigr) and h (\lambda) \neq 0. By Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 3.2 of [MohPhil2021TRP], A^{\alpha} is simple and not type I. Now, Use Lemma 2.4 of [Phl40] to find t \in ({\overline{h (a) A^{\alpha} h (a)}})_{+} \setminus \{ 0 \} such that

Apply the other direction of Proposition 2.17 to A. We get r \in {\mathbb{Z}}_{> 0} and c \in M_r (A)_{+} such that in {\operatorname{W}} (A) we have

Using Proposition 4.19 of [MohPhil2021TRP] again, we may replace A with M_r (A), and thus assume that both a and c are in A.

Define N = (m + 1) (k + 1) and, in the first of these using the inclusion in the upper left corner,

Abusing notation, we also take A \subseteq M_N (A) via the inclusion in the upper left corner. Thus, for example, in the following, using standard matrix units in M_N, a is really e_{1, 1} \otimes a and c is really e_{1, 1} \otimes c. Use (?) to choose w \in M_N (A) such that

Define

Use the first part of (?) to choose v \in M_N (A) such that

Define

Define finite subsets F_1 \subseteq M_N (A) and F_2 \subseteq M_N (A^{\alpha}) by

Apply Lemma 6.3 with \rho in place of \varepsilon, with n = 3, with F_1 and F_2 as given, with 1_{M_N (A)} in place of x, and with t (as in (?), identified with e_{1, 1} \otimes t) in place of y, getting a projection p_0 \in A^{\alpha} and a unital completely positive contractive map \psi_0 \colon A \to p_0 A^{\alpha} p_0 such that, taking p = 1_{M_N} \otimes p_0 \in M_N (A^{\alpha}) and \psi = {\operatorname{id}}_{M_N} \otimes \psi \colon M_N (A) \to p M_N (A^{\alpha}) p, the following hold:

1. Whenever m \in \{ 1, 2, 3 \} and z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_m \in F_1 \cup F_2, we have

   \bigl\| \psi (z_1 z_2 \cdots z_m) - \psi (z_1) \psi (z_2) \cdots \psi (z_m) \bigr\| < \rho.

2. \| p z - z p \| < \rho for all z \in F_{1} \cup F_{2}.

3. \| \psi (z) - p z p \| < \rho for all z \in F_2.

4. 1 - p \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} t.

Given our identification of A as the upper left corner of M_N (A), we are identifying p_0 a p_0 with p a p, \psi (a) with \psi_0 (a), etc.

Define b_0 = (\psi (c) - 2 \delta)_{+} \in A^{\alpha}. This gives, in M_N (A^{\alpha}),

Further define

We first claim that

To prove the claim, first estimate, using (?), (?), and (?) at the second step, and (?) at the third step,

Since \| (\psi (y) - 2 \delta)_{+} - \psi (y) \| \leq 2 \delta, we then get, using (?) at the third step,

Therefore

proving the claim.

Our second claim is that

To prove this, use Lemma 1.8 of [Phl40] at the second step, the previous claim and (?) at the third step, and (?) at the fourth step, getting

The claim follows.

This claim is the second part of (Proof), with m + 1 in place of 2 m + 2.

We next claim that

Using \psi (v) \in p M_N (A^{\alpha}) p at the first step, using (?), (?), and (?) at the third step, and using (?) at the fourth step, we get

Therefore

as claimed.

We now use (?) at the first step, (?) at the second step, the previous claim and (?) at the third step, and h (a) \perp \left( a - \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \right)_+ at the fourth step, to get

This is the first inequality in (Proof), and completes the proof when 0 is a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a).

Now assume 0 is not a limit point of {\operatorname{sp}} (a). We may assume that a is a projection. Lemma 2.14 yields x, y \in (a (A^{\alpha} \otimes K) a)_{+} \subseteq M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha}) and \varepsilon \in (0, 1) such that {\operatorname{sp}} (x) = {\operatorname{sp}} (y) = [0, 1], a \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} (x - \varepsilon)_{+} \oplus (y - \varepsilon)_{+}, and y \precsim_{A^{\alpha}} (x - \varepsilon)_{+}. Applying the case already done to x, we get b \in M_{\infty} (A^{\alpha})_+ such that

Now

and, at the first step using the fact that a is a projection,

This completes the proof that A^{\alpha} is (2 m + 1)-almost divisible.

It follows from Proposition 6.4, Proposition 6.2, and Theorem 2.11 that A^{\alpha} is pure. Now, Corollary 3.9 of [MohPhil2021TRP] implies that C^* \bigl( G, \, A, \, \alpha \bigr) is strongly Morita equivalent to A^{\alpha}. Therefore C^* \bigl( G, \, A, \, \alpha \bigr) is pure.

Theorem A of [AGKEP] implies that C^*_{\mathrm{r}} (F_n) has strict comparison. Pureness follows by Theorem 5.13 of [AnPrTlVt], as described in Example 5.14 there.