arXiv reader

Characterisations for coarse embeddability via quasi-locality and Schur multipliers

Kang Li, Jiawen Zhang and Jingming Zhu

arXiv
2610.21632v1 · PDF · 15 October 2026
Categories
math.OA
Licence
CC0 1.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

We establish three new characterisations of coarse embeddability into Hilbert space for discrete metric spaces of bounded geometry, in terms of escaping quasi-local couplings, Schur multipliers, and operator norm state localisation. As applications, we prove that if a sparse metric space of bounded geometry is coarsely embeddable into Hilbert space, then every ghost projection in the quasi-local algebra is compact, while we also provide a counterexample to the converse implication. Finally, we characterise coarse embeddability into Hilbert space via the relative Haagerup property for the quasi-local algebra, and investigate its relation to coarse embeddability into \ell^p for p>2.

Items 72

Definition

Definition A

EIUY

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. An escaping quasi-local coupling on X is a sequence of symmetric finitely supported probability measures \{\nu_n\}_n on X\times X satisfying:

  • (E) For any S>0, \nu_n\bigl(\{(x,y)\in X^2:d(x,y)\le S\}\bigr)\to 0;

  • (Q) For any \varepsilon>0, there is R>0 such that \nu_n(A\times B)<\varepsilon for any n and A,B \subseteq X with d(A,B)>R.

Theorem

Theorem B

0OWC

A discrete metric space (X,d) of bounded geometry can be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space if and only if X admits no escaping quasi-local coupling.

Uses Definition A · Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Theorem B

First, assume that X does not coarsely embed into any Hilbert space. Proposition 3.2 provides finite subsets Y_n\subseteq X which form a sequence of generalised expanders. Then Lemma 5.2 provides an escaping quasi-local coupling on X, which shows the sufficiency.

Conversely, let F:X\to\mathcal{H} be a coarse embedding with control functions \rho_-,\rho_+, and suppose that \{\nu_n\}_n is an escaping quasi-local coupling. For each n, let

m_n(x):=\sum_{y\in X}\nu_n(x,y), \quad \text{and} \quad Y_n:=\{x\in X:m_n(x)>0\}.

Since \nu_n is finitely supported and symmetric, Y_n is finite and \nu_n is supported on Y_n\times Y_n. Define v_n\in\ell^2(Y_n) and a matrix K_n\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(Y_n)) by

v_n(x):=\sqrt{m_n(x)} \quad \text{and} \quad (K_n)_{xy}:=\frac{\nu_n(x,y)}{\sqrt{m_n(x)m_n(y)}} \quad \text{for} \quad x,y\in Y_n.

Then \|v_n\|=1 and \sum_{y\in Y_n}(K_n)_{xy}v_n(y)=v_n(x). Hence, Lemma 3.7 shows \|K_n\|= 1. Regard K_n and v_n as supported on Y_n\subseteq X. Direct calculations show

\langle v_n,\chi_AK_n\chi_Bv_n\rangle=\nu_n(A\times B) \quad \text{for any} \quad A,B\subseteq X.

For R>0, set \alpha(R):=\sup\{\nu_n(A\times B): n\in \mathbb{N} \text{ and } A,B \subseteq X \text{ with } d(A,B) > R\}. Condition (Q) implies that \alpha(R)\to 0 as R\to\infty. Applying Proposition 4.3 to T=K_n and \xi=\eta=v_n and using (?), we obtain

\big|\langle v_n,(K_n-M_{\varphi_t}(K_n))v_n\rangle\big|\le4\alpha(R)+4\sqrt{p_t(R)}

for every R,t>0, where \varphi_t(x,y)=e^{-t\|F(x)-F(y)\|} and p_t(R)=N_X(R) \cdot q_t(\rho_+(R)). Direct calculations show

\big|\langle v_n,(K_n-M_{\varphi_t}(K_n))v_n\rangle\big| = \left|1-\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}\varphi_t(x,y)\nu_n(x,y)\right|.

On the other hand, for every fixed t>0 and S>0, we have

\begin{aligned} 0\le\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}\varphi_t(x,y)\nu_n(x,y) &\le \nu_n\bigl(\{(x,y):d(x,y)\le S\}\bigr)+e^{-t\rho_-(S)}. \end{aligned}

Condition (E) therefore gives

\limsup_{n\to\infty}\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}\varphi_t(x,y)\nu_n(x,y) \le e^{-t\rho_-(S)}.

Letting S\to\infty, we obtain

\lim_{n\to \infty}\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}\varphi_t(x,y)\nu_n(x,y)= 0 \quad \text{for each fixed} \quad t>0.

Taking n\to\infty in (?) and using (?), (?) yields

1\le4\alpha(R)+4\sqrt{p_t(R)} \quad \text{for any} \quad R,t>0.

For fixed R, we have p_t(R)\to0 as t\to0+ and hence 1\le4\alpha(R), which contradicts condition (Q). Thus, no escaping quasi-local coupling can exist on X.

Theorem

Theorem C

C7GQ

Let (X,d) be a sparse discrete metric space of bounded geometry which is coarsely embeddable into Hilbert space. Then for every ghost projection P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)),

\operatorname{dist}\big(P,C_{uq}^*(X)) = \operatorname{dist}\big(P,C_u^*(X)\big) = \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if }P\text{ is compact};\\ \frac12,&\text{if }P\text{ is non-compact}. \end{cases}

In particular, any ghost projection in C^*_{uq}(X) is compact.

Theorem

Theorem D

2AAR

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. The space X can be coarsely embedded into some Hilbert space;

  2. There exists a sequence \{\varphi_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}\subseteq \mathscr{P}_0(X) such that \|M_{\varphi_n}(T)-T\| \to 0 as n\to \infty, for any T \in C^*_{uq}(X);

  3. Any positive T\in C^*_u(X) with M_\varphi(T)\in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) for any \varphi\in\mathscr{P}_0(X), is compact;

  4. Any positive T\in C^*_{uq}(X) with M_\varphi(T)\in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) for any \varphi\in\mathscr{P}_0(X), is compact;

  5. J_0(X)=\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)).

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Theorem D

“(1) \Rightarrow (2)”: Assume that F:X\to \mathcal{H} is a coarse embedding. For t>0, put \varphi_t(x,y):=\exp({-t\|F(x)-F(y)\|}) for x,y\in X. Clearly, \varphi_t\in\mathscr{P}_0(X). Moreover, Corollary 4.4 implies that \|M_{\varphi_t}(T)-T\|\to 0 as t\to 0+.

“(2) \Rightarrow (4)” and “(4) \Rightarrow (3)” hold trivially.

“(3) \Leftrightarrow (5)”: By Lemma 6.1, condition (3) is equivalent to that all positive elements in J_0(X) are compact. Since \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) \subseteq J_0(X) and every element in a C^*-algebra is a linear combination of positive elements, we obtain (5).

“(3) \Rightarrow (1)”: Let Y=\bigsqcup_nY_n, S_n,M_n,C,r_n be given by Proposition 3.6. Regard all block-diagonal operators on \ell^2(Y) as operators on \ell^2(X) by zero extension. Set

S=\mathrm{(SOT)}\text{-}\sum_{n} S_n \quad \text{and} \quad M=\mathrm{(SOT)}\text{-}\sum_{n} M_n.

Also set

T_n:=(S_n)_+ \quad \text{and} \quad T:=S_+=\mathrm{(SOT)}\text{-}\sum_{n} T_n \in C^*_u(X).

Since M_n is self-adjoint and \|M_n\|\leq 1, we have S_n \leq M_n\leq \mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(Y_n)}, which gives 0 \leq T \leq \mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(X)}. Moreover, \|T_n\|=\lambda_{\max}(S_n)\ge C^{-1}, so T is not compact.

It remains to show that M_\varphi(T) is compact for any \varphi\in\mathcal P_0(X). Fix \varphi\in\mathcal P_0(X), and put V:=T^{1/2}\in C_u^*(X). Then 0\le T^2=T^{1/2}ST^{1/2}\le V^*MV. Choose block-diagonal finite-propagation operators V^{(m)} such that \|V^{(m)}-V\|\to 0. Fix m, and let R:=\mathrm{prop}(V^{(m)}). Since M_n is supported on \{(x,y) \in Y_n^2: d(x,y) \geq r_n\}, A_n:=(V_n^{(m)})^*M_nV_n^{(m)} is supported on \{(x,y) \in Y_n^2: d(x,y) \geq r_n - 2R\}. Set

\varepsilon_n:= \sup_{d(x,y)\geq r_n-2R} |\varphi(x,y)|, \quad \widetilde V_n=\left(|(V_n^{(m)})_{xy}|\right)_{x,y\in Y_n} \quad \text{and} \quad K_n:=\widetilde V_n^*M_n\widetilde V_n.

Since M_n is non-negative entry-wise, we have |(A_n)_{xy}|\le (K_n)_{xy} for each x,y\in Y_n. Hence, for any unit vectors \xi,\eta \in \ell^2(Y_n), we have

|\langle\eta,M_\varphi(A_n)\xi\rangle| \leq \varepsilon_n \langle|\eta|,K_n|\xi|\rangle \leq \varepsilon_n\|K_n\|,

for |\eta|(x)=|\eta(x)| and |\xi|(x) = |\xi(x)|. By the Schur test, we have \|\widetilde V_n\| \leq N_X(R) \cdot \|V_n^{(m)}\| and hence, \|K_n\| \leq N_X(R)^2 \cdot \|V_n^{(m)}\|^2 \leq N_X(R)^2 \cdot \|V^{(m)}\|^2. Therefore,

\|M_\varphi(A_n)\| \le \varepsilon_n\|K_n\| \le \varepsilon_n \cdot N_X(R)^2 \cdot \|V^{(m)}\|^2 \to 0 \quad \text{as} \quad n \to \infty,

which shows that M_\varphi\bigl((V^{(m)})^*MV^{(m)}\bigr) is compact. Since M_\varphi is contractive, we obtain M_\varphi(V^*MV) = \lim_{m \to \infty} M_\varphi\bigl((V^{(m)})^*MV^{(m)}\bigr), which is also compact. Finally, note that

0\le M_\varphi(T)^2 \le M_\varphi(T^2)\le M_\varphi(V^*MV).

Thus, M_\varphi(T) is compact. This finishes the proof.

Definition

Definition E

QQVF

A discrete metric space (X,d) of bounded geometry is said to have the operator norm state localisation property (ONSL) if for any R>0 and \varepsilon \in (0,1), there exists a non-increasing function \omega:[0,\infty)\to [0,1] with \lim_{s\to\infty}\omega(s)=0 such that for any positive operator T\in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)) with \mathrm{prop}(T)\le R, there exists a positive trace-class operator D on \ell^2(X) with \mathrm{Tr}(D)=1 satisfying \mathrm{Tr}(TD)\ge(1-\varepsilon)\|T\| and |D_{xy}|\le \omega(d(x,y))\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}} for any x,y\in X.

Theorem

Theorem F

I6NO

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. Then X can be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space if and only if X satisfies ONSL.

Proof of Theorem F

Assume first that F:X\to \mathcal{H} is a coarse embedding with control functions \rho_-,\rho_+. Fix R>0 and 0<\varepsilon<1. For t>0, let

\varphi_t(x,y):=e^{-t\|F(x)-F(y)\|} \quad \text{for} \quad x,y\in X

as in Proposition 4.3. Choose t>0 sufficiently small such that

N_X(R)\cdot q_t(\rho_+(R))<\frac{\varepsilon^2}{64},

and put \omega(s):=e^{-t\rho_-(s)}. Then \omega is non-increasing and tends to zero at infinity.

Let 0\le T\in B(\ell^2(X)) have propagation at most R, and assume that T \neq 0. Since \chi_AT\chi_B=0 whenever d(A,B)>R, Corollary 4.4 gives \|M_{\varphi_t}(T)-T\|<\frac\varepsilon2\|T\|. Choose a unit vector \xi\in\ell^2(X) such that

\langle\xi,M_{\varphi_t}(T)\xi\rangle \ge \|M_{\varphi_t}(T)\|-\frac\varepsilon2\|T\|.

Let P_\xi be the rank-one projection onto \mathbb{C}\xi and define D:=M_{\varphi_t}(P_\xi). Since M_{\varphi_t} is completely positive, D\ge0. Moreover, we have D_{xx}=|\xi_x|^2, so D is trace class and \mathrm{Tr}(D)=1. Also, we have

|D_{xy}|=|\varphi_t(x,y)|\cdot |\xi_x|\cdot |\xi_y| \le\omega(d(x,y))\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}}.

Since \varphi_t is real and symmetric, direct calculations show that

\mathrm{Tr}(TD) = \mathrm{Tr}(T \cdot M_{\varphi_t}(P_\xi)) = \mathrm{Tr}(M_{\varphi_t}(T) \cdot P_\xi) = \langle\xi,M_{\varphi_t}(T)\xi\rangle.

By (?), we obtain

\langle\xi,M_{\varphi_t}(T)\xi\rangle \geq \|M_{\varphi_t}(T)\|-\frac\varepsilon2\|T\| \geq \|T\|-\|M_{\varphi_t}(T)-T\|-\frac\varepsilon2\|T\| \geq (1-\varepsilon)\|T\|.

So \mathrm{Tr}(TD) \geq (1-\varepsilon)\|T\| and hence, X satisfies ONSL.

Conversely, suppose that X satisfies ONSL but does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space. Let Y=\bigsqcup_nY_n\subseteq X, C, r_n, S_n, M_n, S_n^{(R)} be given by Proposition 3.6. We regard S_n, M_n and S_n^{(R)} as operators on \ell^2(X) by extending them by zero.

Choose R>0 such that R^{-2} < \min\left\{1,\frac1{4C}\right\}, and then choose 0<\varepsilon<1 such that 2R^{-2}+6\varepsilon<\frac1{2C}. Let \omega be the function supplied by ONSL for this R and \varepsilon. Regard

T_n^{(R)}:=S_n^{(R)}+3\mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(X)}.

By Proposition 3.6, we have

\|S_n^{(R)}\|\le\|S_n\|+\|S_n-S_n^{(R)}\|\le 2+R^{-2}\leq 3.

Hence, T_n^{(R)}\ge 0 and \mathrm{prop}(T_n^{(R)})\le R. Moreover,

\lambda_{\max}(S_n^{(R)}) \ge\lambda_{\max}(S_n)-R^{-2} \ge C^{-1}-R^{-2},

which implies that

3+C^{-1}-R^{-2} \le \lambda_{\max}(S_n^{(R)}) + 3 = \lambda_{\max}(T_n^{(R)}) = \|T_n^{(R)}\| \leq \|S_n^{(R)}\| + 3 \leq 6.

Choose a density operator D_n supplied by ONSL for T_n^{(R)} such that (?) and (?) hold for \varepsilon,R witnessed by \omega. Then

\mathrm{Tr}(S_n^{(R)}D_n) =\mathrm{Tr}(T_n^{(R)}D_n)-3 \ge(1-\varepsilon)\|T_n^{(R)}\|-3 \ge C^{-1}-R^{-2}-6\varepsilon.

Define the unit vector v_n \in \ell^2(X) by v_n(x):=\sqrt{(D_n)_{xx}}. Since S_n\le M_n and D_n\ge0, we have \mathrm{Tr}(S_nD_n)\le\mathrm{Tr}(M_nD_n). Hence, by the condition on M_n, we have

\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Tr}(S_nD_n) &\leq \mathrm{Tr}(M_nD_n)\le\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}(M_n)_{xy} \cdot |(D_n)_{yx}|\le\omega(r_n)\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}(M_n)_{xy}v_n(x)v_n(y) \\ &=\omega(r_n)\langle v_n,M_nv_n\rangle \le\omega(r_n). \end{aligned}

Furthermore, \left|\mathrm{Tr}\left((S_n^{(R)}-S_n)D_n^{Y}\right)\right| \le\|S_n^{(R)}-S_n\|\cdot\|D_n^{Y}\|_1 \leq R^{-2}. Combining this with (?) and (?), we obtain

\omega(r_n) \geq \mathrm{Tr}(S_nD_n) \geq \mathrm{Tr}(S_n^{(R)}D_n) - R^{-2} \geq C^{-1}-2R^{-2}-6\varepsilon >\frac1{2C}.

This contradicts \lim_{n\to \infty} \omega(r_n) = 0, which finishes the proof.

Definition

Definition 2.1

SHXQ

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space, \mathcal{H}_0 be a Hilbert space and T \in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)).

  1. The propagation of T is defined to be \mathrm{prop}(T):=\sup\{d(x,y): T_{xy} \neq 0\}. We say that T has finite propagation if \mathrm{prop}(T) < \infty.

  2. We say that T is quasi-local if for any \varepsilon>0, there exists R>0 such that for any A,B \subseteq X with d(A,B) > R, we have \|\chi_A T \chi_B\| < \varepsilon.

  3. We say that T is locally compact if \chi_FT and T\chi_F are compact for every finite subset F\subseteq X.

Definition

Definition 2.2

9Z9R

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry and \mathcal{H}_0 a Hilbert space.

  1. The Roe algebra of X, denoted by C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0), is the norm closure of all finite propagation and locally compact operators in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)).

  2. The quasi-local algebra of X, denoted by C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0), is the set of all quasi-local and locally compact operators in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)).

Definition

Definition 2.3 (G. Yu)

OLTB

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry and \mathcal{H}_0 a Hilbert space. Say that T \in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) is a ghost operator if for any \varepsilon>0, there exists a finite subset F \subseteq X such that \|T_{xy}\| < \varepsilon for any (x,y) \in (X \times X) \setminus (F \times F).

Definition

Definition 3.1

3B2V

Given k,r > 0, a finite metric space (X,d) is called a generalised (k,r)-expander if there is a symmetric probability measure \mu on X\times X such that \mathrm{supp}(\mu) \subseteq \{(x,y) \in X^2: d(x,y)\geq r\} and

\sum_{x,y \in X}\|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 \mu(x,y) \leq k^2

for any Hilbert-space-valued map F:X \to \mathcal{H} satisfying

\|F(x) - F(y)\|_{\mathcal{H}} \leq d(x,y) \quad \text{whenever} \quad d(x,y) \geq 1.

A sequence of finite metric spaces \{(X_n,d_n)\}_n is called a sequence of generalised expanders if there exist k>0 and a sequence r_n \to \infty such that each X_n is a generalised (k,r_n)-expander.

Proposition

Proposition 3.2

MM5A

A metric space X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space if and only if there exists a sequence of finite subsets \{Y_n\}_n of X which forms a sequence of generalised expanders.

Uses Definition 3.1 · Used by Proof, Proof, Proof
Proposition

Proposition 3.3

PGL6

Let (X,d) be a locally finite metric space. Then X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space if and only if there exists a sequence of disjoint finite subsets \{Y_n\}_n of X with d(Y_n, Y_m) \to \infty as n+m \to \infty and n \neq m such that \{Y_n\}_n is a sequence of generalised expanders.

Uses Definition 3.1 · Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.3

We only need to prove necessity. Assume that X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space. By Proposition 3.2, there exist k>0, r_j\to\infty, finite subsets Z_j\subseteq X and symmetric probability measures \mu_j on Z_j\times Z_j with support contained in \{(x,y)\in Z_j^2:d(x,y)\geq r_j\} such that

\sum_{x,y\in Z_j}\|G(x)-G(y)\|^2\mu_j(x,y)\le k^2,

for any Hilbert-space-valued map G:Z_j\to \mathcal{H} satisfying \|G(x) - G(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. Extend each \mu_j by zero to X\times X, still denoted by \mu_j.

First, claim that \mu_j(A\times X)\to 0 for every finite subset A\subseteq X. Indeed, given \varepsilon>0, choose R>0 so that k^2/R^2<\varepsilon. Consider the 1-Lipschitz function

f(z):=\min\{d(z,A),R\} \quad \text{for} \quad z\in X.

Since f\equiv 0 on A and f \equiv R on X\setminus \mathcal{N}_R(A), (Proof) gives

\mu_j\bigl(A\times(X\setminus \mathcal{N}_R(A))\bigr)\le \frac{k^2}{R^2}<\varepsilon.

On the other hand, for any (x,y) \in A\times \mathcal{N}_R(A) we have d(x,y)\leq \mathrm{diam}(A)+R. Hence, for sufficiently large j, the support condition of \mu_j gives \mu_j(A\times \mathcal{N}_R(A))=0. Combining these estimates, we prove the claim.

We now construct Y_n recursively. Choose j_1 with r_{j_1} \geq 1, and set Y_1 = Z_{j_1} and \nu_1:=\mu_{j_1}. Suppose that Y_1,\ldots,Y_{n-1} have been chosen for some n \geq 2, and we set B_n:=\mathcal{N}_n(Y_1\cup\cdots\cup Y_{n-1}), which is finite. Since X is infinite, choose o_n\in X\setminus B_n and define

L_n:=1+ \max_{b\in B_n} d(o_n,b)>0 \quad \text{and} \quad A_n:=\mathcal{N}_{L_n}(B_n).

By the claim above, we choose j_n \geq n sufficiently large such that \mu_{j_n}(A_n\times X)<1/4. Hence, the symmetry of \mu_{j_n} gives

q_n:=\mu_{j_n}\bigl((X\setminus A_n)^2\bigr) \ge 1-2\mu_{j_n}(A_n\times X)>\frac12.

Now set

Y_n:=(Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n)\cup\{o_n\} \quad \text{and} \quad \nu_n:=q_n^{-1}\mu_{j_n}|_{(X\setminus A_n)^2}.

Then Y_n is finite, and we regard \nu_n as a symmetric probability measure on Y_n\times Y_n with support contained in \{(x,y)\in Y_n^2:d(x,y)\ge r_{j_n}\}.

Now we verify the Poincaré inequality. Let F:Y_n\to \mathcal{H} be a Hilbert-space-valued map satisfying \|F(x) - F(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. After translation, we assume F(o_n)=0. Set t_x:=d(x,B_n) and \theta_x:=\min\left\{1,\frac{t_x}{L_n}\right\} for x\in Y_n, and define a map G:Z_{j_n}\to \mathcal{H} by

G(x):= \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if } x\in Z_{j_n}\cap B_n, \text{ or }x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n \text{ with } d(x,o_n) < 1;\\ \theta_x \cdot F(x),& \text{if }x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n \text{ with } d(x,o_n) \geq 1. \end{cases}

We claim that \|G(x) - G(y)\| \leq 3d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. To see this, fix x,y\in Z_{j_n} with d(x,y) \geq 1. Note that when x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n and d(x,o_n)\ge1, we have

\|F(x)\| =\|F(x)-F(o_n)\| \le d(x,o_n) \le t_x+L_n.

Case I. x,y\in Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n. If both G(x) and G(y) are zero, the estimate is trivial. Assume that G(x)\neq0 and G(y)\neq0. Without loss of generality, assume t_x\le t_y, so \theta_x\le\theta_y. Then we have

\|G(x)-G(y)\| \leq \theta_y\|F(x)-F(y)\| +(\theta_y-\theta_x)\|F(x)\|.

If F(x)=0, then \|G(x)-G(y)\| \leq \theta_y\|F(x)-F(y)\|\leq \|F(x)-F(y)\| and the claim holds. Now we only need to consider the case when F(x)\neq 0. If \theta_x=\theta_y, the right hand side is at most d(x,y). If \theta_x<\theta_y, then t_x<L_n and hence, (?) shows \|F(x)\|\le2L_n and |\theta_x-\theta_y|\le d(x,y)/L_n. Consequently,

\|G(x)-G(y)\| \le d(x,y)+\frac{d(x,y)}{L_n}\cdot 2L_n =3d(x,y).

If exactly one of G(x) and G(y) is zero, by symmetry assume that G(x)=0 and G(y)\neq0. Since x\notin B_n and F(x)\neq 0, the definition of G implies d(x,o_n)<1. Since G(y)\neq0, we have d(y,o_n)\ge1 and hence

\|G(y)\| =\theta_y\|F(y)\| \le \|F(y)-F(o_n)\| \le d(y,o_n).

Therefore, we have

\|G(x)-G(y)\| =\|G(y)\| \le d(y,x)+d(x,o_n) < d(x,y)+1 \le2d(x,y).

Case II. x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus B_n and y\in Z_{j_n}\cap B_n. We can assume G(x) \neq 0, otherwise the result holds trivially. Now (?) gives

\|G(x)-G(y)\|=\|G(x)\| \le\min\{1,t_x/L_n\} \cdot (t_x+L_n) \le2t_x\le2d(x,y).

Case III. x,y\in B_n. Then G(x) = G(y) = 0. Hence, we prove the claim.

Now applying (Proof) to G/3 yields

\sum_{x,y\in Z_{j_n}}\|G(x)-G(y)\|^2\mu_{j_n}(x,y)\le9k^2.

For x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus A_n, we have t_x>L_n and hence, \theta_x=1. Moreover, d(x,o_n)\ge1 by the choice of L_n. Therefore, G(x)=F(x) for any x\in Z_{j_n}\setminus A_n. Since \nu_n is supported on (Z_{j_n}\setminus A_n)^2, it follows that

\sum_{x,y\in Y_n}\|F(x)-F(y)\|^2\nu_n(x,y) =q_n^{-1}\! \sum_{x,y\in Z_{j_n}\setminus A_n} \|G(x)-G(y)\|^2\mu_{j_n}(x,y)\leq 9q_n^{-1}k^2<18k^2.

Thus, Y_n is a generalised (3\sqrt2\,k,r_{j_n})-expander. Since d(Y_n, Y_1 \cup \cdots \cup Y_{n-1}) \geq n, we conclude the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 3.4

56VC

Let \{(X_n,d_n)\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} be a sequence of finite metric spaces and (X,d) be their coarse disjoint union. Then X can be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space if and only if no subsequence \{X_{n_k}\}_k forms generalised expanders.

Uses Definition 3.1 · Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.4

If a subsequence \{X_{n_k}\}_k forms a sequence of generalised expanders, then X cannot coarsely embed into Hilbert space by Proposition 3.2.

Conversely, assume that X cannot be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space. For each n, choose a_n\geq n+2\mathrm{diam}(X_n). Replace the metric d such that d(x,y) = a_n + a_m for x\in X_n and y\in X_m with n\neq m, which retains the same coarse equivalence class. By Proposition 3.2, there are finite subsets Z_j\subseteq X, r_j\to\infty, K_0>0 and symmetric probability measures \widetilde\mu_j on Z_j^2 such that \mathrm{supp}(\widetilde\mu_j) \subseteq\{(x,y):d(x,y)\ge r_j\} and

\sum_{x,y} \|F(x)-F(y)\|^2\widetilde\mu_j(x,y) \leq K_0^2,

for any Hilbert-space-valued map F: Z_j \to \mathcal{H} satisfying \|F(x) - F(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. After discarding finitely many j, we may assume that r_j>2.

Let \{e_n\}_{n} be the standard orthonormal basis of \ell^2(\mathbb{N}) and define G: X \longrightarrow \ell^2(\mathbb{N}) by G(x):=a_n e_n for x\in X_n, which is 1-Lipschitz by the choice of d. If \widetilde\mu_j(x,y) \neq 0 for some x\in X_n, y\in X_m with n\ne m, then

\|G(x)-G(y)\|^2=a_n^2+a_m^2 \geq\frac{(a_n+a_m)^2}{2} = \frac{d(x,y)^2}{2} \ge\frac{r_j^2}{2}.

Applying (?) to the map G gives

\widetilde\mu_j\left(\bigcup_{n\ne m}X_n\times X_m\right) \le\frac{2K_0^2}{r_j^2}\longrightarrow 0 \quad \text{as} \quad j \to +\infty.

After discarding finitely many j, we may therefore assume that

\sum_n\widetilde\mu_j(X_n\times X_n)\ge\frac12.

Fix such a j, and write p_n:=\widetilde\mu_j(X_n\times X_n). Since \widetilde\mu_j has finite support, there are only finitely many n such that p_n>0. For such n, set \nu_n:=p_n^{-1} \cdot \widetilde\mu_j|_{X_n\times X_n} and we have D_n:=\mathrm{diam}(X_n)\ge r_j>2. Define

P_n:=\sup_F\sum_{x,y\in X_n} \|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 \nu_n(x,y),

where the supremum is taken over all Hilbert-space-valued maps F:X_n\to H satisfying \|F(x) - F(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. Since \nu_n is supported on pairs (x,y) with d(x,y)\ge r_j>1, we have P_n\le \mathrm{diam}(X_n)^2<\infty.

We claim:

\sum_n p_nP_n\le K_0^2.

To see this, for each n with p_n>0, fix a Hilbert-space-valued map F_n:X_n\to \mathcal{H}_n satisfying \|F_n(x) - F_n(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. Choose u_n,v_n\in X_n with d(u_n,v_n)=D_n. After translating, assume F_n(u_n)=0. Given x\in X_n, if d(x,u_n)\ge1, then \|F_n(x)\|\le d(x,u_n)\le D_n. If d(x,u_n)<1, then d(x,v_n)>D_n-1>1 and hence,

\|F_n(x)\| \le \|F_n(x)-F_n(v_n)\|+\|F_n(v_n)\|\le d(x,v_n)+d(u_n,v_n)\le2D_n \leq a_n.

Consider F:X \to \bigoplus_n \mathcal{H}_n such that F|_{X_n}:=F_n for those finitely many n with p_n>0, and 0 otherwise. By the choice of d, for x\in X_n and y\in X_m with n\neq m, we have

\|F(x)-F(y)\| \le \sqrt{a_n^2+a_m^2} \le a_n+a_m =d(x,y).

Therefore, \|F(x) - F(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1. Applying (?) to F, we deduce the following

K_0^2\ge \sum_n\sum_{x,y\in X_n} \|F_n(x)-F_n(y)\|^2 \widetilde\mu_j(x,y) = \sum_n p_n \sum_{x,y\in X_n} \|F_n(x)-F_n(y)\|^2 \nu_n(x,y).

Since only finitely many p_n are non-zero, taking the supremum independently over each F_n proves the claim.

Combining (?) and (?), there exists n=n(j) \in \mathbb{N} with p_n>0 such that P_n\leq 2K_0^2. Set \mu_j:=\nu_{n(j)}, whose support is contained in \big\{(x,y)\in X_{n(j)}^2:d(x,y)\ge r_j\big\}. Moreover, for any Hilbert space-valued map F:X_{n(j)}\to \mathcal{H} with \|F(x) - F(y)\| \leq d(x,y) whenever d(x,y) \geq 1, we have:

\sum_{x,y\in X_{n(j)}} \|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 \mu_j(x,y) \leq 2K_0^2

Since r_j \to \infty and \mu_j(X_{n(j)}^2) = 1, we obtain n(j) \to +\infty. Passing to a subsequence, we may assume that n(j) is strictly increasing. This finishes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 3.5

RILK

Let Y be a finite metric space with |Y| \geq 2, and \mu be a symmetric probability measure on Y\times Y with \mu(x,x)=0 for every x\in Y. Suppose that C>0 satisfies

\sum_{x,y\in Y}\|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 \mu(x,y) \leq C

for any 1-Lipschitz Hilbert-space-valued map F: Y \to \mathcal{H}. Then there is a symmetric non-negative function \eta on Y \times Y with \eta(x,x)=0 for every x\in Y, such that

\sum_{x,y\in Y}d(x,y)^2\eta(x,y)\le C

and for every f:Y\to\mathbb{C}, we have

\sum_{x,y\in Y}|f(x)-f(y)|^2 \mu(x,y) \le \sum_{x,y\in Y}|f(x)-f(y)|^2 \eta(x,y).
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.5

Fix o\in Y. Let \mathcal C be the set of kernels \psi(x,y)=\|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 arising from 1-Lipschitz Hilbert-space-valued maps F on Y. Write Y=\{o,x_1,\ldots,x_m\} and for each kernel \psi, define

G_\psi(i,j):=\frac12\bigl(\psi(x_i,o)+\psi(x_j,o)-\psi(x_i,x_j)\bigr) \quad \text{for} \quad i,j=1,\cdots,m.

Claim: Given a symmetric kernel \psi on Y with \psi(x,x)=0 and 0\le\psi(x,y)\le d(x,y)^2 for any x,y\in Y, we have \psi \in \mathcal C if and only if G_\psi \geq 0.

Indeed, first assume that \psi \in \mathcal C. Replacing F by F-F(o), we assume F(o)=0. After realifying the target Hilbert space if necessary, we compute directly that G_\psi(i,j) = \langle F(x_i),F(x_j)\rangle and hence, G_\psi\ge0. Conversely, suppose that G_\psi\ge0. Then there exist vectors v_1,\cdots,v_m in some real Hilbert space such that \langle v_i,v_j\rangle=G_\psi(i,j). Define F(o)=0 and F(x_i):=v_i for i=1,\cdots, m. A direct calculation shows that

\|F(x_i)-F(x_j)\|^2 = G_\psi(i,i)+G_\psi(j,j)-2G_\psi(i,j)=\psi(x_i,x_j)

and \|F(x_i)-F(o)\|^2=\psi(x_i,o). Hence, we obtain \psi \in \mathcal C. Using this characterisation for \mathcal C, it is clear that \mathcal C is compact and convex.

Let \mathcal P be the set of symmetric probability measures on Y^2 which vanish on the diagonal. Then \mathcal P is a compact and convex subset of \mathrm{RR}^{Y \times Y}. Moreover, we have

\max_{p\in\mathcal P}\sum_{x\ne y}p(x,y)\frac{\psi(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2} =\max_{x\ne y}\frac{\psi(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2}.

To see this, first note that the left-hand side is at most the right-hand side. Conversely, if the right-hand side is attained at (x_0,y_0), then the measure p defined by p(x_0,y_0)=p(y_0,x_0)=\frac12 and p(x,y)=0 otherwise, attains the same value.

Now scaling (3.5) together with the above gives

\sum_{x,y}\psi(x,y) \mu(x,y) \le C\max_{x\ne y}\frac{\psi(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2} = C\max_{p\in\mathcal P}\sum_{x\ne y}p(x,y)\frac{\psi(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2}.

For \psi\in\mathcal C and p\in\mathcal P, define

\Lambda(\psi,p) :=C\sum_{x\ne y}p(x,y)\frac{\psi(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2} -\sum_{x,y}\mu(x,y)\psi(x,y).

Then (?) implies that \max_{p\in\mathcal P}\Lambda(\psi,p)\ge0. The function \Lambda is continuous and affine in each variable. Since \mathcal C and \mathcal P are compact and convex, the finite-dimensional minimax theorem gives

\max_{p\in\mathcal P}\min_{\psi\in\mathcal C}\Lambda(\psi,p) =\min_{\psi\in\mathcal C}\max_{p\in\mathcal P}\Lambda(\psi,p)\ge0.

Since the function p\mapsto\min_{\psi\in\mathcal C}\Lambda(\psi,p) is continuous on \mathcal P, there exists p_0\in\mathcal P such that \min_{\psi\in\mathcal C}\Lambda(\psi,p_0)\geq 0. Equivalently, \Lambda(\psi,p_0)\ge0 for any \psi\in\mathcal C.

Finally, we define

\eta(x,y)= \begin{cases} \displaystyle\frac{C\,p_0(x,y)}{d(x,y)^2},&x\ne y,\\[2mm] 0,&x=y. \end{cases}

Then \eta is symmetric and non-negative, and (3.5) follows from:

\sum_{x,y}d(x,y)^2\eta(x,y) =C\sum_{x\ne y}p_0(x,y)=C.

It remains to prove (3.5). For a 1-Lipschitz map f:Y\to\mathbb{C}, consider the kernel \psi_f(x,y):=|f(x)-f(y)|^2, which belongs to \mathcal C. Then \Lambda(\psi_f, p_0) \geq 0 implies

\sum_{x,y}\mu(x,y)|f(x)-f(y)|^2 \le C\sum_{x\ne y}p_0(x,y) \frac{|f(x)-f(y)|^2}{d(x,y)^2}=\sum_{x,y}\eta(x,y)|f(x)-f(y)|^2.

For arbitrary f:Y\to\mathbb{C}, both sides of (3.5) are zero if f is constant. Otherwise,

L_f:=\max_{x\ne y}\frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{d(x,y)}

is finite and positive, and f/L_f is 1-Lipschitz. Applying the preceding inequality to f/L_f, we conclude (3.5) for f.

Proposition

Proposition 3.6

4HP4

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry which does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space. Then there exist a sparse subspace Y=\bigsqcup_{n \in \mathbb{N}} Y_n\subseteq X, a constant C\ge1, a sequence r_n\to\infty, and self-adjoint matrices S_n,M_n\in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(Y_n)) satisfying the following conditions:

  1. \|S_n\|\le2 with the maximal eigenvalue \lambda_{\max}(S_n)\ge C^{-1};

  2. S_n\le M_n and \|M_n\|\le1;

  3. (M_n)_{xy}\ge0 for all x,y\in Y_n, and (M_n)_{xy}=0 whenever d(x,y)<r_n;

  4. Setting S_n^{(R)} the restriction of S_n on E_R for R\geq 1, we have \|S_n-S_n^{(R)}\|\le R^{-2}.

In particular, S=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_{n} S_n belongs to C_u^*(X).

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.6

Replacing d if necessary, by the coarsely equivalent metric

\widetilde d(x,y)= \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if }x=y,\\ \max\{d(x,y),1\},& \text{if }x\ne y, \end{cases}

we may assume throughout this proof that d(x,y)\ge1 for x\ne y. This replacement does not change the coarse structure and the uniform Roe algebra.

By Proposition 3.3, choose a sparse subspace Z=\bigsqcup_n Z_n\subseteq X whose components form a sequence of generalised (k,r_n)-expanders for some k\geq 1 and r_n \to +\infty, witnessed by measures \mu_n on Z_n \times Z_n. Since d(x,y) \geq 1 for x\neq y\in X, we have

\sum_{x,y\in Z_n}\|F(x)-F(y)\|^2 \mu_n(x,y) \leq k^2

for any 1-Lipschitz Hilbert-space-valued map F: Z_n \to \mathcal{H}. After discarding finitely many terms we may also assume r_n>1 in the sequel, so the conclusions obtained below are unchanged for the original metric.

Applying Lemma 3.5 to each Z_n with constant C:=k^2, we obtain symmetric non-negative functions \eta_n on Z_n \times Z_n satisfying (3.5) and (3.5). For x\in Z_n, set

m_n(x):=\sum_{y\in Z_n}\mu_n(x,y), \quad c_n(x):=\sum_{y \in Z_n}\eta_n(x,y) \quad \text{and} \quad h_n(x):=\sum_{y\in Z_n} d(x,y)^2\eta_n(x,y).

Taking f=\chi_{\{x\}} in (3.5) gives m_n(x)\leq c_n(x). By the choice of the metric, we obtain

0\le m_n\le c_n\le h_n \quad \text{and} \quad 1\leq Q_n:=\sum_xh_n(x)\le C.

For each n, set Y_n:=\{x \in Z_n: h_n(x)>0\}. It follows from (?) that on Z_n \setminus Y_n, m_n(x) = c_n(x) = 0, so \mu_n and \eta_n are supported on Y_n \times Y_n. Given f: Y_n \to \mathbb{C}, denote D_f the diagonal operator on \ell^2(Y_n). Define the following Y_n-by-Y_n matrices:

A_{\mu_n}:=\left(\mu_n(x,y)\right)_{x,y\in Y_n}, \quad A_{\eta_n}=\left(\eta_n(x,y)\right)_{x,y\in Y_n}

and

L_{\mu_n}:=D_{m_n} - A_{\mu_n}, \quad L_{\eta_n}:=D_{c_n}-A_{\eta_n}.

Also define:

M_n=D_{h_n}^{-1/2}A_{\mu_n}D_{h_n}^{-1/2} \quad \text{and} \quad S_n=D_{h_n}^{-1/2}(D_{m_n}-L_{\eta_n})D_{h_n}^{-1/2}.

For the weight w_x=\sqrt{h_n(x)} on Y_n, the matrix M_n and the off-diagonal part S'_n of S_n, we have

\sum_y(M_n)_{xy}w_y =\frac{m_n(x)}{h_n(x)}w_x\le w_x \quad \text{and} \quad \sum_y(S'_n)_{xy}w_y =\frac{c_n(x)}{h_n(x)}w_x\le w_x.

Applying Lemma 3.7, we obtain \|M_n\|\le1 and \|S'_n\|\le1. Since M_n is self-adjoint, we have M_n \leq \mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(Y_n)}. The diagonal part of S_n has norm at most 1 by (?) and hence, \|S_n\|\le2. On the other hand, for each R>0, set S_n^{(R)} to be the restriction of S_n on the R-diagonal of Y_n\times Y_n. Since

\sum_y(S_n - S_n^{(R)})_{xy}w_y = \sum_{y:d(x,y)>R}(S'_n)_{xy}w_y =\frac1{\sqrt{h_n(x)}}\sum_{y:d(x,y)>R}\eta_n(x,y) \le R^{-2}w_x,

the fact above implies that \|S_n - S_n^{(R)}\| \leq R^{-2}. Hence, S:=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_n S_n \in C^*_u(X).

According to (3.5) and L_{\mu_n}, L_{\eta_n} being symmetric, we have L_{\mu_n} \leq L_{\eta_n} and hence, D_{m_n}-L_{\eta_n}\le A_{\mu_n}. This implies S_n \leq M_n. Define a unit vector u_n \in \ell^2(Y_n) by u_n(x):=\sqrt{h_n(x)/Q_n}. Then we have

\langle u_n,S_nu_n\rangle = \frac1{Q_n}\left(\sum_x(m_n(x)-c_n(x)) +\sum_{x\ne y}\eta_n(x,y)\right)=\frac1{Q_n}\ge C^{-1}.

This finishes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 3.7

DJWX

For a finite set Y, a symmetric matrix K on Y with non-negative entries and weights w_x>0 such that \sum_y K_{xy}w_y\leq a w_x, we have \|K\|\le a.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 3.7

For any \xi, \zeta \in \ell^2(Y), we have

|\langle\xi,K\zeta\rangle| \leq \sum_{x,y}K_{xy}|\xi_x|\cdot |\zeta_y| \leq\left(\sum_{x,y}K_{xy}\frac{w_y}{w_x}|\xi_x|^2\right)^{1/2}\left(\sum_{x,y}K_{xy}\frac{w_x}{w_y}|\zeta_y|^2\right)^{1/2} \leq a\|\xi\|\cdot\|\zeta\|.

This shows that \|K\|\le a.

Lemma

Lemma 4.1

RDPS

For a finite subset V of a Hilbert space \mathcal{H} and t>0, there exist finitely many maps c_1, \cdots, c_N: V \to \{-1,1\} and weights \lambda_j \geq 0 with \sum_j\lambda_j=1 such that

\sum_{j=1}^N\lambda_jc_j(u)c_j(v) =e^{-t\|u-v\|} \quad \text{for any} \quad u,v \in V.
Used by Proof, Proof
Proof of Lemma 4.1

Let us realify \mathcal{H}, translate one point in V to the origin, and identify the linear span of V with \mathrm{RR}^d. The case d=0 holds trivially, and we assume d\geq 1. Let \sigma be the probability Lebesgue measure on S^{d-1}, e_1=(1,0,\cdots,0) \in S^{d-1} and

c_d=\left(\int_{S^{d-1}} |\langle e_1, \vartheta\rangle| \mathrm{d}\sigma(\vartheta)\right)^{-1}.

By rotation invariance and homogeneity, for any w\in\mathrm{RR}^d we have

c_d\int_{S^{d-1}}|\langle w,\vartheta\rangle|\mathrm{d}\sigma(\vartheta)=\|w\|.

By the layer-cake identity, for any u,v \in \mathcal{H} and \vartheta \in S^{d-1} we have

|\langle u-v,\vartheta\rangle| = \int_{\mathrm{RR}} \left| \chi_{(-\infty,\langle u,\vartheta\rangle)}(\alpha) - \chi_{(-\infty,\langle v,\vartheta\rangle)}(\alpha)\right|\mathrm{d}\alpha.

Combining with (Proof), we obtain:

\|u-v\|= c_d \int_{S^{d-1}} \int_{\mathrm{RR}} \left| \chi_{(-\infty,\langle u,\vartheta\rangle)}(\alpha) - \chi_{(-\infty,\langle v,\vartheta\rangle)}(\alpha) \right| \mathrm{d}\alpha\mathrm{d}\sigma(\vartheta).

For each \vartheta\in S^{d-1} and \alpha\in\mathrm{RR}, set E_{\vartheta,\alpha}:=\{z\in V:\langle z,\vartheta\rangle>\alpha\}. Then we have \chi_{(-\infty,\langle z,\vartheta\rangle)}(\alpha) = \chi_{E_{\vartheta,\alpha}}(z). Thus each pair (\vartheta,\alpha) determines a cut V=E_{\vartheta,\alpha}\sqcup (V \setminus E_{\vartheta,\alpha}). Since V is finite, only finitely many distinct cuts occur. Grouping together all (\vartheta,\alpha) which determine the same cut, we obtain subsets E_1,\cdots,E_m\subseteq V and numbers a_1,\cdots,a_m\ge0 such that

\|u-v\| = \sum_{\ell=1}^m a_\ell \left| \chi_{E_\ell}(u)-\chi_{E_\ell}(v) \right| = \sum_{\ell=1}^m a_\ell \chi_{D_{E_\ell}}(u,v).

For \ell=1,\cdots, m, set p_\ell:=(1-e^{-t a_\ell})/2. For \eta=(\eta_1,\cdots,\eta_m)\in\{0,1\}^m, define

c_\eta(u) := (-1)^{\sum_{\ell=1}^m \eta_\ell\chi_{E_\ell}(u)} = \prod_{\ell=1}^m (-1)^{\eta_\ell\chi_{E_\ell}(u)} \quad \text{and} \quad \lambda_\eta:=\prod_{\ell=1}^m p_\ell^{\eta_\ell}(1-p_\ell)^{1-\eta_\ell}.

Clearly each \lambda_\eta \geq 0, and

\sum_{\eta\in\{0,1\}^m}\lambda_\eta = \prod_{\ell=1}^m \left( \sum_{\eta_\ell=0}^1 p_\ell^{\eta_\ell}(1-p_\ell)^{1-\eta_\ell} \right) = \prod_{\ell=1}^m\bigl(p_\ell+(1-p_\ell)\bigr) =1.

For each \ell =1,\cdots,m and u,v\in V, we have

(1-p_\ell) + p_\ell (-1)^{\left|\chi_{E_\ell}(u)-\chi_{E_\ell}(v)\right|} = \exp\left(-ta_\ell \left|\chi_{E_\ell}(u)-\chi_{E_\ell}(v)\right|\right).

Indeed, if u and v lie on the same side of the cut E_\ell, both sides equal 1. If they lie on opposite sides, the left-hand side is 1-2p_\ell=e^{-ta_\ell}. Therefore, we have

\begin{aligned} \sum_{\eta\in\{0,1\}^m} \lambda_\eta c_\eta(u)c_\eta(v) &= \prod_{\ell=1}^m \left(\sum_{\eta_\ell=0}^1p_\ell^{\eta_\ell}(1-p_\ell)^{1-\eta_\ell} (-1)^{\eta_\ell(\chi_{E_\ell}(u)+\chi_{E_\ell}(v))} \right) \\ &= \prod_{\ell=1}^m\left( (1-p_\ell) + p_\ell(-1)^{\left|\chi_{E_\ell}(u)-\chi_{E_\ell}(v)\right|}\right) \\ &= \exp\left(-t \sum_{\ell=1}^m a_\ell |\chi_{E_\ell}(u)-\chi_{E_\ell}(v)|\right) \\ &= e^{-t\|u-v\|}, \end{aligned}

where the penultimate equality comes from (?) and the last from (?).

Corollary

Corollary 4.2

PLDY

For a finite subset V of a Hilbert space \mathcal{H} and t>0, there exists finitely many cuts C_1,\cdots,C_N of V and weights \lambda_j \geq 0 with \sum_j\lambda_j=1 such that

\sum_{j=1}^N\lambda_j\chi_{D_{C_j}}(u,v)=q_t(\|u-v\|) \quad \text{for any} \quad u,v \in V.
Proof of Corollary 4.2

Let c_1, \cdots, c_N: V \to \{-1,1\} be the maps provided by Lemma 4.1. For each map c_j, define a cut C_j:=c_j^{-1}(\{1\}). Then for each u,v\in V, we have c_j(u)c_j(v) = 1-2\chi_{D_{C_j}}(u,v). This finishes the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 4.3

U187

Let X be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry, and F:X\to \mathcal{H} be a coarse map with control function \rho_+. For t>0, put

\varphi_t(x,y):=e^{-t\|F(x)-F(y)\|} \quad \text{for} \quad x,y\in X.

Then for any T\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)), \xi,\eta\in\ell^2(X) and R>0, we have

\big|\langle \eta,(T-M_{\varphi_t}(T))\xi\rangle\big| \le 2\sup_{d(A,B)>R} \big|\langle \eta,(\chi_AT\chi_B+\chi_BT\chi_A)\xi\rangle\big| +4\|T\|\cdot\|\xi\|\cdot\|\eta\|\sqrt{p_t(R)},

where p_t(R):=N_X(R) \cdot q_t(\rho_+(R)).

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 4.3

We first prove (4.3) when \xi and \eta have finite support. Choose a finite subset Y\subseteq X containing both supports and set T_Y:=\chi_YT\chi_Y, viewed as an operator on \ell^2(Y). Applying Lemma 4.1 to F(Y) and pulling the resulting maps back to Y, we obtain maps c_j:Y\to\{-1,1\} and weights \lambda_j\ge0 with \sum_j\lambda_j=1 such that

\varphi_t(x,y)=\sum_j\lambda_jc_j(x)c_j(y) \quad \text{for any} \quad x,y\in Y.

For each j, define the cut C_j:=\{v\in Y: c_j(v)=1\} and denote D_j:=D_{C_j}. Then (Proof) can be reformulated to be

q_t(\|F(x)-F(y)\|) = \sum_j\lambda_j\chi_{D_j}(x,y) \quad \text{for any} \quad x,y\in Y.

To decompose M_{\varphi_t}(T) accordingly, for each j let U_j\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(Y)) be the diagonal unitary defined by U_j\delta_x=c_j(x)\delta_x for x\in Y, and put S_j:=T_Y-U_jT_YU_j. Then

\chi_Y(T-M_{\varphi_t}(T))\chi_Y=\sum_j\lambda_jS_j, \qquad \|S_j\| \leq 2\|T_Y\| \leq 2\|T\|,

and

(S_j)_{xy} =\left(1-c_j(x)c_j(y)\right)T_{xy} =2\chi_{D_j}(x,y) T_{xy}.

Fix R>0. For each j, consider the R-boundary

E_j:=\{x\in Y:\text{there exists }z\in B_Y(x,R)\text{ with }(x,z)\in D_j\}.

Then we have d(C_j^+,C_j^-)>R for C_j^+:=C_j\setminus E_j and C_j^-:=C_j^c\setminus E_j. Moreover, for x\in Y, (Proof) shows that

\sum_j\lambda_j\chi_{E_j}(x) \leq \sum_j\lambda_j \sum_{z\in B_Y(x,R)}\chi_{D_j}(x,z) = \sum_{z\in B_Y(x,R)}q_t(\|F(x)-F(z)\|)\leq p_t(R).

For each j, let P_j:=\chi_{E_j} and Q_j:=\mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(Y)}-P_j. Then the inequality above shows

\sum_j \lambda_j P_j\leq p_t(R) \mathrm{Id}_{\ell^2(Y)}.

Moreover, note that \mathrm{Ran}(Q_j) = \ell^2(C_j^+) \oplus \ell^2(C_j^-). Hence, according to this decomposition, (?) implies:

Q_jS_jQ_j =2\begin{pmatrix} 0&\chi_{C_j^+}T\chi_{C_j^-}\\ \chi_{C_j^-}T\chi_{C_j^+}&0 \end{pmatrix}.

On the other hand, we have the decomposition:

\sum_j \lambda_j S_j = \sum_j \lambda_j Q_jS_jQ_j + \sum_j \lambda_j P_jS_j + \sum_j \lambda_j Q_jS_jP_j.

For any \xi, \eta \in \ell^2(Y), we have

\begin{aligned} \left| \left\langle \eta, \sum_j\lambda_jQ_jS_jQ_j\xi \right\rangle \right| \le 2\sup_{d(A,B)>R} \left| \left\langle \eta, (\chi_AT\chi_B+\chi_BT\chi_A)\xi \right\rangle \right|. \end{aligned}

Next, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality, (?) and \|S_j\|\le2\|T\|, we obtain:

\begin{aligned} \left|\left\langle\eta, \sum_j\lambda_jP_jS_j\xi\right\rangle\right| &=\left|\sum_j\lambda_j\langle P_j\eta,S_j\xi\rangle\right|\leq \left(\sum_j\lambda_j\|P_j\eta\|^2\right)^{1/2} \left(\sum_j\lambda_j\|S_j\xi\|^2\right)^{1/2}\\ &\leq \left\langle\eta, \left(\sum_j\lambda_jP_j\right)\eta\right\rangle^{1/2} \cdot 2\|T\|\cdot \|\xi\| \leq 2\|T\|\cdot \|\eta\|\cdot \|\xi\| \sqrt{p_t(R)}. \end{aligned}

Similarly,

\left| \left\langle \eta, \sum_j\lambda_jQ_jS_jP_j\xi \right\rangle \right|= \left| \sum_j\lambda_j \langle S_j^*Q_j\eta,P_j\xi\rangle \right|\le 2\|T\|\cdot \|\eta\|\cdot \|\xi\| \sqrt{p_t(R)}.

Combining these estimates proves (4.3) for finitely supported \xi,\eta. The general case follows by approximating \xi and \eta in terms of finitely supported ones.

Corollary

Corollary 4.4

MN6H

Let X be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry, and F:X\to \mathcal{H} be a coarse map with control function \rho_+. For t>0, define \varphi_t as in (4.3). Then for any T\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)) and R>0, we have

\|M_{\varphi_t}(T)-T\| \leq 2\sup_{d(A,B)>R}\|\chi_A T\chi_B\| +4\|T\|\sqrt{N_X(R) \cdot q_t(\rho_+(R))},

Consequently, M_{\varphi_t}(T) \to T as t \to 0+ for every T \in C^*_{uq}(X).

Used by Proof, Proof
Remark

Remark 5.1

3WIF

Note that if \mathrm{supp}(\nu_n) \subseteq Y_n \times Y_n for some Y_n\subseteq X, then in verifying condition (Q) it suffices to consider subsets A,B\subseteq Y_n. Indeed, for arbitrary A,B\subseteq X we have \nu_n(A\times B) = \nu_n\bigl((A\cap Y_n)\times(B\cap Y_n)\bigr), while d(A\cap Y_n,B\cap Y_n)\geq d(A,B).

Lemma

Lemma 5.2

O3R3

Let \{Y_n\}_n be finite subsets of (X,d) which form a sequence of generalised expanders. Extending their witnessing measures by zero to X\times X gives an escaping quasi-local coupling on X.

Proof of Lemma 5.2

Let \mu_n make Y_n a generalised (k,r_n)-expander for some k>0 and r_n\to\infty, and extend \mu_n by zero to X\times X. Condition (E) follows from the support condition. To see condition (Q), fix \varepsilon>0 and take R>k/\sqrt\varepsilon. Given A,B\subseteq X with d(A,B)>R, consider

f(z):=\min\{d(z,A),R\}\quad \text{for} \quad z\in X.

Then f is 1-Lipschitz, equals zero on A, and equals R on B. Hence,

R^2\mu_n(A\times B) = R^2\mu_n\left((A\cap Y_n)\times(B\cap Y_n)\right) \leq \sum_{x,y \in Y_n}|f(x)-f(y)|^2 \mu_n(x,y) \leq k^2,

which implies \mu_n(A\times B) \leq k^2/R^2 <\varepsilon and finishes the proof.

Corollary

Corollary 5.3

THNV

Let \{(X_n,d_n)\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} be a sequence of finite metric spaces of uniformly bounded geometry, X be their coarse disjoint union. Then X does not coarsely embed into any Hilbert space if and only if there exists a subsequence \{X_{n_k}\}_k and an escaping quasi-local coupling \{\nu_{n_k}\}_k with each \nu_{n_k} supported on X_{n_k}\times X_{n_k}.

Proof of Corollary 5.3

Assume first that X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space. By Proposition 3.4, there is a subsequence \{X_{n_k}\}_k which forms a sequence of generalised expanders. Their witnessing measures form an escaping quasi-local coupling on this subsequence by Lemma 5.2. Conversely, the existence of such a coupling implies that X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space by Theorem B.

Theorem

Theorem 5.4

AWN3

Let \{(X_n,d_n)\}_{n} be a sequence of finite metric spaces of uniformly bounded geometry, X be their coarse disjoint union, and \mathcal{H}_0 be a separable Hilbert space. If X is coarsely embeddable into Hilbert space, then for every locally compact ghost projection P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)), we have

\operatorname{dist}\big(P,C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) = \operatorname{dist}\big(P,C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0)\big) = \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if }P\text{ is compact};\\ \frac12,&\text{if }P\text{ is non-compact}. \end{cases}

In particular, any ghost projection in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0) is compact.

Proof of Theorem 5.4

Thanks to Proposition 5.7, it suffices to show that every ghost projection in C_q^*(X;\mathcal H_0) is compact. We may assume that \mathcal{H}_0 is infinite-dimensional by enlarging the coefficient space if necessary. Fix a ghost projection P \in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0), and set A:=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_{n} \chi_{X_n} P \chi_{X_n}. Simply denote A_n:=\chi_{X_n} P \chi_{X_n} for each n, which is a compact positive contraction. It follows from [BCZ23, Lemma 3.14] that P-A is compact. Since P is a projection, A is self-adjoint and A^2 - A is compact, which implies that \|A_n^2 - A_n\| \to 0.

For each n\in \mathbb{N}, define Q_n:=\chi_{[\frac{1}{2},1]}(A_n), which is a finite-rank projection. From functional calculus, we obtain

\|A_n - Q_n\| \leq 2\|A_n - A_n^2\| \to 0\quad \text{as} \quad n\to \infty.

Setting Q:=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_{n}Q_n, we obtain that Q - A is compact and hence, Q - P is also compact. Moreover, Q is a ghost projection. Note that \mathrm{Tr}(Q_n^2) = \mathrm{Tr}(Q_n) for each n. Applying Proposition 5.8, Q is compact and then P is also compact.

Remark

Remark 5.5

6ET4

The Roe-algebra analogue of the compactness conclusion of Theorem 5.4 is already known. Indeed, if X is coarsely embeddable, then the inclusion \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) \hookrightarrow G(X;\mathcal{H}_0) induces an isomorphism on K-theory by [Fin14, Corollary 36] (see also [WFZ25, Theorem C]). Since X is sparse, [GLW26, Lemma 4.4] then implies that every ghost projection in C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0) is compact. Theorem 5.4 strengthens this picture to the quasi-local algebra. This does not follow from the preceding K-theoretic argument, since it is still open whether C^*(X) and C_q^*(X) have the same K-theory for coarsely embeddable spaces.

Lemma

Lemma 5.6

IR1C

Let X be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry, and \mathcal H_0 be a separable Hilbert space.

  1. If P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) is a ghost projection and Q is a quasi-local projection with \|P-Q\|<1, then Q is a ghost.

  2. For every locally compact projection P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)), we have

    \operatorname{dist}\big(P,C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0)\big)\le\frac12.
Proof of Lemma 5.6

(1). Since P is a ghost projection, for each fixed R>0 we have

\|P\chi_{B(x,R)}\|^2 \le \sum_{y\in B(x,R)}\|P\chi_{\{y\}}\|^2 =\sum_{y\in B(x,R)}\|P_{yy}\|\le N_X(R) \cdot \sup_{y\in B(x,R)}\|P_{yy}\| \to 0

as x\to \infty. Given \varepsilon>0, quasi-locality of Q provides R>0 such that

\|\chi_{X\setminus B(x,R)}Q\chi_{\{x\}}\|<\varepsilon \quad \text{for any} \quad x\in X.

Hence, \|PQ\chi_{\{x\}}\| \le \|P\chi_{B(x,R)}\|+\varepsilon and hence, \|PQ\chi_{\{x\}}\|\to0 as x\to\infty. Note that

\|Q\chi_{\{x\}}\| \le \|(Q-P)Q\chi_{\{x\}}\|+\|PQ\chi_{\{x\}}\|\le \|P-Q\| \cdot \|Q\chi_{\{x\}}\|+\|PQ\chi_{\{x\}}\|.

Since \|P-Q\|<1, the above implies \|Q\chi_{\{x\}}\|\to 0 as x\to\infty. Since Q is a projection, we have \|Q_{xy}\| \le \|Q\chi_{\{x\}}\|\cdot\|Q\chi_{\{y\}}\|. This concludes that Q is a ghost.

(2). Fix \varepsilon>0. Since P is locally compact, we can choose a diagonal operator e:=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_{x\in X}e_{x}, where e_x is a finite rank projection on \ell^2(\mathbb{C} \delta_x; \mathcal{H}_0) \cong \mathcal{H}_0, such that \|(1-e)P\|<\varepsilon. The projection e is locally compact and has propagation zero, so e\in C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0). Moreover, we have

\|P-ePe\| \le \|(1-e)P\|+\|eP(1-e)\| <2\varepsilon.

Since 0\le ePe\le e, we have \left\|ePe-\frac12e\right\|\le\frac12. Therefore,

\operatorname{dist}\bigl(P,C^*(X;\mathcal H_0)\bigr) \le \left\|P-\frac12e\right\| <\frac12+2\varepsilon.

Letting \varepsilon \to 0+, we conclude (2).

Proposition

Proposition 5.7

4824

Let X be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry, and let \mathcal H_0 be a separable Hilbert space. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. Every ghost projection in C_q^*(X;\mathcal H_0) is compact;

  2. Every ghost projection P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) with \operatorname{dist}(P,C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0))<\frac12 is compact;

  3. Every locally compact ghost projection P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) satisfies:

    \operatorname{dist}\big(P,C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) = \operatorname{dist}\big(P,C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0)\big) = \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if }P\text{ is compact};\\ \frac12,&\text{if }P\text{ is non-compact}. \end{cases}
Proof of Proposition 5.7

“(1) \Rightarrow (2)”: Let P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) be a ghost projection which satisfies \operatorname{dist}(P,C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0))<\frac12. Choose self-adjoint T\in C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0) such that \delta:=\|P-T\|<\frac12. Since P is a projection, we have \sigma(T)\subseteq[-\delta,\delta]\cup[1-\delta,1+\delta]. Hence, functional calculus provides a projection Q:=\chi_{(1/2,\infty)}(T)\in C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0) satisfying

\|P-Q\| \le\|P-T\|+\|T-Q\| \le2\delta<1.

By Lemma 5.6, Q is a ghost projection and hence compact by (1). Hence, Q has finite rank. Since \|P-Q\|<1, the projection P must also have finite rank.

“(2) \Rightarrow (3)”: Let P\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) be a locally compact ghost projection. If P is compact, then P\in C^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0), so both distances are zero. Now suppose that P is non-compact. By (2), we have \operatorname{dist}(P,C_q^*(X;\mathcal{H}_0))\geq \frac12. Combining with Lemma 5.6(2), we conclude (3). Finally, “(3) \Rightarrow (1)” is trivial.

Proposition

Proposition 5.8

STW7

Let \{(X_n,d_n)\}_{n\in \mathbb{N}} be a sequence of finite metric spaces of uniformly bounded geometry, X be their coarse disjoint union, and \mathcal{H}_0 be a separable Hilbert space. Assume X coarsely embeds into Hilbert space. Let T:=\mathrm{(SOT)}-\sum_{n}T_n \in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0) be a positive ghost operator such that each T_n is in the trace class. If

\sup_{n:T_n\neq 0} \frac{\mathrm{Tr}(T_n)}{\mathrm{Tr}(T_n^2)}<\infty,

then only finitely many T_n are non-zero. In particular T is compact.

Uses Definition 2.3 · Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 5.8

Assume that there are infinitely many n\in \mathbb{N} such that T_n \neq 0, and we restrict to that subsequence. Denote C:=\sup_{n} \mathrm{Tr}(T_n)/\mathrm{Tr}(T_n^2), and let \nu_n=\nu_{T_n} be the measures from Lemma 5.9.

Given \varepsilon>0, there exists R>0 such that \|\chi_A T \chi_B\|<\varepsilon/C whenever d(A,B)>R. For A,B\subseteq X with d(A,B)>R, Lemma 5.9(1) gives

\nu_n(A\times B) = \nu_n\left((A \cap X_n)\times (B \cap X_n)\right) \le C\|\chi_{A \cap X_n}T_n\chi_{B \cap X_n}\| =C\|\chi_{A \cap X_n}T\chi_{B \cap X_n}\|<\varepsilon.

On the other hand, Lemma 5.9(2) gives

\nu_n(\{(x,y) \in X_n^2: d(x,y) \leq S\})\leq C\cdot \sup_{x\in X_n} |B(x,S)| \cdot \sup_{x\in X_n} \|(T_n)_{xx}\|,

which goes to 0 since T is a ghost. Hence, \nu_n provides an escaping quasi-local coupling. This contradicts the coarse embeddability of X by Theorem B.

Lemma

Lemma 5.9

2K0Q

Let (Y,d) be a finite metric space and \mathcal{H}_0 be a separable Hilbert space. For a non-zero positive trace-class operator T \in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(Y;\mathcal{H}_0)), set

c_T=\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(T)}{\mathrm{Tr}(T^2)} \quad \text{and} \quad \nu_T(x,y)=\frac{\|T_{xy}\|_{2}^2}{\mathrm{Tr}(T^2)} \quad \text{for} \quad x,y\in Y.

Then \nu_T is a symmetric probability measure. Moreover, we have:

  1. For any A,B \subseteq Y, \nu_T(A\times B) \leq c_T \cdot \|\chi_AT\chi_B\|;

  2. For any R \geq 0,

    \nu_T(\{(x,y) \in Y^2: d(x,y) \leq R\}) \leq c_T \cdot \sup_{x\in Y}|B(x,R)| \cdot \sup_{x\in Y}\|T_{xx}\|.
Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.9

Since T is a nonzero positive trace-class operator, 0<\mathrm{Tr}(T^2)<\infty. Also

\sum_{x,y\in Y}\|T_{xy}\|_2^2=\|T\|_2^2=\mathrm{Tr}(T^2),

and T_{yx}=T_{xy}^* gives the symmetry of \nu_T. For any A,B \subseteq Y, both \chi_A T^{1/2} and \chi_B T^{1/2} are Hilbert-Schmidt. Then we have

\|\chi_A T \chi_B\|_1 \leq \|\chi_A T^{1/2}\|_2\cdot \|T^{1/2}\chi_B\|_2 =\sqrt{\mathrm{Tr}(\chi_A T \chi_A)\mathrm{Tr}(\chi_B T \chi_B)}\leq\mathrm{Tr}(T).

Moreover, recall that \|S\|_2^2 \leq \|S\| \cdot \|S\|_1 for any trace class operator S. Hence,

\nu_T(A\times B)=\frac{\|\chi_AT\chi_B\|_2^2}{\mathrm{Tr}(T^2)} \leq\frac{\mathrm{Tr}(T)}{\mathrm{Tr}(T^2)} \|\chi_AT\chi_B\|,

which concludes (1).

As for (2), let J_x:\mathcal{H}_0\to \ell^2(Y;\mathcal{H}_0) be the inclusion at x \in Y, and put B_x=T^{1/2}J_x. Then T_{xy}=B_x^*B_y and \|B_x\|^2=\|T_{xx}\|. Hence

T_{xy}^*T_{xy} =B_y^*B_xB_x^*B_y \le\|T_{xx}\|\,B_y^*B_y =\|T_{xx}\|\,T_{yy}.

Therefore, we obtain

\begin{aligned} \sum_{d(x,y)\le R}\|T_{xy}\|_2^2 &=\sum_{d(x,y)\le R}\mathrm{Tr}(T_{xy}^*T_{xy}) \leq\sup_{x\in Y}\|T_{xx}\| \cdot \sum_{y\in Y}|B_Y(y,R)|\cdot \mathrm{Tr}(T_{yy}) \\ &\leq\sup_{x\in Y}\|T_{xx}\| \cdot \sup_{x\in Y}|B(x,R)| \cdot \mathrm{Tr}(T). \end{aligned}

Dividing by \mathrm{Tr}(T^2), we conclude (2).

Proposition

Proposition 5.10

DI7Z

There exists a uniformly discrete bounded geometry sparse metric space X which does not coarsely embed into any Hilbert space, while every ghost projection in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0) is compact for any separable Hilbert space \mathcal{H}_0.

Proof of Proposition 5.10

Take X=\bigsqcup_i \mathbb{F}_3/(N_{n_i} \cap \Theta(N_{k_i})), which does not coarsely embed into any Hilbert space by [DK18, Theorem 4.5]. On the other hand, [DK18, Theorem 3.9] (cf. [Khu14, Theorem 4]) shows that the coarse disjoint union Y:=\bigsqcup_i \mathbb{F}_3/\Theta(N_{k_i}) can be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space. Denote \pi: X \to Y the map induced by the canonical quotients \pi_i: \mathbb{F}_3/(N_{n_i} \cap \Theta(N_{k_i})) \to \mathbb{F}_3/\Theta(N_{k_i}), which is coarse by the definition of coarse disjoint unions.

Fixing R>0, [NY12, Proposition 4.4.3] provides i_0\in \mathbb{N} such that for any i> i_0, the canonical quotient map q_i: \mathbb{F}_3 \to \mathbb{F}_3/\Theta(N_{k_i}) is isometric on B_{\mathbb{F}_3}(1,R). Since q_i = \pi_i \circ p_i for the canonical quotient map p_i: \mathbb{F}_3 \to \mathbb{F}_3/(N_{n_i} \cap \Theta(N_{k_i})) and \pi_i and p_i are contractive, it follows that \pi_i is isometric on B_{\mathbb{F}_3/(N_{n_i} \cap \Theta(N_{k_i}))}(1,R). By the left invariance of the quotient metrics, this implies s_i > R for

s_i:=\inf \left\{d_X(x,x'):x\neq x' \text{ in } \mathbb{F}_3/(N_{n_i} \cap \Theta(N_{k_i})) \text{ with } \pi_i(x)=\pi_i(x') \right\}.

Since R>0 is arbitrary, we obtain s_i\to\infty.

Now fix an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space \mathcal{H}_0, and a ghost projection P in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0). Choose an isometry V:\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0) \to \ell^2(Y;\mathcal{H}_0) covering \pi, whose existence can be guaranteed by [WY20, Proposition 4.3.4]. According to Lemma 5.13, \mathrm{Ad}_V(P) is a ghost quasi-local projection in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(Y;\mathcal{H}_0)). Theorem 5.4 shows that \mathrm{Ad}_V(P) is compact, so P=V^* \mathrm{Ad}_V(P) V is compact.

Finally, we consider finite-dimensional \mathcal{H}_0. Embedding it isometrically into an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space \widetilde \mathcal{H}_0, a ghost projection T in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) gives a ghost projection T\oplus0 in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X;\widetilde \mathcal{H}_0)), and compactness of T\oplus0 implies compactness of T. This finishes the proof.

Remark

Remark 5.11

EIW2

The Roe-algebra analogue of Proposition 5.10 is already known. Indeed, [Fin14, Proposition 35] shows that \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0)) \hookrightarrow G(X;\mathcal{H}_0) induces an isomorphism on K-theory for sparse spaces satisfying the coarse Baum–Connes conjecture and admitting a fibred coarse embedding into Hilbert space. The box space of the free group \mathbb{F}_3 constructed in [DK18] provides such an example: it does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space, but it satisfies the coarse Baum–Connes conjecture by [DWY23, Corollary 1.2] and admits a fibred coarse embedding by [CWW13].

Lemma

Lemma 5.12

LXET

Given T \in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0) and \delta>0, choose R>0 such that for any A,B \subseteq X with d(A,B) > R, then \|\chi_A T \chi_B\| < \delta. Let F be a finite subset of X with d(x,x') > R for any distinct points x,x' \in F. Then

\big\|\chi_F T \chi_F - \sum_{x\in F} \chi_{\{x\}}T\chi_{\{x\}} \big\|\leq 2\delta.
Uses Definition 2.1 · Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.12

For a map \varepsilon: F \to \{-1,1\}, set U_\varepsilon:=\sum_{x\in F}\varepsilon(x) \chi_{\{x\}} \in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(F;\mathcal{H}_0)). Averaging over all choices of \varepsilon gives

\frac1{2^{|F|}} \sum_{\varepsilon\in\{-1,1\}^{F}} U_\varepsilon(\chi_FT\chi_F)U_\varepsilon = \sum_{x\in F}\chi_{\{x\}}T\chi_{\{x\}} \quad \text{since} \quad \frac1{2^{|F|}} \sum_{\varepsilon} \varepsilon(x)\varepsilon(y) = \begin{cases} 0,& \text{if } x\neq y;\\ 1, & \text{if } x=y. \end{cases}

Fixing a map \varepsilon, set F_+:=\{x\in F:\varepsilon(x)=1\} and F_-:=\{x\in F:\varepsilon(x)=-1\}. Then

\|\chi_FT\chi_F- U_\varepsilon(\chi_FT\chi_F)U_\varepsilon\| = 2 \|\chi_{F_+}T\chi_{F_-} + \chi_{F_-}T\chi_{F_+}\| \leq 2\delta.

Combining them together, we obtain

\big\| \chi_FT\chi_F - \sum_{x\in F}\chi_{\{x\}}T\chi_{\{x\}} \big\| = \big\|\frac1{2^{|F|}}\sum_{\varepsilon}\big(\chi_FT\chi_F-U_\varepsilon(\chi_FT\chi_F)U_\varepsilon\big)\big\| \leq 2\delta.

This finishes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 5.13

W180

Let \{X_n\}_n, \{Y_n\}_n be two sequences of finite metric spaces of uniformly bounded geometry, and (X,d_X), (Y,d_Y) be their coarse disjoint unions, respectively. For each n, let \pi_n: X_n \to Y_n be a surjective map, and set \pi:=\bigsqcup_n \pi_n: X \to Y. Assume that \pi is coarse. Let \mathcal{H}_0 be an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space, and V: \ell^2(X;\mathcal{H}_0) \to \ell^2(Y;\mathcal{H}_0) be an isometry covering \pi. Then:

  1. For any T \in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0), we have \mathrm{Ad}_V(T) \in C^*_q(Y;\mathcal{H}_0);

  2. For each n\in \mathbb{N}, denote s_n:=\inf\{d_X(x,x'):x\neq x' \text{ in } X_n \text{ with } \pi_n(x)=\pi_n(x')\}, where \inf\emptyset=+\infty. If s_n \to \infty, then \mathrm{Ad}_V(T) \in G_q(Y;\mathcal{H}_0) for any T \in G_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0).

Uses Definition 2.3 · Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 5.13

(1) comes directly from [BCZ23, Proposition 2.9], so we focus on (2). Let T be a ghost in C^*_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0), and we consider S:=\mathrm{Ad}_V(T) = VTV^*.

Take C\geq 0 such that \mathrm{supp}(V) \subseteq \{(y,x)\in Y\times X:d_Y(y,\pi(x))\leq C\}. For y\in Y, put E_y:=\pi^{-1}(B_Y(y,C)). Then for each y\in Y, we have

\chi_{\{y\}}V=\chi_{\{y\}}V\chi_{E_y}.

Given \varepsilon>0, choose R>0 such that for any A,B \subseteq X with d(A,B) > R, we have \|\chi_A TT^* \chi_B\| < \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4N_Y(C)^2}. Since G_q(X;\mathcal{H}_0) is an ideal, TT^* is ghost. Hence there is a finite subset K \subseteq X such that

\|(TT^*)_{xx'}\| \leq \frac{\varepsilon^2}{2N_Y(C)^2} \quad \text{for any} \quad (x,x') \notin K \times K.

Choose N_0 \in \mathbb{N} such that for any n > N_0, we have X_n \cap K = \emptyset, s_n > R and for any m\neq n, d_X(X_m, X_n) > R and d_Y(Y_m, Y_n) > C.

Claim: For any n > N_0, any y\in Y_n and z\in Y, we have \|S_{yz}\| \leq \varepsilon. To see this, fix y\in Y_n and z\in Y. From (Proof), we have

\|\chi_{\{y\}}VT\| = \|\chi_{\{y\}}V\chi_{E_y}T\| \leq \sum_{w\in B_Y(y,C)} \|\chi_{\{y\}}V\chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)}T\| \leq N_Y(C) \cdot \sup_{w\in B_Y(y,C)}\|\chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)}T\|.

Since d_Y(Y_m, Y_n) > C for any m \neq n, we obtain E_y \subseteq X_n. Hence for each w\in B_Y(y,C), different points in \pi^{-1}(w) have distance at least s_n. By Lemma 5.12, we have

\begin{aligned} \|\chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)} TT^* \chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)}\| &\leq \left\|\chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)} TT^* \chi_{\pi^{-1}(w)}- \sum_{x\in \pi^{-1}(w)} \chi_{\{x\}}TT^*\chi_{\{x\}} \right\| + \sup_{x\in \pi^{-1}(w)} \|(TT^*)_{xx}\| \\ &\leq 2 \cdot \frac{\varepsilon^2}{4N_Y(C)^2} + \frac{\varepsilon^2}{2N_Y(C)^2} = \frac{\varepsilon^2}{N_Y(C)^2}. \end{aligned}

Therefore, we obtain

\|S_{yz}\| = \|\chi_{\{y\}} VTV^* \chi_{\{z\}}\| \leq \|\chi_{\{y\}}VT\| \leq N_Y(C) \cdot \frac{\varepsilon}{N_Y(C)} = \varepsilon.

This proves the claim. Applying the same argument for T^*, we conclude that S is ghost. This finishes the proof.

Lemma

Lemma 6.1

XMBO

Let (X,d) be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. Then J_0(X) is a closed two-sided ideal of C^*_u(X) and \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) \subseteq J_0(X) \subseteq G_u(X). Moreover, for a positive operator T\in C^*_u(X), T \in J_0(X) if and only if M_\varphi(T)\in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) for any \varphi\in\mathscr{P}_0(X).

Proof of Lemma 6.1

Since the Schur multiplier M_\varphi is linear, positive and contractive, it is routine to check that J_0(X) is a norm-closed linear subspace in C^*_u(X). For example, for any T_1,T_2\in J_0(X) and \varphi\in\mathscr{P}_0(X), positivity of M_\varphi gives

0\le M_\varphi((T_1+T_2)^*(T_1+T_2)) \le2 M_\varphi(T_1^*T_1)+ 2 M_\varphi(T_2^*T_2)\in\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)).

Since \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) is hereditary, we obtain T_1+T_2 \in J_0(X).

Now we check that J_0(X) is an ideal in C^*_u(X). For T \in J_0(X) and S \in C^*_u(X), we have 0\le M_\varphi ((ST)^*(ST))\le\|S\|^2 M_\varphi(T^*T), which proves that ST \in J_0(X). To see that TS \in J_0(X), first assume that S is a diagonal operator. Then

M_\varphi((TS)^*(TS))=M_\varphi(S^*T^*TS)=S^*M_\varphi(T^*T)S\in\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)).

Next, we assume that S=\chi_K for some partial translation K and let t: D \to R be the bijection, where D,R \subseteq X, such that S is the graph of t. Define a kernel \varphi' on X \times X by

\varphi'(x,y)= \begin{cases} \varphi(t^{-1}(x), t^{-1}(y)), & \text{if } x,y\in R,\\ \delta_{x=y}, & \text{otherwise}. \end{cases}

Here \delta_{x=y} equals 1 if x=y, and 0 if x\neq y. It is routine to check \varphi' \in \mathscr{P}_0(X) and

M_{\varphi}((TS)^*(TS)) =S^*M_{\varphi'}(T^*T)S \in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)).

Any finite propagation operator has the form S=\sum_{j=1}^n f_j V_{t_j} for f_j \in \ell^\infty(X) and bijections t_j as above. Taking norm closure, we obtain TS \in J_0(X) for any S \in C^*_u(X).

Since M_\varphi preserves \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) for each \varphi \in \mathscr{P}_0(X), we have \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) \subseteq J_0(X). Take \Delta:=\{(x,x): x\in X\} and \varphi = \chi_\Delta, which is in \mathscr{P}_0(X). Given T \in J_0(X), we have M_\varphi(T^*T)_{xx} = \|T\delta_x\|^2 and M_\varphi(TT^*)_{xx} = \|T^*\delta_x\|^2. Compactness shows that \|T\delta_x\| \to 0 and \|T^*\delta_x\| \to 0 as x\to \infty, where the second follows from T^* \in J_0(X). Since |A_{xy}|\leq \min\left\{\|A\delta_y\|,\|A^*\delta_x\|\right\} for any x,y\in X, we obtain that T is a ghost.

Finally, fix a positive T \in C^*_u(X). Assume M_\varphi(T)\in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) for any \varphi\in\mathscr{P}_0(X). Since T^2\le\|T\|T, we obtain that M_\varphi(T^2) \leq \|T\|M_\varphi(T) \in \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)). Hence T \in J_0(X). Conversely, assume that T \in J_0(X). Since M_\varphi is a completely positive contraction, 0\leq M_\varphi(T)^2\leq M_\varphi(T^2), which shows that M_\varphi(T) is compact.

Lemma

Lemma 6.2

ZH50

The Hilbert module \mathcal H_E is also the completion of C^*_u(X) under \|\cdot\|_E.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 6.2

Let T\in C^*_{uq}(X). For R>0, let T^{(R)} \in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)) the restriction of T on E_R, which has finite propagation. By (?), we have

\|T-T^{(R)}\|_E =\sup_{y\in X}\big\|\chi_{X\setminus B(y,R)}T\delta_y\big\|.

Since T is quasi-local, the right-hand side tends to zero as R\to\infty.

Definition

Definition 6.3

WFQS

We say that C^*_{uq}(X) has the E-Haagerup property with respect to \ell^\infty(X) if there is a net of completely positive maps \Phi_i:C^*_{uq}(X)\to C^*_{uq}(X) such that

  1. \Phi_i|_{\ell^\infty(X)}=\mathrm{Id}_{\ell^\infty(X)};

  2. \Phi_i can be extended to \widetilde\Phi_i\in \mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E);

  3. \|\Phi_i(T)-T\|_E\to0 for every T\in C^*_{uq}(X).

Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 6.4

SZLN

For a discrete metric space (X,d) of bounded geometry, X can be coarsely embedded into Hilbert space if and only if C^*_{uq}(X) has the E-Haagerup property with respect to \ell^\infty(X).

Proof of Proposition 6.4

Assume that X is coarsely embeddable. By Theorem D(2), take a sequence \{\phi_n\}_{n\in\mathbb N}\subseteq \mathscr{P}_0(X) such that \|M_{\phi_n}(T)-T\| \to 0 for any T \in C^*_{uq}(X). Note that M_{\phi_n} is unital completely positive and fixes \ell^\infty(X). By Lemma 6.6, we have \widetilde M_{\phi_n}\in\mathcal{K}(\mathcal \mathcal{H}_E). Moreover, \|S\|_E\le\|S\| for any S \in C^*_{uq}(X) implies that \|M_{\phi_n}(T)-T\|_E \to 0 for any T \in C^*_{uq}(X).

Conversely, let \{\Phi_i\} be a net satisfying the conditions in Definition 6.3. Since \Phi_i is ucp and fixes \ell^\infty(X), it is a \ell^\infty(X)-bimodule map. For x,y\in X, let e_{xy} denote the standard matrix unit. Since e_{xy}=\chi_{\{x\}}e_{xy}\chi_{\{y\}}, we have

\Phi_i(e_{xy})=\chi_{\{x\}}\Phi_i(e_{xy})\chi_{\{y\}}\in \chi_{\{x\}} C^*_{uq}(X)\chi_{\{y\}}=\mathbb{C} e_{xy}.

Thus, there is a scalar kernel h_i: X \times X \to \mathbb{C} such that \Phi_i(e_{xy})=h_i(x,y)e_{xy}. Moreover,

\chi_{\{x\}}\Phi_i(T)\chi_{\{y\}} =\Phi_i(\chi_{\{x\}}T\chi_{\{y\}}) =h_i(x,y)T_{xy}e_{xy} \quad \text{for any} \quad T\in C^*_{uq}(X).

Hence, \Phi_i(T)_{xy}=h_i(x,y)T_{xy} or in other words, \Phi_i = M_{h_i}. By the properties of \Phi_i, it is routine to check that h_i is normalised positive definite. Since \widetilde \Phi_i is compact, Lemma 6.6 shows that for each fixed i,

\lim_{S\to\infty}\sup_{d(x,y)>S}|h_i(x,y)|=0.

We now show that h_i\to1 uniformly on each E_R. Fixing R>0, regard \chi_{E_R} as a finite propagation operator in C^*_u(X). By (?), we have

\|\Phi_i(\chi_{E_R})-\chi_{E_R}\|_E = \sup_{y\in X}\left(\sum_{x\in B(y,R)}|h_i(x,y)-1|^2\right)^{1/2}\ge \sup_{d(x,y)\le R}|h_i(x,y)-1|.

Since the left-hand side goes to 0, we obtain

\lim_i\sup_{d(x,y)\le R}|h_i(x,y)-1|=0 \quad \text{for every} \quad R>0.

By the standard positive-definite-kernel characterisation of coarse embeddability (see, e.g., [Wil09b, Theorem 3.2.8]), X coarsely embeds into Hilbert space.

Remark

Remark 6.5

78RK

Note that the uniform Roe algebra version of Proposition 6.4 was already obtained in [KLS22, Corollary 5.20], and here we show that the same characterisation remains valid after replacing C_u^*(X) by the larger algebra C_{uq}^*(X).

Lemma

Lemma 6.6

G3Q9

Let \phi:X\times X\to\mathbb C be a Schur multiplier kernel. Then the associated Schur multiplier M_\phi induces an adjointable operator \widetilde M_\phi on \mathcal H_E with

\|\widetilde M_\phi\|=\|\phi\|_\infty\le \|\phi\|_S \quad \text{and} \quad \widetilde M_\phi^*=\widetilde M_{\overline\phi}.

Moreover, \widetilde M_\phi\in\mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E) if and only if \lim\limits_{R\to\infty}\sup_{d(x,y)>R}|\phi(x,y)|=0.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 6.6

As we noticed before, the Schur multiplier M_\phi maps C^*_{uq}(X) into itself. Moreover, for T \in C^*_{uq}(X), (?) gives

\|M_\phi(T)\|_E^2 =\sup_{y\in X}\sum_{x\in X}|\phi(x,y)|^2|T_{xy}|^2 \le \|\phi\|_\infty^2\|T\|_E^2.

Hence, M_\phi induces a bounded \ell^\infty(X)-module operator \widetilde M_\phi on \mathcal H_E and clearly, \|\widetilde M_\phi\|=\|\phi\|_\infty\le \|\phi\|_S. Moreover, \langle M_\phi(S), T\rangle_{\ell^\infty(X)} = \langle S, M_{\overline\phi}(T) \rangle_{\ell^\infty(X)} shows that

\widetilde M_\phi is adjointable and \widetilde M_\phi^*=\widetilde M_{\overline\phi}.

For the “Moreover” part, first assume that \lim\limits_{R\to\infty}\sup_{d(x,y)>R}|\phi(x,y)|=0. For each R>0, denote \phi_R the point-wise multiplication \phi\cdot \chi_{E_R}. Since \chi_{E_R} is a Schur multiplier kernel, so is \phi_R. Then (?) shows that

\left\|\widetilde M_\phi-\widetilde M_{\phi_R}\right\| =\|\phi(1-\chi_{E_R})\|_\infty = \sup_{d(x,y)>R}|\phi(x,y)|\to 0 \quad \text{as} \quad R \to +\infty.

For each R>0, bounded geometry allows us to decompose E_R= \bigsqcup_{i=1}^N \mathrm{graph}(t_j) for partial translations t_j: D_j \to R_j. For each j, set V_j\in C_u^*(X) and a_j\in\ell^\infty(X) by

V_j\delta_y= \begin{cases} \delta_{t_j(y)},&y\in D_j,\\ 0,&y\notin D_j \end{cases} \quad \text{and} \quad a_j(y)= \begin{cases} \phi_R(t_j(y),y),&y\in D_j,\\ 0,&y\notin D_j. \end{cases}

Direct calculations show that \widetilde M_{\phi_R}=\sum_{j=1}^N\theta_{V_ja_j,V_j} \in \mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E) for \theta_{V_ja_j,V_j} from (?). Hence, their limit \widetilde M_\phi belongs to \mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E).

Conversely, suppose that \widetilde M_\phi\in \mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E). Given \eta \in \mathcal H_E, we can approximate \eta in terms of finite propagation operators under the E-norm by Lemma 6.2. Hence,

\lim_{R\to\infty}\sup_{d(x,y)>R}|\eta_{xy}|=0.

For matrix unit e_{xy}\in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)), we have \theta_{\xi,\eta}(e_{xy}) = \xi E(\eta^*e_{xy})=\overline{\eta_{xy}}\,\xi e_{yy}. Hence, \|\theta_{\xi,\eta}(e_{xy})\|_E \le \|\xi\|_E \cdot |\eta_{xy}|, which tends to zero uniformly as d(x,y)\to\infty by (?). By finite \ell^\infty(X)-linear combinations and taking limits, we obtain

\lim_{R\to\infty}\sup_{d(x,y)>R}\|K(e_{xy})\|_E=0 \quad \text{for any} \quad K\in\mathfrak{K}(\mathcal H_E).

Taking K=\widetilde M_\phi, we have \|\widetilde M_\phi(e_{xy})\|_E=|\phi(x,y)|. So we prove the converse.

Proposition

Proposition 6.7

ENOO

Fix 2<p<\infty, and let X be a discrete metric space of bounded geometry. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. X coarsely embeds into a Hilbert space;

  2. X coarsely embeds into \ell^p and \mathrm{RR}(J_0(X))=0;

  3. X coarsely embeds into \ell^p and J_0(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)) has property \mathrm{(SP)}.

Proof of Proposition 6.7

“(1) \Rightarrow (2)”: By Theorem D, we have J_0(X)=\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)), which has real rank zero. Moreover, [Nowak2006] shows that a separable Hilbert space coarsely embeds into \ell^p. Since X is countable, we conclude (2).

“(2) \Rightarrow (3)”: By Remark 6.8, \mathrm{RR}(J_0(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X))) = 0. Now [BP91, Theorem 2.6] shows that real rank zero implies property \mathrm{(SP)}, so we obtain (3).

“(3) \Rightarrow (1)”: Suppose that (3) holds but X does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space. By Proposition 3.3, there is a sparse subspace Y\subseteq X which also fails to coarsely embed into Hilbert space. It is routine to check that J_0(Y)=\chi_Y J_0(X)\chi_Y, which implies that

J_0(Y)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(Y)) \cong e\cdot \bigl(J_0(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X))\bigr)\cdot e \quad \text{for} \quad e:=[\chi_Y] \in C_u^*(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)).

Hence, B:=J_0(Y)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(Y)) is a hereditary C^*-subalgebra of J_0(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)). Moreover, B\ne 0 by Theorem D, since Y does not coarsely embed into Hilbert space.

By assumption, B contains a non-zero projection q. Choose a positive contraction a\in J_0(Y) whose image in B is q. Since a-a^2 is compact and s(1-s)\geq 2/9 on [1/3,2/3], the spectral mapping theorem implies that \sigma(a)\cap[1/3,2/3] is finite. Taking t\in(1/3,2/3)\setminus\sigma(a), we define Q:=\chi_{(t,\|a\|]}(a). Then Q \in J_0(Y), whose image in B is q by the naturality of continuous functional calculus.

By Lemma 6.1, Q is a ghost projection in C_u^*(Y). Since Y is sparse and coarsely embeds into \ell^p, [GLW26, Theorem 2.6 and Lemma 4.4] imply that every ghost projection in C^*(Y) is compact. Viewing C_u^*(Y) as a rank-one corner of C^*(Y), we conclude that Q is compact. Hence q=0, which is a contradiction.

Remark

Remark 6.8

C1JN

Since \mathrm{RR}(\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X))) = 0 and K_1(\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X)))=0, [BP91, Theorem 3.14 and Proposition 3.15] shows that \mathrm{RR}(J_0(X))=0 if and only if \mathrm{RR}(J_0(X)/\mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X))) = 0.

On the other hand, Lemma 6.1 shows that \mathfrak{K}(\ell^2(X))\subseteq J_0(X). This implies that every non-zero hereditary C^*-subalgebra of J_0(X) contains a non-zero rank-one projection, so J_0(X) always has property \mathrm{(SP)}.

Uses Lemma 6.1, Definition 2.3 · Used by Proof
Lemma

Lemma 7.1

H4MY

A discrete metric space (X,d) of bounded geometry has ONL if and only if X has ONSL such that each D can be chosen of rank one.

Used by Proof
Proof of Lemma 7.1

Assume X has ONL. Fixing R>0 and \varepsilon \in (0,1), ONL provides S>0 such that for any T \geq 0 with \mathrm{prop}(T) \leq R, there is a unit vector v \in \ell^2(X) with \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{supp} v) \leq S and \langle Tv,v\rangle \geq (1-\varepsilon)\|T\|. Let D=P_v be the rank-one projection in \mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)) onto \mathbb{C} v. Then \mathrm{Tr}(TD) = \langle Tv,v\rangle \geq (1-\varepsilon) \|T\|. On the other hand, define

\omega(t)= \begin{cases} 1,&0\le t\le S,\\ 0,&t>S. \end{cases}

Note that D_{xy}=v_x\overline{v_y}, which shows that |D_{xy}|=\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}}. Then D_{xx}D_{yy}\ne0 implies x,y\in\mathrm{supp} v. In this case, we have d(x,y)\le S and hence, |D_{xy}|\le \omega(d(x,y))\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}}.

Conversely, fixing R>0 and \varepsilon\in (0,1), let \omega be supplied by ONSL. Choose S>0 with \omega(S)<1. For a positive T with \mathrm{prop}(T)\le R, denote the rank-one witness density operator by D. Since \mathrm{Tr}(D)=1 and D is positive of rank one, D=P_v the rank-one projection for some unit vector v\in \ell^2(X). If x,y\in\mathrm{supp} v, then

\omega(d(x,y)) \geq \frac{|D_{xy}|}{\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}}}=1,

which implies that d(x,y) \leq S. Hence, \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{supp} v) \leq S and proves ONL.

Proposition

Proposition 7.2

HECN

A discrete metric space (X,d) of bounded geometry has ONL if and only if X has ONSL with uniformly finite rank.

Proof of Proposition 7.2

Necessity follows directly from Lemma 7.1, so we only focus on sufficiency. Fix R>0 and \varepsilon \in (0,1). Applying ONSL with uniformly finite rank for R and \varepsilon, we obtain k \in \mathbb{N} and a function \omega. Choose S>0 such that \omega(S)<\frac1k.

Let T\in\mathfrak{B}(\ell^2(X)) be a positive operator with \mathrm{prop}(T)\le R. Choose a density operator D supplied by ONSL with rank at most k. Then there are vectors v_x\in\mathbb{C}^k such that D_{xy}=\langle v_x,v_y\rangle_{\mathbb{C}^k} for any x,y\in X. Set Z:=\{x\in X:D_{xx}>0\}, and define u_x:=v_x/\|v_x\| for x\in Z. Then \|u_x\|=1 and we have

|\langle u_x,u_y\rangle| =\frac{|D_{xy}|}{\sqrt{D_{xx}D_{yy}}} \le\omega(d(x,y)).

Claim: Z cannot contain k+1 points whose pairwise distances are greater than S. Indeed, if x_1,\ldots,x_{k+1}\in Z had this property, then

|\langle u_{x_i},u_{x_j}\rangle| \leq \omega(d(x_i,x_j)) \leq \omega(S) <\frac1k \quad \text{for} \quad i\neq j.

Then the Gram matrix G=\left(\langle u_{x_i},u_{x_j}\rangle\right)_{i,j=1}^{k+1} has diagonal entries equal to 1, while in each row the sum of the absolute values of the off-diagonal entries is strictly less than 1. Hence G is strictly diagonally dominant and therefore, invertible. This would make u_{x_1},\ldots,u_{x_{k+1}} linearly independent in \mathbb C^k, which is a contradiction.

Choose a maximal family z_1,\ldots,z_m\in Z with pairwise distances greater than S. The claim above gives m\le k, while maximality shows Z\subseteq\bigcup_{j=1}^m B(z_j,S). Due to bounded geometry, we have

|Z|\le kN_X(S) <\infty.

Since D \geq 0, we have |D_{xy}|^2\le D_{xx}D_{yy}. Hence D_{xx}=0 forces D_{xy}=0 for every y, which implies that D= \chi_ZD\chi_Z.

Decompose Z=Z_1\sqcup\cdots\sqcup Z_q into its R-connected components, i.e., the connected components of the graph on Z where x and y are connected whenever d(x,y)\le R. Then d(Z_i,Z_j)>R for i\neq j. Moreover, (?) shows that each Z_i has at most kN_X(S) points and hence,

\mathrm{diam}(Z_i)\le (kN_X(S) -1)R.

Let T_i:=\chi_{Z_i}T\chi_{Z_i} and D_i:=\chi_{Z_i}D\chi_{Z_i}. Since \mathrm{prop}(T)\le R, we have \chi_Z T \chi_Z = \sum_{i=1}^q T_i. Then we obtain

\mathrm{Tr}(TD)=\mathrm{Tr}(\chi_ZT\chi_ZD\chi_Z) = \sum_{i=1}^q\mathrm{Tr}(T_iD_i).

Since T_i,D_i\ge0, we have \mathrm{Tr}(T_iD_i)\le\|T_i\|\mathrm{Tr}(D_i) and hence,

(1-\varepsilon)\|T\| \le\mathrm{Tr}(TD) \le\Big(\max_i\|T_i\|\Big)\sum_i\mathrm{Tr}(D_i) =\max_i\|T_i\|.

Thus, there exists i such that \|T_i\|\ge(1-\varepsilon)\|T\|. Since T_i is positive on the finite-dimensional space \ell^2(Z_i), there is a unit vector v\in\ell^2(Z_i) such that

\langle Tv,v \rangle =\langle T_iv,v\rangle =\|T_i\| \ge(1-\varepsilon)\|T\|.

By (?), we have \mathrm{diam}(\mathrm{supp} v) \leq (kN_X(S) -1)R, which concludes ONL.

Corollary

Corollary 7.3

IN7H

A discrete metric space of bounded geometry has Property A if and only if it has ONSL with uniformly finite rank.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.21632v1 by Kang Li, Jiawen Zhang and Jingming Zhu, under the licence CC0 1.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2610/2610.21632.jsonl.