2012
DOI: 10.1007/s00010-012-0137-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On centralizers of reflexive algebras

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

1
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is easy to show that G 1 (GLG) ∨ G 2 (GLG) = G. So it follows from Case 1 that δ (1) is a centralizer on alg(GLG). (I − G)algL(I − G) is a von Neumann algebra and δ (2) is continuous, so by Corollary 2.7, δ (2) is a centralizer on alg((I − G)L(I − G)). Consequently, δ is a centralizer on algL.…”
Section: This Together Withmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is easy to show that G 1 (GLG) ∨ G 2 (GLG) = G. So it follows from Case 1 that δ (1) is a centralizer on alg(GLG). (I − G)algL(I − G) is a von Neumann algebra and δ (2) is continuous, so by Corollary 2.7, δ (2) is a centralizer on alg((I − G)L(I − G)). Consequently, δ is a centralizer on algL.…”
Section: This Together Withmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Case 2: Suppose for every A ∈ algL. Therefore δ can be written as δ (1) ⊕ δ (2) , where δ (1) is a weak (m,n,l )-Jordan centralizer from alg(GLG) into itself and δ (2) is a weak (m,n,l )-Jordan centralizer from alg((I − G)L(I − G)) into itself. It is easy to show that G 1 (GLG) ∨ G 2 (GLG) = G. So it follows from Case 1 that δ (1) is a centralizer on alg(GLG).…”
Section: This Together Withmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation