Simplicity, bounded normal generation, and automatic continuity of groups of unitaries

If A=\mathbb{C}, the theorem is trivial. Assume that A\neq \mathbb{C}. Then, by Glimm’s lemma, A contains a nonzero (and necessarily full) square zero element.

Let G be a normal subgroup of DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)) not consisting solely of the identity element. Let H denotes the preimage of G in DU_0(A). Then H is a fully noncentral normal subgroup of DU_0(A). By the previous theorem, H contains e^{z}, with z\in \mathcal{D}. Since these elements generate DU_0(A), by [RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2], H=DU_0(A). It follows that G=DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)).

(i) By the previous theorem, SU_0(A) has the invariant Steinhaus property, which by [DowerkThom, Proposition 8.10] implies that SU_0(A) has the invariant automatic continuity property.

(ii) Let \phi\colon U_0(A)\to U_0(A) be a group automorphism. Let us show that \phi is continuous, from which the desired result immediately follows. By [kallman, Corollary 3], to show that a group isomorphism of polish groups \psi\colon G_1\to G_2 is continuous, it suffices to show that for all U\subseteq G_2 ranging in a basis of neighborhoods of the identity, \psi^{-1}(U) is an analytic set in G_2.

Let h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} be fully noncentral (guaranteed to exist by Lemma 4.4). Let H_\alpha, n\in \mathbb{N}, and \delta>0 be as in Theorem 6.3, so that (H_\alpha^n)_{0<\alpha \leq \delta} is a basis neighborhoods of the identity in SU_0(A). Let v_\alpha=\phi^{-1}(e^{i\alpha h}). Then

This set is clearly analytic. Hence, \phi is continuous.

If A=\mathbb{C}, the theorem is trivial. Assume thus that this is not the case. Observe then that A contains nonzero square zero elements, by Glimm’s halving lemma, and these are automatically full since A is simple.

(i) Let g be an element in SU_0(A)/Z(SU_0(A)) distinct from the identity. Let w\in SU_0(A) be any lift of g, necessarily noncentral (and fully noncentral, as A is simple). Let H=\{uw^{\pm1}u^*:u\in SU_0(A)\}. By Theorem 7.1, there exists n\in \mathbb{N} such that H^n contains a neighborhood of the identity in SU_0(A). Then H^n is mapped onto a neighborhood of the identity by the quotient map. This establishes local bounded normal generation for SU_0(A)/Z(SU_0(A)).

(ii) Suppose that SU_0(A) is bounded as a metric space. Claim: For any neighborhood of the identity V\subseteq SU_0(A) there exists m\in \mathbb{N} such that SU_0(A)=V^m. Proof: By [ando, Theorem A], the boundedness of SU_0(A) under the exponential length metric implies that SU_0(A) is coarsely bounded. This, by [rosendalOB, Theorem 1.4], implies that there exist a finite set F\subseteq SU_0(A) and k\in \mathbb{N} such that SU_0(A)=(FV)^k. Since SU_0(A) is also connected, the finite set F is contained in V^{k'} for a large enough k'. Hence SU_0(A)=V^{(k'+1)k}, proving the claim.

Let g be an element in SU_0(A)/Z(SU_0(A)) distinct from the identity. Let us apply the claim just established to H^n, with H and n as in the proof of (i). Then U_0(A)=H^{nm}. Passing to the quotient, we obtain bounded normal generation for SU_0(A)/Z(SU_0(A)).

Let A be the C*-algebra from Theorem 8.3.

(i) The simplicity of DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)) has already been proven in Theorem A. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)) has bounded normal generation. Since DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)) is non-abelian, it follows that there exists n\in \mathbb{N} such that every element of DU_0(A)/Z(DU_0(A)) is a product of n commutators. This in turn implies that every element of DU_0(A) is a product of n commutators times a scalar unitary. Since the exponential length of any scalar unitary is at most \pi, the exponential distance from any element of DU_0(A) to the set of products of n commutators in U_0(A) is at most \pi. Through the density of DU_0(A) in SU_0(A) (Theorem 5.3 (i)), this extends to all elements of SU_0(A). This is in contradiction with Theorem 8.3 (ii).

(ii) Suppose that DU_0(A)=SU_0(A). Let

Then SU_0(A)=\bigcup_{m=1}^\infty \overline{K_m}, where the closure of K_m is taken in the topology of SU_0(A). Since SU_0(A) is complete, \overline{K_m} has non-empty interior for some m, by Baire’s theorem. It follows that \overline{K_{2m}} contains a neighborhood of the identity of the form \{e^{ih}:h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}},\, \|h\|<\epsilon\}. Hence, for a sufficiently large n, \overline{K_n} contains all e^{ih} with h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} and \|h\|\leq 1. This contradicts Theorem 8.3 (i).

(iii) This is clearly a consequence of Theorem 8.3.

This is [RobertNormal, Lemma 4.1].

Let W denote the closed linear span of X. Let us show that W is a Lie ideal of A. Observe that W is a fully noncentral closed subspace invariant under conjugation by DU_0(A). Since

and e^{it[x^*,x]}\in DU_0(A) ([RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2]), we have that [h,[x^*,x]]\subseteq W for all h\in W and x\in A. Further, since the selfcommutators [x^*,x] span [A,A], [W,[A,A]]\subseteq W, i.e., W is a Lie ideal of [A,A]. By [RobertLie, Theorem 1.15], this implies that W is a Lie ideal of A.

Let I be the closed two-sided ideal generated by \pi_3(W^8). Let \widetilde{W}\subseteq A/I be the image of W under the quotient map, so that \pi_3(\widetilde{W}^8)=0. This implies that [A/I, \widetilde W]=0, by (repeated applications of) [herstein, Lemma 2]. Since W is fully noncentral, we must have that I=A. That is, \pi_3(W^8) is a full set. Since \pi_3 is multilinear, the closed linear spans of \pi_3(W^8) and \pi_3(X^8) agree. Hence, \pi_3(X^8) is a full set.

Since V is fully noncentral, \pi_3(V^8) is a full set by Lemma 2.2. Hence, we can write

where v_{j,k}\in V and x_j,y_j\in A for all j,k. Enlarging the number of terms in the sum if necessary, we may assume that \|x_j\|,\|y_j\|\leq 1 for all j. Let L=\max_{j,k} \|v_{j,k}\|. Let us multiply by a contraction c\in A on the left and take commutator with a contraction d\in A, to obtain

Applying Lemma 2.1 on the right-hand side, we expand each term [cx_j\pi_3(v_{j,1},\ldots,v_{j,8})y_j,d] into a sum of terms of the forms [v_{j,k},[p_1,p_2]] or [[v_{j,k},[q_1,q_2],[r_1,r_2]]. Here the norms of the elements p_i,q_i,r_i are bounded by a universal polynomial on the constant L (since they are nc-polynomials on cx_j, v_{j,k}, y_j, and d). By [RobertNormal, Theorem 4.3], there exist m_1\in \mathbb{N} and C_1>0 such that each commutator [s_1,s_2] is a sum of a m_1 square zero elements whose norms are bounded by C_1\|s_1\|\cdot \|s_2\|. Applying this to the commutators in the terms [v_{j,k},[p_1,p_2]] and [[v_{j,k},[q_1,q_2],[r_1,r_2]] we obtain

where v_j,v_j'\in V for all j satisfy that \|v_j\|,\|v_j'\|\leq L for all j, where z_j,z_j',z_j'' are square zero elements whose norms are bounded by a function of L for all j, and where m_2,m_3 are both bounded by a universal constant times mm_1. Observe that

If z is a square zero element then the first two terms on right-hand side are similarity conjugates of v, since (1+z)^{-1}=1-z. Further, 1+z\in DGL_0(A) ([RobertNormal, Lemma 2.5]), so the conjugation is by an element in DGL_0(A). Using this on the right-hand side of (Proof), the terms [v_{j},z_j] and [[v_j',z_j'],z_j''] can be expressed as sums of similarity conjugates of \pm v_{j}, \pm v_j' by elements in DGL_0(A). This is a sum of elements in V whose number of terms is independent of c and d. Further, since the norms of the square zero elements z_j,z_j',z_j'' are bounded by a constant (a function of L), the norms of the resulting elements in V (conjugates of the \pm v_js and \pm v_j's) are bounded by a constant independent of c and d. This proves the theorem.

Assume that x\in \mathcal{N}_2 and \|x\|\leq 1. We will show that 4xhx is a sum of 8 terms in the set (2.4), which is essentially what is claimed in the lemma.

For each \alpha\in \mathbb{C} of absolute value 1, define

Let us show that these are unitaries in DU_0(A). It suffices to work in the universal C*-algebra generated by a square zero contraction. This is the C*-algebra M_2(C_0(0,1]), with square zero contraction x=\begin{pmatrix} 0 & t\\0&0\end{pmatrix}. In this case

It suffices to write as a commutator the middle matrix on the right-hand side. The change of variables t=\sin(\theta) gives rise to an isomorphism from M_2(C_0(0,1]) to M_2(C_0(0,\pi/2]). In the latter algebra, the middle matrix on the right-hand side becomes the rotation matrix

which is easily expressed as a commutator:

for all 0\leq \theta\leq \pi/2

Back in the C*-algebra A, we have that

The left-hand side is a sum of two element in the set H (defined in (2.4)), and a and b are as in the definition of u(\alpha) above. Subtracting two expressions of the form aha+b(\alpha)hb(\alpha) for two different values of \alpha we get that

is a sum of 4 elements of the set H. Using that \alpha_1 and \alpha_2 are in the unit circle, this simplifies to

Hence, \alpha xhx + \overline{\alpha} x^*hx^* is a sum of 4 elements in H for any |\alpha|\leq 2. With \alpha=2 and \alpha=2i we get 2(xhx+x^*hx^*) and 2i(xhx-x^*hx^*), respectively. Hence, 4xhx as a sum of 8 elements in H.

Regard B embedded in M_2(B) in the top left corner. Set W = \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}, which we regard as an element of the multiplier algebra of M_2(B). Observe that for x\in B we have that

Let x\in B be such that \|x\|\leq 4. We have that

Applying Lemma 2.4 twice we conclude that xbxW (element on the left-hand side) is a sum of 64 terms in the set H (defined in (2.5)). Observe that this applies in particular to b^2W=b^{\frac12}(b)b^{\frac12}W.

Applying the conclusion from the previous paragraph with x+e in place of x, where \|x\|\leq 3, we get that

is a sum of 64 terms in the set H. Hence, (xb+bx)W is a sum of 2\cdot 64+1=129 terms in the set H for all \|x\|\leq 3.

For \|x\| \leq 1 we have \|xb-bx\| \leq 2. Applying the conclusion from the previous paragraph to

we get that (xb^2-b^2x)W is a sum of 129 terms in H for \|x\| \leq 1. Also, applying the same arguments to b^2, the element (xb^2+b^2x)W is a sum of 129 unitary conjugates of \pm b^2W,\pm i b^2W by unitaries in DU_0(M_2(B)). Further, as observed above, b^2 is a sum of 64 elements in H, i.e., conjugates of \pm bW and \pm i bW by unitaries in DU_0(M_2(B)). Hence, (xb^2+b^2x)W is a sum of 64\cdot 129 elements in H. Now adding xb^2 + b^2 x and xb^2-b^2x we get that xb^2W is a sum of 65\cdot 129=8385 elements in H for \|x\|\leq 1.

Let u\in U(B). (Here we use the convention that if B is non-unital the unitaries in U(B) are chosen in B^\sim and of the form 1+v, with v\in B.) We have that

The unitary \begin{pmatrix} u & 0 \\ 0 & u^*\end{pmatrix} belongs to DU_0(M_2(B)). (Proof: It suffices to assume that \|u-1\|<1, as any unitary is a product of such u. In this case the diagonal unitary is a single commutator by [delaHarpeSkandalis2, Lemma 5.17].) Thus, (ucu)W is a unitary conjugate of cW by a unitary in DU_0(M_2(B)). Hence, uxb^2uW is a sum of 8385 elements in H (the same number as xb^2W) for any u\in U(B^\sim). Since x is arbitrary such that \|x\|\leq 1, replacing x by u^*x we get that (xb^2u)W is a sum of 8385 elements in H for any \|x\|\leq 1 and u\in U(B). But every element in B of norm \leq 1 is a sum of four unitaries in U(B). Hence, (xb^2y)W is a sum of 4\cdot 8385=33540 elements in H for \|x\|, \|y\|\leq 1 , equivalently, for \|x\| \cdot \|y\|\leq 1.

(i) Recall that

(Put differently, \mathrm{Ad}_{e^x}=e^{\mathrm{ad}_x}; see [hofmann-morris, Proposition 5.16]). Replacing x by tx we get

where

Isolating [v,x] the formula of the lemma readily follows.

(ii) Using (i), we have

Using (i) again on the first term on the right side we get

where

Combining this estimate with (i), the estimate for \Delta_2=\widetilde\Delta_1+[\Delta_1,y] readily follows.

Clearly it suffices to prove Theorem 3.2. Let V be a set as in this theorem. Suppose additionally that V is contained in the open unit ball. Combining Lemmas 3.6 and 3.7 we conclude that there exists n\in \mathbb{N} such that \mathcal{D}\subseteq \sum^n(V+iV), and comparing skewadjoint parts we further deduce that \mathcal{D}\subseteq\sum^n V. Here n\leq C'mM^3, where m is as in Lemma 3.7, C' is the universal constant from Lemma 3.6, and M is associated to V as in Lemma 3.3.

Consider the equation

with \|x_j\|,\|y_j\|<1 for all j and v_{j,k}\in V for all j,k. Clearly then we can choose \epsilon>0 such that if \|v_{j,k}-v_{j,k}'\|<\epsilon for some elements v_{j,k}'\in A with j=1,\ldots,M and k=1,\ldots,8, then

is invertible. Moreover, we can decrease \epsilon>0 if necessary so that \|w^{-1}x_j\|<1 and \|v_{j,k}'\|<1 for all j,k. Let F=\{v_{j,k}:j=1,\ldots,M,\, k=1,\ldots,8\}. Now let V'\subseteq iA_{\mathrm{sa}} be a fully noncentral set invariant under conjugation by unitaries in DU_0(A) and multiplication by -1. Suppose further that F\subseteq_\epsilon V'. Choose v_{j,k}'\in V' such that \|v_{j,k}-v_{j,k}'\|<\epsilon for all j,k. Let

Then W' is a fully noncentral subset of iA_{\mathrm{sa}} invariant under conjugation by unitaries in DU_0(A) and multiplication by -1, and W' is contained in the open unit ball. The equation

shows that it shares the constant M from Lemma 3.3 with V. Hence,

This proves the theorem in the case that V is contained in the open unit ball.

Finally, suppose that V is as in Theorem 3.2, but it is not necessarily contained in the unit ball. By Lemma 3.3,

for some M\in \mathbb{N}, v_{j,k}\in V, and \|x_j\|,\|y_j\|<1. Let L=1+\max_{j,k} \|v_{j,k}\|. Define the set

Then \frac{1}{L}W is a fully noncentral subset of iA_{\mathrm{sa}} invariant under conjugation by unitaries in DU_0(A) and multiplication by -1, and additionally W is contained in the open unit ball. Hence, \mathcal{D}\subseteq \frac{1}{L}\sum^nW for some n\in \mathbb{N}. Since \frac{1}{L}\mathcal{D}\subseteq \mathcal{D}, we also have that \mathcal{D}\subseteq \sum^n W. Similarly, if a finite set F\subseteq \frac 1LW and \epsilon>0 satisfy the requisite property relative to \frac1LW, then LF\subseteq W and L\epsilon have the same property relative to W. Thus, the validity of the theorem for \frac{1}{L}W implies that the theorem is valid for W, whence also for V.

Since V is fully noncentral, \pi_3(V^8) is a full set, by Lemma 2.2. Therefore, the unit 1\in A is expressible as a finite sum of terms of the form xvy, with x,y\in A and v\in \pi_3(V^8). Enlarging the number of terms if necessary we may assume that \|x\|,\|y\|<1 for each of these terms. The lemma is thus proved.

In equation (3.3) multiply by c\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} of norm \leq 1 on the left, and take commutator with d\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} also of norm \leq 1, to obtain

Fix 1\leq j\leq M. Say v_j=\pi_3(v_{j,1},\ldots,v_{j,8}), with v_{j,k}\in V for k=1,\ldots,8. By Lemma 2.1, [(cx_j)\pi_3(v_{j,1},\ldots,v_{j,8})y_j,d] expands into a sum of terms of the forms [v_{j,k},[r_1,r_2]] and [[v_{j,k},[s_1,s_2]],[t_1,t_2]], where r_1, r_2,s_1,s_2,t_1,t_2 are polynomials on cx_j,v_{j,1},\ldots,v_{j,8}, y_j. Since cx_j, v_{j,k}, and y_j all belong to the open unit ball, the norms of r_1, r_2,s_1,s_2,t_1,t_2 are bounded by a universal constant. Let k_1\in \mathbb{N} be the number of terms of the form [v_{j,k},[r_1,r_2]] in the expansion of [(cx_j)\pi_3(v_{j,1},\ldots,v_{j,8})y_j,d] from Lemma 2.1, and let k_2\in \mathbb{N} be the number of terms of the form [[v_{j,k},[s_1,s_2]],[t_1,t_2]].

Consider one term of the form [v_{j,k},[r_1,r_2]]. Let us decompose both r_1 and r_2 into the sum of a selfadjoint and a skewadjoint element. The skewadjoint part of [v_{j,k},[r_1,r_2]] is thus expressed as the sum of 2 terms of the form [v_{j,k},[r_1',r_2']], with r_1',r_2'\in A_{\mathrm{sa}}. Since the norms of r_1' and r_2' are bounded by a universal constant, we can write [v_{j,k},[r_1',r_2']]=N_1[v_{j,k},x], where x\in \mathcal{D} and N_1\in \mathbb{N} a universal natural number.

We handle similarly [[v_{j,k},[s_1,s_2]],[t_1,t_2]]: First express its skewadjoint part as a sum of 8 terms of the form [[v_{j,k},[s_1',s_2']],[t_1',t_2']], where s_1',s_2',t_1',t_2'\in A_{\mathrm{sa}}, then choose a universal N_2\in \mathbb{N} such that [[v_{j,k},[s_1',s_2']],[t_1',t_2']]=N_2[[v_{j,k},y],z] for y,z\in \mathcal{D}. Applying this decomposition across all terms [cx_jv_jy_j,d], we express [c,d] as a sum of obtain 2k_1N_1M terms of the form (a) and 8k_2N_2M terms of the form (b).

We start by writing z as a sum of L_1M+L_2M terms of the forms (a) and (b) of Lemma 3.4.

Let us consider a term of the form [v,x], with v\in V and x\in \mathcal{D}. By Lemma 2.6 (i),

where \|\Delta_1\|\leq \|v\|e^{2\|x\|}. Observe that \frac1t(e^{tx}ve^{-tx} - v) is the sum of two elements of \frac1tV, since e^{tx}\in DU_0(A) (by [RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2]) and V is invariant under conjugation by DU_0(A) and multiplication by -1. Since \|v\|<1 (as we have assume that V is contained in the open unit ball) and \|x\|\leq 2, \|\Delta_1\| is bounded by C_1=e^{4}.

Let us consider a term of the form [[v,y],z], with v\in V and y,z\in \mathcal{D}. By Lemma 2.6 (ii),

where

Again, since e^{ty} and e^{tz} belong to DU_0(A), we have expressed [[v,y],z] as a sum of two elements in \frac 1{t^2}V, two elements in \frac1tV, plus the error term t\Delta_2. Since \|v\|< 1 and \|y\|,\|z\|\leq 2, we can choose a universal constant C_2 bounding e^{2\|y\|+2\|z\|}+2\|z\|e^{2\|y\|}. Then \|\Delta_2\|\leq C_2.

Adding all the equations for the terms of the forms [v,x] and [[v,y],z] derived above, we get

where v_j,v_j'\in V for all j and \|\Delta\|\leq C_3M for C_3=\max(C_1,C_2). Let N'\in \mathbb{N} be such that

Set t=1/N' in (?). Then on the right-hand side of (?) we have a sum of

elements in V plus the error term \|t\Delta\|<1/N. Since N'\leq C_3MN+1, the number of terms in V is bounded by CM^3N^2, for a suitable universal constant C. The lemma is thus proved.

Let x\in \mathcal{N}_2, with \|x\|\leq 1. Write x=bW, with b=|x^*| and W a partial isometry in A^{**}. Let f\in C_c(0,1] be such that 0\leq f\leq 1, and consider the element x_f=f(b)W in \mathcal{N}_2^{1,c}. We show below that x_f\in \sum^n (V+iV), with n independent of x and as in the statement of the lemma.

Choose g\in C_c(0,1] such that 0\leq g\leq 1 and f=(g^2-\frac 12)_+. (To define g, let \delta>0 be such that f|_{(0,\delta]}=0. Now set g(t)=\sqrt{f(t)+1/2} for t\geq \delta, g(t)=0 for t<\delta/2, and let g be linear on the interval [\delta/2,\delta].)

Any y\in \mathcal{N}_2 can be expressed as a commutator by writing y=[w|y|^{\frac12},|y|^{\frac12}], where y=w|y| is the polar decomposition of y in the bidual A^{**}. If \|y\|\leq 1, then y_1=w|y|^{\frac12} and y_2=|y|^{\frac12} also have norm \leq 1. Decomposing y_1 into its selfadjoint and skewadjoint parts, we deduce that y\in \mathcal{D}+i\mathcal{D} for all y\in \mathcal{N}_2 of norm \leq 1.

Consider \frac12g(b)W, which is a square zero element in A. As argued in the previous paragraph, there exist z_1,z_2\in \mathcal{D} such that \frac12g(b)W=z_1+iz_2. Applying Lemma 3.5 with N=20 to z_1 and z_2 we obtain n\in \mathbb{N} (depending only on V) and v\in \sum^n (V+iV) such that

Moreover, n\leq 400CM^3, where C is the universal constant from Lemma 3.5.

Choose positive contractions e,e'\in C^*(b)_+ such that eg(b)=g(b) and e'e=e. (They are guaranteed to exist since g vanishes on a neighborhood of 0.) Set h=W^*eW, which is an element of \mathrm{her}(x^*x). (The mapping a\mapsto W^*aW is a C*-algebra isomorphism from \mathrm{her}(xx^*) to \mathrm{her}(x^*x).) Multiplying \frac12g(b)W-v on the left by e and on the right by h we get that

Set v'=evh. Then v'=yy^*vy^*y, where y=e^{\frac12}W\in A is a square zero element of norm at most 1. It then follows from Lemma 2.4, applied twice, that v' is a sum of 64 conjugates of \pm v and \pm iv by unitaries in DU_0(A). Hence, v'\in \sum^{64n} (V+iV).

Observe that v'=cW, where c=ev(W^*e)\in A is such that e'c=ce' =c, and in particular, c\in \mathrm{her}(xx^*). Let us show that c^*W belongs to \sum^{8n} (V+iV). Since W^*e is a square zero element in A of norm \leq 1, (W^*e)v(W^*e) is a sum of 8 conjugates of \pm v and \pm i v by unitaries in DU_0(A), by Lemma 2.4. Hence, (W^*e)v(W^*e) belongs to \sum^{8n} (V+iV). But

Since V+iV is a selfadjoint set, c^*W is an element of \sum^{8n} (V+iV).

We have that

Set c'=c+c^*. Then \|g(b)-c'\|<1/5. From \|g(b)-c'\|<1/5 and \|g(b)\|\leq 1 we easily deduce that \|(g(b)^2-(c')^2\|<\frac 12. Hence, by the Kirchberg-Rørdam Lemma ([KirchbergRordam2, Lemma 2.2]), there exists a contraction d\in B such that

We now apply Lemma 2.5 in the C*-algebra D:=\mathrm{her}(x^*x+xx^*)\cong M_2(\mathrm{her}(xx^*)) to get the square zero element x_f=f(b)W expressed as a sum of 33540 unitary conjugates of c'W, where the unitaries are in DU_0(D+\mathbb{C} 1_A)\subseteq DU_0(A). On the other hand, since cW\in \sum^{64n}(V+iV) and c^*W\in \sum^{8n}(V+iV), we have that

It follows that x_f is a sum of 33540\cdot 72n elements in V. Since n\leq 400CM^3, the lemma readily follows.

By assumption, there exists a full element x_0\in \mathcal{N}_2. Hence, the positive element x_0x_0^* is also full. We can express this as a relation in the Cuntz semigroup of A: there exists k\in \mathbb{N} such that [1]_{\mathrm{Cu}}\leq k[x_0x_0^*]_{\mathrm{Cu}}. Here [a]_{\mathrm{Cu}} denotes the Cuntz class of a positive element a\in A in the Cuntz semigroup \mathrm{Cu}(A).

Consider the set

Observe that \mathcal Y is non-empty as x_0\in \mathcal Y.

Claim: There exists n_0\in \mathbb{N} such that each z\in \mathcal{D} is a sum of n_0 elements of \mathcal Y of norm at most 1. Proof: Let us show first that \mathcal Y is invariant under multiplication by nonzero scalars, fully noncentral, and invariant under similarity. Clearly, \mathcal Y is closed under multiplication by non-zero scalars, as the Cuntz class of a positive element does not change under multiplication by a positive scalar. Moreover, \mathcal Y is fully noncentral, for if x_0 maps into the center in some quotient A/I, then it maps to 0, as the only central square zero element is zero. But then I=A, by the fullness of x_0. Let us prove invariance under similarity. Let x\in \mathcal{N}_2 and let s\in A be invertible. Set y=sxs^{-1}, which is a square zero element. Let us show that yy^* and xx^* are Cuntz equivalent positive elements. We have

This shows that yy^*\precsim_{\mathrm{Cu}} xx^*. Since x is also similar to y, xx^*\precsim_{\mathrm{Cu}} yy^*. Thus [xx^*]_{\mathrm{Cu}}=[yy^*]_{\mathrm{Cu}}, and in particular if x\in \mathcal Y then y\in \mathcal Y as well. We can now apply Theorem 2.3. It follows from this theorem that there exist n_0\in\mathbb{N} and C>0 such that every z\in \mathcal{D} is a sum of n_0 elements in \mathcal Y of norm \leq C. Since \mathcal Y is closed under multiplication by nonzero scalars, we can assume that C=1, enlarging n_0 if necessary. This proves the claim.

In view of the previous claim, to prove the lemma it suffices to show that there exists n_1\in \mathbb{N} such that each element in \mathcal Y or norm \leq 1 is a sum of n_1 elements of \mathcal{N}_2^{1,c}.

Let x\in \mathcal Y be such that \|x\|\leq 1. Let B=\mathrm{her}(xx^*) and write x=bW, with b=|x^*|\in B and W\in A^{**} a partial isometry.

Since [1]_{\mathrm{Cu}}\leq k[b]_{\mathrm{Cu}}, there exists \epsilon>0 such that [1]_{\mathrm{Cu}}\leq k[(b-\epsilon)_+]_{\mathrm{Cu}}. Then

for some x_1,\ldots,x_k\in A. Multiplying by b^{\frac12} on the left and by b^{\frac12}W on the right we obtain that

Let f\in C_c(0,1] be such that 0\leq f\leq 1 and f(t)=1 for t\geq \epsilon. Set b'=f(b), and observe that b'(b-\epsilon)_+=(b-\epsilon)_+. Then, for the terms on the right-hand side of (?) we have that

where r =b^{\frac 12}x_j((b-\epsilon)_+)^{\frac 12}\in B. Observe that \|r\|\leq 1, since \|b\|\leq 1 and x_j(b-\epsilon)_+ x_j^*\leq 1. We now apply Lemma 2.5 in the C*-algebra D=\mathrm{her}(x^*x+xx^*)\cong M_2(B). By this lemma we can express r(b')^2r^*W as a sum of 33540 conjugates of \pm b'W and \pm i b'W by unitaries in DU_0(D+\mathbb{C}1_A)\subseteq DU_0(A). Since b'W\in \mathcal{N}_2^{1,c}, every term on the right-hand side of (?) is a sum of 33540 elements in \mathcal{N}_2^{1,c}. Thus, x is a sum of 33540k such terms. The lemma is thus proved.

The case n=2 is proven in [RobertNormal, Theorem 5.2]. More specifically, there exists \epsilon>0 such that if \|h_1\|,\|h_2\|<\epsilon then

where r,s\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} are such that r\in h_1+[A,A] and s\in h_2+[A,A]. Since h_1,h_2\in [A,A], it follows that r,s\in [A,A], and so e^{ir},e^{is}\in DU_0(A) ([RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2]).

The general case follows by induction and the n=2 case.

Let B=C([0,1],A). Define V\subseteq iB_{\mathrm{sa}} as the smallest set containing the functions

and invariant under conjugation by unitaries in DU_0(B) and multiplication by -1. Let us show that V is fully noncentral. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that V becomes central on a nonzero quotient of B, and assume without loss of generality that this quotient is simple. Then the quotient map factors through a point evaluation homomorphism. Thus, there exists t_0\in [0,1] such that the image of V under the point evaluation at t=t_0 is not fully noncentral. Hence, for a nonzero quotient A/I, the set

is mapped to the center of A/I by the quotient map. Since \frac1tW_{t_0}(u,ta)\to uau^*-a as t\to 0, uau^*-a is mapped to the center of A/I for all u\in H and a\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}. Let \bar u,\bar a denote the images of u\in H and a\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} in A/I. Since \bar u commutes with \bar u\bar a\bar u^*-\bar a, \bar u\bar a\bar u^*-\bar a is quasinilpotent by the Kleinecke-Shirokov theorem ([kleinecke]). Since it is also a selfadjoint element, \bar u\bar a\bar u^*-\bar a=0. This readily implies that \bar u commutes with [A/I,A/I]; in particular, [\bar u,[\bar u,A/I]]=0 for all u\in H. By Herstein’s theorem [herstein, Theorem 1], H is mapped to the center in A/I, which contradicts that H is fully noncentral.

The C*-algebra B contains full square zero elements, namely, any constant function t\mapsto x, where x\in A is a full square zero element. Since B and V satisfy the requisite hypotheses from Theorem 3.1, there exists n_1\in \mathbb{N} such that for each z\in \mathcal{D} we have that

where the left-hand side is regarded as a constant function in B, and where u_j(t)\in H and a_j(t)\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} is of norm \leq \frac{\ln(2)}{4} for all j and all t. Multiplying by t on both sides and exponentiating we get

Recall that \log((u_j(t),e^{ita_j(t)}))\in [A,A]\cap iA_{\mathrm{sa}} (e.g., by [RobertNormal, Theorem 5.1]). Let \delta>0 be such that Lemma 4.1 is valid for n_1 elements of norm <\delta. Let \epsilon>0 be such that

for all \|a\|\leq \frac{\ln(2)}{4}, 0\leq t<\epsilon, and all unitaries u. Then, applying Lemma 4.1 on the right-hand side of (?) we get

for all 0\leq t<\epsilon, where u_j'(t) and a_j'(t) are conjugates of u_j(t) and a_j(t) by unitaries in DU_0(A) for all j. Since H is invariant under conjugation by DU_0(A), u_j'(t)\in H for all j. Furthermore, since a_j(t)\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}, e^{ita_j'(t)}\in DU_0(A) (by [RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2]). So the right-hand side of (?) belongs to H^{2n_1}. Choose n_2\in \mathbb{N} such that 1/n_2<\epsilon. Then e^{\frac1{n_2} z}\in H^{2n_1} for all z\in \mathcal{D}, and so e^{z}\in H^{2n_2n_1} for all z\in \mathcal{D}.

Assume without loss of generality that \|h\|=1.

The set

is fully noncentral, invariant under conjugation by DU_0(A) and under multiplication by -1. (If [h,[A,A]] is mapped to the center in a non-zero quotient, then h is also mapped to the center, by Herstein’s [herstein, Theorem 1], violating that h is fully noncentral.) Set B=C([0,1],A) and define \widetilde V\subseteq iB_{\mathrm{sa}} by

where V is regarded as a set of constant functions in B. The set \widetilde V is again fully noncentral, as it is mapped onto V by any point evaluation map, and it is invariant under conjugation by DU_0(B) and under multiplication by -1. Let n_1\in \mathbb{N}, F\subseteq \widetilde V, and \epsilon_1>0, be associated to \widetilde V as in Theorem 3.2, i.e., such that if F\subseteq_{\epsilon_1} \widetilde V' for a fully noncentral set \widetilde V'\subseteq iB_{\mathrm{sa}} invariant under conjugation by DU_0(B) and multiplication by -1, then \mathcal{D}_B\subseteq \sum^{n_1} \widetilde V'.

For \alpha\neq 0, define \widetilde V_\alpha\subseteq iB_{\mathrm{sa}} as the smallest set containing the functions

and invariant under conjugation by unitaries in DU_0(B) and multiplication by -1. Then \widetilde V_\alpha is symmetric, invariant under conjugation by DU_0(B), and fully noncentral. Applying the Campbell-Baker-Hausdorff-Dynkin formula three times, we have that for small enough \alpha

where \|\Delta\|\leq C|\alpha t|, for a constant C. (Recall that we have assumed that \|h\|=1.) Thus, for small enough \alpha, \widetilde V_\alpha almost contains any constant function of the form t\mapsto [a,h], with \|a\|\leq \frac{\ln(2)}{4}, as well as any conjugation of one such function by a unitary in DU_0(B). Hence, with \epsilon>0 and F\subseteq \widetilde V as in the previous paragraph, we have that F\subseteq_\epsilon \widetilde V_\alpha for small enough \alpha. Let \delta>0 be such that this holds for 0<|\alpha|<\delta, and fix any such \alpha. Then z\in \sum^{n_1}\widetilde V_\alpha for all z\in \mathcal{D}_A, where z is understood as a constant function in B. Thus,

where u_j\in DU_0(B) and a_j\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} is such that \|a_j\|\leq \frac{\ln 2}{4} for all j. Multiplying by \alpha t on both sides and exponentiating we get

As in the proof of Theorem 4.2, we now find \delta'>0 such that Lemma 4.1 can be applied to n_1 selfadjoint elements of norm <\delta', and then find \epsilon>0 such that

for all 0<t\leq \epsilon, unitary u, and \|a\|\leq \frac{\ln(2)}{4}. Then

for 0<t\leq \epsilon, where u_j'(t) is a conjugate of e^{i\alpha h} by a unitary in DU_0(A) for all j and all 0<t\leq \epsilon. From a_j'(t)\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} we get that e^{ita_j'(t)}\in DU_0(A) for all j. It follows that W_{\alpha}^{2n_1} contains \{e^{\alpha \epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}.

Let h=[x^*,x], where x is a full square zero element of A. If h+I is central in a quotient A/I, then in particular x+I commutes with [(x+I)^*,x+I]. By the Kleinecke-Shirokov theorem [kleinecke], [(x+I)^*,x+I] is quasinilpotent, which in turn entails that it is zero, since it is also selfadjoint. Hence, [x^*,x]\in I. By functional calculus, x^*x=([x^*,x])_+\in I, and so I=A by the fullness of x.

(i) \Rightarrow (ii): Choose t_1=x_0<x_1<\cdots<x_N=t_2, a sufficiently fine partition of the interval [t_1,t_2] such that \|u(x_k)-u(x_{k+1})\|<1 for all j. Then u=\prod_{k=1}^N e^{ih_k}, where e^{ih_k}=u_{x_{k-1}}^{-1}u_{x_k} for all k. By the proof of [delaHarpeSkandalis, Lemma 3], if the partition t_1=x_0<x_1<\cdots<x_N=t_2 is sufficiently fine, then \sum_{k=1}^N h_k\in \overline{[A,A]}

(ii) \Rightarrow (iii) This is obvious.

(iii) \Rightarrow (iv) The path \eta(t)=\prod e^{ith_k}, with t\in [0,1], is such that

for all t\in [0,1].

(iv) \Rightarrow (i) This is obvious.

(i) This follows at once from the continuity of \overline{[A,A]}\ni h\mapsto e^{ih}\in SU_0(A) and the fact that DU_0(A) is generated by the set \{e^{ih}:h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}\} ([RobertNormal, Theorem 6.2]).

(ii) By Pop’s theorem [Pop, Theorem 1], if A is a traceless unital C*-algebra then A=[A,A]. Since the set \{e^{ih}:h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}\} is a generating set of DU_0(A), it follows that U_0(A)=DU_0(A), and a fortiori SU_0(A)=U_0(A).

(iii) Claim: If [t_1,t_2]\ni t\mapsto u(t) is a continuous path in \ker \Delta_T\cap U_0(A) such that \|u(t)-1\|<1 for all t and u(t_1)=1, then \log(u(t))\in \overline{[A,A]} for all t\in [t_1,t_2]. Proof: Let h(t)=\log(u(t)) for all t\in [t_1,t_2], which is defined since \|u(t)-1\|<1, and such that h(t_1)=0. Let \tau be a tracial state. Then t\mapsto \tau(h(t)) varies continuously, and by the description of \ker \Delta_T\cap U_0(A) (see (?)), ranges in the set

This set is countable, since A is separable and the value of a trace on a projection is invariant under homotopy. Hence, t\mapsto \tau(h(t)) is constant, and so it is 0 as h(t_1)=0. This shows \tau(h(t))=0 for all tracial states \tau, which in turn implies that h(t)\in \overline{[A,A]} for all t. This proves the claim.

In virtue of the claim just established, if u\in \ker\Delta_T\cap U_0(A) is connected to 1 through a path t\mapsto u(t) inside \ker\Delta_T\cap U_0(A) and such that \|u(t)-1\|<1 for all t, then the path lies entirely in SU_0(A). We can drop the assumption that \|u(t)-1\|<1 by partitioning the path into small enough pieces.

(iv) Let u\in \ker\Delta_T\cap U_0(A), and write u=\prod_{k=1}^n e^{ih_k}, where h_k\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} for all k. Then

for some h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} and projections p,q\in M_\infty(A). By [RobertNormal, Lemma 6.1], u is equal modulo commutators (in DU_0(A)) to e^{ih}e^{2\pi i Tr(p)}e^{-2\pi i Tr(q)}. Since DU_0(A)\subseteq SU_0(A) and e^{ih}\in SU_0(A), it remains to prove that any unitary of the form v=e^{2\pi iTr(p)}, with p\in M_n(A) a projection, belongs to SU_0(A). Consider the projection loop [0,1]\ni t\mapsto e^{2\pi i tp} in M_n(A). By Rieffel’s theorems [rieffel1, Corollary 8.6] and [rieffel2, Proposition 2.6], the loop [0,1]\ni t\mapsto e^{2\pi i tp} is homotopic to a loop \beta\colon [0,1]\to U_0(A) (here we have used the stable rank one hypothesis). Now \eta(t)=e^{2\pi i tTr(p)}\beta^{-1}(t) is a path in U_0(A) connecting 1 to e^{2\pi iTr(p)} and

It follows by Lemma 5.1 that u\in SU_0(A), as desired.

(v) Let u\in \ker\Delta_T\cap U_0(A). By Lin’s [LinRR0, Theorem 5], u=e^{ih_1}e^{ih_2}, where \|h_1\|\leq \pi and the norm of h_2 can be made arbitrarily small. Choosing h_2 of a sufficiently small norm we have that e^{ih_1}e^{ih_2}=e^{i(h_1+h_2)}e^{ic}, where c\in \overline{[A,A]} ([ker-det, Lemma 2.2]). Since e^{ic}\in SU_0(A), it remains to show that if e^{ih}\in \ker\Delta_T\cap U_0(A), then e^{ih}\in SU_0(A). We have that h=h'+2\pi (Tr(p)-Tr(q)), with h'\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} and p,q\in M_\infty(A) projections. As in the proof of (iv), e^{ih} is equivalent modulo commutators to e^{h'}e^{2\pi i Tr(p)}e^{-2\pi Tr(q)}, so it remains to show that e^{2\pi i Tr(p)} belongs to SU_0(A) for any projection p\in M_n(A). By Zhang’s [zhang, Theorem 1.1], the Murray-von Neumann monoid of projections of a C*-algebra of real rank zero has the Riesz decomposition property. Hence, there exists v\in M_\infty(A) such that p=v^*v and q=vv^* is a diagonal matrix with projections q_1,\ldots,q_n\in A along the main diagonal. Observe that Tr(v^*v)-Tr(vv^*)\in [A,A]. So e^{2\pi i Tr(q)} is equivalent modulo DU_0(A) to e^{2\pi i (\sum_{k=1}^n q_k)}, which in turn is equivalent modulo DU_0(A) to \prod_{k=1}^n e^{2\pi i q_k}=1 ([RobertNormal, Lemma 6.1]), thus completing the proof.

(vi) Let H\subseteq SU_0(A) be a closed normal subgroup not contained in the center of SU_0(A) (thus, not contained in the center of A either). Then DU_0(A)\subseteq H, by Corollary A. Since DU_0(A) is dense in SU_0(A) by part (i), and H is closed, H=SU_0(A).

(i) This is Pop’s [Pop, Theorem 1].

(ii) This follows from [RobertCommutators, Theorem 1.2].

(iii) This follows from [NgRobertpure, Theorem 4.10].

(iv) This follows from (iii), as a Jiang-Su stable C*-algebra is pure. Moreover, exactness implies that bounded 2-quasitraces are traces, by Haagerup’s theorem ([haagerup]). Thus, the conditions in (iii) are met.

By the property of bounded commutators generation, there exists N\in \mathbb{N} such that if h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} is of norm \leq 1, then

for some z_j\in \mathcal{D}. Let \epsilon_0>0 be as in Lemma 4.1 applied to n=N elements. Let 0<\epsilon<\epsilon_0. Then

where z_j'\in \mathcal{D} for all j. Hence, the set \{e^{\epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}^N contains all e^{ih}, with h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} of norm \leq \epsilon, and it is thus a neighborhood of the identity in SU_0(A). If on the other hand \epsilon\geq \epsilon_0, then \{e^{\epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\} contains \{e^{\frac{\epsilon_0}{2} z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}, and so again \{e^{\epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}^N is a neighborhood of the identity.

By Theorem 4.3, there exist n_1\in \mathbb{N} and \delta>0 such that for each 0<\alpha\leq \delta the set H^{n_1}_\alpha contains \{e^{\epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\} for some \epsilon>0. Then, with N\in \mathbb{N} as in Lemma 6.2, H_\alpha^{n_1N} contains \{e^{\epsilon z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}^N, and it is thus a neighborhood of the identity in SU_0(A).

Set n=n_1N. Let V\subseteq SU_0(A) be an arbitrary neighborhood of the identity in SU_0(A). Choose W, symmetric neighborhood of the identity invariant under conjugation and such that W^n\subseteq V. Then, e^{i\alpha h}\in W for a small enough 0<\alpha\leq \delta. It follows that H_\alpha^n\subseteq V. Thus, the sets H_\alpha^n form a basis of neighborhoods of the identity in SU_0(A), as desired.

Let us choose h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} fully noncentral (i.e., h=[x^*,x], with x a full square zero element; see Lemma 4.4). Let H_\alpha, n\in \mathbb{N}, and \delta>0 be as in Theorem 6.3. Let us show that SU_0(A) has the invariant Steinhaus property with exponent 2n.

Let W be a subset of SU_0(A) that is symmetric, invariant under conjugation, and countably syndetic. Say SU_0(A) = \bigcup_{k=1}^\infty g_kW for some g_1,g_2,\ldots in SU_0(A). Then for some k the set g_kW\cap \{e^{i\alpha h}:\alpha\in \mathbb{R}\} is uncountable. Using that W is symmetric, it follows that W^2 contains e^{i\alpha_0 h} for some 0<\alpha_0\leq \delta. Hence, H_{\alpha_0}^n\subseteq W^{2n}. Thus, W^{2n} is a neighborhood of the identity, by Theorem 6.3.

Since A and B are traceless, SU_0(A)=U_0(A) and SU_0(B)=U_0(B). So Theorem B applies directly to U_0(A) and U_0(B). By the invariant automatic continuity property of these groups, \phi is a homeomorphism. Recall that U_0(A) and U_0(B) are the Banach-Lie groups of the Lie algebras of skewadjoint elements iA_{\mathrm{sa}} and iB_{\mathrm{sa}}. Thus, by the functoriality of the Lie algebra of a Banach-Lie group ([hofmann-morris, Theorem 5.42]), there exists a Lie algebras homomorphism \psi\colon iA_{\mathrm{sa}}\to iB_{\mathrm{sa}} such that \phi(e^{ih})=e^{\psi(ih)} for all h\in A_{\mathrm{sa}}. Moreover, since \phi is an isomorphism, so is \psi. Let us extend \psi to A by setting

for a,b\in A_{\mathrm{sa}}. We readily check that \psi is again a Lie algebras isomorphism between A and B. By [ara-mathieu, Theorem 6.5.24] (alternatively, by [bresar]), \phi is either an isomorphism or an anti-isomorphism of C*-algebras. In either case we get that

for all h\in A_{\mathrm{sa}}. It follows that \phi is the restriction of \psi to U_0(A).

We adapt the proof of the same result for U_0(M_n(\mathbb{C})) from [kallman].

Let \tau\colon A\to \mathbb{C} be a tracial state. Let \Gamma\subseteq \mathbb{T} denote the group of scalar unitaries in the kernel of \Delta_\tau. From the description of the kernel of \Delta_\tau (?) we see that

Since A is separable, this group is countable (as K_0(A) is countable). Let us choose a discontinuous automorphism \alpha \colon \mathbb{T}\to \mathbb{T} that fixes \Gamma. (To get one, let V be the vector subspace of \mathbb{R} spanned by \tau(K_0(A)), where the scalar field is \mathbb{Q}. Choose a basis of V, a fortiori a countable set, and extend it to a Hamel basis of \mathbb{R}. Using this basis, choose a \mathbb{Q}-linear transformation f\colon \mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R} that is the identity on \tau(K_0(A)), but that is otherwise discontinuous. Now define \alpha(e^{2\pi i\theta})=e^{2\pi i f(\theta)}, which is well defined since f is the identity on \mathbb{Z}\subseteq \tau(K_0(A)).)

Any unitary v\in U_0(A) is expressible in the form zu, where z\in \mathbb{T} and u\in \ker \Delta_\tau. To see this, choose any path \eta\colon [t_1,t_2]\to U_0(A) connecting 1 to v, and set z=e^{2\pi i\theta}, with \theta=\tilde\Delta_\tau(\eta). Then v=zu with u\in \ker\Delta_\tau.

Let us define \tilde\alpha\colon U_0(A)\to U_0(A) by \tilde\alpha(zu)=\alpha(z)u, where z\in \mathbb{T} and u\in \ker \Delta_\tau. We readily verify that this is a well defined map: If z_1u_1=z_2u_2, with z_1,z_2\in \mathbb{T} and u_1,u_2\in \ker \Delta_\tau, then

Since \alpha is the identity on \Gamma, \alpha(z_1z_2^{-1})=u_2u_{1}^{-1}, which in turn implies that \alpha(z_1)u_1=\alpha(z_2)u_2. Hence \tilde\alpha is well defined. It is then easily shown that \tilde\alpha is a bijective group homomorphism. Since the restriction of \tilde\alpha to the scalar unitaries agrees with \alpha, \tilde\alpha is necessarily discontinuous.

By Theorem 4.2, there exists n_1\in \mathbb{N} such that H^{n_1} contains \{e^{z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}, where \mathcal{D}\subseteq iA_{\mathrm{sa}} as defined in (?). On the other hand, by Lemma 6.2 there exists N\in\mathbb{N} such that \{e^{z}:z\in \mathcal{D}\}^N is a neighborhood of the identity in SU_0(A). It follows that H^{n_1N} is also a neighborhood of the identity, thus proving the theorem.

Since A is traceless, A=[A,A] and A has bounded commutators generation, by Pop’s theorem. Hence, SU_0(A)=U_0(A). Moreover, by [phillips, Proposition 9], the exponential length of A is at most \pi. Hence, U_0(A) is bounded. The previous theorem then implies that U_0(A)/\mathbb{T} has bounded normal generation. The automatic invariant continuity property and, in the separable case, the uniqueness of the polish group topology, follow from Theorem B.

If x=0 the lemma is trivially true, so assume that this is not the case. Write x=Cy, with y\in \mathcal N_2 of norm 1 and C=\|x\|. It suffices to prove the lemma in the case that y is the canonical generator in the universal C*-algebra generated by a square zero element of norm \leq 1. This C*-algebra is M_2(C_0(0,1]), with y=\begin{pmatrix} 0&t\\0&0\end{pmatrix}. Let us thus assume that we are in this set-up. Then

This is a unitary in the unitization of M_2(C_0(0,1]).

Let 0<t_1<t_2<\cdots<t_n\leq 1 be the points where Ct^2 is an integer multiple of \pi. Choose \delta>0 such that the intervals (t_k-2\delta,t_k+2\delta), with k=1,\ldots,n, are pairwise disjoints. Define f\in C_0((0,1])_+ as follows:

Let \epsilon>0. Choose \delta smaller if necessary, so that the function f defined above satisfies that |f(t)-Ct^2|<\epsilon for all t\in [0,1]. Now let g(t)=f(t)-Ct^2 for t\in [0,1], so that

Set

It is straightforward to verify that

Since the summands on the right-hand side commute, we have that

Observe that \|y_1\|=\|g_+^{\frac12}\|<\epsilon^{\frac 12}, so that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)}(e^{i[y_1^*,y_1]})<\epsilon. Similarly, we have that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)}(e^{i[y_2^*,y_2]})<\epsilon.

To complete the proof, let us show that e^{i[(x')^*,x']} is unitarily equivalent to e^{i[(x'')^*,x'']} for some x'' such that \|x''\|\leq \sqrt{\pi}. Define f_1\in C(0,1] such that 0\leq f_1(t)\leq \pi for all t\in [0,1], and either f(t)-f_1(t) or f(t)+f_1(t) is an integer multiple of \pi for all t. Let

Then \|x''\|\leq \sqrt{\pi} and

These two unitaries are unitarily equivalent. This stems from the fact that the unordered pairs \{e^{if(t)},e^{-if(t)}\} and \{e^{if_1(t)},e^{-if_1(t)}\} agree for all t, and further, the functions e^{if(t)} agree e^{-if(t)} on an open neighborhood of the values of t at which they cross. A unitary t\mapsto w(t) conjugating e^{i[(x')^*,x']} and e^{i[(x'')^*,x'']} is gotten by setting w(t) equal to either the identity matrix or the matrix \begin{pmatrix}0 & 1\\1& 0\end{pmatrix} for t outside the intervals (t_k-\delta,t_k+\delta), and inside these intervals t\mapsto w(t) is defined as any path connecting these two matrices.

Let h\in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}. By [ker-det, Theorem 3.2], there exist sequences h_n^{(1)},h_n^{(2)},h_n^{(3)},h_n^{(4)} in \overline{[A,A]}\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} such that

1. h_n^{(1)}+h_n^{(2)}+h_n^{(3)}+h_n^{(4)}\to h,

2. [h_n^{(1)}+h_n^{(2)},h_n^{(3)}+h_n^{(4)}]\to 0, [h_n^{(1)},h_n^{(2)}]\to 0, [h_n^{(3)},h_n^{(4)}]\to 0,

3. h_n^{(k)}=[(x_n^{(k)})^*,x_n^{(k)}] with x_n^{k}\in \mathcal{N}_2 for k=1,2,3,4 and all n.

We now use [ker-det, Lemma 2.2], which states that if a_n,b_n are bounded sequences of selfadjoint elements such that [a_n,b_n]\to 0 then e^{i(a_n+b_n)}e^{-ia_n}e^{-ib_n}\to 0 in SU_0(A). Using this lemma (repeatedly) we deduce that

in SU_0(A). On the other hand, by Lemma 7.3, the exponential length in SU_0(A) of e^{ih_n^{(k)}} is bounded by \pi. The lemma thus follows.

If A is a matrix algebra M_n(\mathbb{C}), the theorem is well known. Let us thus assume that A is non-elementary. Then, under the hypotheses of the theorem, A is a pure C*-algebra, i.e., its Cuntz semigroup is almost unperforated and almost divisible. Almost unperforation of the Cuntz semigroup is implied by strict comparison of positive elements by traces ([ERS]), which A is assumed to have. For simple non-elementary unital C*-algebras of stable rank one, almost divisibility in the Cuntz semigroup follows automatically from almost unperforation, by Thiel’s [Thiel, Theorem 8.11]. Since A is pure and has strict comparison of positive elements by traces, it has bounded commutators generation (Theorem 6.1). Thus, the BNG property for SU_0(A)/Z(SU_0(A)) will indeed follow once we have shown that SU_0(A) is bounded.

To show that SU_0(A) is bounded we shall apply the “special subalgebra technique" also employed in [ker-det], [ART], [jacelon]. More specifically, by [ker-det, Theorem 4.1], there exists a C*-subalgebra B\subseteq A such that

1. [B,B]=[A,A]\cap B,

2. B has nuclear dimension 1 (in fact, B is of the form C\otimes W, where C is an AF C*-algebra and W is the Jacelon-Razak algebra),

3. every non-invertible selfadjoint element h\in A with connected spectrum is approximately unitarily equivalent to some h'\in B.

The proof now proceeds along a series of claims, each time expanding the set of elements in SU_0(A) on which the exponential length \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded.

Claim 1: \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on the set of elements of the form e^{ih}, with h\in [B,B]\cap B_{\mathrm{sa}}. Proof: The C*-algebra B^\sim has nuclear dimension 1. The claim now follows from Lemma 7.4.

Claim 2: \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on the set of elements of the form e^{ih}, with h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} non-invertible and with connected spectrum. Proof: Let h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} be non-invertible and with connected spectrum. Then, by the properties of B listed above, h is approximately unitarily equivalent to some h'\in B. Say u_nh'u_n^*\to h. Then

while on the other hand

since \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is invariant under automorphisms of A. Hence, \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)}(e^{ih})=\mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)}(e^{ih'}). The claim now follows from the previous claim.

Claim 3: \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on the set of elements of the form e^{ih}, with h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}. Proof: Consider a unitary e^{ih}, with h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}}. By [ker-det, Lemma], there exist h'\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} and x\in \mathcal{N}_2 such that h' is a selfadjoint element with connected spectrum, h' and [x^*,x] belong to C^*(h), and

Since h, h', and [x^*,x] commute with each other, e^{ih}=e^{ih'}e^{[x^*,x]}e^{ic}, where c\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} and \|c\|\leq 1. Observe that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is uniformly bounded on the second and third factors (by Lemma 7.3). It remains to show that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on the set of exponentials e^{ih} where h\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} has connected spectrum. If \|h\|\leq 2\pi, we are done. If \|h\|>2\pi, then there is a translate of h by an integer multiple of 2\pi\cdot 1 that is non-invertible, and again we are done, by the previous claim. This proves the claim.

Claim 4: \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on commutators of the form (e^{ih},w), with h\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} and w\in U_0(A): Proof: Consider an element of the form (e^{ih},w)=e^{ih}e^{-iwhw^*}. By [KirchbergRordam, Lemma 6.4] there exists an approximately central sequence of selfadjoint elements (h_n)_n such that h-h_n\in [A,A] and \|h_n\|\leq \|h\| for all n. Then, using [ker-det, Lemma 2.2], for large enough n we have that

for some c_1,c_2\in [A,A]\cap A_{\mathrm{sa}} of norm \leq 1. Hence,

By the previous claim, \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is uniformly bounded on the terms e^{i(h-h_n)} and e^{-iw(h-h_n)w^*}. The claim thus follows.

The following claim completes the proof of the theorem.

Claim 5: \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on all SU_0(A). Let R denote the exponential rank of A. The C*-algebra A fulfills the assumptions of [ker-det, Theorem 1.1]. Thus, by this theorem, any element of SU_0(A) can be expressed as a product of 7R+29 commutators (v_k,w_k), with v_k,w_k \in U_0(A). It thus suffices to show that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on the set of commutators (v,w), with v,w\in U_0(A). Consider a pair v,w\in U_0(A). Since A has exponential rank R, we can write v=\prod_{k=1}^R e^{ih_k}, where h_k\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} for all k. Repeatedly using the identity (xy,w)=(x,y)(y,xw)(x,w), we can express the commutator (\prod_{k=1}^R e^{ih_k},w) as a product of commutators of the form (e^{ih_k}, w'). It thus suffices to prove that \mathrm{el}_{SU_0(A)} is bounded on all commutators of the form (e^{ih},w), with h\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} and w\in U_0(A). This is what we have proven in the previous claim.

By Rørdam’s dichotomy [RordamZ], a simple unital \mathcal Z-stable C*-algebra is either purely infinite or of stable rank one. The purely infinite case was dealt with in Corollary 7.2. Let us thus assume that A has stable rank one. Then \mathcal Z-stability implies strict comparison by 2-quasitraces, and nuclearity implies that 2-quasitraces are traces by Haagerup’s theorem ([haagerup]). So A has strict comparison of positive elements by traces. By the previous theorem, it remains to check that A has finite exponential rank. We prove this next. (Note: There is abundant evidence that classifiable C*-algebras have exponential rank 1+\epsilon, e.g. [LinTR1], but we will content ourselves here with a finite bound.)

By the classification theorem of Gong, Lin, and Niu in [GLN1], together with [EGLN2], [TWW], and the work on the Toms-Winter in [CETWW], the C*-algebra A is an inductive limit of subhomogeneous C*-algebras (A_n)_{n=1}^\infty with spectra of dimension at most 2. Since the exponential rank is easily seen not to increase by more than “\epsilon” when passing to an inductive limit, we will be done once we have shown that the C*-algebras (A_n)_{n=1}^\infty have uniformly bounded exponential rank.

The C*-algebra A_n is a pullback of the following form (see [GLN1, Section 13] and [XinLi, Section 2]):

In this diagram

• B=pM_N(C(X))p where p is a projection and X is a compact metric space of dimension at most 2,

• E is finite dimensional,

• \mathrm{ev}_0 and \mathrm{ev}_1 are the point evaluations at the endpoints,

• \beta is a unital homomorphism.

Let us show that these C*-algebras have uniformly bounded exponential rank. Let u\in U_0(A_n), and let [0,1]\ni t\mapsto u_t be a path connecting 1 to u. Consider the path t\mapsto \phi(u_t) in U_0(B). By [phillipsHowMany, Theorem 4.7], there exists a constant C(3) bounding the exponential ranks of the C*-algebras that are a corner of a matrix algebra over a compact matrix space of dimension \leq 3. Applied to the C*-algebra C([0,1],B), we get that there exist selfadjoint elements h_k\in C([0,1],B), for k=1,\ldots,C(3), such that

for all t\in [0,1]. The map \phi is surjective (since \mathrm{ev}_0\oplus\mathrm{ev}_1 is), and so the induced map C([0,1],A_n)\to C([0,1],B) is also surjective. Let \tilde h_k\in C([0,1],A_n) be a selfadjoint lift of h_k for all k. Set

Observe then v is connected to 1 in U_0(A_n) by a path that is mapped to 1\in B by \phi. To complete the proof we show that v is a product of two exponentials. Observe that \psi(v)\in C([0,1],E) is a unitary satisfying the endpoint conditions \psi(v)(0)=\psi(v)(1)=1_E. It thus belongs to the subalgebra I=\{f\in C([0,1,E]):f(0)=f(1)\in \mathbb{C} 1_E\}. Moreover, \psi(v) is connected to 1 by a path of unitaries in I. Since I has exponential rank 1+\epsilon by [phillipsFU, Proposition 2.8], there exist selfadjoint elements g_1,g_2\in I such that \psi(v)=e^{ig_1}e^{ig_2}. Let \tilde g_1,\tilde g_2\in A_n be their lifts that are mapped to 1\in B by \phi. Then v=e^{i\tilde h_1}e^{i\tilde g_2}, as desired.

This is essentially [Ringrose, Theorem 2.6]. By assumption,

were f_j\in A_{\mathrm{sa}} for all j and \sum_{j=1}^n \|f_j\|<m\theta. Increasing n if necessary, we can assume that \|f_j\|<\delta for all j, where we choose \delta>0 such that 0<\frac{m\theta}{\theta-\delta}<m+1. Let us now break-up the list e^{if_1},\ldots,e^{if_n} into groups of consecutive exponentials such that the norms of the exponents in each group add up to less than \theta, but \geq \theta-\delta. It is then easily derived that the number of groups obtained in this way must be at most m. The product of the exponentials in each of these groups can be written as e^{ih}, with \|h\|<\theta, by [Ringrose, Corollary 2.2]. We thus have u=\prod_{j=1}^{m'} e^{ih_j}, with \|h_j\|<\theta for all j and m'\leq m. Setting h_j=0 for m'<j\leq m the lemma readily follows.

Since we may replace q by a Murray-von Neumann equivalent projection, let us assume that q is a smooth function on X.

Since [p]\leq k[1], p is Murray-von Neumann subequivalent to 1_k (the unit in M_k(C(X))). Say p=v^*v and p':=vv^*\leq 1_k for some v\in M_\infty(C(X)). Then a\mapsto (v\oplus q)a(v^*\oplus q) is a C*-algebra isomorphism from \mathrm{her}(p\oplus q) to \mathrm{her}(p'\oplus q). Since the selfadjoint h'=vhv^* has the same form as h (with p replaced by p'), we may prove the theorem with p' in place of p. Let us thus assume that p\leq 1_k, i.e., p\in M_k(C(X)). Then \mathrm{her}(p\oplus q) is a hereditary subalgebra of \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q), and so h\in \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q). It will suffice to prove the estimated exponential distance for e^{ith} in the C*-algebra \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q), since an approximation of e^{ith} by products of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p\oplus q)) yields an approximation for e^{ith} in U_0(\mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q)) within at most the same distance. Note that

in \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q).

We shall show that for all 0<t_0<k(m+1)\pi and t\geq t_0 the exponential distance from e^{ith} to (\{(v,w):v,w\in U_0(\mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q))\})^{m} is \geq t_0/k. That the distance from e^{it} to that same set is at least \min (\frac{t}k, (m+1)\pi) for all t\geq 0 is easily derived from this.

Fix 0<t_0<k(m+1)\pi and t\geq t_0. Suppose for the sake of contradiction that the exponential distance from e^{ith} to the set (\{(v,w):v,w\in U_0(\mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q))\})^{m} is <t_0/k. Then there exist v_j,w_j\in U_0(\mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q)) for j=1,\ldots,m such that the exponential length of

is <t_0/k. By Lemma 8.1 applied with \theta=\frac{t_0}{k(m+1)}<\pi, the displayed unitary is expressible as a product \prod_{j=1}^{m+1}e^{ih_j}, where h_j\in \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q)_{\mathrm{sa}} and \|h_j\|<\frac{t_0}{k(m+1)} for all j. Omitting e^{ih_{m+1}} we deduce that

Recall that we represent elements of \mathrm{her}(1_k\oplus q) by a 2x2 matrix

where a\in M_k(C(X)), b^t, c\in qM_\infty(C(X))1_k, and d\in \mathrm{her}(q). Observe that we can regard the first k columns of b^t and c as sections of the vector bundle \eta_q associated to q. Now, say,

Taken all together, the columns of the off-diagonal elements

give rise to 5km sections of \eta_q, equivalently, a single section of \eta_q^{\oplus 5km}.

The set of smooth sections of \eta_q^{\oplus 5km} that are transversal to the zero section is uniformly dense in the set of all sections, by Thom’s transversality theorem ([Thom, Theorem I.5]). By an approximation, let us perturb the off-diagonal elements (?) so that the resulting section of \eta_q^{\oplus 5km} is transversal to the zero section, while (?) is still valid. Let Z\subseteq X denote the zero set of the off-diagonal elements (?). The transversality to the zero section implies that Z is an orientable submanifold of X whose homology class [Z] in H_{*}(X) is equal to the Poincare dual of the Euler class of \eta_q^{\oplus 5km} ([BottTu, Proposition 12.8]). This Euler class is e(q^{\oplus 5km)})=e(q)^{5km}. By assumption, e(q)^{5km} is a nonempty sum of monomials \alpha_{i_1}\alpha_{i_2}\cdots \alpha_{i_l}, where i_j\neq 1 for all j. Using that

where the indices on the right side run through the complement of the indices on the left side, we obtain that [Z] is a sum of homology classes coming from subproducts of spheres of the form [S_{1,i_2',\ldots ,i_{n-l}'}] (i.e., all the terms include the index 1). Let us decompose Z into connected components—which are also oriented submanifolds—and pick a connected component Z'. Then [Z'] is again a sum of homology classes coming from subproducts of spheres, where all the terms include the first sphere, i.e., have the form [S_{1,i_2,\ldots,i_{l}}].

Claim: The projection map \pi_1\colon X\to S^2 onto the first sphere maps Z'\subseteq X onto S^2. Proof: Suppose it does not. Then Z' is contained in X'=(S^2\backslash\{x\})\times S_2\times\cdots\times S_2 for some x\in S^2. The inclusion of X' in X induces a map H_{*}(X')\to H_{*}(X) whose range is contained in the subgroup generated by the classes [S_{j_1,j_2,\cdots ,j_l}] with j_1\neq 1. This is impossible, since the homology class [Z'] belongs to the range of this map, as the inclusion of Z' in X factors through the inclusion of X' in X.

Having established our claim, let us restrict (?) to the set Z'. Since the elements v_j,w_j,h_j are simultaneously of diagonal form on Z', comparing the top left corners we get that

where this relation is now taken in M_k(C(Z')). Here a_j^{(1)} and a_j^{(2)} are unitaries in M_k(C(Z')), and a_j^{(3)} is selfadjoint such that \|a_j^{(3)}\|< \frac{t_0}{k(m+1)} for all j. This in turn implies that

where b\in M_k(C(Z')) is selfadjoint and \|b\|<\frac{t_0}{k(m+1)} ([Ringrose, Proposition 2.4]). Evaluating at an arbitrary x\in Z' and comparing the determinants of both sides we get

for all x\in Z'. Since Z' is connected,

is constant for x\in Z'. This is impossible for t\geq t_0. Indeed, on one hand the variation of \mathrm{rank}(p)t\kappa(x) on the set Z' is 2\cdot \mathrm{rank}(p)t\geq 2t_0, as \kappa maps Z' onto [-1,1]. On the other hand, the variation of \mathrm{Tr}(b(x))+\sum_{j=1}^{m} \mathrm{Tr}(a_j^{(3)}(x)) on all X is less than 2t_0, as a_j^{(3)}(x) and b(x) are k\times k matrices of norm <\frac{t_0}{k(m+1)}.

Let (k_n)_{n=1}^\infty be an increasing sequence of natural numbers. We will use this sequence to construct the C*-algebra A as an inductive limit. Then, by letting (k_n)_{n=1}^\infty grow sufficiently fast, we will show that A has the desired properties.

For each n=1,\ldots, let X_n=(S^2)^{k_n}. Let P_n\in M_{2^n}(C(X_n)) be the rank one projection P_n=P^{\otimes k_n}, where P\in M_2(C(S^2)) is a projection whose first Chern class is a generator of H^2(S^2). Let us now form the product Y_n=\prod_{j=1}^n X_j. Observe that Y_n is the cartesian product of (\sum_{j=1}^n k_j) 2-dimensional spheres.

Consider the projection p_n\in M_\infty(C(Y_n)) defined by

where y=(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_n)\in Y_n. Let us set the numbers l_n recursively such that l_1=1 and l_{n+1}=\mathrm{rank}(p_{n}) for n\geq 1. (In fact, this yields l_n=2^{n-1} for n\geq 1.) Choose for each n a point c_n\in Y_n.

Let \phi_n\colon \mathrm{her}(p_n)\to \mathrm{her}(p_{n+1}) be a homomorphism defined as follows:

for all (y,x_{n+1})\in Y_n\times X_{n+1}. On the right-hand side of this formula we have used the 2x2 matrix notation for \mathrm{her}(p_{n+1})=\mathrm{her}(p_n\oplus P_{n+1}^{\oplus l_{n+1}}). Also, f(c_n)\otimes P_{n+1} is regarded as an element in \mathrm{her}(P_{n+1}^{\oplus l_{n+1}}) via the identifications \mathrm{her}(P_{n+1}^{\oplus l_{n+1}})\cong M_{l_{n+1}}(\mathbb{C})\otimes \mathrm{her}(P_{n+1}) and \mathrm{her}(p_n(c_n))\cong M_{l_{n+1}}(\mathbb{C}) (recall that p_{n} has rank l_{n+1}).

It is known that choosing the points c_n\in Y_n suitably, one can arrange for the inductive limit C*-algebra A:=\varinjlim (\mathrm{her}(p_n),\phi_n) to be simple and have a unique tracial state (see [villadsen]). The uniqueness of tracial state comes from the fact that if \sigma is a tracial state on \mathrm{her}(p_{m+n}) then \sigma\circ \phi_{m,m+n} is an average of 2^n traces out of which 2^n-1 do not depend on \sigma (coming from point evaluations).

Let us now describe how to recursively define the sequence (k_n)_{n=1}^\infty so that the resulting inductive limit C*-algebra has the desired properties. Define k_1=1. Assume that k_1,\ldots,k_{n} have been chosen. Choose M_n\in \mathbb{N} such that [p_n]\leq M_n[1_{Y_n}]. Now choose k_{n+1}\geq 5nM_nl_{n+1}, k_n, and continue this process ad infinitum.

To prove the theorem, it suffices to find for each m\in \mathbb{N} a selfadjoint element a_{m} in \overline{[\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1}),\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})]} of norm 1 such that

1. (a) e^{ia_{m}} is within a distance of at least \epsilon_m>0 from any product of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})),

2. (b) e^{iC_ma_m} is within distance \geq (m+1)\pi from any product of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})) for a large enough C_m.

Moreover, these properties are not destroyed by moving a_{m} along the inductive limit.

Fix m\in \mathbb{N}. Recall that Y_{m} is a product of 2-dimensional spheres. Let \pi_1\colon Y_{m}\to S^2 be the projection onto the first of the sphere factors in Y_m. Let \kappa\colon Y_{m}\to [-1,1] be defined as in (?). Let a_m\in \mathrm{her}(p_{m+1}) be given by

for all (y,x_{m+1})\in Y_{m+1}, Since a_m has pointwise zero trace, it is in the kernel of every bounded trace. Hence, a_m\in \overline{[\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1}),\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})]}. Observe also that \|a_m\|=1.

Let us verify that the conditions are met to apply Theorem 8.2. Recall that M_m\in \mathbb{N} is such that [p_m]\leq M_m[1_{Y_m}]. Let \widetilde P_{m+1}\in M_\infty(C(Y_{m+1})) be defined as the pull back of P_{m+1} along the projection onto X_{m+1}, i.e.,

A routine Euler class computation shows that

where we have denoted by \alpha_{j,m+1}\in H^2(Y_{m+1}) the cohomology classes coming from projecting onto the k_{m+1} 2-dimensional spheres in X_{m+1}=(S^2)^{k_{m+1}}. Observe that e(\widetilde{P}_{m+1}) belongs to the subring generated by elements in H^2(Y_{m+1}) arising from the sphere factors in X_{m+1}, and thus omits all the generators coming from the sphere factors in Y_m. Moreover, from our choice of the sequence (k_n)_n, k_{m+1}\geq 5mM_ml_{m+1}, and so

We can therefore apply Theorem 8.2 with k=M_m to conclude that the exponential distance from e^{ia_m} to the set of products of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})) is at least \epsilon_m=\frac{1}{M_m}. Moreover, also by Theorem 8.2, the exponential distance from e^{iC_ma_m}, with C_m=M_m(m+1)\pi, to the set of products of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})) is at least (m+1)\pi.

Next we show that moving a_m along the inductive limit does not change its properties. Let n\in \mathbb{N}. Consider the image of a_m\in \mathrm{her}(p_{m+1}) in \mathrm{her}(p_{m+n}) by the connecting homomorphism \phi_{m+1,m+n}\colon \mathrm{her}(p_{m+1})\to \mathrm{her}(p_{m+n}). We regard \mathrm{her}(p_{m+n}) as \mathrm{her}(p_{m}\oplus q_{m,n}), with

for x=(x_{m+1},\ldots,x_{m+n})\in Y_{n+m}. Then

for (y,x)\in Y_m\times (X_{m+1}\times\cdots\times X_{m+n}). A routine Euler class computation shows that e(q_{m,n}) belongs to a subring of H^*(Y_{m+n}) generated by cohomology classes in H^2(Y_{m+n}) coming from the sphere factors in the product X_{m+1}\times \cdots \times X_{m+n}. Moreover, from our choice of (k_n)_n, e(q_{m,n})^{5mM_m}\neq 0. Hence, applications of Theorem 8.2 show that the exponential distance from e^{i\phi_{m+n}(a_m)} to the products of m commutators in U_0(\mathrm{her}(p_{m+n}) is still \geq \frac{1}{M_m}, and the distance from e^{iC_m\phi_{m+n}(a+m)} to the same set is \geq (m+1)\pi, where C_m=M_m(m+1)\pi.