Soft inductive limits of operator systems and a noncommutative Lazar-Lindenstrauss theorem

It is clear that (\overline{E},\overline{j}) is a soft inductive system of Banach spaces. Hence, its limit space \overline{E}_\infty is a Banach space (\overline{E}_\infty denotes the limit space of \overline{E},\overline{j}), not the completion of E_\infty). The embeddings E_n\hookrightarrow \overline{E}_n induce isometric embeddings of {\mathbf{N}}(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}), \mathbf{C}(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) and \mathbf{C}_0(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}) into {\mathbf{N}}(\overline{E}_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}), \mathbf{C}(\overline{E},\overline{j}) and \mathbf{C}_0(\overline{E}_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}). Since \mathbf{C}_{0}(\overline{E}_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})=\overline{\mathbf{C}_{0}(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})}, we get an embedding E_\infty\hookrightarrow\overline{E}_\infty. Given a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} \in \mathbf{C}(\overline{E},\overline{j}), we find for each n\in N an element b_n\in E_n such that \normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}-b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}=\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \norm{a_n-b_n}\to 0 and \sup_n \norm{b_n}<\infty because E_{n}\subset\overline{E}_{n} is dense, i.e., a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}-b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}_{0}(\overline{E},\overline{j}), which implies that b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j):

By construction a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} and b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} differ by an element of \mathbf{C}_{0}(\overline{E}_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}), and we have a_\infty = \overline{b}_\infty \in \overline{E}_\infty, where we denote \overline{b}_{\infty}=\overline{j}\!\!\;\text{-}\!\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{n}b_{n}. Since a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} was arbitrary, this shows E_\infty = \overline{E}_\infty.

Let us denote the connecting maps of the subsystem by {\ensuremath{\tilde\jmath}}_{nm}, n>m\in N_0, and the limit space by \tilde E_\infty. Every j_-convergent net restricts to a -convergent net. In particular, for every n\in N, a_n\in E_n, we can view the basic net j_{\blobn} a_n as an element of \mathbf{C}(\tilde E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},{\ensuremath{\tilde\jmath}}\,). Taking the -limit, we get maps k_{\infty n}: E_n\to \tilde E_\infty. We show that (\tilde E_\infty,k_{\infty {\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}}) satisfies the universal property of the limit space of (E,j). Let \alpha_n:E_n\to F, n\in N, be a net of contractions mapping j_-convergent nets to Cauchy nets. Restricting this net to N_0 and invoking the universal property of the limit space of the subsystem, we get a linear contraction such that \alpha_\infty:\tilde E_\infty\to F such that \alpha_\infty({\ensuremath{\tilde\jmath}}\mkern-0mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n a_n)=\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \alpha_n(a_n), a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}(\tilde E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},{\ensuremath{\tilde\jmath}}\,). By construction, this implies \alpha_\infty(\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n k_{\infty n} a_n) =\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \alpha_n(a_n) for a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}(E_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j). Thus, the isomorphism exists by the uniqueness of the limit space; see Proposition 4.

(1): The "if" part follows from the inequality

For the converse, we start with basic sequences. For these the claim is immediate because j^{(\nu)}_{\blobm} [a_{ij,m}]=[j_{\blobm} a_{ij,m}]. Now let [a_{ij,{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}}] be j^()_-convergent. Then j_-convergence of a_{ij,{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}} follows from the inequality \norm{[a_{ij,n}]}\ge \max_{ij} \norm{a_{ij,n}}.

(2): Positivity of A[a_{jk,n}]A^* follows from \mathcal S_n being matrix ordered. Since this holds for all n, we know that A[a_{jk,{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}}]A^* is positive. j_-convergence is readily checked:

(3): This is a special case of (2).

Let \varphi:\mathcal T_1\to\mathcal T_2 be a contractive completely positive map. Then we can view \varphi as a unital completely positive map \mathcal T_1\to\varphi(\mathcal T_1) =: \mathcal T where we choose \varphi(1_{\mathcal T_1}) =: 1_{\mathcal T} as the order unit of \mathcal T. The universal property Proposition 10 then gives existence of a unique unital completely positive map \hat\varphi:\mathcal T_1/{\mathcal J}\to\mathcal T necessarily given by \hat\varphi(x+{\mathcal J}) = \varphi(x). Note that, since \varphi is contractive, it holds that \norm{1_{\mathcal T}}_{\mathcal T_2} \le \norm{1_{\mathcal T_1}}_{\mathcal T_1} = 1 = \norm{1_{\mathcal T}}_\mathcal T, so the embedding \mathcal T\hookrightarrow\mathcal T_2 is contractive. Thus, viewing \hat\varphi as a map \mathcal T_1/{\mathcal J}\to\mathcal T_2 gives a completely positive contraction.

?: Let 0\le a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\le b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} with b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}). Then \norm{a_n}\le \norm{b_n} for all n which implies that \normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}=\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \norm{a_n} \le\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \norm{b_n}=0 and hence a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\in\mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}).

?: Now let a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}=a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}^*\in\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j). By [jdynamics, Eq. (15)], the left-hand side of (?) is equal to \normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}. We can WLOG assume that \norm{a_n}\le\normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}} [jdynamics, Prop. 5.(1)] which implies that -\normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}1_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\le a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} \le \normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}1_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} because each \mathcal S_n is an order unit space. Therefore \normiii{a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}} is larger than the infimum on the right hand-side of (?). Now let \lambda>0 be such that -\lambda 1_\infty \le \ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n a_n\le \lambda 1_\infty. This means that there is a b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}=b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}^*\in\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) with the same j_-limit as a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} and \check e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}=\check e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}^*,\hat e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}=\hat e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}^*\in\mathbf{C}(S,j) with \ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \check e_n=\ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n\hat e_n = 1_\infty, such that -\lambda \check e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} \le b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\le \lambda\hat e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}. Taking seminorms of this implies that \normiii{b_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}}\le \lambda\normiii{\hat e_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}} but since the seminorm of a j_-convergent is just the norm of its limit, this inequality simply gives \norm{\ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n a_n} \le \lambda. This finishes the proof of (?).

?: According to [kavruk2013quotients, Lem. 3.3], ? and ? show that a necessary and sufficient condition for being a kernel is met.

Let \{\mathcal A_n\} be a family of \mathrm{C}^*-algebras such that \mathcal S_n is concretely represented as an operator subsystem of \mathcal A_n for each n. Using the quasi-central approximate identity \{e^{(n)}_{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}\}_n of \bigoplus_n \mathcal A_n where e^{(n)}_k= 1_{\mathcal A_k} if k\leq n and 0 otherwise, \mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}) satisfies these conditions in Proposition 13 as a kernel in both \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) and in {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}). The conclusion follows.

The map \varphi_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}} defines a completely positive contraction \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)\to\mathbf{C}(\mathcal T,k) by a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\mapsto \varphi_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}(a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})=(\varphi_n(a_n))_{n\in N}. Note, that complete positivity follows from the identification M_\nu(\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j))\cong \mathbf{C}(M_\nu(\mathcal S)_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j^{(\nu)}). Composing with the quotient map k\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{lim}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}} and invoking the universal property (Corollary~\ref{cor:upropcont}) for the resulting cp contractionC(S_0.7\,\begin{picture}(-1,1)(-1,-2.5)\circle*{3}\end{picture}\,\,\,,j)T_$ proves the statement.

The first part is a straightforward application of Proposition 16 to the constant inductive system (\mathcal T, \operatorname{id}). As for the second part, let \pi:\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)\to\mathcal T denote the map a_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}\to \IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \varphi_n(a_n). It follows right from the definition that \pi is contractive. The identification M_\nu(\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j))\cong \mathbf{C}(M_\nu(\mathcal S)_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j^{(\nu)}) and the cones of M_\nu(\mathcal R) being closed imply that \pi is completely positive. It is also clear that \pi vanishes on \mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}). By the universal property of the quotient operator system, there exists a completely positive contraction \psi:\mathcal S_\infty\to\mathcal R such that \pi = \psi\circ\ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{lim$-lim. The last bit is then the basic reasoning for universal properties.

Since we established the universal property of the soft inductive limit in the operator system category (cp. Proposition 10), the proof of Lemma 6 (which is the same statement in the category of normed spaces) now applies in the operator system category.

? \Rightarrow ? \Rightarrow ? are clear. Note that ?, i.e., asymptotic mulitplicativity (19), is equivalent to n-wise products of basic nets being j-convergent. Since basic nets are dense, we have ? \Rightarrow ?. If we assume asymptotic isometricity (see (?)), then ? \Rightarrow ? follows from (?).

We identify \mathcal A_\infty with \overline{\bigcup_n j_{\infty n}(\mathcal A_n)}\subset {\mathbf Q}(\mathcal A_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}). That \mathcal A_\infty is nuclear follows from Ozawa and Sato’s One-Way-CPAP (which can be found implicitly in [Ozawa2002] (via [KS03]); see [Sato2019, Theorem 5.1] for the explicit statement and proof) using the same argument as in [C23, Corollary 3.2] (which follows [CW1, Theorem 2.13]).(Even though the systems here are not necessarily strict, the map \Phi from [C23, Corollary 3.2] is still just the inclusion of \mathcal A_\infty into \ell^\infty (N,\mathcal A_\infty)/c_0(N, \mathcal A_\infty) as constant sequences.)

Now, since \mathcal A_\infty is nuclear, it has the local lifting property, which means in particular that for any finite-dimensional operator subsystem \mathcal S of \mathcal A, there exists a ucp map \psi_{\mathcal S}:\mathcal S\to {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal A_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}) so that [\psi_{\mathcal S}(a)]=a for all a\in \mathcal S. Composing these with the projections {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal A_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})\to \mathcal A_n, we obtain ucp maps \psi_{\mathcal S,n}:\mathcal S\to \mathcal A_n\subset M_{\nu(n)} (where M_{\nu(n)} is a full matrix algebra containing \mathcal A_n). By Arveson’s extension theorem, these extend to ucp maps \mathcal A\to \mathcal A_n\subset M_{\nu(n)} which we also denote with \psi_{\mathcal S,n}. This gives us our desired net of pointwise asymptotically multiplicative and pointwise asymptotically isometric cpc maps.

Given a net of completely positive contractions \varphi_n:\mathcal S\to M_{\nu_n} and \psi_n:M_{\nu_n}\to\mathcal S such that \varphi_n\circ\psi_n converges point norm to \operatorname{id}_\mathcal S, we form the induced soft inductive system (\mathcal S,j) as above. The limit space \mathcal S_\infty is completely order isomorphic with \mathcal S via a \mapsto \ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \psi_n(a) (the inverse is \ensuremath{j_{}}\mkern-1mu\hbox{-}\mkern-3mu\IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n a_n \mapsto \IfNoValueTF{_}{\mathop{\textup{lim}}}{{_}\!-\!\mathop{\textup{lim}}}n \varphi_n(a_n)). With this identification of \mathcal S and \mathcal S_\infty we get j_{\oon}=\varphi_n.

When \mathcal S is separable,

the index set can be chosen to be \mathbb{N} by sequentially choosing better and better cpc approximations for a nested sequence of finite subsets of \mathcal S whose union is dense in \mathcal S. One can then use a compactness argument (such as in [CW1, Remark 3.2(ii)]), to further refine this resulting sequence \mathcal S\xrightarrow{\psi_n}M_{\nu_n}\xrightarrow{\varphi_n}\mathcal S of cpc approximations to one satisfying

(This is called a summable system of cpc approximations in [CW1].) Summability of the cpc approximations implies summability of the induced soft inductive system j_{nm}=\psi_n\circ\varphi_m:M_{\nu_m}\to M_{\nu_n}. And so, as in Remark 7, we can form a strict system {\ensuremath{\tilde\jmath}}_{nm:}=\psi_n\circ\varphi_{n-1}\circ\hdots \circ \psi_{m+1}\circ\varphi_m:M_{\nu_m}\to M_{\nu_n} with the same limit.

Let (\mathcal S,j,s) be a split inductive system. Given a^{(1)},\ldots,a^{(k)}\in\mathcal S_\infty and \varepsilon>0 set a^{(i)} _n = s_n(a^{(i)}). Pick m so that \norm{a^{(i)} - j_{\oom} a^{(i)}_m}<\varepsilon /3 for all i. Now use the nuclearity of \mathcal S_m to pick \alpha:\mathcal S_m\to M_t and \beta:M_t\to\mathcal S_m, t\in\mathbb N, so that \norm{a_m^{(i)} - \beta\circ\alpha(a_m^{(i)})}<\varepsilon /3 for all i. Now set \gamma = \alpha\circ s_m and \theta = j_{\oom} \circ\beta and use the triangle inequality to check that \norm{a^{(i)} -\theta\circ\gamma(a^{(i)})}<\varepsilon for all i.

The forward direction is Theorem 24. For the converse, we recall from Proposition 14 that the limit \mathcal S of the strict system (\mathcal S,j) is completely order isomorphic to \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)/\mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}) identified as a subspace of {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})/\mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}) where here {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})=\prod_n M_{k_n} and \mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})=\bigoplus_n M_{k_n}. By Lemma 31, \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) is nuclear, and hence by Lemma 29, so is \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)/\mathbf{C}_0(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}}).

For each \varphi\in S(\mathcal A), write (\sigma_\varphi, H_\varphi, \xi_\varphi) for the associated cyclic GNS representation. Write H_\mathcal A:=\bigoplus_{\varphi\in S(\mathcal A)} H_\varphi and let \sigma_u:\mathcal A\to B(H_\mathcal A) be the universal representation for \mathcal A. Since {\mathcal J} is an ideal in \mathcal A, its essential support \overline{\sigma_u({\mathcal J})H_\mathcal A} is invariant under \sigma_u(\mathcal A), and so its orthogonal projection p (which is the SOT limit of an increasing approximate identity in {\mathcal J}) lies in \sigma_u(\mathcal A)'\cap \sigma_u(\mathcal A)''. Hence we have

Note that the orthogonal complement of \overline{\sigma_u({\mathcal J})H_\mathcal A} is \bigoplus_{{\mathcal J}\subset \text{ker}(\sigma_\varphi), \varphi\in S(\mathcal A)} H_\varphi (i.e., the largest subspace on which \sigma_u(x)=0 for all x\in {\mathcal J}).

We can identify \mathcal A/{\mathcal J} with p^\perp \sigma_u(\mathcal A) via the map \pi:\mathcal A/{\mathcal J}\to B(p^\perp H_\mathcal A) given by \pi(a+{\mathcal J})=\oplus_{{\mathcal J}\subset \text{ker}(\sigma_\varphi), \varphi\in S(\mathcal A)}. Since every (GNS) representation of \mathcal A/{\mathcal J} extends to a (GNS) representation of \mathcal A which vanishes on {\mathcal J} (by composing with the quotient map), we can identify \pi(\mathcal A/{\mathcal J}) with the image of \mathcal A/{\mathcal J} under its universal representaion. In particular, that means we can identify (\mathcal A/{\mathcal J})^{**}\cong \pi(\mathcal A/{\mathcal J})''=p^\perp \sigma_u(\mathcal A)''. We can also write p\sigma_u(\mathcal A)''\cong {\mathcal J}^{**} (though that is not important here), and, by identifying \sigma_u(\mathcal A)''\cong \mathcal A^{**}, we have

Since \mathcal S\subset \mathcal A, we have p^\perp \mathcal S^{**}\subset p^\perp \mathcal A^{**}. We just need to argue that p^\perp \mathcal S^{**} is mapped to (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**} under the identification p^\perp \mathcal A^{**}\cong (\mathcal A/{\mathcal J})^{**}. Since p^\perp \mathcal S=\pi(\mathcal S/{\mathcal J}), we know that p^\perp \mathcal S gets sent to \mathcal S/{\mathcal J} in this identification. Since \mathcal S and \mathcal S/{\mathcal J} are ultraweakly (wk^*) dense in \mathcal S^{**} and (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**}, respectively, and since multiplication by a central projection and the above identification p^\perp \mathcal A^{**}\cong (\mathcal A/{\mathcal J})^{**} are ultraweakly (wk^*) continuous, it follows that p^\perp \mathcal S^{**} gets sent to (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**} under the identification p^\perp \mathcal A^{**}\cong (\mathcal A/{\mathcal J})^{**}. Since this identification is a ^*-isomorphism, its restriction and co-restriction gives a complete order isomorphism between (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**} and p^\perp \mathcal S^{**}.

It follows from [CE77, EOR01, Kir95] that an operator system is nuclear if and only if its double dual is completely order isomorphic to an injective von Neumann algebra. (See [han2011approximation, Theorem 3.5] for a proof.) Then \mathcal S^{**} is injective. Letting p denote the central support projection of {\mathcal J}, we have \mathcal S^{**}\cong p\mathcal S^{**}\oplus p^\perp \mathcal S^{**}, and so compression by p^\perp is a conditional expectation onto p^\perp \mathcal S^{**}. Then p^\perp \mathcal S^{**} is also injective, and hence so is (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**}. Since it is injective, we know from [CE77] that it is completely order isomorphic to a C^*-algebra, which is moreover a double dual and thus a von Neumann algebra by Sakai’s theorem [sakai_c-algebras_1998, Thm. 1.16.7]. Hence (\mathcal S/{\mathcal J})^{**} is completely order isomorphic to a von Neumann algebra, which (by [Kir95, Lemma 2.8 (ii)]) implies that \mathcal S/{\mathcal J} is a nuclear operator system.

To show \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)\subset {\mathbf{N}}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}})=\prod_n M_{k_n} is nuclear, we present a sequence of completely positive approximations through matrix algebras. For each m\in \mathbb{N}, let \psi_m:\mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j)\to \bigoplus_{j=1}^m M_{k_j} be the restriction of the canonical compression \prod_n M_{k_n}\to \bigoplus_{j=1}^m M_{k_j} to \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j), and let \varphi_m:\bigoplus_{j=1}^m M_{k_j}\to \prod_n M_{k_n} be defined for (x_1,...,x_m)\in \bigoplus_{j=1}^m M_{k_j} as

Note that we can identify \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) with the closure of the set

Hence the image of \varphi_m clearly lies in \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j), and to check nuclearity, we only need to check it for (x_n)_n\in X_0. For such a sequence, we choose m>0 such that for all n\geq m, j_{_n+1,n}(x_n)=x_{n+1}. Then for all n\geq m, we have \varphi_n(\psi_n(x))=x. It follows that \mathbf{C}(\mathcal S_{{\hspace{0.0pt}{\mathbin{{\hbox{\scalebox{0.7}{ 

}}}}}\hspace{+0pt}}{\hspace{-1pt}}},j) is nuclear.