Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 57 references

Primality and the ideal intersection property for reduced crossed products

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A complete intrinsic characterization of primality and ideal intersection for reduced crossed products is established, via a new induction theory at the level of injective envelopes.

desk verdict Major results with a real but repairable gap in Lemma 4.5 and a separable-case dependency on an unpublished preprint; still worth a careful referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14454 v1 pith:D33OMTGR submitted 2025-04-20 math.OA math.DS

Matthew Kennedy , Larissa Kroell , Camila F. Sehnem This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.OAmath.DS MSC 46L0546L55
keywords reducedcrossedproductprimeC*-algebraidealintersectionpropertyregularinjectiveenvelopeFC-hypercentralgroupC*-dynamicalsysteminductionandimprimitivity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper resolves two open problems in the structure theory of reduced crossed products over discrete groups: when the crossed product is a prime C*-algebra, and when the system has the ideal intersection property. For prime systems, it proves that the crossed product is prime exactly when every nontrivial element arising from an induced subsystem either has infinite conjugacy class or fails to act by a locally implemented automorphism (implemented by a commuting derivation or unitary on an invariant subalgebra). For groups with no nontrivial infinite-conjugacy-class quotients (FC-hypercentral groups), the same kind of condition, with 'sub-induced' replacing 'induced', characterizes the ideal intersection property. The payoff is that both structural properties become checkable from the underlying dynamics rather than from the crossed product itself.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is a new theory of induction and imprimitivity for C*-dynamical systems, carried out at the level of injective envelopes. For a system $(A,G,\alpha)$ induced from a regular subsystem $(J,H,\beta)$, it yields tensor-product decompositions $$I(A)\cong \ell^\infty(G/H)\otimes I(J),\qquad I(A\times_\$\lambda$ G)\cong B(\$ell^{2}$(G/H))\otimes I(J\times_\$\lambda$ H),$$ an analogue of the classical imprimitivity theorem for crossed products. This decomposition is what allows the authors to convert extrinsic conditions on the injective envelope (the existence of meandering projections, or of inner automorphisms implemented by invariant unitaries) into intrinsic conditions on the original system, such as the existence of commuting derivations on essential hereditary subalgebras.

What would settle it

Look for a counterexample to the tensor-product decomposition: construct a C*-dynamical system $(A,G,\alpha)$ induced from a regular subsystem $(J,H,\beta)$ and compute its minimal injective extension $I(A\times_\lambda G)$; if it is not isomorphic to $B(\ell^2(G/H))\otimes I(J\times_\lambda H)$, the main theorems collapse. Alternatively, build a prime system induced from a subsystem where a non-identity element has finite $H$-conjugacy class and acts as $\exp(\delta)$ for a commuting derivation on an essential hereditary subalgebra, yet the reduced crossed product is prime; that would contradict Theorem A directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorem A and Theorem B, is that the ideal-theoretic properties of a reduced crossed product are governed by the conjugacy-class structure of automorphisms that are 'almost inner' on pieces of the system. Theorem A: for a prime C*-dynamical system $(A,G,\alpha)$, the reduced crossed product $A\times_\lambda G$ is prime if and only if, whenever the system is induced from a regular C*-dynamical subsystem $(J,H,\beta)$ and an element $r\in H\setminus\{e\}$ admits a $C_H(r)$-invariant essential hereditary C*-subalgebra $B\subseteq J$ on which $\alpha_r$ is the exponential of a $C_H(r)$-commuting *-derivation (or, equivalently, whenever $\beta_r$ is inner on the injective envelope with a $C_H(r)$-invariant unitary), the $H$-conjugacy class of $r$ is infinite. Theorem B: for a unital system over an FC-hypercentral group, the ideal intersection property holds exactly when the same condition holds with 'sub-induced' instead of 'induced'. The paper further shows that, for such groups, the regular ideal intersection property, the ideal intersection property, and the uniqueness of pseudo-expectations are all equivalent.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the claim that when a system is induced from a subsystem, the minimal injective extensions of the system and of its reduced crossed product split as tensor products over the coset space; if this splitting can fail, the intrinsic characterizations of primality and of the ideal intersection property lose their foundation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any prime C*-dynamical system, primality of the reduced crossed product is now characterized by a condition that can be checked from the action and its subsystems alone (Theorem 7.3).
  • For FC-hypercentral groups, the ideal intersection property coincides with the regular ideal intersection property and with uniqueness of pseudo-expectations (Theorem 9.3).
  • For minimal systems, the characterization recovers the known Geffen–Ursu primality theorem; for simple underlying algebras it reduces to a condition on automorphisms implemented by invariant unitaries on the injective envelope (Corollaries 7.6 and 9.6).
  • For groups with restrictive subgroup structure—$\mathrm{PSL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, $\mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{Z})$, and free products of cyclic groups of square-free order—the conditions simplify to proper outerness of the relevant automorphisms (Propositions 10.12, 10.13, 10.15).
  • For abelian systems over FC-hypercentral groups, the ideal intersection property is equivalent to a disjoint-translate condition on regular open subsets, giving a dynamical criterion in the spirit of topological freeness (Corollary 9.5).

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The tensor-product decomposition of injective envelopes suggests a general strategy: to study a structural property of a crossed product, first lift it to the injective envelope, where coset-space tensor products trivialize the group action, then pull the conclusion back through the essential embedding; this may yield new proofs for factoriality, unique trace, or nuclearity questions.
  • The dichotomy between FC-hypercentral and non-FC-hypercentral groups that the paper exploits indicates that for groups with nontrivial ICC quotients, the ideal intersection property may require invariants beyond conjugacy classes, possibly tied to the Furstenberg boundary of the quotient.
  • The separable approximate-invariance condition could be turned into a quantitative criterion: bounding the distance to inner automorphisms and the deviation of implementing unitaries from invariance gives an explicit threshold below which the crossed product is guaranteed to be non-prime, suggesting a route to concrete computations for specific actions.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper develops a new theory of induction and imprimitivity for C*-dynamical systems at the level of injective envelopes and applies it to give intrinsic characterizations of primality of reduced crossed products (Theorem A) and of the ideal intersection property over FC-hypercentral groups (Theorem B). The key intermediate results are a tensor product decomposition for injective envelopes of induced systems (Theorem C), a characterization of the regular ideal intersection property (Theorem 6.7), and a reduction of the ideal intersection property to the regular ideal intersection property for FC-hypercentral groups (Theorem 9.3). The proof strategy combines meandering projections, derivation-based intrinsic reformulations of quasi-inner automorphisms, and a separable approximation lemma attributed to Geffen-Ursu.

Significance. If the results are correct, this paper resolves a long-standing problem completely and in intrinsic terms, extending the minimal-system results of Geffen and Ursu to arbitrary prime systems. The induction theory at the level of injective envelopes, the tensor product decompositions, and the systematic treatment of the regular ideal intersection property are likely to be useful tools. The paper is careful to distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic conditions and provides instructive examples, including applications to PSL2(Z), SL2(Z), free products of cyclic groups, and Tarski monster groups.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4, Lemma 4.5] Lemma 4.5 invokes Theorem 3.7 to identify I(A×λG) with I(J×λH)⊗B(ℓ2(G/H)) under the hypothesis that (I(A),G,α) is only sub-induced from (J,H,β). Theorem 3.7 is stated and proved only for induced systems, not for sub-induced ones. When the G-invariant regular ideal K generated by the orbit of J is a proper summand of I(A), the identification fails; for example, for A=B(ℓ2)⊕C with G=C2 acting trivially and J=B(ℓ2)⊕0 with H=G, one computes I(A×λG)≅(B(ℓ2)⊗I(C*(C2)))⊕I(C*(C2)), which is not the tensor product B(ℓ2)⊗I(J×λH). The conclusion of Lemma 4.5 may still be true, but the proof as written is invalid and must be repaired, for instance by applying Theorem 3.7 to the induced subsystem (K,G,α|K) and then using a direct-sum decomposition of I(A×λG) to show that b⊗1 is central in the larger envelope. This is load-bearing: Proposition 4.8(3)⇒(4), and hence Theorems 6.7, 7.3 and 9.3, all route through this step.
  2. [§5, Lemma 5.3] The separable characterizations in Theorems A, B, 6.7, 7.3 and 9.3 (condition (4) or (7)) rely on Lemma 5.3, which is quoted from the unpublished preprint [17] without proof. In particular the equivalence (1)⇔(2) in Lemma 5.3 is a nontrivial equivariant approximation result. If [17] is not yet publicly and independently verified, the paper should either include the proof of Lemma 5.3 or replace the reference with a peer-reviewed source; otherwise the separable half of the main results is not self-contained.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§2.1 and §2.3] There are typos: 'C*-alegbra' and 'C*-alegbras' should be 'C*-algebra' and 'C*-algebras'.
  2. [§6, proof of Proposition 6.6] The proof refers to 'Lemma 6.5', but the relevant statement is Proposition 6.5; please correct the cross-reference.
  3. [§10, Example 10.17] The statement that 'FC(D∞) is the cyclic group of order 2 generated by y' is incorrect: in the presentation given, y has infinite order and FC(D∞) is the infinite cyclic subgroup generated by y. Please fix this example.
  4. [§4, Definition 4.1] The quantification over left transversals in the meandering projection condition (2) is slightly ambiguous; as used in Lemma 4.7, the bound is required to be independent of the choice of transversal, and it would be helpful to state this explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the derivation chain is self-contained and the target results are not assumed.

full rationale

The paper's main characterizations are obtained through explicit equivalences rather than by defining the target conclusions into the hypotheses. Theorem 6.7 reduces the regular ideal intersection property to the equality Z(I(A))^G = Z(I(A×λG)) via Proposition 6.6, and then connects this extrinsic center condition to the absence of sub-induced inner automorphisms (Proposition 4.8) and to the intrinsic derivation conditions (Proposition 5.4). Theorem A and Theorem B then add primality and the ideal intersection property through Theorem 7.3 and Proposition 9.2, each of which is proved independently from established results in injective envelope theory, imprimitivity theory, and proper outerness criteria. The self-citations to prior work by the first author and collaborators are used as supporting tools, not as a substitute for the new arguments. The conditions in the main theorems are not fitted parameters renamed as predictions, and no equation is asserted to be equivalent to its own input by construction. A possible gap in Lemma 4.5, where Theorem 3.7 is applied beyond its stated induced-system hypothesis, is a proof-correctness concern rather than a circularity: even if that application needed repair, the theorem being applied is not the theorem being proven and no conclusion is being assumed in its own proof.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data. The axioms are standard C*-algebra theory plus explicit domain assumptions. The paper's new definitions (meandering projections, injective-envelope induction, sub-induced systems) are internally constructed and verified. A notable load-bearing external input is the unpublished Geffen-Ursu lemma for the separable case.

assumptions (4)
  • standard math ZFC and standard C*-algebra theory
    The paper works within ordinary mathematics; all background C*-algebra facts are cited to Blackadar, Pedersen, and Williams.
  • standard math Hamana's injective envelope existence and uniqueness
    Used in Section 2.3 and throughout; it is the starting point of noncommutative boundary theory.
  • domain assumption The group G is discrete and the system is prime (Theorem A) or G is FC-hypercentral (Theorem B)
    These are explicit hypotheses in the main theorems, not hidden assumptions.
  • domain assumption Geffen-Ursu Lemma 5.3, taken from the proof of [17, Theorem 7.15]
    Needed for the separable conditions (4) and (7); the present paper does not prove this lemma.
invented entities (3)
  • Meandering projection
    purpose: Detects when the injective-envelope system is sub-induced from a subsystem with an inner element having finite conjugacy class.
    Definition 4.1; its existence is proved under conditions (Lemmas 4.4 and 4.7), but it has no external falsifiable handle.
  • Induction at the level of injective envelopes
    purpose: Constructs new C*-dynamical systems from subsystems and yields tensor product decompositions of injective envelopes.
    Section 3, Definitions 3.2 and 3.6; a new mathematical construction, verified internally by Theorem 3.7.
  • Sub-induced C*-dynamical system
    purpose: Extends the induction notion to systems that are induced only on a nonzero G-invariant regular ideal.
    Definition 3.8; used in Theorems B, 6.7, and 9.3.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Primality and the ideal intersection property for reduced crossed products." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D33OMTGR

@misc{pith2026250414454,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Primality and the ideal intersection property for reduced crossed products},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D33OMTGR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14454}
}
read the original abstract

We consider the ideal structure of reduced crossed products over discrete groups. First, we completely characterize primality for reduced crossed products. Second, we characterize the ideal intersection property for reduced crossed products over FC-hypercentral groups. Both of these characterizations are intrinsic, in terms of conditions on the underlying dynamics. A key intermediate result is a complete characterization of the regular ideal intersection property for reduced crossed products. For C*-dynamical systems over groups with restrictive subgroup structure, these characterizations simplify even further, which we demonstrate with a number of examples.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Geffen and D

    S. Geffen and D. Ursu,Simplicity of crossed products by FC-hypercentral groups, arXiv preprint (2023), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2304.07852v3

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    R. J. Archbold and J. S. Spielberg,Topologically free actions and ideals in discrete C*-dynamical systems, Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 37 (1994), no. 1, 119–124, DOI 10.1017/s001309150001875x

    work page doi:10.1017/s001309150001875x 1994

  3. [2]

    Bédos and T

    E. Bédos and T. Omland,On twisted group C*-algebras associated with FC-hypercentral groups and other related groups, Ergod. Theory Dyn. Syst.36 (2016), no. 6, 1743–1756, DOI 10.1017/etds.2015.9

    doi:10.1017/etds.2015.9 2016

  4. [3]

    Bekka, M

    M. Bekka, M. Cowling, and P. de la Harpe, Simplicity of the reduced C*- algebra of PSL(n, Z), Int. Math. Res. Not. 1994 (1994), no. 7, 285–291, DOI 10.1155/S1073792894000322

    work page doi:10.1155/s1073792894000322 1994

  5. [4]

    Blackadar,Operator algebras: Theory of C*-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Encyclopaedia Math

    B. Blackadar,Operator algebras: Theory of C*-algebras and von Neumann algebras, Encyclopaedia Math. Sci., vol. 122, Springer, 2006

    work page 2006

  6. [5]

    Breuillard, M

    E. Breuillard, M. Kalantar, M. Kennedy, and N. Ozawa,C*-simplicity and the unique trace property for discrete groups, Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci.126 (2017), no. 1, 35–71, DOI 10.1007/s10240-017-0091-2

    doi:10.1007/s10240-017-0091-2 2017

  7. [6]

    J. H. Brown, A. H. Fuller, D. R. Pitts, and S. A. Reznikoff,Regular ideals, ideal intersections, and quotients, Integral Equ. Oper. Theory96 (2024), no. 1, 3, DOI 10.1007/s00020-023-02728-8

    work page doi:10.1007/s00020-023-02728-8 2024

  8. [7]

    R. S. Bryder and M. Kennedy,Reduced twisted crossed products over C*-simple groups, Int. Math. Res. Not.2018 (2018), no. 6, 1638–1655, DOI 10.1093/imrn/rnx022

    work page doi:10.1093/imrn/rnx022 2018

Show all 57 references
  1. [8]

    Choi and E

    M.-D. Choi and E. G. Effros,Injectivity and operator spaces, J. Funct. Anal.24 (1977), no. 2, 156–209, DOI 10.1016/0022-1236(77)90052-0

    1977 doi

  2. [9]

    Cuntz and W

    J. Cuntz and W. Krieger,A class of C*-algebras and topological Markov chains, Invent. Math. 56 (1980), no. 3, 251–268, DOI 10.1007/BF01393162

    1980 doi

  3. [10]

    de la Harpe and G

    P. de la Harpe and G. Skandalis,Powers’ property and simple C*-algebras, Math. Ann. 273 (1986), no. 2, 241–250, DOI 10.1007/BF01450730

    1986 doi

  4. [11]

    Dixmier, Sur les C*-algèbres, Bull

    J. Dixmier, Sur les C*-algèbres, Bull. Soc. Math. Fr. 88 (1960), 95–112, DOI 10.24033/bsmf.1559

    1960 doi

  5. [12]

    Echterhoff, On maximal prime ideals in certain group C*-algebras and crossed product algebras, J

    S. Echterhoff, On maximal prime ideals in certain group C*-algebras and crossed product algebras, J. Operator Theory23 (1990), no. 2, 317–338. PRIMALITY AND THE IDEAL INTERSECTION PROPERTY 49

    1990

  6. [13]

    G. A. Elliott,Some simple C*-algebras constructed as crossed products with discrete outer automorphism groups, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.16 (1980), no. 1, 299–311, DOI 10.2977/prims/1195187484

    1980

  7. [14]

    Exel,Regular ideals under the ideal intersection property, arXiv preprint (2023), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10073

    R. Exel,Regular ideals under the ideal intersection property, arXiv preprint (2023), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/2301.10073

    2023 arXiv

  8. [15]

    1, 307–320

    Joshua Frisch, Yair Hartman, Omer Tamuz, and Pooya Vahidi Ferdowsi,Choquet-Deny groups and the infinite conjugacy class property, Annals of Mathematics190 (2019), no. 1, 307–320

    2019

  9. [16]

    3, 833–851

    Joshua Frisch, Omer Tamuz, and Pooya Vahidi Ferdowsi,Strong amenability and the infinite conjugacy class property, Inventiones Mathematicae218 (2019), no. 3, 833–851

    2019

  10. [18]

    A. M. Gleason,Projective topological spaces, Ill. J. Math.2 (1958), no. 4A, 482–489, DOI 10.1215/ijm/1255454117

    1958

  11. [19]

    Gonshor,Injective hulls of C*-algebras, Trans

    H. Gonshor,Injective hulls of C*-algebras, Trans. Am. Math. Soc.131 (1968), no. 2, 315–322, DOI 10.2307/1994952

    1968 doi

  12. [20]

    , Injective hulls of C*-algebras, II, Proc. Am. Math. Soc.24 (1970), no. 3, 486–491, DOI 10.2307/2037396

    1970 doi

  13. [21]

    Green,The structure of imprimitivity algebras, J

    P. Green,The structure of imprimitivity algebras, J. Funct. Anal.36 (1980), no. 1, 88–104, DOI 10.1016/0022-1236(80)90068-3

    1980 doi

  14. [22]

    Hadwin and V

    D. Hadwin and V. I. Paulsen,Injectivity and projectivity in analysis and topology, Sci. China Math. 54 (2011), no. 11, 2347–2359, DOI 10.1007/s11425-011-4307-0

    2011 doi

  15. [23]

    Hamana,Injective envelopes of operator systems, Publ

    M. Hamana,Injective envelopes of operator systems, Publ. Res. Inst. Math. Sci.15 (1979), no. 3, 773–785, DOI 10.2977/prims/1195188027

    1979

  16. [24]

    , Regular embeddings of C*-algebras in monotone complete C*-algebras, J. Math. Soc. Japan33 (1981), no. 1, 159–183, DOI 10.2969/jmsj/03310159

    1981

  17. [25]

    , Tensor products for monotone complete C*-algebras, I, Jpn. J. Math.8 (1982), no. 2, 259–283

    1982

  18. [26]

    , Tensor products for monotone complete C*-algebras, II, Jpn. J. Math. 8 (1982), no. 2, 285–295

    1982

  19. [27]

    , The centre of the regular monotone completion of a C*-algebra, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 26 (1982), no. 3, 522–530, DOI 10.1112/jlms/s2-26.3.522

    1982 doi

  20. [28]

    J.37 (1985), no

    , Injective envelopes of C*-dynamical systems, Tohoku Math. J.37 (1985), no. 4, 463–487, DOI 10.2748/tmj/1178228627

    1985

  21. [29]

    Graham Higman, B. H. Neumann, and Hanna Neuman,Embedding Theorems for Groups, Journal of the London Mathematical Societys1-24 (1949), no. 4, 247-254, DOI 0.1112/jlms/s1-24.4.247, available athttps://londmathsoc.onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/pdf/10.1112/jlms/s1-24.4.247

    1949 doi

  22. [30]

    Kalantar and M

    M. Kalantar and M. Kennedy,Boundaries of reduced C*-algebras of discrete groups, J. Reine Angew. Math.727 (2017), 247–267, DOI 10.1515/crelle-2014-0113

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    Kalantar and E

    M. Kalantar and E. Scarparo,Boundary maps and covariant representations, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc.54 (2022), no. 5, 1944–1961, DOI 10.1112/blms.12744

    2022 doi

  24. [32]

    R. R. Kallman,Generalization of free action, Duke Math. J.36 (1969), no. 4, 781–789, DOI 10.1215/S0012-7094-69-03692-5

    1969 doi

  25. [33]

    Karrass and D

    A. Karrass and D. Solitar,The free product of two groups with a malnormal amalga- mated subgroup, Can. J. Math.23 (1971), no. 5, 933–959, DOI 10.4153/CJM-1971- 102-8

    1971 doi

  26. [34]

    Kawabe,Uniformly recurrent subgroups and the ideal structure of reduced crossed products, arXiv preprint (2017), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/1701.03413

    T. Kawabe,Uniformly recurrent subgroups and the ideal structure of reduced crossed products, arXiv preprint (2017), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/1701.03413

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Kawamura and J

    S. Kawamura and J. Tomiyama, Properties of topological dynamical systems and corresponding C*-algebras, Tokyo J. Math. 13 (1990), no. 2, 251–257, DOI 10.3836/tjm/1270133165. 50 MATTHEW KENNEDY, LARISSA KROELL, AND CAMILA F. SEHNEM

    1990

  28. [36]

    Kennedy,An intrinsic characterization of C*-simplicity, Ann

    M. Kennedy,An intrinsic characterization of C*-simplicity, Ann. Sci. Éc. Norm. Supér. 53 (2020), no. 5, 1105–1119, DOI 10.24033/asens.2438

    2020 doi

  29. [37]

    Kennedy and C

    M. Kennedy and C. Schafhauser,Noncommutative boundaries and the ideal structure of reduced crossed products, Duke Math. J. 168 (2019), no. 17, 3215–3260, DOI 10.1215/00127094-2019-0032

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    B. K. Kwasniewski and R. Meyer,Aperiodicity, topological freeness and pure outerness: From group actions to Fell bundles, Stud. Math. 241 (2018), no. 3, 257–302, DOI 10.4064/sm8762-5-2017

    2018 doi

  31. [39]

    D. P. O’Donovan,Weighted shifts and covariance algebras, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 208 (1975), 1–25, DOI 10.2307/1997278

    1975 doi

  32. [40]

    Olesen and G

    D. Olesen and G. K. Pedersen,Applications of the Connes spectrum to C*-dynamical systems, II, J. Funct. Anal.36 (1980), no. 1, 18–32, DOI 10.1016/0022-1236(80)90065- 8

    1980 doi

  33. [41]

    , Applications of the Connes spectrum to C*-dynamical systems, III, J. Funct. Anal. 45 (1982), no. 3, 357–390, DOI 10.1016/0022-1236(82)90011-8

    1982 doi

  34. [42]

    A. Y. Ol’shanskii,Groups of bounded period with subgroups of prime order, Algebra Logic 21 (1982), no. 5, 369–418, DOI 10.1007/BF01973381

    1982 doi

  35. [43]

    Paulsen,Completely bounded maps and operator algebras, Cambridge Stud

    V. Paulsen,Completely bounded maps and operator algebras, Cambridge Stud. Adv. Math., vol. 78, Cambridge University Press, 2002

    2002

  36. [44]

    14, Academic Press, London, 1979

    G.K.Pedersen, C*-algebras and their automorphism groups,Lond.Math.Soc.Monogr., vol. 14, Academic Press, London, 1979

    1979

  37. [45]

    D. R. Pitts,Structure for regular inclusions, I, J. Operator Theory78 (2017), no. 2, 357–416, DOI 10.7900/jot.2016nov30.2138

    2017 doi

  38. [46]

    Poznansky,Characterization of linear groups whose reduced C*-algebras are simple, arXiv preprint (2008), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2486

    T. Poznansky,Characterization of linear groups whose reduced C*-algebras are simple, arXiv preprint (2008), available athttps://arxiv.org/abs/0812.2486

    2008 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. A. Rieffel,Actions of finite groups on C*-algebras, Math. Scand.47 (1980), no. 1, 157–176, DOI 10.7146/math.scand.a-11902

    1980 doi

  40. [48]

    Saitô and J

    K. Saitô and J. D. M. Wright,Outer automorphisms of regular completions, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 27 (1983), no. 1, 150–156, DOI 10.1112/jlms/s2-27.1.150

    1983 doi

  41. [49]

    Scand.54 (1984), no

    , Outer automorphisms of injective C*-algebras, Math. Scand.54 (1984), no. 1, 40–50, DOI 10.7146/math.scand.a-12045

    1984 doi

  42. [50]

    Math., Springer, 2015

    , Monotone complete C*-algebras and generic dynamics, Springer Monogr. Math., Springer, 2015

    2015

  43. [51]

    Sierakowski,The ideal structure of reduced crossed products, Münster J

    A. Sierakowski,The ideal structure of reduced crossed products, Münster J. Math.3 (2010), 237–261

    2010

  44. [52]

    Ursu, Tracial and ideal structure of crossed products and related constructions,

    D. Ursu, Tracial and ideal structure of crossed products and related constructions,

  45. [53]

    Vaes,Unusual crossed product constructions being factors, 2020

    S. Vaes,Unusual crossed product constructions being factors, 2020. MathOverflow question

    2020

  46. [54]

    Weaver,A prime C*-algebra that is not primitive, J

    N. Weaver,A prime C*-algebra that is not primitive, J. Funct. Anal.203 (2003), no. 2, 356–361, DOI 10.1016/S0022-1236(03)00194-9

    2003 doi

  47. [55]

    D. P. Williams,Crossed products of C*-algebras, Math. Surveys Monogr., vol. 134, American Mathematical Society, 2007

    2007

  48. [56]

    Vrej Zarikian,Unique expectations for discrete crossed products, Ann. Funct. Anal.10 (2019), 60–71. PRIMALITY AND THE IDEAL INTERSECTION PROPERTY 51 Department of Pure Mathematics, University of W aterloo, 200 University A venue West, W aterloo, Ontario, N2L 3G1, Canada Email ...

    2019

  49. [2022]

    PhD thesis, University of Waterloo

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.