Scribd
Upload
68 views11 pages

Nonlinear Mixed Jordan Triple Derivation

The paper discusses nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivations on *-algebras, demonstrating that such maps can be characterized as additive *-derivations under certain conditions. It establishes a theorem that provides a framework for understanding these derivations in the context of unital *-algebras with non-trivial projections. The authors present several lemmas to support their main result, contributing to the ongoing research in the field of algebra.

Uploaded by

mnazim1882
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
68 views11 pages

Nonlinear Mixed Jordan Triple Derivation

The paper discusses nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivations on *-algebras, demonstrating that such maps can be characterized as additive *-derivations under certain conditions. It establishes a theorem that provides a framework for understanding these derivations in the context of unital *-algebras with non-trivial projections. The authors present several lemmas to support their main result, contributing to the ongoing research in the field of algebra.

Uploaded by

mnazim1882
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

Communications in Algebra

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

A note on nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivation


on *-algebras

Nadeem ur Rehman, Junaid Nisar & Mohd Nazim

To cite this article: Nadeem ur Rehman, Junaid Nisar & Mohd Nazim (2023) A note on
nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivation on *-algebras, Communications in Algebra, 51:4,
1334-1343, DOI: 10.1080/00927872.2022.2134410

To link to this article: [Link]

Published online: 20 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 162

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at


[Link]
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA®
2023, VOL. 51, NO. 4, 1334–1343
[Link]

A note on nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivation on ∗-algebras


Nadeem ur Rehman, Junaid Nisar, and Mohd Nazim
Department of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY


Let A be a unital ∗-algebra containing a non-trivial projection. In this paper, it Received 02 June 2022
is shown that a map  : A → A such that (U ◦ V • W) = (U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ Communicated by Ellen
(V) • W + U ◦ V • (W) for all U, V, W ∈ A . Then  is an additive ∗-derivation. Kirkman
KEYWORDS
Mixed Jordan triple
derivation; ∗- algebra
2020 MATHEMATICS
SUBJECT CLASSIFICATION
47B47; 16W25; 46K15

1. Introduction
Let A be an ∗-algebra over the complex field C. For U, V ∈ A, U ◦V = UV +VU and U •V = UV +VU ∗
denote the Jordan and Jordan ∗- product of U and V respectively. In several research domains, the Jordan
and Jordan ∗- product are becoming increasingly relevant and their study have attracted several authors
attention, see [1–9, 11–13]. An additive map  : A → A is called an additive derivation if (UV) =
(U)V + U(V) for all U, V ∈ A. If (U ∗ ) = (U)∗ for all U ∈ A then  is an additive ∗-derivation.
Let  : A → A be a mapping (without the additivity assumption). We say  is a nonlinear Jordan ∗-
derivation if
(U • V) = (U) • V + U • (V)
holds for all U, V ∈ A. With the nonlinear Jordan ∗- derivation, we can continue to grow them in a
natural manner. A map  : A → A is said to be a nonlinear Jordan triple ∗-derivation if
(U • V • W) = (U) • V • W + U • (V) • W + U • V • (W)
holds for all U, V, W ∈ A. In recent years, some significant work drawn the attention of researchers
has been consecrated to evaluate mixed Lie and Jordan triple products. In [10], Yaoxian and Jianhua
proved that every nonlinear mixed Lie triple derivation on factor von Neumann algebras is an additive
∗-derivation. Moreover, in [14], Zhou et al. proved that every nonlinear mixed Lie triple derivation on
prime ∗-algebra is an additive ∗-derivation. Motivated by the above results, in this paper, we will look
into nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivations on ∗- algebras. A map  : A → A is said to be a nonlinear
mixed Jordan triple derivation if
(U ◦ V • W) = (U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ (V) • W + U ◦ V • (W)
for all U, V, W ∈ A. We prove that every nonlinear mixed Jordan triple derivations on ∗- algebras is an
additive ∗-derivation.

2. Main result
Theorem 2.1. Let A be a unital ∗-algebra with unit I containing a non-trivial projection P satisfies
XAP = 0 ⇒ X = 0 ()

CONTACT Junaid Nisar junaidnisar73@[Link] Department of Mathematics, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh-202002 India.
© 2022 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 1335

and
XA(I − P) = 0 ⇒ X = 0. ()
Define a map  : A → A such that
(U ◦ V • W) = (U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ (V) • W + U ◦ V • (W)
for all U, V, W ∈ A. Then  is an additive ∗-derivation.

Proof. Write P1 = P be a non-trivial projection and P2 = I − P1 . Put Aij = Pi APj for i, j = 1, 2. Then
by Peirce decomposition of A, we have A = A11 ⊕ A12 ⊕ A21 ⊕ A22 . Note that any U ∈ A can be
written as U = U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 , where Uij ∈ Aij for i, j = 1, 2.

We prove the above theorem by several lemmas.

Lemma 2.1. (0) = 0.

Proof. It is obvious that


(0) = (0 ◦ 0 • 0) = (0) ◦ 0 • 0 + 0 ◦ (0) • 0 + 0 ◦ 0 • (0) = 0.

Lemma 2.2. Let U12 ∈ A12 and U21 ∈ A21 . Then (U12 + U21 ) = (U12 ) + (U21 ).

Proof. Let M = (U12 + U21 ) − (U12 ) − (U21 ). Since U12 ◦ P2 • P1 = 0 and using Lemma 2.1, we
have
((U12 + U21 ) ◦ P2 • P1 ) = (U12 ◦ P2 • P1 ) + (U21 ◦ P2 • P1 )
= (U12 ) ◦ P2 • P1 + U12 ◦ (P2 ) • P1 + U12 ◦ P2 • (P1 )
+(U21 ) ◦ P2 • P1 + U21 ◦ (P2 ) • P1 + U21 ◦ P2 • (P1 ).
On the other hand, we have
((U12 + U21 ) ◦ P2 • P1 ) = (U12 + U21 ) ◦ P2 • P1 + (U12 + U21 ) ◦ (P2 ) • P1
+(U12 + U21 ) ◦ P2 • (P1 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we get M ◦ P2 • P1 = 0. That means P2 MP1 + P1 M ∗ P2 = 0.
Multiplying both sides by P1 from right, we get P2 MP1 = 0. Similarly, we can show P1 MP2 = 0.
Now, again (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • U21 = 0 and using Lemma 2.1, we have
((P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U12 + U21 )) = ((P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • U12 ) + ((P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • U21 )
= (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • U12 + (P1 − P2 ) ◦ (I) • U12
+(P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U12 ) + (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • U21
+(P1 − P2 ) ◦ (I) • U21 + (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U21 ).
On the other hand, we have
((P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U12 + U21 )) = (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U12 + U21 )
+(P1 − P2 ) ◦ (I) • (U12 + U21 )
+(P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • (U12 + U21 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we find (P1 − P2 ) ◦ I • M = 0. That means 2P1 M − 2P2 M +
2MP1 − 2MP2 = 0. Multiplying both sides by P1 from left and right, we get P1 MP1 = 0. Similarly, by
multiplying both sides by P2 from left and right, we get P2 MP2 = 0. Hence, M = 0 i.e., (U12 + U21 ) =
(U12 ) + (U21 ).

Lemma 2.3. For every U11 ∈ A11 , U12 ∈ A12 and U21 ∈ A21 , we have
1336 N. U. REHMAN ET AL.

(1) (U11 + U12 + U21 ) = (U11 ) + (U12 ) + (U21 ).


(2) (U12 + U21 + U22 ) = (U12 ) + (U21 ) + (U22 ).

Proof. Let M = (U11 + U12 + U21 ) − (U11 ) − (U12 ) − (U21 ). On the one hand, we have
((U11 + U12 + U21 ) ◦ P1 • P2 ) = (U11 + U12 + U21 ) ◦ P1 • P2
+(U11 + U12 + U21 ) ◦ (P1 ) • P2
+(U11 + U12 + U21 ) ◦ P1 • (P2 ).
On the other hand, using Lemma 2.2 and since U11 ◦ P1 • P2 = 0, we have
((U11 + U12 + U21 ) ◦ P1 • P2 ) = (U11 ◦ P1 • P2 ) + (U12 ◦ P1 • P2 ) + (U21 ◦ P1 • P2 )
= (U11 ) ◦ P1 • P2 + U11 ◦ (P1 ) • P2 + U11 ◦ P1 • (P2 )
+(U12 ) ◦ P1 • P2 + U12 ◦ (P1 ) • P2 + U12 ◦ P1 • (P2 )
+(U21 ) ◦ P1 • P2 + U21 ◦ (P1 ) • P2 + U21 ◦ P1 • (P2 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we find M ◦ P1 • P2 = 0. This gives P1 MP2 + P2 M ∗ P1 = 0.
Multiplying above equation by P2 from right, we get P1 MP2 = 0. Similarly, we can show that P2 MP1 = 0.
Since
I I
◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U12 = ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U21 = 0.
2 2
Using Lemma 2.1, it follows that
I I I
( ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U11 + U12 + U21 ) = ( ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U11 ) + ( ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U12 )
2 2 2
I
+( ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U21 )
2
I I
= ( ) ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U11 + ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U11
2 2
I I
+ ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U11 ) + ( ) ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U12
2 2
I I
+ ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U12 + ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U12 )
2 2
I I
+( ) ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U21 + ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U21
2 2
I
+ ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U21 ).
2
On the other hand, we have
I I
( ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • U11 + U12 + U21 ) = ( ) ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U11 + U12 + U21 )
2 2
I
+ ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U11 + U12 + U21 )
2
I
+ ◦ (P1 − P2 ) • (U11 + U12 + U21 ).
2
By comparing the above two equations, we obtain 2I ◦(P1 −P2 )•M = 0. That yields P1 MP1 = P2 MP2 =
0. Hence, M = 0 i.e.,
(U11 + U12 + U21 ) = (U11 ) + (U12 ) + (U21 ).
Similarly, we can show
(U12 + U21 + U22 ) = (U12 ) + (U21 ) + (U22 ).
This completes the proof.
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 1337

Lemma 2.4. For any Uij ∈ Aij , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 2, we have



2 
2
( Uij ) = (Uij ).
i,j=1 i,j=1

Proof. Let M = (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 ) − (U11 ) − (U12 ) − (U21 ) − (U22 ).
On the one hand, we have
(I ◦ P1 • (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 )) = (I) ◦ P1 • (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 )
+I ◦ (P1 ) • (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 )
+I ◦ P1 • (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 ).
On the other hand, since I ◦ P1 • U22 = 0 and using Lemmas 2.1 and 2.3, we have
(I ◦ P1 • (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 )) = (I ◦ P1 • U11 ) + (I ◦ P1 • U12 )
+(I ◦ P1 • U21 ) + (I ◦ P1 • U22 )
= (I) ◦ P1 • U11 + I ◦ (P1 ) • U11 + I ◦ P1 • (U11 )
+(I) ◦ P1 • U12 + I ◦ (P1 ) • U12 + I ◦ P1 • (U12 )
+(I) ◦ P1 • U21 + I ◦ (P1 ) • U21 + I ◦ P1 • (U21 )
+(I) ◦ P1 • U22 + I ◦ (P1 ) • U22 + I ◦ P1 • (U22 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we get I ◦P1 •M = 0, from which we obtain P1 MP2 = P2 MP1 =
P1 MP1 = 0. Similarly, we can show that P2 MP2 = 0. Thus M = 0 i.e.,
(U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 ) = (U11 ) + (U12 ) + (U21 ) + (U22 ).

Lemma 2.5. For any Uij , Vij ∈ Aij with i = j, (Uij + Vij ) = (Uij ) + (Vij ).

I
Proof. Let N = (Uij + Vij ) − (Uij ) − (Vij ). Since Pi ◦ 2 • 2Pj = 0, we get
I I I
(Pi ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )) = (Pi ◦ • 2Pj ) + (Pi ◦ • (Uij + Vij ))
2 2 2
I I I
= (Pi ) ◦ • 2Pj + Pi ◦ ( ) • 2Pj + Pi ◦ • (2Pj )
2 2 2
I I
+(Pi ) ◦ • (Uij + Vij ) + Pi ◦ ( ) • (Uij + Vij )
2 2
I
+Pi ◦ • (Uij + Vij ).
2
On the other hand, by using Lemma 2.3, we get
I I I
(Pi ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )) = (Pi ) ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij ) + Pi ◦ ( ) • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )
2 2 2
I
+Pi ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )
2
I I
= (Pi ) ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij ) + Pi ◦ ( ) • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )
2 2
I
+Pi ◦ • ((Pj + Uij ) + (Pj + Vij ))
2
1338 N. U. REHMAN ET AL.

I I
= (Pi ) ◦ • (2Pj + Uij + Vij ) + Pi ◦ ( ) • (2Pj + Uij + Vij )
2 2
I
• ((2Pj ) + (Uij ) + (Vij )).
+Pi ◦
2
By comparing the above two equations, we get Pi ◦ 2I • N = 0. That means Pi NPi = Pi NPj = 0. Hence,
N = 0. This completes the proof.

Lemma 2.6. For any Uii , Vii ∈ Aii , 1 ≤ i ≤ 2, we have


(Uii + Vii ) = (Uii ) + (Vii ).

Proof. Let Q = (Uii + Vii ) − (Uii ) − (Vii ). Since I ◦ Pj • Uii = 0 for i = j and using Lemma 2.1,
we have
(I ◦ Pj • (Uii + Vii )) = (I ◦ Pj • Uii ) + (I ◦ Pj • Vii )
= (I) ◦ Pj • Uii + I ◦ (Pj ) • Uii + I ◦ Pj • (Uii )
+(I) ◦ Pj • Vii + I ◦ (Pj ) • Vii + I ◦ Pj • (Vii ).
On the other hand, we have
(I ◦ Pj • (Uii + Vii )) = (I) ◦ Pj • (Uii + Vii ) + I ◦ (Pj ) • (Uii + Vii ) + I ◦ Pj • (Uii + Vii ).
By comparing the above equations, we get I ◦ Pj • Q = 0. That means Pj QPj = Pj QPi = Pi QPj = 0.
Next, for any Xij ∈ Aij with i = j, we have
(Pi ◦ (Uii + Vii ) • Xij ) = (Pi ) ◦ (Uii + Vii ) • Xij + Pi ◦ (Uii + Vii ) • Xij
+Pi ◦ (Uii + Vii ) • (Xij ).
On the other hand, using Lemma 2.5, we have
(Pi ◦ (Uii + Vii ) • Xij ) = (Uii Xij + Uii Xij + Vii Xij + Vii Xij )
= (Uii Xij + Vii Xij ) + (Uii Xij + Vii Xij )
= (Uii Xij ) + (Vii Xij ) + (Uii Xij ) + (Vii Xij )
= (Uii Xij + Uii Xij ) + (Vii Xij + Vii Xij )
= (Pi ◦ Uii • Xij ) + (Pi ◦ Vii • Xij )
= (Pi ) ◦ Uii • Xij + Pi ◦ (Uii ) • Xij + Pi ◦ Uii • (Xij )
+(Pi ) ◦ Vii • Xij + Pi ◦ (Vii ) • Xij + Pi ◦ Vii • (Xij ).
By comparing the above two equations, we get Pi ◦ Q • Xij = 0. That means Pi QXij + QXij + Xij Q∗ Pi = 0.
Multiplying both sides by Pi from left and by Pj from the right, we get Pi QXij = 0 i.e., Pi QPi XPj = 0 for
all X ∈ A. It follows from () and () that Pi QPi = 0. Hence, Q = 0.

Lemma 2.7.  is an additive map.

Proof. For any U, V ∈ A, we write U = U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 and V = V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 . By
using Lemmas 2.4–2.6, we get
(U + V) = (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 + V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 )
= (U11 + V11 ) + (U12 + V12 ) + (U21 + V21 ) + (U22 + V22 )
= (U11 ) + (V11 ) + (U12 ) + (V12 ) + (U21 ) + (V21 ) + (U22 ) + (V22 )
= (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 ) + (V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 )
= (U) + (V).
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 1339

Lemma 2.8. (1) P1 (P1 )P2 = −P1 (P2 )P2 .


(2) P2 (P1 )P1 = −P2 (P2 )P1 .
(3) P1 (P2 )P1 = P2 (P1 )P2 = 0.

Proof. (1) It follows from P1 ◦ P1 • P2 = 0 and using Lemma 2.1 that


0 = (P1 ◦ P1 • P2 )
= (P1 ) ◦ P1 • P2 + P1 ◦ (P1 ) • P2 + P1 ◦ P1 • (P2 )
= 2P1 (P1 )P2 + 2P2 (P1 )∗ P1 + 2P1 (P2 ) + 2(P2 )P1 .
Multiplying both sides by P1 from the left and by P2 from the right, we get
P1 (P1 )P2 = −P1 (P2 )P2 .
(2) Since P2 ◦ P2 • P1 = 0 and using Lemma 2.1, we get
0 = (P2 ◦ P2 • P1 )
= (P2 ) ◦ P2 • P1 + P2 ◦ (P2 ) • P1 + P2 ◦ P2 • (P1 )
= 2P2 (P2 )P1 + 2P1 (P2 )∗ P2 + 2P2 (P1 ) + 2(P1 )P2 .
Multiplying both sides by P2 from the left and by P1 from the right, we get
P2 (P2 )P1 = −P2 (P1 )P1 .
(3) In (1), we have
0 = 2P1 (P1 )P2 + 2P2 (P1 )∗ P1 + 2P1 (P2 ) + 2(P2 )P1 . (2.1)
Multiplying both sides of the equation (2.1) by P1 from the left and right respectively, we get P1 (P2 )P1 =
0. Similarly, in (2), we have
0 = 2P2 (P2 )P1 + 2P1 (P2 )∗ P2 + 2P2 (P1 ) + 2(P1 )P2 . (2.2)
Multiplying both sides of the equation (2.2) by P2 from left and right respectively, we get
P2 (P1 )P2 = 0.

Lemma 2.9. P1 (P1 )P1 = P2 (P2 )P2 = 0.

Proof. For every U12 ∈ A12 , it follows from Lemma 2.7 that
(P1 ◦ P1 • U12 ) = 2(U12 ).
On the other hand, we have
(P1 ◦ P1 • U12 ) = (P1 ) ◦ P1 • U12 + P1 ◦ (P1 ) • U12 + P1 ◦ P1 • (U12 )
= 2(P1 )U12 + 2P1 (P1 )U12 + 2U12 (P1 )∗ P1 + 2P1 (U12 ) + 2(U12 )P1 .
By comparing the above two equations, we get
(P1 )U12 + P1 (P1 )U12 + U12 (P1 )∗ P1 + P1 (U12 ) + (U12 )P1 − (U12 ) = 0.
Multiplying last equation by P1 from the left and by P2 from the right, we get P1 (P1 )U12 = 0, i.e.,
P1 (P1 )P1 UP2 = 0 for all U ∈ A. It follows from () and () that P1 (P1 )P1 = 0. Similarly, we can
prove that P2 (P2 )P2 = 0.

Lemma 2.10. 1. (P1 ) = P1 (P1 )P2 + P2 (P1 )P1 , (P2 ) = P1 (P2 )P2 + P2 (P2 )P1 .
2. (I) = 0.
1340 N. U. REHMAN ET AL.

Proof. (1) By using Peirce decomposition, we can write


(P1 ) = P1 (P1 )P1 + P1 (P1 )P2 + P2 (P1 )P1 + P2 (P1 )P2 .
Now, by using Lemmas 2.8 and 2.9, we get (P1 ) = P1 (P1 )P2 + P2 (P1 )P1 . Similarly, we can show
that (P2 ) = P1 (P2 )P2 + P2 (P2 )P1 .
(2) It follows from Lemmas 2.7–2.9 that
(I) = (P1 ) + (P2 ) = P1 (P1 )P2 + P2 (P1 )P1 + P1 (P2 )P2 + P2 (P2 )P1 = 0.

Lemma 2.11. (U ∗ ) = (U)∗ for all U ∈ A.

Proof. From Lemma 2.7, we have


(U ◦ I • I) = (2U + 2U ∗ ) = 2(U) + 2(U ∗ ).
On the other hand, using Lemma 2.10(2), we have
(U ◦ I • I) = (U) ◦ I • I = 2(U) + 2(U)∗ .
By comparing the above equations, we find (U ∗ ) = (U)∗ .

Now, let M = P1 (P1 )P2 − P2 (P1 )P1 . Then M = −M ∗ . Defining a map  : A → A by (U) =
(U) − (UM − MU) for all U ∈ A. It is easy to verify that for all U, V, W ∈ A, (U ◦ V • W) =
(U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ (V) • W + U ◦ V • (W).
Remark 2.1.  has the following properties.

(1) (U ∗ ) = (U)∗ for all U ∈ A.


(2)  is additive.
(3) (P1 ) = (P2 ) = 0.
(4) (I) = 0.
(5)  is a ∗-derivation if and only if  is a ∗-derivation.

Proof. (1) By using Lemma 2.11, we have


(U)∗ = (U ∗ ) − (U ∗ M − MU ∗ ) = (U ∗ ).
(2) By using Lemma 2.7 that  is additve and hence,  is also additive.
(3) By using Lemma 2.10 (1), we have
(P1 ) = (P1 ) − P1 (P1 )P2 − P2 (P1 )P1
= P1 (P1 )P2 + P2 (P1 )P1 − P1 (P1 )P2 − P2 (P1 )P1 = 0.
Similarly, we can show that (P2 ) = 0.
(4) By using additivity of , we have
(I) = (P1 + P2 ) = (P1 ) + (P2 ) = 0.
(5) Since [U, M] = UM − MU is an additive ∗-derivation. Hence,  is a ∗-derivation if and only if  is
a ∗-derivation.

Lemma 2.12. (Uij ) ⊆ Uij , i, j = 1, 2.

Proof. First, we prove for i = 1 and j = 2. In view of Remark 2.1, we have


2(U12 ) = (I ◦ P1 • U12 ) = I ◦ P1 • (U12 ) = 2P1 (U12 ) + 2(U12 )P1 .
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 1341

This implies that P1 (U12 )P1 = P2 (U12 )P2 = 0. Again from I ◦ U12 • P1 = 0 and using (P1 ) =
(I) = 0, we have
0 = (I ◦ U12 • P1 ) = I ◦ (U12 ) • P1 = 2(U12 )P1 + 2P1 (U12 )∗ .
This implies that P2 (U12 )P1 = 0 and thus (U12 ) ⊆ U12 . Similarly, we can show (U21 ) ⊆ U21 .
Now, we prove for i = j = 1, since I ◦ P2 • U11 = 0 and by using Lemma 2.1, we have
0 = (I ◦ P2 • U11 ) = I ◦ P2 • (U11 ) = P2 (U11 ) + (U11 )P2 .
This implies that P2 (U11 )P1 = P2 (U11 )P1 = P1 (U11 )P2 = 0. Hence (U11 ) ⊆ U11 . Similarly,
(U22 ) ⊆ U22 .

Lemma 2.13. For any Ui,j , Vi,j ∈ Aij , 1 ≤ i, j ≤ 2, we have

(1) (U11 V12 ) = (U11 )V12 + U11 (V12 ) and (U22 V21 ) = (U22 )V21 + U22 (V21 ).
(2) (U12 V21 ) = (U12 )V21 + U12 (V21 ) and (U21 V12 ) = (U21 )V12 + U21 (V12 ).
(3) (U11 V11 ) = (U11 )V11 + U11 (V11 ) and (U22 V22 ) = (U22 )V22 + U22 (V22 ).
(4) (U12 V22 ) = (U12 )V22 + U12 (V22 ) and (U21 V11 ) = (U21 )V11 + U21 (V11 ).

Proof. (1) By using Remark 2.1 that  is additive, we have


(I ◦ U11 • V12 ) = 2 (U11 V12 ).
On the other hand, using Lemma 2.12 and (I) = 0, we have
(I ◦ U11 • V12 ) = I ◦ (U11 ) • V12 + I ◦ U11 • (V12 ) = 2(U11 )V12 + 2U11 (V12 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we get (U11 V12 ) = (U11 )V12 + U11 (V12 ).
Similarly, we can show that (U22 V21 ) = (U22 )V21 + U22 (V21 ).
(2) By using Remark 2.1, we have
(I ◦ U12 • V21 ) = 2 (U12 V21 ).
On the other hand, it follows from Lemma 2.12 and (I) = 0 that
(I ◦ U12 • V21 ) = I ◦ (U12 ) • V21 + I ◦ U12 • (V21 ) = 2 (U12 )V21 + 2 U12 (V21 ).
By comparing the above two equations, we get (U12 V21 ) = (U12 )V21 + U12 (V21 ).
Similarly, we can prove that (U21 V12 ) = (U21 )V12 + U21 (V12 ).
(3) For every X12 ∈ A12 , we have from Lemma 2.13(1) that
(U11 V11 )X12 + U11 V11 (X12 ) = (U11 V11 X12 )
= (U11 )V11 X12 + U11 (V11 X12 )
= (U11 )V11 X12 + U11 (V11 )X12 + U11 V11 (X12 ).
Then ( (U11 V11 ) − (U11 )V11 − U11 (V11 ) )X12 = 0 for all X12 ∈ A12 . It follows from () and ()
that (U11 V11 ) = (U11 )V11 + U11 (V11 ). Similarly, we can prove that (U22 V22 ) = (U22 )V22 +
U22 (V22 ).
(4) It follows from Lemma 2.12 that
(P1 ◦ U12 • V22 ) = P1 ◦ (U12 ) • V22 + P1 ◦ U12 • (V22 )
= (U12 )V22 + V22 (U12 )∗ + U12 (V22 ) + (V22 )U12
∗
.
On the other hand, using Remark 2.1, Lemmas 2.12 and 2.13(1), we get
∗
(P1 ◦ U12 • V22 ) = (U12 V22 + V22 U12 )
∗
= (U12 V22 ) + (V22 U12 )
∗
= (U12 V22 ) + (V22 )U12 + V22 (U12 )∗ .
By comparing the above two equations, we get (U12 V22 ) = (U12 )V22 + U12 (V22 ). Similarly,
(U21 V11 ) = (U21 )V11 + U21 (V11 ).
1342 N. U. REHMAN ET AL.

Lemma 2.14. (UV) = (U)V + U(V) for all U, V ∈ A.

Proof. For every U, V ∈ A, we can write U = U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 and V = V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 .
Since,  is additive and using Lemma 2.13, we get
(UV) = (U11 V11 + U11 V12 + U12 V21 + U12 V22
+U21 V11 + U21 V12 + U22 V21 + U22 V22 )
= (U11 V11 ) + (U11 V12 ) + (U12 V21 ) + (U12 V22 )
+(U21 V11 ) + (U21 V12 ) + (U22 V21 ) + (U22 V22 )
= (U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 )(V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 )
+(U11 + U12 + U21 + U22 ) (V11 + V12 + V21 + V22 )
= (U)V + U(V).
Hence,  is a derivation.

Now, by Remark 2.1 and Lemma 2.14 proves that  is an additive ∗-derivation. Hence,  is an additive
∗-derivation. This completes the proof of Theorem 2.1.
Now, we present some corollaries of the main result. The algebra of all bounded linear operators on
a complex Hilbert space H is represented as B(H). By F(H), we mean the subalgebra of bounded finite
rank operators. It is to be noted that F(H) forms a ∗-closed ideal in B(H). An algebra A ⊂ B(H) is said
to be standard operator algebra in case F(H) ⊂ A. Hence, we have an immediate corollary as follows.

Corollary 2.1. Let A be a standard operator algebra on an infinite dimensional complex Hilbert space H
containing identity operator I. Suppose that A is closed under adjoint operation. Define  : A → A such
that
(U ◦ V • W) = (U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ (V) • W + U ◦ V • (W)
for all U, V, W ∈ A . Then  is an additive ∗-derivation.

An algebra A is said to be prime if UAV = 0 implies either U = 0 or V = 0. It is clear that prime


∗-algebra satisfies () and () . Thus, we have the following corollary.

Corollary 2.2. Let A be a prime ∗-algebra with unit I containing non-trivial projection P. A map  : A →
A satisfies
(U ◦ V • W) = (U) ◦ V • W + U ◦ (V) • W + U ◦ V • (W)
for all U, V, W ∈ A . Then  is an additive ∗-derivation.

Acknowledgments
For the first and second author, this research is supported by the National Board of Higher Mathematics (NBHM), India,
grant no. 02011/16/2020 NBHM (R. P.) R and D II/7786.

References
[1] Huo, D., Zheng, B., Xu, J., Liu, H. (2015). Nonlinear mappings preserving Jordan multiple ∗- product on factor
von-neumann algebras. Linear Multilinear Algebra 63(5):1026–1036. DOI: 10.1080/03081087.2014.915321
[2] Li, C. J., Zhao, F. F., Chen, Q. Y. (2016). Nonlinear skew Lie triple derivations between factors. Acta Math. Sinica
(Engl. Ser.) 32(7):821–830. DOI: 10.1007/s10114-016-5690-1
COMMUNICATIONS IN ALGEBRA® 1343

[3] Li, C. J., Lu, F. Y., Wang, T. (2016). Nonlinear maps preserving the Jordan triple ∗-product on von Neumann
Algebras. Ann. Funct. Anal. 7(3):496–507. DOI: 10.1215/20088752-3624940
[4] Li, C. J., Lu, F. Y. (2017). Nonlinear maps preserving the Jordan triple 1 ∗-product on von Neumann algebras.
Complex Anal. Oper. Theory 11(1):109–117. DOI: 10.1007/s11785-016-0575-y
[5] Li, C. J., Chen, Q. Y, Wang, T. (2018). Nonlinear maps preserving the Jordan triple ∗-product on factor von Neumann
algebras. Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B 39(4):633–642. DOI: 10.1007/s11401-018-0086-4
[6] Li, C. J., Zhao, Y., Zhao, F. F. (2021). Nonlinear ∗-Jordan-type derivations on ∗-algebras. Rocky Mountain J. Math.
51(2):601–612. DOI: 10.1216/rmj.2021.51.601
[7] Li, C. J., Zhang, D. (2022). Nonlinear mixed Jordan triple ∗-derivations on ∗-algebras. Sib. Math. J. 63(4):735–742.
DOI: 10.1134/S0037446622040140
[8] Taghavi, A., Rohi, H., Darvish, V. (2016). Non-linear ∗-Jordan derivation on von Neumann algebras. Linear
Multilinear Algebra 64:426–439. DOI: 10.1080/03081087.2015.1043855
[9] Yang, Z. J., Zhang, J. H. (2019). Nonlinear maps preserving mixed Lie triple products on factor von Neumann
algebras. Ann. Funct. Anal. 10(3):325–336. DOI: 10.1215/20088752-2018-0032
[10] Yaoxian, L., Jianhua, Z. (2019). Nonlinear mixed Lie triple derivable mappings on factor von neumann algebras.
Acta Math. Sin. Chin. Ser. 62(1):13–24. DOI: 10.12386/A20190002
[11] Zhang, F. J. (2016). Nonlinear skew Jordan derivable maps on factor von Neumann algebras. Linear Multilinear
Algebra 64(10):2090–2103. DOI: 10.1080/03081087.2016.1139035
[12] Zhao, F. F., Li, C. J. (2017). Nonlinear maps preserving the Jordan triple ∗-product between factors. Indag. Math.
29(2):619–627. DOI: 10.1016/[Link].2017.10.010
[13] Zhao, F. F., Li, C. J. (2018). Nonlinear ∗-Jordan triple derivations on von Neumann algebras. Math. Slovaca.
68(1):163–170. DOI: 10.1515/ms-2017-0089
[14] Zhou, Y., Yang, Z. J., Zhang, J. H. (2019). Non linear mixed Lie triple derivations on prime ∗-algebras. Commun.
Algebra 47(1):4791–4796. DOI: 10.1080/00927872.2019.1596277

Common questions

Powered by AI

Nonlinear Jordan triple *-derivations impact the understanding of *-algebras by broadening the scope of derivations beyond linear ones, allowing the exploration of mappings that maintain the structural properties of Jordan products without linear constraints. This enriches the theory of *-algebras by providing new perspectives on how these algebraic structures can be transformed and manipulated. Additionally, recognizing that nonlinear derivations still adhere to patterns typical of linear derivations offers insights into inherent symmetries and consistencies within *-algebras, advancing theoretical explorations in the field .

The adjoint operation in *-algebras is fundamental for determining the analytic properties of derivations because it ensures that any operation involving derivations respects the involution property of the algebra. The preservation of anti-symmetric and inner properties under the adjoint operation is crucial for derivations to be consistent across the algebra's structure. Especially in derivations that involve the Jordan *-product, the adjoint operation makes sure that the underlying symmetry of products and the linearity of mappings are maintained, which is crucial for the integrity and consistency of analytical operations within the algebraic framework .

The results on nonlinear mixed Jordan and Lie triple derivations indicate that these operators can be characterized by properties traditionally associated with linear and additive derivations. This suggests new opportunities for exploring nonlinear mappings in other algebraic contexts, potentially leading to generalizations in the study of non-associative and non-linear algebraic structures. The implications for future research include developing deeper insights into the classifications and behaviors of derivations across various types of algebras, particularly those related to functional analysis, quantum mechanics, or other fields involving complex algebraic systems .

The Jordan *-product is defined as \( U \bullet V = UV + VU^* \) for elements \( U, V \in A \), where \( U^* \) is the adjoint of \( U \). This product plays a crucial role in the defined derivation mappings because it allows for operations that maintain symmetry and involution in the algebraic structure. In context of derivation mappings like \( \delta \), preserving the Jordan *-product is essential for maintaining the structural integrity of the *-algebra under transformations imposed by \( \delta \).

The essential conditions under which a map transforms into an additive *-derivation include the preservation of the operation \( \delta(U \circ V \bullet W) = \delta(U) \circ V \bullet W + U \circ \delta(V) \bullet W + U \circ V \bullet \delta(W) \) for all elements \( U, V, W \) in the algebra \( A \). Additionally, the algebra must support operations like the Jordan *-product and contain non-trivial projections that allow the demonstration of additivity through structured algebraic manipulation and lemma proofs illustrating consistency and linearity across operations .

The paper demonstrates that certain map properties lead to additive *-derivations by showing that a map \( \delta : A \to A \) satisfying the equation \( \delta(U \circ V \bullet W) = \delta(U) \circ V \bullet W + U \circ \delta(V) \bullet W + U \circ V \bullet \delta(W) \) for all \( U, V, W \in A \) is indeed an additive *-derivation. By decomposing complex mapping operations and utilizing the principles of Jordan and *-products, the paper substantiates that these properties inherently guide non-additive mappings towards additivity under specific algebraic conditions, thereby preserving algebraic cohesiveness .

Yaoxian and Jianhua proved that every nonlinear mixed Lie triple derivation on factor von Neumann algebras is an additive *-derivation. This result is significant because it extends the understanding of how certain nonlinear derivations on these complex algebraic structures behave, effectively showing that they conform to the properties expected of linear derivations under certain conditions. This finding aids in the classification and deeper understanding of derivations on von Neumann algebras, which are crucial for operator algebra theory .

In a prime *-algebra, where the map \( \delta : A \to A \) satisfies \( \delta(U \circ V \bullet W) = \delta(U) \circ V \bullet W + U \circ \delta(V) \bullet W + U \circ V \bullet \delta(W) \) forall \( U, V, W \in A \), additivity ensures that \( \delta(U + V) = \delta(U) + \delta(V) \) for elements of the algebra. This property of additivity in the mapping is key because it allows the decomposition of complex algebraic expressions into simpler components, preserving the linear structure, and facilitating the derivation process on prime algebras by ensuring consistency across algebraic operations .

The corollary reveals that in a standard operator algebra on an infinite-dimensional complex Hilbert space that contains the identity operator and is closed under the adjoint operation, any map \( \delta : A \to A \) satisfying \( \delta(U \circ V \bullet W) = \delta(U) \circ V \bullet W + U \circ \delta(V) \bullet W + U \circ V \bullet \delta(W) \) for all \( U, V, W \in A \), is an additive *-derivation. This shows that such structures naturally support additive *-derivations, thereby reinforcing the internal consistency and mathematical robustness of these algebras .

A nonlinear Jordan triple *-derivation is a mapping \( \delta : A \to A \) on a *-algebra \( A \) such that for all \( U, V, W \in A \), the equation \( \delta(U \bullet V \bullet W) = \delta(U) \bullet V \bullet W + U \bullet \delta(V) \bullet W + U \bullet V \bullet \delta(W) \) holds. It relates to *-algebras by extending the concept of linear derivations to nonlinear mappings while preserving the structure of products defined on the algebra, specifically incorporating the Jordan product, which is defined by \( U \bullet V = UV + VU^* \).

You might also like