format: text

text:
# Theorem 1

Perturbation of $`l^1`$-copies and measure convergence in preduals of von Neumann algebras

H. Pfitzner

## Abstract

Let $`\mathrm{L}^1`$ be the predual of a von Neumann algebra with a finite faithful normal trace. We show that a bounded sequence in $`\mathrm{L}^1`$ converges to $`0`$ in measure if and only if each of its subsequences admits another subsequence which converges to $`0`$ in norm or spans $`l^1`$ ”almost isometrically”. Furthermore we give a quantitative version of an essentially known result concerning the perturbation of a sequence spanning $`l^1`$ isomorphically in the dual of a C-algebra.

§1 Introduction, main results

The present article deals with convergence in probability in $`\mathrm{L}^1`$-spaces from a functional analytic point of view. The $`\mathrm{L}^1`$-spaces in question are the preduals of von Neumann algebras with finite faithful normal traces. To consider an easy example we look at the commutative case: Let $`(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mu )`$ be a finite measure space, let $`(f_n)`$ be a bounded sequence in $`\mathrm{L}^1(\mathrm{\Omega },\mathrm{\Sigma },\mu )`$. If (appropriately chosen representatives of) the $`f_n`$ have pairwise disjoint supports then clearly $`(f_n)`$ converges to $`0`$ in measure. From the functional analytic point of view such a sequence, up to normalization, is the canonical basis of an isometric copy of $`l^1`$. If one perturbes $`(f_n)`$ by a norm null sequence $`(g_n)`$ then $`(f_n+g_n)`$ still $`\mu `$-converges to $`0`$ and spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically (in a sense to be made precise below in §2). It has been known \[10, Th. 2\] (see also \[19, Th. 3, Rem. 6bis\]) for quite a time that, roughly speaking, these are essentially the only examples of $`\mu `$-null sequences.

Theorem 1 contains the analogous statement for the predual of a von Neumann algebra with finite faithful normal trace. (For notation and definitions see §2.)

###### Theorem 1

Let $`(x_n)`$ be a bounded sequence in $`\mathrm{L}^1(𝒩,\tau )=𝒩_{}`$ where $`(𝒩,\tau )`$ is a von Neumann algebra with a finite normal faithful trace $`\tau `$. Then the following assertions are equivalent.

(i) $`x_n\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$.

(ii) For each subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ of $`(x_n)`$ there are a subsequence $`(x_{n_{k_l}})`$ and a sequence $`(y_l)`$ of pairwise orthogonal elements of $`\mathrm{L}^1(𝒩,\tau )`$ such that $`x_{n_{k_l}}y_l_10`$.

(iii) For each subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ of $`(x_n)`$ there is a subsequence $`(x_{n_{k_l}})`$ which tends to $`0`$ in $`_1`$ or spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically.

(iv) For each subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ of $`(x_n)`$ there is a subsequence $`(x_{n_{k_l}})`$ which tends to $`0`$ in $`_1`$ or spans $`l^1`$ asymptotically.

The implications (i) $``$ (ii) $``$ (iii) $``$ (iv) hold also for unbounded sequences $`(x_n)`$, the implications (iii) $``$ (ii), (i) do not.

Implication (i)$``$(ii) has already appeard as a special case of a result of Sukochev \[20, Prop. 2.2\]. The other nontrivial implication (iii)$``$(ii) follows immediately from Theorem 2 which holds for the predual of any von Neumann algebra and is of independent interest:

###### Theorem 2

Let $`𝒩`$ be an arbitrary von Neumann algebra and $`(\varphi _m)`$ a bounded sequence in its predual $`𝒩_{}`$. If $`(\varphi _m)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically then there are a subsequence $`(\varphi _{m_l})`$ of $`(\varphi _m)`$ and a sequence $`(\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l)`$ of pairwise orthogonal functionals in $`𝒩_{}`$ such that $`\varphi _{m_l}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$.
This amounts to saying that there are pairwise orthogonal projections $`s_l`$ and pairwise orthogonal projections $`t_l`$ in $`𝒩`$ such that $`\varphi _{m_l}t_l\varphi _{m_l}s_l0`$ as $`l\mathrm{}`$.

It is natural to ask what can be improved in Theorem 2 if one replaces the predual of the von Neumann algebra by the dual of a C-algebra. At the time of this writing this is not clear. What we have among other things is

###### Proposition 3

Let $`(\varphi _m)`$ be a bounded sequence that spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically in the dual of an arbitrary C-algebra $`A`$. Then, given $`\epsilon >0`$, there are pairwise orthogonal positive normalized elements $`(a_n)`$ and pairwise orthogonal positive normalized elements $`(b_n)`$ in $`A`$ such that $`\varphi _{m_n}b_n\varphi _{m_n}a_n<\epsilon `$ for an appropriate subsequence $`\varphi _{m_n}`$ and all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$ .

For a more detailed discussion see §6.

As to the organization of the paper, after recalling some notation and definitions in the next section we gather some auxiliary results in §3 in order to prove Theorem 2 in §4. In §5 we prove Theorem 1 for the sake of completeness although, as already mentionned, it follows essentially from \[20, Prop. 2.2\] and Theorem 2. In §6 perturbations of $`l^1`$-copies in the dual of C-algebras are considered.

§2 Notation, definitions
Let $`(x_n)`$ be a sequence of nonzero elements in a Banach space $`X`$.

We say that $`(x_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ $`r`$-isomorphically or just isomorphically if there exists $`r>0`$ (trivially $`r1`$) such that $`r(_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|)_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _n\frac{x_n}{x_n}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|`$ for all scalars $`\alpha _n`$ (the second inequality being trivial).

We say that $`(x_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically if there is a sequence $`(\delta _m)`$ in $`[0,1[`$ tending to $`0`$ such that $`(1\delta _m)_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _n\frac{x_n}{x_n}_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|`$ for all $`m\mathrm{I}N`$.

Trivially the property of spanning $`l^1`$ almost isometrically passes to subsequences. Recall that James’ distortion theorem (see  or ) for $`l^1`$ says that every isomorphic copy of $`l^1`$ contains an almost isometric copy of $`l^1`$. To be more precise, let $`r>0`$, $`[0,1[\delta _n0`$, and let $`(x_n)`$ be a normalized basis spanning $`l^1`$ $`r`$-isomorphically. Then it follows from the proof of  that there is a sequence $`(\lambda _i)`$ of scalars and a sequence $`(F_n)`$ of pairwise disjoint finite subsets of $`\mathrm{I}N`$ such that $`(1\delta _m)_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _ny_n_{n=m}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|`$ for all scalars $`\alpha _n`$ and all $`m\mathrm{I}N`$ where $`y_n=_{iF_n}\lambda _ix_i`$ and where $`_{iF_n}|\lambda _i|\frac{1}{r}`$ for all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$.

Finally $`(x_n)`$ is said to span $`l^1`$ asymptotically isometrically or just to span $`l^1`$ asymptotically if there is a sequence $`(\delta _n)`$ in $`[0,1[`$ tending to $`0`$ such that $`_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}(1\delta _n)|\alpha _n|_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}\alpha _n\frac{x_n}{x_n}_{n=1}^{\mathrm{}}|\alpha _n|`$ for all scalars $`\alpha _n`$. We say that a Banach space is isomorphic (respectively almost isometric, respectively asymptotically isometric) to $`l^1`$ if it has a basis with the corresponding property. Clearly a sequence spanning $`l^1`$ asymptotically spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically. The main result of  states that the converse does not hold because there are almost isometric copies of $`l^1`$ which do not contain $`l^1`$ asymptotically. However, it follows from  that this cannot happen in the predual of a von Neumann algebra because each sequence spanning $`l^1`$ almost isometrically in a von Neumann predual contains a sequence spanning $`l^1`$ asymptotically (cf. (iii) $``$ (iv) in the proof of Theorem 1). Note that the present definitions of almost and asymptotically isometric differ slightly from those in ,  by the term $`x_n/x_n`$ but that, of course, for normalized sequences the definitions are the same. Note also the technical detail that because of this term one might have $`x_n0`$ for a sequence spanning $`l^1`$ isomorphically (or almost or asymptotically isometrically) whereas sequences that are equivalent to the canonical $`l^1`$-basis (\[4, p. 43\]) are uniformly bounded away from $`0`$.

The dual of a Banach space $`X`$ is denoted by $`X^{}`$. We work with complex scalars. Two elements $`a,b`$ of a C-algebra are called orthogonal \- $`ab`$ in symbols - if $`ab^{}=0=a^{}b`$. Two elements $`\varphi ,\psi `$ of the predual of a von Neumann algebra are called orthogonal - $`\varphi \psi `$ in symbols - if they have orthogonal right and orthogonal left support projections. It is well know that $`\varphi \psi `$ if and only if the linear span of $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ is isometrically isomorphic to the two-dimensional $`l_2^1`$; if $`\varphi `$ and $`\psi `$ are positive they are orthogonal if and only if $`\varphi \psi =\varphi +\psi `$.

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra, $`a𝒩`$, $`\varphi 𝒩_{}`$ then $`a\varphi `$ denotes the normal functional $`𝒩x\varphi (xa)`$ and $`\varphi a`$ denotes the normal functional $`𝒩x\varphi (ax)`$.

Let $`\tau `$ be a finite faithful normal trace on a von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$. The set $`I=\{x𝒩|\tau (|x|)<\mathrm{}\}`$ is an ideal in $`𝒩`$, can be normed by $`x\tau (|x|)=:x_1`$ and its Banach space completion is denoted by $`\mathrm{L}^1=\mathrm{L}^1(𝒩,\tau )`$. It is well-known that $`\mathrm{L}^1`$ is isometrically isomorphic to the predual $`𝒩_{}`$ via the map $`\mathrm{L}^1x\varphi _x𝒩_{}`$ where $`\varphi _x(y)=\tau (xy)`$ for $`y𝒩`$ and where $`\tau `$ is understood as the (well-defined) extension of $`\tau `$ from $`I`$ to $`\mathrm{L}^1`$ \[21, V.2.18\]. In particular, the multiplication on $`𝒩\times I`$ can be extended to $`𝒩\times \mathrm{L}^1`$, the map $`x\varphi _x`$ respects orthogonality and one has $`|\tau (xy)|x_1y_{\mathrm{}}`$ for $`x\mathrm{L}^1`$, $`y\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}}=\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}}(𝒩,\tau ):=𝒩`$. More generally one can define $`\mathrm{L}^p(𝒩,\tau )`$-spaces, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$, as the sets of those $`x\mathrm{L}^0`$ for which $`x_p:=\tau (|x|^p)^{1/p}<\mathrm{}`$ where $`\mathrm{L}^0=\mathrm{L}^0(𝒩,\tau )`$ is the space of $`\tau `$-measurable densely defined (in general unbounded) operators affiliated with $`𝒩`$ and where $`\tau `$ is understood as the extension of $`\tau `$ from $`𝒩`$ to $`\mathrm{L}^0`$. On $`\mathrm{L}^0`$ one defines the measure topology as the translation invariant topology in which the sets $`\{x\mathrm{L}^0|p𝒩_{proj}:xp𝒩,xp_{\mathrm{}}\epsilon ,\tau (p^{})\delta \}`$, $`\epsilon ,\delta >0`$, form a base of the zero neighborhoods. ($`𝒩_{proj}`$ denotes the set of projections of $`𝒩`$.) In this topology, $`\mathrm{L}^0`$ becomes a (well-defined) metrizable complete Hausdorff topological vector -algebra and all $`\mathrm{L}^p`$ embed injectively in $`\mathrm{L}^0`$. In particular, sum and product are well-defined in $`\mathrm{L}^0`$. All this (for the more general case of a semifinite trace) can be found for example in , \[22, Ch. 1\] or .

If a sequence $`(x_n)`$ in $`\mathrm{L}^0`$ converges to $`x\mathrm{L}^0`$ this is denoted by $`x_n\stackrel{\tau }{}x`$. In this context Chebyshev’s inequality reads $`\tau (\chi _{]\epsilon ,\mathrm{}[}(|x|))\tau (\frac{1}{\epsilon }|x|)=\frac{1}{\epsilon }x_1`$ for $`x\mathrm{L}^1`$ \- which means in particular that the norm topology is finer than the measure topology induced by $`\tau `$ \- and from \[8, A48\] we know that in accordance with the commutative case, $`x_n\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$ if and only if $`\tau (\chi _{]\epsilon ,\mathrm{}[}(|x_n|))0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$ for all $`\epsilon >0`$.

Basic properties and definitions which are not explained here can be found in  or in - for Banach spaces and in ,  for C-algebras.

§3 Some auxiliary results

Let us first state an easy lemma which says that almost isometric and asymptotically isometric $`l^1`$-copies are stable with respect to perturbations by norm null sequences.

###### Lemma 4

Let $`(x_n)`$, $`(y_n)`$ be two sequences in a Banach space $`X`$ such that $`infx_n>0`$, $`y_n0`$ and $`x_n+y_n0`$.
If $`(x_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically then so does $`(x_n+y_n)`$.
If $`(x_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ asymptotically then so does $`(x_n+y_n)`$.

Proof: Suppose that $`(x_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically. For all scalar sequences $`(\alpha _n)`$ one has

$`{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _n{\displaystyle \frac{x_n+y_n}{x_n+y_n}}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _n{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{x_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _n\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{x_n+y_n}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{x_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}\alpha _n{\displaystyle \frac{y_n}{x_n+y_n}}`$
$``$ $`((1\delta _m){\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\alpha _n|)(\underset{nm}{sup}|1{\displaystyle \frac{x_n}{x_n+y_n}}|{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\alpha _n|)(\underset{nm}{sup}{\displaystyle \frac{y_n}{x_n+y_n}}{\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\alpha _n|)`$
$`=`$ $`(1\delta _m^{}){\displaystyle \underset{n=m}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}|\alpha _n|`$
where $`\delta _m^{}=\delta _m+sup_{nm}|1\frac{x_n}{x_n+y_n}|+sup_{nm}\frac{y_n}{x_n+y_n}0`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$. Hence $`(x_n+y_n)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isomorphically. The asymptotic case is proved similarly.
Lemmas 5 \- 7 seem to be known and are proved mainly for lack of suitable reference. (In part they overlap with \[17, Lem. 3-5\].)

###### Lemma 5

Let $`A`$ be a C-algebra, $`\omega `$ a positive functional on $`A`$ and $`a,b`$ elements of the unit ball of $`A`$. Then

$`a\omega \omega `$ $``$ $`(2\omega )^{1/2}|\omega \omega (a)|^{1/2}`$ (1)
$`\omega a\omega `$ $``$ $`(2\omega )^{1/2}|\omega \omega (a)|^{1/2}`$ (2)
$`b\omega a\omega `$ $``$ $`(2\omega )^{1/2}(|\omega \omega (a)|^{1/2}+|\omega \omega (b)|^{1/2})`$ (3)
Proof: Let $`xA`$ and $`x1`$. Set $`\gamma =\omega \omega (a)`$, thus $`\omega (a^{})=\omega \overline{\gamma }`$. Without loss of generality we assume $`\omega =1`$. The inequality of Cauchy-Schwarz yields

$`|\omega (x)a\omega (x)|^2`$ $`=`$ $`|\omega (x(1a))|^2\omega (xx^{})\omega ((1a)^{}(1a))`$
$``$ $`\omega ((1a)^{}(1a))=\omega (1a)\omega (a^{}a^{}a)`$
$`=`$ $`\gamma (1\overline{\gamma })+\omega (a^{}a)2\mathrm{R}\mathrm{e}\gamma 2|1\omega (a)|`$
whence (1); (2) follows analogously; (3) follows from (1), (2) and from $`\omega b\omega a\omega b\omega +b(\omega \omega a)\omega b\omega +\omega \omega a`$

###### Lemma 6

Let $`A`$ be a C-algebra, $`\varphi `$ a functional on $`A`$ and $`a,b`$ in the unit ball of $`A`$. Then

$`\varphi a|\varphi |`$ $``$ $`(2\varphi )^{1/2}|\varphi \varphi ^{}(a)|^{1/2}`$ (4)
$`|\varphi |a\varphi `$ $``$ $`(2\varphi )^{1/2}|\varphi \varphi (a)|^{1/2}`$ (5)
$`b\varphi a\varphi `$ $``$ $`(2\varphi )^{1/2}\left(|\varphi |\varphi |(a)|+|\varphi |\varphi ^{}|(b)|\right)^{1/2}.`$ (6)
Proof: Let $`\varphi =u|\varphi |`$ be the polar decomposition of $`\varphi `$. Then the polar decomposition of $`\varphi ^{}`$ is $`\varphi ^{}=u^{}|\varphi ^{}|`$ (cf. the proof of \[21, III.4.2\]), we have $`\varphi =|\varphi ^{}|u`$, $`|\varphi |=u^{}\varphi =|\varphi |^{}=\varphi ^{}u`$. Without loss of generality we assume $`\varphi =1`$.
Inequality (5) follows from

$`a\varphi |\varphi |=au|\varphi ||\varphi |\stackrel{(\text{1})}{}|2(1|\varphi |(au))|^{1/2}=|2(1\varphi (a))|^{1/2}.`$
Replacing $`\varphi `$ by $`\varphi ^{}`$ we have $`a\varphi ^{}|\varphi ^{}||2(1\varphi ^{}(a))|^{1/2}`$ whence (4) by
$`a|\varphi |\varphi =(a\varphi ^{}|\varphi ^{}|)ua\varphi ^{}|\varphi ^{}|`$. (6) follows from

$`\varphi b\varphi a`$ $``$ $`\varphi b\varphi +b\varphi b\varphi a`$
$`=`$ $`|\varphi ^{}|ub|\varphi ^{}|u+bu|\varphi |bu|\varphi |a`$
$``$ $`|\varphi ^{}|b|\varphi ^{}|+|\varphi ||\varphi |a`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{1})(\text{2})}{}`$ $`(2\varphi )^{1/2}(|\varphi |\varphi ^{}|(b)|+|\varphi |\varphi |(a)|)^{1/2}.`$
###### Lemma 7

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra with predual $`𝒩_{}`$. If a functional $`\sigma `$ in the unit ball of $`𝒩_{}`$, projections $`r,l𝒩`$ and a number $`\beta ]0,1[`$ are such that $`r(|\sigma |)1\beta `$ and $`l(|\sigma ^{}|)1\beta `$ then $`\sigma \tau <5\sqrt{\beta }`$ where $`\tau =\frac{l\sigma r}{l\sigma r}`$.

Proof: $`l\sigma r\sigma 2\sqrt{\beta }`$ by (6) and $`\frac{l\sigma r}{l\sigma r}l\sigma r=\frac{1l\sigma r}{l\sigma r}l\sigma r\beta +\sigma l\sigma r\beta +\sigma l\sigma r\beta +2\sqrt{\beta }`$ thus $`\sigma \tau <5\sqrt{\beta }`$.

We recall some more definitions and notation. Let $`A`$ be a C-algebra. A projection $`pA^{\prime \prime }`$ is called open if it is the limit of an increasing net of positive elements of $`A`$ (\[16, 3.11\], ). If $`pA^{\prime \prime }`$ is open then $`B^{\prime \prime }=pA^{\prime \prime }p`$ where $`B=pA^{\prime \prime }pA`$ is a hereditary subalgebra. A projection $`qA^{\prime \prime }`$ is called closed if there is an open projection $`pA^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`q=p^c`$ where $`p^c`$ denotes the complement $`1p`$ of $`p`$. (This makes sense also if $`A`$ is not unital because one always has $`1A^{\prime \prime }`$.) By definition the closure $`\overline{p}`$ of a projection $`pA^{\prime \prime }`$ is the infimum of all closed projections majorizing $`p`$. $`\chi _M`$ denotes the characteristic function of a set $`M`$. By functional calculus $`\chi _{]\epsilon ,1]}(x)`$ (respectively $`\chi _{[\epsilon ,1]}(x)`$) is an open (respectively closed) projection in $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ if $`1>\epsilon >0`$, $`xA`$, $`0x1`$, because $`\chi _{]\epsilon ,1]}`$ (respectively $`\chi _{[\epsilon ,1]}`$) is the pointwise limit of an increasing (respectively decreasing) sequence of continuous functions on $`[0,1]`$ (cf. \[1, II.3\]). As to $`\chi _{]\epsilon ,1]}(x)`$ this is easy but as to $`\chi _{[\epsilon ,1]}(x)`$ a bit more attention must be paid to the case where $`A`$ is not unital; in this case one works with the unitisation $`A_1`$ of $`A`$. Therfore, in order to avoid complications in the non-unital case , we state Lemma 8 only for unital $`A`$ (although the lemma holds also in the non-unital case).

The following Lemma 8 is a natural generalisation of \[17, Lem. 5\].

###### Lemma 8

Let $`A`$ be a unital C-algebra. For each $`\epsilon >0`$ and each $`n\mathrm{I}N`$ there is $`\delta =\delta (n,\epsilon )>0`$ with the following property.

If there are functionals $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$ in the unit ball of $`A^{}`$ and open projections $`s,tA^{\prime \prime }`$ such that

$`(1\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _kt\varphi _ks{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)\mathrm{C}`$ (7)
then there are open projections $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_nsA^{\prime \prime }s`$ with pairwise orthogonal closures in $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ and open projections $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_ntA^{\prime \prime }t`$ with pairwise orthogonal closures in $`tA^{\prime \prime }t`$ such that

$`p_k(|\varphi _k|)`$ $`>`$ $`(1\epsilon )\varphi _k`$ (8)
$`q_k(|\varphi _k^{}|)`$ $`>`$ $`(1\epsilon )\varphi _k`$ (9)
for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$.
In particular the $`\varphi _k`$ are close to normalized orthogonal elements $`\psi _k`$ on $`sAt`$ in the sense that $`\varphi _k\psi _k<5\sqrt{\epsilon }`$ where $`\psi _k=q_k\varphi _kp_k/q_k\varphi _kp_k`$ are normalized and pairwise orthogonal with left (right) supports majorized by $`t`$ (by $`s`$).

Proof: (a) First we suppose $`s=t=1`$ and deal only with the special case
(a1) of positive functionals $`\varphi _k`$.
Let $`\epsilon >0`$. For $`n=1`$ choose an $`x0`$ in the unit ball of $`A`$ such that $`\varphi _1(x)>1\epsilon `$ and set $`p_1=q_1=\chi _{]0,1]}(x)`$, $`\delta (1,\epsilon )=\epsilon `$.

Suppose now that the assertion holds true (for positive functionals, for $`s=t=1`$ and) for $`n\mathrm{I}N`$. By hypothesis on $`n`$ we choose $`\delta _n=\delta (n,\epsilon )`$ We define $`\delta _{n+1}>0`$ such that $`\delta _{n+1}+(32n\delta _{n+1})^{1/2}<\delta _n`$. Consider positive functionals $`\varphi _k`$, $`k=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, in the unit ball of $`A`$ such that $`_1^{n+1}\alpha _k\varphi _k(1\delta _{n+1})_1^{n+1}|\alpha _k|`$. Set $`\sigma =\frac{1}{n}_1^n\varphi _k`$ and $`\tau =\varphi _{n+1}`$. Then $`(1\delta _{n+1})(|\alpha |+|\beta |)\alpha \sigma +\beta \tau |\alpha |+|\beta |`$ for all scalars $`\alpha ,\beta `$. In particular $`\sigma \tau 2(1\delta _{n+1})`$. There is a selfadjoint normalized element $`xA`$ such that $`(\sigma \tau )(x)>2(12\delta _{n+1})`$. Decompose $`x=x^++x^{}`$ in its negative and positive parts. Then $`(\sigma \tau )(x)=(\sigma (x^+)+\tau (x^{}))(\sigma (x^{})+\tau (x^+))>2(12\delta _{n+1})`$ whence $`\sigma (x^+)>2(12\delta _{n+1})\tau (x^{})>14\delta _{n+1}`$ and similarly $`\varphi _{n+1}(x^{})>14\delta _{n+1}`$. Together with $`\varphi _k(x^+)1`$ this gives $`\varphi _k(x^+)>14n\delta _{n+1}`$ for all $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ because otherwise one would have $`n\sigma (x^+)14n\delta _{n+1}+(n1)=n(14\delta _{n+1})`$. Define $`p=\chi _{]\eta ,1]}(x^+)`$, $`p_{n+1}=\chi _{]\eta ,1]}(x^{})`$ where $`\eta >0`$ is such that

$`p(\varphi _k)`$ $`>`$ $`14n\delta _{n+1}\text{ for }k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (10)
$`\text{and }p_{n+1}(\varphi _{n+1})`$ $`>`$ $`14\delta _{n+1}>1\epsilon `$
By functional calculus the projections $`p`$ and $`p_{n+1}`$ are open and have orthogonal closures. $`B=pA^{\prime \prime }pAA`$ is a hereditary subalgebra of $`A`$. This explains the equality sign in the following formula:

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\varphi _k|_B_B`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k(p\varphi _kp){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\varphi _k{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k(\varphi _kp\varphi _kp)`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{3})(\text{10})}{>}`$ $`(1\delta _{n+1}){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|\sqrt{32n\delta _{n+1}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|`$
$`>`$ $`(1\delta _n){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|.`$
By induction hypothesis applied to $`B`$ and to $`\varphi _k|_B`$ one gets $`n`$ open projections $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_nB^{\prime \prime }`$ with pairwise orthogonal closures in $`B^{\prime \prime }`$ \- whence in $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ \- such that (8) holds for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$. Furthermore, (9) holds with $`q_k=p_k`$ because we have supposed $`\varphi _k0`$. This proves the case where $`s=t=1`$ for positive functionals $`\varphi _k`$.
(a2) For the case of arbitrary functionals (but still with $`s=t=1`$) suppose that the lemma is false. Then there are $`\epsilon >0`$, a sequence $`(A_i)`$ of C-algebras, and $`\varphi _{k,i}(A_i)_1`$ such that for each $`i\mathrm{I}N`$,

$`(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{i}}){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|<{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\varphi _{k,i}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)\mathrm{C}`$ (11)
but for each $`i\mathrm{I}N`$ the $`\varphi _{k,i}`$ are far from orthogonal functionals, more precisely

$`\underset{kn}{\mathrm{min}}p_{k,i}(|\varphi _{k,i}|)1\epsilon \text{or}\underset{kn}{\mathrm{min}}q_{k,i}(|\varphi _{k,i}^{}|)1\epsilon `$ (12)
for all sequences $`(p_{k,i})_{k=1}^n`$ and $`(q_{k,i})_{k=1}^n`$ of open projections with orthogonal closures in $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$.

We recall some basic facts on ultraproducts (see e.g. ). If $`𝒰`$ is an ultrafilter on an index set $`I`$ the ultraproduct $`X=(X_i)/𝒰`$ of a family $`(X_i)_{iI}`$ of Banach spaces is defined as the quotient $`l^{\mathrm{}}(X_i)/c_0(X_i)`$ where $`l^{\mathrm{}}(X_i)=\{(x_i)_{iI}|(x_i);=sup_𝒰x_i<\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`c_0(X_i)=\{(x_i)_{iI}l^{\mathrm{}}(X_i)|lim_𝒰x_i=0\}`$. With the quotient norm $`X`$ becomes a Banach space. By $`[x_i]_𝒰`$ we denote the equivalence class represented by $`(x_i)_{iI}l^{\mathrm{}}(X_i)`$. One has $`[x_i]_𝒰=lim_𝒰x_i`$ independently of the representative of $`[x_i]_𝒰`$. The ultraproduct $`(X_i^{})/𝒰`$ of the duals can be identified isometrically with a closed subspace of the dual $`X^{}`$ via $`[x_i^{}]_𝒰([x_i]_𝒰)=lim_𝒰x_i^{}(x_i)`$. An ultraproduct $`A=(A_i)/𝒰`$ of a family of C-algebras $`A_i`$ is canonically a C-algebra with pointwise multiplication and involution because in this case the null space $`c_0(X_i)`$ is an ideal in $`A`$.

Let now $`I=\mathrm{I}N`$ and $`𝒰`$ be a free ultrafilter on $`\mathrm{I}N`$ and set $`A=(A_i)/𝒰`$. For each element $`\psi A^{}`$ of the form $`\psi =[\psi _i]_𝒰`$ we have $`|\psi |=[|\psi _i|]_𝒰`$ and $`|\psi ^{}|=[|\psi _i^{}|]_𝒰`$. \[To see this choose $`a=[a_i]_𝒰`$ in the unit ball of $`A`$ such that $`a_i=1`$ and $`\psi (a)=lim_𝒰\psi _i(a_i)=lim_𝒰\psi _i=1`$. Then $`|\psi |=a\psi =[a_i\psi ]_𝒰`$ and $`|\psi _i|a_i\psi _i(2|\psi _i\psi _i(a_i)|)^{1/2}0`$ by (5) of Lemma 6 hence $`|\psi |=[|\psi _i|]_𝒰`$. For $`|\psi ^{}|=[|\psi _i^{}|]_𝒰`$ the proof is analogous.\]
The $`n`$ functionals $`|\varphi _k|=[|\varphi _{k,i}|]_𝒰`$ and the $`n`$ functionals $`|\varphi _k^{}|=[|\varphi _{k,i}^{}|]_𝒰`$ are pairwise orthogonal because the $`\varphi _k=[\varphi _{k,i}]_𝒰`$ are so by (11). Since the statement of the Lemma has been proved for positive functionals (and for $`s=t=1`$) there are, for each $`iI`$, two finite sequences $`(p_{k,i})_{k=1}^n`$, $`(q_{k,i})_{k=1}^n`$ of open projections with pairwise orthogonal closures in $`A_i^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`lim_𝒰p_{k,i}(\varphi _{k,i})=[p_{k,i}]_𝒰(\varphi _k)=1`$ and $`lim_𝒰q_{k,i}(\varphi _{k,i}^{})=[q_{k,i}]_𝒰(\varphi _k^{})=1`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ which contradicts (12) and thus proves the lemma for the case where $`s=t=1`$.
(b) Now we turn to the general case of arbitrary open projections $`s,tA^{\prime \prime }`$. We assume without loss of generality that $`\varphi _k=1`$. After what has been proved in (a), we further assume without loss of generality that the $`\varphi _k`$ are pairwise orthogonal because (7) remains valid if $`t\varphi _ks`$ is replaced by $`\varphi _k`$. Then the $`|\varphi _k|`$ are orthogonal and so are the $`|\varphi _k^{}|`$. Thus we may further assume that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k|\varphi _k|={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|\text{and}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k|\varphi _k^{}|={\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|`$ (13)
for all scalars $`\alpha _k\mathrm{C}\text{ }`$. Let $`\varphi _k=u_k|\varphi _k|`$ be the polar decomposition then

$`1\delta \stackrel{(\text{7})}{}t\varphi _ks=tu_k|\varphi _k|s=|tu_k|\varphi _k|s|=s(|(tu_k|\varphi _k|s)|)s(|\varphi _k|)`$
where the last inequality follows from \[21, III.4.9\]. Analogously $`t(|\varphi _k^{}|)1\delta `$. Hence by (6) of Lemma 6, if $`\delta `$ is small enough, $`t\varphi _ks`$ is a small perturbation of $`\varphi _k`$ and since the absolut value is norm continuous on von Neumann preduals \[21, III.4.10\], $`|t\varphi _ks|`$ is a small perturbation of $`|\varphi _k|`$, and $`|s\varphi _k^{}t|`$ is a small perturbation of $`|\varphi _k^{}|`$. Finally, in view of (13) we may without loss of generality replace (7) by

$`(1\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k|t\varphi _ks|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)\mathrm{C}`$ (14)
$`(1\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k|s\varphi _k^{}t|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)\mathrm{C}`$ (15)
in the statement of the lemma. It remains to apply part (a) to the hereditary subalgebra $`sA^{\prime \prime }sA`$ and to $`tA^{\prime \prime }tA`$ (because the support projection of $`|t\varphi _ks|`$ (of $`|s\varphi _k^{}t|`$) is majorized by $`s`$ (by $`t`$)). This yields the desired open projections $`p_k(sA^{\prime \prime }sA)^{\prime \prime }=sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ and $`q_ktA^{\prime \prime }t`$ satisfying (8) and (9) if $`\delta `$ is small enough.
The last assertion of the lemma is immediate from Lemma 7.

###### Corollary 9

Let $`𝒩`$ be a von Neumann algebra. For each $`\epsilon >0`$ and each $`n\mathrm{I}N`$ there is $`\delta =\delta (n,\epsilon )>0`$ with the following property.

If there are functionals $`\varphi _1,\mathrm{},\varphi _n`$ in the unit ball of $`𝒩_{}`$ and (arbitrary) projections $`s,t𝒩`$ such that

$`(1\delta ){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _kt\varphi _ks{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)\mathrm{C}`$ (16)
then there are pairwise orthogonal projections $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_ns𝒩s`$ and pairwise orthogonal projections $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_nt𝒩t`$ such that

$`\varphi _k\psi _k<\epsilon `$ $`\text{for }k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (17)
where $`\psi _k=q_k\varphi _kp_k/q_k\varphi _kp_k`$.

Proof: For $`s=t=1`$ the assertion is immediate from Lemma 8 and Lemma 7. For arbitrary projections $`s,t𝒩`$ we proceede as in part (b) of the proof of Lemma 8 in order to show that (16) can be replaced by (14) and (15) and to apply this to the subalgebras $`s𝒩s`$ and $`t𝒩t`$.

§4 Proof of Theorem 2

Without loss of generality we assume that $`\varphi _m=1`$ for all $`m\mathrm{I}N`$. Let $`(\eta _n)`$ be a sequence of positive numbers such that $`\eta _n`$ converges.

By induction on $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ we construct an increasing sequence $`(m_n)`$ in $`\mathrm{I}N`$, functionals $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}𝒩_{}`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$, such that for all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$:

$`|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|`$ $``$ $`|\psi _{m_l}^{(n)}|k,l=1,\mathrm{},n,kl,`$ (18)
$`\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}`$ $`=`$ $`1k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ (19)
$`\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}\psi _{m_k}^{(n1)}`$ $`<`$ $`\eta _nk=1,\mathrm{},n1,`$ (20)
$`\psi _{m_n}^{(n)}\varphi _{m_n}`$ $`<`$ $`\eta _n.`$ (21)
For $`n=1`$ one may simply set $`\psi _{m_1}^{(1)}=\varphi _1`$; (18, $`n=1`$) and (20, $`n=1`$) are void, (19, $`n=1`$) and (21, $`n=1`$) are trivial.
Induction step $`nn+1`$.
Suppose $`m_k`$ and $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}`$ to be constructed for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ according to (18) - (21).
Choose $`\delta _1=\delta (n,\eta _{n+1}/2)>0`$ according to Corollary 9 such that furthermore $`\delta _1<\eta _{n+1}/2`$. Let $`j\mathrm{I}N`$ be such that $`(2/j)^{1/2}<\delta _1`$. Now, again according to Corollary 9, choose $`\delta _0=\delta (nj,\eta _{n+1})`$.
Since $`(\varphi _m)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically there is an index $`m_0`$ such that $`(\varphi _m)_{mm_0}`$ spans $`l^1`$ $`(1\delta _0)`$-isomorphically. By Corollary 9 (with $`s=t=1`$, $`\delta =\delta _0`$) we find a finite set $`N\mathrm{I}N`$ of cardinality $`nj`$ (for example $`N=\{m_0+1,\mathrm{},m_0+nj\}`$), a finite sequence of orthogonal projections $`(p_m)_{mN}`$ in $`𝒩`$ such that

$`\varphi _m{\displaystyle \frac{\varphi _mp_m}{\varphi _mp_m}}`$ $`<`$ $`\eta _{n+1}mN_{n+1}.`$ (22)
Set $`\varphi =_{k=1}^n|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|`$. $`\varphi `$ is positive. We have $`(_{mN}p_m)(\varphi )\varphi n`$. Thus there is an index $`m_{n+1}N`$ such that $`0p_{m_{n+1}}(\varphi )1/j`$ and $`0p_{m_{n+1}}(|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|)1/j`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. We set $`s=1\overline{p}_{m_{n+1}}`$ and define $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}=\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}s`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and

$$\psi _{m_{n+1}}^{(n+1)}=\frac{\varphi _{m_{n+1}}p_{m_{n+1}}}{\varphi _{m_{n+1}}p_{m_{n+1}}}.$$

Then (19, $`n+1`$) holds for $`k=n+1`$ and (21, $`n+1`$) holds by (22). We have $`s(|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|)=\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}p_{m_{n+1}}(|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|)11/j`$ by (19). From this and (6) one gets that

$`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}(2/j)^{1/2}<\delta _1<{\displaystyle \frac{\eta _{n+1}}{2}},k=1,\mathrm{},n.`$ (23)
Thus, up to $`\delta _1`$ the $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}`$ are near to an isometric copy of $`l_n^1`$ because

$`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}={\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}s`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k(\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}\psi _{m_k}^{(n)})`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{23})}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\alpha _k\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}(2/j)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{18},\text{19})}{=}`$ $`\left(1(2/j)^{1/2}\right){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|`$
$`>`$ $`(1\delta _1){\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\alpha _k|.`$
It remains to apply Corollary 9 another time (with $`t=1`$, $`\delta =\delta _1`$) in order to get small normalized orthogonal perturbations $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n+1)}`$ \- whence (19, $`n+1`$) for $`kn`$ \- of the $`\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}`$ whose right supports are majorized by $`s`$ and thus orthogonal to the right support of $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n+1)}`$ such that $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n+1)}\stackrel{~}{\psi }_{m_k}^{(n+1)}<\eta _{n+1}/2`$ for $`k=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Together with (23) this gives (20, $`n+1`$). Finally one verifies (18, $`n+1`$) by observing that the support projections of the $`|\psi _{m_k}^{(n+1)}|`$ are the right supports of the $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n+1)}`$. This ends the induction.

By construction, $`(\psi _{m_k}^{(n)})_{n\mathrm{I}N}`$ is a Cauchy sequence for each $`k`$ because $`\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}\psi _{m_k}^{(i)}_{l=i+1}^n\eta _l0`$ as $`n>i\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\psi _k=lim_n\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}`$ be its limit. Then $`\psi _k\varphi _{m_k}\varphi _{m_k}\psi _{m_k}^{(k)}+\psi _{m_k}^{(k)}lim_n\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}\eta _k+_{l=k+1}^{\mathrm{}}\eta _l0`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$. The $`\psi _k`$ have pairwise orthogonal right supports because by continuity of the absolute value (\[21, III.4.10\]), if $`kl`$ one has

$`|\psi _k||\psi _l|`$ $`=`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}||\psi _{m_l}^{(n)}|`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{18})}{=}`$ $`\underset{n\mathrm{}}{lim}|\psi _{m_k}^{(n)}|+|\psi _{m_l}^{(n)}|=\psi _k+\psi _l.`$
So far we have proved that if $`(\varphi _m)`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically then there is a subsequence $`(\varphi _{m_k})`$ and there are pairwise orthogonal projections $`s_k𝒩`$ (namely the right support projections of the $`\psi _k`$) such that $`\varphi _{m_k}\varphi _{m_k}s_k\varphi _{m_k}\psi _k+\psi _ks_k\varphi _{m_k}s_k2\varphi _{m_k}\psi _k0`$. Since $`(\varphi _{m_k}^{})`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically, too, there are pairwise orthogonal projections $`t_l𝒩`$ such that $`\varphi _{m_{k_l}}^{}\varphi _{m_{k_l}}^{}t_l0`$ for an appropriate sequence $`(m_{k_l})`$ in $`\mathrm{I}N`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l=t_l\varphi _{m_{k_l}}s_{k_l}`$. Then $`\varphi _{m_{k_l}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l\varphi _{m_{k_l}}\varphi _{m_{k_l}}s_{k_l}+(\varphi _{m_{k_l}}t_l\varphi _{m_{k_l}})s_{k_l}\varphi _{m_{k_l}}\varphi _{m_{k_l}}s_{k_l}+\varphi _{m_{k_l}}^{}\varphi _{m_{k_l}}^{}t_l0`$.
The second statement of the theorem is trivial by the definiton of the $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_l`$. This ends the proof.

From Remark 2 after the proof of Theorem 1 at the end of the next section it follows that Theorem 2 does not hold for unbounded sequences $`(\varphi _m)`$.

§5 Proof of Theorem 1

(i) $``$ (ii). Let $`(x_{n_k})`$ be a subsequence of $`(x_n)`$. If $`(x_{n_k})`$ contains a sequence $`(x_{n_{k_l}})`$ such that $`x_{n_{k_l}}=0`$ for all $`l\mathrm{I}N`$ then we simply choose $`y_l=0`$ for $`l\mathrm{I}N`$. Otherwise we may (pass to another subsequence and) suppose that $`x_{n_k}_10`$ for all $`k\mathrm{I}N`$. By norm density of $`\mathrm{L}^1\mathrm{L}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`\mathrm{L}^1`$ and the fact that the norm topology is finer than the measure topology we may suppose without loss of generality that $`0x_{n_k}_{\mathrm{}}<\mathrm{}`$ for all $`k\mathrm{I}N`$. We set $`\epsilon _l=2^l/\tau (1)`$ for $`l\mathrm{I}N`$.

By induction over $`l\mathrm{I}N`$ we construct a strictly increasing subsequence $`(n_{k_l})`$ of $`(n_k)`$, projections $`p_l𝒩`$ and positive numbers $`\delta _l`$ such that for all $`l\mathrm{I}N`$

$`\tau (p_l)<\delta _l\text{where}p_l=\chi _{]\epsilon _l,\mathrm{}[}(|x_{n_{k_l}}|)`$ (24)
and where

$`\delta _l`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2^l}{\mathrm{max}_{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}ml1}x_{n_{k_m}}_{\mathrm{}}}},\text{if}l2.`$ (25)
For $`l=1`$ we choose $`n_{k_1}=n_1`$ and any $`\delta _1>\tau (p_1)`$. For the induction step $`ll+1`$ we suppose $`n_{k_m}`$, $`p_m`$, and $`\delta _m`$ to be constructed for $`m=1,\mathrm{},l`$, we define $`\delta _{l+1}`$ by (25) and choose $`n_{k_{l+1}}`$ such that

$$\tau (\chi _{]\epsilon _{l+1},\mathrm{}[}(|x_{n_{k_{l+1}}}|)<\delta _{l+1}$$

which is possible because $`x_n\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$. We define $`p_{l+1}`$ by (24). This settles (24, $`l+1`$) and ends the induction.
By (25) we have

$`\delta _{l+1+r}={\displaystyle \frac{2^{(l+1+r)}}{\mathrm{max}_{ml+r}x_{n_{k_m}}_{\mathrm{}}}}2^{(r+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{2^l}{x_{n_{k_l}}_{\mathrm{}}}}`$
for $`r\mathrm{I}N\{0\}`$ which gives

$`{\displaystyle \underset{ml+1}{}}\delta _m={\displaystyle \underset{r0}{}}\delta _{l+1+r}{\displaystyle \frac{2^l}{x_{n_{k_l}}_{\mathrm{}}}}.`$ (26)
Put $`q_l=1_{ml+1}p_m`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l=x_{n_{k_l}}(p_lq_l)`$. By construction the $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l`$ have pairwise orthogonal right support projections and their left support projections are majorized by the ones of the $`x_{n_{k_l}}`$. We show that $`x_{n_{k_l}}\stackrel{~}{y}_l_10`$. In order to save indices we use the abbreviations $`x=x_{n_{k_l}}`$, $`p=p_l`$, $`q=q_l`$, $`\stackrel{~}{y}=\stackrel{~}{y}_l`$ until the end of formula (27):

$`x\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ $``$ $`xxp_1+xp\stackrel{~}{y}_1`$ (27)
$`=`$ $`x(1p)_1+x(p(pq))_1`$
$``$ $`x(1p)_{\mathrm{}}\tau (1)+x_{\mathrm{}}\tau (p(pq))`$
$`\stackrel{()}{=}`$ $`|x|\chi _{[0,\epsilon _l]}(|x|)_{\mathrm{}}\tau (1)+x_{\mathrm{}}\tau \left((pq)q\right)`$
$``$ $`\epsilon _l\tau (1)+x_{\mathrm{}}\tau (1q)`$
$``$ $`\epsilon _l\tau (1)+x_{\mathrm{}}\left({\displaystyle \underset{ml+1}{}}\tau (p_m)\right)`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{24}),(\text{26})}{}`$ $`2^{(l1)}.`$
For $`()`$ we used that $`p(pq)`$ and $`(pq)q`$ are equivalent projections for any two projections $`p,q`$ (\[21, V.1.6\]) hence $`\tau (p(pq))=\tau ((pq)q)`$.

So far we have proved that given a $`\tau `$-null subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ there are $`x_{n_{k_l}}`$ and there are $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l`$ whose right supports are orthogonal and whose left supports are majorized by the left supports of the $`x_{n_{k_l}}`$ such that $`x_{n_{k_l}}\stackrel{~}{y}_l_10`$. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$ whence $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l^{}\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$. Thus we can apply the same reasoning (up to passing to appropriate subsequences) in order to find perturbations $`y_l^{}`$ of the $`\stackrel{~}{y}_l^{}`$ which have both orthogonal right and orthogonal left supports such that $`\stackrel{~}{y}_ly_l_1=\stackrel{~}{y}_l^{}y_l^{}_10`$ hence $`x_{n_{k_l}}y_10`$. This ends the proof of (i) $``$ (ii).
(ii) $``$ (i) Since $`\tau `$ is finite and the $`y_l`$ are pairwise orthogonal we have that $`y_l\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$. And $`x_{n_{k_l}}y_l0`$ entails $`x_{n_{k_l}}y_l\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$ hence $`x_{n_{k_l}}\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$. Thus each subsequence of $`(x_n)`$ contains a subsequence which converges to $`0`$ in measure whence $`x_n\stackrel{\tau }{}0`$.
(ii) $``$ (iii) follows from Lemma 4: Suppose (ii) holds and $`infx_{n_k}_1>0`$ for a subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ of $`(x_n)`$. Then by (ii), there are orthogonal $`y_l`$ and there is $`(x_{n_{k_l}})`$ such that $`x_{n_{k_l}}y_l_10`$. One may suppose that $`infy_l_1>0`$ hence $`(y_l)`$ spans $`l^1`$ isometrically. Thus by Lemma 4, the sequence $`(x_{n_{k_l}})=(y_l+(x_{n_{k_l}}y_l))`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically.
(iii) $``$ (iv): Von Neumann preduals are L-embedded spaces \[6, IV.1.1\], thus by  each sequence spanning $`l^1`$ almost isometrically admits a subsequence spanning $`l^1`$ asymptotically.
(iv) $``$ (iii) is trivial.
(iii) $``$ (ii) follows from Theorem 2.
See the following Remark 2 for an example which shows that in general (iii) does not imply (i), (ii) for unbounded sequences $`(x_n)`$.

Remarks:
1. As an illustration of how to get an orthogonal subsequence consider the sequence $`x_n=n\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}_{[0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}/n]}`$ in $`\mathrm{L}^1([0,1])`$. One may take, for example, $`y_l=x_{n_l}1_{]1/n_{l+1},1]}=n_l1_{]1/n_{l+1},1/n_l]}`$ where $`n_l=2^{(2^l)}`$.
2. In general (iii) does not imply (i), neither (ii), if the sequence $`(x_n)`$ is unbounded. Take the bounded sequence $`x_n=n^21_{[1/n+1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}/n[}+\frac{1}{n}`$ in $`\mathrm{L}^1([0,1])`$. It converges to zero in measure and does not contain a norm null sequence. Hence by (i)$``$(iii) an appropriate subsequence $`(x_{n_k})`$ spans $`l^1`$ almost isometrically. Thus the unbounded sequence $`(n_k^2x_{n_k})`$ satisfies (iii) but not (i). It cannot satisfy (ii) either because (ii) $``$ (i) holds also for unbounded sequences. This means in particular that Theorem 2 does not hold for unbounded sequences $`(\varphi _m)`$.
3. A few straightforward modifications show that (i)$``$(ii) holds accordingly also for $`\mathrm{L}^p(𝒩,\tau )`$, $`1p<\mathrm{}`$. (Cf. .)

§6 $`l^1`$-copies in the dual of C-algebras, proof of Proposition 3

The proof of the main result of  gives the following: Let $`(\varphi _m)A^{}`$ be a bounded sequence of selfadjoint functionals on a C-algebra $`A`$, let $`\epsilon >0`$. If $`(\varphi _m)`$ spans $`l^1`$ $`r`$-isomorphically ($`0<r<1`$) then there is a subsequence $`(\varphi _{m_n})`$ and there is a sequence $`(x_n)`$ of pairwise orthogonal normalized selfadjoint elements of $`A`$ such that $`\varphi _{m_n}(x_n)>(1\epsilon )r\varphi _{m_n}`$. This amounts to saying that $`|\varphi _{m_n}|(|x_n|)>(1\epsilon )r\varphi _{m_n}`$ (to see this it is enough to decompose both $`\varphi _{m_n}`$ and $`x_n`$ in their positive and negative parts) or that, via Lemma 6, $`\varphi _{m_n}a_n\varphi _{m_n}a_n0`$ where $`a_n=|x_n|`$. This is Lemma 10 for selfadjoint $`\varphi _m`$ with the better factor $`r`$ instead of $`r^2`$ in $`(\text{29})`$ and $`(\text{30})`$.

With Lemma 8 at one’s disposal, the proof of Lemma 10 \- and thus of Proposition 3 \- is a straightforward modification of  and gives a kind of quantitative version of  which holds for arbitrary functionals, not only selfadjoint ones. (We give the entire proof of Proposition 3 not only for the sake of completeness but also because it is quite lengthy wherefore the usual argument ”The details are left to the reader” would be exaggerated.) Yet, it does not complete the subject ”perturbations of $`l^1`$-copies in C-algebras” as at least two questions remain open.

Firstly, is it necessary in Theorem 2 or in Proposition 3 to pass to subsequences? In the commutative case it is not, as a result of Dor  shows that, if $`𝒩_{}=\mathrm{L}^1([0,1])`$ contains a $`(1\delta )`$-isomorphic copy of $`l^1`$ then the whole canonical basis of this copy can be perturbed in norm so to span $`l^1`$ isometrically with the perturbation smaller than $`\delta ^{}`$ and $`\delta ^{}0`$ as $`\delta 0`$. Furthermore Arazy  proved that if the predual of an arbitrary von Neumann algebra $`𝒩`$ contains a $`(1\delta )`$-copy of $`l^1`$ then the whole copy is complemented by a projection whose norm is majorized by $`1+\delta ^{}`$ \- a result which has recently been generalized by N. Ozawa  to the category of operator spaces.

Secondly, can the $`(m_n)`$, $`(a_n)`$ and $`(b_n)`$ in Proposition 3 be arranged such that $`\varphi _{m_n}b_n\varphi _{m_n}a_n0`$ as $`n\mathrm{}`$? \[Let us sketch in passing why this would generalize Lemma 10. If $`(\varphi _m)A^{}`$ is normalized and spans $`l^1`$ $`r`$-isomorphically then by James’ distortion theorem there are blocks $`\psi _n=_{iF_n}\lambda _i\varphi _i`$ spanning $`l^1`$ almost isometrically such that $`_{iF_n}|\lambda _i|1/r`$. Now, if there are appropriate $`a_n,b_nA`$ such that $`\psi _nb_n\psi _na_n0`$ (after passing, if necessary, to an appropriate subsequence of $`(\psi _n)`$), one deduces that $`|\psi _n|(a_n)>\sqrt{1\epsilon _n}`$ with $`0<\epsilon _n0`$. Thus for each $`n`$ there is $`i_nF_n`$ such that $`|\varphi _{i_n}|(a_n)>(1\epsilon _n)r^2`$ because otherwise by \[21, III.4.7\] one would have the contradiction

$`\sqrt{1\epsilon _n}`$ $`<`$ $`|\psi _n|(a_n)=|{\displaystyle \underset{iF_n}{}}\lambda _i\varphi _i|(a_n)\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_n}{}}|\lambda _i|\varphi _i\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_n}{}}|\lambda _i|(|\varphi _i|(a_n^2))\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(\underset{F_n}{\mathrm{max}}|\varphi _i|(a_n^2)\right)^{1/2}\sqrt{1\epsilon _n}.`$
Similarly one obtains $`|\varphi _{i_n}^{}|(b_n)>(1\epsilon _n)r^2`$.\]

Proposition 3 follows immediately from Lemma 10 (and (6) of Lemma 6) with $`s=1=t`$. The technical part concerning $`s,t`$ is added because it might be usefull for answering the second question just mentionned above.

###### Lemma 10

Let $`A`$ be a C-algebra (unital or not), $`r>0`$, let $`(\varphi _m)`$ be a normalized sequence in $`A^{}`$ spanning $`l^1`$ $`r`$-isomorphically that is such that

$`r{\displaystyle |\alpha _m|}{\displaystyle \alpha _m\varphi _m}{\displaystyle |\alpha _m|(\alpha _m)}\mathrm{C}.`$ (28)
Then, given $`\epsilon >0`$, there are a sequence $`(m_n)`$ in $`\mathrm{I}N`$ and a sequence $`(a_n)`$ of pairwise orthogonal positive normalized elements in $`A`$ and another sequence $`(b_n)`$ of pairwise orthogonal positive normalized elements in $`A`$ such that

$`|\varphi _{m_n}|(a_n)`$ $`>`$ $`(1\epsilon )r^2`$ (29)
$`|\varphi _{m_n}^{}|(b_n)`$ $`>`$ $`(1\epsilon )r^2`$ (30)
for each $`n\mathrm{I}N`$.
Moreover, if $`s`$ and $`t`$ are open projections in $`A^{\prime \prime }`$ such that $`s`$ ($`t`$) majorizes the right (left) supports of all $`\varphi _m`$ (that is $`t\varphi _ms=\varphi _m`$ for all $`m\mathrm{I}N`$) then one can obtain in addition that $`a_nsA^{\prime \prime }s`$ and $`b_ntA^{\prime \prime }t`$.
Moreover, if the $`\varphi _m`$ are selfadjoint one can obtain in addition $`|\varphi _{m_n}|(a_n)=|\varphi _{m_n}^{}|(a_n)>(1\epsilon )r`$ instead of $`(\text{29})`$ and $`(\text{30})`$.

Proof: First we suppose that $`A`$ is unital.
It is enough to construct a sequence $`(p_n)`$ of orthogonal open projections in $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ such that

$`|\varphi _{m_n}|(p_n)`$ $`>`$ $`(1\epsilon )r^2`$ (31)
for an appropriate subsequence $`(\varphi _{m_n})`$ because then, by the definition of open projections, for all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$ positive elements $`a_np_n`$ can be choosen so to be pairwise orthogonal (since the $`p_n`$ are) and so to satisfy (29); finally, since (28) remains valid if $`\varphi _n^{}`$ is substituted for $`\varphi _n`$ the same reasoning that leads to (29) shows the existence of a sequence $`(b_n)`$ in $`tA^{\prime \prime }t`$ as desired in (30).

Let $`0<\epsilon <1`$ and choose a sequence $`(\epsilon _n)`$ of positive numbers such that $`\epsilon _n=\epsilon `$ and $`\epsilon _n\frac{3}{4}`$ for all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$.

By induction over $`n=1,2,\mathrm{}`$ we construct a sequence $`(p_n)`$ of open projections in $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$, a sequence of indices $`(m_n)`$, a decreasing sequence $`(N_n)`$ of infinite subsets of $`\mathrm{I}N`$, i.e. $`\mathrm{}N_{n+1}N_n\mathrm{}N_1N_0=\mathrm{I}N`$, such that we have for all $`n\mathrm{I}N`$:

$`\overline{p_n}`$ $``$ $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ (32)
$`\overline{p_i}\overline{p_n}`$ $`=`$ $`0i<n`$ (33)
$`\overline{p_n}(|\varphi _m|)`$ $`<`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{72}}r^2\epsilon _n^4mN_n`$ (34)
$`p_n(|\varphi _{m_n}|)`$ $`>`$ $`r^2(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i)`$ (35)
$`m_n`$ $``$ $`N_{n1}.`$ (36)
We start the induction with $`n=1`$.
Choose $`j_1\mathrm{I}N`$ with $`1/j_1<r^2\epsilon _1^4/72`$. For $`j_1`$ and $`\epsilon _1/4`$ Lemma 8 yields a number $`\delta _1=\delta _1(j_1,\epsilon _1/4)>0`$ and without loss of generality we assume $`\delta _1\epsilon _1/4`$. By James’ distortion theorem applied to (28) there are pairwise disjoint finite sets $`F_k^{(1)}N_0=\mathrm{I}N`$, a finite sequence $`(\lambda _i^{(1)})_{iF_k^{(1)}}\mathrm{C}\text{ }`$ and functionals $`\tau _k^{(1)}=_{iF_k^{(1)}}\lambda _i^{(1)}\varphi _i`$ for $`k\mathrm{I}N`$, such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{F_k^{(1)}}{}}|\lambda _i^{(1)}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}},`$ (37)
$`(1\delta _1){\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}|\alpha _k|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\alpha _k\tau _k^{(1)}{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}|\alpha _k|(\alpha _k)_{kN_0}\mathrm{C}.`$ (38)
Again by Lemma 8 there are pairwise orthogonal open projections $`p_k^{(1)}sA^{\prime \prime }s`$, $`kj_1`$, such that

$`p_k^{(1)}(|\tau _k^{(1)}|)>(1\epsilon _1/4)\tau _k^{(1)}kj_1,`$ (39)
and since the projections can be chosen to have orthogonal closures in $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{j_1}{}}}\overline{p_k^{(1)}}\right)(|\varphi _m|)1mN_0.`$
Therefore there exist a $`k_1j_1`$ and an infinite set $`N_1N_0`$ such that

$`\overline{p_{k_1}^{(1)}}(|\varphi _m|){\displaystyle \frac{1}{j_1}}<{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\epsilon _1^4}{72}}mN_1.`$ (40)
Set $`p_1=p_{k_1}^{(1)}`$, $`\tau _1=\tau _{k_1}^{(1)}`$, $`F_1=F_{k_1}^{(1)}`$. Then (32) holds for $`n=1`$. Now we infer that

$`p_1(|\tau _1|)\stackrel{(\text{39})}{>}\tau _1(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{4}})\stackrel{(\text{38})}{}(1\delta _1)(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{4}})(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _1}{4}})^2>\sqrt{1\epsilon _1},`$
which in turn yields the existence of an index $`m_1F_1N_0`$ as desired in (35) and (36) for $`n=1`$, because otherwise we would have

$`p_1(|\tau _1|)`$ $`=`$ $`p_1\left(|{\displaystyle \underset{F_1}{}}\lambda _i^{(1)}\varphi _i|\right)`$
$`\stackrel{()}{}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_1}{}}\lambda _i^{(1)}\varphi _i\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_1}{}}p_1\left(|\lambda _i^{(1)}\varphi _i|\right)\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_1}{}}|\lambda _i^{(1)}|\right)^{1/2}\left(\underset{iF_1}{\mathrm{max}}p_1(|\varphi _i|){\displaystyle \underset{F_1}{}}|\lambda _i^{(1)}|\right)^{1/2}`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{37})}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(r^2(1\epsilon _1)\right)^{1/2}=\sqrt{1\epsilon _1}.`$
Here inequality $`()`$ follows from \[21, III.4.7\]. For (33, n=1) nothing needs to be proved. Inequality (34, n=1) corresponds to (40). The first induction step is done.
Induction step $`nn+1`$:
Suppose $`p_k`$, $`N_k`$, $`m_k`$ to be constructed for $`kn`$ according to (33) – (36).
Since the $`\overline{p_k}`$ are orthogonal in $`sA^{\prime \prime }s`$, $`_1^n\overline{p_k}`$ is closed by \[1, Th. II.7\]. Therefore $`s_n=s_1^n\overline{p_k}sA^{\prime \prime }s`$ is open. Set $`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m=\varphi _ms_n`$.
Claim:
The normalized functionals $`\left(\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}\right)_{mN_n}`$ form an $`l^1`$-basis with

$`r\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{mN_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mN_n}{}}\alpha _m{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}`$ (41)
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{mN_n}{}}|\alpha _m|(\alpha _m)_{mN_n}\mathrm{C}.`$
Set $`\eta =\frac{r^2}{72}_1^n\epsilon _i^4`$. Then

$`(ss_n)(|\varphi _m|)=\left({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{p_k}\right)(|\varphi _m|)\stackrel{(\text{34})}{<}\eta mN_n,`$ (42)
thus since $`s(|\varphi _m|)=\varphi _m=1`$

$`\varphi _ms_n\varphi _m`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{6})}{}`$ $`|2(\varphi _ms_n(|\varphi _m|))|^{1/2}`$ (43)
$`=`$ $`\left(2{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\overline{p}_k(|\varphi _m|)\right)^{1/2}\stackrel{(\text{42})}{<}\sqrt{2\eta }mN_n;`$
further we note that for all $`mN_n`$

$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m`$ $``$ $`\varphi _m=1,`$ (44)
$`01\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m`$ $`=`$ $`\varphi _m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m\varphi _m\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m\stackrel{(\text{43})}{}\sqrt{2\eta }`$ (45)
$`\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{45})}{}`$ $`1\sqrt{2\eta },`$ (46)
hence

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{44})}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}1=\left(1\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}`$ (47)
$`\stackrel{(\text{45})(\text{46})}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\sqrt{2\eta }}{1\sqrt{2\eta }}}`$
and

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}\varphi _m`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m+\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m\varphi _m`$ (48)
$`\stackrel{(\text{47})(\text{43})}{}`$ $`\sqrt{2\eta }\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{1\sqrt{2\eta }}}\right)<3\sqrt{2\eta }`$
because $`\epsilon <1`$, $`r1`$, thus $`\sqrt{2\eta }<1/2`$. Then (41) follows from

$`{\displaystyle \underset{mN_n}{}}\alpha _m{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}\alpha _m\varphi _m{\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}\alpha _m{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}{\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}\alpha _m\varphi _m`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{28})}{}`$ $`r\left(1\underset{N_n}{sup}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_m}}\varphi _m\right){\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{48})}{}`$ $`r(13\sqrt{2\eta }){\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$
$`=`$ $`r\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^4)^{1/2}\right){\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$
$`>`$ $`r\left(1({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^4)^{1/2}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{N_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$
$`>`$ $`r\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \underset{mN_n}{}}|\alpha _m|`$
and the Claim is established.

Choose a number $`j_{n+1}\mathrm{I}N`$ such that $`1/j_{n+1}<r^2\epsilon _{n+1}^2/4`$. Further choose a number $`\delta _{n+1}=\delta _{n+1}(j_{n+1},\epsilon _{n+1}^2/4)>0`$ according to Lemma 8 and such that moreover $`\delta _{n+1}\epsilon _{n+1}^2/4`$. Now we apply James’ distortion theorem. By (41) there are pairwise disjoint finite sets $`F_k^{(n+1)}N_n`$, a finite sequence $`(\lambda _i^{(n+1)})_{iF_k^{(n+1)}}\mathrm{C}\text{ }`$ and functionals $`\tau _k^{(n+1)}=_{iF_k^{(n+1)}}\lambda _i^{(n+1)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_i}`$ for each $`k\mathrm{I}N`$ such that

$`{\displaystyle \underset{iF_k^{(n+1)}}{}}|\lambda _i^{(n+1)}|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(1_1^n\epsilon _i^2)^{1/2}}}k\mathrm{I}N,`$ (49)
$`(1\delta _{n+1}){\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}|\alpha _k|`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}\alpha _k\tau _k^{(n+1)}s_n{\displaystyle \underset{k1}{}}|\alpha _k|.`$ (50)
Again by Lemma 8, applied to the open projections $`s_n`$ and $`1`$, to the functionals $`\tau _k^{(n+1)}A^{}`$, and to (50), there exist open projections $`p_k^{(n+1)}s_nA^{\prime \prime }s_n`$, $`kj_{n+1}`$, with pairwise orthogonal closures in $`s_nA^{\prime \prime }s_n`$ such that

$`p_k^{(n+1)}(|\tau _k^{(n+1)}|)>\tau _k^{(n+1)}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{n+1}^2}{4}}\right)`$ (51)
for $`kj_{n+1}`$. Since the projections have orthogonal closures we have

$`\left({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{j_{n+1}}{}}}\overline{p_k^{(n+1)}}\right)(|\varphi _m|)1mN_n.`$
Therefore there exist an index $`k_{n+1}j_{n+1}`$ and an infinite subset $`N_{n+1}N_n`$ such that

$`\overline{p_{k_{n+1}}^{(n+1)}}(|\varphi _m|){\displaystyle \frac{1}{j_{n+1}}}<{\displaystyle \frac{r^2\epsilon _{n+1}^4}{72}}mN_{n+1}.`$
Set $`p_{n+1}=p_{k_{n+1}}^{(n+1)}`$, $`\tau _{n+1}=\tau _{k_{n+1}}^{(n+1)}`$, $`F_{n+1}=F_{k_{n+1}}^{(n+1)}`$. Then (32), (33) and (34) hold for $`n+1`$. Now we infer that

$`p_{n+1}(|\tau _{n+1}|)`$ $`\stackrel{(\text{51})}{>}`$ $`\tau _{n+1}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{n+1}^2}{4}}\right)`$ (52)
$`\stackrel{(\text{50})}{}`$ $`(1\delta _{n+1})(1{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _{n+1}^2}{4}})>\sqrt{1\epsilon _{n+1}^2},`$
hence there is an index $`m_{n+1}F_{n+1}N_n`$ as desired in (36) such that

$`p_{n+1}\left({\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{m_{n+1}}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi }_{m_{n+1}}}}\right)>r^2(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right),`$ (53)
because otherwise the following estimates would contradict (52):

$`p_{n+1}(|\tau _{n+1}|)`$ $`=`$ $`p_{n+1}\left(|{\displaystyle \underset{F_{n+1}}{}}\lambda _i^{(n+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}}|\right)`$
$`\stackrel{()}{}`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_{n+1}}{}}\lambda _i^{(n+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}}\right)^{1/2}\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_{n+1}}{}}p_{n+1}(|\lambda _i^{(n+1)}{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}}|)\right)^{1/2}`$
$``$ $`\left({\displaystyle \underset{F_{n+1}}{}}|\lambda _i^{(n+1)}|\right)^{1/2}\left(\underset{iF_{n+1}}{\mathrm{max}}p_{n+1}(|{\displaystyle \frac{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}{\stackrel{~}{\varphi _i}}}|){\displaystyle \underset{F_{n+1}}{}}|\lambda _i^{(n+1)}|\right)^{1/2}`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{49})}{}`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r(1_1^n\epsilon _i^2)^{1/2}}}\left(r^2(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2)\right)^{1/2}=\sqrt{1\epsilon _{n+1}^2}.`$
Here inequality $`()`$ follows from \[21, III.4.7\]. Note that for a functional $`\varphi `$ with polar decomposition $`\varphi =u|\varphi |`$ one has $`|\varphi s|=|u|\varphi |s||\varphi |`$ by \[21, III.4.9\] which explains inequality $`()`$ below; now (35, $`n+1`$) follows from

$`p_{n+1}(|\varphi _{m_{n+1}}|)`$ $`\stackrel{()}{}`$ $`p_{n+1}(|\varphi _{m_{n+1}}s_n|)`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{53})}{>}`$ $`\varphi _{m_{n+1}}s_nr^2(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)`$
$`\stackrel{(\text{46})}{}`$ $`\left(1\sqrt{2\eta }\right)r^2(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)`$
$`>`$ $`r^2\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i\right)`$
where the last inequality follows from the following completely elementary estimates:

$`\left(1\sqrt{2\eta }\right)(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)=`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{6}}({\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^4)^{1/2}\right)(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)`$
$`>`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{r}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2)\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{r}{3}}\left[1(1\epsilon _{n+1}^2){\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{r}}\right)\epsilon _{n+1}^2\right]{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2`$
$`>`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{r}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n}{}}}\epsilon _i^2>\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i^2\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i^2`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i\right)+{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i(1\epsilon _i{\displaystyle \frac{\epsilon _i}{3}})1{\displaystyle \underset{1}{\overset{n+1}{}}}\epsilon _i`$
since we assumed $`\epsilon _i\frac{3}{4}`$ for all $`i\mathrm{I}N`$. Thus (35, $`n+1`$) is proved. This ends the induction and the proof if $`A`$ is unital.
If $`A`$ is not unital we consider its unitisation $`A_1=A\mathrm{C}\text{ }\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}`$ on which multiplication is defined by $`(a,\lambda )(b,\mu )=(ab+\lambda b+\mu a,\lambda \mu )`$. Note that if $`\widehat{\varphi }A_1^{}`$ is a norm preserving Hahn-Banach extension of $`\varphi A^{}`$ then $`|\widehat{\varphi }|A_1^{}`$ is an extension of $`|\varphi |A^{}`$. \[To see this let $`u_nA`$, $`u_n1`$ be such that $`\widehat{\varphi }=\varphi =lim\varphi (u_n)`$. Then both $`|\varphi |u_n\varphi 0`$ and $`|\widehat{\varphi }|(u_n,0)\widehat{\varphi }0`$ by (5) of Lemma 6. Hence, $`|\widehat{\varphi }|((x,0))=lim\widehat{\varphi }((x,0)(u_n,0))=lim\widehat{\varphi }((xu_n,0))=lim\varphi (xu_n)=|\varphi |(x)`$ for any $`x=(x,0)A`$.\] Let $`\widehat{\varphi }_m`$ be a norm preserving Hahn-Banach extension of $`\varphi _m`$. Then (28) remains valid and by what has been proved for the unital case we get normalized pairwise orthogonal positive $`(a_n,\lambda _n)A_1`$ such that $`(a_n,\lambda _n)s`$ and $`|\widehat{\varphi }_{m_n}|((a_n,\lambda _n))>(1\epsilon )r^2`$ for an appropriate subsequence $`(\widehat{\varphi }_{m_n})`$. Since the $`(a_n,\lambda _n)`$ are pairwise orthogonal all (but possibly one) of them have $`\lambda _n=0`$ whence $`|\varphi _{m_n}|(a_n)=|\widehat{\varphi }_{m_n}|((a_n,0))>(1\epsilon )r^2`$. Likewise, we get (30).
The last statement concerning selfadjoint functionals has been discussed in the beginning of this section.

Acknowledgement I thank Dirk Werner for several helpful discussions.

Hermann Pfitzner
Université d’Orléans
BP 6759
F-45067 Orléans Cedex 2
France
e-mail: pfitzner@labomath.univ-orleans.fr