text:
# Real C*-Algebras, United 𝐾𝐾-Theory, and the Universal Coefficient Theorem

## 1 Introduction

The Universal Coefficient Theorem for the $`K`$-theory of complex C\*-algebras, proven by Rosenberg and Schochet () in 1987, states the existence of an unnaturally split, short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Ext}_{K_{}()}(K_{}(A),K_{}(B))\stackrel{𝜅}{}KK_{}(A,B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{K_{}()}(K_{}(A),K_{}(B))0$$

for any complex separable C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`A`$ is in the bootstrap category $`𝒩`$. Recall that $`𝒩`$ is the smallest subcategory of complex, separable, nuclear C\*-algebras which contains the separable type I C\*-algebras; which is closed under the operations of taking inductive limits, stable isomorphisms, and crossed products by $``$ and $``$; and which satisfies the two out of three rule for short exact sequences (i.e. if $`0ABC0`$ is exact and two of $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ are in $`𝒩`$, then the third is also in $`𝒩)`$.

One immediate and powerful corollary of this theorem states that $`KK`$-equivalence is completely characterized by $`K`$-theory for algebras in the bootstrap class, $`𝒩`$ (see Section 7 of , Section 23.10 of , and Section 2.4 of  for this and other corollaries). The role of the Universal Coefficient Theorem in the standard toolkit in the subject of $`K`$-theory of complex C\*-algebras is considerable. In particular, it is used essentially in the proofs of $`K`$-theoretic classification theorems for simple C\*-algebras, such as those found in  and  in the purely infinite case; in  in the stably finite, real rank zero case; and in  in the tracial rank zero case.

In this paper, we consider real C\*-algebras. Recall that a real C\*-algebra $`A`$ is a Banach $``$-algebra over $``$ which satisfies the C\*-equation $`a^{}a=a^2`$ as well as the axiom that $`1+a^{}a`$ is invertible in the unitization $`\stackrel{~}{A}`$ for all $`aA`$. This is equivalent (by ; see also Chapter 15 of ) to saying that $`A`$ is isomorphic to a norm-closed adjoint-closed algebra of operators on a Hilbert space over $``$. Note that every complex C\*-algebra can be considered a real C\*-algebra by forgetting the complex structure. Conversely, given any real C\*-algebra $`A`$, we can form the complexification $`A=A_{}`$.

Except for the classification of complex AF-algebras in , which was repeated for real AF-algebras in , none of the major work in classifying complex C\*-algebras has been carried over to real C\*-algebras. One reason for this is that there is no universal coefficient theorem for real C\*-algebras. While Kasparov  considered $`KK`$-theory in a very general setting, Rosenberg and Schochet proved the universal coefficient theorem only for complex C\*-algebras as they explained, “For reasons pointed out already by Atiyah, there can be no good Künneth Theorem or Universal Coefficient Theorem for the KKO groups of real C\*-algebras; this explains why we deal only with complex C\*-algebras.” The reference to Atiyah is  wherein a counter-example is given; the essential obstruction lies in the homological algebra, namely that $`K_{}(A)`$ does not have projective or injective dimension one in the category of $`K_{}()`$-modules. In fact, the projective dimension may be infinite.

In the present paper, we remedy this situation by proving a universal coefficient theorem for real C\*-algebras using united $`K`$-theory and united $`KK`$-theory. This paper is a sequel to our earlier paper  in which we extended united $`K`$-theory from its original topological setting  to the setting of real C\*-algebras. In the present paper, we further extend these constructions, defining united $`KK`$-theory for real C\*-algebras. That is, we define $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)`$ for real C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`A`$ is separable and $`B`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital. This functor combines real $`KK`$-theory, complex $`KK`$-theory, and self-conjugate $`KK`$-theory as well as the natural transformations among the three. Thus we will show that it takes values in the category of so-called CRT-modules (also referred to as the category CRT), which is a much more hospitable setting than the category of $`K_{}()`$-modules (the main source of information on the category CRT and its hospitality is ). In , we took advantage of the fact that the object $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A)`$ has projective dimension one in CRT to prove a Künneth formula for real C\*-algebras. In the current paper, we take advantage of the fact that the same object has injective dimension one to prove the following universal coefficient theorem.

###### Theorem 1.1 (Main theorem).

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real separable C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is in the bootstrap category $`𝒩`$. Then there is a short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\stackrel{𝜅}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))0$$

where $`\kappa `$ has degree $`1`$. As in the Künneth sequence for united $`K`$-theory, this short exact sequence does not split in general.

If Rosenberg and Schochet say that no good UCT is possible for real C\*-algebras, we believe that ours is the best possible. Indeed our universal coefficient theorem does exactly what a universal coefficient theorem is supposed to do: it expresses $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)`$ (and thus $`KK_{}(A,B)`$, since united $`KK`$-theory contains real $`KK`$-theory) in terms of $`K`$-theoretic data involving $`A`$ and $`B`$; although the data required is more than just $`K_{}(A)`$ and $`K_{}(B)`$.

Furthermore, as a corollary to our universal coefficient theorem, we find that two real separable C\*-algebras whose complexifications are in the bootstrap category are $`KK`$-equivalent if and only if their united $`K`$-theories are isomorphic. If the development of new mathematical machinery is justified by its ability to answer questions that exist independently of that machinery, then this corollary justifies the development of united $`K`$-theory. Indeed, united $`K`$-theory exactly captures $`KK`$-equivalence, a notion which involves only elements in real $`KK`$-theory and is thus prior to the development of united $`K`$-theory or united $`KK`$-theory. This also strengthens our case that united $`K`$-theory is the right functor to look at for real C\*-algebras, especially when considering the possibility of a classification of real simple C\*-algebras.

The work of Hewitt in  on CRT-modules suggests that the same information can be retained in a somewhat smaller invariant. On the other hand, Bousfield has made us aware of examples of acyclic CRT-modules which are not determined by their real part. Together with our result that every acyclic CRT-module can be realized as the united $`K`$-theory of a real C\*-algebra (which will be written and published elsewhere), this implies that real $`K`$-theory alone is certainly not sufficient to determine $`KK`$-equivalence.

Our proof of the universal coefficient theorem will be found in the final section of the paper, and follows the same line of attack as in . We first prove that $`\gamma `$ is an isomorphism in case $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ is an injective CRT-module. We then tackle the general case by using a geometric injective resolution of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$. The fact that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ has injective dimension one is a necessary condition for the existence of such a geometric injective resolution.

In the intervening sections we build up the required machinery. In Section 2, we define united $`KK`$-theory and work out its main properties. Section 3 is entirely algebraic, defining $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ in the category of CRT-modules and working out its main properties.

## 2 United $`KK`$-theory

In this section, we define united $`KK`$-theory and the intersection product for united $`KK`$-theory. In this paper, each $`K`$-group or $`KK`$-group is considered as $``$-graded module with a periodicity automorphism of degree 8 (or degree 2 if the C\*-algebras are complex). This periodicity automorphism is implicit in the $`K_{}()`$-module structure described below.

### 2.1 The United $`KK`$-Theory Bifunctor

Recall from  that $`T=\{f:[0,1]f(0)=\overline{f(1)}\}`$ is the self-conjugate algebra used in the definition of self-conjugate $`K`$-theory for real C\*-algebras. We will use it here to define self-conjugate $`KK`$-theory.

###### Definition 2.1.

For any pair of real C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`A`$ is separable and $`B`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital, we define real $`KK`$-theory, complex $`KK`$-theory, and self-conjugate $`KK`$-theory as follows:

1. $`KKO_{}(A,B)=KK_{}(A,B)`$
2. $`KKU_{}(A,B)=KK_{}(A,B)`$
3. $`KKT_{}(A,B)=KK_{}(A,TB)`$

Because of the intersection product, real $`KK`$-theory takes values in the category of modules over the ring $`K_{}()`$, given in degrees $`0`$ through $`8`$ by

$$K_{}()=_2_20000$$

(see page 23 in  or Table 1 in ). The generators are the elements $`\eta _OK_0()`$, $`\xi K_4()`$, and the invertible element $`\beta _OK_8()`$. Complex $`KK`$-theory takes values in the category of modules over the ring $`K_{}()`$, which is the free polynomial ring generated by $`\beta _UK_2()`$:

$$K_{}()=0000$$

(see Table 2 in ). The action of $`\beta _U`$ on $`KK_{}(A,B)`$ is actually implemented by first letting $`\beta _U`$ pass through the natural homomorphisms

$$K_2()=KK_2(,)KK_2(,)KK_2(,)$$

and then applying the intersection product. We let $`\beta _U`$ also denote the element of $`KK_2(,)`$ which more directly implements the natural transformation on $`KK_{}(A,B)`$. Finally, self conjugate $`KK`$-theory takes values in the category of modules over the ring $`K_{}(T)=KK_{}(,T)`$

$$K_{}(T)=_20_20$$

(see Table 3 in ) with generators $`\eta _T`$ in degree 1, $`\omega `$ in degree 3, and the invertible element $`\beta _T`$ is degree 4. As in the complex case, the action of these elements on $`KK(A,TB)`$ is implemented by intersection product with corresponding elements in $`KK_{}(T,T)`$.

Furthermore, there are natural transformation

$`c_n`$ $`:KKO_n(A,B)KKU_n(A,B)`$
$`r_n`$ $`:KKU_n(A,B)KKO_n(A,B)`$
$`\epsilon _n`$ $`:KKO_n(A,B)KKT_n(A,B)`$
$`\zeta _n`$ $`:KKT_n(A,B)KKU_n(A,B)`$
$`(\psi _U)_n`$ $`:KKU_n(A,B)KKU_n(A,B)`$
$`(\psi _T)_n`$ $`:KKT_n(A,B)KKT_n(A,B)`$
$`\gamma _n`$ $`:KKU_n(A,B)KKT_{n1}(A,B)`$
$`\tau _n`$ $`:KKT_n(A,B)KKO_{n+1}(A,B)`$
among the three variants of $`KK`$-theory given by intersection product with the $`KK`$-elements

$`c`$ $`KK_0(,)`$ $`r`$ $`KK_0(,)`$
$`\epsilon `$ $`KK_0(,T)`$ $`\zeta `$ $`KK_0(T,)`$
$`\psi _U`$ $`KK_0(,)`$ $`\psi _T`$ $`KK_0(T,T)`$
$`\gamma `$ $`KK_1(,T)`$ $`\tau `$ $`KK_1(T,).`$
These elements are obtained as follows. In Section 1 of , the operations $`c`$, $`r`$, $`\epsilon `$, $`\zeta `$, $`\psi _U`$, $`\psi _T`$, and $`\gamma `$ are defined on united $`K`$-theory. Each is induced by a homomorphism among the C\*-algebras $``$, $``$, and $`T`$ (or suspensions thereof or matrix algebras thereover). Hence each produces a $`KK`$-element which implements the natural transformation. Also in Section 1 of , the operation $`\tau `$ is defined in terms of two homomorphisms $`\sigma _i:TC(S^1,M_4())`$ (for $`i=1,2`$) such that $`\pi \sigma _1=\pi \sigma _2`$ where $`\pi :C(S^1,M_4())M_4()`$ is the base-point evaluation map. Therefore there are $`KK`$-elements $`\sigma _iKK_0(T,C(S^1,))`$ such that $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ lies in the kernel of the homomorphism $`KK_0(T,C(S^1,))KK_0(T,)`$. Hence $`\sigma _1\sigma _2`$ lifts to produce a unique element $`\tau KK_0(T,S)=KK_1(T,)`$.

###### Definition 2.2 (United $`KK`$-Theory).

For any pair of real C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ such that $`A`$ is separable and $`B`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital, we define the united $`KK`$-theory to the be the triple

$$KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B):=\{KKO_{}(A,B),KKU_{}(A,B),KKT_{}(A,B)\}$$

consisting of graded modules over $`K_{}()`$, $`K_{}()`$, and $`K_{}(T)`$ (respectively) together with the operations $`\{c,r,\epsilon ,\zeta ,\psi _U,\psi _T,\gamma ,\tau \}`$.

###### Theorem 2.3.

United $`KK`$-theory is a natural bifunctor; co-variant in the second argument and contra-variant in the first argument; additive, homotopy invariant, stable, and has period 8 in both arguments; and it satisfies the following exactness properties:

Assume that $`0A\stackrel{𝛼}{}B\stackrel{𝛽}{}C0`$ is a semisplit short exact sequence of $`\sigma `$-unital C\*-algebras (semisplit means that $`\beta `$ has a completely positive cross-section with norm no more than 1). If $`D`$ is separable, there is a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D,A)\stackrel{\alpha _{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D,B)\stackrel{\beta _{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D,C)\stackrel{𝛿}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D,A)\mathrm{}.$$

If $`B`$ is separable, there is a long exact sequence

$$\mathrm{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,D)\stackrel{\alpha ^{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B,D)\stackrel{\beta ^{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(C,D)\stackrel{𝛿}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,D)\mathrm{}.$$

In either case, $`\delta `$ is a homomorphism of degree $`1`$ implemented by an element $`\delta KK_1(C,A)`$.

###### Proof.

All properties follow from the corresponding properties enjoyed by $`KK`$-theory for real C\*-algebras (see Sections 2.3-2.5 in ).

For exactness, assume that

$$0ABC0$$
(1)
is semisplit. Recall Lemma 1.23 in  which states that a short exact sequence is semisplit if and only if its complexification

$$0ABC0$$
(2)
is also semisplit. Let $`s`$ be a completely positive section of Extension 2 with norm at most 1. If we apply the functor $`C(S^1,)`$ to this last sequence we obtain the sequence

$$0C(S^1,A)C(S^1,B)C(S^1,C)0$$
(3)
which is, we claim, semisplit with section $`s_{}:fsf`$. It is easily seen that $`s_{}1`$ since $`s1`$. That $`s_{}`$ is completely positive follows from the fact that a function $`fC(X,D)`$ is positive if and only if $`f(x)`$ is positive for all $`xX`$. Therefore Sequence 3 is semisplit.

Now recall that $`T=\{fC(S^1,)f(z)=\overline{f(z)}\}`$. Then $`T=C(S^1,)`$. Hence Sequence 3 is the complexification of the sequence

$$0TATBTC0.$$
(4)
Therefore, by Lemma 1.23 in  again, Sequence 4 is semisplit.

To summarize, if Sequence 1 is semisplit, so are Sequences 2 and 4. Therefore by Theorem 2.5.6 in , there are long exact sequences in each of the three parts of united $`KK`$-theory. The maps in these long exact sequences commute with the transformation maps of united $`KK`$-theory and therefore we have long exact sequences in united $`KK`$-theory as in the statement of the Theorem. ∎

###### Proposition 2.4.

If $`A`$ and $`B`$ are real C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is separable and $`B`$ is $`\sigma `$-unital, then $`KK(A,B)`$ is an acyclic CRT-module.

The statement that $`KK(A,B)`$ is a CRT-module (see Section 2 of  or Section 1.3 of ) means that $`KK_{}(A,B)`$ is a module over $`KO_{}()=KK_{}(,)`$; that $`KK_{}(A,B)`$ is a module over $`KU_{}()=KK_{}(,)`$; that $`KK_{}(A,TB)`$ is a module over $`KT_{}()=KK_{}(,T)`$; and that the following relations hold among the operations:

$`rc`$ $`=2`$ $`\psi _U\beta _U`$ $`=\beta _U\psi _U`$ $`\xi `$ $`=r\beta _U^2c`$
$`cr`$ $`=1+\psi _U`$ $`\psi _T\beta _T`$ $`=\beta _T\psi _T`$ $`\omega `$ $`=\beta _T\gamma \zeta `$
$`r`$ $`=\tau \gamma `$ $`\epsilon \beta _O`$ $`=\beta _T^2\epsilon `$ $`\beta _T\epsilon \tau `$ $`=\epsilon \tau \beta _T+\eta _T\beta _T`$
$`c`$ $`=\zeta \epsilon `$ $`\zeta \beta _T`$ $`=\beta _U^2\zeta `$ $`\epsilon r\zeta `$ $`=1+\psi _T`$
$`(\psi _U)^2`$ $`=1`$ $`\gamma \beta _U^2`$ $`=\beta _T\gamma `$ $`\gamma c\tau `$ $`=1\psi _T`$
$`(\psi _T)^2`$ $`=1`$ $`\tau \beta _T^2`$ $`=\beta _O\tau `$ $`\tau `$ $`=\tau \psi _T`$
$`\psi _T\epsilon `$ $`=\epsilon `$ $`\gamma `$ $`=\gamma \psi _U`$ $`\tau \beta _T\epsilon `$ $`=0`$
$`\zeta \gamma `$ $`=0`$ $`\eta _O`$ $`=\tau \epsilon `$ $`\epsilon \xi `$ $`=2\beta _T\epsilon `$
$`\zeta `$ $`=\psi _U\zeta `$ $`\eta _T`$ $`=\gamma \beta _U\zeta `$ $`\xi \tau `$ $`=2\tau \beta _T.`$
The statement that $`KK(A,B)`$ is acyclic means that the following sequences are exact:

$$\mathrm{}KK_n(A,B)\stackrel{\eta _O}{}KK_{n+1}(A,B)\stackrel{𝑐}{}KK_{n+1}(A,B)\stackrel{r\beta _U^1}{}KK_{n1}(A,B)\mathrm{}$$
(5)
$$\mathrm{}KK_n(A,B)\stackrel{\eta _O^2}{}KK_{n+2}(A,B)\stackrel{𝜀}{}KK_{n+2}(A,TB)\stackrel{\tau \beta _T^1}{}KK_{n1}(A,B)\mathrm{}$$
(6)
$$\mathrm{}KK_{n+1}(A,B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}KK_n(A,TB)\stackrel{𝜁}{}KK_n(A,B)\stackrel{1\psi _U}{}KK_n(A,B)\mathrm{}$$
(7)
###### Proof of Proposition 2.4.

We first show that $`KK(A,B)`$ is acyclic. In Section 1.4 of  we produced two semisplit short exact sequences which were homotopy equivalent to

$$0S^1\stackrel{𝑐}{}0$$
(8)
and

$$0S^2\stackrel{𝜀}{}T0.$$
(9)
In the first extension, it was proven that the homomorphism $`S^1`$ is represented by the $`KK`$-element $`\eta _OKK_1(,)`$ and the connecting homomorphism in the associated long exact sequence in $`K`$-theory is represented by $`r\beta _U^1KK_2(,)`$. For the second it was proven that the homomorphism $`S^2`$ is represented by $`\eta _O^2KK_2(,)`$ and the connecting homomorphism is represented by $`\tau \beta _T^1KK_3(T,)`$.

When we tensor these sequences by $`B`$ and apply part (5) of Theorem 2.3 we obtain Sequences 5 and 6 as desired.

Sequence 7 is similarly derived from the split exact sequence

$$0S\stackrel{𝛾}{}T\stackrel{𝜁}{}0$$

where $`\gamma `$ is defined by inclusion and $`\zeta `$ is defined by evaluation at one endpoint. (See Theorem 1.5 of .)

Now we show that $`KK(A,B)`$ is a CRT-module. We must show that the CRT-relations hold in this context. Let $`M`$ and $`N`$ be elements of $`\{,,T\}`$. Each relation is of the form $`\psi =\varphi `$ where $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are natural transformations from $`KK_{}(A,MB)`$ to $`KK_{}(A,NB)`$ formed by taking the product of one or more of the CRT-operations. We will do better than show that $`\psi `$ and $`\varphi `$ are equivalent transformations — we will show that the corresponding classes in $`KK_{}(M,N)`$ are identical.

By Proposition 1.9 in  the CRT-relations hold for united $`K`$-theory. To show that they hold on the level of $`KK`$-elements it is enough to show that the homomorphism

$$\alpha :KK_{}(M,N)\text{Hom}_{K_{}()}(K_{}(M),K_{}(N))$$

is injective when $`M`$ and $`N`$ are in $`\{,,T\}`$.

We first need to compute $`KK_{}(M,N)`$ for all possible combinations of $`M`$ and $`N`$. If $`M=`$, we refer to Table 1 in  since $`KK_{}(,N)K_{}(N)`$. We determine $`KK_{}(,)`$ and $`KK_{}(T,)`$ using the sequences

$$KK_{n+1}(,)\stackrel{\eta _O}{}KK_n(,)\stackrel{𝑐}{}KK_n(,)\stackrel{r\beta _U^1}{}KK_{n+2}(,)\stackrel{\eta _O^2}{}KK_{n+1}(,)$$

and

$$KK_{n+2}(,)\stackrel{\eta _O^2}{}KK_n(,)\stackrel{𝜀}{}KK_n(T,)\stackrel{\tau \beta _T^1}{}KK_{n+3}(,)\stackrel{\eta _O^2}{}KK_{n+1}(,)$$

which are derived from 8 and 9. The remaining $`KK`$ groups are derived by using long exact sequences (again based on 8 and 9) relating $`KK(M,N)`$ to $`KK(,N)`$ for $`M,N\{,T\}`$. The results of these computations are recorded in Table 1

Now we’re ready to show that $`\alpha `$ is injective. If $`M=`$, then for any $`\theta KK_{}(M,N)`$, we have $`\alpha (\theta )(1_O)=1_O\theta =\theta `$. Therefore, $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism.

Now consider $`KK_{}(,)`$. The class $`rKK_0(,)`$ induces a non-trivial homomorphism of infinite degree from $`K_0()`$ to $`K_0()`$. Therefore the image of $`\alpha `$ in $`\text{Hom}_{K_{}()}(K_{}(),K_{}())`$ contains an infinite cyclic subgroup in degree $`0`$. Since $`KK_0(,)`$, it follows that $`\alpha `$ must be injective in degree 0. More generally, the class $`r\beta _U^nKK_{2n}(,)`$ induces a non-trivial homomorphism from $`K_0()`$ to $`K_{2n}()`$ showing that $`\alpha `$ must be injective on $`KK_{2n}(,)`$.

According to Table 1 in , $`\psi _U:K_2()K_2()`$ is multiplication by $`1`$. Therefore the elements $`\beta _U^n`$ and $`\psi _U\beta _U^n`$ induce two independent homomorphisms from $`K_{}()`$ to itself, which show that $`\alpha `$ is injective for $`KK_{2n}(,)`$.

The rest of the proof proceeds in the same way. Using Table 1 in  we study the behavior of the operations among the $`K`$-theory of $``$, $``$, and $`T`$. The elements $`\epsilon r\beta _U^n`$ and $`\gamma \beta _U^n`$ show that $`\alpha `$ is injective for $`KK_{}(,T)`$; $`r\zeta \beta _T^n`$, $`\tau \beta _T^n`$ , and $`\eta _O\tau \beta _T^n`$ for $`KK_{}(T,)`$; $`\beta _U^n\zeta `$ and $`\beta _U^nc\tau `$ for $`KK_{}(T,)`$; and finally, the elements $`\beta _T^n`$, $`\psi _T\beta _T^n`$, $`\eta _T\beta _T^n`$, $`\epsilon \tau \beta _T^n`$, $`\eta _T\epsilon \tau \beta _T^n`$, and $`\omega \beta _T^n`$ for $`KK_{}(T,T)`$. ∎

### 2.2 The Intersection Product

In this section we will describe an intersection product for united $`KK`$-theory and we will prove that this product is a CRT-pairing. Throughout this section, we assume that all C\*-algebras are separable and that enough of the C\*-algebras are nuclear so that tensor products are unique.

The intersection product (see Section 2.4 of ) for real $`KK`$-theory is a pairing

$$\alpha :KK_i(A_1,B_1D)KK_j(DA_2,B_2)KK_{i+j}(A_1A_2,B_1B_2)$$

which is natural, bilinear, and associative. The associativity implies that the pairing is bilinear over the ring $`KO_{}()=KK_{}(,)`$. Hence we have a $`KO_{}()`$-module pairing

$$\alpha _O:KKO_{}(A_1,B_1D)_{KO_{}()}KKO_{}(DA_2,B_2)KKO_{}(A_1A_2,B_1B_2).$$

We also have a $`KU_{}()`$-module pairing

$$\alpha _U:KKU_{}(A_1,B_1D)_{KU_{}()}KKU_{}(DA_2,B_2)KKU_{}(A_1A_2,B_1B_2)$$

which arises by composing the intersection product with multiplication $`_{}`$.

Similarly, since $`T`$ is commutative, the homomorphism $`T_{}TT`$ inducess a $`KT_{}()`$-module pairing

$$\alpha _T:KKT_{}(A_1,B_1D)_{KT_{}()}KKT_{}(DA_2,B_2)KKT_{}(A_1A_2,B_1B_2).$$

###### Proposition 2.5.

The pairings $`\alpha _O`$, $`\alpha _U`$, and $`\alpha _T`$ together form a natural associative CRT-pairing

$$\alpha :KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A_1,B_1D)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(DA_2,B_2)KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A_1A_2,B_1B_2)$$

###### Proof.

We must show that the CRT-pairing relations of Definition 3.1 in  hold. These relations are

1. $`c(m_O_On_O)=c(m_O)_Oc(n_O)`$
2. $`r(c(m_O)_Un_U)=m_O_Or(n_U)`$
3. $`r(m_U_Uc(n_O))=r(m_U)_On_O`$
4. $`\epsilon (m_O_On_O)=\epsilon (m_O)_T\epsilon (n_O)`$
5. $`\zeta (m_T_Tn_T)=\zeta (m_T)_U\zeta (n_T)`$
6. $`\psi _U(m_U_Un_U)=\psi _U(m_U)_U\psi _U(n_U)`$
7. $`\psi _T(m_T_Tn_T)=\psi _T(m_T)_T\psi _T(n_T)`$
8. $`\gamma (m_U_U\zeta (n_T))=\gamma (m_U)_Tn_T`$
9. $`\gamma (\zeta (m_T)_Un_U)=(1)^{|m_T|}m_T_T\gamma (n_U)`$
10. $`\tau (m_T_T\epsilon (n_O))=\tau (m_T)_On_O`$
11. $`\tau (\epsilon (m_O)_Tn_T)=(1)^{|m_O|}m_O_O\tau (n_T)`$
12. $`\epsilon \tau (m_T_Tn_T)=\epsilon \tau (m_T)_Tn_T+(1)^{|m_T|}m_T_T\epsilon \tau (n_T)+\eta _T(m_T_Tn_T).`$

where $`_O`$, $`_U`$, and $`_T`$ represent the product under the pairings $`\alpha _O`$, $`\alpha _U`$, and $`\alpha _T`$ respectively.

The first eleven relations hold for intersection products in $`KK`$-theory for the same reason that they hold for external products in $`K`$-theory: diagrams on the level of C\*-algebras which commute up to homotopy (see Lemmas 1.7 and 1.10 in ). For example, the diagram

commutes up to homotopy, as we have seen in the proof of Lemma 1.7 of . Putting in suspensions, we have the diagram

which commutes up to homotopy (recall that our convention is that the homomorphism $`\gamma :S^nS^{n1}T`$ uses the leftmost suspension) and establishes the relation $`\gamma (x_U\zeta (y))=\gamma (x)_Ty`$ for $`xKK_m(A_1,B_1D)`$ and $`yKK_n(DA_2,TB_1)`$.

The relation $`\gamma (\zeta (x)_Uy)=(1)^mx_T\gamma (y)`$ for $`xKKT_m(A_1,B_1D)`$ and $`yKKU_n(DA_2,B_2)`$ is established similarly starting from the diagram

which commutes up to homotopy. Putting in suspensions we get the diagram

which commutes up to homotopy and up to a factor of $`\iota ^n`$ where $`\iota `$ is the involution on $`S^2`$ which interchanges the two suspension factors. This factor of $`\iota `$ arises because $`\gamma `$ is required to always use the outermost suspension. Since $`\iota `$ induces multiplication by $`1`$ on $`KK`$-theory, the relation is established.

The rest of the first eleven CRT-pairing relations can also be established in this way based directly on the commutative diagrams used in establishing Lemmas 1.7 and 1.10 in .

For the twelfth relation

$$\epsilon \tau (x_Ty)=\epsilon \tau (x)_Ty+(1)^nx_T\epsilon \tau (y)+\eta _T(x_Ty)$$
(10)
for $`xKKT_m(A_1,B_1D)`$ and $`yKKT_n(DA_2,B_2)`$ we take a different tack. Let $`\varphi _T`$ be the $`KK`$-element corresponding to the C\*-algebra homomorphism $`TTT`$. The operation $`xy\epsilon \tau (x_Ty)`$ is performed by composing the product homomorphism

$$KK_m(A_1,TB_1D)KK_n(DA_1,TB_2)KK_{m+n}(A_1A_2,TTB_1B_2)$$

by the homomorphism

$$KK_{m+n}(A_1A_2,TTB_1B_2)KK_{m+n+1}(A_1A_2,TB_1B_2)$$

that is induced by the $`KK`$-element $`\epsilon \tau \varphi _TKK_1(TT,T)`$.

Meanwhile the right side of Equation 10 is the image of $`xy`$ under an operation which is obtained in exactly the same way, except that the relevant $`KK`$-element is $`\varphi _T(\epsilon \tau 1)+(1)^n\varphi _T(1\epsilon \tau )+\eta _T\varphi _T`$. We will show that these two $`KK`$-elements are identical.

We know that these two operations agree in the case $`A_1=A_2=B_1=B_2=D=`$ by Proposition 4.1 of . Therefore, it is enough to show that the map

$$\alpha :KK_{}(TT,T)\text{Hom}_{}(K_{}(TT),K_{}(T))$$

is injective. Lemma 2.6, which follows, implies the existence of a split exact sequence

$$0STTTT0$$

which allows us to make the decompositions

$`KK_{}(TT,T)`$ $`KK_{}(ST,T)KK_{}(T,T)`$
$`\text{Hom}_{}(K_{}(TT),K_{}(T))`$ $`\text{Hom}_{}(K_{}(ST),K_{}(T))\text{Hom}_{}(K_{}(T),K_{}(T)).`$
Since $`\alpha `$ respects this direct sum decomposition, it suffices to show that the map

$$KK_{}(T,T)\text{Hom}(K_{}(T),K_{}(T))$$

is injective. But this fact was established in the proof of Proposition 2.4. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6.

There is a C\*-algebra isomorphism $`TTC(S^1,T)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=[0,1]`$. Then $`T\{f:If(0)=\overline{f(1)}\}`$ so we have

TT{f:I2f(0,t)=f(1,t)¯ and f(s,0)=

f(s,1)
}tensor-product𝑇𝑇conditional-set𝑓superscript𝐼2conditionaltensor-product𝑓0𝑡¯𝑓1𝑡 and 𝑓𝑠0

f(s,1)
\displaystyle T\otimes T\cong\{f\colon I^{2}\rightarrow{\mathbb{C}}\otimes{\mathbb{C}}\mid f(0,t)=\overline{f(1,t)}\text{~{}and~{}}f(s,0)=\vbox{\noindent\offinterlineskip\hbox to27.88199pt{\cleaders\hbox{$\displaystyle\scriptscriptstyle\mathrel{\sim}\mkern-5.0mu$}\hss}
\vskip 1.0pt\hbox{$\displaystyle f(s,1)$}}\}
where the straight bar represents conjugation in the first factor of $``$ and the wavy bar represents conjugation in the second factor.

Now, recall from  the isomorphism $``$ given by $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1+\lambda _2)1+\frac{1}{2}(\lambda _1\lambda _2)ii`$. Under this isomorphism, conjugation in the first factor of $``$ corresponds to the involution $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)(\overline{\lambda _2},\overline{\lambda _1})`$ while conjugation in the second factor corresponds to the involution $`(\lambda _1,\lambda _2)(\lambda _2,\lambda _1)`$.

Therefore,

$$TT\{f,g:I^2f(0,t)=\overline{g(1,t)},g(0,t)=\overline{f(1,t)},f(s,0)=g(s,1),\text{ and }g(s,0)=f(s,1)\}.$$

Next, we use the gluing operation $`(f,g)h`$ defined by

$$h(s,t)=\{\begin{array}{cc}f(s,2t)\hfill & t1/2\hfill \\ g(s,2t1)\hfill & t1/2\hfill \end{array}$$

which gives us an isomorphism

$$TT\{h:I^2h(s,0)=h(s,1)\text{ and }h(0,t)=\overline{h(1,t+\frac{1}{2})}\}$$

where the addition $`t+\frac{1}{2}`$ is done modulo $`1`$.

Finally, we untwist this algebra using the operation $`hh^{}`$ defined by $`h^{}(s,t)=h(s,t+s/2)`$ where, again, addition is modulo $`1`$. Hence we finally have

$$TT\{h:I^2h(s,0)=h(s,1)\text{ and }h(0,t)=\overline{h(1,t)}\}C(S^1,T)$$

## 3 The Hom functor in CRT

This section is entirely algebraic, wherein we define the functor $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ and work out the properties of this functor necessary for our development of the universal coefficient theorem. Note that $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ does not refer to the graded group of CRT-morphisms from $`M`$ to $`N`$, which we denote $`[M,N]_{}`$. Instead, we will (in Section 3.1) define $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ to be a CRT-module $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ such that the adjoint relationship

$$[L,\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)]_{}[L_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_{}$$

holds for all CRT-modules $`L`$, $`M`$, and $`N`$. (See section 3 of  for tensor products in CRT.)

In Section 3.2, we prove three propositions which characterize $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ when $`M`$ is a monogenic free $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}`$-module. These theorems help us get a more concrete handle on the Homfunctor in CRT. Indeed, based on these theorems, one strategy to compute $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ when $`M`$ is acyclic is to build a free resolution of $`M`$ and apply the functor $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,N)`$ to the resolution. Finally, in Section 3.3, we prove a couple propositions giving sufficient conditions for acyclicity of $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$.

### 3.1 Defining $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$

In what follows, for any $`i`$ and any $`X\{O,U,T\}`$, let $`F(b,i,X)`$ be the free CRT-module with a single generator $`bF(b,i,X)_i^X`$. These modules are described in Section 2.4 of  and in Section 2.1 of .

###### Definition 3.1.

Given two CRT-modules $`M`$ and $`N`$, we define the CRT-module $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ as follows

1. For $`i`$ and $`X\{O,U,T\}`$, we define $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X`$ to be the group of CRT-module homomorphisms of degree 0 from $`F(b,i,X)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M`$ to $`N`$. That is,

$$\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X=[F(b,i,X)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0$$
2. Let $`\theta :L_i^XL_j^Y`$ be a CRT-operation and let $`\mu _\theta `$ be the function $`F(c,j,Y)F(b,i,X)`$ which carries $`c`$ to $`\theta (b)F(b,i,X)_j^Y`$. Then for any $`\alpha \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X=[F(b,i,X)M,N]_0`$, define $`\theta (\alpha )\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_j^Y=[F(c,j,Y)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0`$ by the formula $`\theta (\alpha )=\alpha (\mu _\theta 1)`$. This describes the operation

$$\theta :\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_j^Y$$

###### Proposition 3.2.

$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,)`$ is a bifunctor with values in CRT which is contravariant in the first argument and covariant in the second.

###### Proof.

The only statement that is not clear is that $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is a CRT-module if $`M`$ and $`N`$ are. To show that the CRT-relations are all satisfied, it suffices to show that if $`\varphi \psi =\theta `$ is a general CRT-relation, then it holds in $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$. Suppose that $`\psi :L_i^XL_j^Y`$ ; that $`\varphi :L_j^YL_k^Z`$; that and $`\theta :L_i^XL_k^Z`$. Then the CRT-morphisms

$`\mu _\psi `$ $`:F(c,j,Y)F(b,i,X)`$
$`\mu _\varphi `$ $`:F(d,k,Z)F(c,j,Y)`$
$`\mu _\theta `$ $`:F(d,k,Z)F(b,i,X)`$
defined as above satisfy $`\mu _\theta =\mu _\psi \mu _\varphi `$. Hence if $`\alpha `$ is any element of $`[F(b,i,X)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0`$ then $`(\varphi \psi )(\alpha )=\theta (\alpha )`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`L`$, $`M`$, and $`N`$ are CRT-modules, then there is a natural isomorphism of graded groups

$$[L_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_{}[L,\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)]_{}$$

###### Proof.

For simplicity, we will consider only homomorphisms of degree 0. The isomorphism in arbitrary degree can be established analogously (or by suspending algebras).

We will define natural transformations

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ $`:[L_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0[L,\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)]_0`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ $`:[L,\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)]_0[L_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0`$
which are inverse to each other.

First we define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Let $`\alpha :L_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}MN`$ and let $`lL_i^X`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(l)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X=[F(b,i,X)M,N]_0`$ is defined to be the composite

$$F(b,i,X)M\stackrel{\mu _b^l1}{}LM\stackrel{𝛼}{}N$$

where $`\mu _b^l`$ is the CRT-homomorphism which carries the generator $`bF(b,i,X)`$ to the element $`lL_i^X`$. The formula for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(l)=\alpha (\mu _b^l1)`$.

To see that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )`$ is a CRT-morphism, let $`\theta `$ be a CRT-operation sending $`lL_i^X`$ to $`\theta (l)L_j^Y`$. Let $`bF(b,i,X)`$ and let $`cF(c,j,Y)`$. Then

$`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(\theta (l))`$ $`=\alpha (\mu _c^{\theta (l)}1)`$
$`=\alpha (\mu _b^l1)(\mu _c^{\theta (b)}1)`$
$`=\alpha (\mu _b^l1)(\mu _\theta 1)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(l)(\mu _\theta 1)`$
$`=\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(l)).`$
Now we define $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`\beta :L\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ be given. For any $`lL_i^X`$, the element $`\beta (l)`$ is in $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^X=[F(b,i,X)M,N]_0`$. So we can define $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )[LM,N]_0`$ by the formula

$$\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(lm)=\beta (l)(bm).$$

on the pure tensors of $`LM`$. To show that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )`$ is an element of $`[LM,N]`$, we must show that it is a CRT-pairing. Most of the CRT-pairing relations are of the form

$$\theta _1(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\theta _2(l)\theta _3(m)))=\psi _1(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\psi _2(l)\psi _3(m)))$$

for certain CRT-operations $`\theta _i`$ and $`\psi _i`$. To show this holds, we use the fact that $`\beta (l)`$ is a CRT-pairing for any $`lL_i^X`$. Let $`\theta _2(l)L_j^Y`$ and let $`c`$ be the generator of $`F(c,j,Y)`$. Then

$`\theta _1(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\theta _2(l)\theta _3(m)))`$ $`=\theta _1(\beta (\theta _2(l))(c\theta _3(m)))`$
$`=\theta _1(\theta _2(\beta (l)(c\theta _3(m)))`$
$`=\theta _1(\beta (l)(\mu _{\theta _2}(c)\theta _3(m)))`$
$`=\theta _1(\beta (l)(\theta _2(b)\theta _3(m)))`$
$`=\psi _1(\beta (l)(\psi _2(b)\psi _3(m)))`$
$`=\psi _1(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\psi _2(l)\psi _3(m)))`$
The most general form of the CRT-pairing relations is

$$\theta _1(\alpha (\theta _2(l)\theta _3(m)))=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(\psi _{i,1}(\alpha (\psi _{i,2}(l)\psi _{i,3}(m))))$$

which can be demonstrated similarly.

Finally, we need to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are inverses. To show $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$, let $`\beta [L,\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)]_0`$ be given. For any $`lL_i^X`$ and for any arbitrary pure tensor $`\theta (b)mF(b,i,X)M`$ we have

$`((\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta })\beta )(l)(\theta (b)m)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta ))(l)(\theta (b)m)`$
$`=(\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\mu _b^l1))(\theta (b)m)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\beta )(\theta (l)m)`$
$`=\beta (\theta (l))(cm)`$
$`=\theta (\beta (l))(cm)`$
$`=\beta (l)(\mu _\theta (c)m)`$
$`=\beta (l)(\theta (b)m).`$
To show $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, let $`\alpha [LM,N]_0`$ be given. Then

$`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })(\alpha )(lm)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha ))(lm)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(l)(bm)`$
$`=\alpha (\mu _b^l1)(bm)`$
$`=\alpha (lm).`$
For fixed a fixed CRT-module $`M`$ the co-variant functor $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,)`$ is left exact because of its adjoint property (Theorem 2.6.1 in ). Therefore according to Definition 2.5.1 in , and since by Section 3.1 in  there are enough injectives in CRT, we obtain the derived functor $`\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ which again is an element of CRTfor any two CRT-modules $`M`$ and $`N`$.

The following propositions give us a more concrete representation of the real and complex parts of $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$. The isomorphisms given are of graded groups.

###### Proposition 3.4.

If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are CRT-modules, then

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)^O[M,N]_{}.$$

###### Proof.

$$\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_i^O=[F(b,i,)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M,N]_0[M,N]_i$$

###### Proposition 3.5.

If $`M`$ and $`N`$ are CRT-modules, then

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)^U\mathrm{Hom}_{KU_{}()}(M^U,N^U).$$

###### Proof.

By use of suspensions, the problem is reduced to that of showing that the two graded groups are isomorphic in graded degree zero. By definition, $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)^U=[F(b,0,)M,N]_0`$. Recall from Proposition 3.6 of  that

$`F(b,0,)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}M`$ $`\{\{r(bm_U)m_UM_U\},`$
$`\{bm_1+\psi _U(bm_2)m_iM_U\},`$
$`\{\gamma (bm_1)+\epsilon r(bm_2)m_iM_U\}\}\}`$
Any degree-0, CRT-module homomorphism from $`F(b,0,)M`$ to $`N`$ restricts to a degree-0, $`KU_{}()`$-module homomorphism from $`M`$ to $`N`$ by restricting to elements of the form $`bm`$ for $`mM`$. This gives us a natural transformation

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }:\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_0^U\text{Hom}_{KU_{}()}(M^U,N^U)_0.$$

To define an inverse

$$\mathrm{\Delta }:\text{Hom}_{KU_{}()}(M^U,N^U)_0\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)_0^U$$

let $`\varphi :M^UN^U`$ be a degree-0, $`KU_{}()`$-module homomorphism. Then define $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(\varphi )[F(b,0,)M,N]`$ by

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )r(bm)`$ $`=r\varphi (m)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )(bm)`$ $`=\varphi (m)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\varphi _U(bm)`$ $`=\psi _U\varphi (m)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\gamma (bm)`$ $`=\gamma \varphi (m)`$
$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\epsilon r(bm)`$ $`=\epsilon r\varphi (m)`$
It is clear that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are inverses once we are convinced that $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )`$ is an honest CRT-module homomorphism. We must show that all of the CRT-operations commute with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )`$. This is fairly straightforward but involves many tedious computations. As a representative example we will show that the operation $`\omega `$ commutes with $`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )`$, when operating on elements of the form $`\gamma (bm)`$ and $`\epsilon r(bm)`$.

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\omega \gamma (bm)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\beta _T\gamma \zeta \gamma (bm)`$
$`=0`$
$`=\beta _T\gamma \zeta \gamma \varphi (m)`$
$`=\omega \gamma \varphi (m)`$
$`=\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\gamma (bm)`$
and

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\omega \epsilon r(bm)`$ $`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\beta _T\gamma \zeta \epsilon r(bm)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\beta _T\gamma (1+\psi _U)(bm)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )2\gamma \beta _U^2(bm)`$
$`=\mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\gamma (b2\beta _U^2m)`$
$`=\gamma \varphi (2\beta _U^2m)`$
$`=2\beta _T\gamma \varphi (m)`$
$`=\beta _T\gamma (1+\psi _U)\varphi (m)`$
$`=\beta _T\gamma \zeta \epsilon r\varphi (m)`$
$`=\omega \mathrm{\Delta }(\varphi )\epsilon r(bm).`$
### 3.2 Hom and free objects

Recall that if $`M`$ is a $``$-graded object, then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }M`$ is the $``$-graded object defined by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }M)_n=M_{n+1}`$. Now, given a CRT-module $`N`$, let $`(N)`$ be the CRT-module defined to be the triple of graded groups, $`\{N^U,N^UN^U,\mathrm{\Sigma }N^UN^U\}`$ with CRT-operations

$`\epsilon (n)`$ $`=(0,n)`$
$`\zeta (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(n_2,n_2)`$
$`\psi _U(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(n_2,n_1)`$
$`\psi _T(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(n_1,n_2)`$
$`\gamma (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(n_1+n_2,0)`$
$`\tau (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=n_1`$
with $`c`$ and $`r`$ defined by $`c=\zeta \epsilon `$ and $`r=\tau \gamma `$. It is convenient to write the elements of this CRT-module formally as

$`(N)`$ $`=\{\{r(n_U)n_UN^U\},`$
$`\{n_Un_UN^U\}\{\psi _U(n_U)n_UN^U\},`$
$`\{\gamma (n_U)n_UN^U\}\{\epsilon r(n_U)n_UN^U\}\}.`$
Also, $`𝔗(N)`$ is defined to be the triple $`\{N^T,N^U\mathrm{\Sigma }N^U,N^T\mathrm{\Sigma }N^T\}`$ with operations as given below:

$`\epsilon (n)`$ $`=(n,(1)^{|n|}\epsilon \tau (n))`$
$`\zeta (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(\zeta (n_1),\zeta (n_2))`$
$`\psi _U(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(\psi _U(n_1),\psi _U(n_2))`$
$`\psi _T(n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(\psi _T(n_1)+(1)^{(|n_2|+1)}\beta _T^1\omega (n_2),\psi _T(n_2))`$
$`\gamma (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=(\gamma (n_1),\gamma (n_2))`$
$`\tau (n_1,n_2)`$ $`=\epsilon \tau (n_1)+\eta _T(n_1)+(1)^{|n_2|}n_2`$
In these formulas, the notation $`|n|`$ refers to the inherent graded degree of the element $`nN`$.

###### Proposition 3.6.

Let $`N`$ be an arbitrary CRT-module. Then there is a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F(b,0,),N)N$$

###### Proposition 3.7.

Let $`N`$ be an arbitrary CRT-module. Then there is a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F(b,0,),N)(N)$$

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`N`$ be an arbitrary CRT-module. Then there is a natural isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F(b,0,T),N)𝔗(N)$$

###### Proof of Proposition 3.6.

Let $`F=F(b,0,)`$. For any $`i`$ and $`X\{O,U,T\}`$ we have an isomorphism

$$N_i^X[F(c,i,X),N]_0[F(c,i,X)F,N]_0=\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^X$$

given by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }:ff(cb)`$ (or simply $`ff(b)`$). So $`N`$ and $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)`$ are isomorphic as graded groups. To show that the $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}`$-operations coincide, it suffices to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ commutes with a typical $`\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}`$-operation $`\theta :N_i^XN_j^Y`$. Given any $`f[F(c,i,X),N]_0`$:

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }(\theta (f))=(\theta (f))(c)=(f\mu _\theta )(c)=f(\theta (c))=\theta (f(c))=\theta (\mathrm{\Gamma }(f)).$$

###### Proof of Proposition 3.7.

Let $`F=F(b,0,)`$. Then for any integer $`i`$ we have

$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^O`$ $`=[F(c,i,)F,N]_0`$
$`=[F(x,i,),N]_0`$
$`=N_i^U`$
$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^U`$ $`=[F(c,i,)F,N]_0`$
$`=[F(y,i,)F(z,i,),N]_0`$
$`=N_i^UN_i^U`$
$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ $`=[F(c,i,T)F,N]_0`$
$`=[F(u,i,)F(v,i+1,),N]_0`$
$`=N_i^U\mathrm{\Sigma }N_i^U`$
since $`F(c,i,)F(b,0,)`$ has free generator $`x=c(c)b`$; the CRT-module $`F(c,i,)F(b,i,)`$ has free generators $`y=cb`$ and $`z=\psi _U(c)b`$; and $`F(c,i,T)F(b,i,)`$ has free generators $`u=\zeta (c)b`$ and $`v=c\tau (c)b`$ (using Propositions 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 of ). Again, we have the isomorphism we want on the level of graded groups. We will show that the isomorphism respects the CRT-operations.

For any $`nN_i^U`$, let $`n^x[F(c,i,)F,N]_0=\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^O`$ be the CRT-homomorphism which carries $`x`$ to $`n`$. In $`[F(c,i,)F,N]_0=\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^U`$, let $`n^y`$ (respectively $`n^z`$) be the CRT-homomorphism which carries $`y`$ (respectively $`z`$) to $`n`$ and $`z`$ (respectively $`y`$) to $`0`$. For $`nN_i^U`$, let $`n^u`$ (respectively $`n^v`$) be the element of $`[F(c,i,T)F,N]_0=\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ which carries $`u`$ (respectively $`v`$) to $`n`$ and vanishes on $`v`$ (respectively $`u`$). Finally, for $`nN_{i+1}^U`$, let $`n^v[F(c,i,T)F,N]=\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ be the CRT-homomorphism which carries $`v`$ to $`n`$ and vanishes on $`u`$.

The four relations

$`r(n^y)`$ $`=n^x`$
$`\gamma (n^y)`$ $`=n^v`$
$`\epsilon (n^x)`$ $`=n^u`$
$`\psi _U(n^y)`$ $`=n^z`$
are demonstrated below and are sufficient to establish that the two CRT-modules under consideration are isomorphic.

$`r(n^y)(x)`$ $`=n^y(\mu _r1)(c(c)b)`$
$`=n^y(cr(c)b)`$
$`=n^y((1+\psi _U)(c)b)`$
$`=n^y(y+z)`$
$`=n`$
$`\gamma (n^y)(u)`$ $`=n^y(\mu _\gamma 1)(\zeta (c)b)`$
$`=n^y(\zeta (\gamma (c))b)`$
$`=0`$
$`\gamma (n^y)(v)`$ $`=n^y(\mu _\gamma 1)(c\tau (c)b)`$
$`=n^y(c\tau \gamma (c)b)`$
$`=n^y((1+\psi _U)(c)b)`$
$`=n^y(y+z)`$
$`=n`$
$`\epsilon (n^x)(u)`$ $`=n^x(\mu _\epsilon 1)(\zeta (c)b)`$
$`=n^x(\zeta \epsilon (c)b)`$
$`=n^x(c(c)b)`$
$`=n`$
$`\epsilon (n^x)(v)`$ $`=n^x(\mu _\epsilon 1)(c\tau (c)b)`$
$`=n^x(c\tau \epsilon (c)b)`$
$`=0`$
$`\psi _U(n^y)(y)`$ $`=n^y(\mu _\psi 1)(cb)`$
$`=n^y(\psi _U(c)b)`$
$`=n^y(z)`$
$`=0`$
$`\psi _U(n^y)(z)`$ $`=n^y(\mu _\psi 1)(\psi _U(c)b)`$
$`=n^y(y)`$
$`=n`$
###### Proof of Proposition 3.8.

Let $`F=F(b,0,T)`$. Then we have

$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^O`$ $`=[F(c,i,)F,N]`$
$`=[F(x,i,T),N]`$
$`=N_i^T`$
$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^U`$ $`=[F(c,i,)F,N]`$
$`=[F(y,i,)F(z,i+1,),N]`$
$`=N_i^U\mathrm{\Sigma }N_i^U`$
$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ $`=[F(c,i,T)F,N]`$
$`=[F(u,i,T)F(v,i+1,T),N]`$
$`=N_i^T\mathrm{\Sigma }N_i^T`$
since, again referring to Section 3 of , $`F(c,i,)F(b,0,T)`$ has a free generator $`x=\epsilon (c)b`$; the CRT-module $`F(c,i,)F(b,0,T)`$ has free generators $`y=c\zeta b`$ and $`z=cc\tau b`$; and $`F(c,i,T)F(b,0,T)`$ has free generators $`u=cb`$ and $`v=c\epsilon \tau b`$.

As in the previous proof, we designate the following elements: $`n^x\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^O`$ for any $`nN_i^T`$; $`n^y\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^U`$ for $`nN_i^U`$; $`n^z\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^U`$ for any $`nN_{i+1}^U`$; $`n^u\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ for any $`nN_i^T`$; and finally $`n^v\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F,N)_i^T`$ for any $`nN_{i+1}^T`$.

To show that we have an isomorphism of CRT-modules we need to show that the relations in the definition of $`𝔗(N)`$ hold for these elements defined in the previous paragraph.

$`\epsilon (n^x)`$ $`=n^u+(1)^i(\epsilon \tau (n))^v=n^u+(1)^{|n|}(\epsilon \tau (n))^v`$
$`\zeta (n^u)`$ $`=(\zeta n)^y`$
$`\zeta (n^v)`$ $`=(\zeta n)^z`$
$`\psi _U(n^y)`$ $`=(\psi _Un)^y`$
$`\psi _U(n^z)`$ $`=(\psi _Un)^z`$
$`\psi _T(n^u)`$ $`=(\psi _Tn)^u`$
$`\psi _T(n^v)`$ $`=(1)^i\beta _T^1\omega n^u+(\psi _Tn)^v=(1)^{(|n|+1)}\beta _T^1\omega n^u+(\psi _Tn)^v`$
$`\gamma (n^y)`$ $`=(\gamma n)^z`$
$`\gamma (n^z)`$ $`=(\gamma n)^z`$
$`\tau (n^u)`$ $`=(\epsilon \tau n+\eta _Tn)^x`$
$`\tau (n^v)`$ $`=(1)^{i+1}n^x=(1)^{|n|}n^x`$
We will work out a few of these, leaving the rest for the reader. The calculations

$`\epsilon (n^x)(u)`$ $`=n^x(\epsilon (c)b)=n`$
$`\epsilon (n^x)(v)`$ $`=n^x(\epsilon (c)\epsilon \tau b)`$
$`=\epsilon n^x(c\tau b)`$
$`=(1)^i\epsilon \tau n^x(\epsilon (c)b)`$
$`=(1)^i\epsilon \tau (n)`$
$`\tau (n^u)(x)`$ $`=n^u(\epsilon \tau (c)b)`$
$`=n^u(\epsilon \tau (cb)+(1)^{i+1}c\epsilon \tau b+\eta _Tcb)`$
$`=\epsilon \tau n+\eta _Tn`$
$`\tau (n^v)(x)`$ $`=n^v(\epsilon \tau (c)b)`$
$`=n^v(\epsilon \tau (cb)+(1)^{i+1}c\epsilon \tau b+\eta _Tcb)`$
$`=(1)^{i+1}n`$
show that $`\epsilon (n^x)=n^u+(1)^i(\epsilon \tau n)^v`$; $`\tau (n^u)=(\epsilon \tau n+\eta _Tn)^x`$; and $`\tau (n^v)=(1)^{i+1}n^x`$. ∎

### 3.3 Hom and acyclic objects

###### Proposition 3.9.

Let $`M`$ be a free CRT-module and $`N`$ be an acyclic CRT-module. Then $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is acyclic.

###### Proof.

First we consider the case that $`M`$ is monogenic. If $`M=F(b,0,)`$, then by Proposition 3.6 $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)N`$ which is acyclic.

If $`M=F(b,0,)`$, then $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)(N)`$ by Proposition 3.7. We claim that $`(N)`$ is acyclic. In fact, by comparing to Proposition 3.6 in , the CRT-module $`(N)`$ is isomorphic to $`F(b,0,)N`$, which is acyclic by Lemma 3.11 in .

If $`M=F(b,0,T)`$, then $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)𝔗(N)`$ by Proposition 3.8. By Proposition 3.7 in ,

$`F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N`$ $`\{\{\tau (bn_T)n_TN_T\},`$
$`\{\zeta bn_Un_UN_U\}\{c\tau bn_Un_UN_U\},`$
$`\{bn_Tn_TN_T\}\{\epsilon \tau bn_Tn_TN_T\}\}`$
$`\{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1N_T,N_U\mathrm{\Sigma }^1N_U,N_T\mathrm{\Sigma }^1N_T\}.`$
It can easily be shown that the defining relations of $`𝔗(N)`$ are satisfied by the elements

$`(1)^{|n_T|}\tau (bn_T)`$ $`(F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N)^O`$
$`(1)^{|n_U|}c\tau bn_U`$ $`(F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N)^U`$
$`\zeta bn_U`$ $`(F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N)^U`$
$`(1)^{|n_T|}(\epsilon \tau bn_T+\eta _T(bn_T))`$ $`(F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N)^T`$
$`bn_T`$ $`(F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N)^T`$
of $`F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N`$. Therefore, $`𝔗(N)`$ is isomorphic to $`F(b,0,T)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}N`$ (with a shift); and so Lemma 3.13 in  implies that $`𝔗(N)`$ is acyclic.

Now the suspension formula

$$\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(\mathrm{\Sigma }M,N)=\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)$$

follows directly from the definition and implies that $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is acyclic if we take $`M`$ to be any free monogenic CRT-module.

Finally, we can write an arbitrary free CRT-module as a direct sum of monogenic free CRT-modules (see Section 2.4 of ). Let $`M={\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}M_\lambda `$. Then we claim that $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M_\lambda ,N)`$. It then follows that $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is acyclic. To prove the claim, we have

$`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}({\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}M_\lambda ,N)_i^X`$ $`[F(b,i,X){\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}M_\lambda ,N]`$
$`[{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\left(F(b,i,X)M_\lambda \right),N]`$ by Lemma IV.1.6 in
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}[F(b,i,X)M_\lambda ,N]`$ by Exercise A.1.4 in
$`{\displaystyle \underset{\lambda \mathrm{\Lambda }}{}}\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M_\lambda ,N)_i^X.`$
Since these isomorphisms are natural, they commute with respect to any homomorphism $`\mu _\theta :F(c,j,Y)F(b,i,X)`$ and so we have a CRT-module homomorphism as desired. ∎

###### Proposition 3.10.

Let $`M`$ be an acyclic CRT-module and let $`N`$ be an injective CRT-module. Then $`\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is acyclic.

###### Proof.

Because $`M`$ is acyclic, it has projective dimension at most 1 (Theorem 3.4 in ) so we can form a resolution of $`M`$

$$0F_1F_0M0$$

where $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$ are projective. Then by Theorem 3.2 in  $`F_0`$ and $`F_1`$ are free. Now, applying $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,N)`$ to this resolution, we obtain

$$\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_1,N)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_0,N)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)0.$$

Since $`N`$ is injective, $`\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)=0`$ so we have a short exact sequence of CRT-modules.

By Theorem 3.3 in , the injectivity of $`N`$ implies it is acyclic. Then by Proposition 3.9, $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_0,N)`$ and $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_1,N)`$ are acyclic. Finally, the Snake Lemma (1.3.2 in ) implies $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(M,N)`$ is acyclic. ∎

## 4 The Universal Coefficient Theorem

By Proposition 3.3, the CRT-pairing

$$\alpha :KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,A)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,B)$$

described in Section 2.2 implies the existence of a natural CRT-homomorphism

$$\gamma :KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))$$

which is the adjoint of $`\alpha `$. We note that we are also implicitly making use of the isomorphism between $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,A)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)`$ and $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(,A)`$.

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real separable C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is in the bootstrap category $`𝒩`$. Then there is a short exact sequence

$`0\mathrm{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\stackrel{𝜅}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)\stackrel{𝛾}{}\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))0`$ where $`\kappa `$ has degree $`1`$.

As in Rosenberg and Schochet in , the proof of this theorem will proceed in two steps. The first step (in Section 4.1) addresses the special case in which $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ is injective and the second step (in Section 4.2) uses a geometric injective resolution of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ to extend the result to arbitrary separable $`B`$. Our debt to Rosenberg and Schochet goes beyond analogy, however, since we will actually reduce our proof in the special case to an application of the universal coefficient theorem for complex C\*-algebras.

In section 4.3, we will discuss the most immediate ramifications of Theorem 4.1. Throughout the rest of this paper, all C\*-algebras are assumed to be separable.

### 4.1 Proof of the UCT — Special Case

In the special case that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ is injective, the CRT-module $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))`$ vanishes. Therefore the universal coefficient theorem collapses to the following.

###### Proposition 4.2.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is in $`𝒩`$ and $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ is an injective CRT-module. Then

$$\gamma :KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)\mathrm{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))$$

is an isomorphism.

Before we prove this proposition, we need two lemmas relating $`KK`$-theory for real C\*-algebras to $`KK`$-theory for complex C\*-algebras. Up to this point, we have been dealing entirely with real $`KK`$-theory which for real C\*-algebras $`A`$ and $`B`$ is defined in terms of real Kasparov bimodules as in , Section 2.3. Recall that a real Kasparov $`(A,B)`$-bimodule is a triple $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$ consisting of a Hilbert $`B`$-module $`E`$, a graded \*-homomorphism $`\varphi :A_B(E)`$, and a degree one operator $`T_B(E)`$ such that the elements $`(TT_{})\varphi (a)`$, $`(T^21)\varphi (a)`$, and $`[T,\varphi (a)]`$ all lie in $`𝒦_B(E)`$ for all $`aA`$. In particular, even if $`A`$ and $`B`$ happen to be complex C\*-algebras, the homomorphism $`\varphi `$ is only required to be real. Note that if $`B`$ is a complex C\*-algebra, then $`E`$ (and hence $`_B(E)`$) inherits a complex structure using the approximate identity of $`B`$ together with the fact that the approximate identity for $`B`$ is an approximate identity for the action of $`B`$ on $`E`$ (Lemma 1.1.4 of ).

By contrast, if $`A`$ and $`B`$ are complex C\*-algebras, let $`KK_{}(A,B)`$ denote the complex $`KK`$-theory comprised of equivalence classes of complex Kasparov bimodules $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$. This is the $`KK`$-theory of Rosenberg and Schochet’s Universal Coefficient Theorem. The difference is that now $`\varphi `$ is required to respect the complex structures of $`A`$ and $`_B(E)`$. Since every complex homomorphism is a real homomorphism, there is a natural transformation $`\rho :KK_{}(A,B)KK(A,B)`$ which forgets the complex structures. The next lemma describes another natural transformation connecting the two versions of $`KK`$-theory.

###### Lemma 4.3.

Let $`A`$ be a real C\*-algebra and let $`B`$ be a complex C\*-algebra. There is a natural isomorphism $`\nu :KK_{}(A,B)KK(A,B)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$ be a complex Kasparov $`(A,B)`$-bimodule representing an element of $`KK_{}(A,B)`$. Then by restricting $`\varphi `$ to $`\varphi |_A:A_B(E)`$, we obtain a real Kasparov $`(A,B)`$-bimodule $`(E,\varphi |_A,T)`$. This mapping induces a homomorphism $`\nu `$ which has an inverse: given a real Kasparov $`(A,B)`$-bimodule $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$, the homomorphism $`\varphi :A_B(E)`$ extends uniquely to a complex homomorphism $`\varphi _{}:A_B(E)`$ using the complex structure of $`_B(E)`$. ∎

Now, we recall the mechanics of the intersection product described for the general case in . Other expositions include Section 2.4 in  for real C\*-algebras; and Section 18.3 in  and Section 2.2 in  for complex C\*-algebras. Let $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ be real C\*-algebras; let $`xKK(A,B)`$ be represented by an $`(A,B)`$-bimodule $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$; and let $`yKK(B,C)`$ be represented by a $`(B,C)`$-bimodule $`(F,\psi ,S)`$. Then the product $`\alpha (xy)KK(A,C)`$ is given by an $`(A,C)`$-bimodule $`(E_\psi F,\varphi _\psi 1,T\mathrm{\#}S)`$. The operator $`T\mathrm{\#}S`$ can be taken to be any operator $`U`$ which satisfies:

$`T_xS(1)^xUT_x`$ $`=0`$ $`mod𝒦(F,E_\psi F)`$
$`ST_x^{}(1)^xT_x^{}U`$ $`=0`$ $`mod𝒦(E_\psi F,E)`$ (11)
$`\varphi (a)[T1,U]\varphi (a)^{}`$ $`0`$ $`mod𝒦(E_\psi F)`$
for all $`xE`$ and $`aA`$. Here $`T_x(F,E_\psi F)`$ defined by $`T_x(y)=xy`$ and $`x`$ is the graded degree of $`x`$. This defines a pairing

$$\alpha :KK(A,B)KK(B,C)KK(A,C).$$

The same construction also defines a pairing

$$\alpha _{}:KK_{}(A,B)KK_{}(B,C)KK_{}(A,C)$$

if $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ are complex C\*-algebras (not to be confused with $`\alpha _U`$ described in Section 2.2).

We can also effect a pairing

$$\alpha ^{}:KK(A,B)KK(B,C)KK(A,C)$$

by $`\alpha ^{}=\alpha (1\mu _{})(1\tau _{})`$ where $`\mu :CC`$ is given by complex multiplication and the $`\tau _{}`$ is the homomorphism

$$KK(B,C)KK(B,C)$$

defined by $`(E,\varphi ,T)(E,1\varphi ,1T)`$ (according to the external tensor product construction in Section 2.1.6 of ).

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`A`$, $`B`$, and $`C`$ be real C\*-algebras. Then the following diagram commutes:

###### Proof.

We claim first that $`\mu _{}\tau _{}\nu =\rho :KK_{}(B,CKK(B,C)`$. Let $`x`$ be an element of $`KK_{}(B,C)`$ represented by a complex Kasparov $`(B,C)`$-bimodule $`(F,\psi ,S)`$. Then $`\nu (x)`$ is represented by $`(F,\psi |_B,S)`$ and $`(\tau _{}\nu )(x)KK(B,C)`$ is represented by $`(F,1\psi |_B,1S)`$. Finally $`\mu _{}\tau \nu (x)`$ is given by $`(\stackrel{~}{F},\mu _{}(1\psi _B),\mu _{}(1S))`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is the Hilbert $`C`$-module

$$\stackrel{~}{F}=\mu _{}(F)=(F)/\{x|\mu x,x=0\}$$

(according to the push-out construction of Section 2.1.5 of ). There is a Hilbert $`C`$-module homomorphism $`\mu _F:\stackrel{~}{F}F`$ defined by $`\mu _F[\lambda f]=\lambda f`$. Since $`\mu _F(x),\mu _F(y)=\mu x,y`$, this is well-defined. Define $`\mu _F^1(f)=[1f]`$. Clearly $`\mu _F\mu _F^1=1`$. To show that $`\mu _F^1\mu _F=1`$, it is straightforward to calculate that $`\mu x,x=0`$ if $`x=\lambda f1\lambda f`$. Therefore, $`\mu _F`$ is an isomorphism. Under this isomorphism, the homomorphism $`\mu _{}(1\psi _B)`$ corresponds to $`\psi `$ and the operator $`\mu _{}(1S)`$ corresponds to $`S`$. This proves the claim.

Thus the diagram that we wish to commute can be redrawn as

$$\text{}.$$

To prove that this commutes, let $`x`$ and $`y`$ be elements of $`KK_{}(A,B)`$ and $`KK_{}(B,C)`$ respectively. We must show that $`\alpha (\nu (x)\rho (y))=\nu \alpha _{}(xy)`$. Let $`x`$ be represented by a Kasparov $`(A,B)`$-bimodule $`(E,\varphi ,T)`$ as before and let $`y`$ be represented by a Kasparov $`(B,C)`$-bimodule $`(F,\psi ,S)`$.

Now, $`\nu (x)=(E,\varphi _A,T)`$ and $`\rho (y)=(F,\psi ,S)`$ are both real Kasparov bimodules, as is the product $`\alpha (\nu (x)\rho (y))=(E_\psi F,\varphi _A1,T\mathrm{\#}S)`$. On the other hand, $`x=(E,\varphi ,T)`$ and $`y=(F,\psi ,S)`$ are both complex Kasparov bimodules, as is the product $`\alpha _{}(xy)=(E_\psi F,\varphi 1,T\mathrm{\#}S)`$. However, since $`\psi `$ respects the complex structures of $`B`$ and $`_C(E)`$, the Hilbert $`(C)`$-module $`E_\psi F`$ is the same in either case. Furthermore, the operator $`T\mathrm{\#}S_C(E_\psi F)`$ can be taken to be the same in either case since any operator which satisfies the formulae given in (11) for all $`aA`$ will certainly satisfy the same formulae for all $`aA`$. Finally, since the restriction of $`\varphi 1:A_C(E_\psi F)`$ to $`A`$ is $`\varphi |_A1`$, it follows that $`\nu (\alpha _{}(xy))=\alpha (\nu (x)\rho (y))`$. ∎

###### Proof of Proposition 4.2.

According to Propositions 2.4 and 3.10, both $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)`$ and $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))`$ are acyclic CRT-modules. Hence by Section 2.3 of , to show that

$$\gamma :KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))$$

is an isomorphism, it suffices to show that the complex part

$$KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)^U\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))^U$$

is an isomorphism. Using the definition of united $`KK`$-theory and Proposition 3.5, this is equivalent to showing that the homomorphism

$$\gamma _U:KK(A,B)\text{Hom}_{KU_{}()}(K(A),K(B))$$

(which is the adjoint of $`\alpha _U`$) is an isomorphism.

The following diagram commutes by Lemma 4.4.

Since $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$ is an injective CRT-module, the complex part $`K(B)=KK_{}(B`$ consists of divisible groups (Theorem 3.3 in ). Hence, Theorem 2.1 of  implies that $`\gamma _{}`$ is an isomorphism and therefore so is $`\gamma _U`$.

### 4.2 Proof of the UCT — General Case

###### Lemma 4.5.

There exists a real C\*-algebra $`N`$ containing a projection $`pN`$ such that 1) $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)`$ is an injective CRT-module and 2) for all real C\*-algebras such that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)`$ is free, the homomorphism $`FFN`$ defined by $`aap`$ induces a monomorphism of united $`K`$-theory.

The C\*-algebra $`N`$ will play a role analogous to the role in Theorem 3.2 of  played by the complex UHF-algebra whose $`K`$-theory is $``$ in even degrees. In Table 2, we have the united $`K`$-theory of the real UHF-algebra $`N_1`$ with $`K_0(N_1)`$. However, because of the presence of 2-torsion in free CRT-modules, this algebra will not suffice. To capture this 2-torsion, we will also involve a real C\*-algebra $`N_2`$ whose united $`K`$-theory is given in Table 3.

###### Proof.

We will first construct the algebra $`N_2`$ as a limit of a directed system of matrix algebras over real Cuntz algebras. We begin by proving the claim that for any positive integers $`n`$ and $`m`$ there is a unital homomorphism

$$\varphi :𝒪_{n+1}M_m(𝒪_{nm+1})$$

using a construction similar to that in the proof of Proposition 2.5 of . Let $`𝒪_{n+1}`$ be generated by the isometries $`S_0,S_1,\mathrm{},S_n`$ with orthogonal ranges and which satisfy $`S_i^{}S_i=1`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}S_iS_i^{}=1`$. Let $`𝒪_{mn+1}`$ similarly be generated by the isometries $`T_0,T_{ij}`$ for $`1in`$, $`1jm`$ which satisfy similar relations. Now, we define elements $`S_0^{},S_1^{},\mathrm{},S_n^{}M_m(𝒪_{mn+1})`$ by

$$S_0^{}=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}T_0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& 1& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 1\end{array}\right)S_i^{}=\left(\begin{array}{cccc}T_{i1}& T_{i2}& \mathrm{}& T_{im}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\end{array}\right)\text{ for }i1\text{.}$$

It can be checked easily that these elements satisfy $`(S_i^{})^{}S_i^{}=1`$ and $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}S_i^{}(S_i^{})^{}=1`$ and so there is a C\*-algebra homomorphism $`\varphi `$ which takes each $`S_i`$ to $`S_i^{}`$ . The homomorphism $`\varphi `$ is unital since $`\varphi (1)=\varphi (S_1^{}S_1)=(S_1^{})^{}S_1^{}=1`$. This proves the claim.

Then we define the algebra $`N_2`$ to be the limit of the system

$$𝒪_{4+1}M_2(𝒪_{8+1})M_4(𝒪_{16+1})M_8(𝒪_{32+1})\mathrm{}$$

where each connecting map is $`M_{2^{k2}}(\varphi )`$ with $`n=2^k`$ and $`m=2`$. The united $`K`$-theory of $`N_2`$ is the limit of the system of CRT-modules $`\{K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(𝒪_{2^k+1}),M_{2^{k2}}(\varphi )_{}\}`$. The united $`K`$-theory of $`𝒪_{2^k+1}`$ is given in Table 4. Since $`\varphi `$ induces multiplication by 2 on $`KO_0(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$, we obtain $`KO_0(N_2)=(2^{\mathrm{}})`$, as in all the gradings of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2)`$ in which $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(𝒪_{2^k+1})_{2^k}`$.

Now $`\varphi _{}=0`$ on $`KO_1(𝒪_{2^k+1})_2`$ since the nonzero element of that group is $`\eta _O(1)`$. The same is true for $`KT_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$ (with nonzero element $`\epsilon \eta _O(1)`$), the first summand of $`KO_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$ ($`\eta _O^2(1)`$), and $`KT_5(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$ ($`\beta _T\epsilon \eta _O(1)`$). Therefore, these groups vanish when we pass to the limit.

On the second summand of $`KO_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$, we claim that $`\varphi _{}`$ is an isomorphism. Indeed, let $`\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ be the non-zero element of $`KO_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$ representing the second summand and let $`y`$ be a generator of $`KU_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})=_k`$. Then $`(c\varphi _{})\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)=(\varphi _{}c)\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)=\varphi _{}(\frac{k}{2}y)=ky`$. Therefore $`\varphi _{}\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 1\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}\alpha \\ 1\end{array}\right)`$ where $`\alpha =0`$ or $`1`$. Using the naturality of the operations $`\epsilon `$ and $`\eta _O`$, it also follows from this that $`\varphi _{}`$ is an isomorphism on $`KT_2(𝒪_{2^k+1})`$. Therefore these groups persist in the direct limit and $`N_2`$ has the united $`K`$-theory as shown.

The $`K`$-theory element we want $`p`$ to represent is the non-zero element of $`KO_2(N_2)`$, so we will consider $`S^2N_2`$ to shift that $`K`$-theory element down to degree 0. We get $`N_1`$ into the picture by the following unitization of $`S^2N_2`$. For each positive integer $`n`$ let

$$\varphi _n:M_{n!}(S^2N_2^+)M_{(n+1)!}(S^2N_2^+)$$

be given by

$$\varphi _n(a\lambda )=\left(\begin{array}{ccccc}a\lambda & 0& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& \lambda & 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ 0& 0& \lambda & \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& 0& 0& \mathrm{}& \lambda \end{array}\right)$$

and define $`N`$ to be the limit of the system $`\{M_{n!}(S^2N_2^+),\varphi _n\}`$.

The split exact sequence

$$0S^2N_2S^2N_2^+0$$

passes to a split exact sequence

$$0𝒦S^2N_2NN_10$$

in the limit, so we have $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2N_2)`$. According to Theorem 3.3 in , a CRT-module is injective if and only if it is acyclic and the groups in the complex part are divisible. Hence $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)`$ is injective.

Let $`p`$ be a projection in $`M_l(N)`$ such that $`[p][p_k]=11KO_0(N)KO_0(N_1)KO_2(N_2)_2`$. Then $`[p]=(1+k)1`$. By picking a new preferred generator of $``$, we may assume that $`[p]=11`$. For future reference, we also note that $`c[p]=1\frac{1}{2}(2^{\mathrm{}})`$ and $`\epsilon [p]=11_2`$.

Now we must show that if $`F`$ is a C\*-algebra such that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)`$ is free, then the homomorphism

$$\psi :K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(FN)$$

induced by the inclusion map $`aap`$ is injective.

If we define $`\varphi :K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)`$ by

$`\varphi (x)`$ $`=x[p]\text{ }forxKO_{}(F)`$
$`\varphi (y)`$ $`=yc[p]\text{ }foryKU_{}(F)`$
$`\varphi (z)`$ $`=z\epsilon [p]\text{ }foryKT_{}(F)`$
and we let $`\alpha `$ be the pairing $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(FN),`$ then $`\alpha \varphi =\psi `$. By the Künneth formula for united $`K`$-theory (Theorem 4.2 of ), $`\alpha `$ is an isomorphism. So it suffices to show that the map $`\varphi `$ is injective.

Since any free CRT-module can be written as a direct sum of monogenic free CRT-modules and since the homomorphism $`\varphi `$ respects direct sums and suspensions, it is enough to show that $`\varphi `$ is injective in case $`F`$ is one of the three free monogenic CRT-modules $`F(b,0,)`$, $`F(b,0,)`$, and $`F(b,0,T)`$, shown in Table 5 (or see Tables I, II, and III in  for the tables of operations).

First assume $`F=F(b,0,)`$. Then the homomorphism

$`\varphi :K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)`$ $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N)`$
$`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2)`$
$`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2)`$
is the unique homomorphism which sends the generator $`b`$ to $`b[p]=11_2`$ and is seen to be injective by checking that the CRT-module generated by $`11`$ is isomorphic to $`F(b,0,)`$.

In the case of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)=F(b,0,)`$ we have the homomorphism

$$\varphi :K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2).$$

Using Proposition 3.6 of , we compute $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)`$ and $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2)`$ as shown in Table 6. The homomorphism $`\varphi `$ sends the generator $`b`$ to $`bc[p]=b(1\frac{1}{2})`$ which is the element $`\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\ 0\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}1/2\\ 0\end{array}\right)^2(2^{\mathrm{}})^2`$. Again, we check that the CRT-module generated by this element is isomorphic to $`F(b,0,)`$.

Finally, in the case of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)=F(b,0,T)`$ we have the homomorphism

$$\varphi :K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_1)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)\mathrm{\Sigma }^2K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(N_2)$$

with the latter groups shown in Table 7, computed using Proposition 3.7 of . The homomorphism $`\varphi `$ is determined by sending $`b`$ to $`b\epsilon [p]=b(\alpha 1)`$ which is the element $`\alpha 1^2_2`$. Again, check that this element generates a CRT-submodule freely. ∎

Let $`𝔖A=(S^+)^8A`$ be the eightfold unital suspension of $`A`$ as utilized in Section 2.2 of .

###### Proposition 4.6.

Let $`A`$ be a real unital C\*-algebra. Then there exists a C\*-algebra $`D`$ such that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D)`$ is an injective CRT-module and a C\*-algebra map $`\nu :S𝔖AD`$ such that the induced map $`\nu _{}`$ on united $`K`$-theory is injective.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.1 in , there is exists a C\*-algebra $`F`$ such that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F)`$ is free and a homomorphism $`\mu :F𝒦𝔖A`$ such that $`\mu _{}`$ is surjective on united $`K`$-theory. Then as the proof of Theorem 2.2 in  (using the construction of Schochet in section 2 of ) let $`F_0`$ be the mapping cylinder of $`\mu `$ and let $`F_1`$ be the mapping cone of $`\mu `$ to form the sequence

$$0F_1\stackrel{\mu _1}{}F_0\stackrel{\mu _0}{}𝒦𝔖A0.$$

where $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_i)`$ is a free CRT-module for $`i=0,1`$ and the induced map $`(\mu _0)_{}`$ is surjective on united $`K`$-theory.

Let $`\varphi :F_0F_0N`$ be the homomorphism defined by $`\varphi (a)=ap`$ and form the commutative square

Using the naturality of the mapping cone construction (see Proposition 2.9 of ) we form a diagram

commuting up to homotopy. The horizontal sequences are mapping cone sequences which induce exact sequences on united $`K`$-theory. In fact, since $`\mu _1`$ and $`\varphi \mu _1`$ induce monomorphisms on united $`K`$-theory, the sequences in united $`K`$-theory are actually short exact sequences:

Now since $`\varphi _{}`$ is a monomorphism, the snake lemma (Lemma 1.3.2 in ) shows that $`\gamma _{}`$ is also a monomorphism. We will take $`C(\varphi \mu _1)`$ to be the sought-for C\*-algebra $`D`$. As the quotient of an injective CRT-module, the CRT-module $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(D)`$ is injective. Let

$$\iota :S(𝒦𝔖A)C\mu _1$$

be the homotopy equivalence of Proposition 2.4 in  and let

$$j:S𝔖AS(𝒦𝔖A)$$

be the homomorphism induced by the choice of a rank one projection in $`𝒦`$. We take the composition

$$\gamma \iota j:S𝔖AC(\varphi \mu _1)=D$$

to be the sought-for homomorphism $`\nu `$. Since $`\iota `$ and $`j`$ induce isomorphisms on $`K`$-theory, $`\nu `$ induces a monomorphism on united $`K`$-theory as desired.

We now commence the proof proper of Theorem 4.1, beginning with the case that $`B`$ is unital.

###### Proof of Theorem 4.1.

Let $`A`$ be a real C\*-algebra whose complexification is in the complex bootstrap category and let $`B`$ be a real separable unital C\*-algebra. Let $`\nu :S𝔖BD`$ be given according to Proposition 4.6. Then using the natural mapping cone construction described in Proposition 2.5 of  there exist C\*-algebras $`I_0`$ and $`I_1`$ and homomorphisms $`\iota _0`$ and $`\iota _1`$ such that

$$0S^2𝔖B\stackrel{\iota _0}{}I_0\stackrel{\iota _1}{}I_10$$
(12)
is a semisplit (see Example 19.5.2(b) in ) exact sequence of C\*-algebras. Furthermore, $`I_0`$ is homotopy equivalent to $`SD`$ and under this equivalence, the homomorphism $`\iota _0`$ corresponds to $`S\nu `$. Since $`\nu _{}`$ is injective, when we apply united $`K`$-theory, we obtain a short exact sequence

$$0K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B)\stackrel{(\iota _0)_{}}{}K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(I_0)\stackrel{(\iota _1)_{}}{}K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(I_1)0.$$
(13)
Since $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(I_0)`$ is an injective CRT-module and since $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B)`$ has injective dimension 1, we conclude that $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(I_1)`$ is injectve and we’re looking at an injective resolution.

If we instead apply the functor $`KK(A,)`$ to Sequence 12 we obtain the sequence

$$\mathrm{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^2𝔖B)\stackrel{(1,\iota _0)_{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,I_0)\stackrel{(1,\iota _1)_{}}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,I_1)\stackrel{𝛿}{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^2𝔖B)\mathrm{}$$

which we unsplice to form the short exact sequence

$$0\text{coker}(1,\iota _1)_{}KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^2𝔖B)\mathrm{ker}(1,\iota _1)_{}0.$$

To complete the construction of the universal coefficient exact sequence, it remains to make the identifications

$`\mathrm{ker}(1,\iota _1)_{}`$ $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(SB))`$
$`\text{coker}(1,\iota _1)_{}`$ $`\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(SB))`$
which we do by use of the following commutative diagram:

(14)
In this diagram, both vertical sequences are exact, the left one derived from the resolution given by Sequence 13. The horizontal homomorphisms $`\gamma (A,I_0)`$ and $`\gamma (A,I_1)`$ are isomorphisms since by Proposition 4.2.

The diagram shows that the kernel of $`(1,\iota _1)_{}`$ is isomorphic to the kernel of $`\text{Hom}(1,(\iota _1)_{})`$ which, in turn, is isomorphic to $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B))`$. Furthermore, in this identification, the composition

$$KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^2𝔖B)\mathrm{ker}(1,\iota )_{}\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B))$$

is $`\gamma (A,S^2𝔖B)`$.

The diagram also shows that the cokernel of $`(1,\iota _1)_{}`$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of $`\text{Hom}(1,(\iota _1)_{})`$ which is isomorphic to $`\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B))`$. Composing this homomorphism with $`\delta `$ gives the homomorphism

$$\kappa (A,S^2𝔖B):\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^2𝔖B))KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^2𝔖B)$$

which has degree $`1`$.

This proves that the universal coefficient theorem holds for the pair $`(A,S^2𝔖B)`$. In Proposition 4.8 we will show that this homomorphism $`\kappa `$ is natural with respect to homomorphisms $`BB^{}`$. In particular, consider the homomorphism $`B0`$, which induces a homomorphism $`𝔖B𝔖0=(S^+)^7`$. This homomorphism forms part of a split exact sequence

$$0S^8B𝔖B𝔖00.$$

After suspending twice, we obtain the sequence

$$0S^{10}B\stackrel{𝑖}{}S^2𝔖B\stackrel{𝜋}{}S^2𝔖00.$$

Because this sequence is split, the vertical sequences of the following diagram are exact:

Furthermore, we have shown that the two lower horizontal sequences are exact, the map $`\gamma `$ commutes with $`i_{}`$ and with $`\pi _{}`$, and the map $`\kappa `$ commutes with $`\pi _{}`$ by the proof of Proposition 4.8. Therefore, a homomorphism

$$\kappa (A,S^{10}):\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(S^{10}B))KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,S^{10}B)$$

can be defined to make the diagram commute and then by a diagram chase (Exercise 1.3.2 of ), the top horizontal sequence is exact. This proves that the universal coefficient theorem holds for the pair $`(A,S^{10}B)`$. By Lemma 4.7 below, it holds for the pair $`(A,B)`$.

Finally, an argument similar to that in the previous paragraph, based on the exact sequence

$$0BB^+0$$

takes care of the general case in which $`B`$ is not necessarily unital. ∎

###### Lemma 4.7.

The universal coefficient theorem holds for a pair $`(A,B)`$ if and only if it holds for the pair $`(A,SB)`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the following diagram.

The horizontal homomorphisms are isomorphisms of degree $`1`$. Therefore, there is a homomorphism $`\kappa (A,B)`$ as shown in the diagram making the left vertical sequence exact if and only if there is a homomorphism $`\kappa (A,SB)`$ making the right vertical sequence exact. ∎

###### Proposition 4.8.

The universal coefficient sequence is natural with respect to homomorphisms of $`A`$ and $`B`$.

###### Proof.

It is clear that $`\gamma `$ is natural. We must show that $`\kappa `$ is natural in both arguments. First we show that $`\kappa `$ doesn’t depend on the particular resolution of $`S^2𝔖B`$ chosen in its construction. For this suppose that we start with two alternatives

$$\nu _1:S𝔖BD_1$$

and

$$\nu _2:S𝔖BD_2$$

which satisfy the requirements described in Proposition 4.6. Then we construct yet another alternative

$$\nu _3:S𝔖BD_3$$

where $`D_3=D_1D_2`$ and $`\nu _3=\nu _1\nu _2`$. These three possibilities lead to three possible injective resolutions

$$0S^2𝔖B\stackrel{\iota _{i,0}}{}I_{i,0}\stackrel{\iota _{i,1}}{}I_{i,1}0$$

for $`i\{1,2,3\}`$ which lead to three possible constructions of $`\kappa `$. Furthermore, for each $`i\{1,2\}`$, the coordinate projection $`D_3D_i`$ commutes with the $`\nu `$ homomorphisms, and thus induces a homomorphism of injective resolutions:

In turn, this induces a homomorphism from the groups of Diagram 14 based on the resolution built from $`D_3`$ to the corresponding groups of the same diagram based on the resolution built from $`D_i`$. The resulting three dimensional diagram (which we do not attempt to represent) commutes and shows that the homomorphism $`\kappa `$ is the same in either case.

Now if $`\varphi :AA^{}`$ is a homomorphism of real C\*-algeberas, then we choose a fixed geometric injective resolution of $`S^2𝔖B`$ to compute $`\kappa (A,S^2𝔖B)`$ and $`\kappa (A^{},S^2𝔖B)`$. Because $`\gamma `$ is natural, there is a homomorphism induced by $`\varphi `$ from the groups of Diagram 14 to the groups of the same diagram with $`A`$ replaced by $`A^{}`$. Since $`\kappa `$ is defined via this diagram in terms of $`\gamma `$, it follows that $`\kappa `$ commutes with $`\varphi `$.

Finally suppose that $`\varphi :BB^{}`$ is a homomorphism of real C\*-algebras. First construct two homomorphisms

$$\nu :S𝔖BD$$

and

$$\nu ^{}:S𝔖B^{}D^{}$$

according to Proposition 4.6. Then consider the commutative diagram

where $`\nu ^{\prime \prime }=\nu \nu ^{}S𝔖B\varphi `$. Again this gives us a homomorphism from one geometric injective resolution to another and thus we obtain a family of homomorphisms from the version of Diagram 14 based on the modified resolution of $`S^2𝔖B`$ to another the version of Diagram 14 based on the resolution of $`S^2𝔖B^{}`$. Since $`\kappa `$ does not depend on the particular geometric resolution, it follows that $`\kappa `$ commutes with $`\varphi `$. ∎

### 4.3 Some Corollaries

If we focus on the real part of each CRT-module in the short exact sequence of Theorem 4.1, we obtain the following corollary. Recall that $`[M,N]`$ represents the graded group of CRT-morphisms and let $`\text{Ext}_{[,]}(M,N)`$ denote the associated derived functor.

###### Corollary 4.9.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real separable C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is in $`𝒩`$. Then there is a short exact sequence

$$0\mathrm{Ext}_{[,]}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\stackrel{\kappa _O}{}KK(A,B)\stackrel{\gamma _O}{}[K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]0$$

where $`\kappa _O`$ has degree $`1`$ and the homomorphism $`\gamma _O`$ is given by $`\gamma _O(x)(y)=\alpha _O(yx)`$.

###### Proof.

By definition, $`KK^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A,B)^O=KK(A,B)`$ and by Proposition 3.4,

$$\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))^O[K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)].$$

To identify the real part of $`\gamma `$ under these identifications, let $`xKK_i(A,B)`$. Then $`\gamma (x)\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))^O=[K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A)_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}F(b,i,),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]`$ is defined by $`\gamma (x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }(\alpha )(x)=\alpha (1\mu _b^x)`$ (see the proof to Proposition 3.3 for the description of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$) thus $`\gamma _O(x)(y)=\alpha _O(1\mu _b^x)(yb)=\alpha _O(yx)`$.

Finally, we claim that $`\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))^O\text{Ext}_{[,]}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))`$. Let

$$0F_1\stackrel{\mu _1}{}F_0\stackrel{\mu _0}{}K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A)0$$

be a free resolution of $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A)`$. We apply $`\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}`$ to obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}0\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_1,K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\stackrel{\mu _1^{}}{}\hfill \\ \hfill \text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(F_0,K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))\stackrel{\mu _0^{}}{}\text{Hom}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))0\end{array}$$

and then restrict to the real part to obtain

$$0\text{Ext}_{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))^O[F_1,K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]\stackrel{\mu _1^{}}{}[F_0,K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]\stackrel{\mu _0^{}}{}[K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]0.$$

But the cokernel of $`\mu _1^{}`$ is by definition $`\text{Ext}_{[,]}(K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B))`$, proving the claim. ∎

The final corollaries can be proven from Corollary 4.9 exactly as in the proof of Propositions 23.10.1 and 23.10.2 in .

###### Corollary 4.10.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real separable C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ is in $`𝒩`$, and let $`xKK(A,B)`$ have the property that $`\gamma (x)[K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A),K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)]`$ is an isomorphism. Then $`x`$ is a $`KK`$-equivalence.

###### Corollary 4.11.

Let $`A`$ and $`B`$ be real separable C\*-algebras such that $`A`$ and $`B`$ are in $`𝒩`$. Then $`A`$ and $`B`$ are $`KK`$-equivalent if and only if $`K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(A)K^{\mathrm{𝐶𝑅𝑇}}(B)`$.


format: text

text:
# 1 Basic CFT facts

## 1 Basic CFT facts

In the applications of two-dimensional conformal field theory – two-dimensional critical systems, quasi one-dimensional condensed matter physics, and string theory – boundary effects play an important role. They appear in the description of pointlike defects such as the Kondo effect, the computation of percolation probabilities, the construction of type I superstring theories, and the formulation of open string perturbation theory in the background of D-branes. The study of boundary conditions has very much improved our understanding of the structure of CFT; this is one topic we address in the present contribution. But two-dimensional conformal field theories possess an extremely rich structure, which is in fact not exhausted by bulk and boundary fields. In particular, they also involve defect lines and disorder fields; these objects will be discussed as well. Hitherto, they have not yet played a role in world sheet theories of strings.

Let us briefly review a few pertinent aspects of CFT. In the bulk there are both left moving and right moving degrees of freedom, which are described by a left and a right moving chiral algebra, respectively. Each of them contains the Virasoro algebra, which realizes the conformal symmetry, given by generators $`\{L_nn\}`$ with relations

$$[L_n,L_m]=(nm)L_{n+m}+\frac{c}{12}n(n^21)\delta _{n,m}.$$

It is natural to study the representations of the chiral algebra; they provide the superselection sectors of the chiral CFT. Primary fields correspond to irreducible representations; if their number is finite, the theory is called rational. With the help of the representation theory one can introduce conformal blocks which are spaces of multivalued functions of insertion points on a complex curve. For WZW theories, they can be computed as (subspaces of) the spaces of solutions to Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations. For the full local conformal field theory they play the role of precorrelators; they also form the state spaces of the associated three-dimensional topological field theory. The monodromy properties of these conformal blocks provide us with a collection of data – fusing matrices, braiding matrices, conformal weights, representations of mapping class groups – that encode the basic information about the chiral CFT; they are usually referred to as chiral data, or also as Moore-Seiberg data.

A good handle on these data is an essential prerequisite for any powerful approach to CFT. Technically, it is afforded by the so-called modular tensor categories. They furnish a basis-independent formalization of the chiral data, which are obtained from solutions to differential equations, in much the same way as the notion of a vector space constitutes a basis-independent description for the structure of the space of solutions to linear equations.

The representations of a chiral algebra form a category; its objects are representations, its morphisms are intertwining maps between representations. Here the term ‘chiral algebra’ should be taken with some care – we do not necessarily start with a maximally extended chiral algebra, for left movers or for right movers. This gives us sufficient flexibility to address symmetry breaking boundary conditions as well as situations in which left moving and right moving chiral algebra do not coincide.

The representation category of a chiral algebra comes with a lot of structure:
The notion of a tensor product, or fusion, of representations leads to a tensor product

$$:𝒞\times 𝒞𝒞$$

for the category. For this tensor product, the vacuum sector acts as a unit.
Braid group statistics in low dimensions provides us with the notion of a braiding, which constitutes a systematic prescription to permute representations in tensor products that is compatible with the braid group relations.
The concept of dual representations gives rise to a pairing of representations.
These structures obey a number of compatibility relations, and these are summarized in the definition of a modular tensor category. The qualification ‘modular’ indicates the fact that from such a category one can infer a natural candidate for the action of the modular group, i.e. the mapping class group of the torus, on the characters of the CFT. Modular tensor categories also arise as (truncations of) categories of representations of quantum groups, and as categories of representations of weak Hopf algebras. It is an important result  that to every modular tensor category one can associate a topological field theory in three dimensions. This realizes a “holographic” correspondence between chiral CFT in two dimensions and TFT in three dimensions.

## 2 Algebra and topological field theory

The central idea of our approach to (rational) conformal field theory is to combine tools from topological field theory with non-commutative algebra in tensor categories.
The central insight can be summarized as follows:

For a given chiral algebra, a full local CFT can be constructed from the  algebra of open string states for a single boundary condition ( = D-brane).

To understand this result, let us examine the algebra of open string states, i.e. the algebra of boundary operators $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{AA}`$ that respect a given boundary condition $`A`$, in more detail:
The field-state correspondence allows us to work with the corresponding states. They form a module over the chiral algebra, i.e. a (generically reducible) object in the modular tensor category $`𝒞`$; we use the symbol $`A`$ also to denote this object.
The operator product

$$\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{AA}(x)\mathrm{\Psi }_b^{AA}(y)\underset{c}{}𝖢_{ab}^c(xy)^{\mathrm{\Delta }_c\mathrm{\Delta }_a\mathrm{\Delta }_b}\mathrm{\Psi }_c^{AA}(y)$$

of boundary fields is associative. This leads to an equation of the type

$$𝖢𝖢=𝖢𝖢F.$$

It is a first crucial observation that this relation gives rise to an associative multiplication morphism $`m\mathrm{Hom}(AA,A)`$ on the object $`A`$. The presence of the fusing matrix $`F`$ in the relation for the structure constants C is taken into account by a non-trivial notion of associativity in the category $`𝒞`$.
Another important aspect of the algebra object $`A`$ is the fact that the non-degeneracy of the two-point functions of boundary fields on the disk implies that $`A`$ can be endowed with the structure of a Frobenius algebra, i.e. an algebra with a non-degenerate invariant bilinear form. (For precise definitions, see ). Actually, $`A`$ is even a so-called symmetric special Frobenius algebra. It should be appreciated, though, that $`A`$ is not necessarily (braided-) commutative, as befits an algebra of boundary fields. Moreover, the boundary condition we start with need not be elementary; it may equally well be a superposition of several elementary boundary conditions, including possibly Chan-Paton multiplicities.
Finally, for any other boundary condition $`M`$ the associativity of the operator product

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^{AA}\mathrm{\Psi }^{AA}\mathrm{\Psi }^{AM}$$

of boundary fields allows us to abstract a map $`\rho \mathrm{Hom}(AM,M)`$ that endows the corresponding object $`M`$ of $`𝒞`$ with the structure of a (left) $`A`$-module. We thus learn that boundary conditions are given by $`A`$-modules.

Let us now discuss the second input of our construction, topological field theory. As a direct consequence of the axioms, every modular tensor category allows for the construction of a three-dimensional TFT. The latter assigns to every closed oriented two-manifold $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ a finite-dimensional vector space $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$, the space of conformal blocks, on which the mapping class group $`Map(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ acts projectively. Further, to every three-manifold with boundary $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ that contains a Wilson graph, the TFT assigns a vector in $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$. The axioms of a TFT formalize the well-known relation between a TFT on a three-dimensional manifold and a chiral CFT on its boundary, a structure that is e.g. central to the CFT description of universality classes of quantum Hall fluids (for a review, see e.g. ).

## 3 The TFT construction of CFT correlators

Our goal is now to determine CFT correlators on a surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that possibly has a boundary. To be able to apply tools from TFT, we need to work with a suitable two-manifold $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ without boundary. A natural candidate for $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is the complex double  of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It comes with an orientation reversing involution $`\sigma `$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is identified with the quotient of $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ by the action of $`\sigma `$. Indeed, it is natural  to view the world sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a real scheme and $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ as its complexification; the orientifold map $`\sigma `$ is then just the action of the non-trivial element of the Galois group $`Gal(/)_2`$.

With the help of the double cover $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, we can in particular give a concise version of the principle of holomorphic factorization: The correlators of the CFT on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are specific vectors in the space $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ of conformal blocks on the complex double, which are determined by two types of constraints:
(1) They must be invariant under the action of $`Map(\mathrm{\Sigma })Map(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})_{}^\sigma `$.
(2) They must satisfy factorization rules.

According to the principle of holomorphic factorization we need to select a specific element of $`(\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }})`$ to describe a correlator on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By the principles of TFT, in turn, such a vector is determined by a three-manifold $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ whose boundary is the double $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and a ribbon graph in $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we take the so-called connecting manifold , defined as the quotient of the interval bundle $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}\times [1,1]`$ by the $`_2`$ that acts as $`\sigma `$ on $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and as $`tt`$ on the interval. The points with $`t=\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}`$ provide a distinguished embedding of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ into $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In fact, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a retract of $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ or, in more intuitive terms, $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is just a fattening of the world sheet $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. (To give one example: the double of a disk is a sphere, and the orientifold map is the reflection at the equatorial plane; the connecting manifold is in this case a full three-ball.) Concerning the prescription for the ribbon graph in $`\mathrm{M}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ we refer to . We merely recall that it involves a (dual) triangulation of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the ribbons labelled by the Frobenius algebra object $`A`$ and with the trivalent vertices corresponding to the multiplication morphism $`m`$ of $`A`$.

In this framework, the consistency relations of modular invariance (1) and factorization (2) can be proven rigorously. We also recover the various combinatorial data – such as modular invariant partition functions, NIM-reps and classifying algebras – that arise when studying specific small subsets of these consistency conditions (see e.g. ). Moreover, Morita equivalence, combined with orbifold technology, allows for an elegant proof of T-dualities for arbitrary topology of the world sheet.

We have already seen that modules over $`A`$ correspond to boundary conditions. In non-commutative algebra, it is natural to consider bimodules as well, and again they turn out to possess a physical interpretation: they describe defect lines. More specifically, these defect lines carry neither momentum nor charges. Thus they are topological in nature, so that their position matters only up to homotopy. These defect lines can actually be generalized to interfaces between two different full local CFTs that are based on one and the same chiral CFT. Disorder fields create or change defect lines.

The following table, associating algebraic structures to physical concepts, can serve as a succinct summary of our results :

| Physical concept | Algebraic structure |
| --- | --- |
| Boundary condition | left $`A`$-module |
| Boundary field $`\mathrm{\Psi }_a^{MN}`$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(Ma,N)`$ |
| Bulk field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}`$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A,A}((Aa)^{},(Ab)^+)`$ |
| Defect line | $`A`$-bimodule |
| Disorder field $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{ab}^{B_1B_2}`$ | $`\mathrm{Hom}_{A,A}((B_1a)^{},(B_2b)^+)`$ |

In particular, bulk fields can be regarded as a special type of disorder fields – those which connect the trivial defect line, i.e. the one labelled by $`A`$, to the trivial defect line.

## 4 An example: Permutation branes

Our algebraization of physical concepts not only leads to statements that can be proved rigorously, but also allows us to establish powerful algorithms for doing computations. In particular, for constructing a full local CFT only a single non-linear constraint needs to be solved: the one that encodes associativity of the Frobenius algebra object $`A`$. We illustrate the power of our approach with the following example.

Consider the tensor product of $`N`$ identical conformal field theories whose modular tensor category is $`𝒞`$. We are then dealing with the category $`𝒞^{\times N}`$, which comes with an action of the symmetric group $`S_N`$. One may wish to classify all those boundary conditions of the $`𝒞^{\times N}`$-theory which respect the subalgebra of the chiral algebra that is left pointwise fixed under the $`S_N`$-action. To perform this task we can work with the orbifold category

$$𝒞_{\mathrm{orb}}:=𝒞^{\times N}/S_N$$

for which many aspects of the chiral data are explicitly known . In particular, the primary fields of the orbifold theory are labelled by pairs $`(\{\stackrel{}{\lambda }\},\psi )`$, where $`\{\stackrel{}{\lambda }\}`$ is an unordered $`N`$-tuple of labels for simple objects in $`𝒞`$ and $`\psi `$ is a character of the double of the stabilizer subgroup $`S_\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ of $`\{\stackrel{}{\lambda }\}`$ in $`S_N`$.

It is not difficult to find the relevant algebra object. The algebra structure is determined by the product in the algebra of functions on $`S_N`$, and it is realized on the object

$$A=\underset{\psi S_N^{}}{}dimV_\psi (\{\stackrel{}{0}\},(\psi ,[e])).$$

Here $`\stackrel{}{0}`$ is the $`N`$-tuple each entry of which is the vacuum sector of $`𝒞`$. Its stabilizer is all of $`S_N`$; the pairs $`(\psi ,[e])`$, consisting of a character $`\psi `$ of $`S_N`$ and the conjugacy class of the unit element $`eS_N`$, specify a subclass of irreducible representations of the double $`𝒟(S_N)`$.

One can show that $`A`$ is a (braided-) commutative symmetric special Frobenius algebra. The irreducible $`A`$-modules, i.e. the “permutation branes” in the terminology of , can be easily determined with the help of theorem 3.2 of . They are labelled by pairs $`(\stackrel{}{\lambda },g)`$ where $`\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$ is now an ordered $`N`$-tuple of labels and $`g`$ is an element of the stabilizer group $`𝒮_\stackrel{}{\lambda }`$. One can then apply the formalism of  to compute e.g. the boundary states and annulus partition functions. The latter turn out to be linear combinations of twining characters with prefactors that are sums of products of fusion rules of the $`𝒞`$-theory. The NIM-rep property of the annuli as well as the consistency of the boundary states is guaranteed by the general theory.

## 5 Conclusions

Besides its computational power and the possibility to obtain general proofs of consistency, an additional benefit of our approach is that it reduces old physical questions to standard problems in algebra and representation theory. Here are some interesting examples:
The classification of CFTs with given chiral data $`𝒞`$ amounts to classifying Morita classes of symmetric special Frobenius algebras in the category $`𝒞`$. In particular, physical modular invariants of automorphism type are classified by the Brauer group of $`𝒞`$.
The classification of boundary conditions and defect lines is reduced to the standard representation theoretic problem of classifying modules and bi-modules. As a consequence, powerful methods like induced modules and reciprocity theorems are at our disposal.
The problem of deforming CFTs is related to the problem of deforming algebras, which is a cohomological question. For the moment, the only known results in this direction are rigidity theorems : a rational CFT cannot be deformed within the class of rational CFTs. It will therefore be important to get a better understanding of non-rational CFT.