format: text

text:
# Two philosophical applications of algorithmic information theory

## 1. Introduction. Why is program size of philosophical interest?

The cover of the January 2003 issue of *La Recherche* asks this dramatic question:

Dieu est-il un ordinateur? \[Is God a computer?\]

The long cover story  is a reaction to Stephen Wolfram’s controversial book *A New Kind of Science* . The first half of the article points out Wolfram’s predecessors, and the second half criticizes Wolfram.

The second half of the article begins (p. 38) with these words:

> Il \[Wolfram\] n’avance aucune raison sérieuse de penser que les complexités de la nature puissent être générées par des règles énonçables sous forme de programmes informatiques simples.

The reason for thinking that a simple program might describe the world is, basically, just Plato’s postulate that the universe is rationally comprehensible (*Timaeus*). A sharper statement of this principle is in Leibniz’s *Discours de métaphysique* , section VI. Here is Leibniz’s original French (1686):

> Mais Dieu a choisi celuy qui est le plus parfait, c’est à dire celuy qui est en même temps le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes, comme pourroit estre une ligne de Geometrie dont la construction seroit aisée et les proprietés et effects seroient fort admirables et d’une grande étendue.

For an English translation of this, see .

And Hermann Weyl  discovered that in *Discours de métaphysique* Leibniz also states that a physical law has no explicative power if it is as complicated as the body of data it was invented to explain.111See the Leibniz quote in Section 2.3 below.

This is where algorithmic information theory (AIT) comes in. AIT posits that a theory that explains $`X`$ is a computer program for calculating $`X`$, that therefore must be smaller, much smaller, than the size in bits of the data $`X`$ that it explains. AIT makes a decisive contribution to philosophy by providing a mathematical theory of complexity. AIT defines the *complexity* or *algorithmic information content* of $`X`$ to be the size in bits $`H(X)`$ of the smallest computer program for calculating $`X`$. $`H(X)`$ is also the complexity of the most elegant (the simplest) theory for $`X`$.

In this article we discuss some other philosophical applications of AIT.

For those with absolutely no background in philosophy, let me recommend two excellent introductions, Magee  and Brown . For introductions to AIT, see Chaitin . For another discussion of the philosophical implications of AIT, see Chaitin .

## 2. Is mathematics empirical or is it a priori?

### 2.1. Einstein: math is empirical

Einstein was a physicist and he believed that math is invented, not discovered. His sharpest statement on this is his declaration that “the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences.”

Here is more of the context:

> In the evolution of philosophic thought through the centuries the following question has played a major rôle: What knowledge is pure thought able to supply independently of sense perception? Is there any such knowledge?… I am convinced that… the concepts which arise in our thought and in our linguistic expressions are all… the free creations of thought which can not inductively be gained from sense-experiences… Thus, for example, the series of integers is obviously an invention of the human mind, a self-created tool which simplifies the ordering of certain sensory experiences.222\[The boldface emphasis in this and future quotations is mine, not the author’s.\]

The source is Einstein’s essay “Remarks on Bertrand Russell’s theory of knowledge.” It was published in 1944 in the volume  on *The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell* edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp, and it was reprinted in 1954 in Einstein’s *Ideas and Opinions* .

And in his *Autobiographical Notes*  Einstein repeats the main point of his Bertrand Russell essay, in a paragraph on Hume and Kant in which he states that “all concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits.” Here is the bulk of this paragraph:

> Hume saw clearly that certain concepts, as for example that of causality, cannot be deduced from the material of experience by logical methods. Kant, thoroughly convinced of the indispensability of certain concepts, took them… to be the necessary premises of any kind of thinking and distinguished them from concepts of empirical origin. I am convinced, however, that this distinction is erroneous or, at any rate, that it does not do justice to the problem in a natural way. All concepts, even those closest to experience, are from the point of view of logic freely chosen posits

### 2.2. Gödel: math is a priori

On the other hand, Gödel was a Platonist and believed that math is a priori. He makes his position blindingly clear in the introduction to an unpublished lecture Gödel \*1961/?, “The modern development of the foundations of mathematics in the light of philosophy,” *Collected Works* , vol. 3:333The numbering scheme used in Gödel’s *Collected Works* begins with an * for unpublished papers, followed by the year of publication, or the first/last year that Gödel worked on an unpublished paper.

> I would like to attempt here to describe, in terms of philosophical concepts, the development of foundational research in mathematics…, and to fit it into a general schema of possible philosophical world-views \[Weltanschauungen\]… I believe that the most fruitful principle for gaining an overall view of the possible world-views will be to divide them up according to the degree and the manner of their affinity to or, respectively, turning away from metaphysics (or religion). In this way we immediately obtain a division into two groups: skepticism, materialism and positivism stand on one side, spiritualism, idealism and theology on the other… Thus one would, for example, say that apriorism belongs in principle on the right and empiricism on the left side… Now it is a familiar fact, even a platitude, that the development of philosophy since the Renaissance has by and large gone from right to left… It would truly be a miracle if this (I would like to say rabid) development had not also begun to make itself felt in the conception of mathematics. Actually, mathematics, by its nature as an a priori science, always has, in and of itself, an inclination toward the right, and, for this reason, has long withstood the spirit of the time \[Zeitgeist\] that has ruled since the Renaissance; i.e., the empiricist theory of mathematics, such as the one set forth by Mill, did not find much support… Finally, however, around the turn of the century, its hour struck: in particular, it was the antinomies of set theory, contradictions that allegedly appeared within mathematics, whose significance was exaggerated by skeptics and empiricists and which were employed as a pretext for the leftward upheaval…

Nevertheless, the Platonist Gödel makes some remarkably strong statements in favor of adding to mathematics axioms which are not self-evident and which are only justified pragmatically. What arguments does he present in support of these heretical views?

First let’s take a look at his discussion of whether Cantor’s continuum hypothesis could be established using a new axiom \[Gödel 1947, “What is Cantor’s continuum problem?”, *Collected Works,* vol. 2\]:

> …even disregarding the intrinsic necessity of some new axiom, and even in case it has no intrinsic necessity at all, a probable decision about its truth is possible also in another way, namely, inductively by studying its “success.” Success here means fruitfulness in consequences, in particular in “verifiable” consequences, i.e., consequences demonstrable without the new axiom, whose proofs with the help of the new axiom, however, are considerably simpler and easier to discover, and make it possible to contract into one proof many different proofs. The axioms for the system of real numbers, rejected by intuitionists, have in this sense been verified to some extent, owing to the fact that analytical number theory frequently allows one to prove number-theoretical theorems which, in a more cumbersome way, can subsequently be verified by elementary methods. A much higher degree of verification than that, however, is conceivable. There might exist axioms so abundant in their verifiable consequences, shedding so much light upon a whole field, and yielding such powerful methods for solving problems (and even solving them constructively, as far as that is possible) that, no matter whether or not they are intrinsically necessary, they would have to be accepted at least in the same sense as any well-established physical theory.

Later in the same paper Gödel restates this:

> It was pointed out earlier… that, besides mathematical intuition, there exists another (though only probable) criterion of the truth of mathematical axioms, namely their fruitfulness in mathematics and, one may add, possibly also in physics… The simplest case of an application of the criterion under discussion arises when some… axiom has number-theoretical consequences verifiable by computation up to any given integer.

And here is an excerpt from Gödel’s contribution \[Gödel 1944, “Russell’s mathematical logic,” *Collected Works,* vol. 2\] to the same Bertrand Russell festschrift volume  that was quoted above:

> The analogy between mathematics and a natural science is enlarged upon by Russell also in another respect… axioms need not be evident in themselves, but rather their justification lies (exactly as in physics) in the fact that they make it possible for these “sense perceptions” to be deduced… I think that… this view has been largely justified by subsequent developments, and it is to be expected that it will be still more so in the future. It has turned out that the solution of certain arithmetical problems requires the use of assumptions essentially transcending arithmetic… Furthermore it seems likely that for deciding certain questions of abstract set theory and even for certain related questions of the theory of real numbers new axioms based on some hitherto unknown idea will be necessary. Perhaps also the apparently insurmountable difficulties which some other mathematical problems have been presenting for many years are due to the fact that the necessary axioms have not yet been found. Of course, under these circumstances mathematics may lose a good deal of its “absolute certainty;” but, under the influence of the modern criticism of the foundations, this has already happened to a large extent…

Finally, take a look at this excerpt from Gödel \*1951, “Some basic theorems on the foundations,” *Collected Works,* vol. 3, an unpublished essay by Gödel:

> I wish to point out that one may conjecture the truth of a universal proposition (for example, that I shall be able to verify a certain property for *any* integer given to me) and at the same time conjecture that no general proof for this fact exists. It is easy to imagine situations in which both these conjectures would be very well founded. For the first half of it, this would, for example, be the case if the proposition in question were some equation $`F(n)=G(n)`$ of two number-theoretical functions which could be verified up to *very* great numbers $`n`$.444Such a verification of an *equality* (not an inequality) between two number-theoretical functions of not too complicated or artificial structure would certainly give a great probability to their complete equality, although its numerical value could not be estimated in the present state of science. However, it is easy to give examples of general propositions about integers where the probability can be estimated even now… Moreover, exactly as in the natural sciences, this *inductio per enumerationem simplicem* is by no means the only inductive method conceivable in mathematics. I admit that every mathematician has an inborn abhorrence to giving more than heuristic significance to such inductive arguments. I think, however, that this is due to the very prejudice that mathematical objects somehow have no real existence. If mathematics describes an objective world just like physics, there is no reason why inductive methods should not be applied in mathematics just the same as in physics. The fact is that in mathematics we still have the same attitude today that in former times one had toward all science, namely, we try to derive everything by cogent proofs from the definitions (that is, in ontological terminology, from the essences of things). Perhaps this method, if it claims monopoly, is as wrong in mathematics as it was in physics.

So Gödel the Platonist has nevertheless managed to arrive, at least partially, at what I would characterize, following Tymoczko , as a pseudo-empirical or a quasi-empirical position!

### 2.3. AIT: math is quasi-empirical

What does algorithmic information theory have to contribute to this discussion? Well, I believe that AIT also supports a quasi-empirical view of mathematics. And I believe that it provides further justification for Gödel’s belief that we should be willing to add new axioms.

Why do I say this?

As I have argued on many occasions, AIT, by measuring the complexity (algorithmic information content) of axioms and showing that Gödel incompleteness is natural and ubiquitous, deepens the arguments that forced Gödel, in spite of himself, in spite of his deepest instincts about the nature of mathematics, to believe in inductive mathematics. And if one considers the use of induction rather than deduction to establish mathematical facts, some kind of notion of *complexity* must necessarily be involved. For as Leibniz stated in 1686, a theory is only convincing to the extent that it is substantially *simpler* than the facts it attempts to explain:

> …non seulement rien n’arrive dans le monde, qui soit absolument irregulier, mais on ne sçauroit mêmes rien feindre de tel. Car supposons par exemple que quelcun fasse quantité de points sur le papier à tout hazard, comme font ceux qui exercent l’art ridicule de la Geomance, je dis qu’il est possible de trouver une ligne geometrique dont la motion soit constante et uniforme suivant une certaine regle, en sorte que cette ligne passe par tous ces points… Mais quand une regle est fort composée, ce qui luy est conforme, passe pour irrégulier. Ainsi on peut dire que de quelque maniere que Dieu auroit créé le monde, il auroit tousjours esté regulier et dans un certain ordre general. Mais Dieu a choisi celuy qui est le plus parfait, c’est à dire celuy qui est en même temps le plus simple en hypotheses et le plus riche en phenomenes… \[*Discours de métaphysique,* VI\]

In fact Gödel himself, in considering inductive rather than deductive mathematical proofs, began to make some tentative initial attempts to formulate and utilize notions of complexity. (I’ll tell you more about this in a moment.) And it is here that AIT makes its decisive contribution to philosophy, by providing a highly-developed and elegant mathematical theory of complexity. How does AIT do this? It does this by considering the size of the smallest computer program required to calculate a given object $`X`$, which may also be considered to be the most elegant theory that explains $`X`$.

Where does Gödel begin to think about complexity? He does so in two footnotes in vol. 3 of his *Collected Works.* The first of these is a footnote to Gödel \*1951. This footnote begins “Such a verification…” and it was reproduced, in part, in Section 2.2 above. And here is the relevant portion of the second, the more interesting, of these two footnotes:

> …Moreover, if every number-theoretical question of Goldbach type… is decidable by a mathematical proof, there *must* exist an infinite set of independent evident axioms, i.e., a set $`m`$ of evident axioms which are not derivable from *any* finite set of axioms (no matter whether or not the latter axioms belong to $`m`$ and whether or not they are evident). Even if solutions are desired only for all those problems of Goldbach type which are simple enough to be formulated in a few pages, there must exist a great number of evident axioms or evident axioms of great complication, in contradistinction to the few simple axioms upon which all of present day mathematics is built. (It can be proved that, in order to solve all problems of Goldbach type of a certain degree of complication $`k`$, one needs a system of axioms whose degree of complication, up to a minor correction, is $`k`$.)555\[This is reminiscent of the theorem in AIT that $`p_k=`$ (the program of size $`k`$ bits that takes longest to halt) is the simplest possible “axiom” from which one can solve the halting problem for all programs of size $`k`$. Furthermore, $`p_k`$’s size and complexity both differ from $`k`$ by at most a fixed number of bits: $`|p_k|=k+O(1)`$ and $`H(p_k)=k+O(1)`$. Actually, in order to solve the halting problem for all programs of size $`k`$, in addition to $`p_k`$ one needs to know $`k|p_k|`$, which is how much $`p_k`$’s size differs from $`k`$. This fixed amount of additional information is required in order to be able to determine $`k`$ from $`p_k`$.\]

This is taken from Gödel \*1953/9–III, one of the versions of his unfinished paper “Is mathematics syntax of language?” that was intended for, but was finally not included, in Schilpp’s Carnap festschrift in the same series as the Bertrand Russell festschrift .

Unfortunately these tantalizing glimpses are, as far as I’m aware, all that we know about Gödel’s thoughts on complexity. Perhaps volumes 4 and 5, the two final volumes of Gödel’s *Collected Works,* which contain Gödel’s correspondence with other mathematicians, and which will soon be available, will shed further light on this.

Now let me turn to a completely different—but I believe equally fundamental—application of AIT.

## 3. How can we partition the world into distinct entities?

For many years I have asked myself, “What is a living being? How can we define this mathematically?!” I still don’t know the answer! But at least I think I now know how to come to grips with the more general notion of “entity” or “being.” In other words, how can we decompose our experience into parts? How can we partition the world into its components? By what right do we do this in spite of mystics who like Parmenides insist that the world must be perceived as an organic unity (is a single substance) and cannot be decomposed or analized into independent parts?

I believe that the key to answering this fundamental question lies in AIT’s concept of *algorithmic independence.* What is algorithmic independence? Two objects $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are said to be algorithmically independent if their complexity is (approximately) additive. In other words, $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are algorithmically independent if their information content decomposes additively, i.e., if their joint information content (the information content of $`X`$ and $`Y`$) is approximately equal to the sum of their individual information contents:

$$H(X,Y)H(X)+H(Y).$$

More precisely, the left-hand side is the size in bits of the smallest program that calculates the pair $`X`$, $`Y`$, and the right-hand side adds the size in bits of the smallest program that produces $`X`$ to the size in bits of the smallest program that calculates $`Y`$.

Contrariwise, if $`X`$ and $`Y`$ are not at all independent, then it is much better to compute them together than to compute them separately and $`H(X)+H(Y)`$ will be much larger than $`H(X,Y)`$. The worst case is $`X=Y`$. Then $`H(X)+H(Y)`$ is twice as large as $`H(X,Y)`$.

I feel that this notion of algorithmic independence is the key to decomposing the world into parts, parts the most interesting example of which are living beings, particularly human beings. For what enables me to partition the world in this way? The fact that thinking of the world as a sum of such parts does not complicate my description of the world substantially and at the same time enables me to use separate subroutines such as “my wife” and “my cat” in thinking about the world. That is why such an analysis of the world, such a decomposition, works.

Whereas on the contrary “my left foot” and “my right hand” are not well thought of as independent components of the world but can best be understood as parts of me. A description of my right hand and its activities and history would not be substantially simpler than a description of me and my entire life history, since my right hand is a part of me whose actions express my intentions, and not its own independent desires.

Of course, these observations are just the beginning. A great deal more work is needed to develop this point of view…

For a technical discussion of algorithmic independence and the associated notion of *mutual algorithmic information* defined as follows

$$H(X:Y)H(X)+H(Y)H(X,Y),$$

see my book Chaitin .

## 4. Conclusion and future prospects

Let’s return to our starting point, to the cover of the January 2003 issue of *La Recherche*. Is God a computer, as Wolfram and some others think, or is God, as Plato and Pythagoras affirm, a mathematician?

And, an important part of this question, is the physical universe discrete, the way computers prefer, not continuous, the way it seems to be in classical Newtonian/Maxwellian physics? Speaking personally, I like the discrete, not the continuous. And my theory, AIT, deals with discrete, digital information, bits, not with continuous quantities. But the physical universe is of course free to do as it likes!

Hopefully pure thought will not be called upon to resolve this. Indeed, I believe that it is incapable of doing so; Nature will have to tell us. Perhaps someday an *experimentum crucis* will provide a definitive answer. In fact, for a hundred years quantum physics has been pointing insistently in the direction of discreteness.666Discreteness in physics actually began even earlier, with atoms. And then, my colleague John Smolin points out, when Boltzmann introduced coarse-graining in statistical mechanics.

## References

* O. Postel-Vinay, “L’Univers est-il un calculateur?” \[Is the universe a calculator?\], *La Recherche,* no. 360, January 2003, pp. 33–44.
* S. Wolfram, *A New Kind of Science,* Wolfram Media, 2002.
* Leibniz, *Discours de métaphysique,* Gallimard, 1995.
* G. W. Leibniz, *Philosophical Essays,* Hackett, 1989.
* H. Weyl, *The Open World,* Yale University Press, 1932, Ox Bow Press, 1989.
* B. Magee, *Confessions of a Philosopher,* Modern Library, 1999.
* J. R. Brown, *Philosophy of Mathematics,* Routledge, 1999.
* G. J. Chaitin, “Paradoxes of randomness,” *Complexity,* vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 14–21, 2002.
* G. J. Chaitin, “Meta-mathematics and the foundations of mathematics,” *Bulletin EATCS,* vol. 77, pp. 167–179, 2002.
* G. J. Chaitin, “On the intelligibility of the universe and the notions of simplicity, complexity and irreducibility,”
http://arxiv.org/abs/math.HO/0210035, 2002.
* P. A. Schilpp, *The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell,* Open Court, 1944.
* A. Einstein, *Ideas and Opinions,* Crown, 1954, Modern Library, 1994.
* A. Einstein, *Autobiographical Notes,* Open Court, 1979.
* K. Gödel, *Collected Works,* vols. 1–5, Oxford University Press, 1986–2003.
* *Kurt Gödel: Wahrheit & Beweisbarkeit* \[truth and provability\], vols. 1–2, öbv & hpt, 2002.
* T. Tymoczko, *New Directions in the Philosophy of Mathematics,* Princeton University Press, 1998.
* G. J. Chaitin, *Exploring Randomness,* Springer-Verlag, 2001.

Chaitin’s papers are also available at
http://cs.auckland.ac.nz/CDMTCS/chaitin.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The Darboux (supersymmetry) transformations  are an efficient tool to extend the class of exactly solvable spectral problems for the Schrödinger’s Hamiltonians in one space dimension , permitting to see that new classes of exact solutions are not an exclusive achievement of General Relativity . The use of the Darboux method turns of special interest in particle and statistical physics, classical mechanics, mathematical physics, biological systems and other areas  (see also the monographs ). If the initial Schrödinger’s Hamiltonian in $`L^2()`$ is:

$$H=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x)$$
(1)
the original (1-st order) Darboux algorithm  is equivalent to the operation of ‘transporting’ through $`H`$ a 1-st order differential operator $`A`$ or its adjoint $`A^{}`$:

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha (x)\right],A^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha (x)\right]$$
(2)
leading to a new Hamiltonian $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$

$$AH=\stackrel{~}{H}AHA^{}=A^{}\stackrel{~}{H}$$
(3)
again of Schrödinger’s type

$$\stackrel{~}{H}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+\stackrel{~}{V}(x)$$
(4)
provided that the function $`\alpha (x)`$ (the superpotential) fulfills the integrability condition in form of the Riccati equation:

$$\alpha ^{}(x)+\alpha ^2(x)=2[V(x)ϵ],$$
(5)
where $`ϵ`$ is a factorization constant measured in energy units though not necessarily belonging to the spectrum of $`H`$ . If (3-5) hold, the new potential $`\stackrel{~}{V}`$ is given by

$$\alpha ^{}(x)+\alpha ^2(x)=2[\stackrel{~}{V}(x)ϵ]\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x)+\alpha ^{}(x)$$

The links of (3) with the traditional factorization method  are due to the identities

$$Hϵ=A^{}A,\stackrel{~}{H}ϵ=AA^{}$$
(6)
(see, e.g., Andrianov , Nieto , Sukumar ). The Darboux transformation (3), in general, leads to a new class of spectral problems of form (4) with $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)`$ essentially different from $`V(x)`$. Yet, the method allows some intriguing exceptions.

As recently discussed , some special periodic potentials $`V(x)V(x+T)`$ admit the Darboux transformations which consist simply in coordinate displacements, $`\stackrel{~}{V}(x)=V(x+\delta )`$, where $`\delta =T/2`$. As subsequently shown, the half period is not the only displacement available. For a subclass of periodic Lamé potentials , we have detected the supersymmetric displacements $`\delta `$ varying continuously in the interval $`(0,T)`$ . We propose to call this phenomenon the translational invariance with respect to Darboux transformations, or simply the Darboux invariance . Since very little is changed in $`V(x)`$ by just shifting the argument, the Darboux displacements might look as ‘frustrated cases’ of the Darboux method (at least as far as the quest for new exact solutions in quantum mechanics is concerned). Yet, we shall show that the effect is mathematically nontrivial and of tentative physical interest. We shall formulate the necessary and sufficient conditions for a potential to be Darboux invariant and find an intimate relation between the Darboux invariance and elliptic functions. Moreover, it turns out that the Schrödinger equation with a Darboux invariant potential may be integrated by quadratures for any value of $`E`$. This gives a convenient tool to construct essentially new solvable potentials by applying the finite difference Bäcklund algorithm .

## 2 The Weierstrass condition

Following our former observations , we shall look for some deeper reasons of the Darboux invariance. We shall thus consider a hypothetical potential $`V(x)`$ (periodical or not) which admits Darboux transformations consisting in pure $`x`$-displacements. Let $`A`$ and $`A^{}`$ be the first order differential operators

$$A=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha (x,\delta )\right],A^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha (x,\delta )\right]$$
(7)
producing this effect, i.e.,

$$AH=H_\delta A$$
(8)
where

$$H_\delta =\frac{1}{2}\frac{d^2}{dx^2}+V(x+\delta )$$

Notice that if $`\delta `$ is one of the admissible Darboux displacement (7-8), so is $`\delta `$ (the formal conjugation of (7) and the change of variable $`xx\delta `$ implying that $`\alpha (x,\delta )=\alpha (x\delta ,\delta )`$ is the corresponding superpotential). Note also that if the Hamiltonian $`H`$ admits a Darboux displacement $`\delta `$ (7-8), then any displaced version $`H_\delta ^{}`$ of $`H`$ can be as well $`\delta `$-displaced

$$A^{}H_\delta ^{}=H_{\delta ^{}+\delta }A^{},A^{}\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left[\frac{d}{dx}+\alpha (x+\delta ^{},\delta )\right]$$

The set $`𝒟`$ of all Darboux displacements $`\delta `$ generated by the first order intertwiners (2) for a given Hamiltonian $`H`$ is now a decisive element. Our previous study  shows that for the one soliton or Lamé potentials with $`n=1`$ the allowed displacement can be any $`\delta (0,T)`$ (where $`T`$ is either the real Lamé period or $`T=+\mathrm{}`$ in the 1-soliton case). We shall see that even the existence of a finite number of Darboux displacements can be a tight structural information. Indeed, one has:

* Proposition 1. If the Hamiltonian $`H`$ admits three Darboux displacements $`\delta _1`$, $`\delta _2`$, $`\delta _3`$, such that $`\delta _1+\delta _2+\delta _3=0`$, then up to an additive constant, the potential $`V`$ reduces to one of the Weierstrass functions.

Proof follows immediately from a sequence of mathematical results , concerning the invariance of the Schrödinger’s Hamiltonians under the generalized Darboux transformations, where the intertwiners $`A`$ in (3) can be differential operators of arbitrary order. Indeed, suppose $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ are three first order Darboux operators $`A_i=[d/dx+\alpha _i(x)]/\sqrt{2}`$ inducing the subsequent displacements

$$H\stackrel{}{}H_{\delta _1}\stackrel{}{}H_{\delta _1+\delta _2}\stackrel{}{}H_{\delta _1+\delta _2+\delta _3}=H.$$
(9)
Then the product $`D_3=A_3A_2A_1`$ must commute with the Hamiltonian (1), implying that $`H`$ and $`D_3`$ form a commuting Lax pair (compare ). Hence, there exists a constant $`V_0`$ such that $`\varphi (x)=V(x)V_0`$ must fulfill the stationary KdV equation (see also ), leading to the 1-st order Weierstrass equation

$$(\varphi ^{})^2=4\varphi ^3g_2\varphi g_3,g_2,g_3=\mathrm{const}$$
(10)
$`\mathrm{}`$

The equation (10) admits two families of real solutions:

$``$ The singular family (S) is given by the traditional Weierstrass functions:

$$_{\mathrm{}}^\varphi \frac{d\nu }{\sqrt{4\nu ^3g_2\nu g_3}}=xa\varphi (x)\mathrm{}(xa;g_2,g_3)$$
(11)
If $`a,g_2,g_3`$ are real, $`\varphi (x)`$ is real too, but the family admits also an analytic continuation to complex $`a`$. In fact, if $`\omega ^{}=i\tau `$ ($`\tau `$) is half-imaginary period of $`\mathrm{}`$, then one sees: $`\mathrm{}(xi\tau ;g_2,g_3)^{}=\mathrm{}(x+i\tau ;g_2,g_3)=\mathrm{}(xi\tau ;g_2,g_3)`$. Thus, (11) defines as well

$``$ The regular family (R) is given as the ‘parallel real section’ of (11) for $`aa+i\tau `$

$$\varphi (x)\mathrm{}(xai\tau ;g_2,g_3)$$
(12)
To obtain a geometric image of both branches, the phase portrait of (10) is relevant . Take for simplicity $`a=0`$. Interpreting $`\varphi `$ and $`\varphi ^{}`$ respectively as the coordinate and momentum of a hypothetical point particle, with $`x`$ meaning the ‘time’, one can view (10) as a dynamical law defining the ‘momentum’ $`p=\varphi ^{}`$ as a function of the ‘position’ $`\varphi `$, thus allowing $`\varphi `$ to move only in the permitted areas where $`P(\varphi )4\varphi ^3g_2\varphi g_30`$ and (10) is consistent with $`(\varphi ^{})^20`$. If all three roots $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$, $`e_3`$ of $`P(\varphi )`$ are real, $`e_3<e_2e_1`$, there are two allowed intervals $`[R]=[e_3,e_2]`$ and $`[S]=[e_1,+\mathrm{})`$ where $`P(\varphi )=(\varphi ^{})^2`$ permits the real $`\varphi ^{}`$. The motions in $`[S]`$ typically depart from and return to the infinity at a finite time $`T`$ (a real period of $`\mathrm{}`$); their repetitions paint an image of the periodic, singular Weierstrass functions. In turn, the motions in $`[R]`$, in general, oscillate between two turning points $`\varphi _3=e_3`$, $`\varphi _2=e_2`$, yielding the real, regular, bounded solutions of (10) with a real period $`T`$. If $`e_1=(2m)/3`$, $`e_2=(2m1)/3`$, $`e_3=(m+1)/3`$ and the oscillation period in $`[R]`$ is $`T=2\omega `$ (we adopt the notation of ), then we obtain the Lamé function $`\varphi (x)=m\mathrm{sn}^2(x|m)(m+1)/3`$, but if $`e_1=e_2=1/3>e_3=2/3`$ the oscillation time in $`[R]`$ tends to infinity and the motion reproduces the one-soliton transparent well.

As we have already observed, the regular solutions in $`[R]`$ can be as well obtained by an analytic continuation of the singular Weierstrass solutions in $`[S]`$. Thus, e.g., the Lamé function $`\mathrm{sn}^2x`$ is given in terms of the regular branch of (10) by

$$m\mathrm{sn}^2(x|m)=\mathrm{}(x+i\tau ;g_2,g_3)+(m+1)/3$$
(13)
where $`g_2=4(m^2m+1)/3,g_3=4(m2)(2m1)(m+1)/27`$ (compare ) while the one soliton well is the $`i\tau `$-displaced case of the singular solution $`\mathrm{}(x)`$ (see (31) in ).

So far, (10-11) are just a necessary condition for the existence of any 3-order Darboux symmetry of the initial Hamiltonian $`H`$ (and by the same for the existence of a triple Darboux displacement (9) closing to identity). Quite remarkably, the condition turns also sufficient, though the proof of this last fact is less evident. We shall therefore formulate an independent criterion which is both necessary and sufficient for the existence of the Darboux displacements.

## 3 The supersymmetric addition law

Notice that even the existence of a single 1-st order intertwining operator producing a displacement $`\delta `$ imposes strong restrictions on the corresponding potential $`V(x)`$. Of course, if $`V`$ is periodic, with a real period $`T`$ and $`V\mathrm{const}`$ then $`\delta nT`$ ($`n`$). Indeed, if $`\delta =nT`$, there would be a Darboux operator (7) generating the identity transformation $`H_\delta =H`$, i.e., commuting with $`H`$, which is impossible except if $`V(x)\mathrm{const}`$. Assume now that (2) is one of operators generating a Darboux displacement $`\delta `$ for the Hamiltonian (1); hence

$`\alpha ^{}(x)+\alpha ^2(x)=2[V(x)ϵ],`$ (14)
$`\alpha ^{}(x)+\alpha ^2(x)=2[V(x+\delta )ϵ]`$ (15)
where $`ϵ`$ is a factorization constant. Due to (14-15)

$`\alpha ^2(x)=V(x)+V(x+\delta )2ϵ,`$ (16)
$`\alpha ^{}(x)=V(x+\delta )V(x)`$ (17)
Determining $`\alpha (x)`$ from (16) one finds

$$\alpha (x)=\pm \sqrt{V(x)+V(x+\delta )2ϵ}$$
(18)
Differentiating (18) and comparing with (17) one thus arrives at the following functional equation:

$$V(x)+V(x+\delta )\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{V^{}(x)+V^{}(x+\delta )}{V(x)V(x+\delta )}\right]^2=2ϵ$$
(19)
The eq. (19) turns out a necessary condition for $`V(x)`$ to admit the Darboux displacement $`V(x)V(x+\delta )`$ with the factorization constant $`ϵ`$. Inversely, suppose $`V(x)`$ fulfills (19) with certain constants $`\delta `$ and $`ϵ`$. Then define $`\alpha (x)`$ by (18), assuring automatically (16). Differentiating (18) one obtains:

$$\alpha ^{}(x)=\pm \frac{1}{2}\frac{V^{}(x)+V^{}(x+\delta )}{\sqrt{V(x)+V(x+\delta )2ϵ}}$$

If the sign in (18) is “$`+`$” the superpotential $`\alpha (x)`$ generates the Darboux displacement $`V(x)V(x+\delta )`$, while the sign “$``$” yields the inverse displacement $`V(x+\delta )V(x)`$. By choosing the proper sign $`+`$ and by applying (19) one recovers (17). We thus arrived at

* Theorem 1. The necessary and sufficient condition for $`V(x)`$ to admit a non-trivial Darboux displacement $`\delta `$ is that the left hand side of (19) is independent of $`x`$. Its value defines the factorization constant $`ϵ`$ for the corresponding superpotential $`\alpha (x)`$.

In order to admit a set $`𝒟`$ of many Darboux displacements, the potential $`V(x)`$ must satisfy a family of many simultaneous difference-differential equations of type (19). If $`𝒟`$ is non-trivial, the Proposition 1 implies that $`V(x)=\varphi (x)+V_0`$ where $`\varphi `$ is in the Weierstrass class of functions. We shall see now that the set of conditions (19) with continuous $`\delta `$ is indeed generic for the Weierstrass functions.

In fact, assume again $`a=0`$ in (11-12). Then, examine the sense of (19) with $`V(x)`$ even, for $`\delta nT`$ (put $`T=0`$ if $`V`$ aperiodic). The constant $`ϵ`$ has to depend on $`\delta `$, $`ϵ=ϵ(\delta )`$. Denote for simplicity $`(\delta )=2ϵ(\delta )`$. Introducing the new variables $`u=x`$ and $`v=\delta x`$, and using the fact that $`V^{}(x)`$ is odd, one can write (19) in the form

$$(u+v)+V(u)+V(v)=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{V^{}(u)V^{}(v)}{V(u)V(v)}\right]^2$$
(20)
Notice now that this condition reduces to the well known addition formulae for the Weierstrass singular (S) and regular (R) functions. Indeed, for the singular branch (S) the traditional identity tells

$$\mathrm{}(u+v)+\mathrm{}(u)+\mathrm{}(v)=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{\mathrm{}^{}(u)\mathrm{}^{}(v)}{\mathrm{}(u)\mathrm{}(v)}\right]^2$$
(21)
for all $`u,v,u+v`$ out of the singularities of (21) (see e.g. Bateman ). Replacing now $`uui\tau `$, $`vvi\tau `$, $`\mathrm{}(ui\tau )=\varphi (u)`$, and making use of the fact $`\mathrm{}(u2i\tau )\mathrm{}(u)`$, one sees that for the regular branch (R)

$$(u+v)+\varphi (u)+\varphi (v)=\frac{1}{4}\left[\frac{\varphi ^{}(u)\varphi ^{}(v)}{\varphi (u)\varphi (v)}\right]^2$$
(22)
where $`(\delta )\mathrm{}(\delta )`$ is the Weierstrass function of the (S) branch linked with $`\varphi `$ by analytic continuation. We thus have

* Theorem 2. The addition laws (20) for $`V(x)`$ and (21,22) for the Weierstrass functions are nothing else but the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a continuum of the Darboux displacements.

Note, that we have thus detected a new sense of the traditional addition formulae (21-22). Though these formulae are a part of the textbook material on the elliptic functions , the fact that they can be so simply obtained by demanding the existence of the Darboux displacements (14-15) apparently, escaped attention. We conclude that, without calling much attention, the Darboux displacements were always present in the structure of the elliptic functions, explaining the exact form of the addition laws. Some other points may be worth making.

Observation 1. Though it was well established that the Weierstrass functions admit a 3-rd order symmetry (leading to the 3-rd order stationary KdV, see ), as far as we know, it was not noticed that this symmetry can be realized as a triple Darboux displacement.

Observation 2. Though one knows that the algebraic addition laws limit the form of the corresponding functions (permitting only rational or elliptic solutions), it has not been noticed that the composition laws (20-22) have even stronger consequencies. This is due to the fact that (20-22) are not purely algebraic, but have a form of difference-differential equations. Of course, (21,22) can be rewritten as algebraic identities after eliminating $`\varphi ^{}`$ by using (10), but this would reduce the implications to the traditional Weierstrass theorem (stating that any meromorphic function $`f`$ which obeys an algebraic addition law for $`f(x),f(y)`$ and $`f(x+y)`$, must be an elliptic function; see e.g. Akhiezer , p.190). The consequencies of the difference-differential laws (20-22) go beyond that.

* Corollary (inverse addition theorem). If a real, differentiable, even function $`\varphi (x)`$ fulfills the addition law (22) for arbitrary $`u,v,`$ with $``$ having an isolated singularity at $`0`$, then $`\varphi (x)`$ is one of Weierstrass functions.

Proof. Indeed, if $`\varphi (x)`$ is even and fulfills (22), then it also satisfies (19) for any $`\delta =u+v`$ whenever $`(\delta )`$ is finite. Then, due to our Theorem 1, an arbitrary $`\delta =u+v`$ (out of singularities) belongs to the admissible 1-susy displacements, and in view of the Proposition 1, $`\varphi (x)`$ belongs either to (R) or to (S) Weierstrass classes (10-11). $`\mathrm{}`$

Although our proof is immediate, the theorem (as far as we know) was never proved, apparently since the supersymmetry methods has not been used in the theory of the elliptic functions.

Let us also notice that the ‘supersymmetric sense’ of the addition formulae grants an explicit integrability of the Riccati equation (5), making specially easy the use of the finite-difference Bäcklund algorithm  to generalize the (R) or (S) potentials. Indeed, for any $`V(x)`$ obeying (20) the special solutions $`\alpha (x,\delta )`$ of (5), generating the displacements, are explicitly given by (18) without the need of solving any differential equation. Alternatively, using (17) one obtains:

$$\alpha (x,\delta )=[V(x+\delta )V(x)]𝑑x=\zeta (x)\zeta (x+\delta )+\zeta (\delta ),$$
(23)
where $`\zeta (x)`$ is the ‘non-elliptic’ Weierstrass function  and the last (constant) term in (23) was determined consistently with (18,20). This might seem a limited achievement (why to use the ‘supersymmetric machine’ just to displace the argument in $`V(x)`$?), but since $`ϵ(\delta )=ϵ(\delta )`$, the formula (23) gives two independent solutions of the Riccati equation (5) for the same factorization energy $`ϵ`$. Thus, the general solution can be easily obtained with the help of only one quadrature (see e.g. ), i.e., in terms of a new auxiliary function

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x)=\mathrm{\Gamma }e^{{\scriptscriptstyle [\zeta (x\delta )\zeta (x+\delta )+2\zeta (\delta )]𝑑x}}=\mathrm{\Gamma }\frac{\sigma (x\delta )}{\sigma (x+\delta )}e^{2\zeta (\delta )x}$$
(24)
where $`\sigma (x)`$ is another non-elliptic Weierstrass function. The general solution of (5) then becomes:

$$\alpha (x,ϵ)=\frac{\alpha (x,\delta )\alpha (x,\delta )\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x)}{1\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(x)}$$
(25)
The possibility of solving generally the Riccati eq. (5) for the Lame potential (13) is well known, but we have never seen an argument so simple as the one based on the Darboux displacements. Moreover, by using (23-24) with varying $`|\delta |`$, one has explicit expressions for the superpotentials with different factorization constants; a fact specially convenient for obtaining the transformed Lamé potentials via the purely algebraic Bäcklund algorithm

$`\alpha _2(x;ϵ_1,ϵ_2)`$ $`=`$ $`\alpha _1(x;ϵ_1){\displaystyle \frac{2(ϵ_1ϵ_2)}{\alpha _1(x;ϵ_1)\alpha _1(x;ϵ_2)}}`$ (26)
where $`\alpha _1`$ can be either the displacement inducing solution (23) or the general one (25). As an example, we have used the general solution (23-25) to produce an impurity of the Lamé potential inserting a bound state into the lowest forbidden band (see Fig.1).

An atypical application of (23) permits to generate as well the complex Darboux displacements. Indeed, it is known that the roots $`e_1`$, $`e_2`$, $`e_3`$ of the Weierstrass polynomial $`P(\varphi )`$ determine the band edges of the nonsingular, periodic Weierstrass potentials . In particular, for the Lamé function (13) one has $`E_0=\mathrm{}(\omega )/2=e_1/2=(m2)/6`$; $`E_1=\mathrm{}(\omega +i\tau )/2=e_2/2=(12m)/6`$; $`E_1^{}=\mathrm{}(i\tau )/2=e_3/2=(m+1)/6`$. Hence, when applying the superpotential formula (23) for $`\delta =i\tau +\kappa `$, where $`0\kappa \omega `$, one obtains the 1-susy superpotentials with the factorization energies in the upper forbidden band $`[E_1,E_1^{}]`$. The method can be very easily used to embed two new bound states into the forbidden band by applying 2-nd order Darboux  or Bäcklund algorithm (26) (see Fig.2). The higher order Bäcklund terms  can be as easily constructed.

The authors acknowledge the support of CONACYT project 32086E (México). BFS is grateful for the support of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and for the kind hospitality at the Physics Department of CINVESTAV in the spring of 2001. ORO acknowledges the support of CINVESTAV, project JIRA’2001/17.


text:
# Amenable Discrete Quantum Groups

## 1. Introduction

In this paper, we study amenability of non-Kac type discrete quantum groups. We use notions of discrete quantum groups or its dual compact quantum groups introduced in , , for example. Amenability is defined as a generalization of the group case, that is, by the existence of an invariant mean. In a discrete group case, it is known that amenability is characterized by several conditions (see  for its survey). The first step to its generalization for discrete quantum groups has been made by Z.-J. Ruan  under the tracial condition of the Haar weight, that is, the Kac algebra condition. In particular, he has shown that amenability is equivalent to strong Voiculescu amenability. For general quantum groups, a generalization of Ruan’s theorem has been investigated by E. Bédos, R. Conti, G.J. Murphy and L. Tuset in , , , . They have shown that strong Voiculescu amenability implies amenability. Our main theorem (Theorem 3.8) says that both the notions are equivalent for general discrete quantum groups. We should mention that all the implications except for the above converse one in Theorem 3.8 have been already known in the pioneering works , , , , however we give a proof in order to give another proof of nuclearity of dual compact quantum groups. After this work was done, we learned from S. Vaes that E. Blanchard and he also have proved equivalence between amenability and strong Voiculescu amenability.

Acknowledgements. The author is highly grateful to his supervisor Yasuyuki Kawahigashi, Yoshiomi Nakagami and Stefaan Vaes for all the discussions and encouragement.

## 2. Notations for quantum groups

On symbols of tensor products (minimal tensor product or tensor product von Neumann algebra), the same notation $``$ is used throughout this paper. A flip unitary on tensor product Hilbert spaces $`HH`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. For an weight $`\theta `$ on a von Neumann algebra $`N`$, define the left ideal $`n_\theta `$ and $``$-subalgebra $`m_\theta `$ by $`n_\theta =\{xN\theta (x^{}x)<\mathrm{}\}`$ and $`m_\theta =n_\theta ^{}n_\theta `$. $`m_\theta ^+`$ means $`m_\theta N_+`$.

### 2.1. locally compact quantum groups and its duals

We adopt the definition of locally compact quantum groups advocated in  as follows.

###### Definition 2.1.

A pair $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is called a (von Neumann algebraic) locally compact quantum group when it satisfies the following conditions.

1. $`M`$ is a von Neumann algebra and $`\mathrm{\Delta }:MMM`$ is a unital normal $``$-homomorphism satisfying the coassociativity relation: $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\iota )\mathrm{\Delta }=(\iota \mathrm{\Delta })\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
2. There exist two faithful normal semifinite weights $`\phi `$ and $`\psi `$ which satisfy $`\phi ((\omega \iota )\mathrm{\Delta }(x))=\omega (1)\phi (x)`$ for all $`xm_\phi ^+`$, $`\omega M_{}^+`$ and $`\psi ((\iota \omega )\mathrm{\Delta }(x))=\omega (1)\psi (x)`$ for all $`xm_\psi ^+`$, $`\omega M_{}^+`$.

The von Neumann algebra $`M`$ is realized in $`B(H)`$ via the GNS representation associated to $`\phi `$, $`\{H,\mathrm{\Lambda }\}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a map from the left ideal $`n_\phi =\{xM\phi (x^{}x)<\mathrm{}\}`$ to the Hilbert space $`H`$. On the tensor product $`HH`$, the multiplicative unitary $`W`$ is defined as follows, for $`x,yn_\phi `$,

$$W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(y))=(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Delta }(y)(x1)).$$

It satisfies the pentagonal equality $`W_{12}W_{13}W_{23}=W_{23}W_{12}`$. We often use a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra $`A`$ of $`M`$ which is defined as the norm closure of the linear space $`\{(\mathrm{id}\omega )(W)\omega B(H)_{}\}`$. It will be considered a continuous function part of $`M`$.

This unitary $`W`$ also plays a role in defining the dual locally compact quantum group $`(\widehat{M},\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$. The von Neumann algebra $`\widehat{M}`$ is the $`\sigma `$-weak closure of $`\{\lambda (\omega )\omega B(H)_{}\}`$, where $`\lambda (\omega )=(\omega \mathrm{id})(W)`$. Set $`\widehat{W}=\mathrm{\Sigma }W^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and its coproduct is given by $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x)=\widehat{W}^{}(1x)\widehat{W}`$. As above, a $`C^{}`$-subalgebra $`\widehat{A}`$ of $`\widehat{M}`$ is also defined by the norm closure of the linear space $`\{(\mathrm{id}\omega )(\widehat{W})\omega B(H)_{}\}`$.

The left invariant weight $`\widehat{\phi }`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ is characterized by the following property. For $`\omega M_{}`$, if a vector $`\xi `$ meets $`\omega (x^{})=\xi \mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ for all $`xn_\phi `$, then $`\widehat{\phi }(\lambda (\omega )^{}\lambda (\omega ))=\xi ^2`$. Note that $`H`$ also becomes a GNS Hilbert space for $`\widehat{\phi }`$ via $`\widehat{\mathrm{\Lambda }}(\lambda (\omega ))=\xi `$. Denote the set of such $`\omega `$ by $``$, that is a dense subspace of $`M_{}`$.

Let $`J`$ and $`\widehat{J}`$ be the modular conjugation for $`\phi `$ and $`\widehat{\phi }`$. Then the following useful equalities hold,

$$(\widehat{J}J)W(\widehat{J}J)=W^{},(J\widehat{J})\widehat{W}(J\widehat{J})=\widehat{W}^{}.$$

The modular operator and the modular automorphism of $`\phi `$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi `$ and $`\sigma ^\phi `$, respectively. The autopolar of $`\phi `$, $`𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ is defined by the norm closure of $`\{xJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)xn_\phi n_\phi ^{}\}`$. Then any normal state on $`M`$ is of the form $`\omega _\xi `$ with $`\xi 𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ and such a vector is unique ().

### 2.2. Discrete and compact quantum groups

A locally compact quantum group $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is called discrete if $`\widehat{\phi }(1)<\mathrm{}`$. Then its dual $`(\widehat{M},\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is called compact. In this case, the state condition $`\widehat{\phi }(1)=1`$ is always assumed. $`\widehat{\phi }`$ has the left and right invariance. About them, the basic references are ,  and . Then $`M`$ becomes a direct sum von Neumann algebra of matrix algebras, say $`M=_{\alpha I}𝕄_{n_\alpha }()`$. Then its left invariant weight $`\phi `$ is decomposed as $`_\alpha \mathrm{Tr}_\alpha h_\alpha `$, where $`\mathrm{Tr}_\alpha `$ are usual non-normalized trace. For $`\alpha `$, fix a matrix unit $`\{e(\alpha )_{i,j}\}_{i,jI}`$ which diagonalize $`h_\alpha `$ as $`h_\alpha =_{iI}\nu (\alpha )_ie(\alpha )_{i,i}`$. The positive affiliated operator $`h^{}=_{\alpha I}\mathrm{Tr}_\alpha (h_\alpha )^1h_\alpha `$ is group-like, i.e. $`\mathrm{\Delta }(h^{})=h^{}h^{}`$. Hence for the modular automorphism $`\sigma ^\phi `$ and the coproduct $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, we have for $`t`$,

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\sigma _t^\phi =(\sigma _t^\phi \sigma _t^\phi )\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

Note that the above equality does not hold for general cases.

## 3. Amenability of quantum groups

We begin with the following well-known definition.

###### Definition 3.1.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group.

1. A state $`m`$ of $`M`$ is called a left invariant mean if $`m((\omega \iota )(\mathrm{\Delta }(x)))=\omega (1)m(x)`$ for all $`\omega M_{}`$ and $`xM`$.
2. A state $`m`$ of $`M`$ is called a right invariant mean if $`m((\iota \omega )(\mathrm{\Delta }(x)))=\omega (1)m(x)`$ for all $`\omega M_{}`$ and $`xM`$.
3. A state $`m`$ of $`M`$ is called an invariant mean if $`m`$ is a left and right invariant mean.

###### Remark 3.2.

If $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has a left invariant mean, it also has an invariant mean (see \[6, Proposition 3\] for its proof).

The following definition is due to Z.-J. Ruan \[14, Theorem 1.1\].

###### Definition 3.3.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group. We say that it is strongly Voiculescu amenable if there exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ such that for any vector $`\eta `$ in $`H`$, $`W^{}(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j`$ converges to $`0`$.

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group. Then the following conditions are equivalent.

1. It is strongly Voiculescu amenable.
2. There exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ with $`lim_j\lambda (\omega )\xi _j\omega (1)\xi _j=0`$ for any functional $`\omega M_{}`$.
3. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that $`\{(\iota \omega _j)(W)\}_{j𝒥}`$ is a $`\sigma `$-weakly approximate unit of $`A`$.
4. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that $`\mathrm{id}:\widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$ is pointwise-weakly approximated by the net of unital completely positive maps $`\{(\mathrm{id}\omega _j)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$ and $`\{(\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$.
5. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that $`\mathrm{id}:\widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$ is pointwise-norm approximated by the net of unital completely positive maps $`\{(\mathrm{id}\omega _j)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$ and $`\{(\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$.

###### Proof.

$`(1)(2)`$. It suffices to prove the statement in the case that $`\omega `$ is a normal state on $`M`$ by considering linear combinations. Since $`M`$ is standardly represented, $`\omega `$ is written as $`\omega =\omega _\eta `$ with a unit vector $`\eta H`$. For any vector $`\zeta H`$, we have

$$|\lambda (\omega _\eta )\xi _j\omega _\eta (1)\xi _j|\zeta |\zeta \eta W(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j,$$

so the inequality $`\lambda (\omega _\eta )\xi _j\omega _\eta (1)\xi _j\eta W(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j`$ holds. Hence $`\lambda (\omega _\eta )\xi _j\omega _\eta (1)\xi _j`$ converges to 0.

$`(2)(3)`$. Put $`\omega _j=\omega _{\xi _j}`$ for any $`j`$ in $`𝒥`$. Then for any operator $`aA`$ and normal functional $`\theta M_{}`$, we have

$`|\theta (a(\iota \omega _j)(W)a)|=`$ $`|\lambda (\theta a)\xi _j\theta (a)\xi _j|\xi _j|`$
$``$ $`\lambda (\theta a)\xi _j(\theta a)(1)\xi _j.`$
Therefore, $`a(\iota \omega _j)(W)a`$ converges to $`0`$ $`\sigma `$-weakly. Similarly we see $`(\iota \omega _j)(W)aa`$ converges to $`0`$ $`\sigma `$-weakly.

$`(3)(4)`$. Take a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ of $`\widehat{M}_{}`$ which satisfies the third condition. Let $`\omega `$ be a normal functional on $`M`$. By applying Cohen’s factorization theorem (\[1, Theorem 10, p. 61\]) to the left $`A`$-module $`M_{}`$, we get $`a`$ in $`A`$ and $`\omega ^{}`$ in $`M_{}`$ such that $`\omega =a\omega ^{}`$. Then for any functional $`\theta \widehat{A}^{}`$, we have

$`\theta ((\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda (\omega )))=`$ $`\omega ((\iota \theta )(W)(\iota \omega _j)(W))`$
$`=`$ $`(\omega ^{}(\iota \theta )(W))((\iota \omega _j)(W))a),`$
which converges to $`\theta (\lambda (\omega ))`$. Since the linear subspace $`\{\lambda (\omega );\omega M_{}\}`$ is norm dense in $`\widehat{A}`$ and $`\{\theta (\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$ is a norm bounded family, $`\theta ((\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x))`$ converges to $`\theta (x)`$ for any operator $`x\widehat{A}`$. Similarly we can see that $`\theta ((\mathrm{id}\omega _j)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x))`$ converges to $`\theta (x)`$ for $`x\widehat{A}`$.

$`(4)(5)`$. Take a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ which satisfies the fourth condition. Let $``$ be the set of finite subsets of $`\widehat{A}`$. Take $`F=\{a_1,a_2,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$ in $``$ and $`n`$ in $``$. Consider the product Banach space $`\widehat{A}_F=l_{\mathrm{}}`$-$`_x\widehat{A}\times \widehat{A}`$ and its dual Banach space $`\widehat{A}_F^{}=l_1`$-$`_x(\widehat{A}\times \widehat{A})^{}`$. Denote the following element of $`\widehat{A}_F`$ by $`x_F(\omega )`$,

$`((\omega \mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_1)a_1`$ $`,(\mathrm{id}\omega )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_1)a_1,`$
$`(\omega \mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_2)a_2`$ $`,(\mathrm{id}\omega )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_2)a_2,`$
$`\mathrm{}`$
$`(\omega \mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_k)a_k`$ $`,(\mathrm{id}\omega )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a_k)a_k).`$
Then $`x_F(\omega _j)`$ converges to $`0`$ weakly. Hence the norm closure of the convex hull of $`\{x_F(\omega _j);j𝒥\}`$ contains $`0`$. So there exists a normal state $`\omega _{(F,n)}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that $`(\omega _{(F,n)}\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a)a<\frac{1}{n}`$, and $`(\mathrm{id}\omega _{(F,n)})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(a)a<\frac{1}{n}`$ for any element $`aF`$. This new net $`\{\omega _{(F,n)}\}_{(F,n)\times }`$ is a desired one.

$`(5)(4)`$. It is trivial.

$`(4)(3)`$. Easy to prove by reversing the proof of $`(3)(4)`$.

$`(3)(1)`$. Take such a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`M`$. Since $`\widehat{M}`$ is standardly represented, there exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ with $`\omega _j=\omega _{\xi _j}`$. Take a vector $`\eta `$ in $`H`$. Now by Cohen’s factorization theorem, there exist an operator $`aA`$ and a vector $`\zeta H`$ with $`\eta =a\zeta `$. Then we have

$`W(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j^2=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}a\zeta ^22\mathrm{Re}(W(a\zeta \xi _j)|a\zeta \xi _j)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}a\zeta ^22\mathrm{Re}((\iota \omega _j)(W)a\zeta |a\zeta ).`$
This converges to $`0`$.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group. The following conditions are equivalent.

1. There exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ with $`lim_j(\pi \iota )(W)^{}(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j=0`$ for any representation $`\{\pi ,H_\pi \}`$ of $`A`$ and $`\eta H_\pi `$.
2. There exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ with $`lim_j(\pi \iota )(W)^{}(\eta \xi _j)(\eta \xi _j)=0`$ for any cyclic representation $`\{\pi ,H_\pi \}`$ of $`A`$ and $`\eta H_\pi `$.
3. There exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ with $`lim_j\lambda (\omega )\xi _j\omega (1)\xi _j=0`$ for any functional $`\omega A^{}`$.
4. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`\widehat{M}_{}`$ such that $`\{(\iota \omega _j)(W)\}_{j𝒥}`$ is a weakly approximate unit of $`A`$.
5. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`\widehat{M}_{}`$ such that $`\{(\iota \omega _j)(W)\}_{j𝒥}`$ is a norm approximate unit of $`A`$.
6. There exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`\widehat{M}_{}`$ such that $`\mathrm{id}:\widehat{A}\widehat{A}`$ is approximated in the pointwise norm topology by the net of unital completely positive maps $`\{(\mathrm{id}\omega _j)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$ and $`\{(\omega _j\mathrm{id})\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}\}_{j𝒥}`$.
7. There exists a character $`\varrho `$ on $`\widehat{A}`$ with $`(\iota \varrho )(W)=1`$.
8. The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\widehat{A}`$ has a character.
9. There exists a state $`\varrho `$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ such that $`\varrho `$ is an $`\widehat{A}`$-linear map and satisfies $`(\iota \varrho )(W)=1`$.

###### Proof.

$`(1)(2)`$. It is trivial.

$`(2)(3)`$. Take such a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$. Let $`\omega `$ be a state on $`A`$ and $`\{H_\omega ,\pi _\omega ,\xi _\omega \}`$ be its GNS representation. Then for any $`\zeta `$ in $`H`$, we have

$$|\lambda (\omega )\xi _j\omega (1)\xi _j|\zeta |\zeta (\pi _\omega \iota )(W)(\xi _\omega \xi _j)\xi _\omega \xi _j.$$

So we get $`\lambda (\omega )\xi _j\omega (1)\xi _j(\pi _\omega \iota )(W)(\xi _\omega \xi _j)\xi _\omega \xi _j`$. Hence for any $`\omega A^{}`$, $`\lambda (\omega )\xi _j\omega (1)\xi _j`$ converges to $`0`$.

$`(3)(4)`$. Put $`\omega _j=\omega _{\xi _j}`$ for any $`j`$ in $`𝒥`$. Then for any operator $`aA`$ and any functional $`\theta A^{}`$,

$$|\theta (a(\iota \omega _j)(W)a)|=|\lambda (\theta a)\xi _j\theta (a)\xi _j|\xi _j|\lambda (\theta a)\xi _j(\theta a)(1)\xi _j.$$

Therefore, $`a(\iota \omega _j)(W)a`$ converges to $`0`$ weakly. Similarly, we can see $`(\iota \omega _j)(W)aa`$ converges to $`0`$ weakly.

$`(4)(5)`$. Take such a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ of $`\widehat{M}_{}`$. Let $``$ be the set of finite subsets of $`A`$. Take $`F=\{a_1,a_1,\mathrm{},a_k\}`$ in $``$ and $`n`$ in $``$. Consider the product Banach space $`A_F=l_{\mathrm{}}`$-$`_xA`$ and its dual Banach space $`A_F^{}=l_1`$-$`_xA^{}`$. Denote the following element in $`A_F`$ by $`x_F(\omega )`$,

$$((\iota \omega )(W)a_1a_1,(\iota \omega )(W)a_2a_2,\mathrm{},(\iota \omega )(W)a_ka_k).$$

Now the net of the elements in $`A_F`$, $`x_F(\omega _j)`$ converges to $`0`$ weakly. Hence the norm closure of the convex hull of $`\{x_F(\omega _j);j𝒥\}`$ contains 0. So there exists a normal state of $`\widehat{M}_{}`$, $`\omega _{(F,n)}`$ such that $`(\iota \omega _{(F,n)})(W)aa<\frac{1}{n}`$ for any $`a`$ in $`F`$. Then we get a new net of normal states of $`\widehat{M}_{}`$, $`\{\omega _{(F,n)}\}_{(F,n)\times }`$ and it is easy to see this net is a desired one.

$`(5)(6)`$. This is shown in a similar way to the proof of $`(3)(4)(5)`$ in Lemma 3.4.

$`(6)(7)`$. Take such a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ of $`\widehat{M}_{}`$. Let $`\varrho `$ be a weak$``$-accumulating state in $`\widehat{A}^{}`$ of the net. Then for any normal functional $`\omega `$ on $`\widehat{M}`$, we have

$`(\omega _j\mathrm{id})(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(\lambda (\omega )))=`$ $`(\omega _j\iota \omega )(\widehat{W}_{23}^{}\widehat{W}_{13}^{})`$
$`=`$ $`(\iota \omega )(\widehat{W}^{}(\omega _j\iota )(\widehat{W}^{})).`$
This converges to $`\lambda (\omega )=(\iota \omega )(\widehat{W}^{}(\varrho \iota )(\widehat{W}^{}))`$. Therefore we obtain $`(\iota \varrho )(W)=1`$ and easily see $`\varrho `$ is a character of $`\widehat{A}`$.

$`(7)(8)`$. It is trivial.

$`(8)(7)`$. Take a character $`\varrho `$ on $`\widehat{A}`$. Let $`u`$ be a unitary $`(\iota \varrho )(W)`$ in $`M`$. Then we have

$`\mathrm{\Delta }(u)=`$ $`(\iota \iota \varrho )((\mathrm{\Delta }\iota )(W))`$
$`=`$ $`(\iota \iota \varrho )(W_{13}W_{23})`$
$`=`$ $`uu.`$
Therefore, for any normal functional $`\omega M_{}`$, we get

$`\lambda (u^{}\omega )=`$ $`(\omega \iota )(W(u^{}1))`$
$`=`$ $`(\omega \iota )((1u^{})W(1u))`$
$`=`$ $`u^{}\lambda (\omega )u.`$
Then we obtain

$`|\omega (1)|=`$ $`|(u^{}\omega )(u)|`$
$`=`$ $`|\varrho (\lambda (u^{}\omega ))|`$
$``$ $`\lambda (u^{}\omega )`$
$`=`$ $`u^{}\lambda (\omega )u`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda (\omega ).`$
Hence we can define the character $`\chi `$ on $`\widehat{A}`$ with $`\chi (\lambda (\omega ))=\omega (1)`$ for $`\omega M_{}`$.

$`(7)(9)`$. Take such a character $`\varrho `$ on $`\widehat{A}`$ and extend it to the state on $`\widehat{M}`$. Denote the extended state by $`\overline{\varrho }`$. The $`\widehat{A}`$-linearity of $`\overline{\varrho }`$ easily follows from Stinespring’s theorem.

$`(9)(3)`$. Take such a state $`\varrho `$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ and let $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ be a net of normal states on $`\widehat{M}`$ which weakly$``$ converges to $`\varrho `$. Then for any functional $`\theta `$ on $`A`$ and for any normal functional $`\omega `$ on $`\widehat{M}`$, we have $`\theta ((\iota \omega _j)(W))=\omega _j((\theta \iota )(W))`$. This converges to $`\varrho ((\theta \iota )(W))=\theta (1)`$.

$`(3)(2)`$. Take a state $`\omega `$ of $`A`$ and let $`\{H_\omega ,\pi _\omega ,\xi _\omega \}`$ be the GNS representation of $`\omega `$. Take a vector $`\eta `$ in $`H_\omega `$. By Cohen’s factorization theorem, there exists an operator $`aA`$ and a vector $`\zeta H`$ with $`\eta =\pi _\omega (a)\zeta `$. Then, we have

$`(\pi _\omega \iota )(W)\eta \xi _j\eta \xi _j^2=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi _\omega (a)\zeta ^2`$
$`\mathrm{Re}((\pi _\omega \iota )(W)\pi _\omega (a)\zeta \xi _j|\pi _\omega (a)\zeta \xi _j)`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\pi _\omega (a)\zeta ^2\mathrm{Re}(\pi _\omega (a^{}(\iota \omega _j)(W)a)\zeta |\zeta ).`$
This converges to $`0`$.

$`(2)(1)`$. Let $`\{\pi ,H_\pi \}`$ be a representation of $`A`$. We may assume that this representation is nondegenerate. Then $`\pi `$ is decomposed to the direct sum of cyclic representation. This observation derives the statement of 1.

By the previous two lemmas, we obtain the following result.

###### Corollary 3.6.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group. Then the following statements are equivalent.

1. It is strongly Voiculescu amenable.
2. There exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`H`$ satisfying $`lim_j(\pi \iota )(W)^{}(\eta \xi _j)\eta \xi _j=0`$ for any representation $`\{\pi ,H_\pi \}`$ of $`A`$ and $`\eta H_\pi `$.

###### Proof.

$`(2)(1)`$. It is trivial.

$`(1)(2)`$. The latter statement is equivalent to the statement (6) in Lemma 3.5 and it is the same as the statement (5) in Lemma 3.4 which is equivalent to strong Voiculescu amenability. ∎

The following results have been already known in various settings \[3, Theorem 4.2\].

###### Corollary 3.7.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a locally compact quantum group. Then the following statements are equivalent.

1. It is strongly Voiculescu amenable.
2. The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\widehat{A}`$ has a character $`\varrho `$ with $`(\iota \varrho )(W)=1`$.
3. The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\widehat{A}`$ has a character.

We begin to treat the discrete quantum groups from now. The discreteness of $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is always assumed. The following theorem is the main result of this paper.

###### Theorem 3.8.

If $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is a discrete quantum group, the following statements are equivalent.

1. It has an invariant mean.
2. It is strongly Voiculescu amenable.
3. The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\widehat{A}`$ is nuclear and has a character.
4. The von Neumann algebra $`\widehat{M}`$ is injective and has an $`\widehat{A}`$-linear state.

We remark that the equivalence $`(2)(3)(4)`$ have been already proved by the combination of \[2, Theorem 5.2\], \[3, Corollary 2.9\], \[4, Theorem 4.8\], \[5, Theorem 1.1, Theorem 4.2, Corollary 4.3\], however we give a different proof of deriving nuclearity by using completely positive approximation property. Before proving it, we state the following corollary, where a subgroup means a $`C^{}`$-algebraic compact quantum group $`(C(K),\mathrm{\Delta }_K)`$ with a compact group $`H`$ which is an image space of $``$-homomorphism $`r:\widehat{A}C(K)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Delta }_Kr=(rr)\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$.

###### Corollary 3.9.

Let $`(\widehat{A},\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ be a compact quantum group which has a subgroup. Then the dual discrete quantum group $`(A,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ is amenable.

A character is constructed by the composition of the restriction map and a character on continuous function algebra of the subgroup. Therefore, if a compact quantum group is deformed by some parameters from a ordinary group and a subgroup (e.g. maximal torus) becomes a non-deformed subgroup, then its dual discrete quantum group is amenable. Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })=_{\alpha I}Mz_\alpha `$ be a matrix decomposition as in Section 2, where $`Mz_\alpha 𝕄_{n_\alpha }()`$. For a finite subset $`F`$ in $`I`$, let us denote $`z_F=_{\alpha F}z_\alpha `$. Note that $`z_FH=\mathrm{\Lambda }(Mz_F)`$ is finite dimensional subspace.

###### Lemma 3.10.

If $`F`$ is a finite subset of $`I`$, then the linear subspace $`K_F=\{\lambda (\omega z_F);\omega M_{}\}\widehat{A}`$ is finite dimensional.

###### Proof.

Take a normal functional $`\omega `$ in $``$ as introduced in Section 2 and an operator $`x`$ in $`n_\phi `$. Then we have

$`\omega (z_Fx^{})=`$ $`\omega ((z_Fx)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda (\omega )|z_F\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`z_F\lambda (\omega )\xi _{\widehat{\phi }}|\mathrm{\Lambda }(x).`$
So $`\omega z_F`$ is in $``$ and we obtain $`\lambda (\omega z_F)\xi _{\widehat{\phi }}=z_F\lambda (\omega )\xi _{\widehat{\phi }}z_FH`$. Since $`\xi _{\widehat{\phi }}`$ is a separating vector for $`\widehat{M}`$ and $``$ is norm dense in $`M_{}`$, the statement follows. ∎

We give a proof of Theorem 3.8 partly first.

Proof of Theorem 3.8 ($`(2)(3)(4)(1)`$). Fix a complete orthonormal system $`\{e_p\}_{p𝒫}`$ of $`H`$.

$`(2)(3)`$. We show that $`\widehat{A}`$ has completely positive approximation property. Set $`T_\omega =(\iota \omega )\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ for $`\omega \widehat{M}_{}`$. By assumption, there exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`\widehat{M}`$ satisfying the statement (6) in Lemma 3.5, that is, $`T_{\omega _j}`$ converges to the identity map of $`\widehat{A}`$ in the pointwise norm topology. Since $`\widehat{M}`$ is standardly represented, each $`\omega _j`$ is a vector state defined by a unit vector $`\xi _jH`$. Take a finite subset $`F`$ of $`I`$. Then for any operator $`x\widehat{A}`$, we have

$`T_{\omega _{z_F\xi _j}}(x)=`$ $`(\iota \omega _{z_F\xi _j})(\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }}(x))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}(\iota \omega _{z_F\xi _j,e_p})(\widehat{W})^{}(\iota \omega _{z_F\xi _j,e_p})((1x)\widehat{W})`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\lambda ((\omega _{e_p,\xi _j})z_F)\lambda ((\omega _{x^{}e_p,\xi _j})z_F)^{}.`$
Since $`\lambda ((\omega _{e_p,\xi _j})z_F)\lambda ((\omega _{x^{}e_p,\xi _j})z_F)^{}`$ is in the finite dimensional linear subspace $`K_FK_F^{}=\mathrm{span}\{ab^{};a,bK_F\}\widehat{A}`$, so is $`T_{\omega _{z_F\xi _j}}(x)`$. Hence the completely positive map $`T_{\omega _{z_F\xi _j}}`$ has finite rank. For $`n`$ and $`j𝒥`$, take an finite subset $`F(n,j)`$ of $`I`$ with $`T_{\omega _{z_{F(n,j)}\xi _j}}T_{\omega _{\xi _j}}<\frac{1}{n}`$. Then we get a new net of completely positive maps $`\{T_{\omega _{z_{F(n,j)}\xi _j}}\}_{(n,j)\times 𝒥}`$ of finite rank. This net gives a completely positive approximation of the identity map of $`\widehat{A}`$, hence $`\widehat{A}`$ is a nuclear $`C^{}`$-algebra.

$`(3)(4)`$. nuclearity $`\widehat{A}`$ implies injectivity $`\widehat{M}`$. Extend the character on $`\widehat{A}`$ to the state on $`\widehat{M}`$. We can easily see the $`\widehat{A}`$-linearity of this state by Stinespring’s theorem.

$`(4)(1)`$. Let $`\varrho `$ be an $`\widehat{A}`$-linear state on $`\widehat{M}`$. There exists a conditional expectation $`E`$ from $`B(H)`$ onto $`\widehat{M}`$. We set a state $`m`$ on $`M`$ by $`m=\varrho E|_M`$. Then for any vector $`\xi H`$ and for any operator $`xM`$, we have

$`\omega _\xi m(x)=`$ $`m((\omega _\xi \iota )(\mathrm{\Delta }(x)))`$
$`=`$ $`m\left({\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}x(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}m\left((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}x(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\varrho (\left((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}E(x)(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\varrho ((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{})\varrho (E(x))\varrho ((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\varrho ((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{})\varrho ((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W))\varrho (E(x))`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\varrho ((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W))\varrho (E(x))`$
$`=`$ $`\varrho (\omega _\xi (1))\varrho (E(x))`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _\xi (1)m(x),`$
where we have used the norm convergence of $`_{p𝒫}(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}x(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)`$ in the third equality. Therefore, $`m`$ is a left invariant mean on $`M`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we are going to prove the implication $`(1)(2)`$ of Theorem 3.8 after proving the several lemmas. As usual, $`L^{\mathrm{}}()`$ means the von Neumann algebra which consists of essentially bounded measurable functions with respect to the Lebesgue measure.

###### Lemma 3.11.

Let $`m_{}`$ be an invariant mean of $`L^{\mathrm{}}()`$. For any $`\omega `$ in $`M_{}`$ define the $`\sigma ^\phi `$-invariant functional $`\omega ^{}`$ by $`\omega ^{}(x)=m_{}(\{t\omega (\sigma _t^\phi (x))\})`$ for x in $`M`$. Then $`\omega ^{}`$ is a normal functional with $`\omega ^{}\omega `$.

###### Proof.

For $`\omega `$ in $`M_{}`$ set $`f_{\omega ,x}(t)=\{t\omega (\sigma _t^\phi (x))\}`$ in $`C^b()`$. For any finite subset $`F`$ in $`I`$, $`|f_{\omega ,x}(t)f_{\omega z_F,x}(t)|\omega \omega z_Fx`$, hence $`\omega ^{}(\omega z_F)^{}\omega \omega z_F`$. By the normality of $`\omega `$, $`lim_F(\omega z_F)^{}=\omega ^{}`$. Notice that $`Mz_F`$ is finite dimensional, so $`(\omega z_F)^{}=(\omega z_F)^{}z_F`$ is a normal functional. ∎

Note that this averaging procedure can be also done by considering a conditional expectation from $`M`$ to $`M_\phi `$. Recall that we have fixed a matrix unit $`\{e(\alpha )_{kl}\}_{1k,ln_\alpha }`$ of $`Mz_\alpha `$ for each $`\alpha `$ in $`I`$, such that they are diagonalizing $`hz_\alpha `$ as $`hz_\alpha =_{k=1}^{n_\alpha }\nu (\alpha )_ke(\alpha )_{kk}`$, where $`\nu (\alpha )_k`$ denotes a positive real number.

###### Lemma 3.12.

If $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has an invariant mean $`m`$, there exists a net of normal states $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ on $`M`$, which satisfies the following two conditions.

1. $`lim_j\omega \omega _j\omega (1)\omega _j=0`$ for any $`\omega `$ in $`M_{}`$.
2. $`\omega _j\sigma _t^\phi =\omega _j`$ for any $`t`$.

###### Proof.

Firstly we show the existence of a net satisfying the first condition. Since the convex hull of the vector states is weak$``$-dense in the state space of $`M`$, there exists a net of normal states $`\{\chi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`M_{}`$ such that $`m=\text{w*-}lim_j\chi _j`$. Let $``$ be the set of finite subsets of $`M_{}`$. For $`F=\{\omega _1,\omega _2,\mathrm{},\omega _k\}`$, consider the Banach space $`(M_{})_F=l_1`$-$`_{\omega F}M_{}`$ and its dual Banach space $`M_F=l_{\mathrm{}}`$-$`_{\omega F}M`$. Set

$$x_F(\chi )=(\omega _1\chi \omega _1(1)\chi ,\omega _k\chi \omega _k(1)\chi ,\mathrm{},\omega _k\chi \omega _k(1)\chi ),$$

for $`\chi `$ in $`M_{}`$. Then $`x_F(\chi _j)`$ converges to 0 weakly. So the norm closure of the convex hull of $`\{x_F(\chi _j);j𝒥\}`$ contains $`0`$. Hence for any $`n`$ in $``$, there exists $`\chi _{(F,n)}`$ such that $`\omega \chi _{(F,n)}\omega (1)\chi _{(F,n)}<\frac{1}{n}`$ for an $`\omega `$ in $`F`$. The new net $`\{\chi _{(F,n)}\}_{(F,n)\times }`$ is a desired one. Next we show existence of a net satisfying the both conditions. Let $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ be a net satisfying the first condition. By the previous Lemma, $`\omega _j^{}`$ is normal. We show that the net $`\{\omega _j^{}\}_{j𝒥}`$ satisfies the first condition. For $`\omega =\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{kl}),\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{mn})}`$, we have $`\omega \sigma _t^\phi =\nu _k(\alpha )^{it}\nu _l(\alpha )^{it}\nu _m(\alpha )^{it}\nu _n(\alpha )^{it}\omega `$. Then we obtain

$`|\omega \omega _j^{}(x)\omega (1)\omega _j^{}(x)|`$
$`=`$ $`|m_{}(\{t(\omega \omega _j\sigma _t^\phi )(\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\omega (1)\omega _j(\sigma _t^\phi (x))\})|`$
$`=`$ $`|m_{}(\{t(\omega \sigma _t^\phi \omega _j)(\mathrm{\Delta }(\sigma _t^\phi (x)))\omega (\sigma _t^\phi (1))\omega _j(\sigma _t^\phi (x))\})|`$
$``$ $`\underset{t}{sup}\{|(\omega \sigma _t^\phi )\omega _j(\sigma _t^\phi (x))\omega (\sigma _t^\phi (1))\omega _j(\sigma _t(x))|\}`$
$``$ $`\underset{t}{sup}\{(\omega \sigma _t^\phi )\omega _j\omega \sigma _t^\phi (1)\omega _j\}x`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{t}{sup}\{\nu _k(\alpha )^{it}\nu _l(\alpha )^{it}\nu _m(\alpha )^{it}\nu _n(\alpha )^{it}(\omega \omega _j\omega (1)\omega _j)\}x`$
$``$ $`\omega \omega _j\omega (1)\omega _jx.`$
So for this $`\omega `$, we have $`\omega \omega _j^{}\omega (1)\omega _j^{}\omega \omega _j\omega (1)\omega _j`$ and therefore $`\omega \omega _j^{}\omega (1)\omega _j^{}`$ converges to 0. By taking the linear combination for $`\omega `$, we see that $`\omega \omega _j^{}\omega (1)\omega _j^{}`$ converges to 0 for any normal functional with $`\omega =\omega z_\alpha `$. Take a normal functional $`\omega `$ and a positive $`\epsilon `$. Then there exists a finite subset $`F`$ of $`I`$ and $`j_0`$ in $`𝒥`$ such that $`\omega z_F\omega <\epsilon `$ and $`\omega z_F\omega _j^{}\omega z_F(1)\omega _j^{}<\epsilon `$ for $`jj_0`$. Then we have

$`\omega \omega _j^{}\omega (1)\omega _j^{}`$
$``$ $`(\omega \omega z_F)\omega _j^{}+\omega z_F\omega _j^{}\omega z_F(1)\omega _j^{}+(\omega z_F(1)\omega (1))\omega _j^{}`$
$`<`$ $`\epsilon +\epsilon +\epsilon =3\epsilon ,`$
for $`jj_0`$. Therefore, $`\omega \omega _j^{}\omega (1)\omega _j^{}`$ converges to 0. ∎

###### Lemma 3.13.

If $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ has an invariant mean, there exists a net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in H which satisfies the following four conditions.

1. $`lim_j\omega \omega _{\xi _j}\omega (1)\omega _{\xi _j}=0`$ for any $`\omega `$ in $`M_{}`$.
2. $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi ^{it}\xi _j=\xi _j`$ for any $`t`$ in $``$.
3. For any $`j`$ in $`𝒥`$, there exists a finite subset $`F_j`$ of $`I`$ with $`z_{F_j}\xi _j=\xi _j`$.
4. For any $`j`$ in $`𝒥`$, the vector $`\xi _j`$ is in the convex cone $`𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$.

###### Proof.

There exists a net of normal state $`\{\omega _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ which satisfies the two conditions of the previous lemma. If necessary, by cutting and normalizing, we may assume that there exists a finite subset $`F_j`$ of $`I`$ such that $`\omega _jz_{F_j}=\omega _j`$ for any $`j`$ in $`𝒥`$. The von Neumann algebra $`M`$ is standardly represented, so there exists a unique net of unit vectors $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ in $`𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$ such that $`\omega _j=\omega _{\xi _j}`$ and $`z_{F_j}\xi _j=\xi _j.`$ From the assumption $`\omega _j=\omega _j\sigma _t^\phi =\omega _{\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi ^{it}\xi _j}`$, the uniqueness of $`\xi _j`$ implies $`\mathrm{\Delta }_\phi ^{it}\xi _j=\xi _j`$. ∎

Let $`\{\xi _j\}_{j𝒥}`$ be a net of unit vectors in $`H`$ in the previous Lemma. Since $`z_{F_j}H=\mathrm{\Lambda }(Mz_{F_j})`$, there exists $`x_j`$ in $`M`$ such that $`\xi _j=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$. The operator $`x_j=x_jz_{F_j}`$ is in $`M_\phi `$ and satisfies $`\phi (x_j^{}x_j)=1`$ and $`x_j=x_j^{}`$. We prepare some notations. For an operator $`X`$ in $`MM`$, $`X(\alpha )`$ means the operator $`X(z_\alpha 1)`$ in $`Mz_\alpha M`$. An operator $`Y`$ in $`Mz_\alpha M`$ is written as $`Y=_{k,l=1}^{n_\alpha }e(\alpha )_{kl}Y_{kl}`$, where $`\{Y_{kl}\}_{kl}`$ are operators in $`M`$.

###### Lemma 3.14.

Let $`x=x^{}`$ be in $`M_\phi M_{z_F}`$, where $`F`$ is a finite subset of $`I`$, and $`\alpha `$ be in $`I`$. Then the following inequality holds.

$`\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{l1})}\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{l1})}(1)\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}`$
$`\nu (\alpha )_k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu (\alpha )_l^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi (e(\alpha )_{11})\phi (|X(\alpha )_{kl}|),`$
where $`X=\mathrm{\Delta }(x^2)(1x^2)`$.

###### Proof.

We simply write $`e_{kl}`$, $`\nu _k`$ and $`X_{kl}`$ for $`e(\alpha )_{kl}`$, $`\nu (\alpha )_k`$ and $`X(\alpha )_{kl}`$ respectively. Since $`X(\alpha )=_{1k,ln_\alpha }(e_{kl}X_{kl})`$ is in $`(MM)_{\phi \phi }`$ and $`\sigma _t^\phi (e_{kl})=\nu _k^{it}\nu _l^{it}e_{kl}`$, we have $`\sigma _t^\phi (X_{kl})=\nu _k^{it}\nu _l^{it}X_{kl}`$. Let $`X_{kl}=v_{kl}|X_{kl}|`$ be the polar decomposition of $`X_{kl}`$. Put $`a_{kl}=v_{kl}^{}`$. Then $`\sigma _t^\phi (a_{kl})=\nu _k^{it}\nu _l^{it}a_{kl}`$. Then we have

$`(\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})}\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})}(1)\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)})(a_{kl})`$
$`=`$ $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a_{kl})(\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x))|\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})|\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})a_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)|\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(1a_{kl})W(\widehat{J}J)(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x))|W(\widehat{J}J)(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x))`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})|\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})a_{kl}\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)|\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(1Ja_{kl}^{}J)W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x))|W^{}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})|\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})Ja_{kl}^{}J\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)|\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Delta }(x)(e_{l1}1)(1(\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}a_{kl})))|(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Delta }(x)(e_{k1}1))`$
$`\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})|\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}a_{kl})|\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}\{(\phi \phi )((e_{1k}1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^2)(e_{l1}1)(1a_{kl}))`$
$`(\phi \phi )((e_{1k}1)(1x^2)(e_{l1}1)(1a_{kl}))\}`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}(\phi \phi )(e_{11}X_{kl}a_{kl})`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi (e_{11})\phi (X_{kl}a_{kl})`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _k^1\nu _l\phi (e_{11})\phi (a_{kl}X_{kl})`$
$`=`$ $`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi (e_{11})\phi (|X_{kl}|).`$
Therefore, we obtain

$`\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})}\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}\omega _{\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1}),\widehat{J}\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{l1})}(1)\omega _{\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)}`$
$`\nu _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\nu _l^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi (e_{11})\phi (|X_{kl}|).`$
###### Lemma 3.15.

Let $`N`$ be a von Neumann algebra and $`\theta `$ be an n.s.f. weight on $`N`$. Let $`𝕄_n()`$ be a matrix algebra with the matrix unit $`\{e_{ij}\}_{1i,jn}`$ and $`\chi =\mathrm{Tr}_h`$ be an n.s.f. weight on $`𝕄_n()`$ with $`h=_{i=1}^n\lambda _ie_{ii}`$, $`\lambda _i>0`$. If $`\{A_j\}_{j𝒥}`$ is a net in $`(𝕄_n()N)_{\chi \theta }`$ such that $`\theta (|(A_j)_{kl}|)<\mathrm{}`$ and $`lim_j\theta (|(A_j)_{kl}|)=0`$ for any $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$, then $`lim_j\theta (|A_j|_{kl})=0`$ for any $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`A_j=V_j|A_j|`$ be the polar decomposition in $`(𝕄_n()N_\theta )_{\chi \theta }`$. Then for each $`k,l`$, we obtain $`\sigma _t^\theta ((V_j)_{kl})=\lambda _k^{it}\lambda _l^{it}(V_j)_{kl}`$ and $`\sigma _t^\theta ((A_j)_{kl})=\lambda _k^{it}\lambda _l^{it}(A_j)_{kl}`$. Since $`|A_j|_{kl}=_{m=1}^n(V_j^{})_{km}(A_j)_{ml}`$ and each $`(V_j)_{km}`$ is analytic, $`\theta (|A_j|_{kl})`$ is well-defined. Let $`(A_j)_{ml}=v_{j,m,l}|(A_j)_{ml}|`$ be the polar decomposition. Then we have

$`|\theta (|A_j|_{kl})|`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}|\theta ((V_j^{})_{km}(A_j)_{ml})|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|^{\frac{1}{2}})|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|^{\frac{1}{2}}v_{j,m,l}^{}(V_j)_{mk})\right|`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\left|\mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|^{\frac{1}{2}})|J_\theta \sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\theta (v_{j,m,l}^{}(V_j)_{mk})^{}J_\theta \mathrm{\Lambda }_\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|^{\frac{1}{2}})\right|`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\theta (v_{j,m,l}^{}(V_j)_{mk})\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|)`$
$`=`$ $`\lambda _k^{\frac{1}{2}}\lambda _l^{\frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \underset{m=1}{\overset{n}{}}}\theta (|(A_j)_{ml}|).`$
Hence $`lim_j\theta (|A_j|_{kl})=0`$. ∎

###### Lemma 3.16.

Let $`x=x^{}`$ be in $`M_\phi M_{z_F}`$, where $`F`$ is a finite subset of $`I`$ such that $`\phi (x^2)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$ is in $`𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`\alpha `$ be in $`I`$. Then the following inequality holds.

$`W^{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^2`$
$`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu (\alpha )_k^1\nu (\alpha )_1\}\phi (z_\alpha )^{\frac{1}{2}}(\phi \phi )(|X(\alpha )|)^{\frac{1}{2}},`$
where $`X=\mathrm{\Delta }(x^2)1x^2`$.

###### Proof.

We use the notations in Lemma 3.14. We have

$`W^{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)^2`$
$`=`$ $`2\phi (e_{11})2\mathrm{Re}W^{}\left(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)\right)|\mathrm{\Lambda }(e_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$
$`=`$ $`2\phi (e_{11})2\mathrm{Re}(\phi \phi )((e_{1k}1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)(e_{k1}x^{}))`$
$`=`$ $`2\phi (e_{11})2\mathrm{Re}\nu _k^1\nu _1(\phi \phi )((e_{kk}1)(1x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x))`$
$`=`$ $`2\nu _k^1\nu _1\mathrm{Re}\{\phi (e_{kk})(\phi \phi )((e_{kk}1)(1x^{})\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\}`$
$`=`$ $`2\nu _k^1\nu _1\mathrm{Re}\{(\phi \phi )\left((e_{kk}1)(1x^{})(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\right)\}`$
$``$ $`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu _k^1\nu _1\}{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{n_\alpha }{}}}\mathrm{Re}\{(\phi \phi )\left((e_{kk}x^{})(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\right)\}`$
$`=`$ $`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu _k^1\nu _1\}\mathrm{Re}\{(\phi \phi )\left((z_\alpha x^{})(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\right)\}`$
$``$ $`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu _k^1\nu _1\}|(\phi \phi )\left((z_\alpha 1)(1x^{})(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\right)|`$
$``$ $`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu _k^1\nu _1\}(\phi \phi )(z_\alpha x^{}x)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`(\phi \phi )\left((z_\alpha 1)(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))^{}(1x\mathrm{\Delta }(x))\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`2\underset{1kn_\alpha }{\mathrm{max}}\{\nu _k^1\nu _1\}\phi (z_\alpha )^{\frac{1}{2}}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(z_\alpha x)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })((z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x)).`$
From the assumption: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)=z_F\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)𝒫_\phi ^{\mathrm{}}`$, there exists a sequence $`\{y_n\}_nMz_F`$ with $`lim_ny_nJ\mathrm{\Lambda }(y_n)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(x)`$. Then we obtain

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })((z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x))=`$ $`W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(z_\alpha x)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n}{lim}W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(z_\alpha y_n\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\phi (y_n)^{})`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n}{lim}(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })\left(\mathrm{\Delta }(y_n)(\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\phi \sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\phi )(\mathrm{\Delta }(y_n))^{}(z_\alpha 1)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\underset{n}{lim}\mathrm{\Delta }(y_n)(z_\alpha 1)(JJ)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(\mathrm{\Delta }(y_n)(z_\alpha 1)).`$
Therefore, we see $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })((z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x))𝒫_{\phi \phi }^{\mathrm{}}`$. By using the Powers-Størmer inequality (see, for example, , ), we obtain

$`(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(z_\alpha x)(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })((z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x))`$
$``$ $`\omega _{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })(z_\alpha x)}\omega _{(\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Lambda })((z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x))}^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`(\phi \phi )(|z_\alpha x^2(z_\alpha 1)\mathrm{\Delta }(x^2)|)^{\frac{1}{2}}`$
$`=`$ $`(\phi \phi )(|X(\alpha )|)^{\frac{1}{2}}.`$
Proof of $`(1)(2)`$ of Theorem 3.8 . By the assumption, we can pick up a net $`\{x_j\}_{j_{}𝒥}`$ in $`M_\phi `$ which satisfy the conditions of Lemma 3.13. Now we apply the Lemma 3.14 to this net for fixed $`\alpha I`$, then $`\phi (|X_j(\alpha )_{kl}|)`$ converges to 0 for any $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n_\alpha `$, where $`X_j=\mathrm{\Delta }(x_j^2)1x_j^2`$. By Lemma 3.15, it implies that $`\phi (|X_j(\alpha )|_{kl})`$ converges to 0 for any $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n_\alpha `$. Since we have

$$(\phi \phi )(|X_j(\alpha )|)=\underset{1k,ln_\alpha }{}\phi (e(\alpha )_{kl})\phi (|X_j(\alpha )|_{kl}),$$

we see $`(\phi \phi )(|X_j(\alpha )|)`$ converges to 0. By Lemma 3.16, we see $`W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$ converges to 0 for any $`k=1,2,\mathrm{},n_\alpha `$. Then we have

$`W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{kl})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{kl})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$
$`=`$ $`(J\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\phi (e(\alpha )_{1l})^{}J1)(W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))`$
$``$ $`(J\sigma _{\frac{i}{2}}^\phi (e(\alpha )_{1l})^{}J1)W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{k1})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j).`$
This implies that $`W^{}(\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{kl})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\mathrm{\Lambda }(e(\alpha )_{kl})\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$ converges to 0 for any $`k,l=1,2,\mathrm{},n_\alpha `$. By taking a linear combination, $`W^{}(z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$ converges to 0 for any vector $`\eta H`$. Take a vector $`\eta H`$. For any $`\epsilon >0`$, there exists a finite subset $`F`$ of $`I`$ such that $`_{\alpha F}z_\alpha \eta \eta <\epsilon `$. By the above arguments, we can take $`j_0`$ in $`𝒥`$ such that $`_{\alpha F}W^{}(z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)<\epsilon `$ for $`jj_0`$. Then we have

$`W^{}(\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$
$`=`$ $`W^{}((\eta {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}z_\alpha \eta )\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))(\eta {\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}z_\alpha \eta )\mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$
$`+W^{}({\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)){\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}z_\alpha \eta \eta `$
$`+{\displaystyle \underset{\alpha F}{}}W^{}(z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j))z_\alpha \eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$
$`<`$ $`\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}2}\epsilon +\epsilon =3\epsilon ,`$
for $`jj_0`$. Therefore, $`W^{}\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }(x_j)`$ converges to 0 for any vector $`\eta H`$. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.8. $`\mathrm{}`$

Upon ending this paper, we mention a part of Ruan’s Theorem \[14, Theorem4.5\] as a corollary of Theorem 3.8 for Kac algebras, i.e. the invariant weight $`\widehat{\phi }`$ of $`(\widehat{M},\widehat{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$ is a normal tracial state. In this case, $`\phi `$ is also a trace ().

###### Corollary 3.17.

Let $`(M,\mathrm{\Delta })`$ be a discrete Kac algebra. Then the following statements are equivalent.

1. It has an invariant mean.
2. It is strongly Voiculescu amenable.
3. The $`C^{}`$-algebra $`\widehat{A}`$ is nuclear.
4. The von Neumann algebra $`\widehat{M}`$ is injective.

###### Proof.

$`(1)(2)(3)`$. This has been already proved in Theorem 3.8. $`(3)(4)`$. It is trivial.

$`(4)(1)`$. Let $`E`$ be a conditional expectation from $`B(H)`$ onto $`\widehat{M}`$. Note that $`\widehat{\phi }`$ is a normal trace on $`\widehat{M}`$. Take a complete orthonormal system $`\{e_p\}_{p𝒫}`$. Then for any operator $`xM`$ and for any vector $`\xi H`$, we have

$`\omega _\xi m(x)=`$ $`\widehat{\phi }\left(E\left({\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}x(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)\right)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\widehat{\phi }\left((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}E(x)(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\widehat{\phi }\left((\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)(\omega _{\xi ,e_p}\iota )(W)^{}E(x)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{p𝒫}{}}\widehat{\phi }\left((\omega _{\widehat{J}\xi ,\widehat{J}e_p}\iota )(W)^{}(\omega _{\widehat{J}\xi ,\widehat{J}e_p}\iota )(W)E(x)\right)`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _{\widehat{J}\xi }(1)\widehat{\phi }(E(x))`$
$`=`$ $`\omega _\xi (1)m(x).`$
Therefore, $`m`$ is a left invariant mean on $`M`$. ∎

As we have seen, nuclearity of a compact Kac algebra leads amenability of the dual discrete Kac algebra, however, it is now open whether it holds in the case of a compact quantum group or not.