arxiv: v2 [math.oa] 17 Nov 2008

Transcription

1 Remarks on the non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes for 0 < < 2 arxv: v2 [math.oa] 17 Nov 2008 by Glles Pser Texas A&M Unversty College Staton, TX 77843, U. S. A. and Unversté Pars 6 (UPMC) Insttut Math. Jusseu (Analyse Fonctonnelle) Case 186, Pars Cedex 05, France Nov. 14, 2008 Abstract We show that the valdty of the non-commutatve Khntchne neualty for some wth 1 < < 2 mles ts valdty (wth another constant) for all 1 <. We rove ths for the neualty nvolvng the Rademacher functons, but also for more general lacunary seuences, or even non-commutatve analogues of the Rademacher functons. For nstance, we may aly t to the Z(2)-seuences revously consdered by Harcharras. The result aears to be new n that case. It mles that the sace l n 1 contans (as an oerator sace) a large subsace unformly somorhc (as an oerator sace) to R k + C k wth k n 1 2. Ths naturally rases several nterestng uestons concernng the best ossble such k. Unfortunately we cannot settle the valdty of the non-commutatve Khntchne neualty for 0 < < 1 but we can rove several would be corollares. For nstance, gven an nfnte scalar matrx [x ], we gve a necessary and suffcent condton for [±x ] to be n the Schatten class S for almost all (ndeendent) choces of sgns ±1. We also characterze the bounded Schur multlers from S 2 to S. The latter two characterzatons extend to 0 < < 1 results already known for 1 2. In addton, we observe that the hyercontractve neualtes, roved by Carlen and Leb for the Fermonc case, reman vald for oerator sace valued functons, and hence the Kahane neualtes are vald n ths settng MSC 46L51, 46L07, 47L25, 47L20 Partally suorted by NSF grant and ANR-06-BLAN

2 The non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes lay a very mortant rôle n the recent develoments n non-commutatve Functonal Analyss, and n artcular n Oerator Sace Theory, see [26, 28]. Just lke ther commutatve counterart for ordnary L -saces, they are a central tool to understand all sorts of uestons nvolvng seres of random varables, or random vectors, n relaton wth uncondtonal or almost uncondtonal convergence n non-commutatve L ([30]). The commutatve verson s also crucal n the factorzaton theory for lnear mas between L -saces [21, 22] n connecton wth Grothendeck s Theorem. The non-commutatve analogues of Grothendeck s Theorem reflect the same close connecton wth the Khntchne neualtes, see e.g. the recent aer [35]. Moreover, n the non-commutatve case, further motvaton for ther study comes from Random Matrx Theory and Free Probablty. For nstance one fnds that the Rademacher functons (.e...d. ±1-valued) ndeendent random varables satsfy the same neualtes as the freely ndeendent ones n non-commutatve L for <. For reasons that hoefully wll aear below, the case < 2 s more delcate, and actually the case < 1 s stll oen. When < 2, let us say for convenence that a seuence (f k ) n classcal L satsfes the classcal Khntchne neualty KI f there s a constant c such that for all fnte scalar seuences (a ) we have ( a 2 ) 1/2 c a f. Now assume that (f k ) s orthonormal n L 2. Then t s easy to see that f < < 2, KI mles KI. Indeed, let S = a f. Let θ be such that 1/ = (1 θ)/ + θ/2. We have ( a 2 ) 1/2 c S c S 1 θ S θ 2 = c S 1 θ ( a 2 ) θ/2, and hence after a sutable dvson we obtan KI wth c = (c ) 1/(1 θ). The heart of ths smle argument s that the san of the seuence (f k ) s the same n L and n L or n L 2. In shar contrast, the analogue of ths fals for oerator saces. The san of the Rademacher functons n L s not somorhc as oerator sace to ts san n L, although they have the same underlyng Banach sace. Ths s reflected n the form of the non-commutatve verson of the Khntchne neualtes frst roved by Lust-Puard n [16] and labelled as (Kh ) below for the case of noncommutatve L. Nevertheless, t turns out that the above smle mnded extraolaton argument can stll be made to work, ths s our man result but ths reures a more sohstcated verson of Hölder s neualty, that (aarently) forces us to restrct ourselves to 1. Let 1 2. Let (r k ) be the Rademacher functons on Ω = [0,1]. Let (x k ) be a fnte seuence n a non-commutatve L -sace. The non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes say (when 1 2) that there s a constant β ndeendent of x = (x k ) such that ( ) 1/ (0.1) x β rk (t)x k dt where (0.2) x def = nf x k =a k +b k { ( a k a k ) 1/2 } 1/2 + ( bk bk). Ths was frst roved n [16] for 1 < < 2 and n [18] for = 1 (the converse neualty s easy and holds wth constant 1). One of the two roofs n [18] derves ths from the non-commutatve (lttle) Grothendeck neualty roved n [25]. In ths aer, we follow an aroach very smlar to the orgnal one n [25] to show that the valdty of (0.1) for some wth 1 < < 2 mles ts valdty (wth another constant) for all 2

3 1 < ; we also make crucal use of more recent deas from [13]. For that deducton the only assumton needed on (r k ) s ts orthonormalty n L 2 ([0,1]). Thus our aroach yelds (0.1) also for more general lacunary seuences than the Rademacher functons. For nstance, we may aly t to the Z(2)-seuences consdered n [9] (see also [10, 3]). The result aears to be new n that case. Our argument can be vewed as an oerator sace analogue of the classcal fact, n Rudn s style ([31]), that f a seuence of characters Λ sans a Hlbert sace n L (G) (G comact Abelan grou, e.g. G = T) for some < 2 then t also does for all <. It mles that the sace l n 1 contans (as an oerator sace) a large subsace unformly somorhc (as an oerator sace) to R k + C k wth k n 1 2. Another corollary (see Theorem 4.2) s that there s a constant c such that, for any n, the usual bass of S n 1 contans a c-uncondtonal subset of sze n3/2. Ths oens the door to varous uestons concernng the best ossble sze of such subsaces and subsets. See the end of 1 for some seculaton on ths. Unfortunately we cannot rove our result (at the tme of ths wrtng) for 0 < < 1, for lack of a roof of Ste 3 below. Thus we leave oen the valdty of (0.1) for 0 < < 1. Nevertheless we wll be able to rove several artal results n that drecton. In artcular (see 3 and 5), f 0 < 2, gven arbtrary scalar coeffcents [x ], we gve a necessary and suffcent condton for the random matrx [±x ] to be n the Schatten class S for almost all choces of sgns. Ths haens ff [x ] admts a decomoston of the form x = a + b wth /2 a 2 < and ( ) /2 b 2 <. We also show that [x ] defnes a bounded Schur multler from S 2 to S ff t admts a decomoston of the form x = ψ + χ wth su ψ 2/(2 ) < and su χ 2/(2 ) <. In those two results, only the case 0 < < 1 s new. In assng we remnd the reader that when 0 < < 1, L -saces (commutatve or not), n artcular the Schatten class S, are not normed saces. They are only -normed,.e. for any ar x,y n the sace we have x+y x + y. In the fnal secton, we turn to the Kahane neualtes. Recall that the latter are a vector valued verson of the Khntchne neualtes vald for functons wth values n an arbtrary Banach sace. It s natural to wonder whether there are non-commutatve analogues when one uses the oerator sace valued non-commutatve L -saces ntroduced n [28]. We observe that the hyercontractve neualtes, roved by Carlen and Leb [7] for the Fermonc case, reman vald for oerator sace valued functons, and hence the Kahane neualtes are vald n ths Fermonc settng. The ont of ths smle remark s that Kahane s neualty now aears as the Bosonc case. The same remark s vald n any settng for whch hyercontractvty has been establshed. Ths ales n artcular to Bane s free hyercontractve neualtes [5]. 1 The case 1 < 2 Actually, L 2 ([0,1]) or L 2 (G) can be relaced here by any non-commutatve L 2 -sace L 2 (ϕ) assocated to a sem-fnte generalzed (.e. non-commutatve ) measure sace, and (r k ) s then 3

4 relaced by an orthonormal seuence (ξ k ) n L 2 (ϕ). Then the rght-hand sde of (0.1) s relaced by ξ k x k L(ϕ τ). More recsely, by a (sem-fnte) generalzed measure sace (N,ϕ) we mean a von Neumann algebra N eued wth a fathful, normal, sem-fnte trace ϕ. Wthout loss of generalty, we may always reduce consderaton to the σ-fnte case. Throughout ths aer, we wll use freely the bascs of non-commutatve ntegraton as descrbed n [23] or [34, Cha. IX]. Let us fx another generalzed measure sace (M,τ). The neualty we are nterested n now takes the followng form: (K ) β such that for any fnte seuence x = (x k ) n L (τ) we have x β ξ k x k L(ϕ τ) where s defned as n (0.2). In the Rademacher case,.e. when (ξ k ) = (r k ), we denote (Kh ) nstead of (K ), and we refer to these as the non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes. We can now state our man result for the case 1. Theorem 1.1. Let 1 < < 2. Recall that (ξ k ) s assumed orthonormal n L 2 (ϕ). Then (K ) (K ) for all 1 <. Here s a sketch of the argument. We denote S = ξ k x k. Let D be the collecton of all denstes,.e. all f n L 1 (τ) + wth τ(f) = 1. Fx wth 0 <. Then we denote for x = (x k ) { } C (x) = nf ξk y k where s the norm n L (ϕ τ) and the nfmum runs over all seuences y = (y k ) n L (τ) for whch there s f n D such that Note that C (x) = S. x k = (f 1 1 y k + y k f 1 1 )/2. Remark 1.2. Assume x k = x k for all k. Then { ) } 1/2 (1.1) x = nf ( α k α k where the nfmum runs over all decomostons x k = Re(α k ) = (α k + α k )/2. Indeed, x k = a k + b k mles x k = Re(a k + b k ). Let α k = a k + b k. We have (assumng 1) ) 1/2 ( α ) 1/2 k α k ( a 1/2 k a k + ( bk bk). Therefore nf ( α k α k) 1/2 x. Snce the converse neualty s obvous, ths roves (1.1). 4

5 The roof of Theorem 1.1 s based on a varant of Maurey s extraolaton rncle (see [21, 22]) Ths combnes three stes: (here C,C,C,... are constants ndeendent of x = (x k ) and we wsh to emhasze that here remans fxed whle the ndex n C (x) s such that < 2). Ste 1. Assumng (K ) we have x C C (x). Ste 2. C 2 (x) C x. Actually we wll rove also the converse neualty (u to a constant). Ste 3. C (x) C C (x) 1 θ C 2 (x) θ where 1 = 1 θ + θ 2. (Recall < < 2 so that 0 < θ < 1.) The three stes ut all together yeld and hence x C C C (x) 1 θ (C x ) θ x C C (x) = C S. Proof of Ste 1. Ths s easy: We smly aly (K ) to y = (y k ). More recsely, fx ε > 0. Let y = (y k ) and f n D such that x k = (f 1 1 y k + y k f 1 1 )/2. and ξk y k < C (x)(1 + ε). By (K ) we have y < β C (x)(1 + ε). Let a k,b k be such that y k = a k + b k wth ) 1/ ( a 1/2 k a k + ( bk bk) β C (x)(1 + ε) we have 2x k = f 1 1 (a k + b k ) + (a k + b k )f 1 1. But t s easy to check that for some g,h D there are α k,β k such that a k = α k g b k = h 1 1 2β k wth ( αk 2 2 ) 1/2 ( a k a k ) 1/2 and ( ) 1/2 ( βk 2 2 bk b k ) 1/2. 5

6 Thus we fnd 2x k = f 1 1 α k g f 1 1 h 1 1 2β k + α k g 1 1 2f h 1 1 2β k f 1 1. Let 1 r = Note that by Hölder s neualty (snce = (1 1 ) + (1 1 2 )) f 1 1 h r 1 and g 1 1 2f 1 1 r 1. Let x k = f 1 1 h 1 1 2β k + α k g 1 1 2f 1 1. Then, agan by Hölder, we have Smlarly, let We clam that Thus we obtan, snce 2x = x + x x ( αk 2 2) 1/2 + ( βk 2 2) 1/2 β C (x)(1 + ε). x k = f 1 1 α k g h 1 1 2β k f 1 1. x β C (x)(1 + ε). 2 x x + x 2β C (x)(1 + ε), and hence Ste 1 holds wth C = β. We now check the above clam. Defne θ by 1 = 1 θ + θ 2 where 1 def (z) = 1 z x k (z) = f 1 1 (z)α k g 1 (z) 1 2 and let + z 2. We wll use the robablty measure µ θ on the boundary of the comlex str S = {0 < R(z) < 1} that s the Jensen (.e. harmonc) measure for the ont θ. Ths gves mass θ (res. 1 θ) to the vertcal lne {R(z) = 1} (res. {R(z) = 0}). By erturbaton, we may assume that f and g are sutably bounded below so that x k (.) s a nce L (τ)-valued analytc functon on S,.e. bounded and contnuous on S. Then, snce (θ) =, we have by Cauchy s formula but t R f 1 1 α k g = x k (θ) = R(z) {0,1} x k (z) dµ θ (z), x k (t) = U(t)α k V (t)g and x k (1 + t) = f 1 1 2U(1 + t)α k V (1 + t), where U(t) = U(1 + t) = f t( ) and V (t) = V (1 + t) = g t(1 2 1 ) are untary. Ths yelds f 1 1 α k g = (1 θ)α (0) k g θf 1 1 2α (1) k where α (1) (res. α (0) ) are the corresondng averages over {R(z) = 1} (res. {R(z) = 0}) satsfyng ( α (0) k 2 2 )1/2 ( α k 2 2 )1/2 and ( α (1) k 2 2 )1/2 ( α k 2 2 )1/2, and hence we fnd (f 1 1 α k g 1 1 2) ( α k 2 2 )1/2. Smlarly, we fnd (h 1 1 2β k f 1 1 ) ( β k 2 2 )1/2. Thus we obtan as clamed x ( α k 2 2) 1/2 + ( β k 2 2) 1/2 β C (x)(1 + ε). 6

7 Proof of Ste 2. Assume x < 1,.e. x k = a k + b k wth ( a k a k) 1/2 + ( b k b k )1/2 < 1. By sem-fnteness of τ, we may assume there exsts f 0 > 0 n D. (In the fnte case we can smly take f 0 = 1.) Let f = (ε(f 0 ) 2/ + a k a k + b k b k )1/2. We can choose ε > 0 small enough so that f < 2 (usng the fact that L /2 (τ) s /2-normed). We can then wrte x k = a k f + f b k where a k = a k(f ) 1 and b k = (f ) 1 b k. Let f = (f ) (τ(f )) 1. Note that f D and we have (1.2) x k = α k f f 1 1 2β k where α k = f a k f 1 2 β k = f f 1 2b k. Note that a k a k = (f ) 1 a k a k(f ) 1 1 and smlarly b k b k 1. Therefore ( ) 1/2 ( ) 1/2 αk 2 2 = f a k a k f 1/2 f 2 1, 2 and smlarly ( βk 2 2) 1/ We wll now modfy ths to obtan α k = β k. More recsely we clam there are y k n L 2 (τ) such that x k = (f 1 1 2y k + y k f 1 1 2)/2 and (1.3) ( yk 2 2 ) 1/2 2 ( ( αk 2 2 ) 1/2 + ( βk 2 2) 1/2 ). Let 1 r = To rove ths clam, let E be the dense subsace of L 2(τ) L 2 (τ) formed of famles h = (h k ) such that f 1 r h k + h k f 1 r L 2 (τ) for all k. Then for all h n E we have xk,h k = α k f 1 r + f 1 r β k,h k and hence x k,h k ( α k 2 2) 1/2 ( h k f 1 r 2 2 ) 1/2 + ( β k 2 2) 1/2 ( f 1 r hk 2 2) 1/2. By an elementary calculaton one verfes easly that f 1 rh k 2 2 f 1 r h k + h k f 1 r 2 2 h k f 1 r 2 2 f 1 r h k + h k f 1 r 2 2. Therefore we fnd and smlarly x k,h k (( α k 2 2 )1/2 + ( β k 2 2 )1/2 )( f 1 r h k + h k f 1 r 2 2 )1/2. From ths our clam that there are (y k ) n L 2 (τ) satsfyng (1.3) follows mmedately by dualty. Then (1.3) mles 2 ( ) 1/2 ξ k y k = yk , and we obtan C 2 (x) x, comletng ste 2. 7

8 Remark 1.3. Conversely we have (1.4) x C 2 (x). Indeed, f C 2 (x) < 1 then x k = (f 1 1 2y k + y k f 1 1 2)/2 wth Let now We have (recall the notaton T = T T) and hence (settng 1 r = ) by Hölder ) 1/2 2 ( a k a k ξk y k 2 = ( yk 2 2) 1/2 < 1. a k = (y k f 1 1 2)/2 and b k = (f 1 1 2y k )/2. ( ) 1/2 2 a ( ) 1/2 1 k a k = y k y k f ) 1/2 ( y k y k < f r Smlarly ( b k b k )1/2 < 1/2. Thus we obtan x < 1. By homogenety ths roves (1.4). Proof of Ste 3. Fx ε > 0. Let y k be such that x k = (f 1/r y k + y k f 1/r )/2 wth 2 ξk y k < C 2 (x)(1 + ε). Let us assume that (M,τ) s M n eued wth usual trace. We wll use the orthonormal bass for whch f s dagonal wth coeffcents denoted by (f ). We have then We defne y k (θ) by settng (y k ) = 2(f 1 r + f 1 r ) 1 (x k ). y k (θ) = 2(f θ r + f θ r ) 1 (x k ). Note that y k (0) = x k whle y k (1) = y k. Let T(θ) = ξ k y k (θ). We clam that f 1 = 1 θ + θ 2 and 1 < 2 (1.5) T(θ) c T(0) 1 θ T(1) θ 2 for some constant c deendng only on and. As observed n [13], when > 1, ths s easy to rove usng the boundedness of the trangular roecton on S. The case = 1 s a conseuence of Theorem 1.1a n [13] (the latter uses [27, Th. 4.5]). See 7 for a detaled ustfcaton. Therefore we obtan C (x) T(θ) 2 1 θ cc (x) 1 θ (C 2 (x)(1 + ε)) θ,.e. we obtan Ste 3 n the matrcal case. Note that the argument works assumng merely that the densty f has fnte sectrum. 8

9 Proof of Theorem 1.1. Combnng the 3 stes, we have already ndcated the roof n the case M = M n or assumng merely that the densty f has fnte sectrum. We wll now rove the general sem-fnte case. We return to Ste 2. We clam that for any δ > 0 we can fnd (x k ) such that (x k ) (x k ) < δ x and such that C 2 (x ) (1 + δ) x, where the defnton of C 2 (x ) s now restrcted to denstes wth fnte sectrum. Indeed, one may assume by homogenety that 0 < x < 1. Let r be defned by 1 r = Let δ = (δ/n) x. Then let f,y k,... be as n the above roof of Ste 2 and let g D be an element wth fnte sectrum such that f 1 r g 1 r r < (2 2 1 ) 1 δ. Note that g exsts by the sem-fnteness of τ. Then let x k = (g 1 r y k + y k g 1 r )/2. Note that (by Hölder) x k x k < δ and hence (assumng 1) x x < δ x. We now observe that the roof of Ste 3 ales f we relace (x,f) by (x,g). Thus f we aly the three stes to x we obtan for some constant C 4 x C 4 C (x ) = C 4 ξk x k. But snce (x k ) s an arbtrary close erturbaton of (x k) n L -norm, we conclude that (K ) holds. Remark 1.4. In Theorem 1.1, the assumton that (ξ k ) s orthonormal n L 2 (ϕ) (that s only used n Ste 2) can be relaced by the followng one: for any fnte seuence y = (y k ) n L 2 (M,τ) we have L2 ( 1/2 (1.6) ξk y k yk 2) 2. (ϕ τ) The roof (of Ste 2) for that case s dentcal. Assume for smlcty that (M,τ) s M n eued wth ts usual trace. Let S = ξ k x k, x k M n. Euvalently S = [S ] wth S L 2 (ϕ). Consder f D. The roof of Ste 3 becomes straghtforward f (1.5) holds. In the case 1, we nvoked [13] to clam that (1.5) s ndeed true, but we do not know whether t stll holds when 0 < < 1. Nevertheless, there s a stuaton when (1.5) s easy to check, when the followng condton (γ,γ ) holds: Condton (γ,γ ): Let γ,γ be ostve numbers. We say that S = ξ k x k satsfes the condton (γ,γ ) f we can fnd f n D and y k such that x k = (f 1 r y k + y k f 1 r )/2 and such that T = ξ k y k satsfes smultaneously the followng two bounds (1.7) (1.8) T 2 γ C 2 (x) (1 f 1 r )T γ S. If we set F = 1 f, we can rewrte (1.8) as (1.9) F 1 r T γ F 1 r T + TF 1 r /2, and hence by the trangle neualty (or ts analogue for < 1), snce S = (F 1 rt + TF 1 r )/2, we have automatcally for a sutable γ (deendng only on γ and ) (1.10) TF 1 r γ S. 9

10 Remark 1.5. The reason why condton (γ,γ ) resolves our roblem s that the one-sded verson of (1.5) s ute easy: we have (1.11) F θ r S S 1 θ F 1 r S θ 2. Indeed, f we let T = F 1 r S then (1.11) becomes (1.12) F 1 θ r T F 1 r T 1 θ T θ 2 and the latter holds by Lemma 1.8 below. Theorem 1.6. Let (ξ k ) be a seuence n L 2 (ϕ) orthonormal or merely satsfyng (1.6). Let 0 < < < 2. Then, f we assume the condton (γ,γ ) (as above but for any S), the mlcaton (K ) (K ) holds, where the resultng constant β deends on,,β and also on γ,γ. For smlcty we wll rove ths agan assumng that (M,τ) s M n eued wth ts usual trace. See the above roof of Theorem 1.1 for ndcatons on how to check the general case. Remark 1.7. If (K ) holds, then there are constants (γ,γ ) deendng only on such that the condton (γ,γ ) holds. Indeed by the above roof of Ste 2 we have 2x k = f 1 r y k + y k f 1 r wth ( yk 2 2) 1/2 C x and hence by Hölder and (1.6) Now f (K ) holds we have F 1 r T T 2 ( yk 2 2) 1/2 C x. x β S = β /2 F 1 r T + TF 1 r therefore we fnd F 1 r T C β /2 F 1 r T + TF 1 r.e. (1.9) holds The followng two lemmas wll be used. Lemma 1.8. Let (M,τ) be a generalzed measure sace. Consder F 0 n L 1 (τ). Assume 0 < < < 2. Let 1 r = and let θ be such that 1 = 1 θ + θ 2. Then for any V n L 2(τ) we have and F 1 θ r V F 1 r V 1 θ V θ 2 V F 1 θ r V F 1 r 1 θ V θ 2. 10

11 Proof. It suffces to show (1.13) V F (1 θ)( ) V F θ V θ 2 snce we obtan the other neualty by relacng V by V. Snce the comlex nterolaton of non-commutatve L -saces s vald n the whole range 0 < < ([36]), ths can be deduced from the 3 lne lemma. Alternatvely, ths also follows from Hölder s neualty, together wth [14]. Indeed, V F (1 θ)( ) = V F (1 θ)( ) = V θ V 1 θ F (1 θ)( ) and hence by Hölder (recall 1 = 1 θ + θ 2 ) But by [14] (see also [1]) we have and hence we obtan (1.13). V θ 2 V 1 θ F ( )(1 θ) 1 θ. V 1 θ F ( )(1 θ) V F θ 1 θ Lemma 1.9 ([13]). Let Q ( = 1,...,n) be mutually orthogonal roectons n M and let λ ( = 1,...,n) be non-negatve numbers. () For any 1 and any x n L (τ) n λ λ Q xq λ + λ 3 2 x L (τ),=1 L(τ) and n,=1 λ λ Q xq λ + λ L(τ) 1 2 x L (τ). () For any 1 < < there s a constant t(), deendng only on, such that for any x n L (τ) n λ n Q xq λ + λ t() x L(τ) and λ Q xq λ + λ t() x L(τ).,=1 L(τ),=1 L(τ) () For any s wth 1 < < s, any densty f D and any x L s (τ), we have max{ f 1 1 sx, xf 1 1 s } t() f 1 1 sx + xf 1 1 s L(τ). Proof. Ths was used n [13] (see also [11, 12] for related facts). For the convenence of the reader we sketch the argument. We may easly reduce to the case Q = 1. () exresses the fact that λ λ λ λ and λ + λ λ + λ are (comletely) contractve Schur multlers on L (M n ) for any 1 (see [13]). (): Usng a ermutaton of the (Q ) we may assume 0 λ 1 λ 2... λ n. By the boundedness of the trangular roecton when 1 < < (see the semnal aer [20] and [30, 8] for more references to the lterature), t suffces to check () when x s ether uer or lower trangular wth 11

12 resect to the decomoston (Q ). More recsely t suffces to check ths when ether x = x + or x = x where x + = Q xq and x = > Q xq. But snce λ λ = λ and λ λ = λ f, the case when x s uer trangular (.e. x = x + ) follows from the frst art. The lower trangular case (.e. x = x ) s smlar. (): By densty we may reduce ths to the case when f has fnte sectrum, so that f = λ Q. Then () essentally reduces to (). Proof of Theorem 1.6. We choose > 1 wth 0 < < < 2. We use the same notaton as for Theorem 1.1. By the observatons made before Theorem 1.6, t suffces to verfy (1.5). By Lemma 1.8 aled wth V = T and V = T we have Let λ = f θ r. By Lemma 1.9 we have F 1 θ r T F 1 r T 1 θ T θ 2, TF 1 θ r TF 1 r 1 θ T θ 2. (1.14) [(f θ r + f θ r ) 1 f 1 r T ] t() F 1 θ r and smlarly T (1.15) [(f θ r + f θ r ) 1 T f 1 r t() TF 1 θ r. Note that we have T(θ) = (f θ r + f θ r ) 1 (f 1 r + f 1 r )T Therefore by the trangle neualty and (1.14), (1.15) and hence by condton (γ,γ ) T(θ) t()( F 1 r T 1 θ + TF 1 r 1 θ ) T θ 2 T(θ) t()((γ ) 1 θ + (γ ) 1 θ ) (F 1 r T + TF 1 r )/2 1 θ T θ 2 t()((γ ) 1 θ + (γ ) 1 θ ) S 1 θ T θ 2. Therefore we obtan (1.5). By condton (γ,γ ) we have T(1) 2 = T 2 γ C 2 (x), and also C (x) T(θ) so we conclude that Ste 3 holds. Remark Theorem 1.1 mles as a secal case the followng fact ossbly of ndeendent nterest: f for some 0 < < 2 we have (C ) { C ak L (τ) ( a k a k) 1/2 L(τ) C ξ k a k L(ϕ τ) then (C ) holds (for a dfferent constant C) for all wth 0 < <. In ths case Ste 3 s easy to verfy (only rght multlcaton aears n ths case). 12

13 Remark If 0 < 2, the converse neualty to (K ) s vald assumng that ϕ(1) = 1 and ξ k L 2 (N,ϕ) s orthonormal or satsfes (1.6). Indeed, for any t 0 n N M snce /2 1 and ϕ(1) = 1, by the oerator concavty of t t /2 (see [2, ]), we have and hence, f S = ξ k x k, we have t /2 E M (t) /2 S = S S 1/2 /2 EM (S S) 1/2 /2 ( x k x k ) 1/2, and smlarly From ths we easly deduce 1/2 S ( xk xk). S c() x where c() = 1 f 1 2 and c() = f 0 < 1. The recedng remark shows that the assumton that ϕ s fnte cannot be removed. Remark To extend Theorem 1.1 to the case 0 < < 1 the dffculty les n Ste 3, or n rovng a certan form of Hölder neualty such as (1.5). Note that a much weaker estmate allows to conclude: It suffces to show that there s a functon ε δ(ε) tendng to zero wth ε > 0 such that when f D we have (α = = 1 r ) (1 < < 2): [ x 2 1, f α x + xf α ε] f α(1 θ) x + xf α(1 θ) δ(ε). Ths mght hold even f Ste 3 oses a roblem. In the case 2 <, the formulaton of (K ) must be changed. When 2 < <, and x = (x k ) s a fnte seuence n L (τ), we set x def = max { ( x k x k ) 1/2 } 1/2, ( xk xk). We wll then say (when 2 < < ) that (ξ k ) satsfes (K ) f there s a constant β such that for any such x = (x k ) we have ξk x k β x. By [16], ths holds when (ξ k ) are the Rademacher functons on [0,1]. In oerator sace theory, all L -saces, n artcular the Schatten class S, can be eued wth a natural oerator sace structure (see [26, 9.5 and 9.8]). Let C (res. R ) denote the closed san of {e 1 1} (res. {e 1 1}) n S. We denote by C,n and R,n the corresondng n-dmensonal subsaces. By defnton, the sum sace R +C s the uotent sace (R C )/N where N = {(x, t x) x R }. We defne smlarly R,n +C,n. The ntersecton R C s defned as the subsace {x, t x} n R C. Here the drect sums are meant (say) n the oerator sace sense,.e. n the l -sense. Let us denote by Rad(n,) (res. Rad()) the lnear san of the frst n (res. the seuence of all the) Rademacher functons n L ([0,1]). The oerator sace structure 13

14 nduced on the sace Rad() s entrely descrbed by the non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes (see [26, 9.8]): the sace Rad() s comletely somorhc to R + C when 1 2 and to R C when 2 <. The case 0 < < 1 s oen. Note that Rad(,n) s an n-dmensonal subsace of l 2n, so (Kh ) mles that R,n + C,n for all 1 < 2. The next result mroves sgnfcantly the dmenson unformly embeds nto l 2n of the embeddng. Frst recall that two oerator saces E, F are called comletely c-somorhc f there s an somorhsm u: E F such that u cb u 1 cb c. Theorem Let 1 < 2. For any n, there s a subsace of l n wth dmenson k = [n 1/2 ] that s comletely c-somorhc to R,k + C,k where c s a constant deendng only on. Proof. By [9], we know that there s a subset of [1,e t,...,e nt ] wth cardnalty k = [n 1/2 ] such that the corresondng set {ξ 1,...,ξ k } satsfes (K ) for all such that 2 4 and hence by dualty for all such that 4/3 2. By Theorem 1.1, the same set satsfes (K ) for all 1 2 (wth a constant β ndeendent of n). Problem. What s the correct estmate of k n Theorem 1.13? In artcular s t true for k [n α ] wth α any number n (0,1) nstead of α = 1 2? Is t true for k [δn] (0 < δ < 1)? The case = 1 s artcularly nterestng. It s natural to exect a ostve answer wth k roortonal to n by analogy wth the Banach sace case (see [8]). One could even dream of an oerator sace verson of the Kashn decomoston (cf. [32])! Another bold conecture would be the oerator sace generalzaton of Schechtman s and Bourgan, Lndenstrauss and Mlman s results, as refned by Talagrand n [33]: Problem. Let E be an n-dmensonal oerator subsace of S 1. Assume that for some > 1 E embeds c-comletely somorhcally nto S. Is t true that E can then be embedded c -comletely somorhcally (the constant c beng a functon of and c) nto S 2n 1? 2 Condtonal exectaton varant Agan we consder (ξ k ) n L 2 (N,ϕ) and coeffcents (x k ) n L 2 (M,τ), but, n addton, we gve ourselves a von Neumann subalgebra M M such that ϕ M s sem-fnte and we denote by E: M M the condtonal exectaton wth resect to M. Recall that E extends to a contractve roecton (stll denoted abusvely by E) from L (M,τ) onto L (M,τ) for all 1. Consder x = (x k ) wth x k L (τ). In ths secton, we defne { } We then defne agan x,m = nf x k =a k +b k ( E 1/2 a k k) a { } C,M (x) = nf ξk y k ( + E 1/2 a k ak) where the nfmum runs over all y k n L (τ) such that there s f n D L 1 (M) such that x k = (f 1/r y k + y k f 1/r )/2. Then the roof descrbed n 1 extends wth no change to ths stuaton and shows that f there s β (M) such that for all fnte seuences x = (x k ) n L (τ) we have (2.1) x,m β (M) ξk x k. 14

15 then for any wth 1 < there s a constant β (M) such that (2.1) holds for any x = (x k ) n L (τ) when s relaced by. The man new case we have n mnd s the case when L (M,τ) = S (Schatten class) and M s the subalgebra of dagonal oerators (so that L (M) l ) on l 2. Thus we state for future reference: Theorem 2.1. Both Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.6 reman vald when s relaced by,m. Proof. The verfcaton of ths asserton s straghtforward. Note that the condtonal exectaton E satsfes E(axb) = ae(x)b whenever a,b are n M and x n L (M,τ). Ths s used to verfy Ste 2. The roof of the other stes reure no sgnfcant change. Let L (M,τ) = S (Schatten -class) and let M B(l 2 ) be the subalgebra of dagonal oerators wth condtonal exectaton denoted by E. Consder a famly x = (x ) wth x S. We wll denote by (x ) kl the entres of each matrx x S, and we set ˆx = (x ) e and ˆx = (ˆx ). Let us denote x R def = 1/2 x x and x C def = 1/2 x x. Lemma 2.2. For any 1 we have (2.2) ˆx R x R and ˆx C x C, and conseuently (2.3) ˆx x. Proof. Indeed, ths follows from the convexty of the norms nvolved and the dentty ˆx = z z D(z )x D(z ) dm(z )dm(z ) where z = (z ), z = (z ) denote elements of TN eued wth ts normalzed Haar measure m. Now consder λ C. We defne (2.4) [λ] = nf /2 a 2 + ( ) 1/ /2 b 2 where the nf runs over all ossble decomostons λ = a + b. Lemma 2.3. Let ˆx = λ e (.e. λ = (x ) ). We have ( ˆx C = ( λ 2) ) /2 1/ ( and ˆx R = Moreover, for any 0 < < ˆx,M = [λ] x,m. where M s the subalgebra of dagonal oerators on l ( λ 2) ) /2 1/.

16 Proof. The frst asserton s an mmedate calculaton. We now show that for any 0 < < (2.5) [λ] x,m. Indeed, let us denote x C,M = E 1/2 x x ( and x R,M = E 1/2 x x). Then a smle verfcaton shows that x C,M = /2 1/ (x ) lk 2 k l k ( ) /2 (x lk ) lk 2 l 1/ and smlarly we fnd x R,M l ( ) /2 (x lk ) lk 2 k Then (2.5) follows mmedately. In artcular [λ] ˆx,M, and snce the converse s mmedate we obtan ˆx,M = [λ]. Remark 2.4. It seems worthwhle to ont out that (2.2) s no longer vald when 0 < < 1 (even wth a constant). Indeed, restrctng to the case when x = 0, these neualtes mly (2.6) 1/ (x ) ( 1/2 x ) x. Now let us consder the case x = n e k. k=1 On one hand we have x x = np where P s the rank one orthogonal roecton onto n 1/2 e k, so that ( x x ) 1/2 = np and hence ( x x ) 1/2 = n. But on the other hand (x ) = 1 and hence ( (x) ) 1/ = n 1/. 1/. Ths shows that (2.6) and hence (2.2) fals for < 1. The same examle shows (a fortor) that (2.3) also fals for < 1. Remark 2.5. Let : L (M,τ) L (M,τ ) be an sometrc embeddng. Let y k = (x k ). Then clearly rk (t)y k dt = rk (t)x k dt. However, when 0 < < 1, we do not see how to rove that there s a constant C such that (x k ) C (y k ), although when 1 ths holds wth C = 1 usng a condtonal exectaton. Ths may be an ndcaton that (Kh ) does not hold for 0 < < 1, at least n the same form as for 1. 16

17 3 The case 0 < < 1 In (K ), we may consder the case when L (τ) = S (Schatten -class) and the seuence x = (x k ) s of the form x = λ e wth λ C. For ths secal case, the aroach used n the recedng secton works for all 0 < <. Thus, we obtan: Theorem 3.1. Let (ε ) be an..d seuence of {+1, 1}-valued random varables on a robablty sace wth P(ε = ±1) = 1/2. Then for any 0 < < 1 there s a constant β such that where [λ] s defned n (2.4). ( ) 1/ [λ] β ε λ e dp S Remark. Of course, by [16, 18], the case 1 2 s already known. Remark 3.2. Snce S s -normed when 0 < < 1, the converse neualty s obvous: we have a a e 1/ = and smlarly b ( ( b 2 ) /2 ) 1/2. Therefore su ε λ e [λ]. ε =±1 a 2 By well known general results (cf.[15]) ths allows us to formulate the /2 1/2 Corollary 3.3. Let λ C be arbtrary comlex scalars. The followng are euvalent. () The matrx [ε λ ] belongs to S for almost all choces of sgns ε = ±1. () Same as () for all choces of sgns. () There s a decomoston λ = a + b wth /2 a 2 < and ( ) /2 b 2 <.e. n short [λ] <. Remark 3.4. Note that when 0 < < 1, the saces S or L (τ) are -normed,.e. ther norm satsfes for any ar of elements x,y (3.1) x + y x + y. Remark 3.5. Assume here that 0 < 2. Note that [λ] < 1 mles that there s a seuence f > 0 wth f 1 such that, f we set 1 r = we have (3.2) (f 1 r + f 1 r ) 1 λ 2 1/

18 Indeed, we have λ = a + b wth ( ( a 2 ) /2 ) 1/ + ( ( b 2 ) /2 ) 1/ < 1 we then set a = ( a 2 ) /2 and b = ( b 2 ) /2 so that ( a ) + ( b ) < 1. Note that: (a 1 r + b 1 r ) 1 (λ ) a 1 r a + b b 1/r and hence by Hölder (a 1 r + b 1 r ) 1 λ 2 1/2 ( a 1/r a 1/ 2) 1/2 ( 1/r + b b 1/ 2) 1/2 = ( a ) 1/2 + ( b ) 1/2 2. Let f = a + b. Then f < 1, (3.2) holds and, f we erturb f slghtly, we may assume f > 0 for all. We wll use the followng well known elementary fact. Prooston 3.6. Let X be a -normed sace (0 < 1),.e. we assume x,y X x + y x + y. Then there s a constant χ such that for any fnte seuence (x k ) n X and any seuence of real numbers (α k ) we have (3.3) α k r k x k L(X) χ su α k ε k x k k L(X). Here (r k ) denote the Rademacher functons on [0,1) and L (X) = L ([0,1];X). Proof. If α k { 1,1}, we have eualty n (3.3) wth χ = 1. If α k { 1,0,1} we can wrte α k = (β k + γ k )/2 wth β k { 1,1}, γ k { 1,1} and then we obtan (3.2) (usng the -trangle neualty (3.1)) wth χ = For the general case, we can wrte any α k n [ 1,1] as a seres α k = 1 α k(m)ξ k (m) wth α k (m) { 1,0,1} and ξ k (m) 2 m. We then obtan (3.3) wth χ = ( 1 2 m) 1/ = (2 1) 1/. Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let S = ε λ e and let x = e λ. We already know by [16, 18] the case 1 < 2. We wll show that the condton (γ,γ ) holds, and hence that Theorem 3.1 follows from Theorem 1.6. Agan we assume that M = M n. Let M M be the subalgebra of dagonal matrces wth assocated condtonal exectaton denoted by E. Let x = (x ). Then by Lemma 2.3 for any 0 < < 2 we have [λ] = x,m. So the neualty n Theorem 3.1 bols down to x,m β ε x. We need to observe that when we run the roof of Theorem 1.6 wth x,m n lace of x we only need to know (K ) 18

19 for a famly (y k ) such that each y k les n the closure n L (τ) of elements n Mx k M. When M s the algebra of dagonal oerators, that means that y k s obtaned from x k by a Schur multler, so that n any case when (x k ) s the famly (x ) gven as above by x = e λ, then all the famles (y ) are also of the same form.e. we have y = e µ for some scalars µ, and for the latter we know by [16, 18] that the M-verson of (K ) holds for 1 2. So we wll be able to conclude f we can verfy the condton (γ,γ ). We clam that for some constant C (3.4) f 1 1 2T C f 1 1 2T + Tf where f s any ostve dagonal matrx and T = ε y, wth y of the form y = e µ as above. Indeed, we have 1 f f f 1 2 and hence, by Prooston 3.6, (3.4) holds wth C = χ. Thus, we have condton (γ,γ ) wth γ = χ and by Remark 3.5 we can arrange to have, say, γ = 4. Thus, modulo the above observaton, we may vew Theorem 3.1 as a corollary to Theorem 2.1. Remark 3.7. Assume λ L (M,τ) (or smly λ S ) and let x = e λ L (B(l 2 ) M). Then, at the tme of ths wrtng, we do not know whether Theorem 3.1 remans vald for the seres ε e λ, wth [λ] relaced by [[λ]] = nf a a 1/2 1/ + ( 1/2 b b) 1/ where the nfmum runs over all decomoston, λ = a + b n L (τ). By (Kh ) ths clearly holds when 1. 4 Remarks on σ()-sets and σ() cb -sets In [9] (see also [10]) the followng noton s ntroduced: Defnton 4.1. A subset E N N s called a σ()-set (0 < ) f the system {e (,) E} s an uncondtonal bass of ts closed lnear san n S. Euvalently, there s a constant C such that for any fntely suorted famly of scalars {λ (,) E} and any bounded famly of scalars (α ) wth su α 1 we have α λ e C λ e. S S (,) E (,) E The smallest such constant C s denoted by σ (E). The oerator sace verson of ths noton s as follows: E s called a σ() cb -set f there s a C such that for any fntely suorted famly {λ (,) E} n S and any (α ) as before we have α e λ C e λ. (,) E S(l 2 l 2 ) (,) E S(l 2 l 2 ) 19

20 We then denote by σ cb (E) the smallest such constant C. It s not known whether σ()-sets are automatcally σ() cb -sets when 2. (The case = 2 s trval: every subset E s σ(2) cb.) By the non-commutatve Khntchne neualtes ([16, 18]), f 1 < 2, E N N s a σ()-set (res. σ() cb -set) ff there s a constant C such that for all famles {λ (,) E} wth λ scalar (res. λ S ) we have [λ] C λ e ( res. (,) E [[λ]] C (,) E S e λ S(l 2 l 2 ) The roof of Theorem 1.1, modfed as n Theorem 2.1, yelds the followng comlement to [9]: Theorem 4.2. Assume 1 < < 2. Any σ()-set (res. σ() cb -set) E N N s a σ()-set (res. σ() cb -set). Corollary 4.3. There s a constant c 1 such that, for any n, the usual bass {e } of S n 1 contans a c-uncondtonal subset of sze n 3/2. Proof. By [9, Th. 4.8] there s a constant c 1 such that, for any n, the set [n] [n] contans a further ( Hankelan ) subset that s a σ(4) cb -set (and hence by dualty also σ(4/3) cb ) wth constant c and cardnal n 3/2. Problem. What s the rght order of growth n the recedng statement? Can 3/2 be relaced by any number < 2? Remark 4.4. As observed n [9], f 2 < <, t s easy to show by nterolaton that any σ()- set (res. σ() cb -set) s a σ()-set (res. σ() cb -set). Moreover, any such set s a σ( )-set (res. σ( ) cb -set) where 1 = 1 1. However, the fact that e.g. σ( ) (1) s new as far as we know. 5 Grothendeck-Maurey factorzaton for Schur multlers (0 0 < < 1) Consder a bounded lnear ma u: H L (τ) on a Hlbert sace H wth 0 < 2. To avod techncaltes, we assume that the range of u les n a fnte dmensonal von Neumann subalgebra of M on whch τ s fnte. When 1, t s known that there s f n L 1 (τ) + wth τ(f) = 1 and a bounded lnear ma ũ: H L 2 (τ) such that ). x H u(x) = f 1 1 2ũ(x) + ũ(x)f and ũ K u where K s a constant ndeendent of u. In the case = 1, ths fact s easy to deduce from the dual form roved n [25] for mas from M to H; the latter s often desgnated as the non-commutatve lttle GT (here GT stands for Grothendeck s theorem). It s easy to deduce ths statement from (Kh ) (see [18] for more detals) 20

21 n the case 1 < 2 (note that = 2 s trval). See [17] for a roof that the best constant K remans bounded when runs over [1,2]. We refer the reader to [17, 19] and [13] for varous generalzatons. It seems natural to conecture that the recedng factorzaton of u remans vald for any wth 0 < < 1. Unfortunately, we leave ths oen. Nevertheless, n analogy wth 3, we are able to rove the recedng factorzaton n the secal case of Schur multlers as follows. Theorem 5.1. Let 0 < < 1. Let r be such that 1 r = Consder a Schur multler where ϕ C. The followng are euvalent: () u ϕ s bounded from S 2 to S. u ϕ : [x ] [x ϕ ] () ϕ admts a decomoston as ϕ = ψ + χ wth su ψ r < and su χ r <. () There s a seuence f 0 wth f < such that ϕ f 1/r + f 1/r. Proof. (sketch) () () s elementary, and () () s easy. The man ont s () (). To rove ths, the scheme s the same as n 3. We agan use extraolaton startng from the knowledge that Theorem 5.1 holds when = for some wth 1 < 2. Let us fx wth 0 < < 1. For any wth 2, we denote C (ϕ) = nf{ u y : S 2 S } where the nfmum runs over all y = (y ) for whch there s f 0 wth f 1 such that ϕ = (f 1 1 y + y f 1 1 )/2. We also denote ]ϕ[ = nf{ ψ lr(l ) + t χ lr(l )} where the nfmum runs over all decomostons ϕ = ψ + χ. Note that C (ϕ) = u ϕ: S 2 S. Let 1 < 2 and 1 = 1 θ arguments as n 1: Ste 1 : ]ϕ[ C C (λ). Ste 2 : C 2 (ϕ) C ]ϕ[. Ste 3 : C (ϕ) C C (ϕ)1 θ C 2 (ϕ)θ. + θ 2. We have then by the same Note that obvously u y : S 2 S 2 = su y so that we have agan euvalence n Ste 2. To verfy Ste 3 we argue exactly as for Theorem 3.1. Corollary 5.2. Let 0 < 2. Let 1 r = 1 1. Wth ths value of r, the roertes () and () n the recedng Theorem are euvalent to: () u ϕ s bounded from S to S. Proof. Assume (). Snce S has cotye 2 ([36]), u ϕ factors through a Hlbert sace by [25]. By an elementary averagng argument (see e.g. [29]), the factorzaton can be acheved usng only Schur multlers. Thus we must have ϕ = ϕ 1 ϕ 2 wth ϕ 1 (res. ϕ 2 ) bounded from S 2 to S (res. S to S 2 ). If we now aly Theorem 5.1 (res. the results of [29, 35]) to ϕ 1 (res. ϕ 2 ), and use an arthmetc/geometrc tye neualty of the form f 1 1 2g c(f g 1 1 ) for all f,g 0, we obtan (). The other mlcatons are easy. 21

22 Problem. Characterze the bounded Schur multlers from S to S when < < 2 or when 2 < <. Some useful nformaton on ths roblem can be derved from [13]. The dffculty s due to the fact that, excet when = 1,2,, we have no characterzaton of the bounded Schur multlers on S. Remark. By general results, actually Theorem 5.1 mles Theorem 3.1. Indeed, the same dea as n [18] can be used to see ths. Moreover, as onted out by Q. Xu, the converse mlcaton s also easy: ust observe that, by Theorem 3.1, any Schur multler bounded from S 2 to S must be a bounded multler from l 2 (N N) to l (l 2 ) + t l (l 2 ). Then a well known varant of Maurey s classcal factorzaton yelds () or () n Theorem 5.1. Although the recent aer [13] establshed several mortant factorzaton theorems for mas between non-commutatve L -saces, there seems to be some extra dffculty to extend the Maurey factorzaton theorem when 0 < < 1. The next result onts to the obstacle. To avod techncaltes we agan restrct to the fnte dmensonal case, so we assume (M,τ) as before but wth M fnte dmensonal. For any ε > 0, we denote For any x n M, we let D ε = {f D f ε1}. T(x)y = xy + yx. Note that f x > 0 then T(x) s an somorhsm on M so that T(x) 1 makes sense. Let B be any Banach sace. Gven a lnear ma u: B L (τ), we denote by M (u) the smallest constant C such that for any fnte seuence (x ) n B (ux ) C ( x 2) 1/2. We denote by M (u) the smallest constant C such that there s ε > 0 and a robablty λ on D ε such that (5.1) x B T(f 1 r ) 1 ux 2 2 dλ(f) C2 x 2 where (as before) 1 r = We have then Prooston 5.3. There s a constant β > 0 such that for any u as above we have 1 β M (u) M (u) M (u). Proof. The man ont s to observe that f ε s chosen small enough (comared to dm(m)) we have for any fnte seuence y = (y ) n L (τ) ( 1 1/2 (5.2) (y ) nf T(f r ) 1 y 2) 2 β (y ) f D ε where β s a fxed constant, ndeendent of the dmenson of M. Then M (u) M (u) follows mmedately. To rove the converse, assume M (u) 1. Then by (5.2) we have 1 nf T(f r) 1 u(x ) 2 2 y D β2 x 2. ε 22

23 By a well known Hahn Banach tye argument (see e.g. Exercse n [26]), there s a net (λ ) on D ε such that x B lm T(f 1 r) 1 u(x) 2 2 dλ (f) β 2 x 2. We may as well assume that the net corresonds to an ultraflter. Settng λ = lm λ, we obtan (5.1) and hence M (u) β. Remark 5.4. Now assume 1 < 2. Note then that 1 r = satsfes 1 2 r = 1 2 < 0. Therefore the functon t t 2 r s oerator convex (see e.g. [2,. 123]. Usng ths and assumng M (u) 1, we clam that there s, for some ε > 0, a densty F n D ε such that (5.3) T(F 1/r ) 1 ux 2 β x x H. Indeed we frst observe that (5.4) T(f 1/r ) 1 y 2 2 T(f) 1 r y 2 2 = T(f) 2 r y,y where means that the (suared) norms are euvalent wth euvalence constants deendng only on r, and hence f we set F = f dλ(f) we deduce from (5.1) that, for some constant c, we have and hence usng (5.4) agan we obtan (5.3). T(F) 2/r ux,ux c x 2 Note that f B s Hlbertan any bounded lnear u from B to L (τ) satsfes the factorzaton of the form (5.3) f 1 2. Ths follows mmedately by dualty from ether [17] or [19]. However, what haens for 0 < < 1 s unclear : Can we stll get rd of λ as n the recedng remark? 6 A non-commutatve Kahane neualty In vector-valued robablty theory, the followng neualtes due to Kahane (see [15]) lay an mortant role. For any 0 < < <, there s a constant K(,) such that for any Banach sace X and any fnte seuence (x k ) of elements of X we have (6.1) rk x L(X) k K(,) rk x L(X) k where (r k ) denotes as before the Rademacher functons. As observed by C. Borell (see [6]) Kahane s result can be deduced from the hyercontractve neualty for the sem-grou T(t) defned on L 2 ([0,1]) by T(t) r k = e t A r k for any fnte set A N. The hyercontractvty says that f 1 < < < and f e 2t ( 1)( 1) 1 then T(t): L L = 1. Snce T(t) 0 for all t 0, ths mles that for any Banach sace X, we also have T(t): L (X) L (X) = k A k A

24 In artcular, f S = r k x k then T(t)S = e t S and hence we fnd S L(X) ( 1) 1/2 ( 1) 1/2 S L(X), whch yelds (6.1) for > 1 (and the case 0 < 1 can be easly deduced from ths usng Hölder s neualty). The goal of ths secton s to remark that ths aroach s vald mutats mutands n the antsymmetrc or Fermonc settng consdered n [7]. Let (M,τ) be a von Neumann algebra eued wth a fathful normal trace τ such that τ(1) = 1. Let {Q k k 0} be a sn system n M. By ths we mean that Q k are self-adont untary oerators such that k l Q k Q l = Q l Q k. For any fnte set A N, ordered so that A = {k 1,...,k m } wth k 1 < k 2 < < k m, we set wth the conventon Q A = Q k1 Q k2...q km, Q φ = 1. We wll assume that M s generated by {Q k }. In that case, M s the so-called hyerfnte factor of tye II 1,.e. the non-commutatve analogue of the Lebesgue nterval [0,1]. Let V (t): L 2 (τ) L 2 (τ) be the sem-grou defned for all A N ( A < ) by V (t)q A = e t A Q A. Carlen and Leb [7] observed that the sem-grou V (t) s comletely ostve (see [7, (4.2). 36]) and roved that f e 2t ( 1)( 1) 1 V (t): L (τ) L (τ) = 1. We take the occason of ths aer to ont out that the Kahane neualty remans vald n ths settng rovded one works wth the vector-valued non-commutatve L -saces L (τ;e) ntroduced n [28]. Here E s an oerator sace,.e. E B(H) for some Hlbert sace H, and L (τ;e) s defned as the comleton f L (τ) E for the norm denoted by L(τ;E) defned as follows. For any f n the algebrac tensor roduct L (τ) E (6.2) f L(τ;E) = nf{ a L2 (τ) b L2 (τ)} where the nfmum runs over all ossble factorzatons of f of the form (6.3) f = a g b wth g M E such that g M mn E 1. In (6.3), the ma (a,g,b) a g b s obtaned by lnear extenson from Our observaton bols down to the followng. (a,(m e),b) amb e. 24

25 Lemma 6.1. If T : L (τ) L (τ) (1, ) s comletely ostve and bounded, then for any oerator sace E {0} the oerator T d E extends to a bounded oerator from L (τ;e) to L (τ;e) such that T d E : L (τ;e) L (τ;e) = T : L (τ) L (τ). Proof. By densty, t suffces to rove ths when M s generated by a fnte subset {Q 0,Q 1,...,Q n }, say wth even cardnalty (.e. n odd). Then M = M 2 k wth k = (n+1)/2 and t s well known (see e.g. [24]) that any c.. ma T : M M s of the form (6.4) T(x) = a xa for some fnte set a n M. Now assume f L (τ) E wth f L(τ;E) < 1. We can wrte f = a g b wth a 2, b 2 < 1 ( a ) 1/2 and g M mn E < 1. Assume T : L (τ) L (τ) = 1. Let α = a aa and β = ( a ) 1/2. b ba Snce α 2 = T(a a) and β 2 = T(b b) we have α 2 < 1 and β 2 < 1. Fx ε > 0. We have aa = α (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 ba = β (ε1 + β 2 ) 1/2 where α = aa (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 and β = ba (ε1 + β 2 ) 1/2 satsfy α α = (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 α 2 (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 1 and smlarly β β 1. Ths mles clearly (by the defnng roerty of an oerator sace!) α g β M mn < 1. E We have (T d E )(f) = (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 ĝ(ε1 + β 2 ) 1/2 where ĝ = α g β, and hence we conclude by (6.2) (T d E )(f) L(τ;E) (ε1 + α 2 ) 1/2 2 (ε1 + β 2 ) 1/2 2 (ε + α 2 ) 1/2 (ε + β 2 ) 1/2 1 + ε, and snce ε > 0 s arbtrary, we obtan the announced result by homogenety. Remark 6.2. Q. Xu onted out to me that Lemma 6.1 remans vald n the nonhyerfnte case.one can check ths usng the followng fact: consder y n L (τ) M n, then y B L(τ;M n) ff there are ) λ,µ n B L(τ) such that 0 where 0 s meant n L (τ tr) (see e.g. Exercse 11.5 n [26] ( λ y y µ for the result at the root of ths fact). A smlar statement s vald wth B(H) n lace of M n. Theorem 6.3. Let 1 < < <. Assume e 2t ( 1)( 1) 1, then for any oerator sace E V (t): L (τ;e) L (τ;e) 1. Conseuently, for any 1 < < there s a constant K (,) such that for any E and any fnte seuence x k n E we have Q k x k L(τ;E) K (,) Q k x k L(τ;E). 25

26 Proof. The frst art follows from the recedng Lemma by [7]. Let f = Q k x k. In artcular, f 1 < < < we have (6.5) f L(τ;E) ( 1) 1/2 ( 1) 1/2 f L(τ;E). Let 0 < θ < 1 be defned by By [28,. 40] we have sometrcally 1 = 1 θ + θ 1. and hence whch when combned wth (6.5) yelds L (τ;e) = (L 1 (τ;e),l (τ;e)) θ f L(τ;E) f 1 θ L 1 (τ;e) f θ L (τ;e), f L(τ;E) (( 1) 1/2 ( 1) 1/2 ) 1 1 θ f L1 (τ;e). Remark. Obvously Theorem 6.3 s also vald for other hyercontractve sem-grous, as the ones n [5]. 7 Aendx The man techncal dffculty n our roof of Ste 3 above s (1.5). We wll frst show how ths follows from Theorem 1.1 n [13]. We wll then also outlne a drect more self-contaned argument. Let (M, τ) be a generalzed (ossbly non-commutatve) measure sace, wth assocated sace L (τ). Snce t s easy to ass from the fnte to the semfnte case, we assume τ fnte. Consder a densty f > 0 n M wth τ(f) = 1, wth fnte sectrum,.e. we assume that f = N 1 f Q where 0 < f 1 f 2... f N, 1 = N 1 Q and Q are mutually orthogonal roectons n M. We now ntroduce for any x n L (τ) (1 ) (7.1) x L(f) = f 1 x L(τ) + xf 1 L(τ). We wll denote by L (f) the sace L (τ) eued wth the norm L(f). Then [13, Th. 1.1] mles n artcular that for any 0 < θ < 1 and any 1 < < we have (7.2) L (θ) (f) (M,L (f)) θ where (θ) 1 = 1 θ + θ = θ/, and where means that the norms on both sdes are euvalent wth euvalence constants deendng only on and θ. Note that by the trangle neualty and by Lemma 1.9 (), we have (7.3) f 1 x + xf 1 L(τ) x L(f) 2t() f 1 x + xf 1 L(τ). Let us denote Wth ths notaton, the dual norms T(f)x = fx + xf. x L(f) = su{ τ(xy) y L(f) 1} 26

27 satsfy for any x n L (τ) the followng dual verson to (7.3) (7.4) (2t()) 1 T(f 1 ) 1 x L (τ) x L(f) T(f 1 ) 1 x L (τ). Note that wth our smlfyng assumtons on f, T(f) s an somorhsm on L (τ). Here and n the seuel we wll denote by c 1,c 2,... constants deendng only on and θ. Recall (see e.g. [4]) that we have sometrcally for any 0 < θ < 1 (M,L (f)) θ = (L 1(τ),L (f) ) θ. Therefore (7.2) mles n artcular that for any x n L (τ) (7.5) x L(θ) (f) c 1 x 1 θ L 1 (τ) x θ L (f). Usng (7.4), (7.5) mles (7.6) T(f θ ) 1 (x) L(θ) (τ) c 2 x 1 θ L 1 (τ) T(f 1 ) 1 x θ L (τ). In Ste 3 of the resent aer, we used the secal case = 2. If we denote = (θ) we have 1 = 1 θ 1 + θ 2 so that (7.6) becomes (7.7) T(f θ 2 ) 1 (x) c 2 x 1 θ 1 T(f 1 2 ) 1 x θ 2, and we obtan (1.5) for = 1. The case 1 < < 2 can be derved by the same argument, but ths s anyway much easer because of the smultaneous boundedness on L and L 2 of the trangular roecton. For the convenence of the reader, we now gve a drect argument, based on the same deas as [13]. We want to show (7.7). Note that t s euvalent to (change x to T(f 2y)) 1 : for all y n M (7.8) T(f θ 2 ) 1 T(f 1 2)y c 4 T(f 1 2)y 1 θ 1 y θ 2. By the trangle neualty and by Lemma 1.9 () we have T(f θ 2) 1 T(f 1 2)y T(f θ 2 ) 1 f θ 2 f 1 θ 2 y + T(f θ 2) 1 yf 1 θ 2 f θ 2 t()( f 1 θ 2 y + yf 1 θ 2 ). Therefore to show (7.7) (or (7.8)) t suffces to show (7.9) f 1 θ 2 y + yf 1 θ 2 c 6 f 1 2y + yf θ 1 y θ 2. Recall that f = N 1 f Q. We denote y + = Q yq, y = > Q yq. Note that y + (res. y ) s the uer (res. lower) trangular art of y (wth resect to the decomoston I = Q ). We recall that, whenever 1 < <, y y + and y y are bounded lnear mas on L (τ) wth bounds ndeendent of N, but ths fals n case = 1 or = (see [20] and [30, 8] for references on ths). By the trangle neualty, snce y = y + + y, to rove (7.9) t suffces to show y M (7.10) max{ f 1 θ 2 y +, y + f 1 θ 2 } c 7 f 1 2y + yf θ 1 y θ 2 27

28 and smlarly wth y n lace of y +. Let L (τ) = {x L (τ) x + = 0}. Let Λ = L (τ)/l (τ). Note that x + + L (τ) = x + L (τ). We wll denote abusvely by x+ Λ the norm n Λ of the euvalence class of x + modulo L (τ). Note that x+ Λ1 x 1 for all x n L 1 (τ) and hence f 1 2y + +y + f 1 2 Λ1 f 1 2y+yf for all y n L 2 (τ). Moreover we have y + Λ2 = y + 2. Therefore to show (7.10) t suffces to show (7.11) f 1 θ 2 y + c 7 f 1 2y + + y + f θ Λ 1 y + θ Λ 2 and smlarly for y + f 1 θ 2. We now observe that, by Lemma 1.9 (), the mas T 1 : x λ λ λ + λ Q xq and T 2 : x λ λ λ + λ Q xx have norm 3/2 on L (τ) for all 1, n artcular on L 1 (τ). Snce these mas reserve L 1 (τ), the same mas are contractve on Λ 1. Alyng ths wth λ = f 1/2 and assumng as before that f 1... f N, we have f f = f and f f = f for all and hence T 1 (f 2y y + f 1 2) = f 1/2 y + and T 2 (f 1 2y + + y + f 2) 1 = y + f 2. 1 Ths gves us Thus to show (7.11) t suffces to show max{ f 1 2y + Λ1, y + f 1 2 Λ1 } (3/2) f 1 2y + + y + f 1 2 Λ1. f 1 θ 2 y + c 7 f 1 2y + 1 θ Λ 1 y + θ Λ 2, and smlarly for y + f 1 θ 2. Now by [27, Th. 4.5] and by dualty we have (Λ 1,Λ 2 ) θ Λ wth euvalent norms (and euvalence constants ndeendent of N). Usng the analytc functon z f z 2 and a by now routne alcaton of the 3 lne lemma (ths s essentally the Sten nterolaton rncle ) ths gves us (recall y + Λ2 = y + 2 ) f 1 θ 2 y + Λ c 8 f 1 2 y + 1 θ Λ 1 y + θ 2. But now snce the trangular roecton y y + s bounded on L (τ) when 1 < < (and snce (f 1 θ 2 y) + = f 1 θ 2 y + ) we obtan fnally f 1 θ 2 y + c 9 f 1 2y + 1 θ Λ 1 y + θ 2. By the recedng successve reductons, ths comletes the roof of (7.7) and hence also of (1.5) for = 1. Acknowledgement. I am very grateful to Quanhua Xu for many stmulatng suggestons and mrovements. I also thank the referee for hs/her very careful readng and the resultng correctons. References [1] Arak H. Golden Thomson and Peerls Bogolubov neualtes for a general von Neumann algebra, Comm. Math. Phys. 34 (1973),