arxiv: v1 [math.oa] 25 Apr 2014

Transcription

1 TRIANGLE INEQUALITY AND THE DUAL GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY arxiv: v1 [math.oa] 25 Apr 2014 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE ABSTRACT. The dual Gromov-Hausdorff propinquity is a generalization of the Gromov-Hausdorff distance to the class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, designed to be well-behaved with respect to C*-algebraic structures. In this paper, we present a variant of the dual propinquity for which the triangle inequality is established without the recourse to the notion of journeys, or finite paths of tunnels. Since the triangle inequality has been a challenge to establish within the setting of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces for quite some time, and since journeys can be a complicated tool, this new form of the dual propinquity is a significant theoretical and practical improvement. On the other hand, our new metric is equivalent to the dual propinquity, and thus inherits all its properties. 1. INTRODUCTION This is the first version of this note, distributed as a draft to facilitate the timely dissemination of new results, while at times rough in style. The final published version will replace this version in time. Noncommutative metric geometry proposes to study some noncommutative algebras as generalizations of algebras of Lipschitz functions over metric spaces. Inspired by the groundbreaking work of Connes [2, 3] about metrics associated with spectral triples, Rieffel introduced the notion of quantum compact metric spaces [16, 17]. While various algebraic structures can be considered as a foundation for a theory of quantum compact metric spaces, from order-unit spaces in the original work of Rieffel to operator systems [6], operator spaces, and others, recent research in noncommutative metric geometry [19, 21, 20, 22, 23] suggests that a desirable framework consists of the class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces [12], or some of its subclasses such as compact C*-metric spaces [20]. A Leibniz quantum compact metric space is a pair (A,L) of a unital C*-algebra and a densely defined seminorm L on the self-adjoint part of A which vanishes exactly on the scalar multiple of the unit, satisfies an appropriate form of the Leibniz identity, and whose dual seminorm induces a metric for the weak* topology on the state space S(A) of A. The prototype for such a structure is given by a pair (C(X),L) where (X,m) is a compact metric space, C(X) is the C*-algebra of continuous C-valued functions on X andlis the usual Lipschitz seminorm on the Date: November 10, Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 46L89, 46L30, 58B34. Key words and phrases. Noncommutative metric geometry, Gromov-Hausdorff convergence, Monge-Kantorovich distance, Quantum Metric Spaces, Lip-norms. 1

2 2 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE space sa(c(x)) of real-valued continuous functions on X. An extension of this model to the locally compact quantum metric space setting can be found in [9, 10]. A central quest in noncommutative metric geometry [24, 6, 14, 15, 25, 7] is the construction of a generalization of the Gromov-Hausdorff distance [5, 4] to a large class of quantum metric spaces, well behaved with respect to the underlying algebraic structure of compact quantum metric spaces. Rieffel introduced the first such metric as the quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance [24], within the context where quantum compact metric spaces are defined as augmented structures over order-unit spaces. In particular, no C*-algebraic structure is involved in the quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance construction besides the order-unit space structure on their self-adjoint part, and as such, two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces can be at distance zero while their underlying C*-algebras may not be *- isomorphic. Several examples of convergence for this metric, inspired by mathematical physics, such as finite dimensional approximations of quantum tori [8] or full matrix algebras approximations of sphere [18], for instance, have been established. We proposed a solution to this problem with the introduction of the Dual Gromov-Hausdorff Propinquity [11]. Our metric is well-behaved with respect to both the C*-algebraic structure and the Leibniz property involved in the definition of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. In particular, all objects involved in the computations of the dual propinquity are Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, distance zero implies *-isomorphism of the underlying C*-algebras and isometry of the quantum metric structures, and moreover the dual propinquity is complete. Our methods allows to specialize the construction of the dual propinquity to subclasses of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces for a particular purpose. Our approach differs from previous strengthening of Rieffel s distance by focusing on choosing the proper class of quantum compact metric spaces rather than replace the state space and its natural metric by more complicated objects. The dual propinquity is stronger than Rieffel s quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, and is dominated by the quantum propinquity [12], a previous construction which we proposed to address some of the same issues as the dual propinquity metric, as well as challenges raised by distance computations based on bimodules constructions. As a result of our work on the quantum propinquity [13], we thus concluded that all the main examples of convergence for Rieffel s quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, such as finite dimensional approximations of quantum tori, spheres, hold for the dual propinquity, and that when restricted classical metric spaces, the dual propinquity is dominated by the Gromov-Hausdorff distance. One of the many challenges encountered during our work with both the quantum propinquity and the dual propinquity was to prove the triangle inequality for our metrics. This difficulty finds its roots in the fact that the quotient of Leibniz Lip-norms may not be Leibniz [1], thus preventing the use of the techniques proposed by Rieffel in [24] for the establishment of the triangle inequality of the quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance. In particular, Rieffel s quantum proximity [20] is not known to be a metric because of this very issue, and in fact our work on

3 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 3 the quantum propinquity and the dual propinquity was in part motivated by this problem. Both our propinquity metrics are build by using objects relating two arbitrary Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces in a manner analogous to the isometric embeddings employed in the definition of the Gromov-Hausdorff distance. For the quantum propinquity, such objects are called bridges, to which we associate a length. Simply taking the infimum of the lengths of all possible bridges between two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces does not lead to a metric because the triangle inequality has no reason to hold. Thus, we define the quantum propinquity as the infimum, informally, of the lengths of finite paths build out of bridges, over any possible such paths between two given Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. This approach proved successful, and we defined a metric on the class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces with good algebraic properties. We introduced the dual propinquity as a new metric between Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces because we were interested in having a complete metric on the class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, since this is an important property of the original Gromov-Hausdorff distance. The dual propinquity proved to share many of the important properties of the quantum propinquity. To keep the same flexibility and generality involved in the construction of the quantum propinquity, which can be seen, in fact, as a special variant of the dual propinquity, we employed a similar technique to establish the triangle inequality where we had bridges, we now had tunnels, and finite paths of bridges, called treks, were replaced by journeys, in a purposefully analogous manner. Once again, this led us to a successful construction of a well-behaved metric. In this paper, however, we show that we can take advantage of some of the new features of the construction of the dual propinquity to avoid the recourse to journeys, and instead obtain the triangle inequality in a more direct manner. The key observation is a particular aspect of the flexibility of our construction. To understand this matter, we briefly recall how to define the quantum Gromov-- Hausdorff distance between two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces (A,L A ) and(b,l B ). A Lip-normLonA Bis called admissible when its quotients ona andbfor the canonical surjections are given, respectively, by L A andl B. For any such admissible Lip-normsL, the state space S(A) ofaand the state space S(B) of B canonically embeds isometrically in the state space S(A B), where all the mentioned state spaces are equipped with the metrics dual to, respectively, L A, L B and L. The quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance is then the infimum of the Hausdorff distances between S(A) and S(B) taken over all possible admissible Lip-norms ona B. This picture is dual to the construction of the Gromov-Hausdorff distance [5] between two compact metric spaces (X,m x ) and(y,m Y ), which may define as the infimum between the Hausdorff distance between X and Y seen as subspace of their disjoint union X Y, taken over all possible metrics on X Y whose restrictions to X and Y are given, respectively by m X andm Y. The quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, the quantum proximity, the quantum propinquity and many other constructions of noncommutative Gromov-Hausdorff distances involve, explicitly or implicitly, the same type of dual notion of embedding relying on the direct sum of the Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces

4 4 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE under considerations. The dual propinquity, on the other hand, allows for a more general notion of dual isometric embedding, which we call tunnels. A tunnel from a given Leibniz quantum compact metric space(a,l A ) to a Leibniz quantum compact metric space(b,l B ) is, informally, given as Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces (D,L D ) together with two epimorphisms from D onto A and B such that the quotients ofl D for these two epimorphisms are given, respectively, byl A and L B. To make this generalization work, some new quantities associated with tunnels were introduced in [11]. In Gromov s classical construction, it is well-known that one may replace the disjoint union used in the construction at the end of the previous paragraph by an arbitrary compact metric space in which (X,m X ) and (Y,m Y ) embed isometrically, without changing the metric. However, this equivalence does not quite carry to the noncommutative world, again because quotient of Leibniz Lip-norms may not be Leibniz. Indeed, at the core of this paper, the freedom afforded by the construction of the dual propinquity allows us to compose certain pairs of tunnels, thus creating a new tunnel in a manner which then allows us to approach the question of the triangle inequality anew. There is a small price to pay in exchange for this new approach, however. The cost comes from two sources. First, we must modify very slightly the numerical quantity associated with tunnels, in a manner so mild that the resulting distance is equivalent to the original dual propinquity (it dominates the original version and is dominated by twice the original version). Second, we exclude certain classes of tunnels, which may be too small to be closed under composition. Very noticeably, this means that the class of tunnels inherited from the quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance is excluded. This explains why no such approach was used prior to this paper: we needed the more flexible dual propinquity for it. Thus, our present paper offers a variant of the dual propinquity for which the triangle inequality is obtained much more naturally. The advantages of this variant are two-folds. First, it allows one to explore the theory of the dual propinquity without recourse to the somewhat heavy construct of journeys. Second, it removes the need to consider journeys in working with specific examples, as a single wellchosen tunnel will always do if one works with appropriate classes of tunnels, as described below. If, in practice, a journey is used to compute the dual propinquity between two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, then the method in this paper shows how to reduce it to a single tunnel. We believe that this observation is thus significant as it improves our understanding of a very promising metric between Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. We see the work in this paper as an important complement to [11], not a substitute. To avoid excessive terminology, we propose the following in this paper. The new metric will be referred to simply as the propinquity, meant as a shorthand for Gromov-Hausdorff propinquity, in the rest of our article. We use very similar notations for the dual propinquity and our new variant, simply because the two metrics are equivalent and very close in their construction; the need to introduce our variant only follows to avoid a factor of 2 in the triangle inequality for the original form of the dual propinquity. The key contribution of this paper is the proof the triangle inequality itself.

5 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 5 We begin our exposition with the notion of the extent of a tunnel, which is a quantity which combines the depth and reach of tunnels [11] in a convenient manner. We then show how this new quantity enjoy a form of triangle inequality, obtained by composing tunnels, rather than journeys, under appropriate assumptions. We then conclude by introducing our variant of the dual propinquity and establish its core properties. 2. EXTENT OF TUNNELS Noncommutative metric geometry proposes to study noncommutative generalizations of algebras of Lipschitz functions on metric spaces. For our purpose, the basic class of objects is given in the following definition, which we also use to set all our basic notations in this paper. Definition 2.1. A Leibniz quantum compact metric space (A, L) is a pair of a unital C*-algebra A with unit 1 A and a seminorm L defined on a dense Jordan-Lie subalgebra dom(l) of the self-adjoint partsa(a) ofa, such that: (1) {a dom(l) : L(a) = 0} = R1 A, (2) the Monge-Kantorovich metric mk L, defined on the state space S(A) of A by: mk L : ϕ, ψ S(A) sup{ ϕ(a) ψ(a) : a dom(l),l(a) 1} metrizes the weak* topology on S(A), (3) for all a, b dom(l) we have: and: L(a b) a A L(b)+ b B L(a) L({a, b}) a A L(b)+ b B L(a), where a b = ab+ba 2 and{a, b} = ab ba 2i, (4) the seminorm L is lower semi-continuous with respect to the norm A of A. When (A,L) is a Leibniz quantum compact metric space, the seminormlis called a Leibniz Lip-norm on A. As a usual convention, given a seminorm L defined on some dense subspace dom(l) of a space A, we set L(a) = whenever a dom(l), so that dom(l) = {a A : L(a) < } with this convention. To construct a distance between Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, we propose to extend the notion of an isometric embedding of two compact metric spaces into a third compact metric spaces to the noncommutative world. Definition 2.2. Let (A 1,L 1 ) and (A 2,L 2 ) be two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. A tunnel (D,L D, π 1, π 2 ) is a Leibniz quantum compact metric space (D,L D ) and two *-epimorphisms π 1 : D A 1 and π 2 : D A 2 such that, for all j {1, 2}, and for all a sa ( A j ), we have: L j (a) = inf { L D (d) : d sa(d), π j (d) = a }.

6 6 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE A tunnel provides a mean to measure how far apart two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces might be. To this end, we introduced several quantities in [11] associated with tunnels. Definition 2.3. Let (A,L A ) and (B,L B ) be two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, and let τ = (D,L D, π A, π B ) be a tunnel from(a,l A ) to (B,L B ). The reach ρ(τ) of τ is: Haus mkl (π A (S(A)), π B (S(B))), where for any positive linear map f : E F between two C*-algebras E andf, we denote the transpose map by f : ϕ S(F) ϕ f S(E). The depth δ(τ) of τ is: Haus mkl (S(D), co(s(a) S(B))), where co(e) is the closure of the convex envelope of a set E S(D). The length λ(τ) of τ is: max{δ(τ), ρ(τ)}. While a natural approach, taking the infimum of the lengths of all tunnels between two given Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces does not a priori give us a metric. The largest pseudo-metric dominated by the lengths of tunnels is constructed in [11] and is called the dual Gromov-Hausdorff propinquity. Remarkably, it is a metric [11, Theorem 4.17] up to isometric isomorphism, and it is complete [11, Theorem 6.27]. We propose to modify the dual propinquity to avoid the recourse to journeys. To this end, we propose a new quantity associated with tunnels: Definition 2.4. Let (A,L A ) and (B,L B ) be two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and let τ = (D,L D, π A, π B ) be a tunnel from(a,l A ) to(b,l B ). The extent χ(τ) of τ is the nonnegative real number: { } max Haus mkld (S(D), S(A)),Haus mkld (S(D), S(B)). The key observation for this section is that the extent is equivalent to the length: Proposition 2.5. Let (A,L A ) and (B,L B ) be two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and let(d,l D, π A, π B ) be a tunnel from(a,l A ) to(b,l B ). Then: λ(τ) = max{ρ(τ), δ(τ)} χ(τ) 2λ(τ). Proof. If ϕ S(A) then πa (ϕ) S(D) and thus there exists ψ S(B) such that: mk LD (ϕ π A, ψ π B ) χ(τ). As the argument is symmetric inaand B, we deduce: ρ(τ) χ(τ). Now, by definition, since S(A), S(B) co(s(a) S(B)), we certainly have δ(τ) χ(τ). Hence: max{ρ(τ), δ(τ)} χ(τ).

7 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 7 This proves the first inequality of our proposition. We now prove the second inequality. Let ϕ S(D). By Definition of the depth of τ, There exists µ S(A) and ν S(B) such that, for some t [0, 1]: mk LD (ϕ, tµ π A +(1 t)ν π B ) δ(τ). Now, by the definition of the reach of τ, there exists θ S(A) such that: mk LD (ν π B, θ π A ) ρ(τ). Let η = tµ π A +(1 t)ν π B and ω = tµ π A +(1 t)θ π A. Then: mk LD (ϕ, ω) mk LD (ϕ, η)+mk LD (η, ω) δ(τ)+sup { η(d) ω(d) d sa(d),l D (d) 1 } = δ(τ)+sup { (1 t) ν(π B (d)) θ(π A (d)) d sa(d),l D (d) 1 } = δ(τ)+(1 t)mk LD (ν π B, θ π A ) δ(τ)+ρ(τ). Again by symmetry in A andb, we get: This concludes our proof. χ(τ) ρ(τ)+δ(τ) 2λ(τ). In [11], tunnels were not composed; instead journeys were introduced because of their natural composition properties, from which the triangle inequality of the dual propinquity was proven. We now show that we can actually compose tunnels in such a manner that the extent behaves properly with respect to this composition. This leads us to our variant of the propinquity in the next section. 3. TRIANGLE INEQUALITY FOR AN EQUIVALENT METRIC TO THE DUAL PROPINQUITY The main result of this section is the following method to compose tunnels, in such a manner as to obtain a desirable behavior of the extent: Theorem 3.1. Let(A,L A ),(B,L B ) and(e,l E ) be three Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. Let (D 1,L 1, π 1, π 2 ) be a tunnel from (A,L A ) to (B,L B ) and (D 2,L 2, ρ 1, ρ 2 ) be a tunnel from(b,l B ) to(e,l E ). If, for all (d 1, d 2 ) sa(d 1 D 2 ), we set: L(d 1, d 2 ) = max {L 1 (d 1 ),L 2 (d 2 ), 1ε } π 2(d 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 ) B, and if η 1 : (d 1, d 2 ) d 1 and η 2 : (d 1, d 2 ) d 2, then(d 1 D 2,L) is a Leibniz quantum compact metric space and τ 3 = (D 1 D 2,L, π 1 η 1, ρ 2 η 2 ) is a tunnel from(a,l A ) to (E,L E ), whose extent satisfies: χ(τ 3 ) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 ). Moreover, the affine maps ϕ S(D 1 ) ϕ η 1 and ϕ S(D 2 ) ϕ η 2 are isometries from, respectively,(s(d 1 ),mk L1 ) and(s(d 2 ),mk L2 ) into (S(D 1 D 2 ),mk L ).

8 8 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE Proof. LetF = D 1 D 2. We first observe thatlis a Leibniz lower semi-continuous Lip-norm onf. To this end, let us show that the map: N : d 1, d 2 F 1 ε π 2(d 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 ) B is a bridge in the sense of [24, Definition 5.1], which moreover satisfies the Leibniz inequality. We start with the latter property. If d 1, e 1 sa(d 1 ) and d 2, e 2 sa(d 2 ), then: N(d 1 e 1, d 2 e 2 ) = 1 ε π 2(d 1 e 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 e 2 ) B 1 ε π 2(d 1 )π 2 (e 1 ) π 2 (d 1 )ρ 1 (e 2 ) B + 1 ε π 2(d 1 )ρ 1 (e 2 ) ρ 1 (d 2 )ρ 1 (e 2 ) B d 1 D1 π 2 (e 1 ) ρ 1 (e 2 ) ε B + e 2 D2 π 2 (d 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 ) ε D (e 1, e 2 ) F N(e 1, e 2 )+ (d 1, d 2 ) F N(d 1, d 2 ), } since f 1, f 2 F = max { f 1 D1, f 2 D2 for all ( f 1, f 2 ) F. Thus, N satisfies the Leibniz inequality, and therefore so doesl. We now check the three conditions of [24, Definition 5.1]. By construction, N is continuous for the norm of F. Moreover, since π 2 and ρ 1 are unital, we have N(1 D1, 1 D2 ) = 0. On the other hand N(1 D1, 0) = 1 ε > 0. Last, let δ > 0 and d 1 sa(d 1 ). Let b = π 2 (d 1 ) sa(b) and note that since (D 1,L 1, π 1, π 2 ) is a tunnel to (B,L B ), we have L B (b) L 1 (d 1 ). Since(D 2,L 2, ρ 1, ρ 2 ) is a tunnel from(b,l B ), there exists d 2 sa(d 2 ) such that ρ 1 (d 2 ) = b and: L 2 (d 2 ) L B (b)+δ L 1 (d 1 )+δ. Since π 2 (d 1 ) = b = ρ 1 (d 2 ) by construction, we have N(d 1, d 2 ) = 0. Consequently: d 1 sa(d 1 ) δ > 0 d 2 D 2 max{l 2 (d 2 ), N(d 1, d 2 )} L 1 (d 1 )+δ. The construction is symmetric ind 1 and D 2, so all three conditions of [24, Definition 5.1] are verified. By [24, Theorem 5.2], we conclude that L is a lower semi-continuous Lip-norm onf = D 1 D 2, since both L 1 andl 2 are lower semi-continuous. Thus, (F,L) is a Leibniz quantum compact metric space. Moreover, we observe that the quotient of L on sa(d 1 ) (resp. on sa(d 2 )) is L 1 (resp. L 2 ), again by [24, Theorem 5.2]. In particular, this proves that ϕ S(D 1 ) ϕ η 1 and ϕ S(D 2 ) ϕ η 2 are isometries from, respectively, (S(D 1 ),mk L1 ) and(s(d 2 ),mk L2 ) into (S(D 1 D 2 ),mk L ). By [24, Proposition 3.7], since L A is the quotient of L 1 for π 1 by definition of τ 1, we conclude thatl A is the quotient oflfor π 1 η 1. Similarly,L E is the quotient of L for ρ 2 η 2. Therefore, we have shown that τ 3 = (F,L, π 1 η 1, ρ 2 η 2 ) is a tunnel from (A,L A ) to (E,L E ). It remains to compute the extent of τ 3.

9 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 9 Let ϕ S(F). Since F = D 1 D 2, there exists t [0, 1], ϕ 1 S(D 1 ) and ϕ 2 S(D 2 ) such that ϕ = tϕ 1 η 1 +(1 t)ϕ 2 η 2. By definition of the extent of τ 1, there exists ψ S(B) such that: mk L (ϕ 1 η 1, ψ π 2 η 1 ) = mk L1 (ϕ 1, ψ π 2 ) χ(τ 1 ). Now, by definition of the extent of τ 2, there exists θ S(E) such that: mk L (ψ ρ 1 η 2, θ ρ 2 η 2 ) = mk L2 (ψ ρ 1, θ ρ 2 ) χ(τ 2 ). Let(d 1, d 2 ) F withl(d 1, d 2 ) 1. Then by construction of L, we have: Thus: Thus: L 1 (d 1 ) 1,L 2 (d 2 ) 1 and π 2 (d 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 ) B ε. ϕ 1 (η 1 (d 1, d 2 )) θ(ρ 2 η 2 (d 1, d 2 )) = ϕ 1 (d 1 ) θ(π 2 (d 2 )) ϕ 1 (d 1 ) ψ(π 2 (d 1 )) + ψ(π 2 (d 1 )) ψ(ρ 1 (d 2 )) + ψ(ρ 1 (d 2 )) θ(ρ 2 (d 2 )) mk L1 (ϕ 1, ψ π 2 )+ε+mk L2 (ψ ρ 1, θ ρ 2 ) χ(τ 1 )+ε+χ(τ 2 ). mk L (ϕ 1 η 1, θ ρ 2 η 2 ) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ε. By definition of the extent of τ 2, we can find θ 2 S(E) such that: mk L (ϕ 2 η 2, θ 2 ρ 2 η 2 ) = mk L2 (ϕ 2, θ 2 ρ 2 ) χ(τ 2 ). Since the Monge-Kantorovich metric mk L is convex in each of its variable by construction, we conclude: mk L (ϕ,(tθ+(1 t)θ 2 ) ρ 2 η 2 ) max{χ(τ 1 )+ε+χ(τ 2 ), χ(τ 2 )} = χ(τ 1 )+ε+χ(τ 2 ), and we note that tθ +(1 t)θ 2 S(E). Thus, as ϕ S(F) was arbitrary, we conclude: Haus mkl (S(F),(π 1 η 1 ) (S(A))) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ε. By symmetry, we would obtain in the same manner that for any ϕ S(F) there exists θ S(A) with: Therefore, by Definition (2.4): which concludes our proposition. mk L (ϕ, θ π 1 η 1 ) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ε. χ(τ 3 ) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ε, Thanks to Theorem (3.1), we can thus define: Definition 3.2. A pair (τ 1, τ 2 ) of tunnels, with τ 1 = (D 1,L 1, π 1, π 2 ) and τ 2 = (D 2,L 2, ρ 1, ρ 2 ), such that the co-domain codom(π 2 ) of π 2 equals to the codomain of ρ 1 is said to be a composable pair of tunnels.

10 10 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE Definition 3.3. For any ε > 0, and for any composable pair(τ 1, τ 2 ) of tunnels, with τ 1 = (D 1,L 1, π 1, π 2 ) and τ 2 = (D 2,L 2, ρ 1, ρ 2 ), the tunnel: where: L : (d 1, d 2 ) D 1 D 2 max (D 1 D 2,L, π 1 η 1, ρ 2 η 2 ) { L 1 (d 1 ),L 2 (d 2 ), 1 } ε π 2(d 1 ) ρ 1 (d 2 ) codom(π2 ) and η 1 : (d 1, d 2 ) D 1 D 2 d 1 D 1 and η 2 : (d 1, d 2 ) D 2 d 2, as defined in Proposition (3.1), is called the ε-composition of τ 1 and τ 2, denoted by τ 1 ε τ 2. The dual propinquity is, in fact, a family of metrics indexed by classes of tunnels with enough conditions to ensure that the construction proposed in [11] and its variation in the present paper lead to an actual metric. To this end, the key new condition compared to [11, Definition 3.11] is: Definition 3.4. A class T of tunnels is closed under compositions when, for all ε > 0 and for all composable pair (τ 1, τ 2 ) in T, there exists δ (0, ε] such that τ 1 δ τ 2 T. We recall: Definition 3.5. [11, Definition 3.10] Let(A,L A ) and(b,l B ) be two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and let τ = (D,L D, π A, π B ) be a tunnel from (A,L A ) to(b,l B ). The reversed tunnel τ 1 of τ is the tunnel(d,l D, π B, π A ) from(b,l B ) to (A,L A ). A class of tunnels is appropriate with respect to a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces when it is compatible with this class [11, Definition 3.11] and closed under composition: Definition 3.6. Let C be a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces. A class T of tunnels is appropriate forc when: (1) for all(a,l A ) and(b,l B ) C, there exists τ T from(a,l A ) to(b,l B ), (2) if there exists an isometric isomorphism h : (A,L A ) (B,L B ) with(a,l A ) and (B,L B ) in C, then (A,L A, id A, h) and (B,L B, h 1, id B ) are elements of T, where id E is the identity automorphism of any C*-algebraE, (3) if τ is in T then τ 1 is in T, (4) if (D,L, π, ρ) T, then the codomains of π and ρ are elements of C, (5) T is closed under compositions. Notation 3.7. If C is a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces andtis an appropriate class of tunnels for C, and if (A,L A ) and (B,L B ) are in C, then the (nonempty) set of all tunnels in T from(a,l A ) to (B,L B ) is denoted by: ]. Tunnels [ (A,L A ) T (B,L B ) Definition 3.8. Let C be a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and let T be an appropriate class of tunnels for C. The T -Propinquity

11 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 11 Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) between two Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces(a,l A ) and(b,l B ) is the nonnegative real number: { ]} inf χ(τ). τ Tunnels [ (A,L A ) T (B,L B ) We now prove that our propinquity satisfies the triangle inequality. Theorem 3.9. Let C be a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and let T be an appropriate class of tunnels for C. For any Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces(a,l A ),(B,L B ) and(e,l E ) in T, we have: Λ T ((A,L A),(E,L E )) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+Λ T ((B,L B),(E,L E )). Proof. Let ε > 0. By Definition of Λ T, there exists a tunnel τ 1 = (D 1,L 1, π 1, π 2 ) from(a,l A ) to (B,L B ) such that: λ(τ 1 ) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+ 1 3 ε. Similarly, there exists a tunnel τ 2 = (D 2,L 2, ρ 2, ρ 3 ) from (B,L B ) to (E,L E ) such that: λ(τ 2 ) Λ T ((B,L B),(E,L E ))+ 1 3 ε. Since T is appropriate, there exists δ ( 0, ε 3] such that τ3 = τ 1 δ τ 2 T. By Theorem (3.1), we have: Therefore: Λ T ((A,L A),(E,L E )) χ(τ 3 ) χ(τ 3 ) χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ ε 3. As ε > 0 is arbitrary, our proof is complete. χ(τ 1 )+χ(τ 2 )+ ε 3 Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+Λ T ((B,L B),(E,L E ))+ε. We conclude our paper with the statement that the propinquity is a metric, up to isometric isomorphism, which is equivalent to the dual propinquity: Theorem If C be a nonempty class of Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces and if T be an appropriate class of tunnels for C, then Λ T is a metric on C up to isometric isomorphism and equivalent toλ T, i.e. for any (A,L A),(B,L B ) and(d,l D ) in C: (1) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) [0, ), (2) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) = Λ ( (B,L B),(A,L A )), (3) Λ T ((A,L A),(E,L E )) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+Λ T ((B,L B),(E,L E )), (4) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) = 0 if and only if there exists an isometric isomorphism h : (A,L A ) (B,L B ), (5) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) 2Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )). In particular, if C is the class of all Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces andlt is the class of all tunnels between Leibniz quantum compact metric spaces, then Λ LT = Λ is a complete metric such that: Λ ((A,L A ),(B,L B )) 2 max { diam ( S(A),mk LA ), diam ( S(B),mkLB )}.

12 12 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE Proof. Assertion (1) follows from the fact that there exists a tunnel in T between any two elements of C. Assertion (2) follows from the fact that T is closed under taking the inverse of tunnels. Assertion (3) is given by Theorem (3.9). We now note that if T is appropriate for C then it is compatible with C by [11, Definition 3.11]. Thus the dual Gromov-Hausdorff propinquityλ T is defined, and is a metric on C up to isometric isomorphism by [11, Theorem 4.17]. Let ε > 0. By [11, Definition 3.21], there exists a journey: Υ = ( A j,l j, τ j,a j+1,l j+1 : j = 1,..., n ) from(a,l A ) to (B,L B ) in C with τ j T for all j {1,..., n} and such that: n λ ( ) τ j Λ T ((A,L A ),(B,L B ))+ε. j=1 By Proposition (2.5), for any tunnel τ in T, we have, for all j {1,..., n}: χ ( τ j ) 2λ ( τj ) from which we conclude, using Theorem (3.9): As ε > 0, we get that: Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) 2 n Λ T ((A j,l j ),(A j+1,l j+1 )) j=1 n χ ( ) τ j j=1 n j=1 λ ( τ j ) 2Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+ε. Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) 2Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )). On the other hand, let ε > 0. There exists a tunnel τ in T such that χ(τ) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+ε. By [11, Definition 3.21], we then conclude immediately that: Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B )) λ(τ) χ(τ) Λ T ((A,L A),(B,L B ))+ε. This concludes Assertion (5). Last, if there exists an isometric isomorphism h : (A,L A ) (B,L B ) between any two elements of C, the bridge (A,L A, id A, h) lies in T and has extent 0, as is trivially checked. The converse for Assertion (4) follows from Assertion (5) and [11, Theorem 4.16] (the proof of [11, Theorem 4.16] could be applied directly and unchanged, except for the use of journeys of length always 1). By [11, Theorem 6.27] and Assertion (5), we conclude that our propinquity Λ is complete. The bound provided is a corollary of Assertion (5) and [11, Corollary 5.6].

13 GROMOV-HAUSDORFF PROPINQUITY 13 Since our propinquity is equivalent to the dual propinquity, all convergence results and comparison to other noncommutative extensions of the Gromov-Hausdorff distance applies to it. We refer the reader to [11] for these matters. REFERENCES 1. B. Blackadar and J. Cuntz, Differential Banach algebra norms and smooth subalgebras of C* Algebras, Journal of Operator Theory 26 (1991), no. 2, A. Connes, Noncommutative geometry, Academic Press, San Diego, A. Connes, M. Douglas, and A. Schwarz, Noncommutative geometry and matrix theory: Compactification on tori, JHEP 9802 (1998), hep-th/ M. Gromov, Groups of polynomial growth and expanding maps, Publications mathématiques de l I. H. E. S. 53 (1981), , Metric structures for Riemannian and non-riemannian spaces, Progress in Mathematics, Birkhäuser, D. Kerr, Matricial quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, J. Funct. Anal. 205 (2003), no. 1, , math.oa/ D. Kerr and H. Li, On Gromov Hausdorff convergence of operator metric spaces, J. Oper. Theory 1 (2009), no. 1, F. Latrémolière, Approximation of the quantum tori by finite quantum tori for the quantum gromovhausdorff distance, Journal of Funct. Anal. 223 (2005), , math.oa/ , Bounded-lipschitz distances on the state space of a C*-algebra, Tawainese Journal of Mathematics 11 (2007), no. 2, , math.oa/ , A topographic gromov-hausdorff hypertopology for quantum proper metric spaces, In preparation. (2012). 11., Convergence of fuzzy tori and quantum tori for the Gromov Hausdorff Propinquity: an explicit approach., Submitted. (2013), 41 pages, ArXiv: math/ , The Quantum Gromov-Hausdorff Propinquity, Accepted, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. (2013), 49 Pages, ArXiv: , The dual Gromov Hausdorff Propinquity, Accepted, Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées (2014), 47 Pages., ArXiv: H. Li, C -algebraic quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, (2003), ArXiv: math.oa/ , Order-unit quantum Gromov-Hausdorff distance, J. Funct. Anal. 233 (2006), no. 2, M. A. Rieffel, Metrics on states from actions of compact groups, Documenta Mathematica 3 (1998), , math.oa/ , Metrics on state spaces, Documenta Math. 4 (1999), , math.oa/ , Matrix algebras converge to the sphere for quantum Gromov Hausdorff distance, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 168 (2004), no. 796, 67 91, math.oa/ , Distances between matrix alegbras that converge to coadjoint orbits, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. 81 (2010), , ArXiv: , Leibniz seminorms for "matrix algebras converge to the sphere", Clay Math. Proc. 11 (2010), , ArXiv: , Vector bundles and Gromov-Hausdorff distance, Journal of K-theory 5 (2010), , ArXiv: math/ , Leibniz seminorms and best approximation from C -subalgebras, Sci China Math 54 (2011), no. 11, , ArXiv: , Standard deviation is a strongly Leibniz seminorm, Submitted (2012), 24 pages, ArXiv: , Gromov-Hausdorff distance for quantum metric spaces, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 168 (March 2004), no. 796, math.oa/ W. Wu, Quantized Gromov-Hausdorff distance, J. Funct. Anal. 238 (2006), no. 1, 58 98, ArXiv: math.oa/ address: frederic@math.du.edu URL:

14 14 FRÉDÉRIC LATRÉMOLIÈRE DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF DENVER, DENVER CO 80208