## REPRESENTATIONS OF ∗ -REGULAR RINGS AND THEIR ORTHOLATTICES OF PROJECTIONS

## CHRISTIAN HERRMANN AND NIKLAS NIEMANN

Abstract. We show that a subdirectly irreducible ∗ -regular ring admits a representation within some inner product space provided so does its ortholattice of projections.

## 1. Introduction

The motivating examples of ∗ -regular rings, due to Murray and von Neumann, were the ∗ -rings of unbounded operators affiliated with finite von Neumann algebra factors; to be subsumed, later, as ∗ -rings of quotients of finite Rickart C ∗ -algebras. All the latter have been shown to be ∗ -regular and unit-regular (Handelman [7]). Representations of these as ∗ -rings of endomorphisms of suitable inner product spaces have been obtained first, in the von Neumann case, by Luca Giudici (cf. [19]), in general in joint work with Marina Semenova [13].

The principal right ideals of a ∗ -regular ring R form a modular ortholattice L ⊥ ( R ), also to be viewed as the ortholattice of projections of R . As observed by Giudici [4], any representation of R induces one of L ⊥ ( R ). Here, a representation of an ortholattice L in an inner product space V means an embedding η of L into the lattice of all linear subspaces of V such that, for any u ∈ L , η u ( ⊥ ) is the orthogonal of η u ( ). In his thesis [18], the second author established the converse for subdirectly irreducible R (cf. [11]). This involved a coordinatization of representable ortholattices in terms of a variant, including orthogonality conditions, of J´nsson's large partial frames [15]. o The purpose of the present note is to give a short presentation to the result, relying on the review of Coordinatization Theory given in [8] and the fact that every variety of ∗ -regular rings is generated by its simple members [10].

As general refences we use [5, 1, 2] for regular and ∗ -regular rings, [3] for lattices, [19, 16, 20] for coordinatization, and [6] for inner product

2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 06C20; 16E50, 16W10.

Key words and phrases. orthocomplemented modular lattice, ∗ -regular ring, frame, inner prodcut space, representation.

spaces. Thanks are due to the referee for a lot of helpful suggestions, in particular correcting the proof of the crucial Claims 5.4 and 5.6.

## 2. Regular rings and vector space representations

Unless stated otherwise, rings will be associative, with unit 1 as constant (constants in the signature have to be preserved under homomorphisms and in substructures). A (von Neumann) regular ring R is such that for each a ∈ R there is x ∈ R such that axa = a ; equivalently, every right (left) principal ideal is generated by an idempotent.

/negationslash

/negationslash

A representation of a ring R within a vector space V is an embedding of R into the endomorphism ring End ( V ) of V . It appears to be well known that every subdirectly irreducible regular ring R admits some representation. Indeed, each maximal left ideal M i of R gives rise to a homorphism ϕ i : R → End ( V i ), ϕ i ( r )( a + M i ) = ra + M i ; here V i is the (right) vector space over the division ring of endomorphisms of the simple left R -module R/M i . These homomorphisms ϕ i yield a subdirect representation of R since ⋂ i M i = 0 (for r = 0 and idempotent e with Rr = Re choose M i such that 1 -e ∈ M i to obtain r ∈ M i = ker ϕ i ). On the other hand, examples of non-representable regular rings are obtained as products of matrix rings over fields of different characteristics.

We consider lattices L with bounds 0 1 as constants. , We use + and ∩ to denote joins and meets and write a ⊕ b = c if a + b = c and a ∩ b = . c L is complemented if for any a there is b such that a ⊕ b = 1.

The principal right ideals of a regular ring R form a complemented modular lattice L ( R ), a sublattice of the lattice of all right ideals. A representation of a lattice L within a vector space V is an embedding of L into the lattice L ( V ) of linear subspaces of V . The following is due to Luca Giudici, proof of (1) in [4, Theorem. 4.2.1], cf. [8, Proposition 10.1].

Fact 2.1. If ι is a representation of the regular ring R in the vector space V , then η aR ( ) = im ι ( a ) , a ∈ R , defines a representation of L ( R ) in V .

The purpose of this section is to relate representations the other way round making use of coordinatization results due von Neumann and J´ onsson, cf. [8]. A coordinatization of a lattice L is an isomorphism onto L ( R ), R a regular ring. Such are based on 'frames': suitable coordinate systems. We write a ∼ c b if a + b = a ⊕ c = b ⊕ c and a ∼ b if a ∼ c b for some c . Recall that, for modular L , a ∼ b and a ′ ≤ a implies a ′ ∼ b ′ for some b ′ ≤ b . Following J´nsson [15] a o large

/negationslash partial n -frame Φ of L is given by elements of L : a i = a ii (0 ≤ i &lt; m ), and a 0 i , 0 &lt; i &lt; m , where m ≥ n , such that 1 = ∑ m -1 i =0 a i , a 0 = 0, ∑ n -1 i =0 a i = ⊕ n -1 i =0 a i , and a i ∼ a 0 i b i for some b i ≤ a 0 for 0 &lt; i &lt; m . Moreover, for 0 &lt; i &lt; n one requires b i = a 0 . Φ is a skew n m --frame if, in addition, 1 = ⊕ m -1 i =0 a i . Observe that, given such Φ, m ′ ≤ m n , ′ ≤ n , and n ′ ≤ m ′ , the a , a i 0 i with i &lt; m ′ form a skew n m ′ -′ -frame in the interval [0 , ∑ m ′ -1 i =0 a i ]. Φ is a skew n -frame if it is a skew n m --frame for some m . From [15, Theorem 1.7] and [8, Proposition 6.2] one obtains the following

Fact 2.2. Every simple complemented modular lattice of height at least n admits some large partial n -frame. Every complemented modular lattice admitting a large partial n -frame also admits a skew n -frame.

In particular this applies to L ( R ), R a simple regular ring, due to the following result of Fred Wehrung [21, Theorem 4.3].

Fact 2.3. For a regular ring R , the lattice of all congruence relations of L ( R ) is ismorphic to the lattice of ideals of R .

In presence of a skew n -frame, coordinatization, if possible, is unique due to the following result of J´nsson, cf. o [8, Theorem 11.2].

Fact 2.4. For regular rings R, R ′ , if L ( R ) admits a skew n -frame, n ≥ 3 , then for any isomorphism θ : L ( R ) → L ( R ′ ) there is an isomorphism ι : R → R ′ such that θ aR ( ) = ι ( a R ) ′ for all a ∈ R .

The approach of [8] to coordinatization relied on the following, combining Theorem 7.1 and Corollary 9.2 in [8].

Fact 2.5. For any vector space V , complemented sublattice L of L ( V ) , and skew n -frame Φ in L , n ≥ 3 , there is a regular subring R 0 of End ( V ) and an isomorphism ω : L ( R 0 ) → L such that ω ϕR ( 0 ) = im ϕ for all ϕ ∈ R 0 .

Now, we are in position to derive a representation of R from a representation of L ( R ).

Proposition 2.6. Given a regular ring R , a skew n -frame Φ , n ≥ 3 , in L ( R ) , a vector space V , and an embedding η : L ( R ) → L ( V ) , there is an embedding ι : R → End ( V ) such that η aR ( ) = im ι ( a ) for all a ∈ R .

Proof. Let L denote the sublattice η ( L ( R )) of L ( V ). With R 0 and ω according to Fact 2.5 one obtains an isomorphism ω -1 ◦ η : L ( R ) → L ( R 0 ). By Fact 2.4 there is an isomorphism ι : R → R 0 such that ( ω -1 ◦ η )( aR ) = ( ) ι a R 0 for all a ∈ R . It follows that η aR ( ) = ω ι a R ( ( ) ) = im ι ( a ) for all a ∈ R . /square

## C. HERRMANN AND N. NIEMANN

## 3. ∗ -regular rings and inner product spaces

↦

A ∗ -ring is a ring R endowed with an involution r → r ∗ . Such R is ∗ -regular if it is regular and rr ∗ = 0 only for r = 0. A projection is an idempotent e such that e = e ∗ ; we write e ∈ P R ( ). A ∗ -ring is ∗ -regular if and only if for any a ∈ R there is e ∈ P R ( ) with aR = eR ; such e is unique. In particular, for ∗ -regular R , each ideal is closed under the involution. It follows

Fact 3.1. A ∗ -regular ring is simple (subdirectly irreducible) if and only if so is its ring reduct.

For a ∗ -ring R and projection e ∈ R . the corner eRe is the ∗ -ring consisting of all eae , a ∈ R , with unit e and operations inherited from R , otherwise. The following is Lemma 2 together with Theorem 3 in [10].

Fact 3.2. Given a subdirectly irreducible ∗ -regular ring R with minimal ideal I and a projection e in I , the ∗ -ring eRe is ∗ -regular. Moreover, R is a homomorphic image of a ∗ -regular sub-∗ -ring of an ultraproduct of ∗ -rings eRe , where e ranges over the set of projections in I .

By an inner product space V we will mean a vector space (also denoted by V ) over a division ∗ -ring F , endowed with a sesqui-linear form 〈 . | . 〉 which is anisotropic ( 〈 v | v 〉 = 0 only for v = 0) and orthosymmetric ( 〈 v | w 〉 = 0 if and only if 〈 w | v 〉 = 0). The orthogonal of a subset X is the subspace X ⊥ = { y ∈ V | ∀ x ∈ X. 〈 x | y 〉 = 0 . } For subspaces U, W of V we write U ⊥ W if W ⊆ U ⊥ ; in this case we write U + W = U ⊕ ⊥ W . A subspace U is closed if U ⊥⊥ = U ; equivalently, V = U ⊕ ⊥ W for some W . Here, W = U ⊥ and one has the orthogonal projection π U where π U ( x + ) = y x for x ∈ U and y ∈ U ⊥ . Let End ∗ ( V ) denote the ∗ -ring consisting of those endomorphisms ϕ of the vector space V which have an adjoint ϕ ∗ w.r.t. 〈 . | . 〉 . If ϕ is a projection in End ∗ ( V ) then V = im ϕ ⊕ ⊥ im id ( V -ϕ ). It follows

Fact 3.3. An endomorphism ϕ of V is a projection in End ∗ ( V ) if and only if ϕ = π U , where U = im ϕ .

A representation of a ∗ -ring R within V is an embedding of R into End ∗ ( V ). Of course, any representation ι of a ∗ -ring R within V gives rise to representations of corners eRe within im ι ( e ).

Inner product spaces will be considered as 2-sorted structures with sorts V and F . In particular, the class of inner product spaces is closed under formation of ultraproducts. In this setting, representations of ∗ -rings R can be viewed as 3-sorted structures (with third sort R ), again forming a class closed under ultraproducts [13, Proposition 13]. On the

other hand, a representation of R in V gives rise to representations of homomorphic images of R in closed subspaces of certain ultrapowers of V [13, Proposition 25]. It follows

Fact 3.4. In the context of Fact 3.2, if each ∗ -ring eRe admits a representation within some inner product space V e for each projection e ∈ I , then the ∗ -ring R admits a representation within a closed subspace of an ultraproduct of spaces V e , where e ranges over the set of projections in I .

## 4. Modular ortholattices

↦

↦

An ortholattice is a lattice L together with an order reversing involution a → a ⊥ such that 1 = a ⊕ a ⊥ . Elements a, b are orthogonal to each other, a ⊥ b , if b ≤ a ⊥ ; this then implies a ∩ b = 0 and we write c = a ⊕ ⊥ b if c = a + . If b L is modular and u ∈ L , then the section [0 , u ] is again an ortholattice under a → u ∩ a ⊥ ; that is, a, b ≤ u are orthogonal in [0 , u ] if and only if they are so in L . Also, if L is modular and a ≤ b then each of the quotients b/a , ( b ∩ a ⊥ ) / 0, and a ⊥ /b ⊥ generate the same lattice congruence. It follows

Fact 4.1. In a modular ortholattice, any lattice congruence is also a congruence w.r.t. the operation a → a ⊥ .

↦

The notion of skew frame can be adapted to the ortholattice setting requiring the a i to be pairwise orthogonal, see Niemann [18]. A weaker version will suffice, here. We write a ∼ ⊥ b if a ⊥ b and a ∼ b . An orthogonal semiframe in an ortholattice L consists of elements a , . . . , a 0 k -1 such that 1 = ⊕ k -1 i =0 a i and for each a i there is b i ∼ ⊥ a i .

Lemma 4.2. Every modular ortholattice L admitting some skew 2 -m -frame also admits an orthogonal semiframe. In particular, any simple L of height at least 2 admits an orthogonal semiframe.

Proof. We first observe that the following hold in any modular ortholattice.

- (1) If v ⊕ b = 1 and v ⊥ ∩ b = 0 then v ⊥ ∼ ⊥ v ′ for some v ′ ≤ v .
- (2) Assume u ⊕ a = 1 and a ∼ ⊥ a ′ for some a ′ ≤ u . Then there are d, f such that 1 = u ⊕ ⊥ d ⊕ ⊥ f , d ∼ ⊥ d ′ and e ∼ ⊥ e ′ for some d ′ ≤ u and e ′ ≤ u + . d
- (1) follows from v ⊥ ∼ b v ∩ ( v ⊥ + ). b To prove (2), put d := a ∩ u ⊥ and v := u + d . Then v = u ⊕ ⊥ d and d ∼ ⊥ d ′ for some d ′ ≤ a ′ ≤ u . Moreover, a ∩ v ⊥ = a ∩ d ⊥ ∩ u ⊥ = d ∩ d ⊥ = 0. Now, put b := a ∩ d ⊥ , the orthocomplement of d in the ortholattice [0 , a ]; thus, b ⊕ d = a and

v ⊕ b = 1. On the other hand, from b ≤ a it follows b ∩ v ⊥ = 0. Now, 1 = u ⊕ d ⊕ v ⊥ and (2) follows applying (1).

Finally, observe that (2) deals with the case m = 2 as well with the inductive step from m -1 to m . The second claim follows from Facts 2.2 and 4.1 /square

A representation of an ortholattice L in an inner product space V is an embedding η of the lattice L into L ( V ) such that η a ( ⊥ ) = η a ( ) ⊥ for all a ∈ L . In particular, η L ( ) is a modular sub-ortholattice of the (in general, non-modular) lattice of all closed subspaces of V .

Fact 4.3. Given a ∗ -regular ring R , the lattice L ( R ) expands to an ortholattice L ⊥ ( R ) defining ( aR ) ⊥ = (1 -e R ) where e ∈ P R ( ) such that aR = eR . In particular, for e, f ∈ P R ( ) one has eR ⊆ fR if and only if fe = e .

For e, f ∈ P R ( ), we write e ⊥ f if eR ⊥ fR ; that is, fe = 0 = ef . Now, in view of Fact 3.3, Fact 2.1 transfers as follows.

Fact 4.4. If ι is a representation of the ∗ -regular ring R in the inner product space V then η aR ( ) = im ι ( a ) , defines a representation of the ortholattice L ⊥ ( R ) in V .

In the presence of orthogonal semiframes, we will relate such representations the other way round.

## 5. Main Lemma

Lemma 5.1. Given a ∗ -regular ring R , an orthogonal semiframe Φ in L ⊥ ( R ) , an inner product space V , and representation ι of the ring R in the vector space V , then ι is a representation of the ∗ -ring R within V , provided that η : L ⊥ ( R ) → L ( V ) , η aR ( ) := im ι ( a ) , a ∈ R , defines an ortholattice representation in the inner product space V .

Recall that η aR ( ) = η bR ( ) if aR = bR (and we may write η a ( ) := η aR ( )) and that η is a lattice representation in view of Fact 2.1. Thus, the point is to show ι ( a ∗ ) = ι ( a ) ∗ for all a ∈ R using the fact that η preserves orthogonality. For the remainder of this section we assume the hypotheses of the Lemma.

Claim 5.2. Consider closed subspaces U, W of V such that U ⊥ W and ϕ, ψ ∈ End ( V ) such that ϕ = π W ϕπ U and ψ = π U ψπ W . Then ψ = ϕ ∗ if and only if im ( π U -ϕ ) ⊥ im ( π W + ψ ) .

Proof. This follows immediately since for all v, w ∈ V one has

$$\langle ( \pi _ { U } - \varphi ) ( v ) \, | \, ( \pi _ { W } + \psi ) ( w ) \rangle = \langle \pi _ { U } ( v ) \, | \, \psi ( w ) \rangle - \langle \varphi ( v ) \, | \, \pi _ { W } ( w ) \rangle$$

/square

Claim 5.3. If e ⊥ f in P R ( ) and a ∈ fRe then ι ( a ∗ ) = ι ( a ) ∗ .

Proof. Put b = a ∗ . Then b ∈ eRf and ( e -a ) ∗ ( f + ) = 0, that is b ( e -a R ) ⊥ ( f + ) b R . It follows η e ( -a ) ⊥ η f ( + ). Now, b η e ( -a ) = im ι ( e -a ) = im ( ( ι e ) -ι ( a )) and η f ( + ) = b im ( ( ι f )+ ( )) and Claim 5.2 ι b applies with ϕ = ( ), ι a U = im ι ( e ), ψ = ( ), ι b W = im ι ( f ). /square

Claim 5.4. If eR ∼ fR in L ⊥ ( R ) for idempotents e, f ∈ R then there is c ∈ fRe such that cx = cy implies x = y for all x, y ∈ eRe .

Proof. Assume eR ∼ gR fR ; then ω x ( ) = y ⇔ x -y ∈ gR defines an isomorphism ω : eR → fR of right R -modules. Put c = ω e e ( ) and observe that ω x ( ) = β ex ( ) = β e x ( ) = cx for all x ∈ eRe . Thus, assuming cx = cy for given x, y ∈ eRe it follows ω x ( ) = cx = cy = ω y ( ) whence x = y . /square

Claim 5.5. Consider closed subspaces U ⊥ W of V and ε ∈ End ∗ ( V ) such that ε ◦ ξ = ε ◦ χ implies ξ = χ for all ξ, χ ∈ π U ◦ End ∗ ( V ) ◦ π U . Then ϕ ∗ = ψ provided that ϕ, ψ ∈ π U ◦ End ∗ ( V ) ◦ π U and ( ε ◦ ϕ ) ∗ = ψ ε ◦ ∗ .

Proof. From ϕ ∗ ◦ ε ∗ = ( ε ◦ ϕ ) ∗ = ψ ◦ ε ∗ it follows ε ◦ ϕ = ε ◦ ψ ∗ , whence ϕ = ψ ∗ and ϕ ∗ = ψ . /square

Claim 5.6. Given e, f as in Claim 5.4 such that e ⊥ f one has ι ( a ∗ ) = ι ( a ) ∗ for all a ∈ eRe .

Proof. We put b = a ∗ and have to show ι ( b ) = ι ( a ) ∗ . Choose c according to Claim 5.4. By Claim 5.3 one has ι ( c ∗ ) = ι ( c ) ∗ and ι (( ca ) ∗ ) = ( ( ι ca )) ∗ since c, ca ∈ fRe . It follows ι ( b ι c ) ( ) ∗ = ( ) ( ι b ι c ∗ ) = ι ( bc ∗ ) = ι (( ca ) ∗ ) = ( ( ι ca )) ∗ = ( ( ) ( ι c ι a )) ∗ whence ι ( b ) = ( ) ι a ∗ applying Claim 5.5 with U = im e , W = im f , ϕ = ι ( a ), ψ = ι ( b ), and ε = ( ). ι c /square

Proof. of the Lemma. We fix an orthogonal semiframe Φ of L ⊥ ( R ), that is pairwise orthogonal projections e i , 0 ≤ i &lt; k , such that ⊕ k -1 i =0 e R i = R and for each i &lt; k there are f , g i i ∈ P R ( ) with e R i ∼ ⊥ f R i . By Claims 5.3 and 5.6 one has ι ( a ∗ ) = ι ( a ) ∗ for all a ∈ e Re j i , i, j &lt; k .

/negationslash

Now, e e i j = 0 for i = j since e i ⊥ e j . Thus e = ∑ k -1 i 0 e i is a projection and eR = R whence e = 1 by uniqueness. It follows, for each a ∈ R , that a = ∑ k -1 i,j =0 e ae j i and a ∗ = ∑ k -1 i,j =0 e a e j ∗ i . Thus ι ( a ) ∗ = ( ∑ k -1 i,j =0 ι ( e ae j i )) ∗ = ∑ k -1 i,j =0 ( ( ι e ae j i )) ∗ = ∑ k -1 i,j =0 ι (( e ae j i ) ∗ ) = ι ( ∑ k -1 i,j =0 ( e ae j i ) ∗ ) = ι ( ∑ k -1 i,j =0 e a e i ∗ j ) = ι ( a ∗ ). /square

## 6. Results

Facts 3.1, 2.3, and 2.2 yield the following.

Fact 6.1. A simple ∗ -regular ring admits a large partial n -frame if L ( R ) is of height at least n .

Theorem 6.2. Given a ∗ -regular ring R such that its ortholattice L ⊥ ( R ) of projections admits a large partial n -frame, n ≥ 3 , and a representation η within some inner product space V . Then there is a representation ι of the ∗ -ring R within V such that η a ( ) = im ι ( a ) for all a ∈ R .

Proof. By Fact 2.2 one has a skew n -frame, n ≥ 3 and so Proposition 2.6 provides the ring embedding ι : R → End ( V ) such that η a ( ) = im ι ( a ). Now, by Lemma 4.2 there is an orthogonal semiframe and Lemma 5.1 shows that ι is a representation of the ∗ -ring R . /square

Corollary 6.3. Consider a subdirectly irreducible ∗ -regular ring R such that L ⊥ ( R ) is of height at least 3 and has a representation in the inner product space V . Then the ∗ -ring R has a representation within a closed subspace of some ultrapower of V .

Proof. Let P denote the set of projections e in the minimal ideal I of R such that L ⊥ ( eRe ) has height at least 3. Observe that for any projection f ∈ I , fRf embeds into eRe for some e ∈ P . Also, for e ∈ P , L ⊥ ( eRe ) is a section of L ⊥ ( R ) and any representation η of L ⊥ ( R ) in some inner product space V restricts to a representation of L ⊥ ( eRe ) in a closed subspace V e of V . By Lemma 5.1 one obtains a representation of the ∗ -ring eRe within V e for each e ∈ P . By Fact 3.4 this gives rise to a representation of R in an ultraproduct of the V e , that is a closed subspace of an ultrapower of V . /square

Let MOL and MOL art denote the ortholattice varieties generated by all respectively all finite height modular ortholattices.

Corollary 6.4. A ∗ -regular ring R is a subdirect product of representables if and only if L ⊥ ( R ) ∈ MOL art .

Proof. Consider a homomorphism ι k of R onto S k . Then S k is also ∗ -regular and ι k induces a homomorphism η k of L ⊥ ( R ) onto L ⊥ ( S k ) given by η k ( eR ) = ι k ( e S ) k , see Proposition 5.4(iv) [14]. Moreover, the ι k yield a subdirect decomposition if and only if so do the η k .

Thus, it suffices to consider subdirectly irreducible R ; that is, subdirectly irreducible L ⊥ ( R ). If R is representable then, by Fact 2.3, L ⊥ ( R ) is representable, too, and so in the variety generated by subspace ortholattices of finite dimensional inner product spaces by [14, Theorem 10.1], whence in MOL art . For the converse, we may assume that L ⊥ ( R ) is of height at least 4, since otherwise R is simple artinian

whence representable. Now any finite height modular ortholattice is a direct product of simple ones and, by J´nsson's Lemma, o L ⊥ ( R ) is is a homomorphic image of a sub-ortholattice of an ultraproduct of such L i . Since L ⊥ ( R ) contains a 5-element chain, the ultraproduct may be restricted to be formed from the L i of height at least 4. Such are representable whence, by Lemma 8.3 and Corollary 8.6 in [14], so is L ⊥ ( R ). The claim follows by Corollary 6.3. /square

Corollary 6.5. MOL = MOL art if and only if every subdirectly irreducible ∗ -regular ring is representable.

Proof. Assume that every subdirectly irreducible ∗ -regular ring is representable. According to [12] it suffices to show L ∈ MOL art for each simple L ∈ MOL . Of course, we have to consider L of infinite height, only. Such L is coordinatizable, that is L ∼ = L ⊥ ( R ) for some ∗ -regular ring R (cf. [17, Section 4.3] respectively Fact 2.2 and Theorems 11.2 and 13.2 in [8]). Thus, by Fact 2.3, L is representable, whence in MOL art cf. [14, Theorem 10.1]. The other direction is immediate by Corollary 6.4. /square

↦

In case of ∗ -regular rings R without unit, R is the directed union of the eRe , e a projection in R , and L ⊥ ( R ) the directed union of the L ⊥ ( eRe ). The latter is a modular sectional ortholattice L , a modular lattice with 0 and a binary operation ( a, u ) → a ⊥ u such that a → a ⊥ u is an orthocomplementation on [0 , u ] and a ⊥ v = a ⊥ u ∩ v if v ≤ u . A representation of such L is given by an inner product space V and an embedding η of the lattice L with 0 into L ( V ) such that, for each u ∈ L , η u ( ) is closed in V and the restriction of η is a representation of the ortholattice [0 , u ] within η u ( ).

↦

Corollary 6.6. Corollaries 6.3 and 6.4 hold for ∗ -regular rings without unit, analogously.

## References

- [1] S. K. Berberian , Baer *-rings , Springer, Grundlehren 195, Berlin 1972.
- [2] S. K. Berberian , Baer rings and Baer *-rings , Austin, 1988, http://www.ma. utexas.edu/mp\_arc/c/03/03-181.pdf .
- [3] P. Crawley and R. P. Dilworth , Algebraic Theory of Lattices , Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1973.
- [4] L. Giudici , Dintorni del Teorema di Coordinatizatione di von Neumann , Ph.D. thesis, Univ. di Milano, 1995, http://www.nohay.net/mat/tesi.1995/tesi.ps. gz .
- [5] K.R. Goodearl , Von Neumann Regular Rings , second edition, Krieger, Malabar, 1991.

- [6] H. Gross , Quadratic Forms in Infinite Dimensional Vector Spaces , Birkh¨user, a Basel, 1979.
- [7] D. Handelman , Finite Rickart C ∗ -algebras and their properties, in Studies in Analysis , ed. G.-C. Rota, pp. 171-196, Adv. in Math. Suppl. Stud., 4, Academic Press, New York-London, 1979.
- [8] C. Herrmann , A review of some of Bjarni Jnsson's results on representation of Arguesian lattices, Algebra Universalis , 70 (2013), 163-174.
- [9] C.Herrmann , Direct finiteness of representable regular ∗ -rings, Algebra Universalis , 80 (2019), no. 1, Art. 3, 5 pp. https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.04505 .
- [10] C. Herrmann , Varieties of ∗ -regular rings, Math. Slovaca (to appear), https: //arxiv.org/abs/1904.04505 .
- [11] C.Herrmann and N.Niemann , On linear representation of ∗ -regular rings having representable ortholattice of projections, https:arXiv:1811.01392 .
- [12] C. Herrmann and M.S. Roddy , A second note on the equational theory of modular ortholattices, Algebra Universalis , 57 (2007), 371-373.
- [13] C. Herrmann and M.V. Semenova , Rings of quotients of finite AW-algebras. Representation and algebraic approximation (Russian), Algebra Logika , 53 (2014), 466-504; translation in Algebra Logic , 53 (2014), 298-322.
- [14] C. Herrmann and M.V. Semenova , Linear representations of regular rings and complemented modular lattices with involution, Acta Sci. Math. (Szeged) , 82 (2016), 395-442.
- [15] B. J´nsson o , Representations of complemented modular lattices, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. . 97 (1960), 64-94.
- [16] F. Maeda, Kontinuierliche Geometrien , Springer, Berlin, 1958.
- [17]
- F. Micol , On representability of ∗ -regular rings and modular ortholattices , Ph.D. thesis, TU Darmstadt, January 2003, http://elib.tu-darmstadt.de/ diss/000303/diss.pdf .
- [18] N. Niemann , On representability of ∗ -regular rings and regular involutive rings in endomorphism rings of vector spaces , Ph.D. thesis, TU Darmstadt 2007, Logos Verlag Berlin 2007.
- [19] J. von Neumann , Continuous Geometries , Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton 1960.
- [20] L. A. Skornyakov , Complemented Modular Lattices and Regular Rings , Oliver &amp; Boyd Edinburgh 1964.
- [21] F. Wehrung , A uniform refinement property for congruence lattices, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 127 (1999), 363-370.
- (C. Herrmann) TUD FB4, Schloßgartenstr. 7, 64289 Darmstadt, Germany

E-mail address : herrmann@mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de
Christian Herrmann Niklas Niemann
Representations of *-regular rings and their ortholattices of projections
We show that a subdirectly irreducible *-regular ring admits a representation
within some inner product space provided so does its ortholattice of
projections.