{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.0546762289083572, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012691575888096681, 'mean_word_length': 3.9779350541215655, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 12, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Constructing alternating 2-cocycles on Fourier algebras

Building on recent progress in constructing derivations on Fourier algebras, we provide the first examples of locally compact groups whose Fourier algebras support non-zero, alternating 2-cocycles; this is the first step in a larger project. Although such 2-cocycles can never be completely bounded, the operator space structure on the Fourier algebra plays a crucial role in our construction, as does the opposite operator space structure. Our construction has two main technical ingredients: we observe that certain estimates from [H. H. Lee, J. Ludwig, E. Samei, N. Spronk, Weak amenability of Fourier algebras and local synthesis of the anti-diagonal, Adv. Math., 292 (2016); arXiv 1502.05214] yield derivations that are"co-completely bounded"as maps from various Fourier algebras to their duals; and we establish a twisted inclusion result for certain operator space tensor products, which may be of independent interest.


Background context and our main application
Fourier algebras of locally compact groups have been a fertile source of examples in the study of general Banach function algebras, while also having some important applications to the study of operator algebras associated to group representations (see e.g. [8]). One theme with a long history is the study of how properties of a group G are reflected in properties of its Fourier algebra A(G). For instance, if G is compact and non-abelian and f ∈ A(G), the matrix-valued Fourier coefficients f (π) must decay at a certain rate as π "tends to infinity", which intuitively suggests that f should have a degree of differentiability or Hölder continuity. This heuristic underlies a theorem of Johnson 1 that when G is SO (3) or SU (2), there are nonzero derivations from A(G) to its dual; using general restriction theorems for Fourier algebras, it follows that the same is true for any G that contains a closed copy of SO (3) or SU(2).
Johnson's result went counter to some expectations at the time: for given a Lie group G and some X in its Lie algebra, the Lie derivative along X, viewed as a continuous operator on C ∞ c (G), does not extend to a continuous map A(G) → C b (G). (If such an extension existed it would yield non-zero continuous point derivations on A(G), contradicting the fact that points of G are sets of synthesis for A(G).) Enlarging the codomain from C b (G) to A(G) * allows ∂ X f to be a distribution rather than a function, but a separate averaging argument is needed to explain why f → ∂ X f has any chance of being continuous from A(G) to A(G) * . Despite these technical difficulties, Johnson's result has been greatly extended in recent years, by using the operator-valued Fourier transform for certain Type I groups to make explicit calculations and estimates: see the papers [2], [3] and [12]. These papers were motivated by a conjecture posed by Forrest and Runde in [7], which predicted exactly which groups G allow non-zero derivations A(G) → A(G) * ; the conjecture was confirmed for all Lie groups in [12], and a recent preprint of Losert [14] contains a solution in full generality.
For any commutative Banach algebra A, the space of derivations A → A * coincides with the first Hochschild cohomology group H 1 (A, A * ). The higher-degree groups H n (A, A * ) potentially capture more information about A, but have proved to be extremely difficult to calculate except in degenerate cases. A more promising approach to finding computable invariants, which was first pursued systematically in [10], is to consider the alternating part of H n (A, A * ); alternating cocycles are more tractable than general ones since they are built from derivations (and there is also conceptual motivation for singling out this class, see Remark 3.4 below). Nevertheless, the existence of non-zero alternating cocycles on a Banach function algebra is very sensitive to properties of the given norm, and is not guaranteed by simply having "enough derivations", as illustrated in Example 3.7 below.
Given the recent progress in studying derivations on Fourier algebras, it is natural to turn our attention to alternating cocycles on A(G). The present paper is the first step in getting this larger programme off the ground, by producing the first examples of groups whose Fourier algebras support non-zero alternating 2-cocycles. In fact, we show that not only do such groups exist, but they occur in abundance among the classical Lie groups.
Theorem 1.1. Let n ≥ 4 and let G be one of the groups SU(n), SL(n, R) or Isom(R n ). Then there is a non-zero, continuous, alternating 2-cocycle on A(G). Theorem 1.1 is a special case of a much more general result, which in turn follows by combining Theorems 5.7 and 6.3 below. The starting point for the proof of Theorem 5.7 is the canonical identification of A(H × L) with the operator space projective tensor product of A(H) and A(L), valid for any locally compact groups H and L. However, it should be emphasised that our proof requires more than a merely formal use of operator spaces and completely bounded maps; one can show that there are no completely bounded, non-zero, alternating cocycles on Fourier algebras.
The key extra ingredient in the proof of Theorem 5.7 is the following surprising phenomenon, which may have independent interest for those working in operator space theory. Theorem 1.2 ("Twisted inclusion"). Let X and Y be operator spaces, and let Y denote Y equipped with its opposite operator-space structure. Let ⊗ and q ⊗ denote the projective and injective tensor products of operator spaces. Then That is: the identity map on X ⊗Y extends to a contractive linear map θ X,Y : X ⊗Y → X q ⊗ Y .
The opposite operator space structure may be thought of, intuitively, as a "mirror image" of the given one. One of the background aims of this paper is to argue that in applying operator-space methods to the study of Fourier algebras, it may be useful to work simultaneously with both the canonical operator space structure on A(G) and its mirror image.

An overview of the main technical difficulties
We now sketch why the natural attempt to prove Theorem 1.1, by merely following algebraic recipes in an appropriate functional-analytic category, does not work, and indicate the new ideas needed to overcome these difficulties. None of the material here is logically necessary for the proof of Theorem 1.1 or Theorem 1.2, and it may be skipped if the reader wishes to get straight to the precise mathematical details.
We start with a simple example from commutative algebra. .
This is a special case of a general algebraic construction: given two commutative Calgebras A and B, a symmetric A-bimodule X and a symmetric B-bimodule Y, and derivations D A : A → X and D B : B → Y, we can "wedge together" the two amplified derivations Therefore, in cases where we have non-zero derivations from A(H) and A(L) into appropriate modules, one could try to obtain alternating 2-cocycles on A(H × L) by applying the natural analogue of this construction for the category of Banach spaces. Unfortunately this would only yield a non-zero 2-cocycle on the Banach space projective tensor product A(H) ⊗ γ A(L), and the natural map A(H) ⊗ γ A(L) → A(H × L) is never surjective in such cases. On the other hand, A(H × L) can be identified with the operator-space projective tensor product A(H) ⊗ A(L). But in the natural analogue of the algebraic construction for the category of operator spaces, one must start with completely bounded derivations from A(H) and A(L) into symmetric "c.b.-bimodules", and it was shown independently by Spronk and Samei that the only such derivations are identically zero: see [17,Theorem 5.2] or [18].
To resolve this apparent stalemate we need a new approach, which is to examine what occurs if we start from a pair of non-zero derivations D H : A(H) → A(H) * and D L : A(L) → A(L) * that become completely bounded after changing the operator space structure on the codomains. Although this breaks certain aspects of the algebraic construction, something survives if D H and D L are completely bounded when A(H) * and A(L) * are equipped with their opposite operator space structures (it is an unrecorded observation of the author and Ghandehari that this property holds for the derivations constructed in [2]). For then, as we shall show in Proposition 5.2, combining D H and D L and doing some careful book-keeping yields a bounded (but not completely bounded) bilinear map which behaves like an alternating 2-cocycle on the dense subalgebra A(H) ⊗ A(L). This is still not enough to obtain Theorem 1.1, since the right-hand side of (1.1) is not an A(H × L)-bimodule in the cases where D H and D L exist with the required properties. The saving grace is Theorem 1.2, which allows us to embed this space continuously (but not completely boundedly!) into A(H × L) * . Note that in general X ⊗ Y and X q ⊗ Y are incomparable as operator spaces (just take X = C), and so Theorem 1.2 does not seem to follow just from the universal/extremal properties of ⊗ and q ⊗ in the category of operator spaces. Instead, our proof proceeds by embedding X and Y into B(E) and B(F ) for Hilbert spaces E and F , which allows us to calculate or bound various tensor norms on B(E) ⊗ B(F ) by viewing elements of this space as elementary operators on Schatten classes.
It is striking that to prove Theorem 1.1, which on the face of it makes no reference to operator spaces and completely bounded maps, we are driven to make substantial use of such techniques.

Structure of the paper
Let us now describe the organization of the rest of this paper. In Section 2 we establish some global conventions for our notation, and set up the definition of A(G) that is most suitable for this paper. In Section 3 we give the key definitions of derivations and alternating 2-cocycles for commutative Banach algebras, illustrating the general definitions with some key examples that will motivate our proof of Theorem 5.7. We also record some basic constructions that were not mentioned in [10], as they may be useful for subsequent work. Section 4 has two purposes. We introduce the key notion of a co-completely bounded map (co-cb for short) between two given operator spaces; and we collect some results concerning the canonical operator space structure on A(G), some of which are only stated implicitly in the literature. In doing so, we spend time on the crucial notion of the opposite operator space structure and its functorial properties; this requires us to set out some basic properties that do not seem to be mentioned explicitly in [5] or [15].
Section 5 contains the main work needed to establish Theorem 1.1. En route, we give the proof of Theorem 1.2, reducing the problem to a special case which is handled by means of an interpolation argument. The section ends by stating and proving the main technical theorem of this paper, Theorem 5.7, which says loosely speaking that we can construct non-zero 2cocycles given enough non-zero co-cb derivations.
For some groups where non-zero derivations have been constructed, the co-cb property can be read out of the explicit formulas in [2]; but in fact those cases and more besides can be obtained by repurposing some technical results from [12]. Details are given in Section 6, culminating in Theorem 6.3 which provides co-cb derivations in all cases needed to establish Theorem 1.1. Finally, in Section 7 we make some remarks and pose some questions, with a view to possible avenues for future work.
We have attempted to make this paper accessible to workers in the general area of Banach algebras, or functional analysts interested in structural properties of particular Banach algebras. In particular, we have not assumed any prior familiarity with either Fourier algebras of locally compact groups, or the Hochschild cohomology groups of Banach algebras, and have tried to include a small amount of extra motivation for these objects. On the other hand, we do assume some previous exposure to the basic language of operator spaces and completely bounded maps.

Conventions and notation
Throughout this article, all derivations and cocycles from Banach algebras into Banach bimodules are tacitly assumed to be norm-continuous. This is the convention adopted, for instance, in [10], and this article will not be concerned with any issues of automatic continuity.
The algebraic tensor product of two complex vector spaces E and F is denoted by E ⊗ F . The term "map" is our short-hand for "linear map" or "linear operator".
All Banach spaces are defined over complex scalars. For a Banach space E, B(E) denotes the algebra of bounded linear operators on E. The adjoint of a bounded linear map f : E → F between Banach spaces is denoted by f * : F * → E * , with one important exception: if E and F are Hilbert spaces, then we shall denote the adjoint map F * → E * by f # , to avoid confusion with the adjoint in the sense of operators between Hilbert spaces.
One slight departure from usual conventions is that when E is a Hilbert space, we shall formulate various constructions in terms of the dual space E * rather than the conjugate space E; of course the two spaces are canonically isomorphic as Banach spaces via the Riesz-Fréchet theorem. (This decision is motivated by issues concerning operator space structures, but is ultimately only a matter of notational preference.) When E = L 2 (Ω, µ) for some measure space (Ω, µ) and η ∈ L 2 (Ω, µ) we shall write ev η for the functional The projective tensor product of Banach spaces E and F is denoted by E ⊗ γ F ; the Hilbertian tensor product of Hilbert spaces V and W is denoted by V ⊗ 2 W .
Our notational conventions for operator spaces and completely bounded maps will be set out in Section 4, since they are not needed until Section 5.

Fourier algebras of locally compact groups
Fourier algebras originated from the study of L 1 -group algebras of locally compact abelian (LCA) groups. Given a LCA group Γ with Pontrjagin dual G = Γ, the Fourier transform F : L 1 (Γ) → C 0 (G) is an injective algebra homomorphism, and so one may study the convolution algebra L 1 (Γ) by examining the function algebra F(L 1 (Γ)) equipped with the norm pushed forwards from L 1 (Γ). This function algebra, denoted by A(G), is now known as the Fourier algebra of G.
Using Bochner's theorem, one can characterize A(G) in terms of positive-definite functions on G, without reference to the group Γ. Guided by this philosophy, and following work of Godement and Stinespring in the unimodular case, Eymard [6] gave a definition of A(G) that is valid for any locally compact group G; details of the foundational results from Eymard's original paper, and much more besides, may be found in the recent book [11]. However, for most of this paper, it is more convenient to work with an alternative description of A(G). The one we use is also standard, and can be found in e.g. [19,Defn. VII.3.8], but our presentation has some cosmetic differences from the usual one since we wish to work with duals of Hilbert spaces rather than their conjugates. Fix a choice of left Haar measure on G, denoted by ds, and let λ : G → U (L 2 (G)) denote the left regular representation of G on L 2 (G) defined by [λ(x)f ](s) = f (x −1 s). Given ξ, η ∈ L 2 (G) and x ∈ G, let This defines a contractive linear map Ψ : L 2 (G) ⊗ γ L 2 (G) * → C 0 (G) whose range we denote by A(G). We equip A(G) with the quotient norm of L 2 (G) ⊗ γ L 2 (G) * / ker(Ψ  [11,Proposition 2.3.3]). Note that with our definition, if G is a LCA group then we recover the isomorphism L 1 ( G) ∼ = A(G) using Parseval's theorem.
Given Banach algebras A and B and a continuous homomorphism A → B, derivations and cocycles on B can be pulled back to give derivations and cocycles on A (a precise statement will be given in Lemma 3.5). It is therefore useful to identify homomorphic images of A(G) which have a simpler form, so that we can build derivations or cocycles on those algebras instead. The following result was proved by Herz in a more general setting, and is usually known as Herz's restriction theorem.
For a detailed proof and some historical comments, see [11, §2.6 and §2.10]. It is worth noting that if we wish to exploit the restriction theorem to construct derivations or nontrivial cocycles, we have to take G 1 to be non-abelian; Fourier algebras of abelian groups are amenable (in the Banach-algebraic sense) and hence all cohomology with dual-valued coefficients vanishes.
In concrete cases, such as those in Theorem 1.1, once we have constructed a well-defined cocycle on a particular Fourier algebra it will be obvious from context that this cocycle is not identically zero. However, in order to state our main technical theorem (Theorem 5.7) in its greatest generality, it will be convenient to use the following lemma as a "soft" work-around.
Eymard's original definition, but also follows easily from the one given above). Moreover, for each f ∈ A 0 there exists g ∈ A 0 such that f g = f ; see [6,Lemme 3.2] or [11,Prop. 2.3.2]. Hence, by the usual polarization identity (The converse inclusion also holds.) Similarly, combining the identity with the same "absorption trick" as above, we obtain (Once again the converse inclusion is trivial.) Thus, both lin{a 4 : a ∈ A(G)} and lin{b 2 : b ∈ A(G)} contain A 0 and hence are dense in A(G).

Definitions and preliminaries
We assume familiarity with the basic language of Banach algebras and Banach bimodules over them. Let A be a Banach algebra and X a Banach A-bimodule. For n ≥ 0 let C n (A, X) be the space of bounded n-multilinear maps A×· · ·×A → X, with the convention that C 0 (A, X) = X.
There are maps δ n : C n (A, X) → C n+1 (A, X), called the Hochschild coboundary operators, that satisfy δ n+1 • δ n = 0 for all n ≥ 0. We only need the cases n = 1 and n = 2, which have the following explicit form: Let Z n (A, X) := ker δ n ; elements of this space are called n-cocycles. Note that 1-cocycles are the same as derivations. Let B n (A, X) = im δ n−1 ; elements of this space are called n- For the rest of this section, we only consider commutative Banach algebras A, and those Banach A-bimodules X which are symmetric in the sense that a · x = x · a for all a ∈ A and x ∈ X. Note that if A is commutative, then both A itself and its dual A * are symmetric Banach A-bimodules.
We write Z n alt (A, X) for the space of all alternating n-cocycles. Remark 3.1. In the case n = 2, every T ∈ C 2 (A, X) is the sum of a symmetric part and an alternating part. Also, every 2-coboundary is symmetric (since A is commutative and X is symmetric). Thus the natural map Z 2 alt (A, X) → H 2 (A, X) is actually an injection. Following [10, Definition 2.2], we say that T ∈ C n (A, X) is an n-derivation if it is a derivation in each variable separately. If T is either symmetric or alternating, then to verify the n-derivation property it suffices to check that T is a derivation in the first variable, i.e. to check the identity T (bc, a 2 , . . . , a n ) = b · T (c, a 2 , . . . , a n ) + T (b, a 2 , . . . , a n ) · c for all b, c, a 2 , . . . a, n ∈ A.
Given our earlier definitions, a straightforward calculation shows that every 2-derivation is a 2-cocycle. (It is crucial here that A is commutative and X is symmetric.) In particular, every alternating 2-derivation defines an element of Z 2 alt (A, X). The alternating 2-cocycles that we shall construct when proving Theorem 1.1 are created as alternating 2-derivations. For sake of completeness, we mention that every alternating 2-cocycle turns out to be a derivation in the first variable, and hence (by the remarks above) is an alternating 2-derivation. We omit the details, since this result is the n = 2 case of [10,Theorem 2.5]. Note also that in the introduction, and in the statement of Theorem 1.1, we restricted ourselves to cocycles on A taking values in A * . This is no loss of generality: by the n = 2 case of [10, The following example illustrates what the abstract definitions above mean in practice, and provides motivation for later constructions.
(i) Define a linear map D : where p = e 2πiθ and dp denotes the usual uniform measure on T. It follows immediately from the product rule that D is a derivation.
(ii) Define a bilinear map F : where p = (e 2πiθ 1 , e 2πiθ 2 ) and dp denotes the usual uniform measure on T 2 . Clearly F is alternating as a bilinear map, and a similar calculation to part (i) shows it is a derivation in the first variable; thus it is an alternating 2-cocycle.
Remark 3.3. We noted earlier that an alternating 2-cocycle is a coboundary if and only if it is identically zero. This is true for all n ≥ 1 by [10, Proposition 2.9], and so there is a natural injection of the vector space Z n alt (A, X) into the nth Hochschild cohomology group H n (A, X). The range of this injection is one summand in a canonical decomposition of H n (A, X) into n pieces; for further discussion of this decomposition, see e.g. [1, §3] and [20, §9.4].
Remark 3.4. We briefly leave the world of Banach algebras to mention some important context from algebraic geometry. If R is the coordinate ring of a smooth complex variety, every cocycle on R with symmetric coefficients is equivalent to an alternating one; this is one version of the Hochschild-Kostant-Rosenberg theorem. For instance, this applies to the complex co-ordinate ring of the algebraic group SL 2 , which occurs naturally as a dense subalgebra of A(SU(2)). While the HKR theorem itself does not seem to extend to the Banach-algebraic setting, it suggests that the alternating cocycles on commutative Banach algebras have some deeper meaning, rather than being ad hoc definitions, and hence deserve further study.

Tools for constructing alternating cocycles
Following a strategy analogous to those used in [2,3,12], we shall prove Theorem 1.1 by establishing the non-vanishing of Z 2 alt (A(G 1 ), A(G 1 ) * ) for some judiciously chosen closed subgroup G 1 ⊂ G. We record the following lemma for later reference.
Lemma 3.5. Let A and B be commutative Banach algebras and let θ : A → B be a continuous homomorphism. Then for any F ∈ Z 2 alt (B, B * ), the induced map θ * F defined by belongs to Z 2 alt (A, A * ). If F = 0 and θ has dense range, then θ * F = 0.
The proof follows easily from the definitions and we omit the details. As mentioned in Section 1.2, in commutative algebra there is a standard procedure for constructing alternating 2-cocycles on a tensor product of two algebras, given a pair of derivations on the respective algebras. With minor modifications, one can do the same in the setting of commutative Banach algebras and symmetric Banach bimodules. This observation is surely known to specialists in the cohomology of Banach algebras, but we have not found an explicit statement in the literature; this is somewhat surprising since it provides a natural converse to a special case of [10, Theorem 3.6]), Lemma 3.6 (possibly folklore). Given commutative Banach algebras A and B, symmetric Banach bimodules X and Y over A and B respectively, and derivations Since some of the relevant calculations will recur when we come to prove Theorem 5.7, we provide a detailed proof.
Proof. Since D A and D B are bounded, F extends to a continuous bilinear map (using the fact that X and Y are symmetric bimodules) and (using the fact that D A and D B are derivations into symmetric bimodules). Hence, by linearity and continuity, F is both alternating and a derivation in the first variable, so by the earlier remarks in this section it is an alternating 2-cocycle as required.
The formula (3.1) should be compared with Example 3.2. In that example, F was obtained by "wedging together" two derivations defined on the dense subalgebra C 1 (T) ⊗ C 1 (T), one being a copy of D acting in the θ 1 direction and the other being a copy of D acting in the θ 2 direction. Lemma 3.6 may be regarded as an abstract analogue of this construction. However, since C 1 (T) ⊗ γ C 1 (T) = C 1 (T 2 ), the lemma does not suffice on its own to construct alternating 2-cocycles on C 1 (T 2 ). Indeed, the next example shows that for some function algebras on T 2 , the approach suggested by Lemma 3.6 cannot possibly work.
Lemma 3.6 can still be applied to produce alternating 2-cocycles on A(H) ⊗ γ A(L). However, this is not enough to produce cocycles on A(H × L), because of the following two facts.

1) The natural map A(H) ⊗ γ A(L) → A(H × L) is surjective if and only if either H or L
has an abelian subgroup of finite index [13]. (See also [11, §3.6], with the caveat that they write ⊗ instead of ⊗ γ .)

Co-cb maps and Fourier algebras
This section is devoted to the infrastructure needed for the proof of Theorem 5.7. We pay particular attention to issues of functoriality; the reason for introducing operator space tensor products and the opposite operator space structure is not just to equip Banach spaces with extra structure, but to be able to combine linear maps that respect this extra structure.

Operator spaces, tensor products, and co-cb maps
All concepts not defined explicitly here can be found in standard sources, such as the early chapters of [5] or [15]. Henceforth, we abbreviate the phrase "operator space structure" to o.s.s. Given operator spaces X and Y , CB (X, Y ) denotes the space of completely bounded maps X → Y ; note that this space has a canonical o.s.s., defined via the identification M n CB (X, Y ) ∼ = CB (X, M n Y ).
Whenever H is a Hilbert space and we refer to B(H) as an operator space, we assume (unless explicitly stated otherwise) that it is equipped with its usual, canonical o.s.s.; note that if we do this, then there is a natural and completely isometric identification of B(H) with CB (COL H ), where COL H denotes H equipped with the column o.s.s.
Tensor products and tensor norms. The projective and injective tensor products of operator spaces are denoted by ⊗ and q ⊗ respectively (this is the notation of [5], rather than that of [15]). Note that if E and F are Hilbert spaces then the underlying Banach space of Given operator spaces V , W and X, we say that a bilinear map V × W → X is jointly completely bounded 3 (j.c.b.) if it extends to a completely bounded map V ⊗ W → X. This is equivalent to saying that the "curried map" V → L(W, X) extends to a completely bounded map V → CB (W, X), or the same with V and W interchanged. Indeed V ⊗ W may be characterized, up to completely isometric isomorphism, as the completion of V ⊗ W that satisfies If f ∈ CB (E, X) and g ∈ CB (F, Y ) then by tensoring we obtain completely bounded maps E ⊗ F → X ⊗ Y and E q ⊗F → X q ⊗Y ; for extra emphasis, these maps will be denoted by f ⊗ g and f q ⊗g respectively. We shall make passing use of the Haagerup tensor norm, but only "at level 1", and we only require the following facts: 2) if A and B are C * -algebras and w ∈ A ⊗ B, then where the inner infimum is over all representations of w as n j=1 a j ⊗ b j .
The opposite operator space structure. Given an operator space W , one may define a new sequence of matrix norms on W by (  It is easily checked that if f : X → Y is completely bounded, then so is f : X → Y , with the same cb-norm. To emphasise the functorial behaviour we write this as f : X → Y . The same calculation gives, with some book-keeping, a more precise result: we omit the details. Lemma 4.2. Given operator spaces X and Y , the assignment f → f defines a completely isometric isomorphism CB (X, Y ) ∼ ∼ = CB ( X, Y ). In particular, we can identify (X * ) ∼ with ( X) * .
Note that for any operator spaces V and W , the identity map on V ⊗ W extends to a completely isometric isomorphism V ⊗ W ∼ = (V ⊗ W ) ∼ . One can show this using the explicit definition of the matrix norms associated to ⊗, but it can also be deduced from the characterization in (♦), combined with repeated application of Lemma 4.2.
Co-cb maps between operator spaces. The next definition is non-standard (though it has some precedent 4 in [16]) but will be extremely useful for statements and calculations later on. in either case we say that f : V → W is co-completely bounded (co-cb for short). Similarly, f is a complete isometry from V to W if and only if it is a complete isometry from V to W ; we then say that f : V → W is a co-complete isometry.
The notion of co-completely bounded map seems to have gone largely unmentioned or unstudied in the literature. One notable exception is [16], which sets up some general machinery and obtains interesting results in connection with Schur multipliers.
Lemma 4.4. Let F be a Hilbert space. The C-linear map B(F ) → B(F * ) that sends an operator b ∈ B(F ) to its Banach-space adjoint b # : F * → F * is a co-complete isometry.
Warning: as we will see in the proof, our chosen notational conventions are important: B(F * ) is given the o.s.s. of CB (COL F * ) rather than CB ((COL F ) * ) = CB (ROW F * ).
Proof. For any operator spaces X and Y , the map CB (X, Y ) → CB (Y * , X * ) defined by taking adjoints is a complete 5 isometry. Thus b → b # defines a complete isometry Taking opposites and applying Lemma 4.2, the result follows.

The operator space structure on a Fourier algebra
The results in this section are all known to specialists, but are included here for the reader's convenience, and to ensure that we have consistent notation and conventions.  4.6 (Tomato, tomato). Care is needed when combining parts of the literature. Some sources, following the general framework of locally compact quantum groups, define A(G) to be the subspace of C 0 (G) obtained by identifying a vector functional ω ξ,η ∈ VN(G) * with the function s → λ(s −1 )ξ, η L 2 (G) . While this gives the same Banach function algebra A(G) ⊂ C 0 (G) as in this paper, it yields the opposite o.s.s. to the one we have just defined. This is related to Proposition 4.8(d) below.
. For any ξ, η ∈ L 2 (G) and x ∈ G we have It follows that the map f → f ∨ defines a contractive involution on A(G) (which must therefore be isometric). This is known as the flip map or check map on A(G).

(a) The natural inclusion
, whose range is the minimal C * -tensor product VN(G 1 ) ⊗ min VN(G 2 ).

Constructing 2-cocycles from co-cb derivations
We start in some generality, since the preliminary results may be useful in subsequent work. The following terminology is not entirely standard, but is analogous to the more familiar notions of completely contractive Banach algebra and completely contractive Banach (bi)module that have appeared in the literature. By a cb-Banach algebra, we mean an operator space A equipped with a bilinear, j.c.b. and associative map A × A → A. Given such an A, we define a cb-Banach A-bimodule to be an operator space X, equipped with an A-bimodule structure such that the left action A × X → X and the right action X × A → X are both j.c.b.
Clearly A itself is a cb-Banach A-bimodule; it is also routine to check that if X is a cb-Banach A-bimodule, so is X * when equipped with the dual o.s.s. These notions also interact well with the "opposite o.s.s. functor". If A is a cb-Banach algebra then so is A; and if X is a cb-Banach A-bimodule, X is a cb-Banach A-bimodule.
Remark 5.1. Given a cb-Banach algebra A, the class of cb-Banach A-bimodules is usually not closed under the operation of taking opposites. For instance, suppose A is unital. If A were a cb-Banach A-bimodule, then for each x ∈ A the orbit map a → ax would be completely bounded from A to A. Taking x = 1 A we conclude that the identity map on A is co-cb. In particular, if A = A(G) for G compact, this would force G to be virtually abelian (combine parts (c) and (d) of Proposition 4.8).
Proposition 5.2. Let A and B be cb-Banach algebras; let X be a cb-Banach A-bimodule and Y a cb-Banach B-bimodule. Let T A ∈ CB (A, X) and T B ∈ CB (B, Y ). Then, if we define Proof. We will only give the proof for F 1 ; the proof for F 2 is very similar. Since we obtain a complete contraction Also, since X is a cb-Banach A-bimodule and Y is a cb-Banach B-bimodule, putting defines a complete contraction R :  In view of the earlier formula (3.1), one would like to apply Proposition 5.2 with T A and T B being co-cb derivations into symmetric cb-bimodules. However, this stops short of producing genuine 2-cocycles: the resulting bilinear map merely takes values in X ⊗ Y , and in view of Remark 5.1 there is no reason to suppose that this is even a Banach A ⊗ B-bimodule. (It is a Banach A ⊗ γ B-bimodule, but that does not help us.) To go further, we need to move from X ⊗ Y to X q ⊗Y , and this is where we require Theorem 1.2, whose proof we now turn to. For convenience we recall the statement of the theorem. Theorem 1.2 (reprise). Let X and Y be operator spaces. Then w X q ⊗ Y ≤ w X ⊗Y for all w ∈ X ⊗Y , and so the identity map on X ⊗Y extends to a contraction θ X,Y : X ⊗Y → X q ⊗ Y .
Proof of Theorem 1.2. We start by reducing to a special case.
Step 1. Given a pair of operator spaces X and Y , let j X : X → B(E) and j Y : Y → B(F ) be completely isometric embeddings, for some Hilbert spaces E and F . Note that j Y : Y → B(Y ) ∼ is also a complete isometry. Suppose we know Theorem 1.2 holds for the particular operator spaces B(E) and B(F ). Then we have a diagram as shown in Figure 2, in which the left-hand vertical arrow is a (complete) contraction, while the right-hand vertical arrow is a (complete) isometry (since q ⊗ respects complete isometries). Moreover, the diagram in Figure 2 "commutes on elementary tensors". Hence, for any z ∈ X ⊗ Y , we have Step 2. Observe that if E and F are Hilbert spaces and w ∈ B(E) ⊗ B(F ), the norm of w in B(E) q ⊗B(F ) ∼ coincides with the norm of the associated elementary operator on S 2 (F, E), the space of Hilbert-Schmidt operators F → E. This is a variation on a well-known fact in C * -algebra theory that can be found in various sources; to avoid any notational ambiguity, we give a precise statement in the following lemma.
(To justify the second point in a little more detail: let α : E⊗ 2 F * → S 2 (F, E) be the Hilbert-space isomorphism which sends x ⊗ φ to y → φ(y)x; then α intertwines the natural * -representation of the incomplete algebra B(E) ⊗ B(F * ) on E⊗ 2 F * with the map θ. See also [15,Prop. 2.9.1] or the calculations preceding [5, Eqn. (3.5.1)].) Step 3. Combining Steps 1 and 2, we see that Theorem 1.2 will follow if we can prove the following claim: given E, F and Φ 2 as in Step 2, the function Φ 2 extends to a contractive linear map B(E) ⊗ B(F ) → B(S 2 (F, E)). (We remind the reader that if E and F are infinitedimensional, one cannot expect this map to be completely bounded.) Our proof of the claim is based on an interpolation argument. For p ∈ [1, ∞] let S p (F, E) denote the space of Schatten-p operators from F → E, equipped with its standard norm. We adopt the convention that S ∞ (F, E) = K(F, E), the space of all compact operators F → E, equipped with the operator norm. Define Φ p : When p = 2 this is consistent with our earlier notation.
Lemma 5.5. Let E and F be Hilbert spaces, and let w ∈ B(E)⊗B(F ). Let σ : Proof. Part (i) follows immediately by quoting Haagerup's theorem that Φ ∞ extends to a (complete) isometry from B(E) ⊗ h B(F ) to CB (S ∞ (F, E)). However, there is also a direct easy proof: given w = n j=1 a j ⊗ b j , it suffices to show that This follows from standard calculations with "row" and "column" block matrices: for details, see e.g. [15,Remark 1.13], in particular the formula (1.12) in [15]. Part (ii) follows from part (i) and duality. In more detail: given w = n j=1 a j ⊗b j ∈ B(E)⊗ B(F ), consider the elementary operator Φ ∞ (σ(w)) defined on S ∞ (E, F ) by d → n j=1 b j da j . By part (i), applied with the roles of E and F reversed, Φ ∞ (σ(w)) ≤ σ(w) h . On the other hand, consider the standard trace pairing between S 1 (F, E) and S ∞ (E, F ), where s ∈ S 1 (F, E) acts as the functional t → Tr(st). Straightforward calculations show that with respect to this pairing, the Banach-space adjoint of Φ ∞ (σ(w)) : . Since a linear map and its adjoint have the same norm, (ii) is proved.
Finally, note that the elementary operator defined by w acts simultaneously on all S p (F, E) for p ∈ [1, ∞]. Since S ∞ and S 1 form an interpolation couple with (S 1 , S ∞ ) 1/2 = S 2 , part (iii) now follows from parts (i) and (ii) by applying the Riesz-Thorin interpolation theorem.
To finish off, note that the os-projective tensor norm dominates both the Haagerup tensor norm and the "reversed" Haagerup tensor norm. More precisely: for arbitrary operator spaces V 1 and V 2 and w ∈ V 1 ⊗ V 2 , we have Combining these inequalities with Lemma 5.5(iii), we have verified the claim at the beginning of Step 3, and this completes the proof of Theorem 1.2.
Remark 5.6. We can strengthen the conclusion of Theorem 1.2, although at present we do not have applications of the stronger version. Going back to Step 1, we can run the same argument with the os-projective tensor product replaced by either the Haagerup tensor product or its reversed version. Combining this with Step 2 and Lemma 5.5(iii), we conclude that for arbitrary operator spaces X and Y and w ∈ X ⊗ Y , We now have the necessary ingredients for our main technical theorem.
extends to a non-zero alternating 2-cocycle F : Consequently, for any locally compact group G which contains a closed isomorphic copy of H × L, we have Z As in the proof of Lemma 3.6, the defining formula for F 0 shows that F is an alternating 2-derivation on the dense subalgebra A H ⊗ A L ⊂ A H×L . By the usual continuity argument we deduce that F ∈ Z 2 alt (A H×L , A H×L * ).
We now show that F is not identically zero. Since F 0 takes values in V H ⊗ V L and the natural map V H ⊗ V L → V H×L is injective, it suffices to show that F 0 is not identically zero. Observe that if a ∈ A H and b ∈ A L we have By Lemma 2.2, elements of the form a 4 span a dense subspace of A H , and elements of the form b 2 span a dense subspace of A L . Therefore, since D H is continuous and non-zero, there exists a ∈ A H such that D H (a 4 ) = 0; similarly, there exists b ∈ A L such that D L (b 2 ) = 0. We conclude that F 0 (a 3 ⊗ b, a ⊗ b) = 0, as required. This proves the first part of the theorem. The second part follows by pulling back the non-zero 2-cocycle F ∈ Z 2 alt (A H×L , A H×L * ) along the restriction homomorphism A G → A H×L (see Lemma 3.5).
To use Theorem 5.7 effectively, we need to know examples of H for which such a D H exists. It turns out that the very first non-zero derivation constructed from a Fourier algebra to its dual, which was produced by Johnson in [9], can be shown with hindsight to be co-cb! In fact, during the writing of [2], the present author and Ghandehari had already observed that if H is one of the groups then in each case, the explicit non-zero derivation D H : A(H) → A(H) * that is described in [2] turns out to be co-cb. Showing this requires some work, but is mostly just a matter of composing D H with (the adjoint of) the check map and using the Plancherel theorem for each group, c.f. the formulas and remarks in [2, §7]. However, this observation was never written down, since at the time we did not have any applications of it.
Let us see how these facts, combined with Theorem 5.7, yield the first two cases of Theorem 1.1. For n ≥ 4, we may embed GL 2 (C) × GL 2 (C) as a closed subgroup of GL n (C) by sending (g 1 , g 2 ) to the block-diagonal matrix diag(g 1 , g 2 , I n−4 ); the same construction works with C replaced by R. If H n denotes any of SU(n), SL(n, R) or Isom(R n ), then our embedding maps H 2 ×H 2 onto a closed subgroup of H n . Note also that the real ax+b group is isomorphic to the standard parabolic subgroup of SL(2, R). Therefore, we may combine Theorem 5.7 with the examples (a) and (b) mentioned above.
To obtain the remaining case of Theorem 1.1, it would suffice to exhibit a non-zero co-cb derivation from A(Isom(R 2 )) to its dual. For this, the results of [2,3] are insufficient and we require results from the subsequent paper [12]. In fact, one can use results from that paper to obtain alternative proofs for the cases (a) (b) and (c), and so for clarity of exposition we devote the next section to summarizing and making use of the relevant parts of [12].
Remark 5.8. An alternative proof that the Fourier algebra of the real ax + b group supports a non-zero co-cb derivation, independent of both [2] and [12], will appear as part of the forthcoming work [4].

Obtaining co-cb derivations
In this section, we show in Theorem 6.3 that there is a plentiful supply of non-zero co-cb derivations from Fourier algebras to their duals. For the strongest results in this direction, we make use of the hard work done by the authors of [12] in proving the Lie case of the Forrest-Runde conjecture. While Theorem 6.3 is not hard to invent if one reads [12] in its entirety, it is never actually stated in that paper. We shall therefore extract some of the components which are used to prove [12,Theorem 3.2], and reassemble them into a "black box" that will be more suitable for our purposes.
For G a Lie group, let C ∞ c (G) denote the space of compactly supported smooth functions on G. This is contained in A(G) by [6, (3.26)] and is easily seen to be dense in A(G) (since C ∞ c (G) is dense in L 2 (G) and is closed under convolution).
Proposition 6.1 (Lee-Ludwig-Samei-Spronk, [12]). Let H be any one of the following (connected, real) Lie groups: (e) the "Grélaud groups" G θ (certain semidirect products R 2 ⋊ θ R where θ parametrizes the eigenvalues of the corresponding action of R on the Lie algebra of R 2 ) Then there exist a weight function v ∈ L 1 (H), not identically zero, and an element X of the Lie algebra of H, such that when we take the corresponding Lie derivative ∂ X : Proof. In each case, there is a calculation in [12] that provides suitable X and v. (Strictly speaking, X and v are chosen together with S = S X,v ∈ VN(H × H) such that the integral in (6.1) agrees with S, u for all u ∈ C ∞ c (H × H). By density and continuity arguments, if such an S exists it is uniquely determined, and by rescaling the weight function v we can always arrange that S ≤ 1.) For (a), see [12,Theorem 2.4] -strictly speaking, the cited result only proves this for SU(2), but the same calculation using representation theory and orthogonality relations goes through for SO (3) As indicated by the previous remark, the authors of [12] did not pursue Proposition 6.1 with the goal of constructing explicit derivations on Fourier algebras, as they aimed to establish stronger structural properties for a wider class of groups. For the present paper, what matters is the following consequence of Proposition 6.1, which appears to be a new observation.

Avenues for further work
In future work, we intend to set out a more systematic study of the higher-degree alternating cocycles on Fourier algebras, with the intention of exploring an associated numerical invariant that can be viewed as a kind of "dimension" associated to such algebras. Since one would like to calcuate or estimate this numerical invariant for as many small examples as possible, progress on the following natural question could be a useful guide for future work.
Currently our guess is that the answer is negative for SU(2) and SL(2, R), and positive for SU(3), SL(3, R), Isom(R 2 ) and Isom(R 3 ), but there is insufficient evidence to support any firm conjectures at this stage.
Turning to Theorem 1.2: one would like to understand better the comparison map θ X,Y : X ⊗ Y → X q ⊗ Y , perhaps by making greater use of the sharper result outlined in Remark 5.6. Indeed, a natural next step is to repeat the (complex) interpolation argument used in Lemma 5.5 at the level of operator spaces and cb-norms of elementary operators, to see what θ X,Y looks like at higher matrix levels.
The co-cb derivations that are crucial to proving Theorem 1.1 provide natural examples of c.b. maps from A(G) ∼ to VN(G) that behave like noncommutative Fourier multipliers (this is not immediately apparent from what is stated in Section 6, but can be seen by inspecting the details in [2] and [12].) Question 2. Given that A(G) ∼ and VN(G) are the endpoints of the scale of noncommutative L p -spaces associated to VN(G), are there other Fourier multipliers from L p (VN(G)) → L r (VN(G)) which satisfy some form of the Leibniz identity? For fixed p and r, what can we say about the space of such multipliers?
We finish with some natural questions concerning co-cb derivations on Fourier algebras, which are all aimed at strengthening or sharperning the conclusion of Theorem 6.3.
Question 3. The derivations constructed in [2] for SU(2), the real ax + b group and the reduced Heisenberg group are all cyclic and co-cb (c.f. the construction in [4]). Is every cyclic derivation on a Fourier algebra automatically co-cb? Question 4. Let G be the 3-dimensional real Heisenberg group. The results of [3] construct a non-zero derivation D from A(G) to a certain symmetric Banach A(G)-bimodule W. Can W be made into a cb-Banach A(G)-bimodule in such a way that D : A(G) → W is co-cb? Question 5. It was shown in [12] that the property (AD) for a Lie group G, mentioned in Remark 6.2, ensures that there is a non-zero derivation D : A(G) → A(G) * . Does it also guarantee that one can choose D to be co-cb?
In view of the good hereditary properties of (AD), a positive answer to Q5 would allow us to transfer co-completely bounded derivations between Fourier algebras of Lie groups which have the same universal cover, and hence by using the strategy outlined in Remark 6.2 one could strengthen Theorem 6.3 to the following result: every non-abelian connected Lie group H has non-zero co-cb derivations from A(H) to A(H) * .
Question 6. Can the explicit derivations constructed by Losert [14] on connected groups that are not necessarily Lie, be made into co-cb derivations from Fourier algebras into cb-Banach bimodules?
The constructions in [14] are closer in spirit to [3] than to [12], and so Question 4 would serve as a warm-up for Question 6.

Acknowledgments
A preliminary announcement of some of these results, with a different emphasis and less comprehensive results, was circulated in 2016 as an unpublished preprint; the author thanks M. Daws and A. Skalski for several comments and corrections on that document. He also thanks the authors of [12] for useful discussions about technical aspects of their paper, and to V. Losert for sharing a copy of the preprint [14].
Less direct, but no less important, thanks are due to M. Ghandehari and E. Samei for their interest and encouragement over several years concerning alternating cocycles on Fourier algebras, and to M. Whittaker for a conversation at the British Mathematical Colloquium 2019 in Lancaster which prompted the author to finally write up this work as a proper paper.
Some of these results were presented in conference talks at the Abstract Harmonic Analysis meeting in Kaohsiung, 2018, and the International Workshop on Harmonic Analyis and Operator Theory, Istanbul, 2019. The author thanks the organizers of these meetings for their respective invitations to present this work, and for bringing together speakers from a broad range of specialist interests for enjoyable discussions.
Most of the writing of this article was done during the COVID-19 pandemic, under a period of lockdown conditions in England. The author would therefore like to thank various colleagues at Lancaster University for an online mixture of camaraderie, commiseration, complaints, and computer support during these months, which has gone some way towards replicating a normal working environment. He hopes to one day visit Barnard Castle.