Affiliation:
1. Faculty of Basic Sciences, Department of Mathematics , Ilam University , P.O.Box 69315-516 Ilam, Iran
Abstract
Abstract
In this short note, we give some counter examples which show that [11, Proposition 3.5] is not true. As a consequence, the arguments in [11, Proposition 4.10] are not valid.
Reference14 articles.
1. [1] Amini, Massoud. “Module amenability for semigroup algebras.” Semigroup Forum 69, no. 2 (2004): 243-254. Cited on 37.
2. [2] Amini, Massoud, and Alireza Medghalchi. “Restricted algebras on inverse semi-groups. I. Representation theory.” Math. Nachr. 279, no. 16 (2006): 1739-1748. Cited on 36.
3. [3] Bodaghi, Abasalt, and Massoud Amini. “Module character amenability of Banach algebras.” Arch. Math. (Basel) 99, no. 4 (2012): 353-365. Cited on 37.
4. [4] Bodaghi, Abasalt, and Ali Jabbari. “Module pseudo-amenability of Banach algebras.” An. Ştiinţ. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iaşi. Mat. (N.S.) 63, no. 3 (2017): 449-461. Cited on 37.
5. [5] Dales, H. Garth, Anthony To-Ming Lau, and Dona Papert Strauss. “Banach algebras on semigroups and on their compactifications.” Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 205, no. 966 (2010): vi+165 pp. Cited on 35 and 36.