Quaternions as a counterexample to the Gelfand–Mazur theorem

functional-analysis banach-algebras

It seems that by the Gelfand–Mazur theorem quaternions are isomorphic to complex numbers. That is clearly wrong. So where is the catch?

I think that I found the problem but it seams so subtle that would like to have confirmation from someone else and I would like to know where the proof of Gelfand–Mazur blows up.


The quaternions are certainly a real Banach algebra, but are you sure they are a complex Banach algebra? If you identify $i$ with $i$ to get the obvious action, the scalar multiplication doesn't seem to be bilinear . . .

Related

Are there two different ways to generalize the orthogonal group?
Show by contradiction that $a^n\to 0$
Method of False Position (Regular Falsi) - Pros/Cons
How do I find the Dual of the LP
Norman Window Optimization
Increasing functions are Baire one
How to evaluate this limit??
Example where Tietze Extension fails?
Equation of chord of a parabola whose midpoint is given
Sum of powers of natural numbers
Express partial derivatives of second order (and the Laplacian) in polar coordinates [duplicate]
Possible typos in the proof of Recursion Theorem