The Leavitt inverse semigroup of a separated graph

Let T be an E-tree. For each g\in \mathfrak{F_{gr}} (E), we consider its canonical decomposition g=g_U w with respect to U (see Definition 3.6).

Now set A:= \{ g_U: g\in T\}, and T_U = \mathrm{max} (A)^\downarrow. Then the set of maximal elements of T_U is exactly \mathrm{max} (A), and thus all maximal elements of T_U do not end in E^{-1} and do not end in U. Since T_U\subseteq T, it follows that T\le T_U.

Also, as in the proof of [ABC25, Lemma 3.16], we have T_U\sim_U T.

We now want to show that, if S is an E-tree and T\sim_U S in \mathcal M, then S_U=T_U. Let (T_0,g_0), (T_1,g_1), \dots , (T_n,g_n) be a sequence of Munn E-trees, with (T_0,g_0)= (T,1) and (T_n,g_n)= (S,1), and such that for each 0\le i < n, we can pass from (T_i,g_i) to (T_{i+1},g_{i+1}), or from (T_{i+1}, g_{i+1}) to (T_i,g_i), by a single step either of the form

for e\in E^1, or of the form

for e\in U.

In both cases, we have (Z, h\cdot k) \sim_U (Z\cup h\cdot x^\downarrow, h\cdot k), where x\in E^{-1}\cup U, and Z= X\cup h\cdot Y is an E-tree such that h\in Z. It thus suffices to show that in such a situation, one has Z_U = (Z\cup h\cdot x^\downarrow)_U. If hx is not reduced then h\cdot x\in Z and we indeed have Z=Z\cup h\cdot x^\downarrow. If hx is reduced, then h_U= (hx)_U and hence \{ z_U: z\in Z\} = \{z_U: z\in Z\cup h\cdot x^\downarrow \}, showing that Z_U= (Z\cup h\cdot x^\downarrow)_U, as desired. Applying inductively this fact to all the consecutive pairs of elements in the sequence \{ (T_i,g_i)\}, we obtain that T_U=S_U. Hence S\le T_U for all S\in [T]_U, and T_U is the largest element of [T]_U in \mathcal M _U. Also it is clear from this fact that T_U is the unique element in [T]_U with the property that each maximal element does not end in E^{-1}\cup U.

We define a map \Phi \colon \mathcal M_U \to \mathcal T_U \mathcal M by \Phi ([T,g]_U) = (T_U, g). Note that this map is well-defined since for (T,g)\in \mathcal M, we have g\in T by definition, and thus g_U\in T_U, and moreover T_U=S_U and g=h whenever (T,g)\sim_U (S,h) by Lemma 3.9(1). Moreover the map \Phi is injective again by Lemma 3.9(1). If (T,g) is a Toeplitz-Munn (E,U)-tree, then (T\cup g^\downarrow, g) is a Munn E-tree, and \Phi ([T\cup g^\downarrow , g]) = (T,g), which shows that \Phi is surjective.

Since \Phi is a bijection, we can translate the product of \mathcal M _U to a product in \mathcal T_U \mathcal M, so that \Phi becomes a semigroup isomorphism. This leads to the product described in the statement.

Let \omega \colon \mathfrak{F_{gr}} (E)^\times \to \mathbb F be the obvious idempotent pure partial homomorphism. Then the map \pi\colon \mathfrak{F_{is}} (E)^\times \to \mathbb F, \pi (T,g) = \omega (g) is the canonical idempotent pure partial homomorphism of \mathfrak{F_{is}} (E)\cong \mathcal M, see [ABC25, Corollary 4.3]. It is clear that \pi factors through an idempotent pure partial homomorphism \mathfrak{F_{is}} (E)^\times /{\sim_U} \to \mathbb F.

By Lemma 3.8, it is enough to show that if T is an E-tree and T_L is C-compatible, then T is also C-compatible.

Let T be an E-tree such that T_L is C-compatible. Given two vertices g and h in T, we have to show that g^{-1}\cdot h is a C-separated path.

We first observe that all elements of T are C-separated. Take g\in T. By the construction of T_L we have g_L\in T_L, so that we can write g= g_L w, where g_L\in T_L and w is a product of inverse edges and of edges e such that \{ e\}\in C. Since T_L is C-compatible, g_L is C-separated, and it follows that g=g_L w cannot contain a subword of the form e^{-1}f, where e,f are distinct edges in E such that e,f\in X for X\in C.

Consider now two vertices g,h\in T. If one of them is a prefix of the other, then we deduce from the above that g^{-1}\cdot h is C-separated. Hence we may assume that g= dxg' and h= dyh', where x,y\in E^1\cup E^{-1} and x\ne y. We need to show that g^{-1}\cdot h = (g')^{-1} x^{-1}y h' is C-separated. Since (g')^{-1}x^{-1} and yh' are C-separated, we only have to show that x^{-1}y is not of the form e^{-1}f for e,f distinct edges in the same set of the partition C. If dx is a prefix of g_L and dy is a prefix of h_L, then the above property holds because g_L,h_L\in T_L, and T_L is C-compatible. If g_L is a proper prefix of dx, then either x\in E^{-1} or x\in E^1 and \{x\}\in C, hence x^{-1}y is not of the form e^{-1}f described above. The same conclusion can be reached if h_L is a proper prefix of dy. This completes the proof.

The proof follows the pattern of [ABC25, proof of Theorem 4.5]. We include details for the convenience of the reader.

If S is any strongly E^*-unitary inverse semigroup with an idempotent pure partial homomorphism \theta \colon S^\times \to \Gamma, and I is an ideal of S, then S/I is also strongly E^*-unitary with the same group \Gamma. This is clear since (S/I)^\times can be identified with S\setminus I, and thus the restriction of \theta to S\setminus I gives the desired idempotent pure partial homomorphism.

Now let (E,C) be a separated graph. Since the Leavitt inverse semigroup \mathcal{LI} (E,C) is the Rees quotient of the inverse semigroup \mathcal M _L = \mathfrak{F_{is}} (E)/{\sim_L} by the ideal generated by all the elements of the form (e^{-1}f)^\downarrow, for distinct e,f\in X, X\in C, it follows from Proposition 3.10 and the above observation that \mathcal{LI} (E,C) is a strongly E^*-unitary semigroup, with an idempotent pure partial homomorphism \pi \colon \mathcal{LI} (E,C)^\times \to \mathbb F. The result now follows from [ABC25, Proposition 2.1] and Proposition 3.10.

Set R:= \operatorname{\mathrm{Pol}}_K[\mathbb F_{C}]. There is a K-algebra homomorphism

given by \varphi (\lambda) = \lambda \lambda^* for all \lambda \in \mathbb F_{C}. In view of [ABC25, Theorem 4.8], this map is surjective. Also, observe that, using the relations of N, we can bring each monomial of R/N to a monomial of the form

where each \lambda _i \in \mathbb F_{C}, all \lambda _i do not end in E^{-1} and \{\lambda_1,\dots , \lambda_r\} is an incomparable C-compatible subset of \mathbb F_{C} (v) for some v\in E^0. It follows that this set of monomials linearly spans R/N. Again by [ABC25, Theorem 4.8], the images by \varphi of these monomials are linearly independent in \mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab}(E,C), hence they are also linearly independent in R/N, and \varphi is injective.

We show that the set of idempotents \{\mathbf{e} (T) : T \text{ isE-reduced} \} is a K-basis for \mathcal L_1.

Set e_X:= \mathfrak E (X)\in X for all X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}.

We apply Bergman’s Diamond’s Lemma for commutative algebras [Bergman-Diamond], see especially [Bergman-Diamond, Theorem 1.2 and Section 10.3]. We define \text{wt}(e_X)= 2 and \text{wt}(x)= 1 for any other x\in E^1\cup E^{-1}. We consider a weight function on \mathbb F_{C} such that the weight of \lambda \in \mathbb F_{C} is the sum of the weights of the edges of \lambda, or \text{wt}(\lambda) = 1 if \lambda = v\in E^0. We extend this weight function to the free commutative semigroup W:= [\mathbb F_{C} ] generated by \mathbb F_{C} by declaring the weight of a monomial \lambda_1 \cdots \lambda_r as the sum of the weights \text{wt}(\lambda_i), i=1,\dots, r.

For X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}, set X':= X \setminus \{e_X\}.

We now consider the following reduction system \mathcal S on the semigroup algebra \operatorname{\mathrm{Pol}}_K[\mathbb F_{C}] = KW:

1. (\lambda \cdot \mu , 0) if \lambda,\mu\in \mathbb F_{C} and s(\lambda)\ne s(\mu).

2. (\lambda \cdot \mu , \lambda ) if \lambda,\mu\in \mathbb F_{C} and \mu \le_p \lambda,

3. (\lambda \cdot \mu , 0) if \lambda and \mu are C-incompatible, where \lambda,\mu \in \mathbb F_{C}.

4. (\lambda e^{-1}, \lambda) where \lambda e^{-1}\in \mathbb F_{C} and e\in E^1.

5. (\lambda e_X, \lambda - \sum_{e\in X'} \lambda e) for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} and \lambda e_X \in \mathbb F_{C}.

Observe that the reduction system \mathcal S' consisting of the pairs in (1)–(4) leads to the basis of \mathcal C consisting of idempotents in Scheiblich normal form.

Define a partial order \le on W=[\mathbb F_{C}] by

Then the partial order \le on W is a semigroup partial order compatible with the reduction system \mathcal S. Moreover \le satisfies the descending chain condition. In order to apply the Diamond Lemma, we have to check that all ambiguities are resolvable. We leave to the reader to check that all ambiguities involving pairs (1)–(4) are resolvable. We will check those concerning reduction pairs of the family (5), which are necessarily inclusion ambiguities with either (2) or (3).

Suppose we have an element of the form \lambda e_X \cdot \mu such that \mu \le_p \lambda e_X. Then we have an inclusion ambiguity

Applying (5) to the first, we get

We now distinguish two cases. If \mu \le _p \lambda then we have

and we have solved the ambiguity. If \mu = \lambda e_X, then

and we have solved the ambiguity too.

If \lambda e_X \le_p \mu, then we can solve the corresponding inclusion ambiguity for \lambda e_X \cdot \mu just as in the case where \mu = \lambda e_X.

Finally we consider inclusion ambiguities involving (3) and (5). Suppose that \lambda e_X and \mu are C-incompatible. If \lambda and \mu are already C-incompatible then we have

If \mu = \lambda e \mu', where e\in X', then

The irreducible forms are precisely the elements which correspond to the family \overline{\mathcal B}_1(E,C), that is, the elements

where \lambda _i does not end in E^{-1}, does not end in e_X for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}, and \lambda_1,\cdots ,\lambda _r is an incomparable C-compatible family of elements of \mathbb F_{C} (v), for some v\in E^0.

Hence we obtain the desired result for the neutral component.

We work within \mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab}(E,C), where we have a natural linear basis, namely \mathcal{S} (E,C), whose elements admit a unique normal form, the Scheiblich normal form [ABC25, Theorem 4.6]. For g\in \mathbb F_{C}(v)\setminus \{v\}, the ideal \mathcal C_g of \mathcal C is the linear span of the elements \mathbf{e} (T), where T\in \mathcal X_0 (v) and g_0\in T, and the component \mathcal C_g\rtimes g is the linear span in \mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab}(E,C) of corresponding terms \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g.

A monomial in \mathcal C =\mathcal C_1 is an element of the form \lambda_1 \lambda_1^* \lambda_2 \lambda_2^* \cdots \lambda _r \lambda_r^*, where \lambda_i \in \mathbb F_{C}. It follows from the proof of Theorem 4.4 that every element of \mathcal C, written as a linear combination of monomials, can be transformed, using the reductions (1)–(5) applied to these monomials, to a linear combination of monomials in \mathfrak E-reduced Scheiblich form, that is, monomials of the form \mathbf{e} (T) for T a \mathfrak E-reduced C-compatible E-tree. Moreover this linear combination does not depend on the particular reductions that we use. We denote the \mathfrak E-reduced Scheiblich normal form of a\in \mathcal C by n(a). Of course n is linear: n(\sum \alpha_i a_i) = \sum \alpha_i n(a_i), where \alpha_i are scalars and a_i \in \mathcal C.

Now if g\in \mathbb F_{C} and a\in \mathcal C_{g} there is no guarantee that n(a) \in \mathcal C_{g_L}. We define

and we call n^g(a) the \mathfrak E-reduced Scheiblich normal form of a relative to g. Note that n^g is linear on \mathcal C_g.

Since a\in \mathcal C_g = gg^* \mathcal C _1, and g_Lg_L^* gg^*= gg^* we have ag_Lg_L^* = a, hence

In particular a and n^g(a) represent the same element of \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C).

Moreover it is clear that n^g(a) is a linear combination of monomials in \mathfrak E-reduced form relatively to g_L.

We want to show that n^g(a) is the unique linear combination of monomials in \mathfrak E-reduced form relatively to g_L that represents a. Let \sum \alpha _i a_i be a linear combination of monomials a_i which are in \mathfrak E-reduced form relatively to g_L and such that \sum \alpha_i a_i represents a.

Suppose that we can prove that n^{g} (a_i)=a_i for all i. We will show then that n^g(a) = \sum \alpha_i a_i. For, observe that since a and \sum \alpha_ia_i represent the same element of \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C), we have

Therefore

where in the last step we have used that n^{g} (a_i) = a_i for all i.

Hence we only need to show that n^{g}(a) = a for each monomial a in \mathfrak E-reduced form relatively to g_L. Let a be one of such monomials, and write a= \mathbf{e} (T) for T\in \mathcal X_L. We can assume that g_L\in \mathrm{max} (T) and that g_L is not \mathfrak E-reduced. Set A= \mathrm{max}(T)\setminus \{g_L\}. Write

where X_i\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}, each w_i is either trivial or a product of elements of the form x^* for x\in E^1, and either g_1\in A^{\downarrow} and g_1w_1e_{X_1}\notin A^{\downarrow}, or g_1\notin A^{\downarrow} and g_1 is \mathfrak E-reduced. Set X'= X\setminus \{e_X\} for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}. In either case we have

Now observe that

and that for all i\in \{ 1,\dots , r\} and e\in X_i'

because g_L and g_1w_1e_{X_1}\cdots w_ie are C-incompatible. We conclude that

as desired.

Hence all elements of \mathcal L _g \rtimes g have a unique representative which is a linear combination of monomials in \mathfrak E-reduced form relatively to g_L, and we conclude that \overline{\mathcal B}(E,C) is a linear basis of \mathcal L_K ^\mathrm{ab} (E,C).

It is clear that removing a maximal element of a tree will produce another tree. The formula |T\setminus \{hx\}| = |T|-1 is also clear because T\setminus \{hx\} has exactly one edge less than T, namely the edge (h,hx).

We will use the picture of \mathcal{LI} (E,C) established in Theorem 3.15. With this picture, we have \iota ((T,g)) = \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g for any Leavitt-Munn (E,C)-tree (T,g). We fix a choice function \mathfrak E\colon C^{\mathrm{fin}}\to E^1 for (E,C).

Let (T,g) be a Leavitt-Munn (E,C)-tree. Then T\in \mathcal X_L and g_L\in T. Set A := \mathrm{max} (T) \setminus \{g_L\}, and B := \{ g \in A : g \text{ is not } \mathfrak E\text{-reduced}\, \}. If B=\emptyset, then \mathbf{e} (T) \rtimes g is \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_L, so that \iota ((T,g))= \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g \in \overline{\mathcal B}(E,C)

If B\ne \emptyset, write B= \{h_1e_{X_1},\dots , h_r e_{X_r}\}, where X_i\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_{r(h_i)} and |X_i| \ge 2 for i=1,\dots , r. Set X'=X\setminus \{e_X\} for any X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} with |X|\ge 2.

Using the relation r(h_1)= e_{X_1}e_{X_1}^* + \sum _{x\in X_1'} xx^*, we can write in \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C)

By Lemma 4.8, |T\setminus \{h_1e_{X_1}\}| = |T| -1, and observe that

and that \mathrm{max}((T\setminus \{h_1e_{X_1}\})\cup \{h_1x\})\setminus \{g_L\} = (A \setminus \{h_1e_{X_1}\})\cup \{h_1x\}, for each x\in X_1'. On the other hand, the E-tree T\setminus \{h_1e_{X_1}\} is obviously C-compatible, but it does not necessarily belong to \mathcal X_0 or \mathcal X_L. However its reduction to a tree in \mathcal X_L, namely (T\setminus \{h_1e_{X_1}\})_L, will have total length strictly less than |T|.

For (x_1,\dots ,x_r)\in X'_1\times \cdots \times X'_r, set

Also, set U:= \mathfrak E (C^{\mathrm{fin}}) = \{ e_X : X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}\}, and observe that the set of edges e\in E^1 such that s^{-1}(s(e)) = \{ e\} is a subset of U. Let T_U be the U-reduction of T, as in Lemma 3.8.

Iterating the above process a finite number of times, we obtain an identity in \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C) of the form

where \tau is a linear combination of terms of the form \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g\in \overline{\mathcal B} (E,C) such that

for all (x_i)\in \prod_{i=1} ^r X_i'. Observe that (?) gives the \mathfrak E-reduced Scheiblich normal form of \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g, since all T_{(x_i)} and also T_U\cup g_L^\downarrow are \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_L.

We are now ready to show the injectivity of \iota. Suppose that \iota ((T,g)) = \iota ((T',h)) for Leavitt-Munn (E,C)-trees (T,g) and (T',h). Since these are homogeneous elements of degree g and h respectively, we must have g=h. Let A' and B' be the sets as above corresponding to T'. Set B'= \{h_1'e_{Y_1},\dots , h_s' e_{Y_s}\}, where Y_j\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_{r(h_i')} and |Y_j| \ge 2 for j=1,\dots , s. We have a formula similar to (?) for T', involving the \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_L trees T'_{(y_1,\dots , y_s)} for (y_j)\in \prod_{j=1}^s Y_j', and T'_U\cup g_L^\downarrow.

Since \mathbf{e}(T)\rtimes g = \mathbf{e} (T')\rtimes g in \mathcal L_K ^\mathrm{ab} (E,C), it follows that their \mathfrak E-reduced Scheiblich normal forms are equal. Looking at the highest length terms and the lowest length terms of the developments of \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g and \mathbf{e} (T')\rtimes g in (?), we conclude that

and T_U\cup g_L^\downarrow = T'_U\cup g_L^\downarrow. We claim that A\setminus B= A'\setminus B'. By symmetry, it suffices to check one of the inclusions. Let g\in A\setminus B. Then obviously g\notin B'. We want to check that g\in A'. Looking for a contradiction, suppose that g\notin A'. Then by (?) there is j\in \{1,\dots ,s\} and y\in Y_j' such that g=h_j'y. But since g\in A= \mathrm{max} (T)\setminus \{g_L\}, and g is \mathfrak E-reduced, it follows that g\in \mathrm{max} (T_U). Hence, using that T_U\cup g_L^\downarrow = T'_U\cup g_L^\downarrow, we get g=h_j'y\in T'_U, which is a contradiction, since T'_U does not contain any path of the form h_j'z, for z\in Y_j. This shows that A\setminus B = A'\setminus B'. It is now easy to see, by using again (?), that B=B'. Indeed, assume that g=h_{i_0}e_{X_{i_0}}\in B and fix an edge x\in X_{i_0}'. Then h_{i_0}x is a maximal element in some of the the trees T_{(x_i)} and so, by (?), it must be a maximal element in some of the trees T'_{(y_j)}. If h_{i_0}x\in A'\setminus B', then h_{i_0}x\in A\setminus B, but then h_{i_0}x,h_{i_0}e_{X_{i_0}}\in T, which is impossible, because T is C-compatible. Hence h_{i_0}x\notin A'\setminus B', and it follows that there is j_0\in \{ 1,\dots ,s\} and y\in Y'_{j_0} such that h_{i_0}x = h_{j_0}'y, which implies that h_{i_0}=h_{j_0}' and x=y. In particular, X_{i_0}=Y_{j_0} and thus

Hence B\subseteq B' and similarly B'\subseteq B. Since A\setminus B = A'\setminus B' and B=B', we get A=A' and thus (T,g)=(T',g)= (T',h), as desired.

This concludes the proof.

We have a natural *-homomorphism \varphi \colon CL_K (E,C,S) \to p \mathcal L_K (E_S,C^S) p defined by \varphi (v)= v and \varphi (e)= e for all v\in E^0 and e\in E^1. Note that R:=p\mathcal L _K (E_S,C^S)p is generated as *-algebra by E^0\cup E^1 together with the projections d_Xd_X^*, for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}\setminus S, with the Cohn path algebra relations amongst the elements of E^0\cup E^1, the Leavitt path algebra relations v=\sum _{e\in X} ee^* for all X\in S, and the additional relations that d_Xd_X^* is a projection, and that

for each X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_v\setminus S, v\in E^0. Note that these relations automatically imply that e^*d_Xd_X^* = 0=d_Xd_X^* e for all e\in X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}\setminus S and that d_Xd_X^*\le v whenever X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_v \setminus S. Note that \varphi (q_X) = d_Xd_X^* for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}\setminus S.

We can define a map \psi \colon p\mathcal L_K(E_S,C^S)p\to CL_K(E,C,S) by \psi (v)= v, \psi (e)= e for v\in E^0 and e\in E^1, and \psi (d_Xd_X^*)= q_X = v-\sum_{e\in X} ee^* for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_v\setminus S. Using the above observations, we see that this map preserves all the relations amongst the generators of p\mathcal L_K(E_S,C^S)p, and hence induces a *-homomorphism which is clearly the inverse of \varphi. This completes the proof.

Observe that the *-homomorphism \varphi from Proposition 5.4 induces a surjective *-homomorphism \overline{\varphi} \colon CL_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C,S) \twoheadrightarrow p\mathcal L _K^\mathrm{ab} (E_S,C^S)p. To show that it is injective, we prove that \overline{\varphi} sends a basis of CL_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C,S) to a linearly independent family in \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E_S,C^S). Let \mathfrak E be a S-choice function for (E,C). This means that we have a map \mathfrak E\colon S\to E^1 such that \mathfrak E (X) \in X for all X\in S. We extend \mathfrak E to a choice function \overline{\mathfrak E} \colon (C^S)^{\text{fin}} \to E_S^1 by letting \overline{\mathfrak E} (X) = \mathfrak E (X) \in X for each \overline{X} = X \in S and \overline{\mathfrak E} (\overline{X}) = d_X \in \overline{X} = X\cup \{d_X\} for all X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} \setminus S.

We consider the basis \mathcal B := \overline{\mathcal B}_{\mathfrak E} (E,C,S) of CL_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C,S) given in Theorem 5.3 with respect to the S-choice function \mathfrak E, and the basis \overline{\mathcal B} := \overline{\mathcal B}_{\overline{\mathfrak E}} (E_S,C^S) of \mathcal L _K^\mathrm{ab} (E_S,C^S) with respect to the choice function \overline{\mathfrak E} given in Theorem 4.6. If \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g is an element of the basis \mathcal B, then g_S\in T and T is \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_S. But then, since neither of the edges of g and neither of the edges of T are of the forms d_X or d_X^{-1} for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} \setminus S, we see that g_L = g_S and that T is \overline{\mathfrak E}-reduced relatively to g_L. Here g_L is computed with respect to the separated graph (E_S,C^S), and we remark that |\overline{X}|\ge 2 for all \overline{X}\in C^S\setminus S. Hence \mathbf{e} (T)\rtimes g belongs to the basis \overline{\mathcal B}. Hence \overline{\varphi} restricts to an injective map from the basis \mathcal B of CL_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C,S) into the basis \overline{\mathcal B} of \mathcal L_K ^\mathrm{ab} (E_S,C^S), as desired.

Let \overline{\varphi} \colon CL_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C,S) \to p \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E_S,C^S) p be the isomorphism constructed in Theorem 5.5. Since \overline{\varphi} (V) = V,

showing the result.

This follows from the identity

which has been shown in [ABC25, Lemma 5.11].

It is enough to prove that for \mathbf{e}(I) \rtimes g, \mathbf{e} (J)\rtimes h \in \mathcal{S}(E,C), the element

is in the K-span of \mathcal B''. We may assume that this product is nonzero. In this case we have r(g) = v, where X\in C_v, and thus we have

Now writing ((gg^{-1})\rtimes g)(\mathbf{e} (J)\rtimes h) = \mathbf{e} (J')\rtimes (g\cdot h) for some J'\in \mathcal X_0, we get from Lemma 6.6:

Write \overline{\varphi}(\mathbf{e} (I\setminus F)) = \mathbf{e} (T) and \overline{\varphi}(\mathbf{e}( J\setminus G)) = \mathbf{e} (T'), where T,T'\in \mathcal X_L (\overline{E},\overline{C}), and \overline{\varphi} is the isomorphism established in Theorem 5.5. Here

where F= \bigsqcup _{i=1}^r \gamma_i X_i, and similarly with T'. Since \mathbf{e} (T)= \mathbf{e} (T') we get T=T' by Theorems 4.9 and 3.15. So it suffices to notice that I and F can be recovered from T. Indeed I = S_0, where S is the tree given by

and then F is the blocking family \{\gamma X : \gamma d_X\in T\} for I=S_0.

Observe first that, for \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g\in \mathcal B (\mathcal Q), we have \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\in \mathcal Q, because F is a non-empty blocking family for T, and thus \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g \in \mathcal Q.

Now let (\overline{E},\overline{C}) be the separated graph associated to (E,C), so that we have a *-isomorphism \overline{\varphi} \colon \mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C) \to p\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C})p by Theorem 5.5. Recall that \overline{E}^0=E^0 \sqcup \{v_X: X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} \}, \overline{E}^1 = E^1\sqcup \{ d_X: X \in C^{\mathrm{fin}} \}, and \overline{C}_v = \{\overline{X}: X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}_v \}\sqcup C^{\mathrm{inf}}_v, where \overline{X}= X \sqcup \{ d_X\} for each X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} and C^{\mathrm{inf}} = \{X\in C : |X|=\infty\}. We define a choice function \widetilde{\mathfrak E}\colon \overline{C}^{\text{fin}} \to \overline{E}^1 for (\overline{E}, \overline{C}) by

Let \overline{\mathcal B} := \overline{\mathcal B}_{\widetilde{\mathfrak E}} (\overline{E}, \overline{C}) be the linear basis of \mathcal L _K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C}) associated to the choice function \widetilde{\mathfrak E}, see Theorem 4.6. The elements of \overline{\mathcal B} are of the form \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g, where S\in D_g^{\overline{L}} is \widetilde{\mathfrak E}-reduced relatively to g_{\overline{L}}, and g\in \mathbb F _{\overline{C}}. Note that the edges d_X are terminal, in the sense that any path \gamma \in \mathbb F_{\overline{C}} such that s(\gamma )\in E^0 and ending in d_X for some X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}} cannot be properly extended to a path in \mathbb F_{\overline{C}} .

Set \overline{\mathcal Q}:= \overline{\varphi} (\mathcal Q) \subset p\mathcal L_K^{\mathrm{ab}} (\overline{E}, \overline{C}) p. By the previous observation, any basis element \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g \in \overline{\mathcal B}\cap p\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C})p satisfies that g\in \mathbb F_{C}, that is, g cannot contain any edge of the form d_X, for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}. It follows that a basis of \overline{\mathcal Q} is given by all the elements \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g \in \overline{\mathcal B} such that S contains some path of the form hd_X, for some h\in \mathbb F_{C} and some X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}, and g\in \mathbb F_{C}. Note that these paths hd_X are necessarily maximal in S, since they cannot be properly extended. We denote this basis of \overline{\mathcal Q} by \mathcal B (\overline{\mathcal Q})

In order to complete the proof, we have to check that \overline{\varphi} (\mathcal B (\mathcal Q)) = \mathcal B (\overline{\mathcal Q}). Suppose first that \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g\in \mathcal B (\mathcal Q). Then T\in \mathcal X_0, F= \bigsqcup_{i=1}^r \gamma^0_i(\gamma^1_i X_i) is a non-empty blocking family for T, in the sense of Definition 6.4, g_0\in T, and all non-F-blocked maximal elements of T, except possibly g_0, are \mathfrak E-reduced. Now observe that \overline{\varphi} (\mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g) = \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g, where

On the other hand, since |\overline{X}| \ge 2 for all \overline{X}\in \overline{C}^{\text{fin}}, we have g_{\overline{L}} = g_0 for all g\in \mathbb F_{C}, so that g_{\overline{L}} \in S. Since

and \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F) is \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_0, it follows that S is \widetilde{\mathfrak E}-reduced relatively to g_{\overline{L}}= g_0. Moreover r\ge 1 because F is non-empty, so we conclude that \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g\in \mathcal B (\overline{\mathcal Q}).

Conversely, suppose that \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g \in \mathcal B (\overline{\mathcal Q}). We can write \mathrm{max} (S) = M_1 \sqcup M_2, where M_1 are the maximal elements of S which end in E^1 and M_2 are the maximal elements of S which end in d_X for some X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}. We can write

where \gamma_i\in \mathbb F_{C} and X_i\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}, for i=1,\dots ,r.

Set S' := S\setminus M_2, and note that S'\in \mathcal X (= \mathcal X (E)), because no path in S' involves the edges d_X, for X\in C^{\mathrm{fin}}. Now let

Then T\in \mathcal X_0, and T\subseteq S'\subseteq S. We now will define a suitable blocking family F for T. Take an element \gamma_i d_{X_i}\in M_2. We can write \gamma_i = \gamma_i^0 \gamma_i^1 where \gamma^0_i is a maximal prefix of \gamma_i with the property \gamma^0_i\in T. Note that \gamma_i^1 might be trivial. Define

We claim that F is a blocking family for T. The only thing we need to check for this is that F\cap T= \emptyset. Suppose that \gamma_i^0\gamma_i^1 x\in T for some x\in X_i. If \gamma_i^1 is non-trivial, this cannot happen, so we may assume that \gamma_i^1 is trivial. In this case, \gamma _i x \in S because T\subseteq S, and also \gamma_i d_{X_i}\in S, with x,d_{X_i} \in \overline{X}_i, which is impossible because S is \overline{C}-compatible. Hence we obtain that F is a blocking family for T. Moreover g_0 = g_{\overline{L}} \in S' and thus g_0\in T by the definition of T.

We now check that \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F) = M_1. By construction we have M_1\subseteq \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F). Suppose that \gamma \in \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F). In particular, \gamma \in \mathrm{max} (T), and since T\subseteq S, we can extend \gamma to a maximal element h of S. If h\in M_1, then h\in T and thus \gamma = h\in M_1 by maximality of \gamma in T. If h\in M_2 then \gamma \le_p \gamma_i^0 \gamma_i^1 d_{X_i} for some i\in \{ 1,\dots, r\}. But since \gamma\in \mathrm{max} (T), it follows that \gamma = \gamma _i^0, which implies that \gamma \in \text{B-max} (T\setminus F), in contradiction with our assumption. We have therefore shown that \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F) = M_1. Since S is \widetilde{\mathfrak E}-reduced relatively to g_0, it follows that \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F) is \mathfrak E-reduced relatively to g_0. It follows that \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g \in \mathcal B (\mathcal Q).

Finally we show that \overline{\varphi} (\mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g)= \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g. By the first part of the proof we have

where \mathrm{max} (S'') = \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F) \bigsqcup \{ \gamma_i d_{X_i}: i=1\dots , r\} and since \text{NB-max} (T\setminus F) = M_1, we get \mathrm{max} (S'') = M_1\sqcup M_2 = \mathrm{max} (S), which shows that S= S''. Hence \overline{\varphi} (\mathbf{e} (T\setminus F)\rtimes g)= \mathbf{e} (S)\rtimes g, as desired. This completes the proof.

The proof is an adaptation of the proof of [ABC25, Theorem 5.7]. The map \varphi \colon \mathfrak U' \to \mathfrak U_L is defined by sending Z'\in \mathfrak U' to Z:=Z'\setminus S, where S is the subset of Z' of those paths \gamma such that \gamma ends in an inverse edge or in an edge e such that \{e\}\in C, and \gamma cannot be extended to a path \lambda \in Z' such that \lambda ends in an edge e\in E^1 such that e\in X\in C with |X| \ge 2.

The inverse of \varphi is the map \psi \colon \mathfrak U _L \to \mathfrak U ' given by

where \text{NC}(g) is the set of all paths gw\in \mathbb F_{C} such that w=w_1\cdots w_r, for some r\ge 1, each w_i is an inverse edge or an edge such that \{w_i\}\in C, and gw_1\notin Z.

With these definitions at hand, the proof follows the steps of the one of [ABC25, Theorem 5.7].

This follows from Theorem 7.7, [ABC25, Proposition 6.8] and [ABC25, Theorem 6.20].

We first check that the inverse is well-defined, that is, for (Z',g,Z)\in \mathcal{G}_\mathrm{tight} (E,C), we have that (Z,g^{-1},Z')\in \mathcal{G}_\mathrm{tight} (E,C). By definition, Z\in \mathfrak F_L, (g^{-1})_L\in Z, and Z'= [g\cdot Z \cup g^\downarrow]_L. Hence we see that g_L\in Z'.

We claim that Z'\cup g^\downarrow = g\cdot Z. Indeed, it is clear that Z'\cup g^\downarrow = (g\cdot Z \cup g^\downarrow)_L \cup g^\downarrow is contained in g\cdot Z. Now let z\in Z. We can write g=x_1\cdots x_r x_{r+1}\cdots x_n, z= x_n^{-1}\cdots x_{r+1}^{-1}y_1\cdots y_m in reduced form, where m\ge 0 and y_1\ne x_r if m\ge 1. If m=0 then g\cdot z = x_1\cdots x_r \in g^\downarrow \subseteq [g\cdot Z \cup g^\downarrow]_L \cup g^\downarrow. If m\ge 1, then g\cdot z = x_1\cdots x_r y_1\cdots y_m, and since Z\in \mathfrak F_L, there exists y_{m+1},\dots ,y_{m+k}\in E^1\cup E^{-1}, with k\ge 0, such that

and it follows that x_1\cdots x_r y_1\cdots y_{m+k} \in (g\cdot Z)_L and thus that g\cdot z \in (g\cdot Z)_L, because (g\cdot Z)_L is a lower set. Therefore g\cdot z \in (g\cdot Z \cup g^\downarrow)_L \cup g^\downarrow also in this case.

We now check that the product is well-defined. Let (Z_1',g_1,Z_1), (Z_2',g_2,Z_2) be two triples such that Z_1= Z_2'. We know that (g_1^{-1})_L \in Z_1 and that (g_2)_L\in Z_2'= Z_1. Hence assuming that Z_1\in \mathfrak F_L(v), we get

so that s(g_2)= r(g_1). Hence g_1\cdot g_2 is at least in \mathfrak{F_{gr}} (E). Hence, to show that g_1\cdot g_2 belongs to \mathbb F_{C}, it suffices to show that g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1} belongs to \mathbb F_{C}, which in turn is equivalent to check that (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L \in \mathbb F_{C}.

We will check that (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L \in Z_2, which in particular implies that (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L \in \mathbb F_{C}. Write g_2 = x_1\cdots x_n and g_1 = y_1\cdots y_t x_r^{-1} \cdots x_1^{-1} in reduced form, with y_t\ne x_r, y_t\ne x_{r+1}^{-1}, 0\le r\le n, and x_i,y_j\in E^1\cup E^{-1}. We then have g_1\cdot g_2 = y_1\cdots y_t x_{r+1} \cdots x_n, and

We distinguish two cases:

1. (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L = x_n^{-1}\cdots x_{r+1}^{-1}y_t^{-1}\cdots y_i^{-1}, with i \le t.

2. (g_2^{-1} \cdot g_1^{-1})_L = x_n^{-1}\cdots x_j^{-1}, with j\ge r+1.

If (2) happens, then (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L \le_p (g_2^{-1})_L \in Z_2 and thus (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L\in Z_2. If (1) holds, then (g_1^{-1})_L = x_1\cdots x_r y_t^{-1}\cdots y_i^{-1} and since

we get

If (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L\in Z_2, we are done. Otherwise we have (g_2^{-1}\cdot g_1^{-1})_L\in (g_2^{-1})^\downarrow, which is impossible since x_{r}\ne y_t.

Now we check that [(g_1\cdot g_2)\cdot Z_2 \cup (g_1\cdot g_2)^\downarrow ]_L = Z_1'. Indeed we have

Hence Z_1'= [g_1\cdot Z_1 \cup g_1^\downarrow]_L = [(g_1\cdot g_2) \cdot Z_2 \cup (g_1\cdot g_2)^\downarrow \cup g_1^\downarrow]_L, and it suffices to show that (g_1)_L \subseteq (g_1\cdot g_2) \cdot Z_2 \cup (g_1\cdot g_2)^\downarrow. Suppose first that (g_1)_L= y_1\cdots y_l for some l\le t. Then we have

Assume now that (g_1)_L = y_1\cdots y_t x_r^{-1}\cdots x_s^{-1} for some s\le r. Then x_n^{-1} \cdots x_{r+1}^{-1}x_r^{-1}\cdots x_s^{-1} = (g_2^{-1})_L, and hence

Hence (g_1)_L\in (g_1\cdot g_2)\cdot Z_2 in this case.

Finally, it is easily seen that this structure agrees with the groupoid structure of \mathfrak T_L\rtimes \mathbb F, which by Theorem 7.9 is isomorphic to \mathcal G_\mathrm{tight} (E,C). This concludes the proof.

(1) follows from [ADN22, Proposition 2.3]. We give a direct proof of (2) here. First note that A_K(\mathcal{G}) 1_x A_K(\mathcal{G}) is linearly spanned by the characteristic functions 1_\gamma, where \gamma \in \mathcal G _y^z, for y,z in the orbit r(\mathcal G_x) of x in X.

Given such \gamma \in \mathcal G _y^z there are unique \lambda_1,\lambda_2\in \Lambda_x such that r(\lambda_1)= y and r(\lambda_2)= z. Then the element 1_\gamma is sent to the matrix whose only non-zero component is in the (\lambda_2,\lambda_1) spot, and this component is \lambda_2^{-1}\gamma \lambda_1\in \mathcal G_x^x. It is now straightforward to show that this assignment defines an isomorphism between A_K(\mathcal{G}) 1_x A_K(\mathcal{G}) and M_{\Lambda_x} (K\mathcal G _x^x).

As mentioned above, F_Z is a subgroup of \mathbb F. Observe that \gamma \in \mathbb F_{C} (v) for all \gamma \in F_Z^*. If \alpha is a non-trivial element of F_Z, then we can uniquely write \alpha = \beta \gamma \beta^{-1}, where \gamma = \gamma _1 \cdots \gamma_r is a closed path with \gamma _r \ne \gamma_1 ^{-1}. Since \alpha \cdot \alpha = \beta \gamma \gamma \beta^{-1} \in \mathbb F_{C}, we see that \gamma is a cycle. Clearly \gamma \in F_{\theta_{\beta^{-1}}(Z)}.

By [Steinberg2019, Theorem 4.10], \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C) \cong A_K (\mathcal{G}_\mathrm{tight} (E,C)) is semiprime if K\mathcal{G}_x^x is semiprime for each x\in \mathcal{G}^{(0)}. Since in our case \mathcal{G}_x^x is always a free group, the result follows.

Suppose that Z is an isolated point in \Omega (E,C) = \mathfrak T _L. Then by Theorem 7.7, Z is an element in \mathfrak F_L with no finite exits. Moreover, there is an open set of the form V:=\mathcal Z_L (T\setminus F) \cap \mathfrak T_L, where T\in \mathcal X_L (that is, T is a Leavitt (E,C)-tree), and F a finite subset of \mathcal N ^{\mathrm{inf}}_L (T), such that V= \{Z\}. But if T admits an exit, then we can build at least two different elements Z_1,Z_2\in \mathcal Z_L (T\setminus F), which then can be extended to two different elements Z_1',Z_2'\in \mathcal Z_L (T\setminus F) \cap \mathfrak T _L, and we get a contradiction. It follows that T has no exits, and then again by Theorem 7.7, T\in \Omega (E,C). Moreover F=\emptyset, because T has no infinite exits. It follows that Z=T is a Leavitt (E,C)-tree without exits.

Conversely, if T is a Leavitt (E,C)-tree without exits, then T\in \Omega (E,C) and \mathcal Z_L (T) = \{T\}, and so T is an isolated point in \Omega (E,C).

The last statement follows from Lemma 8.3.

If some of the edges of g' is positively oriented, then we would obtain an exit of T, because |X|\ge 2 for all X\in C. Hence all edges of g' are inverse edges. Let e^{-1} be one of these edges, and suppose that e\in X\in C_{s(e)}. We then have gg''e^{-1} \le_p h for some initial segment g'' of g'. If there is Y\in C_{s(e)} such that X\ne Y, then choosing y\in Y, we obtain an exit gg''e^{-1}y of T, which is a contradiction. Hence |C_{s(e)}| = 1.

We now show that the isotropy group at T is trivial. Suppose, by way of contradiction that \alpha \in F_{T} is a non-trivial element in the isotropy group of T. By Lemma 8.3, we have \alpha = \beta \gamma \beta^{-1}, where \gamma is a cycle. Moreover \alpha ^n = \beta \gamma^n \beta^{-1} is also an element in F_{T} for all n\in \mathbb Z, by Lemma 8.3. Replacing \alpha with \alpha^{-1} if needed, we may assume that \gamma contains an edge e\in E^1. In particular, \beta \gamma^{n-1} \gamma _L = \beta \gamma^{n-1} \gamma_0 \le _p (\alpha^n)_L for all n>0, and thus the lengths of the paths (\alpha^n)_L are unbounded. Since (\alpha^n)_L\in T for all n, and T is a finite tree, this is impossible, and thus we get a contradiction. Hence F_T is trivial, and so T\in \Omega^{\mathrm{iso}}_0.

The first part follows from Theorem 8.6 and Proposition 8.8. The second part follows easily from the multiplication rules in the groupoid \mathcal{G}_\mathrm{tight} (E,C) given in Section ?.

Obviously, the elements \theta_{\alpha} (T), where \alpha^{-1}\in T, belong to the orbit of T. By Lemma 8.9, if \gamma \in \mathbb F_{C} and \gamma_L = \gamma_0\in T, then \gamma \in T. Hence the only elements in the orbit of T are the ones described in the statement. It is also clear from Lemma 8.9 that r(\gamma) is a sink of E for each \gamma\in \mathrm{max} (T).

First observe that \mathbf{ecb} (T)= \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F) belongs to the ideal \mathcal Q, because \mathcal N (T) is non-empty and finite.

Let (\overline{E},\overline{C}) be the separated graph associated to (E,C). Any T\in \mathcal X_0 can be considered also as a \overline{C}-compatible tree in (\overline{E},\overline{C}). Moreover T\in \overline{\mathcal X}_L, that is, T belongs to the set \mathcal X_L(\overline{E},\overline{C}), so the concept of an exit has been defined for T with respect to (\overline{E},\overline{C}). By the isomorphism \mathcal C^\mathrm{ab} _K(E,C)\cong p\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C})p, the idempotent \mathbf{ecb} (T) corresponds to \mathbf{e} (T'), for the Leavitt (\overline{E},\overline{C})-tree T', where

with F= \sqcup _{i=1}^r \gamma_0^i(\gamma_1^iX_i) the maximum blocking family for T. It follows that T' has no exits in (\overline{E},\overline{C}), so that T' is an isolated point in \Omega (\overline{E},\overline{C}) by Proposition 8.8.

Since |\overline{X}| \ge 2 for all \overline{X}\in \overline{C}, it follows from Lemma 8.9 that \Omega^{\text{iso}} (\overline{E},\overline{C}) = \Omega^{\text{iso}}_0 (\overline{E},\overline{C}), hence T'\in \Omega^{\text{iso}}_0 (\overline{E},\overline{C}) and \mathbf{e} (T')\in \mathrm{soc} (\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C})) by Theorem 8.10.

Hence we get

and thus \mathbf{ecb} (T) \in \mathrm{soc} (\mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C))\cap \mathcal Q, as claimed.

Finally, suppose that e is a minimal idempotent in \mathcal Q.

Let \overline{\varphi}\colon \mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C) \to p\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} ({E},\overline{C})p be the isomorphism from Theorem 5.5, and set \overline{\mathcal Q} = \overline{\varphi} (\mathcal Q). Then \overline{\varphi} (e) is a minimal idempotent in the ideal p\, \mathrm{soc} (\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C})) p\cap \overline{\mathcal Q} of p \mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C}) p. Now observe that

where \delta (T) is the number of elements in the orbit of T which belong to \overline{\mathcal X}_L(v), for some v\in E^0. Indeed a system of matrix units for the component M_{\delta(T)}(K) is given by the elements e_{\alpha,\beta} as in Theorem 8.10, where \alpha,\beta \in \mathbb F_{C}(v) for some v\in E^0. It follows that there exists some T'\in \overline{\Omega}^{\text{iso}}_0 such that T'\in \overline{\mathcal X}_L (v) for some v\in E^0 and \overline{\varphi} (e)\sim \mathbf{e} (T') within p\, \mathrm{soc} (\mathcal L_K^\mathrm{ab} (\overline{E},\overline{C}))p. Now let

which is a tree in \mathcal X(v) and set T= (T'')_0 \in \mathcal X_0(v). Then \mathcal N (T) is finite because T' has no exits with respect to (\overline{E},\overline{C}), and \overline{\varphi} (\mathbf{ecb} (T)) = \mathbf{e} (T'). It follows that e\sim \mathbf{ecb}(T) within \mathrm{soc} (\mathcal C_K^\mathrm{ab} (E,C)). In particular, \mathbf{ecb} (T) is a minimal idempotent in \mathcal Q.

It remains to check that \mathcal N (T) is non-empty. Set f := \mathbf{ecb} (T)= \mathbf{e} (T\setminus F), where F is the maximum blocking family for T. We have to show that F\ne \emptyset. Since f\in \mathcal Q, it follows from Theorem 6.11 that we can write

where \lambda_i\in K^\times and F_i is a non-empty blocking family for T_i\in \mathcal X_0, i=1,\dots , r. We may assume that f\mathbf{e} (T_i\setminus F_i)\ne 0 for all i. With this assumption, we then have f = f\mathbf{e}(T_i\setminus F_i) by the minimality of f. Hence multiplying the relation (?) by \prod_{i=1} ^r \mathbf{e} (T_i\setminus F_i) we get

Hence f= \prod_{i=1} ^r \mathbf{e} (T_i\setminus F_i) = \mathbf{e} \Big( (\cup_{i=1}^r T_i)\setminus (\cup_{i=1}^r F_i)\Big) by Lemma 6.6, and thus T= \cup_{i=1}^r T_i, F= \cup_{i=1}^r F_i \ne \emptyset, by Lemma 6.9. Hence F\ne \emptyset, and the proof is complete.

We have to show that B_iB_j\subseteq B_{i+j} for all i,j\in \mathbb Z^+. Suppose that T_1\setminus F_1 has i+1 exits and T_2\setminus F_2 has j+1 exits, and that T_1\cap F_2 = T_2\cap F_1= \emptyset. We have to show that (T_1\cup T_2)\setminus (F_1\cup F_2) has \le i+j+1 exits. If T_1= T_2, then

because j\ge 0. If T_1\nsubseteq T_2, take \gamma \in T_1\setminus T_2. Then \gamma = \gamma _1 z \gamma_2, where \gamma _1 \in T_2, \gamma _1 z\notin T_2 and z\in X\cup X^{-1}, so that \gamma _1 z \in \mathcal N (T_2) and \gamma _1 z \notin F_2 since T_1\cap F_2 = \emptyset. Now observe that

hence |\mathcal N (T_1\cup T_2)\setminus (F_1\cup F_2)| \le (i+1) + (j+1-1) = i+j+1, and thus (T_1\cup T_2)\setminus (F_1\cup F_2) has \le i+j+1 exits. By symmetry, the same inequality holds if T_2\nsubseteq T_1.