Finite and semisimple Boolean inverse monoids

We prove that a an atom implies that b is an atom. The result then follows by symmetry. Let \mathbf{d}(b) \stackrel{x}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{d}(a). Suppose that c \leq b. Then a\mathbf{r}(x\mathbf{d}(c)) \leq a. But a is an atom. It follows that a\mathbf{r}(x\mathbf{d}(c)) = 0 or a\mathbf{r}(x\mathbf{d}(c)) = a. If the former, then \mathbf{r}(x\mathbf{d}(x)) = 0 and so x\mathbf{d}(c) = 0 which yields \mathbf{d}(c) = 0 and so c = 0. If the latter then \mathbf{d}(a) = \mathbf{r}(x\mathbf{d}(c)). It follows that \mathbf{d}(c) = \mathbf{d}(x) = \mathbf{d}(b). Thus c = b. We have accordingly proved that b is an atom.

By symmetry, it is enough to prove the equivalence of (1) and (2). Clearly, (1) implies (2). We prove that (2) implies (1). Since a \sim b we have that a^{-1}b is an idempotent. Hence aa^{-1}bb^{-1} \leq ab^{-1}. But ab^{-1} = a(a^{-1}ab^{-1}b)b^{-1} = 0. Thus aa^{-1}bb^{-1} \leq ab^{-1} = 0. We have proved that \mathbf{r}(a) \perp \mathbf{r}(b) and so a \perp b.

(1) Put a' = abb^{-1} and b' = a^{-1}ab. It is now routine to check that \mathbf{d}(a') = \mathbf{r}(b) and that ab = a' \cdot b'.

(2) We are given that a^{-1}a \neq bb^{-1}. Suppose that abb^{-1} = a and a^{-1}ab = b. Then a^{-1}abb^{-1} = a^{-1}a and so a^{-1}a \leq bb^{-1} and a^{-1}abb^{-1} = bb^{-1} and so bb^{-1} \leq a^{-1}a. From which it follows that a^{-1}a = bb^{-1} which is a contradiction. It follows that either abb^{-1} \neq a or a^{-1}ab \neq b. The result is now clear since abb^{-1} \leq a and a^{-1}ab \leq b.

(3) We have that x = a(b\mathbf{d}(x)). Thus by (1) above, we have that x = a' \cdot b' where a' \leq a and b' \leq b\mathbf{d}(x) \leq b.

(4) The fact that (a^{\downarrow})(b^{\downarrow}) \subseteq (ab)^{\downarrow} is immediate from the fact that inverse semigroups are partially ordered with respect to the natural partial order. The reverse inclusion follows by (3).

The set of all local bisections of G is a pseudogroup [LL, Proposition 2.1]. The product of two finite local bisections is a finite local bisection. Observe that the inverse of A is A^{-1}. It follows that \mathsf{K}_{{\rm \tiny fin}} (G) is a distributive inverse semigroup. The finite local bisections in the set of identities of G are the finite subsets of the set of identities. Thus the poset of idempotents of \mathsf{K}_{{\rm \tiny fin}} (G) is order-isomorphic to the set of all finite subsets of the set of identities of G. Thus \mathsf{K}_{{\rm \tiny fin}} (G) is a Boolean inverse semigroup.

(1) Straightforward.

(2) Observe that (x \setminus y) \leq x and that \mathbf{d}(x \setminus y) = \mathbf{d}(x) \setminus \mathbf{d}(y). It follows that x \sim (x \setminus y) and so, by Lemma 2.7, we have that y \perp (x \setminus y). Clearly, y \vee (x \setminus y) \leq x. But \mathbf{d}(y \vee (x \setminus y)) = \mathbf{d}(y) \vee (\mathbf{d}(x) \setminus \mathbf{d}(y)) = \mathbf{d}(x). It follows that x = y \vee (x \setminus y) \leq x.

(3) Observe that \mathbf{d}(a) \leq \mathbf{d}(x), \mathbf{d}(a) \perp \mathbf{d}(y) and \mathbf{d}(x) = \mathbf{d}(y) \vee \mathbf{d}(a). Thus in the Boolean algebra, we have that \mathbf{d}(a) \leq \mathbf{d}(x) \setminus \mathbf{d}(y). It follows that a \leq (x \setminus y).

(4) This follows by part (3) above.

Let x \sim y so that x \vee y is defined. By Lemma 2.4, the meet x \wedge y exists and \mathbf{d}(x \wedge y) = \mathbf{d}(x)\mathbf{d}(y) and \mathbf{r}(x \wedge y) = \mathbf{r}(x)\mathbf{r}(y). Since x \wedge y \leq x we can construct the element x \setminus (x \wedge y). Thus x \vee y = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \setminus (x \wedge y)) \vee y. But x \wedge y \leq y. It follows that x \vee y = (x \setminus (x \wedge y)) \vee y. Clearly, y \sim (x \setminus (x \wedge y)) and \mathbf{d}(y) \perp \mathbf{d}(x \setminus (x \wedge y)). It follows by Lemma 2.7 that y \perp x \setminus (x \wedge y).

The set \{s_{1}, \ldots, s_{m}\} is a compatible one. Thus all the joins s_{1}, s_{1} \vee s_{2}, s_{1} \vee s_{2} \vee s_{3}, … exist. In addition, by Lemma 2.4, all the meets s_{1} \wedge s_{2}, (s_{1} \vee s_{2}) \wedge s_{3}, (s_{1} \vee s_{2} \vee s_{3}) \wedge s_{4}, … exist. Define t_{1} = s_{1} and

for each i = 2, \ldots, m. Observe that \{t_{1}, \ldots, t_{m}\} is also a compatible subset. Now, \mathbf{d}(t_{1}) = \mathbf{d}(s_{1}) and for i \geq 2 we have that \mathbf{d}(t_{i}) = \mathbf{d}(s_{i}) \setminus \mathbf{d}((s_{1} \vee \ldots \vee s_{i-1}) \wedge s_{i}). In particular, \mathbf{d}(t_{i}) \leq \mathbf{d}(s_{i}). Using Lemma 2.7, we have that \mathbf{d}(t_{i}) \perp \mathbf{d}(s_{1}), \ldots, \mathbf{d}(s_{i-1}). It is therefore clear that t_{1} is orthogonal to t_{i} when i \geq 2 and that t_{i} is orthogonal to t_{j} when i < j. Observe that s_{i} = t_{i} \oplus ((s_{1} \vee \ldots \vee s_{i-1}) \wedge s_{i}) Clearly, \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} t_{i} \leq s. Now observe that t_{1} = s_{1}, t_{1} \vee t_{2} = s_{1} \vee s_{2} by Lemma 3.6. Assume that t_{1} \vee \ldots \vee t_{i-1} = s_{1} \vee \ldots \vee s_{i-1}. Then

which is equal to s_{1} \vee \ldots \vee s_{i}.

It is enough to prove that (2)\Rightarrow(1). We prove first that S has all binary compatible joins. Let a,b \in S such that a \sim b. Then, by Lemma 2.4, we know that a \wedge b exists. The idempotent \mathbf{d}(a) \setminus \mathbf{d}(a)\mathbf{d}(b) is defined since \mathsf{E}(S) is a Boolean algebra. Define a' = a(\mathbf{d}(a) \setminus \mathbf{d}(a)\mathbf{d}(b)). Then a' and a \wedge b are both less than a and compatible. In addition, \mathbf{d}(a') \perp \mathbf{d}(a \wedge b). Thus by Lemma 2.7, we have that a' \oplus (a \wedge b) is defined. It is clear that a = a' \oplus (a \wedge b). Similarly, b ' = b(\mathbf{d}(b) \setminus \mathbf{d}(a) \mathbf{d}(b)) is less than or equal to b and b = b' \oplus (a \wedge b). The elements a', (a \wedge b), b' are pairwise othogonal. We have that a \vee b = (a' \oplus (a \wedge b)) \oplus b'. Thus a \vee b is defined. Now let c be any element. We prove that c(a \vee b) = ca \vee cb. We use Lemma 2.6, so that if a \perp b then ca \perp cb and c(a \oplus b) = ca \oplus cb by assumption. Observe that c((a' \oplus (a \wedge b)) \oplus b') = (ca' \oplus c(a \wedge b)) \oplus cb', by assumption. But c(a \wedge b) = ca \wedge cb by Lemma 2.5. Thus ca' = ca (\mathbf{d}(ca) \setminus \mathbf{d}(ca)\mathbf{d}(cb)) and cb' = cb(\mathbf{d}(cb) \setminus \mathbf{d}(ca) \mathbf{d}(cb)) where we use the fact that multiplication distributes over orthogonal joins. The result now follows.

Clearly, A \subseteq I. We check first that I is an additive ideal. Let a \in I and s \in S. Then a = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i} where a_{i} \in SAS. We have that sa = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} sa_{i}. But, clearly, sa_{i} \in SAS. It follows that sa \in I. A symmetric argument shows that sa \in I. We have therefore proved that I is a (semigroup) ideal. Let \{a_{1}, \ldots, a_{m}\} be a compatible subset of I. Then, each a_{i} is a join of elements of SAS. Thus \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i} is a join of elements of SAS. It follows that I is an additive ideal. Now let J be any additive ideal containing A. Then since A \subseteq J we have that SAS \subseteq J. But J is additive and so (SAS)^{\vee} \subseteq J. We have therefore proved that I \subseteq J.

Suppose that f \preceq e and e \in I, an additive ideal. Then there is a pencil X from f to e. Thus e = \bigvee_{x \in X} \mathbf{d}(x) and \mathbf{r}(x) \leq f for 1 \leq i \leq m. Now f \in I implies that \mathbf{r}(x) \in I since I is an order-ideal. It follows that \mathbf{d}(x) \in I since I is a semigroup ideal. But I is closed under compatible joins and so f \in I, as required.

We now prove the converse. The smallest additive ideal containing e is (SeS)^{\vee} by Lemma 3.9. By assumption f \in (SeS)^{\vee}. Thus f = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} e_{i} where e_{1}, \ldots , e_{m} \in SeS. But it is easy to prove that e_{i} = x_{i}^{-1}x_{i}, where x_{i} \in eSe_{i} Thus x_{i}x_{i}^{-1} \leq e. It follows that X = \{x_{1},\ldots,x_{m}\} is a pencil from f to e and so f \preceq e.

Suppose first that \theta is idempotent-separating. Let \theta (a) = 0. Then \theta (a^{-1}a) = 0. It follows by assumption that a^{-1}a = 0 and so a = 0 which implies that the \theta is trivial. Conversely, suppose that the kernel of \theta is trivial. We prove that \theta is idempotent-separating. Let \theta (e) = \theta (f) where e and f are idempotents. Then \theta (e) = \theta (e \wedge f) = \theta (f) since \theta restricts to a morphism of Boolean algebras. But then \theta (e \setminus (e \wedge f)) = 0 implies that e = e \wedge f. Similarly f = e \wedge f. Thus e = f, as required.

Let I be an additive ideal of S and let \varepsilon_{I} be its associated additive congruence on S. Denote by \nu \colon S \rightarrow S/\varepsilon_{I} is associated natural morphism. We prove that \nu is weakly meet preserving. Denote the \varepsilon_{I}-class containing s by [s]. Let [t] \leq [a], [b]. Then [t] = [at^{-1}t] and [t] = [bt^{-1}t]. By definition there exist u,v \in S such that u \leq t,at^{-1}t and v \leq t,bt^{-1}t such that t \setminus u, at^{-1}t \setminus u, t \setminus v, bt^{-1}t \setminus v \in I. Now [t] = [u] = [at^{-1}t] and [t] = [v] = [bt^{-1}t]. Since u,v \leq t it follows that u \sim v and so u \wedge v exists by Lemma 2.4. Clearly, u \wedge v \leq a,b. In addition [t] = [u \wedge v]. We have proved that \nu is weakly-meet-preserving.

Conversely, let \theta \colon S \rightarrow T be weakly-meet-preserving. We prove that it is determined by its kernel I. By part (2) of Proposition 3.17, it is enough to prove that if \theta (a) = \theta (b) then we can find c \leq a,b such that a \setminus c, b \setminus c \in I. Put t = \theta (a) = \theta (b). Then there exists c \leq a,b such that t \leq \theta (c). It is easy to check that \theta (a \setminus c) = 0 = \theta (b \setminus c). We have therefore proved that a \setminus c, b \setminus c \in I and so (a,b) \in \varepsilon_{I}.

Observe first that \varepsilon \subseteq \mbox{\rm cong}(\theta); suppose that (a,b) \in \varepsilon. Then there exists c \leq a,b such that a \setminus c, b \setminus c \in I. We have that, \theta (a) = \theta ((a\setminus c) \vee c) = \theta (c) and, by symmetry, \theta (b) = \theta (c). It follows that (a,b) \in \mbox{\rm cong}(\theta). The function \phi \colon S/\varepsilon \rightarrow T defined by \phi ([a]) = \theta (a), where [a] denotes the \varepsilon-class of a, is a well-defined homomorphism. We prove that \phi is idempotent-separating. Let \phi ([e]) = \phi ([f]) where e and f are idempotents. Then \theta (e) = \theta (f). Thus \theta (e \setminus ef) = 0 and \theta (f \setminus ef) = 0. We have shown that (e,f) \in \varepsilon and so [e] = [f].

Let S be a 0-simplifying fundamental Boolean inverse semigroup. Let \sigma be any Boolean congruence on S. If \sigma (0) = S then \sigma is the universal congruence. If \sigma \neq S then, since S is 0-simplifying, \sigma (0) = \{0\}. Thus by Lemma 3.14, the congruence \sigma is idempotent-separating. It follows that \sigma \subseteq \mu. But S is fundamental and so \mu is the equality congruence. It follows that \sigma is equality. We have proved that S is additive congruence-free. Conversely, suppose now that S is additive congruence-free. Let I be a \vee-ideal such that I \neq \{0\}. Then by Proposition 3.17, we have that \varepsilon_{I} is an additive congruence with kernel I. It follows that \varepsilon_{I} is the universal congruence and so I = S. We have proved that S is 0-simplifying. By Lemma 3.16, the congruence \mu is Boolean. Thus by assumption \mu is equality and so S is fundamental.

We first apply the structure theorem for connected groupoids Lemma 2.1. We define an isomorphism

Let A \in \mathsf{K}_{{\rm \tiny fin}} (\mathscr{G}). If A is the empty set then we map it to the |X| \times |X| zero matrix. If A is non-empty then define \theta (A) to be the |X| \times |X| matrix with entries from G^{0} where (x,g,y) \in A if and only if the (x,y)-element of \theta (A) is g; all other entries are zero. Clearly, \theta (A) has only a finite number of non-zero entries. Because A is a local bisection, each row of \theta (A) contains at most one non-zero element; likewise, each column of \theta (A) contains at most one non-zero element. This defines \theta which is clearly an injection. We prove that it is a bijection. Let A' \in M_{|X|}(G^{0}). If it is the zero matrix then we define A to be the empty set. Then we define A as follows: (x,g,y) \in A precisely when the (x,y)-element of \theta (A) is g. Because A' is a rook matrix, it follows that A is a finite local bisection. We have therefore proved that \theta is a bijection. It remains to show that it is a homomorphism. Let A,B \in \mathsf{K}_{{\rm \tiny fin}} (\mathscr{G}). Then it is routine to check that \theta (AB) = \theta (A)\theta (B).

Let a, b \in \mathsf{A}(S) such that \mathbf{d}(a) = \mathbf{r}(b). We prove that a \cdot b is an atom. Let x \leq a \cdot b. Then x = a' \cdot b' where a' \leq a and b' \leq b by Lemma 2.8. Now, a and b are atoms. Thus either x = a \cdot b or x = 0. It follows that a \cdot b is an atom as well.

If a = 0 then \theta (a) = \varnothing. If a \neq 0 then it is above at least one atom by Lemma 4.2 and so is non-empty. Let x,y \in \theta (a) such that \mathbf{d}(x) = \mathbf{d}(y). Since x,y \leq a we deduce that a = b by Lemma 2.2. Dually, if \mathbf{r}(x) = \mathbf{r}(y) then x = y.

By Lemma 4.2 and Lemma 4.3, the set \mathsf{A}(S) of atoms of S forms a groupoid. By Lemma 4.4, the function \theta is well-defined. We shall prove that \theta is an isomorphism. First, \theta is a homomorphism. Let x be an atom such that x \leq ab. Then x = a' \cdot b' where a' \leq a and b' \leq b by Lemma 2.8. It follows that a' and b' are atoms by Lemma 2.3. We have therefore proved that \theta (ab) \subseteq \theta (a)\theta (b). Conversely, let x \in \theta (a) and y \in \theta (b) such that the restricted product x \cdot y is defined. Then x \cdot y = xy \leq ab by Lemma 2.8. It remains to prove that \theta is a bijection. We show first that a = \bigvee \theta (a). Put b = \bigvee \theta (a). Then, clearly, b \leq a. Suppose that b \neq a. Then a \setminus b \neq 0. Thus a \setminus b is above an atom x by Lemma 4.2. But then x \leq a. It follows that x \leq b which is a contradiction. Thus a = \bigvee \theta (a). It follows that \theta is an injection. Now let A \in \mathsf{K}(\mathsf{A}(S)). Then A is a set of pairwise orthogonal elements. Put a = \bigvee A. Clearly, A \subseteq \theta (a). Let x be an atom such that x \leq a. Then x = \bigvee_{a \in A} (x \wedge a) by Lemma 3.3. It follows that x = a for some a \in A. We have therefore proved that \theta (a) = A.

(1) Let S be fundamental. Suppose that e \stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow} e where e is an atomic idempotent. Then a is an atom by Lemma 2.3 Let f be any idempotent. Then fa \leq a. It follows that fa = 0 or fa = a. Suppose that fa = 0. Then fe = 0 and so af = 0. Thus fa = af. Suppose now that fa = a. Then fe = e = fe and so af = a. It follows again that fa = af. We have therefore proved that a commutes with every idempotent. and so, by assumption, a = e. Conversely, suppose that e \stackrel{a}{\longrightarrow} e, where e is an atomic idempotent, implies that a = e. Let a commute with all idempotents. We prove that S is fundamental by showing that a is an idempotent. We can write a = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i} where the a_{i} are atoms and by Proposition 3.8 we can assume this is an orthogonal join. We prove that \mathbf{d}(a_{i}) = \mathbf{r}(a_{i}) for all i from which the result follows. Since \mathbf{r}(a_{j})a = a \mathbf{r}(a_{j}) we have that a_{j} = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m}a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}). But a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) \leq a_{j}. Thus either a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) = 0 or a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) = a_{j}. But a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) \leq a_{i}. It follows that a_{i}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) = a_{i} and so a_{i} = a_{j}. Thus a_{j}\mathbf{r}(a_{j}) = a_{j}. Hence \mathbf{d}(a_{j}) \leq \mathbf{r}(a_{j}) and so \mathbf{d}(a_{j}) = \mathbf{r}(a_{j}). By assumption a_{j} is an idempotent. It follows that a is an idempotent.

(2) Let S be a finite Boolean inverse monoid. Suppose first that it is 0-simplifying and let e and f be any two atoms. Then, by assumption and Lemma 3.11, we have that e \equiv f. In particular, f \preceq e. There is therefore a pencil from f to e. But, since f and e are both atoms, it follows that f \, \mathscr{D} \, e. Thus all atomic idempotents are \mathscr{D}-related. Conversely, let S be a finite Boolean inverse monoid in which all its atomic idempotents are \mathscr{D}-related. Let e and f be any two non-zero idempotents of S. Since S is finite, the idempotent e is the join of all the atoms that lie beneath it, as is f. Let the atoms beneath e be e_{1}, \ldots, e_{n}. Then each e_{i} is \mathscr{D}-related to an atom beneath f. But this shows that e \preceq f. By symmetry, we deduce that e \equiv f.

Let S be a finite Boolean inverse monoid with groupoid of atoms G. Then S \cong \mathsf{K}(G) by Theorem 4.5. Let G_{1}, \ldots, G_{r} be the finite set of connected components of G. Then S \cong \mathsf{K}(G_{1}) \times \ldots \times \mathsf{K}(G_{r}) since the intersection of a local bisection with each connected component G_{i} is a local bisection of G_{i}. Each groupoid G_{i} is connnected. The result now follows by Proposition 3.23.

We shall prove that x^{-1}y = 0; the proof that xy^{-1} = 0 follows by symmetry. We have that

We know that a^{-1}b cannot be a restricted product. It follows by Lemma 2.8 that either a^{-1}b = a^{-1}b_{j}, for some j, or a^{-1}b = a_{i}^{-1}b, for some i. In both cases, it is immediate that x^{-1}y = 0.

Define the height of an element of X as follows: the minimal elements of X have height 0. When x is minimal (x \setminus \bigvee \tilde{x}) = x. The elements of X that cover elements of height n have height n+1. Consider the elements of X with height 1. Then for such an element x we will have elements of the form x \setminus (x_{1} \vee \ldots \vee x_{r}) where x_{1},\ldots, x_{r} are minimal. But

by part (3) of Lemma 3.4. We now use induction.

Put G = \mathcal{G}(S) to ease notation. Define \beta \colon S \rightarrow \mathsf{K}(G) by \beta (a) = a^{\downarrow} \cap G. Observe that if a = 0 then \beta (0) = \varnothing. It is immediate that \beta is an injective homomorphism by Lemma 2.8. We now prove that this map is universal to Boolean inverse semigroups. Let \alpha \colon S \rightarrow T be any homomorphism to a Boolean inverse semigroup T. We shall define a map \gamma \colon \mathsf{K}(G) \rightarrow T. Define \gamma (\varnothing) = 0. Let a \in S be nonzero and let \hat{a} = \{a_{1},\ldots , a_{m}\}. Observe that \{a \} \in \mathsf{K}(G). Define

which is clearly well-defined. We now extend \gamma. Let a, b \in A where A is a local bisection in G. Then \gamma (\{a\}) and \gamma (\{b\}) are orthogonal by Lemma 4.9. We may therefore define \gamma (A) = \bigvee_{a \in A} \gamma (\{a\}).

We have to prove that \gamma \beta = \alpha, that \gamma is a morphism of Boolean inverse semigroups and that \gamma is unique with these properties. We first prove that \gamma (\beta (a)) = \alpha (a). We therefore have to compute \gamma (a^{\downarrow}). By definition \gamma (a^{\downarrow}) = \bigvee_{x \leq a} \gamma (\{x\}). Let \hat{a} = \{a_{1},\ldots, a_{m}\}. Then \gamma (a^{\downarrow}) = \gamma (\{a\}) \vee \gamma (\{a_{1}\}) \vee \ldots \vee \gamma (\{a_{m}\}). Now, this equals \alpha (a) by Lemma 4.10. We prove that \gamma is a homomorphism. This follows from Lemma 2.8 and Lemma 3.5. It clearly maps binary joins to binary joins.

We need to prove \gamma is unique with the given properties. Let \gamma' \colon \mathsf{K}(G) \rightarrow T be a morphism that satisfies the properties. Let a be a non-zero element. By assumption, \gamma' (a^{\downarrow}) = \alpha (a). Let a_{1},\ldots, a_{m} < a be all the elements of S below a. Then \{a\} = \beta (a) \setminus \{a_{1},\ldots, a_{m}\} where both \beta (a) and \{a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}\} are local bisections. Then \gamma' (\{a\}) = \gamma' (\beta (a)) \setminus \gamma' (\{a_{1}, \ldots, a_{m} \}) = \alpha (a) \setminus \gamma' (\{a_{1}, \ldots, a_{m} \}) But \{a_{1},\ldots a_{m}\} = \beta (a_{1}) \cup \ldots \cup \beta (a_{m}), and the result now follows.

We prove (1) since the proof of (2) is similar. Suppose that \mathsf{B}(S) \cong \mathsf{B}(T). Then by Theorem 4.11, we have that \mathsf{B}(S) \cong \mathsf{K}(\mathcal{G}(S)) and \mathsf{B}(T) \cong \mathsf{K}(\mathcal{G}(T)). Thus \mathsf{K}(\mathcal{G}(S)) \cong \mathsf{K}(\mathcal{G(T)}). By Proposition 4.1, the groupoids \mathcal{G}(S) and \mathcal{G}(T) are isomorphic and so, in both cases, the groupoids S^{\cdot} and T^{\cdot} are isomorphic, as claimed. The proof of the converse is immediate.

(1)\Rightarrow(2). Let a be any non-zero element. Then the set a^{\downarrow} is finite. Either a is an atom or is strictly above a non-zero element b < a. Now repeat the above argument with b. Since the poset is finite we shall eventually end at an atom that is below a. The set a^{\downarrow} is finite and so there are atoms below a. Let a_{1},\ldots, a_{m} be all the atoms below a. These elements are pairwise compatible because they are all below the same element. We prove that a = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i}. Put b = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i}. Clearly, b \leq a. Suppose that b < a. Then a \setminus b is nonzero. Let a' \leq a \setminus b be an atom. Then a' = a_{i} for some i implying that a' \leq b. But b \perp (a \setminus b) and so we get a contradiction. It follows that b = a, and we have proved the result.

(1)\Rightarrow(2). Let a be a non-zero element. Suppose that a = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i} is a finite join of atoms. We prove that the set a^{\downarrow} is finite. Let b \leq a. Then b = a\mathbf{d}(b) = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} a_{i}\mathbf{d}(b). But a_{i}\mathbf{d}(b) = 0 or a_{i}\mathbf{d}(b) = a_{i} since a_{i} is an atom. It we omit all products where a_{i}\mathbf{d}(b) = 0 then we have proved that b is a join of some of the atoms in the set \{a_{1},\ldots, a_{m}\}. It follows that there are only a finite number of elements below a and so S is semisimple.

Let a and b be any two elements of the semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup S. Then a^{\downarrow} \cap b^{\downarrow} is a finite set of compatible elements and so its join exists. This join is precisely a \wedge b.

(1) Let S be a semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup. We use Proposition 5.6 which tells us that in Boolean inverse semigroups prime filters are the same as ultrafilters. We prove first that the ultrafilters of S are of the form a^{\uparrow} where a is an atom. Let a be an atom and suppose that a^{\uparrow} \subseteq A where A is any proper filter. Let b \in A. But A is a filter and so there exists c \in A such that c \leq a,b. But a is an atom. Thus c = a \leq b. It follows that a^{\uparrow} = A. We have therefore proved that a^{\uparrow} is an ultrafilter. Since any filter containing a must contain a^{\uparrow} as a subset, it follows that a^{\uparrow} is the only ultrafilter containing the atom a. Now, let A be an ultrafilter. Let b \in A be arbitrary. The element b is a join of atoms by Proposition 5.3 and so, since A is also a prime filter, A contains at least one atom, say a. Observe that A contains exactly one atom since if a' is any atom in A then there is c \leq a,a' where c \in A. It follows that c = a = a'. Clearly a^{\uparrow} \subseteq A, but we proved above that a^{\uparrow} is an ultrafilter so a^{\uparrow} = A. We have proved that there is a bijective correspondence between atoms of S and ultrafilters of S. Denote the set of atoms of S by \mathsf{A}(S). This is a groupoid under the restricted product. It is routine to check that the restricted product a \cdot b exists in \mathsf{A}(S) if and only if the product a^{\uparrow} \cdot b^{\uparrow} exists in \mathsf{G}(S); in addition, a^{\uparrow} \cdot b^{\uparrow} = (a \cdot b)^{\uparrow}. Thus \mathsf{A}(S) and \mathsf{G}(S) are isomorphic as groupoids.

(2) Let S be a semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup. By (1) above, observe that if a is an atom then V_{a} = \{a^{\uparrow}\}. Thus the topology on \mathsf{G}(S) is discrete. Conversely, let S be a Boolean inverse semigroup where the groupoid \mathsf{G}(S) is equipped with the discrete topology. We prove that S is semisimple. Let A be any compact-open local bisection. In a discrete space, the only compact sets are finite. Thus A is finite. By non-commutative Stone duality, \mathsf{KB}(\mathsf{G}(S)) \cong S. In \mathsf{KB}(\mathsf{G}(S)) the natural partial order is subset inclusion. Thus there can only be a finite number of elements below A. It follows that S is semisimple.

Let S be a semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup. By Corollary 5.8, we have that S \cong \mathsf{K}_{\rm {\tiny fin}}(G) where G is a discrete groupoid. Write G = \bigsqcup_{i \in I} G_{i} where the G_{i} are the connected components of G. Then S \cong \mathsf{K}_{\rm {\tiny fin}}(\bigsqcup_{i \in I} G_{i}). But \mathsf{K}_{\rm {\tiny fin}}(\bigsqcup_{i \in I} G_{i}) \cong \bigoplus_{i \in I} \mathsf{K}_{\rm {\tiny fin}}(G_{i}). The result now follows by Proposition 3.23.

Suppose that S contains at least one atomic idempotent e. We prove that every non-zero idempotent is a finite join of atoms from which it will follow that S is semisimple. Let f be any non-zero idempotent. Since S is 0-simplifying, we know that f \equiv e. In particular, f \preceq e. Thus there is a pencil X = \{x_{1}, \ldots, x_{n} \} from f to e. By definition, f = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} \mathbf{d}(x_{i}) and \mathbf{r}(x_{i}) \leq e. But e is an atom and so \mathbf{r}(x_{i}) = e. It follows that x_{i} is an atom and so \mathbf{d}(x_{i}) is an atom. We have therefore proved that f is a join of (some of the) atoms; we write f = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} e_{i} where the e_{i} are atoms. Let e \leq f be any atom. Then e = \bigvee_{i=1}^{m} (e_{i}e). Omit all the i such that e_{i}e = 0. Then e is a join of some of the atoms e_{1},\ldots, e_{m} and so must equal one of these atoms. It follows that there are a finite number of atoms below f. But each element of f^{\downarrow} is a join of a finite number of these atoms. It follows that the set f^{\downarrow} is finite.

Assume first that S is a semisimple inverse semigroup. If 0 \in A then A = 0^{\uparrow}. We may therefore assume in what follows that A is a proper filter. Let a \in A. The set a^{\downarrow} \cap A is non-empty and finite. This set must have a smallest element x_{a} since A is a filter. Clearly, x_{a}^{\uparrow} \subseteq A. Let b \in A. Then a \wedge b \in A. But a \wedge b \in a^{\downarrow} \cap A. Thus x_{a} \leq a \wedge b \leq b. We have therefore shown that A = x_{a}^{\uparrow}. Thus every filter is principal. Suppose that a covers a_{1},\ldots, a_{m}. Then the only element of U_{a;a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}} is a^{\uparrow}. Thus the topology is discrete. We now prove the converse. Suppose that \mathsf{G}_{u}(S) is a discrete groupoid. We shall prove that S is semisimple. Let A be a proper filter. Then there exists a_{1},\ldots, a_{m} \leq a in S such that \{A \} = U_{a;a_{1},\ldots,a_{m}}. But this set also contains a^{\downarrow}. Thus A = a^{\downarrow}. We have proved that every filter is principal. Let a \in S. We need to prove that the set a^{\downarrow} is finite. Observe that U_{a} is a compact set. But the topology on \mathsf{G}_{u}(S) is discrete. It follows that U_{a} is finite. But for each b \leq a we have that b^{\uparrow} \in U_{a}. Thus a^{\downarrow} is finite.

(1) We set up an order-isomorphism between the additive ideals of S and the additive ideals of M_{\omega}(S).

Let I be an additive ideal of S. Then I is an inverse subsemigroup of S and a Boolean inverse semigroup in its own right. We therefore have that M_{\omega}(I) \subseteq M_{\omega}(S). Using Proposition 3.21, it is easy to check that M_{\omega}(I) is an additive ideal of M_{\omega}(S).

To prove the other direction, we shall need the following. If A is a finite square matrix then A \oplus \mathbf{0} is the \omega \times \omega rook matrix with entries from A in the top left-hand side. Let P_{ij}(e) be the \omega \times \omega matrix which is zero everywhere except in the ith row and jth column which contains the idempotent e; this is a well-defined rook matrix. Let A be any \omega \times \omega rook matrix with s in the kth row and lth column. Then the \omega \times \omega rook matrix P_{pk}(\mathbf{r}(s))AP_{lq}(\mathbf{d}(s)) contains s in the pth row and qth column and zeros elsewhere.

Let \mathcal{I} \subseteq M_{\omega}(S) be an additive ideal of M_{\omega}(S). Let J be the set of all elements of S that appear in some element of \mathcal{I}. We prove first that J is an additive ideal of S. Let a \in \mathcal{I} and let s \in S. Then a occurs as the (i,j)-entry of some rook matrix A \in \mathcal{I}. Let B be the rook matrix with zeros everywhere except that in the first row there is an s in the ith-column. Then BA \in \mathcal{I} by assumption, but then sa \in J. Similarly, we may show that as \in J. It follows that J is a semigroup ideal of S. Let a, b \in J such that a \sim b. Let a occur in the \omega \times \omega matrix A. By pre- and post-multiplying by suitable elements of M_{\omega}(S) we can assume that A contains exactly one non-zero entry. Now using matrices of the form P \oplus \mathbf{0}, where P is a ‘permutation matrix’, and by pre- and post-multiplying we may assume that A has exactly one non-zero entry in the top left-hand corner. We now see that a \vee b \in J. We have proved that J is an additive ideal of S. We claim that \mathcal{I} = M_{\omega}(J). Let A \in M_{\omega} (J). Then we can write A as a finite join of elements each of which has exactly one non-zero entry. However, such matrices belong to \mathcal{I}. Thus A \in \mathcal{I}. We have therefore proved that M_{\omega}(J) \subseteq \mathcal{I}. The proof of the reverse inclusion is straightforward. The above two processes are order-preserving and mutually inverse. The result now follows.

(2) Let S be fundamental. We prove that M_{\omega}(S) is fundamental. Let A \in M_{\omega}(S) commute with all idempotents. We prove that A is an idempotent. We show first that all off-diagonal entries of A are zero. Suppose that s \neq t. We prove that a_{st} = 0. Let E be the idempotent with \mathbf{d}(a_{st}) in the tth-row and tth-coloumn and zeros elsewhere. Then by assumption AE = EA. It follows that a_{st} = 0. It follows that A must be a diagonal matrix. Consider the element a_{ss}. We prove that it must be an idempotent. Let e be an arbitrary idempotent of S. Let E be the idempotent which has e_{ss} = e and zeros elsewhere. Then from AE = EA we deduce that a_{ss} e = e a_{ss}. But S is fundamental and so a_{ss} is an idempotent. We have therefore proved that M_{\omega}(S) is fundamental. We now prove the converse. Suppose that M_{\omega}(S) is fundamental. Let a \in S be an element that commutes with all idempotents. Let A be the matrix with a in the first row and first column. Then A commutes with all idempotents. This implies a is an idempotent and so S is fundamental.

(3) The proof is immediate from the fact that a Boolean inverse semigroup is semisimple if and only if e^{\downarrow} is finite for each idempotent e (by Lemma 5.1) and the fact that the idempotents of M_{\omega}(S) are the diagonal matrices with a finite number of non-zero idempotents on the diagonal (by Proposition 3.21).

(1)\Leftrightarrow(2). Let A be an additive ideal of S. Then \mathsf{E}(A) is a self-conjugate \vee-closed order ideal of \mathsf{E}(S). Now, let F be a self-conjugate \vee-closed order ideal of \mathsf{E}(S). Then SFS is an additive ideal. It is routine to check that A = S \mathsf{E}(A)S and F = \mathsf{E}(SFS). Thus the functions A \mapsto \mathsf{E}(A) and F \mapsto SFS are mutually inverse. The fact that both these functions are order-preserving is immediate from the definitions.

(2)\Leftrightarrow(3). This was proved in [Wehrung, Proposition 4.2.4].

Let S be a Boolean inverse semigroup (which is not the zero semigroup) and suppose that the type monoid of S is \mathbb{N}. Then M_{\omega}(S) is 0-simplifying by Corollary 6.7. Thus S is 0-simplifying by Proposition 6.5. To show that S is semisimple we shall use the Dichotomy theorem, Theorem 5.15. Thus we need to show that S has an atom. We have that \tau (e) = 0 if and only if e = 0. We prove that if \tau (e) = 1 then e is an atom. Let f \leq e. Then e = f \oplus (e \setminus f). Thus \tau (e) = \tau (f) + \tau (e \setminus f). It follows that \tau (f) = 1 or \tau (f) = 0. If \tau (f) = 0 then f = 0. If \tau (f) = 1 then \tau (e \setminus f) = 0 and so e \setminus f = 0. But f \leq e and so f = e. It remains to show that there are idempotents e such that \tau (e) = 1. By assumption, there is an idempotent e such that \tau (e) \neq 0. Suppose that \tau (e) = m > 0. Then \tau (e) = 1 + (m-1). But the image of \tau is a lower subset of the type monoid by [Wehrung, Corollary 4.1.4]. Thus there is an idempotent e' such that \tau (e') = 1.

Conversely, let S be a 0-simplifying semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup. By Proposition 6.4, we can assume that S is fundamental. Thus we may assume that S is a simple semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup. By part (3) of Corollary 4.8 and Corollary 5.11, we have that S \cong \mathscr{I}_{n} or S \cong \mathscr{I}_{\rm \tiny fin}(X) where X is an infinite set. It is easy to compute the type monoids in both cases as \mathbb{N}.

We break this result down into a number of steps.

(1) Two nonzero idempotents \mathbf{e} and \mathbf{f} of \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} are \mathscr{D}-related if and only if they have the same support J and \mathbf{e}(i) \, \mathscr{D} \, \mathbf{f}(i) for all i \in J. This result follows from the observation that if a \mathscr{D} b in any inverse semigroup then a = 0 if and only if b = 0. In addition, \mathbf{e} \, \mathscr{D} \, \mathbf{f} if and only if there exists an element \mathbf{a} in \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} with support J such that \mathbf{e}(i) \stackrel{a_{i}}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{f}(i) for all i \in J where \mathbf{a}(i) = a_{i}.

(2) If S_{i}, where i \in I, are orthogonally separating Boolean inverse semigroups, then \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} is orthogonally separating. Let \mathbf{e} and \mathbf{f} be two nonzero idempotents in \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}. Denote by J \subseteq I the finite set on which both \mathbf{e} and \mathbf{f} are nonzero. If J is empty then \mathbf{e} and \mathbf{f} are already orthogonal. Thus in what follows we may assume that J is non-empty. For each j \in J, let \mathbf{e}(j)\stackrel{a_{j}}{\rightarrow} e_{j}' and \mathbf{f}(j) \stackrel{b_{j}}{\rightarrow} f_{j}' be such that e_{j}' \perp f_{j}'; this is possible since S_{i} is orthogonally separating. Define \mathbf{e}' to be zero everywhere except that \mathbf{e}'(j) = e_{j}', for j \in J, and define \mathbf{f}' to be zero everywhere except that \mathbf{f}'(j) = f_{j}', for j \in J. Define \mathbf{a} and \mathbf{b} in the obvious ways. We have that \mathbf{e} \stackrel{\mathbf{a}}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{e}' and \mathbf{f} \stackrel{\mathbf{b}}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{f}', by part (1), above. But \mathbf{e}' \perp \mathbf{f}'. We have therefore shown that \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} is orthogonally separating.

(3) Suppose that S_{i}, where i \in I, are all orthogonally separating. Then

By part (2) above, we know that \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} is orthogonally separating. Let [\mathbf{e}] \in \mathsf{T}(\bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}) be a nonzero idempotent with support J. Define F[\mathbf{e}] to be a function on I which is [0] everywhere except for j \in J when it is F[\mathbf{e}](j) = [\mathbf{e}(j)]. Observe that J is also the support of F[\mathbf{e}]. This is induces a well-defined map from \mathsf{T}(\bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}) to \bigoplus_{i \in I} \mathsf{T}(S_{i}) given by [\mathbf{e}] \mapsto F[\mathbf{e}]. On the other hand, let F be an element of \bigoplus_{i \in I} \mathsf{T}(S_{i}) with support J'. Let F(j) = [e_{j}] for j \in J' and [0] otherwise; observe that there is choice for e_{j} upto the \mathscr{D}-relation. Define an idempotent \mathbf{e}(j) = e_{j}. Observe that the support of \mathbf{e} is also J'. The idempotent \mathbf{e} is determined upto the \mathscr{D}-relation. It follows that the map F \mapsto [\mathbf{e}], defined as above, is in fact well-defined where we use part (1) above. The above two maps are mutually inverse. The map [\mathbf{e}] \mapsto F[\mathbf{e}] induces an isomorphism of semigroups.

(4) We have that M_{\omega} (\bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}) \cong \bigoplus_{i \in I} M_{\omega}(S_{i}). Let A \in M_{\omega} (\bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}). Then for p,q \in \omega we have that A_{p,q} is an element of \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} and is a rook matrix. Thus A_{p,q}(i) \in S_{i}. If we fix i and then let p,q \in \omega vary, we get an \omega \times \omega matrix A^{(i)} such that A^{(i)}_{p,q} = A_{p,q}(i). It is immediate that A^{(i)} is a rook matrix. It follows that we have defined an element of \bigoplus_{i \in I} M_{\omega}(S_{i}). We have therefore defined a function A \mapsto (i \mapsto A^{(i)}). We now go in the other direction. Let F be an element of \bigoplus_{i \in I} M_{\omega}(S_{i}). Then F(i) is an element of M_{\omega}(S_{i}) and so is a rook matrix. For p,q \in \omega, it follows that F(i)_{p,q} is an element of S_{i}. For fixed p,q, we now let i vary. This gives us an element of M_{\omega} (\bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i}). The above two maps are mutually inverse. The map A \mapsto (i \mapsto A^{(i)}) induces a semigroup isomorphism; recall that operations are pointwise.

We can now conclude our proof. By definition, the type monoid of \bigoplus_{i \in I} S_{i} is equal to \mathsf{T}(M_{\omega}(\bigoplus_{i \in I}S_{i})). By step (4) above, this is equal to \mathsf{T}(\oplus_{i \in I} M_{\omega}(S_{i})). By step (3) above this is isomorphic to \bigoplus_{i \in I} \mathsf{T}(M_{\omega}(S_{i})). By definition, this is the restricted direct product of the type monoids of the S_{i}.

Let a \stackrel{a}{\rightarrow} e_{1} \oplus e_{2}. Then \mathbf{r}(a) = e_{1} \oplus e_{2}. Put a_{1} = e_{1}a and a_{2} = e_{2}a. Then a = a_{1} \oplus a_{2} where we have used Lemma 2.7. Thus e = \mathbf{d}(a) = \mathbf{d}(a_{1}) \oplus \mathbf{d}(a_{2}) where \mathbf{d}(a_{1}) \, \mathscr{D} \, e_{1} and \mathbf{d}(a_{2}) \, \mathscr{D} \, e_{2}, as required.

Suppose first that the type monoid of the Boolean inverse semigroup S is the free abelian monoid on a non-empty set X. We prove that T = M_{\omega}(S) is semisimple and use Proposition 6.5 to deduce that S is semisimple. To prove that T is semisimple, we shall use Proposition 5.3. By assumption \frac{\mathsf{E}(T)}{\mathscr{D}} is isomorphic to the free abelian monoid on the set X. We prove a general result first. Let e be any non-zero idempotent of T. Suppose that [e] = u + v. Since the type monoid is given by an isomorphism, there are idempotents e_{1} and e_{2} in T such that [e_{1}] = u and [e_{2}] = v. Thus [e] = [e_{1}] + [e_{2}]. By assumption, T is orthogonally separating and so e \, \mathscr{D} \, e_{1}' \oplus e_{2}' where e_{1} \, \mathscr{D} \, e_{1}' and e_{2} \, \mathscr{D} \, e_{2}'and e_{1}' \perp e_{2}'. It follows by Lemma 6.11, that e= f_{1} \oplus f_{2} where [f_{1}] = u and [f_{2}] = v. By induction, we deduce that if [e] = u_{1} + \ldots + u_{s} then there are elements e_{1},\ldots, e_{s} of T which are pairwise orthogonal such that e = e_{1} \oplus \ldots \oplus e_{s} and [e_{i}] = u_{i}. Observe that [e] = 0, the identity element of the free abelian monoid, if and only if e = 0. The atoms in the free abelian monoid on X are those elements \mathbf{f} which assume the value zero for all x \in X except that at y we have that \mathbf{f}(y) = 1. Let e be an idempotent of T such that [e] = \mathbf{f}, an atom as above. Suppose that f \leq e. Then e = f \oplus (e \setminus f). It follows that [e] = [f] + [e \setminus f]. But [e] is an atom of the free abelian monoid. Thus either [f] = 0 and so f = 0 or [e] = [f] and so [e \setminus f] = 0 from which it follows that e \setminus f = 0 and so e = f. We have proved that the idempotents of T that map to atoms of the free abelian monoid are themselves atoms. We can now prove that every non-zero element is above an atom. Let e be any non-zero idempotent. If e is an atom then we are done. If e is not an atom then there exists f < e. But then e = f \oplus (e \setminus f) and so [e] = [f] + [e \setminus f]. If [e \setminus f] = 0 then e \setminus f = 0 and so e = f, which is a contradiction. It follows that [f] < [e]. Each non-zero element in the free abelian monoid is above an atom. It follows that each non-zero element of S is above an atom. Next, we prove that each non-zero element is a finite join of atoms. Let e be a non-zero idempotent. If e is an atom we are done. Otherwise [e] = x_{1}^{m_{1}} \ldots x_{r}^{m_{r}} an element of the free abelian monoid. The elements x_{1},\ldots, x_{r} are atoms. Let [e_{i}] = x_{i} where 1 \leq i \leq r and e_{i} is an atom. Then [e] = m_{1} [e_{1}] + \ldots + m_{r}[e_{r}]. We now apply our result above and deduce that e is an orthogonal join of idempotents each of which is \mathscr{D}-related to an atom. By Lemma 2.3, we deduce that e is an orthogonal join of a finite number of atoms.

To prove the converse, we need to show that the type monoid of a semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup S is a free abelian monoid. By Theorem 5.14 and Proposition 5.10 the semigroup S is a restricted direct product of 0-simplifying semisimple Boolean inverse semigroups. By Theorem 6.9, the type monoid of a 0-simplifying semisimple Boolean inverse semigroup is \mathbb{N}. Thus the result will follow if we prove that the type monoid of a restricted direct product of Boolean inverse semigroups is the restricted direct product of their type monoids. This is proved as Lemma 6.10.